I’ve been getting a lot of requests for comment on some proposed legislation by an Illinois state representative from Naperville to have a feasibility study performed on whether another Illinois public university can be added to the Big Ten. Here is the full text of the proposed bill. Note that I actually live in Naperville, but the applicable representative (Michael Connelly) doesn’t represent the portion of town that I live in.
Most people that have a passing understanding of conference realignment know that the odds of the feasibility of the Big Ten expanding with any school from the state of Illinois is less than zero (but we’ll spell it out here for any first time readers that haven’t been paying attention to this issue for the past several years). First of all, what the Illinois State Legislature wants is completely irrelevant to Big Ten expansion. They might have some control over the University of Illinois specifically, but Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin and every other Big Ten school (even Northwestern) would laugh off any attempt for some type of legislative intervention. Second, a viable Big Ten candidate needs a combination of FBS football credentials, academic prowess (preferably membership in the Association of American Universities, which is an extremely select group of top tier research institutions) and, most importantly of all, additional media value in the form of new TV markets and/or a national brand name (i.e. Notre Dame). Considering that the entire state of Illinois is already receiving the Big Ten Network at the maximum cable carriage rate, any additional school from the state would add exactly $0 in TV revenue for the conference. That would actually mean that all other Big Ten universities would lose money with an Illinois-based expansion by splitting the pie further without making the overall pie larger… and the Big Ten isn’t making moves in order to lose money. Plus, the only other public university that even plays FBS football is Northern Illinois, who isn’t anywhere near AAU status on the academic front (and realistically never will be with its mission). If the State of Illinois wants to spend a single dime on whether it’s feasible for another public university here to join the Big Ten, then the legislature is flushing money down the toilet that it doesn’t have.
That being said, let’s not throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater on what ought to be the real intent of this legislation: creating a stronger #2 public university in the State of Illinois behind the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (abbreviated as UIUC for ease of discussion here, although I’ve always thought that was a clumsy abbreviation as an Illinois grad) regardless of any Big Ten prospects (which are non-existent in reality). What I hope is that my fellow Naperville native can’t possibly be this naive and is just using the Big Ten name as a headline grabber in order to shine the light on the very real problem that the academic quality gap between UIUC and the rest of the state’s public universities is so large that Illinois high school grads are heading to out-of-state colleges at a rate that dwarfs almost every other state in the country.
In the typical competitive Chicago suburban high school, the top 5% of the class or so is generally gunning for the Ivy League and Ivy-caliber schools (i.e. Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, etc.). The next 5% is the group that UIUC generally targets (with a little bit of variation depending upon the program – engineering and business require top 5% credentials these days, whereas an applicant might be able to get by with being in the top 15% for liberal arts). Regardless, an Illinois high school grad is pretty well-covered if he or she is in the top 10% of his/her high school class and the 90th percentile in SAT or ACT scores.
The problem is the massive academic reputation gap between UIUC and the rest of the in-state schools. For the very large group of kids that rank between the top 10% and top 30% of their class (people that still have good-but-not-elite grades and test scores and make up a huge share of the college student population), UIUC is getting too tough to get into while the rest of the in-state schools are way too easy to get into in relation to their credentials. There’s no compelling option in-between that’s a solid fit for that group of students. In the latest US News rankings for undergraduate programs at national universities, UIUC is ranked #41 in the nation, but then there isn’t another Illinois public school until the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) at #128. Farther down the list are Illinois State (#152), Northern Illinois (#177) and Southern Illinois (#177). It just so happens that neighboring schools like Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and Missouri are in the top 100 of the US News rankings and have admissions standards that perfectly align to those top 10%-30% students that can’t get into UIUC, so Illinois kids go to those schools in massive numbers* and are willing to pay out-of-state tuition for them (which is still relatively less expensive compared to a lot of lower-ranked private university options). According to the Chicago Tribune, there was an outflow of 30,000 freshmen students from Illinois to out-of-state schools and an inflow of 17,000 last year, which is a negative outflow of 13,000.** The academic quality gap is exactly why this is occurring.
(* Last year, the Chicago Tribune put together this fascinating database of where Illinois high school students currently go to out-state colleges. Not surprisingly, schools in neighboring states drew the largest numbers, with Iowa and Missouri having more than 1000 Illinois students each in their respective freshmen classes last year, while Indiana, Marquette, Wisconsin, Purdue, St. Louis University and Iowa State all had over 500 Illinois freshmen. Interestingly, Arizona State, Colorado, Kentucky and Kansas all drew more Illinois students than Ohio State, with all of them getting just under 200 Illinois freshmen each. Other popular power conference destinations for Illinois students outside of the Midwest are Arizona, Vanderbilt and Miami, with over 100 Illinois freshmen each. After this hellacious winter, I can’t blame any Chicagoan heading to some place where you can wear shorts in the middle of January. Meanwhile, Alabama and Ole Miss surprisingly draw more Illinois students than Nebraska, while Rutgers only has 10 Illinois freshmen. Maryland and Penn State don’t show up in this data set, which doesn’t mean anything one way or another, as some schools like Harvard that definitely have Illinois students aren’t listed here.)
(** New Jersey is a state with an even larger outflow of college students and has almost the exact same issue as Illinois: a very large drop in the rankings of its public universities after its flagship of Big Ten newcomer Rutgers.)
UIC is probably the only public school in Illinois that has a realistic chance of filling that gap since its faculty quality is already on the higher end compared to its admissions standards, the school is solid in STEM areas since it houses the University of Illinois system’s medical and pharmacy schools, and has what is now considered to be a very desirable location in the West Loop neighborhood of Chicago. (UIC was actually a visiting member of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) that’s considered to be the academic arm of the Big Ten for nearly 30 years, but that status was revoked following the conference’s admission of Nebraska.) The main issue is that UIC’s reputation in professional circles (outside of medicine and pharmacy) actually lags behind its perception in academia, and changes there seem to be glacial. Every Big Ten school has a stronger professional network in Chicago in the finance and tech areas that fuel the influx of new college grads every year in Lincoln Park and Lakeview, and UIC still has to catch up to regional private Catholic schools like Loyola, DePaul and Marquette on that front, too. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy – UIC won’t move up in professional prestige without attracting better students, but such better students won’t go there until UIC moves up in professional prestige.
(* Up until 20 years ago, that location was considered to be a major liability when it was far from gentrified. I know this area well since my parents both graduated from there and my father worked there for 30 years, so I have a lot of affinity for the school. My father used to get his hubcaps stolen quite frequently back in the day and we used to joke that we could buy them back at the old Maxwell Street market adjacent to UIC, which was featured in the John Lee Hooker scene in The Blues Brothers. Needless to say, the old Maxwell Street was moved for UIC’s expansion several years ago and what used to be a seedy neighborhood has turned into a land of high-priced condos and restaurants.)
The other practical problem is that it would take a ton of investment from the state to get UIC up to the level of schools that are strong non-flagships (i.e. Michigan State, Purdue, Miami University of Ohio, etc.), yet the state keeps reducing the money to public universities every single year (and as noted, the state doesn’t have the money to give it to them even if they wanted to). Regardless, I hope that some type of better realistic in-state option exists by the time my 4-year old twins are ready to go to college in 13 years. If Representative Connelly can ensure that the focus is on that particular academic goal (as opposed to Big Ten membership specifically, which is a waste of time and resources because it will never happen), then I’m game.
(Image from PIPBlog)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Go Hawkeyes!!! Go Huskies!!!
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Duh, why not expand the University of Illinois to the size of Ohio State or Minnesota? Wouldn’t that be easier?
LikeLike
There is something to be said for keeping your flagship school elite. UofI doesn’t want to be known as a “come one, come all” school like tOSU, that’s Southern Illinois’ job. I think Frank is looking for another school in the state to raise up to the relative academic level of a Missouri or Iowa or Indiana to keep more of the Illinois kids in state.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
Frank – two of my best friends at LSU were from the Quad Cities area, couldn’t get in to UIUC, and decided to come to LSU because the drinking age in Louisiana was still 18.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – I think you hit on the way to keep more students in-state without spending another dollar: lower the drinking age to 18.
LikeLike
Frank – unfortunately, lowering the drinking age would cost a state ga-zillions in federal highway money. Reagan blackmailed the states into raising the drinking age to 21 by threatening to withhold road money. When my friends decided to attend LSU, only Louisiana and (I think) North Dakota were still holding out. Eventually, Louisiana raised the drinking age to 21, but 18 year olds can still get into bars, and the bars are liable for serving underage patrons.
LikeLike
As a kid you want 18 (average age of a freshmen)
As a parent you want 21 (average age of a senior)
Hopefully more would have better decision making skills by 21 but companies make big revenue selling products to kids at this age. The recent return of liquor to TV advertising was not done to target the 40 and up crowd if you watch the ads.
LikeLike
Sorry, I would rather my kids be exposed to southern european style drinking laws than 21+ puritanical american ones.
LikeLike
Its not puritanical. It saves lives. That’s why it costs an arm and a leg to insure 18-21 year old male drivers (and an arm to insure females of that age).
Of course, that’s easy for me to say since I was in that small window where 18 was the legal drinking age in Texas.
LikeLike
The change in law has increased drunk diving, so it actually kills lives.
LikeLike
Tell that to MADD.
LikeLike
James Buchanan-kind of like the President who did nothing and watched the Civil War start?
Don’t know where you get your ridiculous info? Internet? Drinking buddies? That nonsense couldn’t be further from the truth.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/feweryoungdrivers/iv_what_caused.htm
Look at figures 32 and 33 in section G about 75% of the way through the document that show the decline. There’s a lot of good info throughout the report, but those figures are the effective “executive summary.” The 21 year old drinking laws save lives.
There’s a chart out there I couldn’t quickly find, but the dropoff in teen deaths in auto accidents is dramatic starting with the change in the drinking laws. Don’t remember exactly, but I think the average was about 5,000! lives saved a year in the US.
You could argue that as an 18 year old adult you should be free to drink, and with the bad judgement college kids often have, break the law and kill yourselves and others, but I think its a reasonable trade-off.
LikeLike
“Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.”
LikeLike
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/feweryoungdrivers/iv__what_caused.htm#a.%20minimum
Effects of the Laws
The effects of drinking age law changes on traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities have been studied extensively. These effects are relatively easy to evaluate for several reasons. Each law applied to all drivers in an entire state as of a specific date, so crash results can be compared within the state, before and after the law, and with other states that did not change their law at the same time. Each reduction or increase in a state’s drinking age provided a new opportunity to evaluate effects. Finally, evaluations can use large traffic crash data files. In particular, FARS has provided uniform national data on fatal crashes since 1975.
The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states” and that “raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law.” They note that the traffic accident studies they reviewed were high-quality. While the studies used different evaluation methods, they produced “remarkably consistent” results. Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996).
Two recent studies deserve special note. O’Malley and Wagenaar (1991) used FARS and Monitoring the Future data to investigate how the MLDA affects youth drinking and youth drinking and driving. They compared states with a MLDA of 21 to states with a lower MLDA (during the years before all states raised their MLDA to 21). They also compared behavior in states that changed their MLDA and states that did not. Among their conclusions:
* High school seniors drank more in MLDA 18 states than in MLDA 21 states.
* High school senior drinking decreases throughout the 1980s were not due solely to increasing the MLDA � drinking also decreased in states with MLDA 21 throughout the 1980s.
* After controlling for sex, race, parent education, urbanicity, and region of the country, the MLDA remained a significant predictor of alcohol use: high school seniors drank less if the MLDA was 21 than if it was lower.
* Even after they reached the age of 21, persons in MLDA 21 states drank slightly less than persons in MLDA 18 states.
* MLDA 21 reduced traffic crashes, and this is directly the result of lower alcohol consumption.
In short, O’Malley and Wagenaar conclude that MLDA 21 laws reduce alcohol consumption, which in turn reduces crashes, and there is a carryover effect even after persons reach the age of 21.
Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (1999) use FARS data for all states from 1982 to 1997 to estimate and compare the effects of MLDA 21, zero tolerance, and other traffic safety laws (per se, administrative license revocation, and safety belt use). They find substantial effects for both MLDA 21 and zero tolerance laws.
Reasons for the Effects
The evidence reviewed briefly above shows unequivocally that MLDA 21 laws reduce youth drinking and driving, as measured by traffic crash involvements. But the way in which MLDA 21 laws have produced these results may not be completely straightforward. The laws make it illegal for youth to purchase, possess, or consume alcohol (individual state laws differ in precisely what they prohibit). But, much as national prohibition did not stop drinking, MLDA laws have not eliminated alcohol use by youth: the data in Section IIIC show that most youth drink, and a majority drink at least monthly.
The basic method for implementing MLDA 21 laws is for anyone selling, serving, or otherwise providing alcohol to a young person to verify the person’s age. Retail establishments (liquor, grocery, and convenience stores; restaurants, bars, taverns, sports arenas, etc.) can require that identification be checked. Still, many do not: for example, a 1991 study found that 97 out of 100 liquor outlets in Washington, DC sold alcohol to 17- and 18-year olds (Preusser and Williams,1991). In areas where identification is checked regularly, many youth have responded by acquiring false identification cards. Verifying a young person’s age at parties and other informal gatherings is considerably more problematic. In all settings, identification checking is done most effectively when some organization (retail establishment, college, private club) is responsible for selling or providing alcohol and when that organization faces a substantial legal liability if they serve underage youth. But even then, false identification can subvert the MLDA.
Wolfson, Wagenaar, and Hornseth (1995) investigated MLDA enforcement in 1992. They interviewed law enforcement officers in four states (Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Oregon) regarding underage drinking, MLDA enforcement, and community attitudes regarding underage drinking. The officers reported that MLDA enforcement is not a community priority; indeed, they found a general acceptance of youth drinking in their communities. They reported that most underage drinkers obtained their alcohol from legal-age purchasers. When youth were arrested for MLDA violations, the officers felt that the penalties were light and were applied unevenly, so had little deterrent value. Impaired driving violations, on the other hand, were procedurally simpler to enforce and the penalty of a driver’s license suspension or revocation was an effective deterrent. Overall, the officers felt that drinking and driving by youth had decreased in their communities over the past decade but that drinking by youth had not.
Conclusions
MLDA 21 laws clearly reduced youth drinking and driving. They appear to have done so both by reducing youth drinking directly and by encouraging youth to separate their drinking from their driving.
MLDA 21 laws reduced youth drinking both by reducing alcohol availability and by establishing the threat of punishment for alcohol use. Neither works particularly well in practice, as youth still can obtain alcohol relatively easily and underage drinkers are highly unlikely to be detected and punished. But both have had some effect.
But MLDA 21 laws probably had other effects beyond the straightforward prohibition and attempted punishment of alcohol use by youth. As listed in Chapter IIIB, 11 states have had MLDA 21 laws since the repeal of prohibition. These states also saw substantial reductions in youth drinking and driving after drinking in the 1980s. Furthermore, youth driving after drinking decreased more than youth drinking.
This suggests that MLDA laws may have helped influence youth attitudes about drinking and driving. The principal reason for raising the drinking age to 21 was to reduce traffic crashes. Some youth and some parents may have consciously or unconsciously absorbed some of these beliefs: that youth drinking is not a problem unless it results in dangerous actions, of which by far the most dangerous is drinking and driving. Underage drinking is generally accepted, but underage drinking and driving is not. The widespread debate over the legal drinking age also may have had some “spillover” effect in states where MLDA 21 was already in place.
However, the observations that youth drinking and driving decreased substantially more than youth drinking, and that youth drinking and driving after drinking both decreased in states which had MLDA 21 laws throughout the 1980s, suggest that MLDA 21 laws were not the only influence on youth drinking and driving during this period.
LikeLike
Virginia had much of the outflow problem, but solved it by gradually upgrading Virginia Tech into a large-sized #2 (a far cry from its days as Virginia Polytechnic Institute), with William & Mary as a liberal arts-oriented #2a. Over in Maryland, College Park has become more selective, and UMBC in Catonsville may develop into the #2 public institution; it’s battling Towson for that honor. In New Jersey, the College of New Jersey (formerly Trenton State) has built itself into a poor man’s W&M, and probably has the #2 public status over Rutgers-Newark and Rutgers-Camden.
LikeLike
W&M and maybe VTech are seen as more prestigious than UIC, but I wouldn’t say the rest are.
UIC is a fine #2 as long as they can build some school spirit. It is an urban school, however. You’re not going to get that idyllic New-England-style liberal arts campus (or even B10 campus) feel there. However, it _is_ located in a vibrant city and should be able to sell that. NYU went from being a school for rich kid rejects who couldn’t get in to CUNY to an Ivy-equivalent in a generation mostly due to being in the heart of NYC. UIC is public, but if the money’s there, it should be able to recruit well.
LikeLike
I recall when UIC fielded ice hockey and was part of the CCHA. Is its arena still home to the WNBA’s Chicago Sky?
LikeLike
William and Mary might actually be the most selective state school in Virginia, even over UVA. This is anecdotal, but I know a very bright teen-ager who applied to both schools and was disappointed to “only” get into UVA. (I’m sure she’ll be quite fine in life given her aptitude and that UVA is truly an excellent school.) W&M was her dream school. I suppose it has the luxury of being more selective because of its small student body.
My understanding, vp, has been that Virginia has one of the finest state university systems in the U.S. In addition to UVA, William and Mary, and the much-improved Virginia Tech, its regional universities like James Madison, Mary Washington, and Old Dominion stack up very well in reputations with those of other states. Why do you suppose there is an outflow problem?
LikeLike
@Michael in Raleigh – Yes, my impression is that Virginia actually has one of the strongest top-to-bottom offerings of public institutions of any state. UVA and William & Mary are legitimately elite schools, Virginia Tech is strong in engineering, schools like James Madison and ODU are far better than what would be directional schools in other states, and even the commuter-type schools like George Mason have solid reputations. The Washington Post article that I linked to in the post stated that Virginia actually had a net inflow of 3,000 students, while Maryland had a net drain of 8,600.
LikeLike
Doesn’t hurt that William & Mary is one of the oldest schools in the country and was at one time considered on par with any Ivy (and is now considered a public ivy). Its not like the Virginia legislature has some amazing foresight to create multiple top-shelf schools.
LikeLike
If there is an outflow problem in Virginia, it’s among the top students in northern Virginia who find it difficult to get into UVa, W&M or Tech because of in-state quotas. Many of them wind up at other state flagships or private schools on the level of Wake Forest, Lafayette or Bucknell because there’s no room for them in-state.
LikeLike
Let’s be clear here. The pecking order among Virginia public national universities is UVA, W&M, VT, GMU, VCU, and ODU. And then there are a few good regional universities like James Madison and Mary Washington. And, of course, there are some excellent private schools like Washington & Lee and Richmond.
LikeLike
One problem I recall discussed on the news in Indiana was that state schools’ admission standards had become lighter for out-of-state residents than for in-state residents. This may be something that has happened for several schools, but the focus was on IU. The problem stems for the fact that IU could make more money from an out-of-state student from the east coast, an increasing source for new students, than it can for in-state students.
LikeLike
That also applies for W&M, UVa and Tech.
LikeLike
TCNJ has improved a lot and that helps but it will never be big enough to stop the outflow of students. The current idea is to improve and expand Rowan to give South Jersey a good large public school. There was plans to combine Rowan, Rugters – Camden, and UMDNJ’s School of Osteopathic Medicine, but political pressure stopped Rowan from taking control of Rugters – Camden.
LikeLike
Too bad politicians in Ohio are not advocating for Cincinnati (a fine research institution with quality athletics). Kudos to him for looking out for his constituency.
LikeLike
How many schools is the state supposed to advocate for? They’ve already got OSU-Columbus and Miami that clearly outrank UC, and OU is on par or better than UC. Not to mention the OSU-regionals and the other state MAC schools, and that’s just the big schools.
LikeLike
So Ohio is supposed to just tell Cincinnati to piss off because they have other universities to worry about? Do a little research. Cincinnati is the second largest university in the state and garners over $400M in research funding a year. The economic impact of the university is $3.5B a year– much larger than those MAC schools and OSU-branch colleges you mention.
As far as academic ranking goes, other than Miami Cincinnati is ahead of all of those MAC schools by most rankings.
LikeLike
Poster X,
“So Ohio is supposed to just tell Cincinnati to piss off because they have other universities to worry about?”
Right, that’s what the state has been doing. They advocate for all of them, but that’s a lot of schools so no one school gets a ton of attention. They advocate for OSU more because it is the state flagship and the desired destination for tens of thousands of students. They advocate for the regionals because they serve some very particular needs in specific areas.
“Cincinnati is the second largest university in the state”
1. Last I looked, Kent State is actually bigger if you count all its campuses.
2. So? There are 11 large (all over 14k enrollment) state schools in Ohio. All of them get advocated.
“and garners over $400M in research funding a year.”
Due, in part, to advocacy by the state. Your own evidence shows the school is doing fine, so why are you complaining?
“As far as academic ranking goes, other than Miami Cincinnati is ahead of all of those MAC schools by most rankings.”
Yes, like I said. OSU is way ahead, then come Miami, then OU/UC. I mentioned the others as schools that also deserve advocacy.
LikeLike
Agree that Ohio should force OSU to get UC into the Big Ten. It would be best for the state – if Indiana and Michigan have 2 Big Ten schools, Ohio certainly should have 2 as well. UC’s focus on education instead of sports and being paid for by the city instead of the state hurt it in these areas.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Agree that Ohio should force OSU to get UC into the Big Ten.”
1. OSU is 1 vote out of 14, and 10 are needed for further expansion. No other presidents are dumb enough to support it. OSU literally can’t get UC into the B10.
2. That would be against OSU’s interests, so the state would really want to think twice before forcing anything.
“It would be best for the state”
Would it? OSU would lose money. The B10 would lose prestige. The B10 would be forced to add a 16th mouth to feed, too.
” – if Indiana and Michigan have 2 Big Ten schools, Ohio certainly should have 2 as well.”
They were added when it made sense to add a second school from the same state. Times have changed and it’s now a stupid idea.
“UC’s focus on education instead of sports”
OK.
LikeLike
The issue with UC is the history. Originally a private school, it was the Duke of Ohio and had both a strong tech side and a strong liberal arts side. It was the college for the prominent families in the area to send their kids to instead of a Vanderbilt or Northwestern due to closer proximity. Founded in 1819 – Ohio State was founded in 1870 – it is both old and large. In 1906 it created the world’s first cooperative education program in Engineering. This type of education has since been copied by many AAU schools.
In the late 60’s – looking for more research funding – UC went from a private school to a “state affiliated” school. This process reached completion when UC became an official state school in 1977. The school grew from 12,000 students to around 45,000 during this time (roughly 4x increase) and continued to excel on the non research side. UC’s DAA and CCM are some of the Top 5 programs in the country. They have a good med school and law school (one of the oldest in the country) where President Taft graduated from.
With state integration UC was saddled with “U College” that was the lower end of the education spectrum while promised research funding – part of the reason to leave private school status – never came. That money always seemed to find it way to Ohio State and such luminary talent as Neil Armstrong left UC for Purdue and other B1G schools. If UC does not have the full academic research credentials it once did, most of that blame can be laid at the feet of Ohio State not wanting to share with the new public school.
While I argued early on on this blog for UC’s addition to B1G status I have since altered my stance because of the overlapping markets argument. While no longer advocating UC’s admission to the B1G at this time, the least the Buckeyes could do is keep the promise from the 1960’s and 1970’s to fund UC equally from a research dollars standpoint. Just like U Chicago has flourished leaving the B1G to focus on academics, U Cincinnati should do the same with the assistance of Ohio State and not hindrance from them.
LikeLike
Agree that Ohio should force OSU to get UC into the Big Ten…
Which they cannot do, any more than Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Maryland can force the Big Ten to take a second school from their states.
Pennsylvania would have the best argument, because it has the best school (Pitt) that is in the Big Ten footprint, and meets the Big Ten’s athletic and academic criteria. But Pitt ain’t getting in, and neither is Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Illinois first needs to get AAU status for a second state public university. With Illinois budget issues that is not likely. Even if this were possible, the second school is not likely to have much value to the B1G. I doubt MSU would have been invited post 1990. If Northwestern was not already in, it would not have even got a look when MSU was invited.
LikeLike
” If Northwestern was not already in, it would not have even got a look when MSU was invited.”
Except that around the time MSU was invited, NWU was a recent Rose Bowl participant and actually decent as a program.
LikeLike
If the model for expansion is new markets with large population bases then of course no way another Illinois school gets into the BIG. If the older model of geographic fit and good academics then yeah Cincinnati would be a great fit. I am sure ADs hate to see a conference footprint too far spread out for Oly sports. Way too much Ohio legislative power is concentrated in Columbus with ties to OSU, and none of them want any competition from Cincinnati.
LikeLike
Deservedly or not, Cincinnati’s academic reputation in Ohio and the B1G is quite low. Miami of Ohio is much more highly thought of, and rightly so, and it would be a more likely candidate.
LikeLike
“Deservedly or not, Cincinnati’s academic reputation in Ohio and the B1G is quite low. Miami of Ohio is much more highly thought of, and rightly so, and it would be a more likely candidate”
No.
Cincinnati’s chance of being in the Big Ten in the next 20 years is probably less than 1/100th of one percent. Miami of Ohio’s chance is straight up 0.
LikeLike
Actually, the chances of either school bring in the Big Ten in the next 20 years is straight up zero.
Ohio Stadium will rise like a transformer and destroy all those who attempt to get either in the Big Ten. Indeed, the likelihood of the Horseshoe turning into a transformer is actually higher then wither Miami (of Ohio) or Cincy joining the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yeah, my odds for Cincinnati getting in are solely based on the scenario in which a nucelar accident occurs in Columbus rendering the town unlivable, and the school is forced to shut down. Plus, the Bearcats somehow win a national title as an AACK! member at about that same time.
LikeLike
It would be too risky for OSU to be working on that Horseshoe Transformer project, so its Battelle working on it.
LikeLike
CincyMan,
“If the model for expansion is new markets with large population bases then of course no way another Illinois school gets into the BIG. If the older model of geographic fit and good academics then yeah Cincinnati would be a great fit.”
UC’s academics don’t come close to meeting the B10 standard for acceptance.
LikeLike
“If the older model of geographic fit and good academics then yeah Pitt would be a great fit”
Fixed.
Granted, I know that UCincy was supposedly well-regarded in the past in several fields (and still are, from what I understand).
LikeLike
Their are a bunch of misinformed people on this topic. Cincinnati is not a terrible academic school. There are 34 programs thare ranked in the top 50 in the nation, inlcuding Industrial Design (#1 in the country), Interior Design (#3), Architecture (#6), Criminal Justice (#3) and various programs in the Cincinnati Conservatory of Music that rank anywhere from #1-#6 in the nation. The UK Times ranks the school 28th among public universities in the country while the US News and Report ranks in #66 amongst public universities.
In regard to the invitation to the B10, I agree that is not forthcoming. Ohio State does not want another school in the state in the conference. They want everyone in the state to be an Ohio State fan and to give all of their loyalty and money to Brutus.
LikeLike
Poster X,
“Their are a bunch of misinformed people on this topic. Cincinnati is not a terrible academic school.”
It depends what scale you are measuring them on. Compared to B10 schools, yes they are terrible. Compared to all large state schools, they’re not terrible.
“Ohio State does not want another school in the state in the conference.”
Nobody in the B10 wants to add another OH school. It would add $0 and just be another mouth to feed.
LikeLike
Then again, SUNY Buffalo is well regarded in academics and research (AAU member). Yet, Cincy will get an invite to the B1G before Buffalo would.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Yet, Cincy will get an invite to the B1G before Buffalo would.”
No, they wouldn’t. Buffalo at least offers a small new market. That should get them in at least the day before hell freezes over which is when UC would get in.
LikeLike
Of the two, neither will ever get in. But Cincy is ahead because it has actually had some measurable athletic success in multiple sports.
The Buffalo market is not relevant to the Big Ten in any way, certainly not enough to trump the complete absence of any athletic success and tradition.
But since neither school is ever getting invited to join the B1G, its purely academic.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“But Cincy is ahead because it has actually had some measurable athletic success in multiple sports.”
It would have to have the AL football program and Duke hoops combined to get in because they add $0 by market.
“The Buffalo market is not relevant to the Big Ten in any way, certainly not enough to trump the complete absence of any athletic success and tradition.”
They can become decent in sports faster than UC can add a market. If UB got good at something, they could add a lot of western NY in combination with PSU. Especially if SU slips.
LikeLike
Cincy would definitely have to become a Duke/Alabama superpower.
Buffalo is meaningless to the B1G. the markets up there are not that large and not growing. Cincy’s bleed into Kentucky is probably more compelling, as PSU probably does just as much in western NY as Syracuse does.
UB does have legit academics/researching its corner. But its athletics are so far from B1G that Cincy looks like Rockne’s Fighting Irish by comparison.
“They can become decent in sports faster than UC can add a market. If UB got good at something, they could add a lot of western NY in combination with PSU. Especially if SU slips.”
True, but Cincy could just as easily become the aforementioned athletic superpower before UBuffalo even makes the new CFB playoff.
LikeLike
Before any of that happens, UIC will start a football team and DOMINATE the FBS playoffs.
LikeLike
And dominate the Frozen Four.
LikeLike
And dominate the CWS.
LikeLike
Um, wouldn’t UIC need to have a football program to even be considered by the B1G?
LikeLike
I took a quick look at your link to the destinations of students heading to Texas.
Baylor University 49
Rice University 19
SMU 38
TCU 57
Looks like Rice is hurt in their name recognition by not being in a major conference. And I was quite surprised to see Tulane (area school closest to a Rice peer) at 87.
LikeLike
Well, Rice is also much smaller than those others.
I remember when I was in HS (in IL) that the Rice desk was swarmed by prospective students when we held college fairs because it had recently been named the best college for your money or something like that.
BTW, Tulane is known as a fun place to party (while being a respectable school). Rice, not so much.
LikeLike
Also, kids who would be interested in applying to/going to Rice are likely to have the qualifications for admission into UI-UC’s elite engineering and sciences program, getting a Rice-level education at an in state price.
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – From what I’ve observed anecdotally, Tulane has always been on the radar for Chicago students with the combo of solid academics and the New Orleans location. I’m not sure why Rice isn’t higher up there. As I’ve noted, Vandy is fairly popular with Illinois students in terms of “Magnolia League”-type schools. One factor might be that Northwestern, the University of Chicago and Washington University in St. Louis are also competing with the same pool of students as Rice, which are all much closer distance-wise and are natural draws for Illinois natives.
LikeLike
Rice isn’t known for its social scene. Traditionally, it’s been quite male and known more for it’s science and engineering.
It’s also fairly tiny.
LikeLike
Part may be that Texas is just off the radar. People in the Midwest gravitate towards Florida or the east. The Rice caliber students may tend to go to eastern privates or the more “local” schools Frank mentioned-NW, Chicago, Washington U.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say that’s true. However, Texas has a ton of students.
Unlike the myriad of schools in the Midwest and Northeast (2 regions that have have a ton of schools of all types and declining HS enrollment), schools in TX don’t really feel a need to recruit from elsewhere.
BTW, Katrina sending a ton of people out of the area may have something to do with Tulane drawing so many out-of-staters as well.
Metro Houston is over 5 times the size as metro Nawlins but Rice’s undergraduate student body is less than half the size of Tulane’s.
LikeLike
Richard – when I attended Tulane Law School in the 90s, the whole campus was about 80% OOS, 20% Louisiana.
LikeLike
Houston being ten times the size of New Orleans isn’t that big a factor. Riuce got rid of the local quotas decades ago, even if they were just informal. Going through the campus it seems, in some odd way, that Rice skipped over being a national university and went from regional to international some time in the last thirty years.
And like Illinois, Texas needs some more high end public schools. But the legislature put a carrot out there for schools like Texas Tech, Houston, and UT-Dallas to grab for.
LikeLike
Loki:
It’s not the quotas. It’s that for such a small school with such a big international reputation, there are more than enough Texans (and internationals) to fill the student body with high quality students. So unlike WashU or Oberlin, Rice really doesn’t have to recruit nationally.
LikeLike
Rice has less students going to it because it is more selective and smaller. I doubt many if any of the Illinois Baylor students are turning down Rice to go to Baylor unless they are getting a full ride to Baylor.
LikeLike
@Frank:
Good post, but you should address the political question of why UI-UC would just sit back and let Illinois politicians spend hundreds of millions on building up another school without a fight? UIUC has a deep alumni base and (presumably) high-priced and effective lobbyists. The school will fight tooth and nail to get any additional monies out of the relevant legislative committees and try to strangle this idea in its crib.
For any wannabe 2nd major public university, the best path is actually to invest heavily in athletics, specifically football and basketball. The marketing power that those sports bring, with success, are simply unparalleled. Success will lead to a surge in applications (Florida Gulf Coast U had I think 6-8k more applicants this past year based off its tourney run last year; NWU set a record for applicants in the fall of 1996 (post Rose Bowl) that was only broken a few years ago when it switched to the common application).
If, say, SIU (or another Illinois public school) wants to become that school, the best way to do it is to get some wealthy alumni to give big money (its not gonna come from the state) to lure top coaches/young coaches with potential and build a program in football and men’s basketball. With greater athletic success will be the best earned media to attract students, allowing the school to slowly become more selective and as a result , improve academic quality. Even with this, for the reasons Frank mentioned, the odds of admission to the B1G are zero, but it will serve the broader point of establishing a second major state university. This applies to all public universities in the state. If EIU or ISU or some other state school wanted to do this, it could reap the rewards (minus B1G membership) if done right.
Michigan State’s history is instructive, as the president at the time, John Hannah, pushed very hard to get the school admitted to the B1G after Chicago left, knowing that the increased exposure will help grow the school. Its not a stretch to say that the school is where it is now (a major research university) in large part of the earned media from the 1950’s and 1960’s football championships, along with the decades of basketball success, which enticed loyal alumni to give to the school, helped attract applicants and faculty excited to help build a school up from a regional agricultural school to the second major school in the state.
Bottom line: Frank’s twins are not going to have a second UI-UC level school in state to choose from. Maybe Frank’s grandkids will. And there will not be a third Illinois school in the Big Ten Conference.
LikeLike
UIC, which, research-wise, is in the same tier as FSU, ISU, NCSU, VTech, Tennessee, and Miami (according to ARWU) and is higher than AAU members KU, Mizzou, and Brandeis as well as ND, is best poised to take advantage of a strong sports program. The B10 could assist here (with NCAA cooperation) by taking UIC as an affiliate member in, say, hockey (they could take other branch campuses as well). These other schools could drop down to DivIII in everything else, but that would require the NCAA to allow it (or a split with the NCAA).
LikeLike
@Richard:
My read of the meaning of this proposal is to make a second Illinois public school as a full-fledged member of the B1G, I don’t see adding UIC as an affiliate in one sport having much of an impact in that regard, because it would get referred to as a Big Ten school only in the context of that individual sport. Much like Johns Hopkins is only mentioned as a B1G school when discussing men’s lacrosse.
Affiliate membership would not have the same meaning and impact as full membership.
As for full membership, since UIC does not offer football, it has to be a non-starter for the B1G, without even considering the quality of its other athletic programs.
Also. UIC’s AAU status is low, and KU and Brandeis are on record knowing they have to improve its status in the AAU to avoid UNL’s fate.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t think that UIC has any chance of becoming a full B10 member, however, when you say UIC’s AAU status is low, what are you comparing them to? Other schools in the AAU? Sure. However, compared to all the schools who are outside the AAU, UIC looks to be in the tier of schools that have a chance of entering the AAU in the next several decades. After all, there has been talk about FSU and VTech and Tennessee (and UK, which is even lower rated) being potential AAU candidates, but UIC has just a good a candidacy as those schools.
LikeLike
I was comparing it to other AAU schools. To me, that’s a critical metric since the AAU has already kicked out one member and was poised to boot a second (Syracuse, who resigned instead) for lackluster performance according to AAU criteria. Further, Kansas’ own leadership has publicly mentioned its need to improve in AAU criteria soon in order to avoid UNL’s fate, and Brandeis is trying to beef up its research efforts, too.
LikeLike
I also disagree that being an affiliate member in one sport wouldn’t be enough. Hockey at UIC could be like hockey at Coorado College and RPI, lacrosse at JHU, or basketball at Marquette or VCU. The key thing is providing a sense of school spirit, and one sport, so long as you’re good at it, would be enough.
LikeLike
As an aside, UIC dropped their hockey program back in 1996, so they don’t really have any sport that would be compelling for the Big Ten to add as an affiliate member.
LikeLike
Affiliates do not claim the same sort of membership mantle as full members, both in reality and in public perception. Nobody refers to Boise State as a Pac 12 member because of its wrestling program’s Pac 12 affiliate membership. Nobody considers San Diego State as a Pac 12 member, even though it is for men’s soccer.
Also, affiliate membership is a brand new phenomenon for the B1G, and only exists because the affiliate member is an academic powerhouse located in a major east coast city previously devoid of B1G membership that excels in the very sport where the conference needed a 6th member (not to mention, is a major rival of new member UMd). JHU was added because it is JHU. UIC, for all its academic merits, is simply not JHU.
LikeLike
“As an aside, UIC dropped their hockey program back in 1996, so they don’t really have any sport that would be compelling for the Big Ten to add as an affiliate member.”
For now.
LikeLike
“For now.”
There is no remotely compelling case for UIC on athletics. They do not play football. They do not play hockey . Their basketball is not useful for the Big Ten. Even if they added hockey, they would lack any tradition to make a compelling affiliate member. And at the end of the day, again, they do not play football, the only sport relevant to conference expansion.
Academically, they have the largest endowment by far of all other state public universities other than UIUC. Their student body size would be larger than UNL and NWU, and by default, it is the second best research public university in the state. If this were an athletic powerhouse, and there was real political muscle for Illinois legislators to somehow be able to force another school in the conference, then UIC might be a good option. But they are not athletically relevant for the conference and don’t play critical sports.
LikeLike
For now.
LikeLike
And forever
LikeLike
Wainscott, these are Democrats. They think with the little head, not the big head.
LikeLike
Matt Murphy and Michael Connelly, who proposed the legislation, are Republicans. I guess I can always count on conservatives to be ignorant.
LikeLike
Colin Meyer says:
March 24, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Wainscott, these are Democrats. They think with the little head, not the big head.
I guess you’re talking about Republicans as well since Ohio is predominantly Republican as far as power. Ooops! I guess you guys think with the little head as well.
LikeLike
FtT:
“Note that I actually live in Naperville, but the applicable representative (Michael Connelly) doesn’t represent the portion of town that I live in.”
Point of pride?
LikeLike
Frank,
California suffers a much larger exodus than Illinois, due to the failure of the UC system expansion to keep pace with the growth in population, especially of qualified HS students from the tech heavy areas. Most folks are unaware that California lacks a mega campus, and that the UC schools UG populations range from 18,000 (Santa Barbara) to 28,000 (UCLA), most in the low 20s. (Riverside and Santa Cruz have poor reputations and most students reject admissions to those schools). The other problem is the Engineering schools are small in the UC System (except Davis) and so very few technical students are graduated. The result is Californians are a very large chunk of schools throughout New England (5th largest contingent after Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania at WPI and RPI, similar at Delaware). It’s not much more difficult to get into Brown or Cornell than it is to get into Berkeley as a result of the tight admissions. The State has continually tightened admission to a point where it can no longer even meet that current top 8% of graduates from HS.
Politics of the left for whatever reason favors elitism in education, and a de-emphasis on tech degrees. The result has been a huge gaps between the UC system and the CSU system, which is not residential excepting Cal Poly, creating a huge exodus to out of state residential schools, especially for technical majors. It amazes me that a state with a lower percentage of college ready students than Texas, which has about 75% the number of HS students, sends almost five times as many out of State.
Texas is really the State California should compare itself too, since we both have about 45-50% Hispanic populations in K-12 (Texas graduates a much higher percentage, and about half are college ready compared to a miserable 20% range in California — we have issues below the college level in California), and large populations, and rapid growth. Unfortunately the focus of Sacramento has been on Michigan, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Illinois, States that lack the growth and have much different demographics. I think its an anti Southern bias, bordering on insanity. But even so they do not understand the need for a 2nd tier residential system, schools like Miami (Ohio), William & Mary, James Madison, and the SUNY system (privates make up the top tier in NY). If a half dozen CSU schools were upgraded to have some research, higher admission standards like those at Cal Poly, and take more non-local (as opposed to the local region first) students, and expand and improve the residential facilities, we could solve the problem in five years at a much lower cost than opening two or three new UC campuses with their massive overhead. It’s insane that we maintain 6 campuses at tax payer expense at AAU standards, and none of them even have 30,000 undergrads.
Anyway, as bad as things are in Illinois, the problem causes a loss in potential residential students that sends about $3-4 Billion a year out of state (BOE calculation figuring about $30,000 a year average tuition per residential student after typical partial scholarships and grants who are out of state). Sure half of that cannot be recaptured – you still go to Harvard if you get in – but the other half could help the economy, at least in college towns.
LikeLike
So, which other states have the problem that Illinois and New Jersey do? I haven’t seen the data, but I’d expect New York, which has two AAU publics (Buffalo and Stony Brook), neither of which are sexy schools. As you noted, there are very good private schools in New York, but once you start talking private school, better students are probably not going to confine their search to just one state.
LikeLike
However, UC-Berkeley and UCLA’s relatively modest sizes are part of the reason why those 2 schools are so elite. Make them as huge as OSU, and it’s going to be harder to maintain the same quality of student body.
Also, Cal has 26K undergrads & UCLA has 26.8K undergrads vs. 38.5K undergrads at UT-Austin while UCI, UCSD, UC-Davis, and UCSB (all AAU) add up to a ton more undergrads than A&M, so it certainly doesn’t look like CA doesn’t provide enough slots for the top and 2nd-tier students in CA to my eyes.
Finally, “de-emphasis on tech degrees” . . . huh? UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD are all known as fine institutions in technology.
LikeLike
Part of the exodus can be something as simple as kids wanting to go and get a different college experience vs their upbringing. I mean, kids from NYC flock to Wisconsin and Indiana and Michigan, but few stay in Bloomington/Madison/Ann Arbor after graduation. Its merely to go and get a good education and have a different experience while young and able.
@Marc:
NY has a major problem in that regard. New York is a leading exporter of kids to other state universities. That’s partially due to NY politics/history (SUNY not having been formed until 1948, for starters) and the lack of a true massive flagship state school (a’la UC Berkeley/Michigan/Illinois etc…).
All you need to know about public universities in NYS is that the state’s lang grant college is actually Cornell, not one of the SUNY campuses (though, most of Cornell is actually state-supported. Its rather confusing).
LikeLike
New York State definitely has a lot of people leaving, but it doesn’t seem to be as acute as neighboring New Jersey. Part of it is that private institutions like NYU and Syracuse are fairly large and draw in students that would probably have gone to flagships if they had lived in other states (and Cornell has the most Ivy League undergrads with over 13,000). There is also a large inflow of students from other states heading to schools in NYC specifically, so that balances the numbers more compared to a place like New Jersey.
LikeLike
@Frank:
All true. I was referring only to the public schools in NYS. Private schools in NY, and multiple NYC schools, are magnets for national and international students. State leaders are trying to find ways to make the SUNY schools more attractive in order to compete for these kids, as well as instate kids who instead go to elsewhere.
LikeLike
@FranktheTank Minnesota seems to have a similar dynamics where a #2 state academic school is needed. In 8 years when my 4th grader is going off to college it would be great to have an in-state public option to the University of Minnesota. The latest data (https://www.ohe.state.mn.us/pdf/ReciprocityDataOverview2014.pdf) shows over 28,000 students leave MN for schools in North Dakota, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, with only 14,000 students from those states coming to MN. The North Dakota D1 schools both boast MN residents exceeding 1/3 of their total student population.
Unlike Illinois there is not even an ounce of political thought going into the positives of having (or the negatives of not having) a clear #2 state university. At least that conversation will be attempted in Illinois (albeit without per diem funding of any sort).
LikeLike
Texas is trying to develop a #3,#4,#5. They would like California’s problem. Although, unlike BBC’s description of California, many of the “state” universities are residential. Stephen F. Austin, Sam Houston and Texas State all have reputations as “fun” schools.
Texas A&M was an 8,000 all male school in the mid-60s that was mediocre in all but a few fields of excellence. They grew and improved rapidly, especially under Robert Gates, and it has become a strong #2.
But Texas is trying to hold the line at 50,000 students, A&M was trying to hold it at 45,000 until Gov. Perry pushed them and now they are at mid-50s. A lot of good suburban students who aren’t in the top 10% can’t get into either one and are looking at out of state schools like LSU, Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. We met the Georgia president on a recruiting trip to Houston a few years back. There’s one sorority at UGA my wife refers to as the “Texas” sorority. So while Texas doesn’t have the numbers leaving of other states, it is rapidly growing as Texas and Texas A&M get increasingly difficult to get into.
LikeLike
Texas supports the development of more Tier I universities (not at the expense of their own $) as it will take some pressure off to increase its own enrollment to a level they don’t believe is sustainable (there is talk of 60-75k). As well, there is a research synergy with more top academics close by.
Athletics really is not necessary. UT-Dallas is pretty much viewed as the #3 university in the state despite being Division III. Its just that it is relatively small and not particularly residential. It benefits from being in the Telecom corridor in North Dallas/Richardson. I think its more the residential component that is needed to make the school a strong alternative. For that reason, Illinois State or SIU would have advantages over UI-Chicago. And Texas Tech has some advantages in Texas over Houston or UT-Dallas who are viewed as somewhat stronger academically (or the other schools they are pushing as potential Tier Is-UTSA, UTEP, UT-Arlington, North Texas).
LikeLike
bullet: yeah, Texas needs to back up its plans with cash. Houston and UT-Arlington have both been working to get residential, but they’re a long ways off. As steep as the dropoff is between 1 and 2 in the UT system, it’s a sheer cliff in the A&M system. What’s the second-best A&M campus? Corpus Christi? And why are there so many university systems in Texas? That’s part of the problem right there.
LikeLike
Well, UM-TC is huge for a state it’s size (and tuition is very reasonable).
Here are the biggest schools by enrollment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_university_campuses_by_enrollment
Other than ASU (which seems to take any warm body that applies), all of the other big schools are in much bigger states than MN.
So I reckon nobody feels like thre’s much of a need for a second-tier university.
LikeLike
It seems that states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois that merge their ‘U’s and States end up with this political inertia towards having a second quality big university.
LikeLike
Huh? What are you talking about? ISU is an independent institution in IL.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/report-qatars-world-cup-expected-to-take-more-lives-t-1550257688
ITUC report believes that Qatar’s World Cup will kill 4000+ migrant workers.
LikeLike
Considering when the AAC was considering expansion candidates, Tulsa, Southern Miss, UMass, and Rice (which would give the AAC a second school in Houston) were all higher on the priority list than Northern Illinois, I don’t think that another Illinois school has much of a shot of ever getting into the Big 10.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest the money to bring Southern Illinois into the MAC and then form a research coalition for the MAC that is akin to a junior CIC? The MAC CIC could even work with the actual CIC. Getting another Illinois school into the Big 10 is not going to happen. Getting a second Illinois school into the MAC and then turning the MAC into a Big 10 lite seems a lot more doable. While the MAC CIC isn’t going to rival the CIC/Big 10, it could at least make major improvements for its schools, especially if it was able to work with the CIC.
LikeLike
@Jeffrey Juergens – Illinois State is probably the better step-up candidate from a purely athletic standpoint: they actually do have the school spirit that UIC doesn’t have and they’ve been looking at FBS football for quite awhile. If they moved up to FBS, they ought to be compelling for the MAC. They just have a harder road to raise academic standards compared to UIC (which is more of what I’m personally concerned about from a selfish future tuition-paying perspective).
LikeLike
Either Illinois State or Southern Illinois getting into the MAC is infinitely more likely than a second Illinois school getting into the Big 10. Northern Illinois has certainly shown that you can get enough talent to an Illinois school to be very successful at the MAC level.
LikeLike
I just don’t see ISU or SIU attracting more students by joining the MAC, however. Are there any kids who weren’t considering ISU/SIU saying to themselves “hey, I’ll go there because I’ll get to see some MACtion now!”
Realistically, UIC becoming good in a popular sport (right now, that would be only bball) and growing school spirit is the only way that a public IL school will become attractive enough to challenge Mizzou or Iowa for the interest of Chicagoland students who didn’t get in to UIUC.
LikeLike
What I read was that the networks had no interest in any of the MAC schools.
Tulsa and Rice (and I believe UMass) also have larger budgets than the MAC schools.
LikeLike
Shaka Smart the new Marquette head coach.
Will VCU get a new coach who can keep the program he built, or will VCU begin its slide back into irrelevance?
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
BTW, I know that for teenagers who are unsure of their standing in the world, minute differences in perception of reputation and what not matter a lot, but once they get out in to the workforce, they’ll realize that no one cares whether they went to UIC or Loyola or Mizzou or Iowa or SLU or Rutgers. It’s almost all about individual talent & skills and what they can contribute.
LikeLike
Except that the school you went to can in and of itself open doors and opportunities to new graduates unavailable to recent graduates of other schools .
LikeLike
Sure. And from what I’ve seen (other than certain fields where a school is really good, like journalism at Mizzou), there’s no difference between UIC or Loyola or Mizzou or Iowa or SLU or Rutgers.
LikeLike
Agreed. I graduated from Ohio State and I don’t really think that the same classes offered at Ohio State and Columbus State are really all that different.
Actually to be completely honest, I think the value of a lot of college education is being greatly over-valued anymore. Looking back, the math/physical science classes (my minor area) gave me some skills I’m happy to have, but that I only use to a limited degree while only a small handful of the education/social science classes really effected me much in any meaningful long term way. My guess is that in 20 years, this is going to catch up and you are going to see substantially fewer people going to college and despite the cries against that, I think it will be a good thing.
LikeLike
It goes in cycles. Since the ’70’s, we have been in a period of increasing inequality & social strife where there has been a greater and greater return to education. We’re going to react an inflection point where it will go back in the other direction. Hopefully, it won’t be violent.
LikeLike
I think there is a lot of training in ways to solve problems. Engineers often approach problems differently than accountants who approach problems differently than English majors who approach problems differently than law students.
You have to constantly update your knowledge and it gives you the base.
And if you get a good education, it causes you to evaluate and question your ideas and stimulates your thinking. It doesn’t have to change you, simply help you clarify things.
LikeLike
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2014/03/17/college-basketballs-most-valuable-teams-2014-louisville-cardinals-on-top-again/
The most valuable MBB teams list from Forbes is out again.
1. Louisville $39.5M
2. Kansas $33M
3. Kentucky $32.5M
4. North Carolina $25.7M
5. Indiana $25.4M
6. Arizona $25.2M
7. Ohio State $22.9M
8. Wisconsin $21.1M
9. Syracuse $21M
10. Duke $18.9M
OSU is the only school in the top 10 of both the FB and MBB lists.
LikeLike
Slam dunk!
LikeLike
All kidding aside, this could actually be done: Northwestern Illinois State University.
The state of new York owns the Land Grant half of Cornell and NY almost bought Syracuse a couple of decades ago. If Northwestern went public it would blow away Cal-Berkeley and Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
I’d be interested in reading these sort of academic profiles of other states as well.
LikeLike
Illinois State has actually improved its academic reputation quite a bit over the years, while NIU made the short-sighted mistake of lowering their admission standards to increase enrollment, which ended up making it less desirable.
It might help UIC to change its name again so it develops more of its own identity.
LikeLike
Big Ten has: headquarters in Chicago, Illinois who does nothing on the court/field anymore, Northwestern who has never done anything on the court/field and the University of Chicago as an academic partner. Needless to say, enough with the state of Illinois!!!!!
Moving on, lets just be realistic and admit that we suck as a major sports conference, but excel academically. There just aren’t enough willing “great recruits” (I have no interest in getting censored, read EXACTLY between the lines here) to ever bring football back. Basketball can be solved/improved with Connecticut and Kansas. Over time, bring Connecticut and Nebraska to AAU status and then have a complete CIC with 17 AAU members.
Best in academics? Check. (once UConn and Nebraska improve)
Win a National Title in Basketball 1-2 times a decade? Check.
= better than we have now and UNC is too Southern to ever make the leap which prevents Virginia as well.
Yes, people, Big Ten football is past tense. It’s never coming back in any major way. Ohio State has a once-in-thirty year fluke title in them going forward, but that’s it. Michigan has been cooked for a long time. Wisconsin and Michigan State aren’t any better than Notre Dame or Pittsburgh going forward. Nebraska is dead. Iowa and Illinois never truly lived. Rutgers and Penn State both with local recruits have a chance to win the Rose Bowl once every 20 years, but middle class and rich parents in the NE and East Coast are just now seeing the true brutality of football and will just put their kids in another sport and cease to care (much less care about college football) over the next 20-30 years. College football is incredibly savage at the highest level and has nothing to do with “college”. College basketball has a modicum of relation in so far as the coach is wearing a suit and you can see the players’ faces when they play.
To that point, football in general has reached its autumn years. Baseball once king got too boring/salaries became too much. Boxing once king got too corporate/rigged. Football now king will die from lawyer ball or people not wanting to watch an evolved human on HGH now in the year 2030 big and fast enough to basically be a car on the field running over humans and driving into walls. The size of football players is increasing exponentially to point where people will die on the field. To prevent that, the rules need to be changed which is just going to change the sport too much and make the entire circus seem as arbitrary as it has always been.
Want proof? Kickers who can kick the new harder extra points (coming soon!) will make more money than running backs. Well, excuse me, that’s if kicks are even allowed to happen by then (they are the plays which produce the most collisions other than goal-line stands).
We’ve all heard this extrapolation before, but it does speak to the main point that the Big Ten should see the writing on the wall and strive to more or less finish third in the new sport which will resemble football in 2050 while simultaneously occasionally actually winning a national championship in the second money sport (which may be the new national past time after football).
Or hell, aim for soccer and lacrosse as (I’ll say it) suburban parents simply won’t let Johnny take the high school field in shoulder pads against other football players who quite literally can give him a concussion at will within the rules of the sport we now call football. Anyway, Big Ten could dominate soccer and lacrosse for the next 10-20 years (or just compete head-to-head against the ACC for whatever those national titles would be worth). While we’re at it, lets strive to win national championships in hockey and wrestling as well. Football? Dead. Maybe Ohio State wins a national title in triple overtime every 30 years, but no other Big Ten team will come close to that type of “success” in the next 100 years. It would take bringing the “college” back to college football for the Big Ten to truly annually compete for national titles in football. The Big Ten should realize this considering how smart they are. Football, like sumo wrestling, is simply a matter of physics. Kentucky had a better recruiting class than 75% of the Big Ten coming off a 2-10 season last year. Ole Miss literally overnight produced an 8-win team in the SEC West on recruiting just a handful of local players. As mentioned colloquially, there just aren’t enough “good athletes” from which the Big Ten can recruit well-enough to win a National Title in football. Seriously, watch an SEC team get off the bus and then watch Illinois get off the bus. Boxing put in weight classes for this very occurrence. As Big Ten fans, we should stop trying to fight above our weight class in addition to stemming the prioritization of a sport which will one day cease to resemble itself.
LikeLike
It’s quite obvious that you’ve paid zero attention to Northwestern football or any college basketball.
LikeLike
I just feel bad this person spent so much time writing and editing this post.
LikeLike
C’mon. Stop with the snark. We hold ourselves to a higher standard on this board. If you don’t have anything nice and/or constructive and/or interactive to say, just leave it be.
And, why “feel bad?”
Under the strong tone and rhetoric, Devo is just discussing what we all discuss. He’s in favor of Kansas and UConn being admitted to the B1G. Never gonna happen, Devo. 🙂
And then he/she makes many arguably valid points about the future of college sports. We have discussed many of those points in various posts on this board: demographics, race as it relates to college sports, future of football based on violence and injuries, use of performance enhancing drugs, ranking of sports in popularity and predictions as to how those rankings might change going forward, what the B1G should/should not do to “remain on top”, etc.
It is difficult responding to the post because of its very bleak outlook on the future of the B1G and B1G football and because many points are taking a 50-year look into the future. I do not subscribe to the bleakness presented and, really, who knows what will happen in 30-50 years.
Personally, the arc of popularity is a very interesting topic. People have been debating for decades why soccer has not caught on in the US despite practically every kid playing soccer. Why has boxing seemed to diminish so much in popularity? And has it really? Maybe in the 50s, it drew 5 million fans from a nation of 100 million people. Maybe it still draws 5 million fans, but that “popularity” has been swamped by the rising tide of population growth. Who knows. Then you have to consider the rise of “wrestling” and now ultimate fighting. The obituary for baseball has been written 1000 times, but the reports of its demise are premature.
I think a lot of it has to do with TV and quite specifically our evolving definition of “popular.”
LikeLike
Except that he wasn’t talking about football only. In basketball, nothing needs to be “solved” and the future for B10 basketball (most Sweet Sixteen teams over the past 3 years by far) doesn’t look bleak at all. Given that fact, adding KU and UConn makes even less sense.
LikeLike
Fair enough. The poster did raise the issue of the future of football as a sport which I think is legitimate issue to be pondered, even if its presented in a borderline hysterical way.
But the vast majority of the post consists of statements that are either factually incorrect or wild exaggerations/ assumptions (Big Ten is dead). Too many, in fact, to spend time rebutting them all, hence the bare dismissal with some snark added in.
LikeLike
It was more of a typical sports fan’s post, with a lot of ranting, very little serious analysis, and many of the purported facts completely wrong or misleading.
Of course, the Internet is full of posts like that, but we normally don’t see a lot of that here.
LikeLike
Football, like sumo wrestling, is simply a matter of physics
As compared to all those other sports that defy the fundamental laws of the universe?
LikeLike
How’d you develop such a great curveball this offseason?
Once I learned how to not conserve angular momentum, it all fell into place.
LikeLike
Devo,
“Big Ten has: headquarters in Chicago,”
True.
“Illinois who does nothing on the court/field anymore,”
They made the finals in 2005 and have been to the NCAA tourney 5 times since then. They made the Rose Bowl in the 2007 season. That’s not nothing.
“Northwestern who has never done anything on the court/field”
They’ve done a little on the field. I can’t defend their hoops team.
“and the University of Chicago as an academic partner.”
UI and NW are both tremendous academic schools, plus they add Chicago and the state for the BTN.
“Moving on, lets just be realistic and admit that we suck as a major sports conference,”
That’d be great if it was true, but it isn’t. We’re average among the P5 as a football conference, once of the best in hoops, and one of the best in non-revenue athletics. You must have a very high bar for sucking. No conference doesn’t suck by your definition.
“There just aren’t enough willing “great recruits” (I have no interest in getting censored, read EXACTLY between the lines here) to ever bring football back.”
Back from where and to where? And it’s OK to say black recruits if that’s what you mean. Demographics is a well-discussed topic on this blog.
“Basketball can be solved/improved with Connecticut and Kansas. Over time, bring Connecticut and Nebraska to AAU status and then have a complete CIC with 17 AAU members.”
NE go the boot. It’ll be near impossible to get them back in under the current rules since their medical school isn’t part of the Lincoln campus. UConn is miles away from gaining AAU status, and the AAU isn’t looking to grow. UConn would have to pass about 20 school aspiring to join already and another 20-30 current members to get in position to be invited.
“Best in academics? Check. (once UConn and Nebraska improve)”
We already are, assuming the Ivy League doesn’t count.
“Win a National Title in Basketball 1-2 times a decade? Check.”
That could happen now. We’ve been in 4 of the last 10 finals.
Finals appearances in the past decade:
B10 – 4
ACC – 4
SEC – 3
BE/AAC – 3
B12 – 2
P12 – 1
Other – 3
Besides, there’s more to being a good hoops conference than winning the tournament. UK winning it a lot doesn’t make the SEC a good hoops conference, it makes UK good at hoops.
“Yes, people, Big Ten football is past tense. It’s never coming back in any major way.”
OK. The oracle has spoken.
“To that point, football in general has reached its autumn years.”
Uh huh.
“The size of football players is increasing exponentially”
That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
LikeLike
Brian whipped Devo. Whipped him good.
LikeLike
Brian,
Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Michigan, Michigan State = will never win a National Championship in Football or Basketball
*What ever happened pre-World War One or pre-[censored] isn’t important. Nor do I subscribe to the derpspeak of “it’s a derp cycle”. According to the derp cycle theory posited by many B1G idealists on here, Army and UNLV are due.
Ohio State = will win a National Championship in football once every 30 years in triple OT
Kansas, Connecticut = will win a National championship in basketball once every 10-15 years
Illinois played in front of six people this year. Beating Cincinnati in a meaningless regular season game was the best thing they have done since falling on their face in the ’07 Rose Bowl/ ’05 Title Game. I didn’t forget about when Illinois played Northwestern on a mini-field at Wrigley. That was……… *searches for word to describe extreme embarrassment* …. exponential?
Second place in anything = means nothing
Sweet Sixteen = means nothing
Macaroni And Cheese Bowl = means nothing
You play to win the title! Coming close then deferring to a statistical trend for the conference doesn’t “prove” hunky dory. We’re not fine. The B1G sucks. We don’t win championships in either of the sports that matter. If Northwestern is valuable, then why they are they quitting? For that matter, why did our commissioner mention quitting/D3? Really healthy conference you got there, Brian. Seems to hinge on 1-2 lawsuits.
*South Park Cop Voice* “Nice”.
I care about national championships. If Illinois wins the Mario Kart Bowl every 10 years it doesn’t mean anything to me.
This article is about some political nonsense which has as much chance of happening as Jesus coming back. People come here is for real expansion news. Lets talk about that, Brian and Jeff.
One of you two geniuses name two realistic better expansion candidates.
criteria…
-Decent/good academics (hey Illinois can be proud of that, Brian)
-Large student body (hopefully Northwestern will quit soon to allow Missouri to join)
and most importantly…
-Strong likelihood of winning a national championship in football or basketball during the next 20 years.
LikeLike
Devo,
“Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Michigan, Michigan State = will never win a National Championship in Football or Basketball”
IN and MSU have multiple national titles in hoops and have decent odds of winning more. MI has 1 and almost got another only last season. NE, PSU and MI all have multiple football titles and decent odds of winning another one. When did this never clock start?
“Nor do I subscribe to the derpspeak of “it’s a derp cycle”.”
It sounds like you subscribe to a whole lot of derp, actually. Thanks ever so much for sharing it here.
“Kansas, Connecticut = will win a National championship in basketball once every 10-15 years”
UConn – 1999, 2004, 2011
KU – 1988, 2008
“Second place in anything = means nothing”
That tells me all I need to know about you.
“If Northwestern is valuable, then why they are they quitting?”
1. They aren’t quitting as far as I know.
2. Universities actually have value outside of winning national titles in FB and MBB. Apparently that is news to you.
“For that matter, why did our commissioner mention quitting/D3?”
Because he believes in the NCAA’s amateur model of athletics.
“I care about national championships.”
Good for you. I see a whole forest behind those 2 trees.
“People come here is for real expansion news.”
And excellent English, apparently.
“Lets talk about that, Brian and Jeff.”
There is more to this blog than just expansion, especially when there is very little going on in expansion.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10677441/massachusetts-minutemen-reach-agreement-leave-mid-america-conference-2015-season
UMass has to leave the MAC for FB after the 2015 season.
“One of you two geniuses name two realistic better expansion candidates.”
Nobody and no one. More mouths to feed isn’t a bonus. No good targets are available until GORs expire anyway.
“-Decent/good academics (hey Illinois can be proud of that, Brian)”
It’s a hell of a lot more important than sports.
“-Large student body (hopefully Northwestern will quit soon to allow Missouri to join)”
They aren’t quitting and they aren’t coming, respectively. Only an idiot would think that.
“-Strong likelihood of winning a national championship in football or basketball during the next 20 years.”
Since when is that a B10 criteria for expansion? Maybe the Devo conference uses that criterion, but the B10 sure doesn’t.
LikeLike
Devo, go back either to Storrs and watch your Huskies gradually wither on the vine in the AAC (even Geno’s Evil Empire of women’s basketball eventually will devolve into a slightly stronger version of one-time powers Old Dominion or Louisiana Tech) or to Lawrence, where you can wave the wheat in the winter but do little else in the fall or spring.
LikeLike
One of you two geniuses name two realistic better expansion candidates.
You forgot the most important possibility: the empty set.
The idea is NOT to expand with the two best candidates available. The idea is to expand only if there are two available candidates that meet your criteria. If not, you do nothing.
The Big Ten is not like the Big XII, which for a short time was down to eight schools and had no realistic choice BUT to expand, even if it took two sub-optimal schools in TCU and WV. The Big Ten is at 14, where they could remain happily for a long, long time.
I certainly think that athletic competitiveness is one factor they’d look for, but counting the number of likely basketball NCs is not the end of the discussion, nor even the beginning of it.
LikeLike
“Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Michigan, Michigan State = will never win a National Championship in…Basketball.”
Since 2000 (i.e., 15 seasons), current Big Ten teams have played on Monday night eight times and won two National Championships.
LikeLike
Pretty much the only people who regard the B1G as the top academic conference are B1G alumni. ACC is the best and most people think Pac-12 is a close 2nd.
LikeLike
Only if you look at the very top. No other FBS conference has the depth that the B10 has in academics; especially in research.
LikeLike
When graduate researchers start playing sports that attract undergrads to make decisions on whether or not to attend that school, then maybe counting graduate research will be a good indicator of academic quality of a university. Until then, a university should be judged on what makes it a university – the undergraduate education – and the academic stats that the undergrads – who again, make the university – look for, namely the undergraduate rankings.
LikeLike
And even there, the B10 keeps to a higher baseline standard than any other FBS league.
Are you seriously going to argue that Louisville is better than any B10 school?
LikeLike
BTW, I know that many 20 year-olds have an overinflated sense of self, but no, the undergrads are not what makes a university. They may be what makes a college, but the research is what makes a university. Harvard without research is Amherst.
LikeLike
JustSmithinIt,
“then maybe counting graduate research will be a good indicator of academic quality of a university.”
It’s a great indicator. The best faculty in STEM fields get the most research funding. That attracts other top faculty members as well as the top students. Or is it the elite athletics at MIT that draw in the undergrads?
“Until then, a university should be judged on what makes it a university – the undergraduate education”
Actually, you have that completely wrong. The term university has traditionally been used to designate research institutions and was once reserved for doctorate-granting research institutions. Undergrad education makes a college.
To look at it another way, the faculty are what really make it a university, and research funding is one of the main criteria for tenure in many fields.
LikeLike
The Pac is very top heavy (Stanford, Cal, UCLA, UW, USC). UO and CU are decent, middle of the road schools. The bottom half is weaker than most, if not all, B1G schools (UA, ASU, Utah, OSU, WSU)
LikeLike
“UO and CU are decent, middle of the road schools.”…decent, middle of the road AAU schools.
I’m not sure the PAC’s second tier as low as you think.
CU 33 world ranking. UA-78, ASU-79, UU-85t, OrSU-101to150 group, UO&WSU-201to300.
Purdue-57, tOSU-65, (Rutgers-67), Ind-85t, MSU-92, Iowa-101to150group, UNL-201-300.
Slightly below, but do you want to compare the top as closely?
LikeLike
What ranking is that?
By top heavy, I mean the gap between he top and bottom schools in the conference is larger that the ACC and the B1G. The top schools in the PAC do eclipse the top B1G schools, though. Stanford tops NWU, and Cal tops Michigan.
But PAC also only has 8 AAU schools, vs 13 for the B1G.
LikeLike
ARWU
http://www.shanghairanking.com/?universitySearch=Nebraska&x=0&y=0
LikeLike
Why is this ranking system better than others?
LikeLike
Wainscott:
Purely for research, it’s what people on here have settled on as the go-to ranking. What ranking would you suggest?
LikeLike
US News or something not designed by foreigners to measure home country universities relative to those of other nations? And when was this decided as the go-to ranking metric?
LikeLike
Wainscott:
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/your-annual-reminder-to-ignore-the-em-us-news-world-report-em-college-rankings/279103/
LikeLike
I have no particular allegiance to US News, and certainly should not be relied on for selecting a college.
However, the ARWU methodology to me seems to narrow to draw broader conclusions from:
“ARWU uses six objective indicators to rank world universities, including the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index – Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.”
I’m not certain the relevance of the number of alumni and staff winning Nobels and Fields medals, or the number of articles published, and a broader emphasis on research.
It also only ranks a particular type of school, I mean, Dartmouth is not a research institution, but many still consider it among the top schools in the USA and the world. Same with Amherst, Williams, and the like. But since those are not research institutions, they are not on this list. Also,,Rockefeller University, which does not actually have any undergraduates, is ranked, as is UT Southwestern Medical Center. Moreover, even the rankings have some oddities (Vandy at 49, below UWashington, Wisco, Colorado; Arizona and Arizona State ranked above Rice, Emory unranked).
All rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. ARWU seems beneficial for a particular type of analysis and ranking. But to rely on it as gospel for drawing broader, overarching conclusions of school rank seems a bit much relative to the methodology.
LikeLike
I agree different rankings measure different areas/focus. Consistency, reliability, etc are things US News lacks. I’m not stretching much to suggest their ranking is little more than a PR effort from the advertising dept. altered almost yearly in hopes of gaining broader sales/views. It’s a product tailored to increase consumer consumption, rather than a ranking that is tailored to accurately/consistently measure certain specific areas regardless of it’s impact on circulation. Finding the nebulous “best” is difficult without definition, and impossible without consistency.
LikeLike
The World University rankings produce similar results to ARWU. And both measure the things that are important to academics. None of them consider USNWR a serious measuring system. It does have an impact since people read it. And it has its own biases which negatively impact the rating of state schools.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
Everything you said about USNews is spot on. They even admit it was a publicity stunt when they first released it in 1983. But I find by and large, the rankings, at least for the top 50 or 100, if the product of flawed methodology (WTF is alumni giving doing as a metric??) it does tend to play out as expected (though, they also freely admit to manipulating rankings so Har/Yal/Pri are always #1). But then again, most would agree that H/Y/P are 1/2/3/4 in the country.
I think for our purposes, because the rankings are relied on (for better or for worse) by US students and US schools, we should consider it, as Brian did, as part of the picture. I also think its fair to note how other rankings would portray schools, such as ARWU, or Times of London, or some such other system. Maybe from several rankings arises a consensus.
(though, all rankings of colleges will inherently be flawed, based on differing views on what to rank, how, in what weight, and so forth).
US News methodology: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/09/how-us-news-calculated-the-2014-best-colleges-rankings
LikeLike
Someone on here has a composite of virtually all of the different college ranking systems and has posted it before.
LikeLike
JustSmithinIt,
“Pretty much the only people who regard the B1G as the top academic conference are B1G alumni. ACC is the best and most people think Pac-12 is a close 2nd.”
1. During expansion, many people mentioned the B10 as the top academic conference.
2. The ACC has a tiny lead over the B10 in average USN&WR ranking only if you also include ND (ACC – 55.8, B10 – 58.4, P12 – 81.8). Without ND, the ACC falls just behind the B10 at 58.6.
http://collegespun.com/national/which-of-the-5-major-athletics-conferences-has-the-best-schools-academically
Other rankings put the B10 ahead.
http://www.shanghairanking.com/World-University-Rankings-2013/USA.html
B10 – 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 37, 38, 39, 41, 47, 50, 60, 97; ave = 38.2
P12 – 2, 3, 10, 14, 25, 33, 45, 46, 47, 60, 97, 97; ave = 39.9
ACC – 23, 30, 39, 60, 60, 72.5, 72.5, 72.5, 72.5, 97, 120, 120, 120, 140.5, NR; ave = 83.3 (treating NR as #150)
Averaging those 2 rankings:
B10 = 48.3
P12 = 60.9
ACC = 69.6 (including ND)
Also, AAU members:
B10 = 13/14
P12 = 8/12
ACC = 5/15
What’s the evidence for your claims?
LikeLike
Brian this is easy – I just looked up your link. The #1 ACC school is Dook at #8. Northwestern is the B1G’s best at #12, lower than the ACC’s best. The #2 ACC school is UVA (leaving out Notre Dame) at 24, the #2 B1G school is Michigan at 29. The #3 ACC school is Wake at #27 vs. B1G’s #3 of Wisconsin at 41.
The #4 ACC school is UNC at 30 vs. the B1G’s #4 of Penn State at 46. You have to go to the ACC’s #8 school of Syracuse to get a ranking that ‘low.’ You can basically compare each ACC school vs. each B1G school all the way down the line and you have to drop to the 11th best school in either conference before the B1G is ranked higher.
So in summary, the ACC’s top 10 schools are all ranked higher than the B1G’s top 10 schools. ACC’s 10/14 schools are ranked higher than B1G’s 10/12. This is completely simple math.
Even your average is only weighted down by the most recent addition, Louisville.
LikeLike
JustSmithinit:
Now do it with a respected ranking. I think Brian included it to show that even one of the least respected ranking barely has a difference.
Seriously, you’re just trolling…right?
LikeLike
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/your-annual-reminder-to-ignore-the-em-us-news-world-report-em-college-rankings/279103/
LikeLike
JustSmithinIt,
“Even your average is only weighted down by the most recent addition, Louisville.”
And the ACC has a UL while the B10 doesn’t. You don’t get to just compare the best schools or the ones you like. UL weighs just as much in the average as Duke.
And as ccrider55 points out, the USN&WR is a garbage ranking. Nobody that matters takes it seriously. And in the better rankings, the B10 wins easily.
LikeLike
Do you guys understand the meaning of the word ‘outlier?’ Have you taken a stats class, or are statistics only for the graduate students at B1G universities since undergrad education doesn’t matter in your eyes?
Fine leave Louisville in. So the ACC’s bottom ranked school is ranked lower than the B1G’s, but the ACC’s top 10 schools are ranked higher than the B1G’s top 10. Seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me.
For the record, the USN&WR ranking was from the link that YOU gave, Brian. I used YOUR data provided in YOUR post. Now you don’t like using the most commonly accepted rankings / rankings used by most prospective students? Man, that’s a lot to have to exclude to win your argument, but I guess someone can always be right if they define a problem narrow enough. Even broken clocks are right twice a day.
LikeLike
I think that was Brian’s point. Including the lowest ranking for the B1G still didn’t move it away from at worst a virtual tie kinda indicates where it ranks overall. He assumed you’d see the logic. Bad assumption…
LikeLike
JustSmithinIt,
“Do you guys understand the meaning of the word ‘outlier?’”
UL is a member of the ACC and count just as much as anyone else. You don’t just get to ignore the negatives.
“Fine leave Louisville in. So the ACC’s bottom ranked school is ranked lower than the B1G’s, but the ACC’s top 10 schools are ranked higher than the B1G’s top 10. Seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me.”
The mean is almost identical, suggesting it isn’t a clear case at all.
“For the record, the USN&WR ranking was from the link that YOU gave, Brian.
You started it by saying this:
Pretty much the only people who regard the B1G as the top academic conference are B1G alumni. ACC is the best and most people think Pac-12 is a close 2nd.
So I looked for data to support your bias. The most obvious source for dumb ideas about the quality of schools is the USN&WR, so I went there first. Even those barely favor the ACC. Then I went to better measures and the B10 crushed the ACC.
“Now you don’t like using the most commonly accepted rankings”
Most accepted by whom? There is lots of informed criticism of the USN&WR rankings.
“rankings used by most prospective students?”
They also look at things like best party school lists and which sports teams are hot. I don’t look to teenagers for guidance on how to make wise decisions.
LikeLike
Brian mentioned my composite ranking for BCS schools:
1 Stanford 1508.1596
2 Cal 1438.9787
3 UCLA 1406.2244
4 Duke 1391.0755
5 TSUN 1380.7570
6 Northwestern 1350.3192
7 Wisconsin 1347.1368
8 Washington 1336.6143
9 Texas 1318.6290
10 North Carolina 1272.3637
11 Illinois 1253.4872
12 Minnesota 1231.3986
13 USC 1206.3888
14 Ohio State 1188.2804
15 Georgia Tech 1179.6399
16 Vanderbilt 1159.5158
17 Penn St. 1149.3896
18 Virginia 1128.4918
19 Purdue 1112.1102
20 Pittsburgh 1104.9044
21 Florida 1098.2724
22 Rice 1097.4030
23 Maryland 1085.3163
24 Texas A&M 1085.2718
25 Colorado 1070.6262
26 Sparty 1066.0273
27 Notre Dame 1017.9417
28 Arizona 1008.7879
29 Rutgers 985.5317
30 Utah 970.3064
31 Indiana 937.6816
32 Iowa 937.1647
33 Georgia 869.2267
34 Miami (FL) 867.0165
35 Arizona St. 846.2866
36 NC St. 820.1705
37 U Mass 797.7497
38 Virginia Tech 781.5183
39 Iowa St. 757.1580
40 Wake Forest 756.6680
41 Connecticut 724.0432
42 Missouri 718.3004
43 Tulane 718.0628
44 Cincinnati 716.2576
45 Florida St. 714.1528
46 Buffalo 709.1601
47 Colorado St. 681.2003
48 Kansas 642.6922
49 Boston College 637.2450
50 Tennessee 637.1033
51 South Carolina 630.5778
52 Hawaii 622.7084
53 Oklahoma 605.9622
54 Oregon St. 605.6442
55 New Mexico 604.9492
56 Kentucky 598.1895
57 Syracuse 563.0363
58 Oregon 562.5180
59 UAB 554.5952
60 BYU 547.9338
61 Washington St. 546.2949
62 LSU 541.5464
63 Clemson 530.0574
64 South Florida 521.9056
65 Nebraska 521.5648
66 Army 518.8276
67 Alabama 514.1353
68 Navy 510.6111
69 Central Florida 490.2204
70 Houston 475.8880
71 Air Force 463.3477
72 Texas Tech 455.7067
73 Auburn 449.1348
74 Temple 445.3956
75 Baylor 441.6534
76 San Diego St. 432.8808
77 SMU 431.1580
78 Kansas St. 423.8273
79 Louisville 423.3505
80 Ole Miss 419.2595
81 Wyoming 416.7965
82 West Virginia 412.5111
83 Miami (OH) 394.4083
84 Oklahoma St. 372.8754
85 Arkansas 365.0029
86 Nevada – Reno 362.2354
87 Utah St. 353.5676
88 Toledo 320.0609
89 North Texas 312.0427
90 UNC-Charlotte 311.2408
91 Florida International 309.2417
92 Mississippi St. 307.1069
93 New Mexico St. 304.8031
94 Georgia St. 304.5158
95 UTSA 302.4223
96 Ohio U 299.2098
97 Idaho 293.5137
98 UNLV 280.8629
99 TCU 280.3350
100 UTEP 276.9902
101 Northern Illinois 265.8710
102 Kent St. 265.5975
103 Bowling Green 265.5161
104 Memphis 263.9761
105 WMU 260.7164
106 Southern Miss 251.4007
107 ECU 248.4119
108 Old Dominion 241.0109
109 Tulsa 221.7547
110 Louisiana Tech. 212.2370
111 Florida Atlantic 208.8644
112 South Alabama 208.0876
113 Akron 196.7278
114 Ball St. 180.5617
115 Louisiana-Lafayette 177.1883
116 San Jose St. 166.6809
117 Middle Tennessee 158.4658
118 CMU 158.4392
119 Texas St. 126.5649
120 Fresno St 118.7415
121 Western Kentucky 83.7279
122 Boise St. 71.4831
123 Arkansas St. 45.7090
124 Troy 39.8077
125 Louisiana-Monroe 37.7488
126 Marshall 36.6294
127 EMU 20.4768
Chicago would be #2 if you want to count them as an academic member of the B1G/CIC.
Rankings used:
American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA), Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Center For World University Rankings (CWUR), Forbes, Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT), International Professional Classification of Higher Education Institutes (IPCHEI), Leiden Ranking, The Center for Measuring University Performance (CMUP), National Research Council Rankings (NRC), Parchment, QS World University Rankings (QS), High Impact Universities Research Performance Index (RPI), SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), University Ranking By Academic Performance (URAP), USNWR, Washigton Monthly
LikeLike
And crunching those numbers, these are the averages:
B10 1110
P12 1042
ACC 879
SEC 671
B12 571
LikeLike
Conference realignment have lowered the average academic standing of the new conference for all moves (invites in same season) except for the SEC additions of A&M and MO. This move produced the only change in ranking among the P5 with the SEC taking 4th place and dropping the XII to last. Pitt was the only school ranked significantly better than the conference average it joined. The ACC (Louisville) and B1G (Nebraska) picked up their worst school in recent additions (XII also with TCU by these rankings, but their might be worse schools in the XII).
LikeLike
I thought this point is most important:
The Big Ten declined to comment about the bill other than stating that any written application to join the league must be approved by at least 70 percent of the league’s Council of Presidents/Chancellors. After Rutgers and Maryland officially join the conference in July, candidates would need 10 of the 14 schools to say yes.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/97812/illinois-worthy-of-2nd-state-school-in-b1g
LikeLike
Northwestern University’s president emeritus said that if the players on its football team are successful at forming a union, he could see the prestigious private institution giving up Division I football.
Henry Bienen, speaking last week at the annual conference for the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, said, “If we got into collective bargaining situations, I would not take for granted that the Northwesterns of the world would continue to play Division I sports.”
Bienen, who was president of Northwestern from 1995 to 2009, made his comments during a panel discussion that included a presentation from Ramogi Huma, the president of the National College Players Association and the man who helped organize former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter to lead a unionization attempt before the National Labor Relations Board.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/us/northwestern-football-players-union/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
The next question would be if the players are successful, will Delany/B1G have to follow through on the threat of going to Division III if they have to treat players as employees?
LikeLike
Northwestern is the only private school in the BIG. Public schools union decisions would be tied to state laws. Northwestern dropping football because of unionization wouldn’t necessarily effect the other BIG schools. If anything, northwestern could just turn into another University of Chicago like member and the BIG would never add a private institution again.
LikeLike
So let’s play the what-if game. NW decides to follow Chicago’s lead and drop D-I athletics. What does the B10 do to fill the hole?
Options:
1. Stick at 13.
2. Add 1 to get back to 14.
3. Add 3 to get to 16.
4. Drop someone else to get back to 12.
I think the relevant GORs force the B10 to stick at 13 for now. Clearly the state of IL would be happy with the chance to elevate another state school, but I don’t see that happening. Likewise, nobody in the footprint would get an invitation except ND (that won’t happen for other reasons).
Let’s fast-forward a decade as the ACC and B12 GORs are running out:
To get to 14:
1. KU
2. UVA
3. ???
16:
1. KU, UVA, UNC
2. UVA, UNC, Duke
3. UVA, UNC, GT
LikeLike
Or they could look to the GOR-less SEC. Missouri, Kentucky or Vanderbilt being the three schools that would be most speculated.
LikeLike
They could, but that seems like wasted effort. UK doesn’t have the academics to be invited. MO wouldn’t leave the SEC now. Vandy has zero interest in joining a northern conference, especially since the other private school would have dropped sports.
LikeLike
The issue of dropped sports could be a chain reaction. B1G without Northwestern or the SEC without Vanderbilt would just be a collection of public state schools. Conferences would lose the protection from the public eye afforded by the private schools.
LikeLike
If NW dropped, I don’t think they would be the only one. That might cause the next great mass realignment. Vandy, Wake Forest, Duke, BC, Syracuse?
LikeLike
Rice finally finds a home!
LikeLike
If NW was alone in dropping, it would be interesting in seeing what the Big 10 did. Wait? UConn-solid, not AAU? UMass-AAU, not much in football? The sometimes mentioned Buffalo-AAU, not much in football or basketball? Or convince the Big 12 to give them Iowa St.(who would be easier to replace than Kansas)? 13 is a pretty awkward number.
Or maybe just “lease” a MAC school for football. After all, the MAC is at 13. Could be a win-win. Rotate the MAC schools every 2 years.
LikeLike
13 or 14.
Standard targets would be considered, with an extra focus on academics. Probably wait to poach UVa.
LikeLike
Stick at 13, join forces with the conferences who want to change CCG rules. Unless they can snag someone like UVA. I don’ think KU moves the needle enough for B1G to forgo the Eastern Statego.
LikeLike
This would happen to UIC or Illinois St.-or New Mexico St. But not to a Big 10, SEC, Pac 12, ACC or Big 12 team. Summarizing an AJC article today:
NMSU and SDSU were told before their game in Spokane that the loser would have to fly home after their late game (not enough hotel rooms?-or just cheap?). Because of an OT game (and an OT in the previous game) it was pretty late. They packed, were given box lunches and got to the airport at 1 am for a 2:15 takeoff. Plane got in at 7 for the 1+ hour bus ride to Las Cruces. NCAA only sent one bus, so half the people (not the players) had to until 9:30 am for the bus to return.
LikeLike
NCAA? Shouldn’t the bus in NM be the school’s responsibility?
LikeLike
The NCAA apologized for it all, so they must have arranged the charters.
LikeLike
Most teams fly home immediately after the game, regardless of how late it is. I can’t believe the NCAA provides shuttle service in the team’s hometown, that is up to their athletic department.
LikeLike
Frank:
Great article as usual. The general issue of kids going out of state and whatnot has not really ever caught my attention. Nice to have a summary of the issues.
I saw the articles where the politicians were trying to legislate a new member of the B1G. Gave me a good laugh. As for politicians being smart, I had another good laugh.
Having said that, is there really a “problem” here? Given some of the additional data provided by commentors (e.g., California data), part of me is thinking “so what if a bunch of kids go out-of-state?”
Part of me also wonders what a conference-wide study would show? Is the B1G, in general, a net gainer or loser in terms of inflow/outflow. It sounds like if Illinois succeeds in lessening the outflow, that hurts Wisconsin and Indiana.
Then, particularly related to Illinois, is the State a net gainer or loser as a whole? That is, what is the inflow of non-Illinois students to Northwestern and UofC? And does quality matter? Illinois loses 10,000 B+/A- students to out-of-state, but get 2,000 A+++ students in return. Is that like losing a 100 3* football players, but gaining twenty 5* players?
Don’t know the answers to any of these questions. But it’s all interesting.
Final comment for the politicians: worry more about keeping JOBS in the State than keeping students in-state.
LikeLike
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/50StateMigration.asp
The net outflow from NJ dwarves everyone else.
PA takes in the most net inflow of any state.
BTW, to the person who thinks TX should be a model for CA, TX actually loses more students than CA does.
Outside of NJ (which is on another plane, TX, IL, MD, and CA lose the most students. Other than PA, IN, MA, NC, DC, RI, AL, SC, AZ, & IA gain the most (but other than PA, they gain less than the top 5 who lose the most).
LikeLike
@Richard – Great find. I’m going to update the post with a link to this.
It would be interesting to see everyone’s thoughts on why Pennsylvania is such a net gainer of college students because I wouldn’t have guessed that at first, but it made sense when I started thinking about it. Both of its largest cities of Philly and Pittsburgh have a disproportionately large number of universities and they are situated at opposite ends of the state providing easy access to the populous areas of both the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. This means that the state is very well situated geographically to draw from a huge pool of potential college students from other states in all directions. Penn State and Pitt are both top tier public universities that are strong draws for both in-state and out-of-state students. Temple has a very similar institutional profile as UIC, but seems to be much more entrenched in Philly’s economy and culture. There is also a wide range of private universities ranging from Ivy/Ivy-caliber schools (Penn, Carnegie Mellon) to urban Catholic universities (Villanova, St. Joseph’s, LaSalle, Duquesne) to highly-ranked liberal arts schools (Swarthmore, Haverford). The State of Illinois, by comparison, has the Ivy-caliber schools (Northwestern, University of Chicago) and Catholic universities, but doesn’t have the 2nd top tier public university or a critical mass of highly-ranked liberal arts colleges. (8 of the top 50 liberal arts colleges in the US News rankings are in Pennsylvania, while none are in Illinois. Each of those 8 schools might be small individually, but collectively they would add up to a school that’s the size of the University of Nebraska with Ivy-caliber admissions.)
LikeLike
In addition to the broad array of good/great schools in PA, for kids looking to go away from home but not too far away from home, Pennsylvania is centrally located for most midwestern, eastern, and mid-atlantic states, who combined have enormous numbers of graduating high school seniors every year.
LikeLike
“It would be interesting to see everyone’s thoughts on why Pennsylvania is such a net gainer of college students”
NJ is the most densely populated state, and PA is between Jersey and most of the rest of the country. It makes sense that the largest net provider of college students would make a neighbor the greatest net consumer, especially considering Rutgers is ranked below UIC.
Speaking as one of those immigrants, how does the Illinois system work? At Penn State (20 years ago), you could start your education at any of the Commonwealth Campuses and still end up at University Park for your last two years and get a Penn State degree. Since UIUC is that much better than UIC and Springfield, perhaps they could look at making Illinois larger.
LikeLike
Problem is, any expansion of UIUC enrollment (especially if they give preference in to in-state students) would hurt UIUC’s rankings.
Plus, with the state of Illinois currently a half billion dollars behind in its payments to the school and U of I already having the third highest tuition of any public school in the country (behind only the partially private PSU and Pitt) I don’t know where the money to expand would come from.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“It would be interesting to see everyone’s thoughts on why Pennsylvania is such a net gainer of college students”
Proximity to NYC and it isn’t NJ. PSU is the only big time FB school in the northeast. Much of the northeast is stronger with private schools than state schools.
LikeLike
Trends in that chart are interesting. AL has more than doubled their net inflow in 6 years. Texas has nearly doubled their net outflow in that time frame. NY went from exporter to importer at a time when NJ significantly increased its net outflow. GA went from outflow to inflow to sizable outflow.
LikeLike
Some of these are very explainable, but I’m having trouble coming up with a reason why Alabama would be in the top 7 (net gainers).
Having said that, is there really a “problem” here? Given some of the additional data provided by commentors (e.g., California data), part of me is thinking “so what if a bunch of kids go out-of-state?”
Is it not obvious why you would prefer to retain your top talent?
LikeLike
Marc – last fall, I believe that over 50% of the entering freshman class at the Univ of Alabama were OOS kids. Bama has really beefed up its OOS recruitment. Bama, LSU, and Georgia are all go-to schools for good but not elite Texas kids. LSU, Bama, and Auburn get a lot of kids from Georgia as well.
LikeLike
Reading this post lead me to remember this article last year from the Baton Rouge paper claiming Alabama was outpacing LSU by recruiting out-of-state students to both grow the university and improve its quality:
http://theadvocate.com/home/7433217-125/rising-tide
The whole thing is relevant to this discussion, but here are a few quotes:
“Alabama has grown its enrollment over the past decade from about 20,000 students in 2003 to just under 35,000 today.”
“LSU has about a dozen recruiters working to attract out-of-state students. Alabama has 37.”
“In 2002, out-of-state students made up only 24 percent of Alabama’s student body. Today, they account for 60 percent.”
“Alabama Interim Provost Joe Benson said the extra funds brought in by increasing out-of-state enrollment allowed the school to overcome a 33 percent reduction in state funds over the past five years.”
LikeLike
“I’m having trouble coming up with a reason why Alabama would be in the top 7 (net gainers).”
Probably a combo of having multiple large state schools (UA, Aub, Troy, UAB all have at least 17k students), some with recent athletic success (never underestimate the impact of winning has on a schools desirability for impressionable teenagers) and smaller number of high school graduates going to college (either because its a small state with less college-age students, or a less ambitious high school graduate population, or both).
LikeLike
Alabama’s chancellor spent 26 years in the University of Texas system, so he was pretty aware of where some good out of state students could be found. According to the article, they have simply recruited them. And Auburn is pretty close to the Georgia border and has always drawn quite a few Georgians. Auburn is actually closer to Atlanta than Birmingham.
LikeLike
‘Bama has a bigger undergrad population than UGa and Auburn has a bigger undergrad population than GTech yet GA has mover twice as many people as AL.
As for retaining top talent, getting young people post-college is most important, and kids will go where there are jobs and where they can have fun.
For instance, NJ, TX, IL, and CA are 4 of the 5 states that lose the most students for college, net, but they are among the top 6 of states who gain the most college-educated 22-39 year-olds, net:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=259&year=2007&level=nation&mode=map&state=0
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Remember that while Alabama and Auburn aren’t really graduate research powerhouses that we tend to look at here regarding academics, they more than hold their own for undergrad. They’re both ahead of Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri in the US News rankings (and that’s not a recent phenomenon – it has been that way for awhile). So, I could easily see how the Alabama-based schools are drawing a lot of the Texas students that aren’t able to get into UT-Austin and A&M or the Georgia students that can’t get into UGA or Georgia Tech. It’s very similar to how Iowa, Indiana and Purdue draw in Illinois students. If you can’t get into the power conference in-state school, then the power conference schools in the next state(s) over become popular choices. Plus, Bama and Auburn probably retain a high percentage of their own in-state students just by the sheer number of spots that they offer compared to their state’s population, so the outflow number is likely low.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Some of these are very explainable, but I’m having trouble coming up with a reason why Alabama would be in the top 7 (net gainers).”
Nick Saban. Winning attracts students, not just players.
LikeLike
In fact, those states that export students are those who draw college-educated young people while those states that import students are mostly (with some exceptions like NC and AZ) those states with flat or declining HS populations. Makes sense if you think about it.
LikeLike
Exactly. Its not like kids who go to school in Pennsylvania are hanging around after graduation in any significant way.
LikeLike
Perhaps I am not up to par today, but I am not seeing how the two statistics would be inversely correlated.
It seems to me obvious that you would want to both retain and attract top talent, and success at one does not preclude success at the other. The problem the “losing” states have (and the reason they care), is that once kids leave there is a higher probability that they will never return.
LikeLike
Maybe you didn’t see the link in my earlier post.
I’ll repost the relevent parts here:
“As for retaining top talent, getting young people post-college is most important, and kids will go where there are jobs and where they can have fun.
For instance, NJ, TX, IL, and CA are 4 of the 5 states that lose the most students for college, net, but they are among the top 6 of states who gain the most college-educated 22-39 year-olds, net:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=259&year=2007&level=nation&mode=map&state=0
“
LikeLike
So the data doesn’t support the thesis that kids who go to a state for college stay away for good.
In fact, it seems that over the past few decades, certain states have become more attractive to young college-educated professionals (the type of people who tend to have kids who go to college). However, relative number of slots in higher education change very slowly, so those states who had no growth or lost HS population now have an abundance of slots in their colleges. So overflow from the states who got college-educated professionals fill the schools in the latter states. However, when those kids graduate, there aren’t enough jobs (or fun) in the latter states, so they move back to the former states that attract young college-educated professionals.
LikeLike
You’re asking the wrong question. It’s not whether they’re a net importer of post-graduate talent. It’s whether they could do even better than they are already doing, if they could keep a higher percentage of talented HS kids in state. Also, I am still not seeing a basis for the inverse relationship you claimed.
LikeLike
“You’re asking the wrong question.”
I never actually asked a question. What question did you think I was asking?
“Also, I am still not seeing a basis for the inverse relationship you claimed.”
For instance, NJ, TX, IL, and CA are 4 of the 5 states that lose the most students for college, net, but they are among the top 6 of states who gain the most college-educated 22-39 year-olds, net:
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=259&year=2007&level=nation&mode=map&state=0
What part of the statement above is unclear?
LikeLike
I still cannot see it, but I’m sure it isn’t worth trying to persuade me.
LikeLike
There is actually a way this could be done. Cornell is half public, half private. If the state of Illinois really wanted a public Big Ten university in the Chicago area, they could go the same route and expand the Northwestern campus at state expense.
Actually, this makes a lot more sense than pouring money into SIU or NIU in order to upgrade a campus with the end result that the B1G will sneer at it.
http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/stats.cfm
LikeLike
OK, this isn’t going to happen.
I’LL isn’t NY.
The Midwest is not the Northeast.
LikeLike
Well, let’s think this through. Countless thousands of Illinois kids who can’t get into U of IL are going to Wisc, Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, etc and spending millions on out-of-state tuition. That money could be spent in-state at Northwestern State U, reducing the out-of-state cash flow and also reducing the tuition costs for kids now going out-of-state elsewhere. That’s a win-win.
Should the state of IL spend that same amount of money to upgrade NIU or SIU to Big Ten standards? We all agree that would be a fruitless squandering of money. No way on God’s green earth is another Illinois school getting into the Big Ten.
Has the half public, half private scenario diminished the academic stature of Cornell? Not one iota. Few people are aware that Cornell is NY’s Land Grand college or that they are funded by the state. It’s an Ivy League college, period.
The Big Ten would gain a greatly expanded fan base for one of its members. Northwestern would gain hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding. Tens of thousands of Chicago kids could attend an affordable first class university close to home. BTN does not have another mouth to feed.
So tell me the downside. Don’t just say “it won’t happen”, explain and defend your response.
LikeLike
Ill give it a whirl:
Why are UChicago or NWU voluntarily going to become partially public schools? What possible benefit does that have? Getting to subject itself to the whims, wills and whines of state legislatures is not exactly something that would get either school’s president to jump up and scream “YIPPEE!”
You please provide possible justification from the UChi or NWU perspective. Remember, the state cannot force them to do this.
LikeLike
I did not address the U of Chicago. If UC went half public and rejoined the B1G, that would be another mouth to feed. Northwestern is already a full member of the B1G and receives a full and equal portion of BTN and conference revenue.
Why did Cornell agree to go half public? Vast infusion of state/federal funds, huge expansion of campus, greater inclusion of local NY kids, the school would become like the Cubs in Chicago for sports fans, tremendous public service to the community in which they reside, huge expansion of their medical school/hospital, generate a school of education/nursing/PAs that would go out and serve the community from which they came.
So you think that the President and BOT of NW would just stick up their noses and say “No”? I betcha that those people are a lot more imaginative and community-focused than you are.
LikeLike
@Colin M:
“So you think that the President and BOT of NW would just stick up their noses and say “No”?”
A 1000% yes. What’s in it for the school? Can you even answer that?
“I betcha that those people are a lot more imaginative and community-focused than you are.”
Odd, because from what I understand, NWU does not pay taxes to Evanston, the city its located in, because NWU predates Evanston. Town-Gown relations are quite strained, partially because the school has not been all that community focused, even though those relations have been improving. NWU is community focused like any other private school, but its a private school with a private charter, and you still have failed to give any reason why it would agree to become partially public.
Also, read up on Cornell on Wikipedia. Its a private school that has state-supported contract schools as required by Cornell’s land grant status. Its a very complicated arrangement that is well more complex that “Cornell agreeing to go half public.” You have to bring your A-game around here.
LikeLike
I suppose the same could be done with the U of Chicago, in theory. Neither one will happen, though.
LikeLike
Or will it?: http://dailysophist.com/stories/191-is-uchicago-ready-for-the-big-10
LikeLike
This could have happened following a 2016 Chicago Olympics – at least the upgraded facilities might have been in place. If U of C could become a lax bro/big white frat boy school, it would have positive spillover effects on its south side neighbors.
LikeLike
“lax bro/big white frat boy school”
It’s pretty obvious that you know nothing about the U of C if you think that is even a possibility.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
UNC academic scandal: Drip, drip, drip…
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=10671809
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/sports/ncaaf/2014/03/24/6832595/
Real Sports also covered it.
LikeLike
UNC is really handling this poorly. They should have just come clean and got all of the dirt out in the open at the start instead of trying to downplay it. It’s all going to come out eventually. This should of instituted some 1 year penalty and let the story disappear on its own. It would of been over by now. By playing the “nothing to see here” card, they are only emboldening journalists.
LikeLike
Well beyond that, they are trying to intimidate Mary Willingham. They had a faculty hearing accusing her of bad research and slandering athletes. Good to see that it is backfiring on them.
Where are the UNC alums? I hear a lot are upset, but why aren’t they asking for the new presidents head for allowing this to continue?
LikeLike
Doesn’t this just make them a better match for the SEC, where most really want them to be?
LikeLike
Update on potential changes to Division I governance:
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/student-athlete-ad-faculty-rep-would-have-votes-proposed-new-board
LikeLike
No AAC? I wonder if the Big East being included with the other FBS conferences was a typo.
LikeLike
I assume so. Either way, it’s an official demotion for them to 2nd- class status despite them saying they’ll pay for anything the big 5 do (full cost of attendance, etc).
LikeLike
For a while the “Big 8” conferences each had 3 votes (WAC/MWC split dropped them to 1.5 each), the BW/SB and MAC each had 1.5 and the rest had 24. So it was Power conferences-18, semi-power-6, other FBS-3, non-FBS-24. Now it will be 20 for the power conferences (who basically absorbed the BE), 4 for what were the semi-power (AAC is CUSA and MWC is merged MWC/WAC again), 6 for other FBS (CUSA only has 2 members from 10 years ago), 22 for the rest and 1 for a student.
Power 20 vs 18
Semi 4 vs 6
FBS other 6 vs 3
non fbs 22 vs 24
student 1 vs 0
So TCU and Utah have carried 2 votes with them to the power conferences.
The 20 some-odd move-ups have carried 2 non-fbs votes with them.
1 extra vote goes to FBS other and 1 to students.
Its really not that big a change. Power conferences have 37.7% instead of 35.3%. The Power + semi-power actually has a little less-45.2% vs. 47.1%. FBS is up slightly, 56.7% vs. 52.9%.
LikeLike
The number of FBS teams has gone from 111 to 129 in the 18 years.
Power conferences 63 to 65
mezzanine (now demoted) from 23 to 24
others 26 to 40
Temple is the only school who fell out (and they were only partly in).
Rice, UTEP, USM and BYU are the only schools in the “mezzanine” who aren’t in AAC or MWC now. While UConn & USF are the only ones of the 18 FCS move-ups in AAC or MWC.
LikeLike
Its really not that big a change. Power conferences have 37.7% instead of 35.3%.
I agree. If this is the extent of it, the correct headline will be: “Power conferences surrender.”
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Interestingly, Arizona State, Colorado, Kentucky and Kansas all drew more Illinois students than Ohio State, with all of them getting just under 200 Illinois freshmen each.”
This is just more evidence of what I’ve said multiple times. OSU doesn’t have deep ties to Chicago like most of the rest of the B10. As the footprint shifts east, more schools are in that group (PSU, RU and UMD). This is another reason why hosting the CCG in Chicago has less appeal to some people. Indy is closer top all the eastern schools (and OSU has much stronger tiers to IN than IL).
LikeLike
@Brian – Yes, that makes sense. What’s interesting, though, is that Miami of Ohio is extremely popular with Chicago kids. It’s not listed in that database for some reason, but Miami is a huge out-of-state draw. I know the school has a fairly distinct culture for a public university (very preppy, so it looks and feels like an upscale East Coast private school in a way), so that might be a unique draw (whereas Ohio State is perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, as similar in culture to the other Big Ten schools, so it’s not seen as drastically different than the alternatives that might be closer geographically and have lower out-of-state tuition costs).
LikeLike
Yes, Miami is unique.
I think it’s a 2-way street with OSU as it doesn’t try to recruit IL very hard as far as I know. We have more alumni in NYC and in DC than in Chicago. Chicago is only slightly closer than DC to Columbus, too.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/03/25/dr-pepper-to-sponsor-college-football-playoff/6870899/
Dr. Pepper to be the first CFP sponsor.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/70050352/pac-12-football-is-more-interesting-than-sec
The P12 is more interesting than the SEC and may soon be as good.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/03/ohio_state_lining_up_for_first.html
CC and I may be the only ones that care, but here’s a look at what OSU has in line for next year’s wrestling squad. They hope to finally win OSU’s 1st ever wrestling title. Maybe OSU steps up to be the next PSU in the B10, someone to challenge IA and MN every year.
LikeLike
Next year’s B1G tournament is in Columbus. At Wisconsin the three sessions averaged a bit under 10k. If OSU is what Ryan hopes that could be surpassed. Will Buckeye fans turn out as strongly as Wisky did while not truly a contender?
LikeLike
I’d like to think a bunch of Buckeye fans from NE Ohio would show up. Certainly IA and PSU fans will show.
LikeLike
Brian,
On paper it looks like OSU will have a pretty good chance to challenge as both PSU and Minnesota are losing a couple of their biggest studs… Not sure about Iowa’s roster… Next year will be interesting… Was bummed to see local Gopher hero Tony Nelson lose his opportunity at 3 straight heavyweight championships… Still a monster career.
LikeLike
Yes, it looks like Ryan has aimed for 2015 to be the coming out year, although we came close a couple of times before.
PSU certainly will feel the loss of Ruth and Taylor. They won’t get to just pencil in bonus points in every match. I’m sure they’ll still be good, though.
I’d expect MN to drop a little after losing 4 AAs, but I don’t know what sort of depth you guys have. Certainly Nelson will be hard to replace. He wasn’t very aggressive in the finals, though.
IA is always tough, so I just pencil them in as a contender.
It may be the best B10 race in a while.
LikeLike
ACC tournament to go to Barclays Center in Brooklyn in 2017-18
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2014/03/25/acc-basketball-tournament-barclays-center/6862583/
Of note is the following:
The Atlantic 10 will move its postseason tournament out of Brooklyn for 2017-2018 and return to the Barclays Center from 2019-2021, according to the person with knowledge of the situation. The person also confirmed that there will be a series of ACC-A-10 doubleheaders at the Barclays Center.
The A-10 is looking at possibly moving its tournament to Washington, D.C., or Pittsburgh for 2017-18, another person with knowledge of the situation told USA TODAY Sports earlier this month.
It looks to me like the ACC and A-10 have entered into some sort of alliance that would, they think, keep the B1G from moving its bball tourney to the East Coast. DC or NYC would be the most realistic choices if the B1G were inclined to move it out of the midwest.
LikeLike
Washington, DC seems to be the best east coast site for a B1G Tournament, but would Philadelphia be worthy of consideration? I gather that the arenas in New Jersey like the Izod Center or Prudential Center would not be worthwhile as they would fail to garner the desired attention in New York City. Philly would be well within driving distance for both Maryland and Rutgers fans and would be in-state for Penn State basketball fans, few as they are. 😉
LikeLike
*Washington being the best east coast site, given that Barclays and MSG are tied up through 2021.
LikeLike
True. You’d think Philly would be an option as well. Plus, the sixth borough is easy to get to from NYC.
LikeLike
I think the lack of a Philly school in the B1G kills that idea.
LikeLike
PSU. RU.
LikeLike
RU is in northern Jersey, PSU is not a philly school like Temple/VU/etc…. Its not a B1G city like Chicago or Indy or the world’s media capital like NYC
LikeLike
Chicago & Indianapolis are located so much closer to most the B10 Universities, that it would be tough to have the game elsewhere more than a couple times a decade.
LikeLike
I’m somewhat back and forth with Philadelphia (once accepting there is going to be an east coast tournament). On the one hand, it doesn’t have the critical mass of nearby alumni that Chicago and Indianapolis get to make them feel like Big Ten central for awhile. It also doesn’t have nearly the added value of a New York presence (and keep in mind, we’ve even had the PAC-12 fly a lot of people out there for media days or something of the sort).
On the other hand though, I’m not entirely sure that Philadelphia is really all that different than Washington. It’s a huge city on the edge of Big Ten territory (although which should naturally get more attention than Washington). Putting the tournament there might help the conference develop stronger there and help the more local teams out with fans as well.
All that said, if the conference isn’t going to get into New York proper, then I think that’s another argument for keeping the vast majority of tournaments in the Midwest.
LikeLike
The more that I think about it, the more that I believe that the primary East Coast outpost for any Big Ten basketball tournament should be DC. From a practical standpoint, Rutgers and Penn State have two of the weakest basketball fan bases in the 5 power conferences – their value for the Big Ten is almost entirely about football and their basketball teams draw very little casual interest in NYC or Philly. Realistically, the Big Ten is never going to own NYC or Philly from the basketball perspective with the lineup of teams that it has now. It could be different if Syracuse and/or UConn were added regarding NYC, but that has to be weighed against the more pressing football interests. For Philly, college hoops there revolve around the Big Five rivalries and none of those schools are viable Big Ten candidates.
DC, on the other hand, is winnable basketball territory for the Big Ten. Maryland has a strong basketball fan base directly in the market and they’ll draw casual viewers when they’re playing well. There is a stronger overall track record of the DC area following college basketball in general and the proportion of the population there that attended a Big Ten school is going to be higher than NYC and Philly (even though NYC might have a larger number of Big Ten alums outright). Maryland is going to be significantly more dependable as a home fan base for selling basketball tickets compared to either Penn State or Rutgers while the rest of the Big Ten schools have a significant alumni presence in the DC area.
Ultimately, NYC and Philly are strictly football markets for the Big Ten. If the league really cared about basketball in that region, then Syracuse and/or UConn were options that were light years ahead of Rutgers. In contrast, DC can legitimately become a Big Ten basketball town, so the conference ought to concentrate its hoops resources there.
LikeLike
But the big media and advertisers are based in NYC, which is a stated reason for moving east and for Delany’s move to open full time offices in NYC.
But DC, with UMd located in a suburb, does make very good sense. But I’d have to imagine with all the effort the conference is putting into NYC (Pinstripe Bowl! Full time conference offices! Neutral site games in and around NYC in multiple sports!) that NYC is the true first choice (as was reported, the B1G spoke with MSG, Barclays, and Prudential Center in Newark (though the last one was probably initiated by the arena).
The conference has made no attempt to claim philly in any way other than for TV rights purposes, and while PSU is the state school, Philly has its own teams, especially in basketball, and PSU has no MBB tradition to even try to chip away at the Philly Five’s (Temple, VU, Penn, St. Joes, La Salle) hold on the market.
LikeLike
Well, unless the ACC and A10 occupy both the Barclays and DC every year, there will be years when DC or the Barclays (most likely DC) is open.
LikeLike
The ACC will likely want to rotate between New York and Carolina, and if the A10 wants to locate in Brooklyn in years the ACC is out of town, then DC is open for the frequency that the Big Ten would want to be on the East coast … say, one year in four.
LikeLike
Something tells me the folks running Barclays will opt for the B1G over the A10.
LikeLike
Indeed … the reason the ACC had to do a deal was the A10 had a contract. And Barclay’s don’t have to decide “do we want the ACC two and the A10 two, or the ACC two, the Big Ten one and empty one”, because if its only available to the A10 one year in four, the A10 will take it that year.
LikeLike
Barclays and the Garden Battle for the Heart of New York
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303779504579463651085428102?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303779504579463651085428102.html
LikeLike
Frank
Reading that article you linked makes me think player unions are likely to come. Maybe not in Chicago, but as quick as this has moved, it will get to DC pretty quick and Obama’s appointees are extremely pro-labor.
LikeLike
Connecticut = 1 National Championship in Basketball every 15 years, would accept
Kansas = 1 National Championship in Basketball every 15 years, would accept
Notre Dame = would not accept
Virginia = would not accept
North Carolina = would not accept
Texas = would not accept
Oklahoma = would not accept without Oklahoma State
Oklahoma State = would not get an invite
Missouri = we already have Iowa, not worth having another Iowa
Unless Toronto can get their money sports started soon, we’re “stuck” with UConn and Kansas for 16. And by “stuck” I mean better off than what we have now considering the additions of UConn and Kansas will actually allow the Big Ten to win a national championship in something that matters each decade. I didn’t forget Ohio State’s triple overtime national title in football every 30 years. So, instead of 1 national championship in a sport that matters every 30 years, UConn and Kansas would allow us to have as many as 3 national championships in sports that matter every 30 years.
In the meantime, Big Ten fans can CLOSE THEIR EYES!!! until UConn and Kansas get here. Ohio State isn’t winning another miracle title (off a miracle season) until at least 2032. We do, however, have 99 Sweet Sixteens and a Mario Kart Bowl appearance from Illinois coming up in the next 50 years if those do anything for you. I for one am not impressed by such trash. With all of our money and prestige we should strive for better than a tied-for-16th place finish.
*spoiler alert*
Tom Izzo is about to not win a national championship in basketball.
Michigan is about to not win a national championship in basketball.
Wisconsin is about to not win a national championship in basketball.
In 2034, Ohio State will: go 12-1 playing a cupcake schedule, sneak into the football playoffs, play two playoff opponents that suffer major injuries (cough, Willis McGahee, cough), win the national championship at the buzzer on a quarterback scramble (cough, OSU’s offensive “strategy” since Pryor, cough) while every receiver was covered after the opponent in the championship game misses 3 short field goals in the 4 quarter.
That is the Big Ten in a nutshell. The current Big Ten is not built to be anything more. You could your shoes at an Illinois game and would be akin to a jet engine roaring. Northwestern is about to quit football if a troll lawsuit doesn’t go their way. The South’s brief taste of Old Man Winter’s breath this year will have a deleterious effect on Big Ten recruiting there. The next Dennard Robinson who wore a extra sweater on the day that two inches of snow turned Atlanta into the Walking Dead is not coming now. Michigan passed on Jim Harbaugh and Les Miles for a guy who couldn’t tie his shoes. They replaced him with a guy who barely could. Brady Hoke also has a very scratchy voice for whatever that’s worth. As a prized recruit, that would just make me laugh. Right now, Michigan State is the only real football team in the Big Ten. Ohio State will need to shed Meyer in order to stop being a worthless gimmick team. Wisconsin has never won a big game in football (look it up). Penn State, Iowa and Rutgers are nothing. Er, they will make the Mario Kart Bowl and lose it every 16 years.
The answer is expansion. We’re a 4/10 looks wise. We can only marry other 4’s. Luckily, two 5’s in the human form of Kansas and Connecticut will be ready to tie the not in 2025 after the Big 12’s GOR expires. And on July 1, 2025 with the addition of UConn and Kansas the Big Ten will be something more than it is now. Until then, close your eyes. There’s nothing to see here.
LikeLike
I don’t see any reason in the world to assume that UConn basketball is more likely to win a national championship in the next 15 years than several Big Ten teams. Jim Calhoun is gone and there nothing inherently stronger with UConn than Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan, or Indiana.
LikeLike
Exactly right, and beyond that, the writer doesn’t explain why it’s worth adding two teams in order to win two basketball NCs every 15 years, even assuming that would occur.
LikeLike
Anytime you can add two schools than can in theory give you as many as THREE WHOLE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS in 30 years, you simply have to do that!
I mean, having 27 fallow years is immeasurably better than 29 fallow years. Those two championships will, by themselves, cure all that ails the Big Ten.
Plus, UConn’s one title every 30 years combined with owning the Storrs/Hartford/New Haven TV market = 3 gold mines and a forest of actual money trees. A NO-BRAINER!
LikeLike
@Devo: no disrespect meant, but many good laughs for me in this post, so thank you for that. I disagree with almost 100% of what you’ve written, but I like your style Instead of a simple “No B1G Bball NC this year” you give us a “spoiler alert” and three more lines. I like that and I had several actual audible chuckles.
Maybe you are right and we can revisit this in 10 years. But for now, football rules the roost and UConn and Kansas are not getting invites to the B1G. Kansas might have a shot as #16 depending on the #15, but UConn brings nothing to the table in terms of TV value. And, as others have said, why is it automatic that UConn gets a NC every 15 years and some combo of B1G schools cannot do the same every 15 years. Adding UConn does NOT automatically equal more NCs for the B1G.
More to the point, in the next 10 years, the B1G is not going to turn into a Bball League and start inviting schools based on Bbbal pedigree.
So, I predict that neither KS or UConn are getting invites come 2025. The B1G will stand at 14 if those are the only choices.
You make some interesting points about snow and recruiting. The way you phrased your points made me laugh and it’s difficult to argue your points. Maybe the next DRob avoids the B1G because of snow. Maybe not.
As for the B1G being a 4 out of 10 on the “looks scale,” that seems a bit harsh (and truly eyes-of-the-beholder). I assume you think the SEC is a 10 out of 10. Okay, fine… whatever. If the B1G is a “4,” what are the other conferences? Seems to me that, if the SEC is a “10,” the rest of the conferences are a collection of 4s, 5s and 6s.
But, really, that is about recruiting.
For fans, it is about where you were born and raised. I was raised in Cbus, went to B1G schools and live in the B1G footprint. So the B1G is a “10” and the SEC will always be a grudging “2.”
Although, in truth, I am not a B1G fan per se. I am an Ohio State fan. So the B1G is a “0” while OSU is the “10.” Ohio State is in the B1G, so, by default, I sort of like the B1G and hope the B1G prospers because that means Ohio State will prosper (sort of, in theory). And the B1G is where our rivals are. I do not root for the B1G, I do not consider a MI or MSU or PSU or Wiscy victory a victory for OSU, and I will go out of my way to pointedly sneer in contempt at anyone chanting “B-I-G B-I-G B-I-G.”
In short, IMHO, conference-competition discussions are pointless, nothing more than filler for the talk-shows.
As for your use of macro-trends to predict future B1G NCs, maybe and maybe not. But, frankly, irrelevant to what makes sports sports. I don’t care how many NCs the B1G gets in the next 30 years. And, the flip-side of that coin, it’s about my team. Have a chat with Chicago Cubs fans. The macro-trends are not favorable to them (or any any team for that matter), but regardless, every year every fan believes that THIS is the year. We watch because THIS is the year. Moreover, not winning is not the same as meaningless. Is the Rose Bowl any less the Rose Bowl just because the B1G has a losing record? Is any true rivalry game any less a rivalry game just because one team has been beaten more often than the other?
LikeLike
Devo,
“Connecticut = 1 National Championship in Basketball every 15 years, would accept”
They play in a tiny stadium well off campus in the middle of nowhere and have been I-A for a couple of decades. They’re also miles away from being AAU. In other words, no invitation is headed their way.
“Kansas = 1 National Championship in Basketball every 15 years, would accept”
1. GOR
2. The B10 wants to expand east, not into another plains state.
3. KU’s academics barely pass the threshold, and they could lose AAU status in the next deacde or two.
4. KU doesn’t bring a huge market and their football is laughable.
No invitation is headed their way.
“Oklahoma = would not accept without Oklahoma State”
Their academics keep them from getting an invitation anyway.
“Unless Toronto can get their money sports started soon, we’re “stuck” with UConn and Kansas for 16.”
Staying at 14 is better than adding bad choices.
“Tom Izzo is about to not win a national championship in basketball.
Michigan is about to not win a national championship in basketball.
Wisconsin is about to not win a national championship in basketball.”
Over 300 D-I schools don’t win the title every year. So what?
“There’s nothing to see here.”
That’s a good summary of your comment.
LikeLike
Devo’s sense of self-entitlement is proof why none of the power conferences want anything to do with Connecticut (in addition to a lackluster football program with barely a decade of big-time experience and no shot of joining the AAU in the foreseeable future). Sorry, Huskies, but you’re stuck in the AAC barring major realignment over the next decade (e.g. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Okie State finally joining the Pac; the Big Ten and/or SEC picking off the ACC’s top properties) which requires the ACC or less likely the Big 12 (or a combination of both) to replenish.
LikeLike
re: we already have Iowa, we don’t need another Iowa.
You do realize that Iowa has a population less than half the size of Missouri, right?
but yeah, I guess in terms of sports and academics the two universities are relatively similar.
Not that the B1G can get Mizzou at this point. They could have a couple of years ago but it’s too late now.
LikeLike
OK, we already have one Iowa, we don’t need one and a half more Iowas plus half an Arkansas.
LikeLike
FiveThirtyEight analyzes why Mark Cuban might be wrong.
It’s true that fewer kids are playing football; but fewer kids are playing baseball and basketball too, and those sports are not particularly concussion-prone. Football is the #1 concussion-causing sport, but hockey and lacrosse are 2nd and 3rd, and participation in those sports is rising. So if football is in trouble, it’s far from clear that the risk of concussions is the reason for it.
Beyond that, the article suggests that, although fewer kids may be playing the sport, the ones not playing are probably the ones who didn’t have much potential to begin with. A 10% decline in the rate of kids playing football would therefore not translate into a 10% decline in NFL prospects. The ones not playing would tend, overwhelmingly, to be the ones who never had any chance of playing the sport at an elite level.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the NFL ought to be happy to see fewer kids playing football, or that they shouldn’t keep trying to reduce the risk of injuries. But it does suggest that the predictions of gloom and doom could be far over-stated.
LikeLike
Navy just lost a kid during spring practice.
LikeLike
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/will-mckamey-navy-football-player-who-collapsed-at-practice-dies-in-coma-1.274555#.UzLnNym9K0c
LikeLike
All sports can be dangerous. UCSB had a water polo player die during drills. They don’t know yet what happened.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Very interesting article, but the one caution is that this is examining data from 2008 to 2012. The concussion concerns have really come to a head over the past year, so this historical data isn’t necessarily reflecting the choices that parents will be making going forward. I love football, but even I’m personally concerned about my own son ever playing the sport because of all of the concussion studies. Anecdotally, I know a lot of fellow parents feeling the same way (and I live in a Chicago suburb that has very strong organized football programs from grade school up through high school). What happens over the next few years will be instructive, particularly in the North where there are already lower participation rates for football. (The South might be a different story with the way youth and high school football is engrained in the culture there.)
LikeLike
But the broader point is that those who show extreme skill/talent in football at a young age will in all likelihood continue to play, especially kids in poverty for whom athletics is the best hope at financial success.
LikeLike
“…especially kids in poverty for whom athletics is the best hope at financial success.”
Especially kids in poverty for whom athletics is the only highly visible and promoted “hope” at financial success in their demographic.
LikeLike
Indeed. If you’re an under-represented minority with good enough grades and test scores to get in to one of the top 30 or so privates, you pretty much don’t have to worry about not having enough money to go to a school like that.
LikeLike
It may be a good idea for Cuban to not throw stones.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/news/la-heb-athletes-and-heart-attacks-04042011
About 1 in every 44,000 NCAA athletes dies of a cardiac problem every year, with the highest rate occurring among basketball players, according to the first comprehensive study of the problem.
But the incidence varied dramatically by sport. The highest rate was in Division 1 basketball, with 1 death per 3,146 players per year. Lacrosse (1 in 23,357) and swimming (1 in 23,488) trailed well behind, with football coming in at 1 in 38,497. Cross-country running was lowest, at 1 in 41,695. Males (1 in 33,134) were more than twice as likely to die as females (1 in 76,696), while blacks (1 in 17,696) were much more likely to die than whites (1 in 58,653).
LikeLike
Those basketball results are odd. More drug use contributing maybe?
Cross-Country being low isn’t surprising. While the studies say runners aren’t less likely to have a heart attack, they are more likely to survive one.
LikeLike
Basketball also had Hank Gathers faint and die during a game on live television,
LikeLike
Posting the article Frank tweeted out:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10675532/south-florida-bulls-kill-coaching-deal-steve-masiello-lying-resume
What a dumb-ass.
Of course, that won’t stop another college from hiring him at some point (assuming he gets fired from Manhattan), as he’s shown ability to coach and win at least at a smaller school. (See: O’Leary, George).
LikeLike
Update: He knew he was in breach of the agreement with UCF, but signed it anyways. Dared UCF to catch him, and they did.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10704850/documents-show-steve-masiello-lied-south-florida
LikeLike
This is just a really cool picture:
(Background on the photo here: http://www.gophersports.com/genrel/010604aab.html )
LikeLike
Clay Travis on the ACC lawsuit:
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-acc-and-marylands-lawsuit-is-getting-nasty.php
I agree with his analysis of why the ACC will fight this hard. However, I think his analysis of the GoR is largely incorrect, He grossly oversimplifies them (instead of analyzing an actual GoR) and discounts (for unknown reasons) that granting rights is a voluntary business decision done in order to maximize revenues. This stands in contrast to an exit fee/penalty. Courts are not going to be so quick to void or re-write them simply because a school changes its mind. He also ignores the reality that conferences won’t be so quick to challenge another conference’s GoR because a victory could weaken its own GoR. Victory in such a lawsuit would be a true double-edged sword.
He is right that lawsuits challenging GoR’s would take years and likely settle before trial.
LikeLike
I agree with you on all counts.
He is right that lawsuits challenging GoR’s would take years and likely settle before trial.
As FTT once pointed out, university presidents hate uncertainty. The GORs were written by lawyers who know a lot more about the law than Clay Travis. It is, at the very least, a distinct possibility that the GOR would turn out to be enforceable, and would any school want to take that chance?
He also chooses a poor example, in that Texas has retained the Tier 3 rights to two of its home football games. In the ACC (which is the league under discussion), that is not the case.
LikeLike
Kain Colter and CAPA wins NLRB hearing:
LikeLike
wow, that would be something. As noted by Fischer in his tweet, there will be appeals. This ESpin article quotes various “experts” who predicted that the players would win based on criteria like having their schedules set, meals regulated, etc. etc.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10673274/national-labor-relations-board-official-set-decide-northwestern-football-players-campaign-unionize
LikeLike
Definitely big news.
LikeLike
NBC report: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/26/nlrb-ruling-gives-players-first-labor-union-win/related/
LikeLike
Rittenberg’s article: http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/94278/northwestern-union-push-clears-big-hurdle
LikeLike
From Rittenberg’s article:
“Northwestern issued a statement shortly after the ruling saying it would appeal to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C.
“While we respect the NLRB process and the regional director’s opinion, we disagree with it,” the statement read. “Northwestern believes strongly that our student-athletes are not employees, but students. Unionization and collective bargaining are not the appropriate methods to address the concerns raised by student-athletes.”
LikeLike
Props to Wainscott for posting the Fischer tweet. We saw it here before it was posted on any main sports site.
LikeLike
SI article which includes an ESpin link to the actual ruling. http://tracking.si.com/2014/03/26/northwestern-nlrb-employees-capa-college-football-ncaaf/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
The Opinion is really interesting. Very long; only have time to skim for now.
But I already see various way to attack it on appeal. Ohr starts with “facts” he “found” including that Northwestern is engaged in commerce and this: “There is no collective-bargaining agreement covering any of the employees in the unit sought in this petition and the parties do not contend that there is any contract bar to this proceeding.”
Okay, so all NLOI are amended whereby all the players foreswear any union membership? Or maybe it’s not that simple?
Anyway, lots of info to parse including what Northwestern supposedly “pays,” how that changes depending on summer classes, how much Northwestern “paid” out of the Assistance Fund, lots of info on the “real” life of a college football player, etc. etc.
LikeLike
Here’s hoping karma bites them in the ass.
LikeLike
It goes without saying, basketball wins this same lawsuit on the same grounds. Therefore, Northwestern drops sports and Big Ten adds Missouri or UConn. Wake Forest may also leave the ACC on these grounds.
This is a win for the Big Ten. And fresh heroin for expansion junkies like me.
LikeLike
*finishes bag of expansion dust*
There ends up being 60 P5 schools playing football and basketball. Wake Forest and Northwestern drop both sports. The SEC finally raids the ACC. Missouri and Kansas get back together. The ACC survives. The Big 12 dies. The Texas to PAC thing happens…
(in order)
pre 2025…
-Northwestern drops football
-Missouri joins Big Ten
-West Virginia joins SEC (for SEC-Big 12 scheduling alliance and new bowl game)
-BYU joins Big 12 (or doesn’t… Big 12 could play with 9 members until 2025)
-Wake Forest drops football
-Notre Dame joins ACC (full-time)
post 2025…
-Florida State and NC State join SEC
-ACC stays at 12 with true North / South divisions
-Kansas and Connecticut join Big Ten
-Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State join Pac-12
-Kansas and Connecticut join Big Ten
-These 60 P5 schools de facto split from NCAA
-All money sport athletes are paid a flat rate ($30K-40K per year + free tuition)
P5 becomes P4 and it looks like this…
PAC 16 West / East
USC / Oklahoma
UCLA / Ok. State
Cal / Texas
Stanford / Texas Tech
Wash. / Arizona
Wash. State / Ariz. State
Oregon / Colorado
Or. State / Utah
SEC 16 West / East
Texas A&M / South Car.
West Virginia / NC State
Miss. / Kentucky
Miss. State / Georgia
Alabama / Florida
Auburn / Fl. State
LSU / Tenn.
Arkansas / Vanderbilt
BIG 16 West / East
Missouri / Indiana
Kansas / Ohio State
Nebraska / Michigan
Iowa / Mich. State
Wisconsin / Maryland
Minnesota / Penn State
Purdue / Rutgers
Illinois / Connecticut
ACC North / South
Notre Dame / Virginia
Miami / Virginia Tech
Louisville / North Car.
Pitt / Duke
Boston College / Clemson
Syracuse / Georgia Tech
LikeLike
@Devo: How many martinis have you chugged before you write these posts?
LikeLike
Ladies and gentlemen, now we know what a UConn version of Andy would be like. (Apologies to Andy.)
LikeLike
Difference is Mizzou actually made a lot of sense for the B1G, and nothing I was saying was ridiculous.
LikeLike
@Devo – The problem is that your assumption is that since this particular ruling is just going to apply to private schools means that public universities are shielded. They’re not. Students at public schools are subject to their respective state labor laws instead of federal laws. So, you’ll just see this process repeated at individual schools in individual states, particularly union-friendly states (which make up much of the Big Ten).
LikeLike
Although it will take a long time for that to happen. It will be state by state, school by school.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, this is true. I’m just responding to this notion that I’ve seen here and some other places suggesting that power conferences are going to suddenly kick out private schools due to this ruling, which is patently false because it can eventually apply to public universities via other mechanisms. Call me crazy, but the Pac-12 isn’t kicking out USC and Stanford at any point. So, it’s a not a private school vs. public school issue. At the same time, I don’t buy for a single second that any of these power private schools are going to drop out of Division I with the amount of money involved. Let’s just think about how many academic functions are complete cost centers without any revenue to the university, yet they still engage in them. It would take some LeBron-level salaries being paid to athletes to make it financially untenable for power conferences with the revenue that they’re raking in. Sure, university presidents and commissioners might threaten to drop sports with sabre-rattling threats in the media, but we all know the alumni bases aren’t going to be fine with that at all (and ultimately, the bean counters at schools that are hungry for any type of revenue with declining enrollments will rule the day).
LikeLike
Also, we don’t know the full extent of unionization. Women’s groups will do whatever necessary to remind everyone that what applies to men applies to women.
LikeLike
Indeed. The state that is probably most sympathetic to unionization these days is probably CA; and the Pac isn’t going to kick out USC, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal.
LikeLike
Any chance of following a piece of the Ivy model and eliminating athletic scholarships? If that’s the compensation that makes for athletic employment could a return to strictly scholastic scholarships/grants/aid/etc. be the simplest solution? Many/most are eligible for at least some.
LikeLike
There is nothing wrong with adopting the Ivy League model, if you’re also willing to win at Ivy League frequency.
LikeLike
I said adopt the scholarship model, not the de emphasize model. A number of Ivy’s are close to “if you’re admitted, you’re on a full ride.” Take all athletic scholarship and oversight money to increase the general school scholarships. Perhaps this would incentivize the ath dept to send more over to the academic, and the academic to be more supportive of the athletic.
LikeLike
I see a scenario where the P5 or Division 4 or whatever it turns into follows a quasi-professional Ivy League model. Where the men’s football and basketball athletes do not receive scholarships. Rather, they are employees who earn enough to cover tuition and the full costs of attendance…after taxes…and perhaps a bit more. What’s am I missing? Is there something wrong with that scenario?
LikeLike
ccrider55:
The rich privates are able to provide most athletes with financial aid that is as much or close to a full scholarship (because that’s what they give all students who don’t come from a rich family).
The state schools? No way.
FYI, here are the schools that provide financial aid for 100% of financial need:
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2013/09/18/colleges-that-claim-to-meet-full-financial-need-2014
LikeLike
In the Ivy League, scholarships are not dependent on athletic ability. Most of Division I clearly could not just give a free ride to everybody. The athletes would need to fill out the FAFSA just like non-athletes, and wait on a financial aid decision, like the rest of us. That can only work if all of Division I goes that route, as otherwise the schools offering traditional athletic scholarships would have a huge advantage.
LikeLike
“In the Ivy League, scholarships are not dependent on athletic ability.”
That’s the point. You may need to divorce from this model if it is deemed scholarships for athletic ability are “pay.”
LikeLike
Brad Smith,
“I see a scenario where the P5 or Division 4 or whatever it turns into follows a quasi-professional Ivy League model. Where the men’s football and basketball athletes do not receive scholarships. Rather, they are employees who earn enough to cover tuition and the full costs of attendance…after taxes…and perhaps a bit more. What’s am I missing? Is there something wrong with that scenario?”
Yes, there are many things wrong with it.
LikeLike
NW and WF drop sports but all the other private schools don’t? Why?
LikeLike
Devo apparently believes Rice is a budding football powerhouse.
LikeLike
But it may not be worth the union’s time. And the potential costs of football are much higher for the schools.
And a union of 13 is not the hassle of a union of 85.
LikeLike
“It goes without saying, basketball wins this same lawsuit on the same grounds. Therefore, Northwestern drops sports”
Why does NW automatically drop sports? The union has claimed they won’t ask for anything that violates NCAA rules.
“and Big Ten adds Missouri or UConn.”
No. Just no. MO has zero interest in leaving the SEC now and the B10 has zero interest in adding UConn now. They’d stay at 13 until the GORs run out before jumping to add UConn now.
LikeLike
UMass leaving the MAC after 2015.
LikeLike
UMass was football-only. The MAC insisted upon full membership, but UMass said “no.” So MAC said g’bye.
IMO, partial memberships are bad. Should Johns Hopkins ever have more than just LAX, I would hope the B1G would force them all-in or kick them out.
LikeLike
So, if the B1G tenders an offer to UConn, the Huskies will have a potential partner. Of course, the UMass mascot is the Minuteman, and he has a scary gun. Maybe the B1G should take a pass on that one.
LikeLike
The B10 isn’t adding UMass any time soon, and it has nothing to do with guns (which people in B10 country own as much as elsewhere).
LikeLike
I think bob was making a joke.
LikeLike
I was joking.
LikeLike
IMO, partial memberships are bad. Should Johns Hopkins ever have more than just LAX, I would hope the B1G would force them all-in or kick them out.
I don’t really see any reason to object categorically to partial memberships; you have to look at the circumstances, and in this case it was all upside for both parties, JHU and the B1G.
Anyhow, you have nothing to worry about. JHU plays Division I LAX under a special exemption not likely to be extended to other sports. They’d have to jump up to Division I in all sports, and that is not going to happen.
LikeLike
The point of the UMass add was in combination with Temple, to put MAC football onto the East Coast (to the extent feasible), and put Bowling Green and Toledo into the same division. That was another move in realignment that fell apart before it occurred, Temple paying the hefty short-notice exit fee to leave the same season that UMass joined.
It was an arrangement with some potential for benefit, including the schedule of MAC BBall teams to be played OOC by Temple and UMass, but when the arrangement fell apart, that made UMass a loose end.
Hard to see UMass BBall leaving the 6-bid A10 for the 1-bid MAC, so when the MAC decided to exercise the option in UMass’s affiliation agreement (in the event that Temple left), the UMass decision would not have come as a surprise. Maybe UMass talks to the Sunbelt about a FB-only-with-no-strings-attached offer, which would put the Sunbelt up to 12 and a CCG.
LikeLike
I guess this means the MAC doesn’t think Northern Illinois is going to see a Big 10 invite anytime soon.
LikeLike
And doesn’t think that Cincinnati is going to the Big12 with OhioU snapped up by the American, or any other of the crazy Fantasy Realignment scenarios people have built up in response to CREW (conference realignment excitement withdrawal) syndrome.
In the last fifteen years of MAC realignment, while all the other Go5 schools go through tremendous change, all that seems to happen to the MAC is the pair of schools it added to the east got taken out (Marshall/UCF), replaced (Temple/UMass), taken out (Temple before UMass could actually get there). At this point, the MAC losing an eastern FB-only member is starting to seem like a lizard losing a tail, only to eventually grow it back.
LikeLike
AAC will be at 12 when Navy joins for football only. Likely no room for UMass unless the conference goes to 14. Though, would potentially be a nice little rival for UConn.
Who would be the AAC’s 14th team in this scenario? Is there even a good option out there? Maybe beg Army to join for football only and make Army-Navy a conference game? Granted, Army football is absolutely terrible, but its at least the best name out there.
Maybe some random school like Georgia State to get some Atlanta TV eyeballs? Marshall? Beg Villanova to upgrade to FBS?
On second thought, these options might mean if AAC adds UMass, they do stand pat at 13 and deal with any issues from an odd number of schools.
LikeLike
If the AAC goes to 14, they will probably do what they did before. Invite military academies or old CUSA schools. So Army, Air Force, Rice, UTEP, USM, UAB or Marshall.
LikeLike
I’m assuming UMass has done its research, and either believes it is likely to get a conference invite, or has decided it’s okay with independence for the time being. But I can’t see them surviving as an independent. They’re not like ND, BYU, or Army, institutions with substantial national followings. Hardly anyone outside of Massachusetts (and perhaps not even there) cheers for UMass football.
LikeLike
I sure hope they’ve done their research. AAC expansion to 13 in football/12 basketball is difficult to imagine. I suppose that if the ACC’s proposal to allow championship games to occur without divisions would help make such an expansion possible because going to 13 with unbalanced divisions just seems ridiculous. UMass couldn’t give the added bonus of a CCG. Given their lack of national following, their very minimal local market penetration, and their state of football ineptitude, there’s hardly a reason for the AAC to add them. Even for basketball’s sake, they don’t add anything in that sport that a VCU or Wichita State wouldn’t, and those potential additions wouldn’t dilute the football product.
I would not put it past the Sun Belt to add UMass as a football-only addition. If that league was willing to add the very distant and very mediocre New Mexico State (no bowl games in roughly the past 50 years) and Idaho (stadium is a non-expandible dome seating under 20,000), then hey, why not UMass. As an App State fan who’sbeen sobered up by the worst season in 20 years as we leave the very regional, travel friendly SoCon, where we enjoyed much success, and enter the worst, very widespread FBS conference, I would prefer James Madison or Eastern Kentucky. Those schools are closer to the rest of membership, have an actual history with App State, and could actually be full-time members. But UMass is low hanging fruit that commissioner Benson is likely to pick.
LikeLike
Again, I hope UMass has done its research. I understand wanting to stay in the A-10. Overall, it is a far better league, and it has more of their traditional rivals (though the losses of Temple and Xavier mitigate those ties a bit). But because having a home for football is so vitally important, sometimes it is worth moving to the weaker league for the sake of football. UNC Charlotte, for instance, left that same strong Atlantic 10 for what will be, in most years, a one-bid basketball league in C-USA. Their chancellor called the move a “no-brainer.” Football independence was not a viable option.
This UMass story will likely fly under the radar because it’s so far down the totem pole in the FBS world, but it will be very intetesting to see whether UMass ends upbregretting its rejection of the MAC or somehow finds safe harbor for the huge investment it has made to become an FBS program.
LikeLike
It seems to me that if Army/Navy becomes a conference game, it has to be played before the CCG. That is, indeed, one of the strikes against the AAC from the Army perspective, whereas the “sprawl across half the country” aspect of the AAC is an attraction to a school that would like to play a national schedule … part of why it made sense for Navy to stick to its invite when the “Big East of Reno” plan fell apart. For Navy, add the annual game against Air Force (mountain west) and Notre Dame (midwest), and all you need is a game against a west coast school to make a “national schedule”.
LikeLike
Props to Wainscott for posting the McMurphy tweet. We saw it here before it was posted on any main sports site.
LikeLike
oops, that should be above for the Wainscott post re: Northwestern story.
LikeLike
Thanks!
Twitter is an invaluable resource for getting news faster than anywhere else. Routinely, stories will break on Twitter a good 10-20 minutes before being up on TV/websites/radio.
Bottom line, its the best live newspaper out there.
LikeLike
The depth and insight is unbeatable…
LikeLike
@ccrider55
Best post of the day! No, make that ever.
LikeLike
Actually, your response qualifies as the best post ever.
LikeLike
UMass football back to FCS? I don’t see any compelling reason for the Sun Belt to add UMass (let alone the AAC). And UMass isn’t likely anxious to ditch A10 basketball for the Sun Belt.
Is FBS independence possible? Yes, but I would think not likely. They could get annual games with Army and BYU, one of those a home game. Add one FCS home opponent. Then, they just need 3-4 other home games. There are enough MAC and Sun Belt teams out there now (many that just left FCS), that they might be able to find those 3-4 needed home games to make a run at independence. Not exactly stellar schedules, but I think they could do it.
LikeLike
It seems highly likely that UMass could get offers of eight games on a home and home basis from the MAC / Sunbelt / CUSA, the problem would be the likelyhood that seven of them would be in four weeks in September.
One thing they could do, though, would be to get a deal with a Go5 conference for four games from mid-October to mid-November in return for four OOC BBall games. Then including BYU/Army they could have three home games in the last seven weeks of the regular season, where the year BYU hosts Army, UMass hosts BYU and visa versa.
LikeLike
The AAC would presumably be all-sports, but the AAC’s problem is that they are best placed among the Go5 for markets, they just are short of teams that people in those markets want to watch play football, and UMass doesn’t address that problem. With Navy already coming to make 12 in FB, and lots of Olympic-sports schools available at the terms that the AAC wanted to move their Olympic sports from 11 to 12, its hard to see taking the hit on AAC FB and requiring a 14th school to get UMass BBall in the AAC.
The Sunbelt would certainly be FB-only, and it would allow the Sunbelt to start up their CCG. I don’t know how much the Sunbelt cares about BBall for the potential for four UMass OOC games to be appealing. Part of that depends on whether JMU’s preference for CUSA or the MAC over the Sunbelt is just a ranking, or whether JMU is in fact not interested in moving up to FBS if it means joining the Sunbelt conference. If JMU takes the 12th Sunbelt spot all-sports, which would make the divisions work out, that would seem to settle down Go5 conference realignment for a while, with UMass looking for some side deal to allow it to survive as an FBS independent until the next round of realignment, possibly in the twenties.
LikeLike
There’s an email doing the rounds from the EKU President to advise them not to get their hopes up about EKU moving up to FBS in the Sunbelt. The part that people have seized upon is the EKU President saying that the Sunbelt is moving on from FCS promotions to considering FBS schools, which is taken by many to imply that the Sunbelt will be inviting UMass FB only and promoting NMSU to all-sports to go from 11/11 to 12/12 FB/Olympic Sports.
The EKU President also tweeted something to a similar effect:
LikeLike
UMass in the Sun Belt? Yikes. Unless they have a good coach who can parlay games in the south into good recruits and great on field success, that can’t be a situation that will get the 5 UMass football fans excited. That UMass vs Troy State game in Amherst could be played in a local high school with seats leftover.
LikeLike
Not that its great, but having rejected MAC all-sports, they can drop back down to FCS, try to play as an FBS Independent, or, if the Sunbelt FB-only offer comes their way, play in the Sunbelt FB-only. And among those choices, Sunbelt-FB likely wouldn’t be any worse than trying to play as an FB independent. I wouldn’t be surprised if the deal was that the $1m extra CFP money for the 12th FB member was distributed as travel subsidy. I don’t know what the dollar breakdown is for the Idaho deal, but if all of the extra $1m/school CFP money (to a max of 12 schools) is divided evenly per game, it’s $500,000 to UMass and $125,000 for the four Sunbelt schools traveling to Amherst or Gillette. Likely plus, as with the current MAC deal, four BBall games per year in home and home series with Sunbelt schools.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24501337/report-nashville-laying-plans-for-own-kickoff-classic-style-game
Nashville is looking to stage a kickoff game, too.
LikeLike
Indiana would be the straight shot down I – 65 to Nashville.
LikeLike
Supposedly they want to copy Atlanta and have it be SEC vs someone. I’m not sure how many big SEC vs other games can be hosted every year, but that’s their plan.
It would be a decent location for a B10/SEC kickoff challenge. Maybe a double host with a smaller game (NW/Vandy, UK/IU, MO/IL, etc) and then a bigger game (UGA/WI, AL/PSU, LSU/MI, etc). St. Louis would be a better host, but nothing’s perfect.
LikeLike
The problem is that the 4 kings pretty much want to have 7 home games every year. Couple that with a 9-game conference slate and there are precious few OOC slots for games away from home. Even Iowa seems insistent on 7 home games a year. Heck, _Illinois_ wants 7 home games a year.
The only way I can see it work is if schools like Wisconsin and MSU are OK with either 7-5/6-5-1 or 7-4-1/6-5-1 schedules. The IN schools are close to Nashville, but would a neutral site game schedule them? Northwestern may be good enough to be considered an attractive opponent, but really, only if Wisconsin and MSU are willing to have 6 home games + a neutral site game some years would we see plenty of B10 schools in neutral site games.
LikeLike
Though UM has an open slot in 2016, it looks like. They could potentially play an SEC team in Nashville . . . or one in Daytona that year.
LikeLike
M’s schedule is full through ’23 other than buying home games from the MAC, C-USA, MWC.
LikeLike
The nice thing about neutral site games is you can still make $$ while playing a road game. The Georgia-Florida game is held in Jacksonville every year now because the teams found that they could make more money splitting the annual gate revenue than they could hosting the game every other year. Of course, Georgia-Florida is intra-conference, so there aren’t the same TV implications.
The Jerry World games (Michigan-Alabama, Oregon-LSU, ASU-Notre Dame, etc.) show that the kings are willing to participate in neutral-site kickoff games. College football needs more non-conference marquee matchups. If the neutral-site idea is needed to make it happen, then I say “Go Nashville!”
LikeLike
Richard,
“The problem is that the 4 kings pretty much want to have 7 home games every year.”
I’m aware of that. I just pointed out it would be a decent site to do it, unlike Atlanta or Dallas.
“Couple that with a 9-game conference slate and there are precious few OOC slots for games away from home.”
But some might try 2 neutral site games instead of a home and home OOC series. Play neutral when you have 5 B10 home games. The tradeoff is no big OOC game in the years with 4 B10 home games.
EX.
2017 – 5 B10 home games, play at a neutral site
2018 – buy 3 OOC home games
2019 – play someone else at a neutral site
2020 – buy 3 OOC home games
2021 – revert to OOC home and homes
LikeLike
Why not a mixture of SEC-ACC-B1G-Big 12- and even AAC teams?
Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Memphis, and Cincinnati, are all fairly close.
Not to mention it’s a fairly central location between all these conferences.
LikeLike
They want SEC vs other because it seems most likely to guarantee good ticket sales, presumably. I don’t think they really care what conference the other team is form, just whether or not it sells tickets.
LikeLike
Dominate the State!
LikeLike
MAC news, union news and Apple TV/Comcast news today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-deal-implications/6829929/
LikeLike
Yormark said Brooklyn has a “deep connection” with the ACC, citing borough natives Michael Jordan, Billy Cunningham and Sam Perkins, who all played for North Carolina. The cachet of programs like UNC, Duke, Syracuse and Louisville, which joins the ACC next year, the ACC tournament could become the hottest ticket in town the week before the NCAA tournament.
“I think there’s a paradigm shift going on in the marketplace,” Yormark said. “The ACC, no one can dispute it is the preeminent college basketball tournament in the country, and we have it now. It’s Destination Brooklyn.”
Yormark hopes Barclays becomes part of a regular rotation for the ACC tournament following 2021 and to develop a long-term relationship.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/barclays-center-boss-hypes-arena-leader-college-hoops-article-1.1735583
Why would Brooklyn settle for “second-best” when they already going to have a collection of big names in college basketball? I agree with Yormark.
LikeLike
Eh, it’s standard hyping of a recent deal. They would say the same exact things if the B1G had a deal with them.
LikeLike
ACC also going to Charlotte & Greensboro
LikeLike
Good. The ACC isn’t going to completely abandon their roots any time soon. It also serves right those fools supporting certain former BE schools (especially those who like to wear orange) who think that they can turn the ACC into the old BE somehow. They’re the newbies and they should learn to respect the other schools in that conference.
Now the Big Ten has a real opportunity from 2017 through 2021 to make a big presence in the Washington, D.C. area, assuming the A-10 doesn’t get there first. I’m hoping the A-10 goes back to the Palestra, as I think it could help with their exposure in Philadelphia. Providence would be a bad fit, as it is too north for most of the A-10.
LikeLike
BTW, with the NLRB ruling, it really behooves Delany to extend at least a part of the tier1 deal with ESPN this year.
The whole economics of college sports is likely to change quite rapidly, and you want to know what your revenue streams are before you make decisions.
LikeLike
The whole economics of college sports is likely to change quite rapidly…
The ruling is profound if it holds up, but I think the appeals will take years.
LikeLike
My understanding is that NLRB appeals are fast.
Otherwise, employers can just stall unionization drives with appeals until the instigators are gone.
LikeLike
But the Supreme Court isn’t.
LikeLike
The BIG will be fine. Same goes for the SEC. The real fear has to be for ACC.
Non-revenue sports are in the greatest danger with this ruling. Anything given to football and basketball players will in all likelihood have to be given to non-revenue sports. Good luck giving a full cost of scholarship to football players and not woman’s lacrosse in today’s world. So the cost of everything will go up. The BIG, due to the BTN, has a financial interest to keep these sports running for content on its network. What will be the financial interest for UNC or UVA that sponsor 27 and 25 sports respectively to operate all those programs? Or BC with 29 and Duke with 26? You will see the death of a lot of these non-revenue sports at a lot of schools without conference networks.
LikeLike
Remember, the owners said that free agency was going to kill pro sports. The IOC said that allowing athletes to be paid would kill the Olympics. Years ago, the NCAA said that football would die if schools were allowed to make their own TV deals.
All of these forecasts of gloom & doom turned out to be wrong.
Both the schools and the athletes want the non-revenues to survive. When all sides want it to survive, they usually find a way.
LikeLike
“Both the schools and the athletes want the non-revenues to survive. When all sides want it to survive, they usually find a way.”
Thee that to the hundreds and hundreds of dropped programs (wrestling, swimming, track, tennis, gymnastics, etc) and the tens of thousands of those who never had an opportunity to compete over the last few decades.
LikeLike
Free agency and unionization has really hurt baseball. It was my favorite sport as a kid. But then it gets harder to keep track of the players and you don’t want strikes messing up seasons or stopping the World Series. That last was a really stupid move by the players.
LikeLike
I am referring to free agency in general, which exists now in all the major sports, not just baseball. As fans, we are certainly free to prefer it the old way, but there isn’t a credible argument that free agency has “killed” those leagues, in any way that we can measure. Indeed, they are all more profitable now than they were before free agency was introduced.
Go back and read the arguments from when free agency was being litigated, and see how many of the owners’ dire predictions came true.
LikeLike
There is a very strong argument that free agency has seriously hurt baseball whether you believe it or not. There is no question the way it played out in baseball hurt the sport. In the NFL, it simply turned fans into fantasy football league players.
LikeLike
My point is that since all four sports have free agency, and all four sports aren’t “hurting” the same way (if at all), free agency itself is probably not the issue.
The sports clearly are different than they would have been without free agency, and some fans may prefer the good old days, but there isn’t good evidence that free agency itself makes sports worse, in any way we can measure.
LikeLike
http://tracking.si.com/2012/07/03/university-of-maryland-cuts-sports-teams/
Wanting to keep non-revenue sports and having the ability to pay for them are two different things. Maryland cut 7 sports just a little under two years ago because of trying to keep up with big time football at its present price point.
LikeLike
I’m interested to learn whether Title IX applies to scenarios where some (or all) student-athletes are deemed employees. What if universities start to pay football players enough to cover the costs of tuition plus living expenses (after taxes), without granting scholarships? Perhaps they could avoid Title IX implications – and actually get back more men’s scholarship sports, instead of club-level sports (soccer, wrestling, rugby, etc.).
My thinking is that this ruling, and subsequent rulings that are sure to come for other universities, will either accelerate the rise of Division 4 or ruin college athletics. It will be interesting to see who would be willing and able to jump up to Division 4.
LikeLike
A labor lawyer on Cowherd this morning opined that unionization would only apply to football and men’s basketball because are the only sports that operate as businesses. So it is unlikely the others athletes would be granted union privileges.
Division II and III might similarly be exempt in toto.
As to Title IX, it only applies to the opportunity to participate and not to compensation.
LikeLike
Feminist are currently fighting for other people to pay for a woman’s contraception. Do you think they will sit back and watch male student athletes get special privileges that student female athletes do not?
LikeLike
“Do you think they will sit back and watch male student athletes get special privileges that student female athletes do not?”
This x 1000.
Now, if unions are ultimately limited to football, I don’t think women’s groups will be successful, They will try, but I think football’s unique role in terms of physical violence, time commitment, and revenue generation will be the basis for denial.
But try telling female leaders, students, politicians, alumni, etc, that male basketball players are allowed to unionize, but female basketball players at that same school are not. Absolutely no chance from a public relations perspective of that occurring. Zero.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – I think that it would almost impossible to limit the ability for any particular sport (whether men’s or women) to unionize under this NLRB ruling. The university would almost certainly lose. However, we shouldn’t equate the ability to unionize with the ability of all sports to collectively bargain for the exact same benefits. If each sports team has its own union, then they’ll all need to separately enter into different contracts with the university and those could conceivably treat football and men’s basketball players better than the other sports. However, I’m not sure whether that brings in some Title IX exposure – this is uncharted territory. The only way to guarantee that everything is equal among all sports is if all of the athletes at a school are under a single union.
LikeLike
@Frank:
I find it hard to believe that each sport would have its own union. There is nothing in it for a union organizing a track and field team or some other non-revenue sport.
My only point is that from a public/political perspective, feminist activists, female politicians, students, et al will not for a second stand by and let male athletes get better treatment than female athletes in the same sport. Regardless of Title IX, because of the public relations issues that it would create for the schools and the sponsoring union alike.
Its not an accident that a football player brought the test case for this, because football is along such a revenue producing sport. There is a colorable argument to treat football players differently because of all the money football makes. But gender politics will make such a distinction in basketball impossible. Womens rights activists will not willingly concede football is unique, but I think they would be unsuccessful in protesting because football is that special.
LikeLike
I think Universities will argue for larger pools in the union vote (all full scholarship athletes) while the athletes in the revenue sports will try to split off. Splits by sport may be approved, but it will be hard to get separate bargaining groups approved by the NLRB when sex is the primary basis of the split such as men’s and women’s basketball. Keeping both in the same union will minimize Title IX issues.
LikeLike
Interesting, the amount of time and pressure for Non-Revenue sports are very similar. Talking to D1 athletes in Olympic sports their time requirements are just as great as football and basketball, but they just don’t have the fans in the stands like basketball and football. They are often traveling everywhere by bus or vans. So seems like Non-Revenue athletes could make a similar case. Perhaps instead of by sport, they could unionize as a union of non-revenue sports.
LikeLike
The NLRB only applies to private universities. A key part of the decision is that the athletic scholarships is the compensation that creates the employer relationship. Northwestern walk-ons are not allowed to be part of the union. Few of the state labor laws that apply to public universities will consider athletic scholarships as compensation that creates state employment.
The Ivy league is exempt since no scholarships are based on athletic participation. That is the key item, since men’s football and basketball at all levels can be considered a business even if not profitable. The Ivy does quite well at the FCS level just be creating a level playing field within the conference. The big impact of this decision could be that more non-P5 conferences comprised mostly of private schools decide to eliminate athletic scholarships to keep the playing field level within the conference rather than stepping down to Div. III (no scholarship). Even without a conference agreement, some non-football schools may limit athletic scholarships to basketball (men and women for IX). That will both save money on Olympic sports and limit the impact of athletic unions. There are NCAA scholarship limits, but no minimums.
LikeLike
The NLRB only applies to private universities.
If this ruling holds, it’s exceedingly likely that as the NW players win concessions from their “employer,” some of the same concessions will be offered at other schools even the non-unionized ones.
This is part the story of organized labor historically. Benefits won by unionized workers tend to spill over into the non-unionized workplace. Not all of them, and not immediately, but it does happen.
LikeLike
Pinkertons are cheaper.
LikeLike
One impact I foresee is that fewer walk-ons will get rewarded for stellar play with a scholarship.
LikeLike
There are minimum scholarship requirements to be in Division I.
LikeLike
Two things.
If athletic based scholarships are found to be pay wouldn’t that violate the NCAA amateur rules?
and, if they are pay then they are not (and haven’t been?) scholarships – so no one has been in compliance in D1 for quite a while.
LikeLike
Athletic scholarships were actually quite controversial for many, many decades. UChicago actually stopped playing NWU in the mid 1920’s in part because Coach Stagg accused the school of recruiting football players with an early form of athletic scholarship. Eventually, by the late 1950’s, they were accepted by more schools, primarily out of resignation (acknowledgement that it was impossible to stop schools from giving aid to athletes). I believe this was an issue when Michigan State applied to join the conference in the late 1940’s, as the school openly granted aid to athletes.
From what I’ve read, athletic scholarships were, at that time, justified in part based on the ideal that colleges at that time gave out scholarships for other non-academic reasons (ex. some gave scholarships to those in marching bands), that giving based on athletics was not really any different.
But yes, on some level, giving any sort of benefit based on athletics does seem to run counter to the ideal of amateurism.
LikeLike
http://www.gocrimson.com/information/recruiting/helpfulinfo
Somehow the Ivy seems to get away without offering any. Ivy is Div. I for everything, but FCS rather than FBS for football.
LikeLike
They describe the “scholarships” as financial aid. That may be how they get around it.
From the NCAA:
20.9.3.2 Minimum Awards. A member of Division I shall provide institutional financial assistance that
equals one of the following: (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94)
(a) A minimum of 50 percent of the maximum allowable grants in 14 sports, at least seven of which must be
women’s sports. If an institution uses indoor track and field, outdoor track and field and cross country to
meet the financial aid criterion, it must award the equivalent of at least 80 percent of the full grants for
men and 80 percent of the full grants for women in those sports. If the institution counts two of those
three sports to meet the financial aid criterion, it must award the equivalent of at least 70 percent of the full
grants for men and 70 percent of the full grants for women. If the institution counts indoor and outdoor
track and field as one sport, it must award the equivalent of at least 50 percent of the full grants for men
and 50 percent of the full grants for women; (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 10/27/98 effective 8/1/99)
(b) Financial aid representing a minimum aggregate expenditure of $1,394,580 in 2013-14 (with at least
$697,290 in women’s sports) and $1,419,682 in 2014-15 (with at least $709,841 in women’s sports)
exclusive of grants in football and men’s and women’s basketball, provided the aggregate grant value is
not less than the equivalent of 38 full grants, with at least 19 full grants for women. The Administration
Cabinet shall adjust the minimum aggregate figure annually to reflect inflation, based on changes in average
national tuition charges for regionally accredited institutions. The Administration Cabinet shall announce
the revised figure in the fall each year for the following academic year. If the institution does not
sponsor men’s or women’s basketball, the minimum aggregate expenditure must be $920,707 in 2013-14
and $937,280 in 2014-15 for the gender without the basketball program, but in no case fewer than the
equivalent of 29 full grants for that gender; (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 1/10/95, 1/9/96, 1/14/97
effective 9/1/97, 4/15/97 effective 8/1/98, 10/27/98 effective 8/1/99, 4/13/99, 4/11/00, 4/10/01, 4/28/05,
4/27/06, 6/11/07, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)
(c) A minimum of the equivalent of 50 full grants (at least 25 full grants in women’s sports), exclusive of grants
awarded in football and men’s and women’s basketball. If the member institution does not provide men’s
or women’s basketball, it shall sponsor a minimum of 35 full grants in the sports program for the gender
without the basketball program; or (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94, 10/27/98 effective 8/1/99, 8/14/02)
(d) A minimum of one-half of the required grants or aggregate expenditures cited in (a), (b) or (c) above, for
institutions that depend on exceptional amounts of federal assistance to meet students’ financial needs.
This provision shall be applicable to an institution in a given year if the average per-student allotment of
Pell Grant dollars for undergraduates reported to the U.S. Department of Education the previous September
is more than one standard deviation above the mean for all reporting Division I member institutions
that year. If an institution does not qualify under this provision after having been able to do so the previous
year, the institution may continue to use this alternative for one year and shall not be required to meet the
provisions of (a), (b) or (c) above until the following year. This provision shall be applicable only to institutions
that were members of Division I on September 1, 1990. (Revised: 1/10/91 effective 9/1/94)
20.9.3.2.1 Aid Counted Toward Minimum Requirements. All institutional financial aid (including
aid that is exempted from an equivalency computation per Bylaw 15.5.3.2.2) awarded by the member institution
to a counter (per Bylaw 15.5.1) shall be used to meet the appropriate minimum.
LikeLike
“They describe the “scholarships” as financial aid. That may be how they get around it.”
That’s the crux of the challenge. The players, if they win through the appeals process, would be paid employees. Their financial aid/scholarships is what the employer is paying them for their (FB) job.
Pay for play broke up the precursor to the PAC, and was a concern with the Ivys. We are really talking about the professionalization of college athletics. And once established is there any legal impediment to it following the path of the other professional sports? How long ’til we have Cuban University basketball in Houston. Perhaps Jerry would like to go home – the Jones Razorbacks, farm team for the Cowboys. Could Artie Moreno revitalize USC baseball?
LikeLike
Indeed, the Ivies offer financial aid.
So long as an athlete and non-athlete with the same financial circumstance get the same level and type of aid (and it isn’t contingent on continuing to be an athlete), there should be no problem.
LikeLike
We are really talking about the professionalization of college athletics.
Or maybe the re-amateurization. Originally, college sports were just like any other extra-curricular activity, like the debate team, the drama club, or the school newspaper. Those other activities remained hobbies, as they’d always been, while being a scholarship athlete became more like a job.
Division III and the Ivy League schools still adhere to something resembling that model. Eliminate the athletic scholarship, and you’re back to where you started. Of course, the quality of play would go way down, and maybe they wouldn’t fill those 100,000-seat stadiums any more.
LikeLike
“Eliminate the athletic scholarship, and you’re back to where you started.”
Good.
“Of course, the quality of play would go way down…”
Why? Will a viable pro alternative suddenly appear?
“…and maybe they wouldn’t fill those 100,000-seat stadiums any more.”
As opposed to schools abandoning the sport? I don’t/wouldn’t support the schools I do because of mercenaries they hire.
LikeLike
Ccrider:
Change in quality depends on the sport. I don’t see the best basketball, baseball, or hockey players paying to play college sports when they can get paid to play instead. For that matter, dual-sport athletes choosing between at least a decent signing bonus to play baseball or paying to play in college are more likely to choose baseball.
LikeLike
“Of course, the quality of play would go way down…”
Why? Will a viable pro alternative suddenly appear?
The pro alternative exists already, e.g., minor-league baseball and hockey, European basketball. If the choice is an all-expenses-paid apprenticeship under Coach K at Duke or a couple of years in Croatia, Duke wins. If the athletes had to meet the usual requirements of admission at Duke, then most (all?) of Coach K’s current team wouldn’t be there.
What would happen to football is an interesting question, as it’s the only major sport where an 18-year-old has no realistic opportunity to turn pro. But it’s hard to deny the quality of play would go down if the schools no longer recruited marginal students purely for their athletic ability.
LikeLike
“What would happen to football is an interesting question, as it’s the only major sport where an 18-year-old has no realistic opportunity to turn pro. But it’s hard to deny the quality of play would go down if the schools no longer recruited marginal students purely for their athletic ability.”
And all prospective minor leagues have gone by the wayside, from the Arena Football League to NFL Europe to that recent football league that Marty Schottenheimer was involved in. Certainly, having already killed one league, the NFL is not starting up its own league.
Then again, kids can always try the Eric Swann route: who was a first round pick of the Cardinals in 1991 after playing semi-pro ball for $5 bucks an hour (He was academically ineligible for NC State, played at a community college for two years, then played semi pro ball for a year before being drafted).
LikeLike
Ccrider:
Your “where would they go” logic is actually a good argument to cut scholarships in non-revenue sports with no pro alternatives, since, by your logic, those athletes would still play anyway.
LikeLike
You may be right, but we can’t know that unless we know how much general aid and/or scholarships the current full ride kids would be eligible for. If the average Duke kid gets 60-80% covered I’d bet most still opt to “intern” under coach K. Those from low incomes probably are close to 100% covered, and those from more affluence both can afford more and can see the value they are paying for at a discount.
Remember the Gonzaga kid that returned his schollie because his family didn’t require it and others did to a greater extent? It gained them another “scholarship caliber” player.
I knew a college wrestling coach who almost never gave full rides (first full ride was to a senior defending national champ). First stop for recruits? Financial aid office, to find out what recruits qualified for and then he would offer some supliment. For top kids it equaled full rides but it was predominantly not from the athletic dept. budget. His concern at the time was cost control and program protection rather than pay for play. He was very successful for decades and it showed a high number of kids were eligible for aid. A few went elsewhere because they wanted to be able to say they got a full athletic scholarship. He was fine with that as he felt their motivation was misplaced and exposed a internal weakness.
LikeLike
Richard:
“Your “where would they go” logic is actually a good argument to cut scholarships in non-revenue sports with no pro alternatives, since, by your logic, those athletes would still play anyway.”
Yes and no. The argument is made against the proposition that FB would drop dramatically in quality, presumably because they’d flee to a more attractive alternative. No such claim exists for most non revenue. However, if the pay for play model was eliminated across athletics I’d have no problem with that.
LikeLike
Marc:
“If the athletes had to meet the usual requirements of admission at Duke, then most (all?) of Coach K’s current team wouldn’t be there.”
Why would anything change regarding requirements and admissions? Only the compensation changes. And for many that change wouldn’t be the amount, but the source of the aid.
LikeLike
Ccrider-
Its too bad the brilliance of that wrestling coach was not copied by the fb/mbb coaches of the mid 1970s to mid 1980s. At that time many big10 schools were in a fever to get their minority numbers up and they embarked on many full-ride academic scholarship programs with lower thresholds then for white students. Im sure a lot of the black Big10 players at the time were middle to upper income and middlebrow academically. A rogue coach e.g. a Switzer or McCartney would have put a lot of the more upstanding kids on academic scholarships (e.g. U of I’s Presidents Award Program) and used the remaining athletic scholarships for academically marginal/physically talented recruits.
Prop 48 was actually a good thing, which was pointed out indirectly in the recent Real Sports UNC expose. It gave those students a year to get it together academically and also let them bulkup or refine their skills .
LikeLike
What basis do you have for assuming that black players playing football in the B10 in the ’70’s were mostly middle-class, middle-brow or above?
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind:
Yes, that coach was brilliant…and abrasive/confrontational. I heard him ask multi time state champs if they were worth a damn, or why should he be allowed on the team. He was also a PhD and a fully tenured professor. He and Dr. Harold Nichols of ISU were, I believe, the last such critters, at least in D1 wrestling. Came in handy when the AD tried to cut the program and told him to shut up or be fired. Response was F… You, you thought I was a thorn before? Program still exists and the coach created an endowment that has grown considerably and provides significant support…and can’t be touched by the school (believe me, it’s been attempted).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Why? Will a viable pro alternative suddenly appear?”
Yes. The SEC sure as hell isn’t going to drop football down to a D-III equivalent even if other conferences do.
“As opposed to schools abandoning the sport? I don’t/wouldn’t support the schools I do because of mercenaries they hire.”
Maintenance and operations of giant stadiums are huge expenses. Without high demand, schools could easily lose millions every year. Some would have to consider paying players because of the money involved.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“ts too bad the brilliance of that wrestling coach was not copied by the fb/mbb coaches of the mid 1970s to mid 1980s.”
The financial aid rules are different for FB and MBB than for wrestling. FB and MBB are head count sports while wrestling use equivalency. The coach’s plan helped him spread his aid pool over more people. In a head count sport, giving 1% of a full ride from the AD is the same as giving 100%. It would save them money, but that’s rarely the issue anymore. You also have to prove that playing sports has nothing to do with any outside aid they receive.
LikeLike
I don’t believe this is true. Lots of public universities have employee unions for their staff, and many have faculty unions. All of these function under NLRB rules.
LikeLike
What I was commenting on is the willingness of states to consider scholarships compensation equal to pay checks. Many states have already ruled students that are part time employees of the university they attend (actually get paychecks) are not covered, while a few states have allowed these unions. State employees function under state rules. These may have been crafted to mimic NLRB, but they are not covered by the act. A private employer contracting to provide services to the state is covered, so there can have workers on the campus that are covered by the NLRB, but this would not be the faculty or any athletes.
LikeLike
Here’s a take from ESPN’s legal analyst Lester Munson.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10678393/nlrb-director-decision-follows-road-map-laid-northwestern-quarterback-kain-colter-legal-team
LikeLike
I didn’t see this posted yet so here it is:
Records in the tournament so far
SEC 7-0
American 5-2
Pac 12 7-3
Big Ten 6-3
Mountain West 2-1
ACC 6-5
Big 12 6-5
A-10 2-4
LikeLike
I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising that the SEC turned out to do pretty good in the tournament. No, the SEC wasn’t very deep. But the better teams in the league had some good wins.
Florida beat Big 12 champ Kansas by 6 pts.
Kentucky beat American Conference champ Louisville by7pts
Tennessee beat ACC champ Virginia by 35 pts
Missouri beat Pac 12 champ UCLA by 9 pts
etc.
What killed the league’s RPI was teams like Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, and A&M losing tons of games they shouldn’t have lost. That drug the whole league down.
LikeLike
Well everybody wiped out in the 2nd round of the NIT/CBI-Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, A&M.
At least the NIT got their seeds right. NIT final 4 are 3 #1 seeds-SMU, Minnesota, FSU and a #3 seed-Clemson.
LikeLike
Well, the higher seeded teams host so they have home court advantage.
LikeLike
True, but that didn’t help your Missouri Tigers in the NIT this year as they lost to Southern Mississippi at home in front of 6,000 Tiger faithful.
I do think that home court can be pretty significant in the NIT though. Especially a team like SMU – they did pretty well at home all year, but poor strength of schedule and a bad road record kept them out of the NCAA tournament. Now they’ve won 3 straight at home over average competition and they are crowing that they really did belong in the NCAAs. Chances are though, if they didn’t play all home games, they would have lost.
And then there is the fourth NIT #1 – St John’s, who lost in the first round. The biggest factor there was the fact that no one at St John’s really cared to play in the NIT. The game was at Carnesecca Arena – their home for low key non-conference games that they know won’t draw a big Madison Square Garden crowd. 1,000 people showed.
LikeLike
Mizzou fans are spoiled. We had been to 5 straight NCAA tournaments and the fans are treating the NIT like it’s the end of the world. People refused to attend.
LikeLike
re: Frank’s original post, specifically your link to this article:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-30/news/ct-met-college-students-leave-illinois-20121130_1_missouri-school-mizzou-students
Interesting topic, and I had never thought of it that way, but I think you’re right that Mizzou is drawing off 1,000 to 1,500 Chicago area kids every year who didn’t get into UIUC but doin’t want to go to NIU or SIU or Illinois State, so then they decide between Iowa or Mizzou, and more and more are picking Mizzou.
I don’t think this is something that is going to change any time soon. NIU has a long, long way to go before they’d catch up with Mizzou or Iowa.
LikeLike
I think that’s the whole point. Outside of UI-UC, there is no other public state university that is on the level of Mizzou/Iowa/Indiana/Wisconsin/KU, etc…, or even close to the level of those schools. It would take decades for one (or more) of SIU/NIU/ISU/EIU/WIU to get to that level.
LikeLike
I suppose it all trickles down stream. Illinois students who didn’t quite make it into Illinois head to Mizzou, pushing more Missouri students out of Mizzou and down to Arkansas and Oklahoma and Ole Miss.
LikeLike
I guess an interesting strategy that Mizzou will employ going forward is now they’ll not only be recruiting students heavily in Chicago and Dallas as they have been for years, but also in Atlanta and throughout Florida. I guess we’ll see how that goes. I’m hearing Atlanta has been going well.
LikeLike
Minny announces a new $70 million indoor football facility; basketball one is also in the cards:
http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/252564751.html
LikeLike
TPTB already denying it.
http://blogs.twincities.com/gophers/2014/03/27/gophers-football-no-groundbreaking-scheduled-for-december-on-football-practice-facility/
Remember, Sid is about 167 years old and probably wouldn’t be trusted with a spork. The new facilities will come eventually, just not on his ambitious schedule.
LikeLike
I was up at Minnesota a few months ago. They’ve really been building a lot on that campus lately.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24502907/75-percent-of-americans-against-college-players-unionizing
Not that it matters, but 75% of people are against college players unionizing.
LikeLike
Most Americans would kill for a free education for the themselves or their children. It is one of the reasons peewee sports has gotten out of hand in this country, as every parent thinks their kid will get a scholarship.
LikeLike
Crazy thing is, I think that there are still more academic scholarships out there than athletic scholarships. Definitely true if you exclude football. Plus, financial aid changes the equation a lot if you are lower-middle class or below. Academic scholars are nowhere as visible as athletes, however.
LikeLike
This earned an A- at UNC.
On the evening of December Rosa Parks decided that she was going to sit in the white people section on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama. During this time blacks had to give up there seats to whites when more whites got on the bus. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. Her and the bus driver began to talk and the conversation went like this. “Let me have those front seats” said the driver. She didn’t get up and told the driver that she was tired of giving her seat to white people. “I’m going to have you arrested,” said the driver. “You may do that,” Rosa Parks responded. Two white policemen came in and Rosa Parks asked them “why do you all push us around?” The police officer replied and said “I don’t know, but the law is the law and you’re under arrest.”
http://deadspin.com/this-unc-athletes-paper-is-a-joke-whos-to-blame-1552798110
LikeLike
Actually, now that I look at the original, I realized there were no final quotation marks. I guess that is why it only got an A-.
LikeLike
When Maryland joins the Big Ten, you’ll hear “raise high the black and gold” as part of the team fight song. Here’s how red and white entered the picture, thanks to a coach with a Big Ten background: http://umdarchives.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/red-and-white-a-new-maryland-tradition/
LikeLike
Which private school will drop football first?
a) Northwestern
b) Wake Forest
c) Rice
d) Tulane
e) other
LikeLike
Maybe Northwestern would have won more than 5 games if they weren’t so focused on trolling.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24504372/pac-12s-scott-reacts-to-projection-of-new-money-in-conference-tv-deal
A little more info on the P12 TV money issue that came up recently. Dodd claims a 4% escalation clause, but Dodd’s linked article leads to a Wilner piece that claims 5.1%.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2013/06/17/pac-12-conference-annual-payouts-from-espn-and-fox-the-official-numbers/
* The ESPN/Fox deal includes a $30 million signing bonus, which I believe Scott used to help fund the start-up costs for the Pac-12 Networks.
* It also features a 5.1% escalator, which is a tad more than I figured.
* According to the documents, ESPN is a slightly larger rights-holder than Fox (53% to 47%).
Here are the payouts:
2013: $185,000,000 million
2014: $194,250,000 million
2015: $204,540,000 million
2016: $215,060,000 million
2017: $226,140,000 million
2018: $237,780,000 million
2019: $250,020,000 million
2020: $262,900,000 million
2021: $276,420,000 million
2022: $290,660,000 million
2023: $305,620,000 million
2024: $321,340,000 million
What does that mean on a per school/per year basis? It’s not quite as simple as dividing the numbers by 12.
For one thing, Utah doesn’t get a full share for a few more years.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/12/26/3788712/college-football-conference-realignment-tv-money
Dodd also linked to an article that claims these 2013 TV payouts:
Pac-12: $250 million ($20.83 million per school)
Big Ten: $248 million ($20.67 million)
Big 12: $200 million ($20 million)
ACC: $240 million ($17.14 million)
SEC: $205 million ($14.64 million)
Notre Dame: $15 million
That’s with the SEC still looking to renegotiate before the 2014 season.
Do those numbers agree with what we know? That’s a little higher than the last MI AD budget projected, but possible.
LikeLike
“All credit to the Oregonian’s John Canzano for his fine reporting on the subject.”
Did Canzano contribute this line? Many in the NW refer to him as Clownzano. What is he just now discovering that we didn’t discuss years ago? (crickets…crickets)
LikeLike
I take that back. He cites an 800K P12N payout, with no attribution. I understood it was profitable in the first year, but they were going to plow it back into upgrading wify, cell networks, etc. in all FB and BB facilities.
LikeLike
The Pac 12, Big 12 and SEC are consistent (but we have no idea what the recently re-negotiated SEC deal is-that contract was the figure for 12 teams so it was $17.1 million/school before expansion).
The ACC is consistent with the pre-Notre Dame deal. With ND and the GOR, the average is $260 million which is divided among 14 full shares and a partial share for Notre Dame.
There may be some updated numbers for Notre Dame, but I haven’t seen it. That was their old deal. NBC has updated it to extend through 2025.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big 10 number is quite right. There were reports that the BTN was paying an average of $112 million to the 11 schools over the 20 year term. I think people pretty much concluded that was an estimate, not a real number. Now if you use that, it agrees with what we know:
$12 average CBS basketball
$24 average Fox ccg ($145/6 years)
$100 average ABC/ESPN ($1 billion 10 year deal)
$112? average BTN
LikeLike
The actuals for the Pac don’t agree.
LikeLike
A close night of games ends well for the B10. 3 teams in the Elite 8, with a chance for all to move on to the Final 4.
Sat:
#1 UF vs #11 Dayton
#1 AZ vs #2 WI
Sun:
#2 MI vs #4 UK
#4 MSU vs #7 UConn
LikeLike
B10: 3
SEC: 2
Pac: 1
BE: 1
AAC: 1
LikeLike
Whoops. I counted Dayton in the BE above; they are in the A10 (for now)
(With schools in their current conferences):
2013:
B10: 2
ACC: 2
SEC: 1
AAC: 1
BE: 1
MVC: 1
2012:
SEC: 2
B12: 2
ACC: 2
AAC: 1
B10: 1
3 year:
B10: 6
SEC: 5
ACC: 4
AAC: 3
B12: 2
BE: 1
A10: 1
MVC: 1
Pac: 1
LikeLike
So it looks like, going forward, after Louisville joins the ACC, the B10, ACC, and SEC will dominate the latter half of the NCAA tourney, taking the bulk of the Eilte 8 spots. The B12 (with KU . . . and Baylor), the Pac (with ‘Zona . . . and UCLA) and the AAC (with UConn . . . and Memphis) will send roughly a little under 1 rep a year that far. The BE, A10, & MWC (as well as the MVC if Wichita keeps being good) may crash the party once in a while.
LikeLike
Long live Coach K.
I’m pretty sure he said the ACC will be the greatest conference ever – we’ll see about that since K, Roy, Pitino an Boeheim are all on the cusp of retiring. Not even blue bloods recover right after coaching changes, especially when HOFers leave.
I’m pretty sure K also said the A-10 didn’t deserve so many bids.
Well the ACC, and future member Lville, are all out of the tournament Coach K. And what about Dayton?
As for my Spartans (only root for them in basketball), we have a brutal game on Sunday. UConn (a school I’d like to see in the BIG due to my pro-basketball bias) is truly hard to beat at MSG. Appling is not 100%, therefore the media hype around us is false. UConn clearly has the best guard tandem in the country. Shabazz and Illinois native Boatright, frankly scare me.
LikeLike
3-0 BT advantage this year notwithstanding, I’d say the Big 10 and ACC are pretty equal at present…….Adding UoL is huge and Pitt is also a good add, but I really like Maryland’s potential with that big, new arena and their recruiting base. ACC has the edge going forward I think, but the Big 10 has always been solid at basketball and won’t lag far behind, imo.
LikeLike
Big 12 is an interesting study……..Someone on here commented awhile back about a “plains basketball culture” and I think that does exist and is a reason why the 12 is usually a better conference than you would think…..schools like KSU, ISU, OK State will rise up now and then and be pretty good………but generally, you’d think that only KU(tradition) and TX($$ and recruiting base) really have enough assets to expect to be top 20 every year
LikeLike
Where do you think Kentucky’s Adolph Rupp and UNC’s Dean Smith came from?–Kansas. Rupp created the basketball culture at Kentucky and Smith didn’t start it at UNC, but made UNC what it is today.
LikeLike
The Ohio valley states of KY, IN, and IL cared about HS basketball even 100 years ago, however (before most places in the country did).
As for the ACC vs. B10, I would not say that the B10 is behind the ACC in basketball. The ACC have more traditional basketball kings now, but places like OSU, Wisconsin, UM, and even Minny draw as much revenue as some kings.
LikeLike
bullet says:
March 29, 2014 at 10:00 am
Where do you think Kentucky’s Adolph Rupp and UNC’s Dean Smith came from?–Kansas. Rupp created the basketball culture at Kentucky and Smith didn’t start it at UNC, but made UNC what it is today.
Wooden, an Indiana guy, put PAC basketball on the map.
Case, an Indiana guy, brought basketball to North Carolina via NC State.
McGuire was the guy who brought basketball to UNC in response to Case bringing it to NC State.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The Ohio valley states of KY, IN, and IL cared about HS basketball even 100 years ago, however (before most places in the country did).”
That’s also true for large parts of OH, especially the western side (KY and IN influence).
LikeLike
I’ve been arguing for a long time that the Ohio River Valley is the most successful basketball region in the country. But it’s a confusing region due to Ky being in the SEC, Lville now going to the ACC, IU & OSU in the BIG, Cincy in the AAC, Xavier in the Big East. I guess you can throw in WVa being in the Big 12. The O-R-V is a bit Midwestern, fringe Southern & Appalachia.
I also think I’m missing schools from above. What about Purdue, ND, Butler, Pitt? Are they part of this region? Probably not the Indiana schools = more Rust Belt. Southern Illinois would likely fall into the ORV as well.
But even if we trim it down to Ky, Lville, IU, Cincy and OSU, who are all safely in the Ohio River Valley – wow! Those schools in terms of NCs, FF’s, & all-time wins, prevail over Tobacco Road up to DC & comfortably. That’s a combined 19 NCs & IU, OSU, Lville and Ky all have 10 or more FF appearances.
In general, basketball in the Midwest proper, thus Ky and WVa fall out the equation, really has produced the greatest basketball players and minds. The Northeast down to DC is second best, and certain parts of the deeper South (La – Ga – NC) & the Golden State, fight for 3rd. Tobacco Road would not be what it is without Northeast and Midwest coaches and recruits – in fact all of their successful coaches are Yankees, minus Roy Williams. Valvano, K, Dean Smith, McGuire, Vic Bubas, Bill Foster, etc. are all Yanks. I also think Ky has absolutely benefitted from Midwest talent: Antoine Walker and Anthony Davis immediately come to mind. You could write a book on Illinois talent that has outright left the BIG footprint.
LikeLike
In terms of Ohio river valley, ND and Pitt no, PU, Butler, Dayton, SIU (and some other schools in the MVC like In.St. and Evansville) and Illinois, yes. I’d say Illinois’s non-alum bball fan support is mostly from downstate. Also, while Illinois actually has no particular edge recruiting Chicagoland these days, it should have an edge downstate.
LikeLike
The “Dandy Diamond” vs “Tobacco Road”
Schools at the 4 points of the Diamond
8 NC’s = Kentucky
5 NC’s = Indiana
3 NC’s = Louisville
2 NC’s = Cincinnati
18 NC’s
Schools on Tobacco Road
5 NC’s = North Carolina
4 NC’s = Duke
2 NC’s = North Carolina State
0 NC’s = Wake Forest
11 NC’s
18 > 11 = Dandy Diamond wins
.
…
.
Schools near the Diamond
2 NC’s = Michigan State
1 NC’s = Michigan
1 NC’s = Ohio State
4 NC’s
Schools near the Road
1 NC’s = Georgetown
1 NC’s = Maryland
2 NC’s
4 > 2 = Dandy Diamond wins again
.
…
.
Where it gets really obvious is the next level down (Division II)
8 NC’s = Kentucky Wesleyan
5 NC’s = Evansville (IN)
13 NC’s = Dandy Diamond wins
3 NC’s = Virginia Union
3 NC’s = Tobacco Road wins
13 > 3 = Dandy Diamond domination
LikeLike
For those that may not know the area.
Kentucky Wesleyan is in Owensboro Kentucky
Evansville is in Evansville Indiana
They are only about 38 miles apart and can easily be driven in under an hour
Putting that in perspective, imagine if Bloomington IN and Lexington KY were only 40 miles apart!
LikeLike
Yeah Brian, I’m still pissed your Bucks lost a close one to the other Ohio team filled with former Bucks : ).
We shall see. Mi, Wi, and MSU are suddenly underdogs. UConn is firmly at home in MSG and Appling really isn’t 100% – this team isn’t fully healthy, contrary opinion asides. Michigan has nightmare matchups with Ky’s interior. Ky also has a lot of length on the outside. Will this be the game where dying by the 3 manifests?
Wisky has the best chance to advance, I think I just threw up here.
LikeLike
UM needs Calipari’s diaper dandies to self-destruct in order to win. However, the babycats are fully capable of doing that, as they showed this season.
LikeLike
OSU’s lack of offense was bound to undermine them, so adding in the motivation for Dayton I wasn’t surprised. At least the loss looks better now.
I think you underestimate MSU’s chances. They have a huge advantage down low, and Izzo knows how to coach in the tournament.
MI’s whole season has seemed a little like smoke and mirrors with McGary out, but UK can be undisciplined and that’s what MI loves to exploit.
At least this version of WI plays something resembling actual offense. Hopefully Bo finally gets his Final Four.
With no really elite teams in the mix this year, I’d love to see the B10 break the streak and finally win a title again. UF looks like a strong favorite, though.
LikeLike
3 B10 teams and UF in the FF. You heard it here first.
LikeLike
I think it will be two Michigan, Wilsconsin, UConn and Florida, which would be interesting as a Florida fan because it would mean that the only two teams to beat Florida were in the Final Four.
LikeLike
I had Florida, Arizona, Michigan St. and the Wichita St./Kentucky winner (who I thought would be Wichita St.) in the final 4. Haven’t seen anything to change my mind. Wisconsin is playing very well though. Probably be 4 pretty good games. There were 4 good ones last night.
LikeLike
I hope you’re right. At least we know we have 1, now.
LikeLike
Things have pretty much fallen in order after Mercer, NDSU, Harvard and Stanford’s early upsets.
Florida and Arizona are #1 seeds. Wisconsin and Michigan are #2 seeds. Michigan State is a #4 that everyone but the NCAA knew was underseeded. Kentucky is a #8 that everyone but the NCAA knew was underseeded. UConn is a #7 that was considered by many underseeded from a conference that everyone but the NCAA knew was underseeded (I had MSU beating UConn in the East final in my bracket). Only Dayton is any sort of big surprise.
LikeLike
I think Dayton is the only team remaining without a prior NCAA men’s basketball title. (IIRC, Wisconsin won one in the early ’40s). So much for underdogs.
LikeLike
The schools left have 10 championships since 1996. Dayton did get to the championship game against one of Wooden’s teams in the 60s. If Duke had gotten in their bracket instead of Michigan and Kansas or Syracuse instead of Dayton in theirs, it would be 13 of the last 18 titles from those 7 schools other than Wisconsin. Also, UNC has 2 in that time frame (but they were in the bracket with UConn who has 3).
LikeLike
My response actually posted further below.
LikeLike
Great day for the Big 10, but could well go 0/3 on Sunday. I’d really like MSU normally but U Conn will have a big home court advantage. I’d say MSU has a 60% chance of winning. I see Wisky as a slight dog and UM as a major dog, especially if the refs refuse to call traveling or offensive fouls on those UK bastards.
A few other thoughts…….How much does Izzo have to do to convince people he’s a great coach? How much fun is it to watch Nick S. play? How great is it for Morgan from UM to be a big hero? Good luck to him on Sunday…he’ll need it…… UM better block out like crazy if they want to be competitve.
Finally….I have to admit that Cheating Cal is vastly underrated as a coach……Getting all those studs to play tem ball is a hell of a trick.
LikeLike
Funk, I’d be more worried about Gary Harris than Appling……where the hell did he go in that game?
Gotta say I was impressed as hell with Virginia. Harris is really a great player.
LikeLike
Well G. Harris absolutely showed up against Harvard, we don’t win without him. He’ll have more space against UConn. I get what you mean though, he’s still a kid, a young sophomore mind you – barely 19.
LikeLike
How much of a dog that UM is depends mostly on which UK team shows up. The babycats are capable of committing mental and physical mistakes for 10 straight possessions in a row.
LikeLike
I’m just excited that a #8 seed who got hot at the right time is a win from the Final Four.
Makes me excited for a possible 8 team CFB playoff one day featuring an underserving team that nonetheless gets hot, wins a conference title, and goes far in the playoffs.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Makes me excited for a possible 8 team CFB playoff one day featuring an underserving team that nonetheless gets hot, wins a conference title, and goes far in the playoffs.”
That thought process makes no sense to me. That’s absolutely the worst possible thing that can happen in the postseason in my view.
LikeLike
Was trying to be sarcastic. Of course it’s terrible.
But many of the same sportswriters who lament the irrelevance of the MBB regular season are vocal cheerleaders of expanding CFB playoffs that would in turn ruin the CFB regular season .
LikeLike
Ah. Sorry. I’ve seen that sentiment expressed enough times that I took it at face value.
LikeLike
Sorry to break up the basketball talk but actual football scheduling news….
Terps shuffle nonconference games for 2016, 2017 seasons
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2014/03/26/terps-shuffle-nonconference-games-for-2016-2017-seasons/
LikeLike
6 road games in 2016 and 2017, but that’s unchanged from before. Did they just want the softer schedule for the 1st 9-game B10 season?
LikeLike
Or else one of the others wanted to back out due to another opportunity and swapping let Maryland keep both. If its that, it might be WVU pursuing an option to get Pitt, VTech or UVA on their schedule:
http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/05/west-virginia-wants-add-pitt-virginia-tech-penn-state-future-football-schedules/
LikeLike
Apparently it pays to join the SEC. Literally.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/29/missouri-hauled-in-record-football-revenue-in-2013/
LikeLike
From 2007 to this year, KU had greater athletic department revenues and expenditures than Mizzou and KSU.
LikeLike
Not for long. Mizzou just passed them and should stay ahead once SEC Network monies come in.
Kind of amazing ku can make so much money with such a bad football program. They’re one of the few able to do it with basketball alone.
LikeLike
http://www.uscho.com/ncaa/mens-division-i-ncaa-tournament/
College hockey update. The first two rounds are this weekend.
#3 Union has already won the East region to make the Frozen Four.
#4 WI was upset in the first round, so #14 NDSU advanced to face #5 Ferris State in the Midwest.
#1 MN is playing #16 Robert Morris right now in the West on ESPN2 (just underway).
#2 BC leads Denver in the Northeast region, 6-1 after 2 periods.
LikeLike
There’s no reason for the B10 to not have at least 1 team in the Frozen Four every year.
LikeLike
I don’t agree Richard. One team may be the most for a while. The BIG only has 6 teams & a newcomer to D1: PSU. OSU has to take charge as well – they’ve never been to a Frozen Four and they are often the 3rd best team in Ohio behind Bowling Green and Miami. Increased parity and the travel that has now eliminated more in-state rivalries for say the Michigan schools and Minnesota will take its toll on BIG schools for the first few years.
In the end, the once amazing WCHA got shafted, more so than the CCHA because Michigan and Michigan St. were former WCHA members. The WCHA, by far, has the most NCs and Frozen Fours – all-time – it WAS the most decorated conference in all of college sports until the BIG got greedy. Btw, I’m pro-BIG, but not with college hockey & certainly some other decisions they’ve made the past few years. Hockey is too regional to make a difference for the BIG’s image. On the money argument, well sure it makes sense.
In actuality, the new NCHC is a pretty damn good hockey conference, arguably better than the BIG. North Dakota, Minn-Duluth, Denver and Colorado College have 17 NCAA titles from their WCHA days (not as many as BIG blue bloods), but their new league has more teams & better traditional rivalries than the BIG, as well as more in-state rivalries. The NCHC was a wisely put together conference in terms of geography and traditional powers & I wouldn’t be surprised to see it dominate in years to come. Already, UND will represent the new conference in the Frozen Four, and they sure smashed Wisconsin along the way. Btw, UND is our arch rival (Minnesota alum), not Wisconsin. The BIG can’t change that fact – ever.
LikeLike
The B10 only has 6 teams. 3 of which are in the top 7 when it comes to most NCAA hockey titles all time. 4 of which are in the top 10 when it comes to most NCAA hockey titles all time.
Like the ACC in bball or the SEC in football, the B10 in hockey is king-heavy.
You also state as a fact that less in-state rivalries would weaken the B10 hockey programs when realignment in football and basketball have not born out that theory. TAMU plays far fewer TX schools as an SEC member than they before as a member of the B12. They have become stronger in football. Texas played far fewer TX schools as a member of the B12 than they did as a member of the SWC. They became stronger in football. ‘Cuse plays far fewer NE schools as a member of the ACC than as a member of the BE. It’s early, but their TV ratings have gone up in basketball and they probably will be as strong or stronger going forward.
I understand that, like most people, you’re wedded to the structure of sports that you grew up with, but looking objectively as an outsider at college hockey, I see no reason why the B10, which is better funded, has more exposure, and is more king-heavy than pretty much any other hockey conference, should not place at least 1 school in the Frozen Four every year.
And indeed, since 1992, the only years that a B10 school did not make the Frozen Four were 2000, 2004, 2009, and 2013. 19 out of 23 years.
LikeLike
I’m not sure you watch much college hockey Richard, nor know the history and how these rivalries and traditions have worked & for decades mind you. You are indeed an “outsider”. In-state rivalries are huge in college hockey and make a difference in how teams from each state perform and recruit – look at NCs per state: Mass schools, Michigan schools, Colorado schools, Minnesota schools. Outside of Co., these are 3 of the top 5 states for high school hockey. These schools have been successful in part because of cohesive in-state rivalries aligned along shared conference membership – in excess of 2 teams mind you – in fact 4 teams. You also realize that these teams play each other twice a weekend during conference play. Parents & friends can’t just travel all over the country for weekends, expensive.
Current BIG teams were successful in previous conferences because they didn’t have to play each other as much and therefore knock each other out of tourney qualification. I actually have a bit of concern for the Michigan schools in the new BIG – high school hockey is not what it used to be in that state and plucking Canadians isn’t as easy as it used to be. It’s mind-blowing that neither Sparty nor Michigan made the tournament this year.
Too often I hear the money thing come up on this board – that somehow $ translates into success – this formula doesn’t succeed as much as we think, esp for the BIG and our continuos drought in winning a NC in Men’s Basketball. Football, well that’s simple: HS football is huge in the Southeast and Texas – hard to get those kids up here. Until the colder regions play year round prep football, this gap will continue.
We shall see about BIG hockey. Tomorrow, we play former WCHA foe & in-state rival St. Cloud State for a Frozen Four berth. St Cloud State is also a member of the NCHC. If we win, well then we get another former WCHA foe and our ACTUAL ARCH RIVAL: UND.
LikeLike
Hmm. I am indeed an outsider, and from my outsider perspective, I saw that TX rivalries were huge in the SWC and that football in TX is as big as hockey in MN (and bigger than hockey in MA or MI), as you say yourself. Yet when Texas started playing fewer TX schools in the B12, they became more successful, and when TAMU started playing zero TX schools in conference in the SEC, they became more successful.
LikeLike
“Yet when Texas started playing fewer TX schools in the B12, they became more successful, and when TAMU started playing zero TX schools in conference in the SEC, they became more successful.”
Confuses causation and correlation, ignoring things like coaching (hiring Mack Brown in 1998), better recruiting with new coaching, and the presence of an elite QB (Manziel) on the roster.
LikeLike
Yet it’s hard to argue that kings going from a more local conference to a more regional conference with more exposure and money hurts recruiting and results. I don’t see data points to back that assertion.
LikeLike
“Yet it’s hard to argue that kings going from a more local conference to a more regional conference with more exposure and money hurts recruiting and results. I don’t see data points to back that assertion.”
It depends entirely on the school. It worked for Texas, but that does not mean moving conferences caused that, or that it was coincidence. Texas with Mack Brown, who had built a top 10 team an UNC, was going to win and win big, regardless of conference. And it being Texas, it would have had all the hype regardless of conference (or independence).
As for data points, I point to Miami leaving the Big East for the ACC. Moving to a better and wealthier conference, yet it coincided with a downturn in school fortunes, by stricter recruiting rules and a new coach intent on winning clean (Randy Shannon). Did not exactly work out for the school. Did Miami joining the ACC cause its downturn, or did it just hire the wrong coach (Randy Shannon) and recruit lesser players?
LikeLike
There are more examples the other way, though (at least with kings & princes).
Louisville basketball is another one, where they have had more success after leaving their more local conference (CUSA) for a more national one (BE) with more exposure and more money.
LikeLike
There will be examples of Kings having success in multiple conferences, but there is no causation, just correlations, j. Louisville had already experienced success before joining the Big East, and would have had similar success regardless of conference as long as Pitino was there. Its not like L’Ville was a rundown program pre-Big East (2005 Final Four) unable to recruit in NYC (Pitino had and has significant ties to NYC recruiting circles).
Did moving conferences open new geographic recruiting grounds for Texas? No, because Texas is the recruiting ground. If anything, it opened up Texas to more schools with newly-found regular games in state. Yet the school still won big.
As for a&m, jury is still out on long term success. Its not as if the program dominated a lesser Big 12.
LikeLike
If you believe that, then there’s still no reason to believe that the B10 schools would be worse in hockey now that they play together than they were when they were all in different leagues.
LikeLike
“If you believe that, then there’s still no reason to believe that the B10 schools would be worse in hockey now that they play together than they were when they were all in different leagues”
I was not talking about hockey. Only the part about Texas and Texas a&m. I have no idea about recruiting in hockey, or which schools/regions benefit. But my best guess is that the top B1G programs will remain so because of who they are (Minny, Mich, Wisconsin, MSU) and that the lesser ones (PSU, OSU) will only benefit with time.
LikeLike
“Its not as if the program dominated a lesser Big 12.”
Its not as if the program dominated a “supposedly” lesser Big 12.
Perhaps this is evidence the SEC isn’t (gasp…sacrilegious!) the beast it’s hyped to be?
LikeLike
“Perhaps this is evidence the SEC isn’t (gasp…sacrilegious!) the beast it’s hyped to be?”
Certainly possible, but aTm’s move to the SEC also coincided with Manziel’s arrival on the scene, so its hard to prove one way or the other. Its entirely possible that Manziel’s stats could have been even better playing in the B12 that his great stats in the SEC.
LikeLike
Its interesting to hear SEC coaches talk about recruiting smaller, quicker players in response to A&M and Missouri and now Auburn, just as Missouri’s Pinkel was talking about recruiting bigger defensive players when he moved into the SEC.
LikeLike
It’s funny how the success of A&M is attributed to Manziel and not Sumlin (mostly by horn fans). Sumlin’s arrival is much more critical. If you’re expecting a change of fortune, I’ll point you to the recruiting rankings since his arrival.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, OSU made the Frozen Four in 1998.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“One team may be the most for a while.”
I’d happily take an average of 1 per year. It’ll be WI and MN most of the time, with MI and MSU sometimes and OSU and PSU only in miracle years.
“In the end, the once amazing WCHA got shafted,”
No. it didn’t. It built itself in part on having 4 B10 teams that have been hockey powers at various times. The WCHA wasn’t their home conference except for hockey and they knew the day might come when the B10 had 6 hockey teams.
“until the BIG got greedy.”
That’s crap. The WCHA had no claims to those teams. It was a resting spot for them until the B10 reached critical mass. It isn’t greed to expect B10 teams to play in the B10 conference. If the B10 had added a partial member to get to 6 (like JHU for lacrosse), then you might have a point.
LikeLike
Seriously, stop. I’m getting tired of your bloated opinions and stop following my posts here. Really, stop!
If you are from Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and grew up as a serious college hockey fan, the WCHA was a very meaningful conference. You cannot erase its prestigious history – ever.
You’re reaching a point here with me that I frankly don’t like. Just stop antagonizing.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Seriously, stop.”
No. Don’t state opinions here if you aren’t willing to have them challenged.
“If you are from Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and grew up as a serious college hockey fan, the WCHA was a very meaningful conference.”
It doesn’t matter where you grew up. The WCHA was a very meaningful conference to any college hockey fan. Nobody said it wasn’t.
“You cannot erase its prestigious history – ever.”
Nobody has tried to do that, either.
You claimed the WCHA got shafted. Disagreeing with that doesn’t reflect on whether the WCHA was a meaningful conference to fans or how great its history was. I think MN and WI are B10 schools that played hockey in the WCHA because there was no B10 hockey conference. I think all B10 schools are expected (and probably required, but the bylaws are secret) to play in the B10 if the B10 offers that sport. I think both schools always knew that and so did the WCHA. Thus, I don’t see how any shafting took place by MN and WI returning to their home conference once the B10 added a 6th hockey team. If the B10 had added UND to be #6, then you’d have a case for the WCHA getting shafted.
You also claimed the B10 got greedy. Was that when PSU decided to accept a large donation and move up to D-I hockey? Were they required to stay a club team to appease the WCHA? Was the B10 supposed to refuse to make hockey a B10 sport once they had enough teams to earn an autobid? Name one other sport where the B10 could have a conference and doesn’t. It’s the role of the B10 to get their teams to play each other as a conference. And it’s hardly like B10 hockey is some great windfall for the conference. They’ve turned down options in football that would make them a lot more money than hockey ever will.
LikeLike
The WCHA got shafted more than the CCHA? Given that the CCHA folded up tents, it takes some doing to get shafted more than that.
LikeLike
The CCHA also lost 3 B10 teams to the WCHA losing 2.
And I also love how the B10 gets all his blame and yet 6 of the other WCHA members split off to form the NCHC.
LikeLike
You’d be surprised what two decades of television coverage can do.
The NCHC is built on an old paradigm; the Big Ten is trying to get the casual fans involved. History is full of former champions fading into obscurity. New generations are going to grow up with Big Ten hockey, kids will want to play on television and use great, expensive facilities.
The writing is on the wall, now the games are playing in bars and in living rooms. The old way is dead, long live Big Ten hockey.
LikeLike
And the Frozen Four is set:
#1 MN vs #14 UND
#2 BC vs #3 Union
It could’ve been an all B10 semi if WI didn’t get upset, but we still got our 1 team in.
LikeLike
Emmert not a fan of the NLRB ruling. Would going to unionization mean no more NCAA? It’s entirely possible. Emmert said if student-athletes essentially became paid employees of universities it “completely blows up the whole model, and it’s not clear whether anybody would want to continue the games under those circumstances.”
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24506652/video-ncaa-president-emmert-discusses-paying-players-ncaas-future
LikeLike
Some schools, maybe. ‘Bama or OU giving up Tide or Sooner football because they have to pay players (when that’s already happening under the table in some places)? I don’t see it.
In any case, unionization is not going to blow up the NCAA. the anti-trust case very well might, however.
LikeLike
What anti trust case?
As long as they are students and not employees there won’t be one.
LikeLike
1. Well, they’ve just been ruled to be employees.
2. Even when recruiting students, schools can not collude to limit the amount that they give to recruit students. There was a famous case involving MIT and the Ivies where they had colluded to offer students who needed financial aid enough aid so that those students’ out-of-pocket expense would be roughly the same at each school. The Ivies signed a consent decree to not engage in that practice any more. MIT kept fighting the case and lost in court.
Google “MIT Ivies collusion”.
If you think about it, the anti-competitive rules of the NCAA are really on very shaky legal footing.
LikeLike
“If you think about it, the anti-competitive rules of the NCAA are really on very shaky legal footing.”
Which anti-competitive rules are you referring to?
LikeLike
“If you think about it, the anti-competitive rules of the NCAA are really on very shaky legal footing.”
Which anti-competitive rules are you referring to?
The fact that the schools have colluded to limit both the quantity of athletic scholarships and the amount of aid that can be offered.
If Northwestern wants to offer extra money to lure a promising Economics student who’d otherwise have chosen Duke, they can. If Northwestern wants to double the number of Law School scholarships, they can. In athletics, they can’t.
LikeLike
Hence the thought about, in part, following the Ivy model – no athletic skill/value based aid. All students treated the same. Recruit students to your school for the academic offerings and the athletic programs/opportunities, not for the pay/aid offered contingent on their athletic performance/abilities.
LikeLike
“If Northwestern wants to offer extra money to lure a promising Economics student who’d otherwise have chosen Duke, they can.”
Is the a voluntarily joined national association governing competitions of economic skill with others who have joined that association for the stability/consistency such would offer those competitions, that prohibits such offerings? No. Apples and oranges.
LikeLike
“The fact that the schools have colluded to limit both the quantity of athletic scholarships and the amount of aid that can be offered.”
Are there any rules anywhere that aren’t both limiting in some respect or a result of collusion (majority vote)?
LikeLike
Whether it’s “apples and oranges” or not is for the courts to decide. You’ve accurately recited the NCAA position, and in their minds they are always right. I agree with you that if they reverted to the Ivy model, they would be on a far more solid footing.
Are there any rules anywhere that aren’t both limiting in some respect or a result of collusion (majority vote)?
I suppose you could say that they “colluded” to make the touchdown worth 6 points, but it’s not the sort of collusion that limits economic opportunity, which is the kind the courts care about.
LikeLike
It limits the economic opportunity for kickers. If FGs and XPs were more important to the game, more kickers would get recruited for scholarships and they’d get paid better in the NFL.
LikeLike
“You’ve accurately recited the NCAA position, and in their minds they are always right.”
I’ve suggested the membership’s (they are the NCAA) concern, and a possible course of remediation. Football didn’t begin, and won’t end with a change in eligibility/financial aid rules. A threat to the universities non profit status, however, would have that potential.
“…but it’s not the sort of collusion that limits economic opportunity, which is the kind the courts care about.”
There was never an intent, and it is very publicly known, that college FB participation is not an economic opportunity for students, at least within the rules (cough…Cam, Johnny, Reggie, cough…).
Doesn’t collusion usually involve some form of secrecy or subterfuge? Wouldn’t long held and published rules kind of be the opposite?
LikeLike
“Doesn’t collusion usually involve some form of secrecy or subterfuge?”
Usually only when people believe they are doing something illegal. The Ivies and MIT didn’t hide the fact that they were sharing financial aid data either. That doesn’t make collusion more legal.
LikeLike
“It limits the economic opportunity for kickers. If FGs and XPs were more important to the game, more kickers would get recruited for scholarships and they’d get paid better in the NFL.”
However, on net, football players are not hurt, as more money to kickers means less money to other players. Limiting the amount and number of scholarships hurts players as a group, however. So, for instance, if MLB made HR’s count for double (and when professional basketball instituted the 3-point line), some players are helped more by the rule change (and thus some players are hurt more). That would not run afoul of anti-trust laws. However, when MLB teams colluded to not bid for MLB FA’s, that limited the amount of money that MLB players can get as a group, and they ran afoul of anti-trust laws.
The main thing is that even if the value of FG’s or 3-pointers are changed, the free market still decides what players who are good or bad at those skills are worth. When teams collude to hold down the amount of compensation going to players, then it is not the free market deciding the value any more, and you have an anti-trust issue.
LikeLike
I wasn’t arguing that it represented an anti-trust issue. I was pointing out that his example does actually limit economic opportunity, and so do many other rules. The players also negotiate away all sorts of economic opportunities for themselves and others (roster sizes, age limits, etc).
Likewise, the teams could have all stood on their own and never signed FA’s and that would’ve been perfectly legal.
LikeLike
“Limiting the amount and number of scholarships hurts players as a group, however.”
As a group they wouldn’t be disadvantaged any more than the rest of the group, the student population. Unless you mean removing an advantage = disadvantage.
LikeLike
“Likewise, the teams could have all stood on their own and never signed FA’s and that would’ve been perfectly legal.”
Yea, right! If none had signed FAs it would only have been a result of collusion, the 30 way gentleman’s agreements that as long as you don’t I won’t either. That’s the definition of collusion.
LikeLike
“Yea, right! If none had signed FAs it would only have been a result of collusion, the 30 way gentleman’s agreements that as long as you don’t I won’t either. That’s the definition of collusion.”
Pretty much what ccrider said.
Yes, if they had all decided not to sign FA’s on their own accord without talking about it, there would be no anti-trust issue. However, they did talk about it (because there’s virtually no way that at least one owner would not break rank and steal a huge advantage on everyone else by signing all the available FA’s at a low price) without collusion.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Yes, if they had all decided not to sign FA’s on their own accord without talking about it, there would be no anti-trust issue.”
Which is what I said. Every team could have individually made that same decision and it would have been legal. It was the way the decisions were reached that made it illegal.
LikeLike
“As a group they wouldn’t be disadvantaged any more than the rest of the group, the student population. Unless you mean removing an advantage = disadvantage.”
It would be artificially restraining the market for one type of student (the scholarship student-athlete).
The NCAA has been able to get away with it because the courts have up to now ruled that amateur athletics is not a commercial activity (sort of like how MLB got it’s anti-trust exemption from a clearly biased judge who ruled that MLB was “sport”, not a business; which was rather farcical to pretty much any neutral observer). With the increase in the massive amount of money that flows to the 2 revenue sports over the past 2 decades, that opinion is pretty farcical to any neutral observer of the 2 college revenue sports now.
LikeLike
This may be part of ASU’s strong objection to the admission of GCU. Other than them there is no profit based entity in the NCAA. Other than GCU the NCAA members are non profit educational institutions that offer a wide variety of opportunities, many of which are very expensive. Does the amount of money generated by a U’s teaching and research hospital, or the money involved in research reactors, or oceanography sea going ships, the money from big ag or big pharmacy, etc. mean they are commercial ventures?
LikeLike
“Does the amount of money generated by a U’s teaching and research hospital, or the money involved in research reactors, or oceanography sea going ships, the money from big ag or big pharmacy, etc. mean they are commercial ventures?”
Mind you that just being not-for-profit does not give you free reign to be anti-competitive. The Ivies and MIT are obviously all non-profit, but they weren’t allowed to collude on the amount of financial aid that they gave out to particular students.
LikeLike
“The fact that the schools have colluded to limit both the quantity of athletic scholarships and the amount of aid that can be offered.”
My reading of the Rule of Reason would be to permit both. Remember, not every instance of anti-competitive restrictions will be struck down as a violation of anti-trust laws. Only unreasonable restrictions will be.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/4302
Click to access antitrust.pdf
It can very easily be argued that scholarship limits is pro-competitive, in that it caps the amount of scholarships a school can offer for a year, preventing hoarding of players (which is also anti-competitive and bad for student-athletes who never see the light of day on a football team with, say, 150 kids).
There are two recently-filed cases challenging this. One focuses on stipends, not the actual scholarships. The other focuses on scholarships, saying that without caps on value, the athletes would get more. I am very skeptical that the second one will succeed, also because of the Rule of Reason.
LikeLike
“…but they weren’t allowed to collude on the amount of financial aid that they gave out to particular students.”
Financial aid isn’t the question. The NCAA regulating the amount, and restricting aid to the prescribed amounts, has been tested and affirmed in court many times. What changes here is now that it’s no longer student aid being addressed. If the NLRB ruling stands it is employee wages. That changes the dynamic of what may be bargained for. It removes athletics from the educational realm. It turns them professional, and we’ve seen the path that takes in our current batch of pro sports.
LikeLike
Emmert not a fan of the NLRB ruling.
I never would have guessed.
Emmert said if student-athletes essentially became paid employees of universities it “completely blows up the whole model, and it’s not clear whether anybody would want to continue the games under those circumstances.”
Yes, I’m sure Michigan and Ohio State would raze their stadiums, and replace them with new classrooms for the Chemistry department.
LikeLike
The last two nights have sure shown the limits of instant replay. I couldn’t tell who touched the ball last in AZ/WI with 3 seconds left. And while I thought UL touched the ball last with 6 seconds left vs. UK, I didn’t with enough certainty to overrule the initial call that it was Louisville’s ball. And they had good camera angles.
LikeLike
The last two nights have sure shown the limits of instant replay.
It isn’t any different in football. “The ruling on the field stands” is a quite common occurrence (meaning that the replay booth neither confirms the original ruling nor finds sufficient evidence to overturn it).
LikeLike
If you think it’s bad in other sports, you should see it in college wrestling. Dumb system (refs have 1 camera they use, not the TV angles), takes forever (a huge problem for a sport where fitness is key to winning) and it almost never changes the call.
LikeLike
Wisky is in the F4! So that’s at least one B1G team. Bo has to breathing a sigh of relief now.
LikeLike
I thought they were still reviewing the in bounds play.
LikeLike
If UK manages to win the tourney, they would have had to knock off 5 top 10 teams.*
Has any team ever done that?
(And yes, I know that Wisconsin, MSU, and UConn did not finish in the final AP top 10 poll, though they should have–though MSU was 11th and UW was 12th–in place of KU, ISU, Duke, and ‘Nova).
Still, if you go by final AP standings, UK would likely have to knock off 5 of the top 12. I can’t imagine that any team has ever come close to that.
LikeLike
Someone knocked off 3 #1 seeds to get there. Think it was Arizona 97, but not sure.
LikeLike
Sure, but 5 top 12 teams? It’s possible (especially with underseeding), but has it been done before?
LikeLike
It’s looking like it might be an all B1G/SEC final four.
Either 2 SECs and 2 B1Gs, or 1 SEC and 3 B1Gs.
LikeLike
Uconn is still in, but I agree.
Sparty on!
LikeLike
I guess I was wrong. Sparty out.
LikeLike
The AAC crashed the party with UCONN
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24506359/aacs-aresco-on-umass-we-dont-have-any-plans-to-expand
The AAC is not looking to add UMass.
LikeLike
Pretty bad year for the ACC in the NCAA Tournament this year. I believe and hope the ACC will live up to great potential in coming years with Duke, UNC, Louisville, and Syracuse all in the same conference alongside a now-strong Virginia, a well-recruiting NC State, and great coaching at Notre Dame, Pitt, FSU, and Miami. The league has to prove it on the court, though, and it hasn’t for the past several years.
I would be glad to see the Big Ten send three teams to the Final Four. That would be a tremendous, tremendous accomplishment. I do hope that if that does happen, the Big Ten gets the recognition it deserves as an outstanding basketball league. Something tells me, though, that Big Ten fans will not be anywhere nearly as obnoxious as SEC football fans or Big East basketball figures who act like the 1985 season meant it was the greatest league in the history of the sport. Big Ten fans won’t have to remind everyone. Rather, they’ll just say, “Why are you acting surprised? We’re a great league, and we always have been. We don’t need to tell anyone about it because our teams speak for themselves.”
LikeLike
I see more of a shift.
UNC vs NC State
became
UNC vs Duke
will become
UNC vs UL
Syracuse will have to prove they can survive JB, and Duke will have to survive K. UNC and UL already have big venues and multiple NC’s over time from multiple coaches.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“I would be glad to see the Big Ten send three teams to the Final Four.”
Not going to happen as MSU peed down their legs in the second half.
“Something tells me, though, that Big Ten fans will not be anywhere nearly as obnoxious as SEC football fans or Big East basketball figures who act like the 1985 season meant it was the greatest league in the history of the sport. Big Ten fans won’t have to remind everyone.”
Part of that is just the midwestern personality versus the east coast or southeast.
LikeLike
It was a good weekend for ACC women’s b’ball, however. North beat South in the battle of Carolinas, and Maryland surprised top-seeded Tennessee. Then, of course, there’s Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Even David Teel agrees with you:
http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-blog/dp-teel-time-acc-hoops-wrap,0,1643469.post
LikeLike
Sparty up 4 at the half!
LikeLike
Sparty,
Congrats on a good run!!! I hate it that your last game wasn’t your best effort, but it was a great year anyway…
The BIG is now 10 – 4 for the tournament. Not bad, not bad at all… Although I did not see Wiscy beating Arizona, in an overtime period no less.
Let’s go Blue, and I don’t mean Kentucky either…
What a great tournament, I love this time of year. Now if only the twins would be quiet and stay asleep….
LikeLike
Well Sparty is gone & now I only have Minnesota hockey to root for – rest of the day.
I don’t care how many naysayers are on here:
UConn should be in the BIG.
Man they are just a vastly underrated 1-2 basketball power, The best in women’s and if they win no. 4 on the men’s side, I’d give them serious consideration as the the best program in the modern era. A toss up between them, UK & Duke.
And they fill MSG like no other team, esp Rutgers.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I don’t care how many naysayers are on here:”
Since when is pointing out facts naysaying?
“UConn should be in the BIG.”
No they shouldn’t.
1. Football – No history, only being fully I-A in 2002. Zero conference titles. 40,000 seat stadium 20 miles off campus (and they can’t move big games off campus). Located in the middle of nowhere.
2. Academics – Not AAU (nor equivalently good) with no likely prospects of reaching that levels in the next 20 years.
3. Size – Fewer than 26,000 students and 220,000 living alumni.
4. Demographics – CT is one of the slowest growing states in the US, no better than the midwest footprint of the B10. CT is also a small state with fewer than 3.6M residents.
“Man they are just a vastly underrated 1-2 basketball power, The best in women’s and if they win no. 4 on the men’s side, I’d give them serious consideration as the the best program in the modern era. A toss up between them, UK & Duke.”
And so valuable that the ACC doesn’t want them either. Maybe that should tell you something.
If the B10 was just a hoops conference, then their hoops prowess would matter a lot more than it does to the actual B10. FB drives TV money, not hoops. Academics is the purpose of a university, not hoops. Demographics have also partially driven B10 expansion, not hoops where the conference is already elite.
“And they fill MSG like no other team, esp Rutgers.”
You mean that building the B10 never plays in? The one that has another conference’s tournament locked up for years and years? Great.
LikeLike
Brian,
Why do you continue to waste your breath? I already know how you feel about UConn, everyone does.
I’ll stick with them because I believe basketball, at the end of the day, will remain a popular, revenue earning sport. And the college bowl season will never have the attention of average viewers like March Madness. FBS CF is actual a fraud, esp compared to the NFL. I think football, as a whole, will take a hit in the next decade. But I could be wrong. Mainstream America never fails to repeat stupid mistakes. It’s a dangerous sport & becoming more and more regionalized in terms of prep talent.
I just don’t care about football much & I do know most other people do on here. But I don’t.
And give the AAU a rest – it’s a terribly overrated institution of self back patters & I got both my degrees from AAU lifers: Minny and Wisky.
LikeLike
gfunk:
You’re entitled to your opinions, of course, but you’re not entitled to facts that are not based in reality. Just because you hanker for the old structure in college hockey doesn’t mean that the B10 will do as badly in hockey as you believe they will, and just because you want UConn in the B10 doesn’t mean that B10 presidents (and I daresay the vast majority of B10 fans) believe that UConn is a worthy enough candidate by the metrics or criteria that they care about.
LikeLike
The college bowl season won’t grab the attention of average viewers like March Madness, but neither will the BBall regular season grab the attention of average viewers like College FB regular season. If colleges got the same share of media revenue generated by March Madness as they do of the media revenue generated by College FB, the two sports would be much closer to even in terms of value, but as long as the current institutions are in place, College BBall will remain a popular, revenue earning sport with the majority of the revenue diverted to prop up other endeavors.
LikeLike
The NCAA tournament is what drives revenue in basketball and the conferences only get a fraction of what they should, the NCAA pockets a sizable share of it to themselves. Basketball will never be a major reason for any B10 expansion. If the B10 feels UConn’s football program will grow into something potentially resembling Iowa, they might have an outshot shot at B10 membership. They’d never be the reason for any expansion, but they could be a ‘tag along’ to a major addition like say Texas or Virginia.
LikeLike
I’ll stick with them because I believe basketball, at the end of the day, will remain a popular, revenue earning sport. And the college bowl season will never have the attention of average viewers like March Madness. FBS CF is actual a fraud, esp compared to the NFL. I think football, as a whole, will take a hit in the next decade.
Even if that’s true, and even if the B1G believes it’s true, they can afford to wait it out. UConn will still be there in 5-10 years. There’s no point in making an irreversible move based on guesses of what will happen in a decade.
Anyhow, there is no plausible 16th school right now: @Devo keeps suggesting Kansas, but even if you want Kansas, they’re under a GOR right now, and not worth considering until the mid-2020s.
LikeLike
BTW, it’s hard to measure “attention”, but we know that the BCS title game draws as many viewers as the NCAA tourney title game and that the Rose and Sugar bowls actually draw more viewers than the 2 Final Four games. Also that the other BCS games draw as well as Elite 8 games.
Factor in the massive edge in interest that the football regular season has over the basketball regular season and that the biggest brands in college basketball don’t get to keep as much of the revenue they generate as the top brands in football, and it’s no contest when it comes to importance even with the viewership that the NCAA tournament draws with it’s extra playoff rounds.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Why do you continue to waste your breath? I already know how you feel about UConn, everyone does.”
Why do you? Everyone knows your opinion, too. And based on the replies you get, most vehemently disagree with you.
“I’ll stick with them because I believe basketball, at the end of the day, will remain a popular, revenue earning sport.”
Nobody said it wouldn’t. But FB earns much more and academics are more important than either and you can’t make the case for UConn in either of those areas.
“And the college bowl season will never have the attention of average viewers like March Madness.”
Yeah, nobody watched the BCS games and I’m sure the playoff will flop as well.
You do remember that there’s also a regular season, right? And FB crushes MBB in the regular season.
“I just don’t care about football much & I do know most other people do on here. But I don’t.”
Which is great, but expansion depends on what the presidents value, not you. That’s what we try to analyze on here much of the time.
“And give the AAU a rest – it’s a terribly overrated institution of self back patters & I got both my degrees from AAU lifers: Minny and Wisky.”
When the B10 COP/C stops saying it’s important, I will.
LikeLike
Excellence in basketball is not the only criteria for membership in the B10.
LikeLike
Too much northernness after Cuse, Pitt and BC for the ACC
Too much easternness after RU and UMD for the B1G
Neither of them want to risk going too far away from their cores. That plus the admins and faculty at several schools have shown to be as much whiny beeyotches as the T-shirt fans.
LikeLike
I prefer the B1G add Yukon. Expands into new, untapped region. Wealthy with Klondike-era gold. Probably amazing in hockey, but would need work in football.
LikeLike
Antarctica.
No one’s there yet. The B10 has the chance to grab a massive new territory all for themselves.
LikeLike
Antarctica Penguins is a college hockey powerhouse. Like Crimson Tide level powerhouse.
LikeLike
“No one’s there yet.”
About ten million short tuxedo wearing individuals take exception to that. 🙂
LikeLike
Outdoor hockey all year round, too.
LikeLike
Don’t tempt Gary Bettman.
LikeLike
I think he’s looking to push into the tropics first. Maybe India? Convince them it’s cricket on ice and you’ve got a goldmine.
LikeLike
Please don’t tempt Gary Bettman.
Now he has visions of “Million Dollar Slapshot” starring Joe Hamm as Bettman.
LikeLike
gfunk, are you devo in disguise? I’m surprised we’ve heard nothing from him since that game.
LikeLike
http://www.laxpower.com/update14/binmen/rating01.php
M Lax update:
2. UMD
8. JHU
19. PSU
24. OSU
27. RU
49. MI
Out of 67 teams. It’s not a B10 sport yet, but we’re supposed to start caring.
http://www.collegecrosse.com/2014/3/25/5545976/midseason-check-up-the-nations-strongest-leagues-best-races
If you compare to the current conferences, the B10 would be an extremely distant second in strength to the ACC. They aren’t in the table, but the blogger says they’d be around 59%.
1. ACC 75.3%
2. B10 59%
3. Ivy 57.2%
That’s without adjusting the existing conferences (so the ACC still counts UMD).
LikeLike
Come, now, actually SAYING distant second in strength to the ACC is acting like a noob … it goes without saying. More like, “Big Ten would be second in strength, narrowly edging out the Ivy league to form a group ahead of the Big East and Colonial, and below the ACC at the top”
Luckily tomorrow’s payday, I can stock up on the Chardonnay to follow the rest of the Buckeyes Lacrosse season in their final year in the ECAC, once the Big Dance is over.
LikeLike
It goes without saying for lacrosse fans, but that group doesn’t include most B10 fans.
LikeLike
My gut says either Wisky or UConn is going to spoil an SEC party, I might even go with UConn & Wisky in the final. I think UConn, firm but not a definite prediction, beats Fla. Fla is much more of a half court team than advertised, this will play into UConn’s hands. They simply have the best tandem in the country and a lot of underrated talent in their front court.
In this current game, Ky might have gotten the boost they needed to come back from 10 down. Michigan is absolutely no Iowa, no one is, but they cough up comfortable leads, esp if they 3s don’t fall.
If Ky continues to dominate the paint, this one may be over before the 3 minute mark.
But they call this March Madness for a reason.
LikeLike
UK-UM:
Heavy. Weight. Battle.
What a game.
LikeLike
And just like that, the B10 lives up to post-season expectations by losing 2 winnable games on the big stage.
Figuring every game is basically a toss up at this point, there was a 38% chance of going 1-2 so it’s no big deal. Unfortunately, it plays into the old narrative.
I expect UF to take care of WI on Saturday, ending B10 hopes. Still, 3 of 8 in the E8 isn’t a bad year.
LikeLike
As a devoted MSU hoops fan, I knew an unhealthy Appling meant trouble today. I posted on the Boneyard, days ago, they would win. Appling’s scoring output, last half of the season, can clearly be seen. He lost his confidence, esp driving to the basket.
All BIG teams played in tough venues as well. I’d say Indy is better suited for Ky fans – a little closer for them than Michigan fans.
Wisky deserves big time praise. All these FF teams deserved to win.
At the end of the day, Michigan lost to the pre-season no.1, a team stacked with the best freshmen talent since the Fab Five, perhaps better. They also have underrated depth on that bench.
LikeLike
This is just getting old, esp for fans of Michigan. Ky powers have their number.
That was a great game, perhaps the best regulation game of the tournament.
The BIG went out fighting, for sure.
But until the conference, as a whole, retains top shelf talent and even goes national, the drought will continue.
I’m torn on who I want from this point on: UConn or Wisconsin.
Wisconsin winning it all would be a huge, huge statement & counter my point on top tier recruiting. It would be a fitting bookend for Bo Ryan and the loss of his parents in past couple of years. But every other team likely has a similar story. UConn’s recent troubles and being left out in the cold during expansion is a huge storyline as well.
I’m afraid this Ky team is starting to believe in themselves & 3 of 5 starters are going home to Texas.
Kentucky will win no. 9.
PS Calipari can absolutely coach, doesn’t mean I like him : ).
LikeLike
You’re not concerned about Cauley-Stein’s injury? Missing a big man against MI may not hurt much, but WI might be a different story. Certainly UF could make them regret it.
LikeLike
Looks like probably an all SEC final. Florida will win it over Kentucky.
LikeLike
Andy, I’ll be shocked if Fl beats UConn. The Huskies are surging at the right time & played better opponents than Fl so far, better challenged.
But who knows. I actually see Ky winning big over Fl if an all SEC final. They were close in the SEC tournament, and thus far have faced a wickedly difficult path to the FF, the same can’t be said for Fl.
LikeLike
Florida has won 30 straight games, often by 20 or 30 pts each. They’re ranked #1 in the country. They are a complete team. I like their chances of winning out.
LikeLike
Yes Florida hasn’t lost a game since they played at UCONN in December. However, I expect Florida to take the rematch. I would prefer a Kentucky win if it is a SEC final rematch. This will put emphasis on how meaningless the regular basketball season is (3 FL wins over KY) and how a one and done strategy is better than recruiting players that plan to stick around a few years.
LikeLike
“and how a one and done strategy is better than recruiting players that plan to stick around a few years.”
I don’t think that such a strategy needs to be vindicated, considering that virtually every coach would implement Calipari’s strategy if they could recruit as well as him.
LikeLike
I believe it’s more that’s he’s willing to buy his players more than any recruiting ability.
LikeLike
I don’t think Calipari is buying his players. Someone might be buying them, but he isn’t.
LikeLike
He likes the Armani suits too much. I would investigate modest-spending coaches in low-cost-of-living towns. I would bet thats where a good deal of the multi-million dollar coaching salaries go.
LikeLike
Is this Final Four not a good argument for inviting both Kentucky and Connecticut into the B1G?
LikeLike
Not unless the number of Final Fours attended is the one and only criterion for admission, which it neither is nor should be.
Anyhow, Kentucky would not accept a Big Ten invite.
LikeLike
You’re forgetting two things: Academics and football. If they aren’t all that important, let UConn enter the SEC.
LikeLike
This final four appearance would not in any way impact the B1G’s feelings on Kentucky. Its a known basketball superpower. I agree with Marc that Kentucky would not accept an invite to the B1G, but I could see Kentucky as a school that’s intriguing for B1G leaders if its academics improve. But its not AAU (which, for all its faults, is a key measure for B1G presidents), and its lower ranked in US News than UNL. Until it improves on those fronts, the B1G would have no interest.
UConn has been poked and prodded by several conferences, and has obviously been found wanting to such a degree that its no longer in a power conference.
LikeLike
“As far as UConn fans sending a message to the ACC and Big Ten, I’m not convinced it will,” said Marston, who wants to see if the American can grow. “UConn has always traveled well to NYC and the Garden but for other venues, not so much, especially in football. Men’s and women’s basketball no longer sell out every game like they did 10 years ago. Football attendance is down. The practice facilities are fine but Gampel needs to be spruced up and the XL Center needs a major overhaul. No one event, no matter how impressive, will make up for all these other issues.”
http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-28/sports/hc-jacobs-column-0328-20140327_1_uconn-coach-kevin-ollie-uconn-banner-madison-square-garden/2
LikeLike
Another perspective on UConn’s future, this time from Gary Blair, former Louisiana Tech assistant:
http://touch.courant.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79778659/
LikeLike
What if question – if the Virginia legislature had not been successful in getting VTech into the ACC for the 2004 season with Miami and BC, and Syracuse got in (as originally planned), how would that have impacted the turn-of-decade realignment?
LikeLike
VT and Pitt would be joining now?
LikeLike
I guess SEC would have had to decide between [redacted] and Va Tech to pair with A&M. They probably would have stuck with [redacted] but it would be a more difficult decision.
LikeLike
In that sense [redacted] would be looking at it much like UNC will be looking at it. The heads like the B1G but the fans, coaches, boosters probably would prefer the SEC or simply to have stayed in the BXII if only for Texas recruits.
LikeLike
if you think switching Mizzou to “redacted school” keeps me from knowing what you’re talking about you failed.
LikeLike
What ccrider55 said. Doubt the SEC would have taken Va Tech over Mizzou. Certainly not over aTm.
LikeLike
The only reason [redacted] is in the SEC is because they needed someone to pair with A&M. A&M was #13 and the SEC had to choose between [redacted] and West Virginia (schools that could and were willing to move) for #14. In that case, [redacted] was a much better choice.
LikeLike
Redacted could refer to the Funkadelic University Fightin’ Parliamentarians, , and it still would have been chosen over WVU.
LikeLike
Uh, no. Mizzou is the flagship university of a state of 6.1M people, AAU, with decently good football and basketball programs. They rank 20th in national college apparel sales rankings so their brand is fairly strong.
VaTech plays second fiddle in their state, they’re not AAU, they’ve had a nice run at football but have no history really before the 90s, they’re poor at basketball, etc. Their apparel ranking is 27th.
Florida, A&M, and Vandy were pushing to add a solid academic school. Mizzou is AAU, VaTech is not. The SEC likes flagship schools. Mizzou is a flagship school, VaTech is not.
East coast bias may say VaTech is the better choice, but the facts suggest otherwise.
LikeLike
Sorry, thought Wainscott was arguing with someone about it. Apparently he wasn’t. So neither am I.
LikeLike
Bias or not, I think Va Tech is a little overrated as a football power. Based on my memory and quick research, the school has had repeated issues selling its ticket allotment for BCS games in the last few years, and the BCS games they have played in did ok, but not great, in the TV ratings.
Coupled with its far-flung location relative to a major VA population center, and I think its a Prince, but not a King, level program in spite of the program’s success with Beamer (who I think is generally underrated, partially because Va Tech is always good, sometimes great, but rarely memorable (except with Mike Vick).
At the end of the day, its consistency minus flash, general lack of significant media coverage, lack of BCS Championship, and questionable fan support lead me to conclude that Va Tech is overrated as a program for conference expansion purposes.
LikeLike
Va Tech is overrated as a program for conference expansion purposes…
That seems like a fair assessment. VT is probably more valuable to the ACC than to anyone else, because the ACC is starved for good football teams. The Big Ten and the SEC are not.
LikeLike
Regarding Va Tech: #44 on the list of CFB tv ratings by school in 2013, with 9 games measured.
http://www.goodbullhunting.com/2013/12/17/5216550/college-football-tv-ratings-2013-regular-season-final-sec
LikeLike
And Mizzou is #8.
LikeLike
Throwing in my two cents here …. If Va Tech had been available, the SEC absolutely would have taken them over Missouri. It wouldn’t have even been close.
LikeLike
aTm may have had a say. VT wasn’t GOR bound and there was considerable advocacy from VT fans for an SEC invite in 2010. The SEC could have invited them, in spite of the “owing UVA”. It might have precipitated UVA to B1G, or at least have increased that possibility. And all the unknown dominos falling scenarios.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“aTm may have had a say.”
You think they would have advocated for MO? UT certainly would have pushed for VT. Probably many of the east schools would have, too. The divisions would make a lot more geographic sense with VT. NC would be surrounded by the SEC, making it more likely the SEC either could add a NC school eventually or get the SECN on at a high carriage rate. VA is larger than MO and growing faster. VT is a larger football brand.
“It might have precipitated UVA to B1G, or at least have increased that possibility. And all the unknown dominos falling scenarios.”
If VT was #14 to the SEC, then the B10 adds MO before the B12 GoR can be signed and pairs them with UMD, RU or KU. Maybe all 3, since I’m not sure UVA or anyone further south would leave the ACC.
LikeLike
I think a familiar partner from similar history and region, with good academics, would make/made aTm’s move more comfortable.
Yeah, all the possibilities, or should I say the uncertainty/volatility would have increased. However, I’d assume the B1G eastern corridor was already the decided goal before a prescreened Midwest FB king became available . They could have invited those schools anyway, but didn’t. I don’t think VT is any sort of lynch pin.
LikeLike
“I’d assume the B1G eastern corridor was already the decided goal before a prescreened Midwest FB king became available .”
Completely agree. B1G had analyzed various midwest and east coast schools and developed conference strategies designed to maximize tv monies and exposure, which meant going east. But when UNL explored leaving, the B1G saw an opportunity to get a major brand, one big enough to justify going to 12 and adding the CCG by itself.
If UNL was unavailable, I’m not certain the B1G would have gone to 12 so quickly, #12 certainly would not have been Rutgers. Perhaps the conference would have gone right to 14 and poach UMd and UVa at the same time, with RU again playing the role as a NYC market play for #14. I discount Mizzou despite its academics because the B1G’s stated goal of expansion is to get into new markets. B1G has decent penetration in STL because of Illinois/other B1G alumni in that region, and I don’t think the conference valued the KC market that much relative to the potential windfall from expanding eastward in a big way (NYC/NJ & DC) (which is a calculated gamble that if it pays off, may dwarf all other conferences).
I also think the B1G would have only taken 1 Virginia school, and UVa would have been that selection (With UVa & UMd, I doubt Va Tech would generate much additional DC/Va money sufficient to pay for itself, And I think B1G presidents drool over UVa’s top-shelf academics.)
Indeed, the last power conference to expand by taking both major public universities was the Pac 8 (now Pac 12) in the late 70’s, taking both Arizona and ASU.* Heck, the SEC likely could have had Florida State at any point before the ACC GoR and passed, precisely because of diminishing returns based on market repetition with UF relative to the potential gains in (eastern) Texas and Missouri. And Florida has about 2.5x more residents that Virginia.
(The B12 adding TCU is different, because (a) TCU is private; (b) other conference schools wanted another game against a Texas school/road trip to Texas because that’s the main state for B12 schools in recruiting; (c) conference politics; and (d) TCU’s then recent high level of success).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Completely agree. B1G had analyzed various midwest and east coast schools and developed conference strategies designed to maximize tv monies and exposure, which meant going east. But when UNL explored leaving, the B1G saw an opportunity to get a major brand, one big enough to justify going to 12 and adding the CCG by itself.”
People forget how volatile things were back then. If the B10 had any true interest in adding UT, MO would have been a decent geographic bridge. It certainly would have gone over better with the fans than RU has. MO also would’ve been a familiar face to help NE transition into the B10. I’m not sure UMD would have been ready to move any earlier than they did, and by then MO would’ve been in the B12 GoR. It all comes down to how the COP/C value MO and other schools, and that’s just guesswork on our parts.
“If UNL was unavailable, I’m not certain the B1G would have gone to 12 so quickly, #12 certainly would not have been Rutgers.”
In this scenario, the B10 would already have NE. NE left the B12 a year before TAMU did.
The options were staying at 12 or going to 14+.
“Perhaps the conference would have gone right to 14 and poach UMd and UVa at the same time, with RU again playing the role as a NYC market play for #14.”
Even with VT gone, I don’t see UVA leaving the ACC at that point. So to me, that leaves MO, UMD, RU and maybe KU as the only available options at that time.
“I also think the B1G would have only taken 1 Virginia school, and UVa would have been that selection (With UVa & UMd, I doubt Va Tech would generate much additional DC/Va money sufficient to pay for itself, And I think B1G presidents drool over UVa’s top-shelf academics.)”
Nobody doubts UVA would be the B10’s top choice, but in this scenario VT is already in the SEC anyway.
LikeLike
I wasn’t replying to a particular scenario (though now I see the comment I was replying to concerned that scenario). Sorry for any confusion. I was just speaking more broadly about my perception of the B1G’s strategy from when it announced it was exploring expansion in late 2009.
Anywho, assuming Va Tech did not get into the ACC in 2004, I think it would have gotten in in Fall 2011 (just replace Syracuse and Pitt with Va Tech and Pitt). Va Tech’s president has also repeatedly expressed extreme comfort with being associated with the more academic schools in the ACC, and I take that as a statement of preference over the lesser academic but much better athletic culture of the SEC. I personally believe that Va Tech would have chosen the ACC over the SEC if given the chance. (I believe Pitt announced it was leaving the BE about a week or two before TAMU announced it was going to the SEC).
As for the B1G, I don’t think it would have changed that much, assuming the conference had an overall eastern strategy, but felt that UNL was too good to pass up and would help overall with quality games/content. If it was not going to pry UMd lose, then it might still be at 12 (RU was always going to be #14 in pursuing an eastern strategy, but never #13). Regardless, I just don’t think Mizzou would be in the B1G (certainly not after Mizzou announced its move to the SEC).
Now, assuming Va Tech was in the SEC, then I think history would have remained the same for the B1G. But I could also see a concerned UVa moving to the B1G to get access to name brand schools in order to equal the landscape with Va Tech being in a conference with Alabama.UGA, UF, and all the rest (and to make more money in the process). A good way to prevent Va Tech from becoming the big program in state could very well have been being in a division with OSU/PSU/Mich/MSU as well as natural rival UMd.
Also, I don’t think Swofford felt the need to fly to Charlottesville in order to pitch the GoR personally to the UVa Board of Trustees (or whatever UVa calls its BoT) just to see Jefferson’s creation. He obviously felt UVa required special attention (like FSU) for some reason, likely because ti was considering a UMd-type offer from the B1G. Would Mizzou have been pared with UVa, as an acknowledgment that the B1G could not get UNC or Duke or GT or Notre Dame? Maybe then, I could see it.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I wasn’t replying to a particular scenario (though now I see the comment I was replying to concerned that scenario). Sorry for any confusion. I was just speaking more broadly about my perception of the B1G’s strategy from when it announced it was exploring expansion in late 2009.”
Yes, and obviously my response was based on that scenario so just ignore those parts.
“As for the B1G, I don’t think it would have changed that much, assuming the conference had an overall eastern strategy, but felt that UNL was too good to pass up and would help overall with quality games/content. If it was not going to pry UMd lose, then it might still be at 12 (RU was always going to be #14 in pursuing an eastern strategy, but never #13). Regardless, I just don’t think Mizzou would be in the B1G”
What we’ll never know is how strong the B10’s desire to go east was versus those being the only schools left by the time they expanded. Was the gamble on RU really preferable to the known quantity of MO to them? Of course they spun it that way after the fact, but that doesn’t mean they felt that strongly originally.
“(certainly not after Mizzou announced its move to the SEC).”
Everyone (almost, anyway) agrees they were off the table once they went south.
LikeLike
“Was the gamble on RU really preferable to the known quantity of MO to them?”
True, we won’t know for sure anytime soon what the B1G’s “Magic Wand” preferences were (as in, waive a wand and it gets whatever it wants). It could very well be that the east coast strategy was spin and that the B1G was expecting Mizzou to always be available for the taking.
However, I happen to be in group (likely a minority) that believes Rutgers was always a serious Big Ten target, going back to the early 1990’s, but that the timing and/or money was not enough to bring in Rutgers by itself. I think the location in the broader NYC tv market, proximity to NYC proper, and academics excited business-minded athletic directors and presidents alike, and gave football and basketball coaches joy at playing a bad team in a recruit-rich state (football) and near a recruit-heavy city (basketball). Part of me believes that a reason RU was never mentioned as a serious candidate for the ACC was because this was widely-known/suspected in college athletic circles behind the scenes. This is all, of course, with Rutgers having a fleeting moment in the football sun (2006) and having Schiano bring the program to something near respectability from complete laughingstock–ie, a program with no history and virtually no tradition..Plus, even Alvarez said there was some concern that without an eastern partner, PSU could be poached from the conference, and I think RU was viewed as the most viable candidate to pair with PSU to make them happy (along with the above-mentioned business benefits for the conference as a whole; if making Paterno/PSU happy would have meant, say, WVU, the B1G would have told Paterno/PSU that he/it will forever remain unhappy).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“However, I happen to be in group (likely a minority) that believes Rutgers was always a serious Big Ten target, going back to the early 1990′s, but that the timing and/or money was not enough to bring in Rutgers by itself.”
I agree they were always on the list. The question is how high. We know some schools were on the wish list, but not if their availability was ever considered as likely.
“I think the location in the broader NYC tv market, proximity to NYC proper, and academics excited business-minded athletic directors and presidents alike, and gave football and basketball coaches joy at playing a bad team in a recruit-rich state (football) and near a recruit-heavy city (basketball).”
I think the presidents drove this much more than the ADs, personally. The COP/C were looking at where to get the next few generations of students and saw giant eastern cities full of B10 alumni.
“Part of me believes that a reason RU was never mentioned as a serious candidate for the ACC was because this was widely-known/suspected in college athletic circles behind the scenes.”
If the ACC had offered first, I think RU would have jumped at the chance. A bird in the hand …
“Plus, even Alvarez said there was some concern that without an eastern partner, PSU could be poached from the conference,”
Alvarez said a lot of things, and even then he was talking long term and most people disagreed. I think UMD would have sufficed, anyway.
LikeLike
” I think UMD would have sufficed, anyway.”
No doubt. I think the B1G viewed UMd was a pipedream, but was surprised when UMd left the ACC. Definitely, UMd without RU would have made PSU just as happy. But UMd was only thought to be available for the last 2 years or so. For the 20 before that, RU was the only real option that hit all non-performance on the field checkboxes.
No issues with everything else you wrote.
We’ll never know how high RU was (clearly not #1 or #2, anyways), and Presidents were running the show and saw NYC dollar signs above all else, and wealthy alumni up and down the NE and Mid-Atlantic.
Dunno if RU was ever a true ACC target, as I think RU always had more value for the B1G than the ACC (like how Marc noted that Va Tech probably has more value for the ACC (good program) than the SEC (market hunting).
LikeLike
I have to agree with Brian here. There’s a high chance Mizzou was higher up the list than Rutgers on the B1G’s wishlist, so if Mizzou had not gone to the SEC there’s a high chance that they’d be in the B1G today.
Also, Wainscott, not sure why you and others keep saying that Illinois has a strong presence in St. Louis. They do not. There are something like 10 times as many Mizzou alumni in St. Louis as Illinois alumni. It is definitely a Mizzou city.
And Jefferey, your opinion is that Va Tech would “definitely” be picked over Mizzou, but I just don’t buy it. Va Tech’s football tradition isn’t any better than Mizzou’s:
Virignia Tech: 26 bowls, 7 Cotton or higher
Mizzou: 30 bowls, 9 Cotton or higher
Over the last 7 years VaTech has 68 wins, Mizzou has 65, so even recently they’re fairly similar.
Mizzou is the flagship school, and only division 1 program, in a state of 6.1M.
VaTech is a non-flagship, second filddle program in the rural periphery of a state of 9.8M.
Mizzou is an AAU academic school. VaTech is not.
Saying that VaTech would have been a sure thing over Mizzou is pretty hard to justify.
LikeLike
@Andy:
I don’t think for a moment that St Louis is an Illini town or ever will be. But my research shows that BTN is already on basic expanded cable in St Louis like it is within Big Ten states. Would adding Mizzou make them more money when they have enough of a presence as it is to make similar amounts of money from carriage fees relative to other B1G cities? That’s what I mean by presence. If it has the carriage it wants without Mizzou, why add Mizzou and dilute per school payouts?
We will never know how high Mizzou was on the Big Ten expansion list. Personally, I think it was lower because of location and money. It could have been high though.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m wrong but I believe if Missouri had been added then the BTN could have charged more in St. Louis.
As far as the Mizzou vs Rutgers debate, it’s been talked about a ton, but in summary
Both are AAU, Rutgers is somewhat stronger, but both qualify for the B1G.
Population:
Missouri population is 6.1, New Jersey population is 8.8, plus it’s next to NYC, which is huge.
But the question is how much does population matter and how much does fan interest matter? Because there’s a huge difference in fan interest for Missouri sports vs Rutgers sports.
Missouri ranked 13th in basketball tv ratings last year and 8th in football tv ratings. Their apparel sales ranking was 20th.
Rutgers didn’t make the top 50 in basketball tv ratings, ranked 76th in football tv ratings, and their apparel ranking was 57th.
In other words, Rutgers is a much, much, much weaker brand than Mizzou. Yes, they have a better location, but can they leverage it?
I don’t know the answer to that definitively, but you know which side my opinion falls on this question.
LikeLike
“Also, Wainscott, not sure why you and others keep saying that Illinois has a strong presence in St. Louis. They do not. There are something like 10 times as many Mizzou alumni in St. Louis as Illinois alumni. It is definitely a Mizzou city.”
StL is definitely a Mizzou city, but the proportion isn’t 10-1. Note that the Metro East and it’s 700K people (out of a total of 2.8K in greater StL) is heavily pro-Illini. I grew up there, and fan support there really is 10-1 Illini (vs. anything else).
If I had to wager a guess, I’s say it’s 2-1 Mizzou-Illini. That seemed to be about the breakdown in fan support for the Arch Rivalry football game back when it was played (while the fan support for the Braggin’ Rights basketball game seems to be roughly 50-50 every year; likely because, as I stated before, downstate IL cares as much about basketball as people across the state like and Ohio river in IN and KY do)
I work in StL, and in my office, the proportion of Mizzou vs. Illini alums definitely is closer to 2-1 than it is to 10-1.
“I think the presidents drove this much more than the ADs, personally. The COP/C were looking at where to get the next few generations of students and saw giant eastern cities full of B10 alumni.”
This is key. For the B10 schools, who are research and academic institutions first, before they are sports teams, this wasn’t purely an athletics decision, and NJ & MD, with their above average proportion of upper-middle-class (and above) people and above-average proportion of college-educated people sending large numbers of kids out of state of college (not to mention large numbers of B10 alums) are definitely more attractive to the B10 than a slow-growing state like MO with fewer B10 alums and a lower proportion of both the well-off and the well-educated.
LikeLike
“Maybe I’m wrong but I believe if Missouri had been added then the BTN could have charged more in St. Louis.”
Enough to make up the difference between a city metro area with 2.8 million and NJ, a state with about 8 million, with possible expanded basic coverage in NYC, with 8.4 million? (Note: FiOS and Time Warner have BTN on expanded digital basic in NY/NJ/LI).? That’s not factoring in cablevision.
Even if Mizzou would allow carriage fees to double in STL, the population and numbers simply aren’t there to make a business/carriage fee case for Mizzou. The potential windfall is enormous.
“But the question is how much does population matter and how much does fan interest matter? ”
Not as much as we think. Performance is cyclical. RU is a dumpster fire on the field, and its already worth more because of its location. The B1G is banking on RU becoming a decent, second-tier program which alone will print even more money. And if a miracle happens, and RU gets into the CFB playoff, the interest and ratings for a Cinderella story based near the Big Apple will be through the roof–approaching and probably surpassing the NWU to the Rose Bowl hype in 1995. In that (admittedly unlikely) scenario, the B1G will reap a huge financial reward.
The potential is what matters with Rutgers. The potential dollar signs matter to Presidents. Most of the metrics you cited (tv ratings, merchandizing sales, on field success) aren’t really relevant to that because they weren’t factors to the PTB But yes, RU has this potential, and now its up to it and the conference to properly leverage it to get the maximum benefit.
LikeLike
Richard, I have no idea how valid your anecdotal evidence is. I do know that I saw the number of alumni from each school a few years ago and the number of Mizzou alumni is much higher than Illinois. I don’t have a ready web link, unfortunatley. But it was something on the order of 60k Mizzou alumni and less than 10k Illinois alumni, I want to say 5k but I really don’t remember specifically. It was in the St. Louis Post Dispatch a few years back. But it may not have counted East St. Louis. That’s possible.
Wainscott, I get it that you don’t think it matters that Mizzou’s brand and tv ratings are top 20 and Rutgers isn’t top 50. I get it that you don’t think it matters that Mizzou has a decent history in football and basketball and Rutgers has a pathetic history in both sports. I get that you think that. I don’t agree. I don’t find your argument compelling. I think a shitty program is a shitty program whether you put it in New Jersey or North Dakota. I mean, I get it that it’s nice to have an AAU school right there by NYC. From a logistical and academic standpoint it makes sense. But for an athletic conference I just don’t see Rutgers as a positive addition. They are not a draw and I doubt they’ll be much of a positive. They don’t have any fans.
LikeLike
@Andy:
What a quaint notion–an athletic conference. The Big Ten is a big business first and foremost, and an athletic conference second. Once you understand that, you’ll see why Rutgers makes more sense. A shitty program in a prime location is worth more than a second-tier program in a lesser location, because a shitty program can become good, whereas a lesser location will not turn into the next great megalopolis.
LikeLike
Wainscott, that’s totally your opinion and you’ve provided zero compelling evidence.
Nebraska isn’t in a particularly good location, for example, and they were taken in realignment.
I just don’t buy your argument at all.
LikeLike
And to pre-empt your inevitable counterargument, the gap between Nebraska and Missouri is considerably smaller than the gap between Missouri and Rutgers.
Just keeping to apparel sales because I think that’s a pretty quick and easy approximation of fanbase size/strength and correlates pretty well to tv ratings:
14. Nebraska
20. Missouri
57. Rutgers
http://www.clc.com/News/Rankings-Annual-2012-13.aspx
LikeLike
“Wainscott, that’s totally your opinion and you’ve provided zero compelling evidence.”
For what, that the B1G is a business first and athletic conference second? Events such as expansion speak for themselves. All athletic conferences are businesses first, athletic organizations second.
Or for the potential payoff for RU is greater than Mizzou? Based on the carriage fees issue, including that the BTN already has its desired carriage in STL without Mizzou, I think I made my case.
Referencing Nebraska is irrelevant because Nebraska is a pre-eminent brand in CFB, equal to Texas, Michigan, OSU, Alabama, UF, So. Cal., etc… (all of which are below UND). Mizzou does not have the brand power or TV appeal of Nebraska. Merchandising sales for one year do not refute that.
My argument isn’t for you to buy. Its a simple recitation of what happened and why it happened.
I anticipate you refuting my arguments. When doing so, please demonstrate with whatever available proof you can, that Mizzou would have translated to more TV money, including BTN rights fees, than RU. TV drove expansion, it drives expansion, and it will drive any future expansion. What TV money does Mizzou bring that RU does not? We all on this board have been seeking such proof from you for some time now, so please provide it, as this overall discussion (which I did not intend to begin) has long since been productive. New evidence as to each school’s respective value to the Big Ten for TV purposes, please.
LikeLike
Wainscott, that’s totally your opinion and you’ve provided zero compelling evidence.
There are two pieces of evidence overwhelmingly in his favor. One, it’s consistent with what the Big Ten actually did. Two, he is not a homer for any of the schools under discussion.
Andy’s viewpoint would have more credence if he could point to a few non-Missouri homers who agree with him.
LikeLike
1) What actually happened was that Mizzou was in the SEC and thus not available at the time Rutgers was chosen, thus Rutgers being chosen proves nothing.
2) TONS of people agree with me. Even Brian of all people basically agreed with me a few posts up. And he hates my guts.
LikeLike
Andy-
“1) What actually happened was that Mizzou was in the SEC and thus not available at the time Rutgers was chosen, thus Rutgers being chosen proves nothing.”
This comment does not address my central question, and rather seeks to prove something not presently in dispute. My question, for you to address, is::
I anticipate you refuting my arguments. When doing so, please demonstrate with whatever available proof you can, that Mizzou would have translated to more TV money, including BTN rights fees, than RU. TV drove expansion, it drives expansion, and it will drive any future expansion. What TV money does Mizzou bring that RU does not? We all on this board have been seeking such proof from you for some time now, so please provide it, as this overall discussion (which I did not intend to begin) has long since been productive. New evidence as to each school’s respective value to the Big Ten for TV purposes, please.
LikeLike
Wainscott, the argument for Rutger assumes that they will some day transform from a non-entity in sports terms to a program people will actually care about paying attention to. They have had more than 100 years to do this and have failed miserably. There is little to no reason to think that they wil be able to do it now.
It’s not like we’re talking about Purdue or Minnesota or even Iowa State here. Rutgers is at a level of futility well below those schools. They’re really, really bad. Their apparel sales rank behind such powerhouses as Oregon State, Washington State, Cincinatti, Pitt, TCU, Boston College, and Montana. That’s bad.
To say that a weakling program like that is going to make any kind of impact in NYC is a total guess, and probably a bad one. To say that they’d even make an impact in New Jersey is suspect. Their attendance was similar to Indiana and Illinois last season, and we know what kind of football draw those programs are.
The best bowl they’ve ever been to in their school history is the PapaJohns.com Bowl. Seriously. Unless the Pinstripe bowl is better. Honestly I don’t even know.
So not only might they barely make an impact in their own region, but they also dilute the whole league, and the schedules of everyone who plays them. And the B1G already had a reputation of being weak as it was.
Missouri, on the other hand, is not an elite brand, but it is a strong one. Going back to apparel sales:
18. Auburn
19. Penn State
20. Missouri
21. Florida State
22. Kansas
That’s pretty good company. And as I already showed you, their TV ratings are top 15 in both sports. How many other schools can claim the same?
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Florida
Missouri
That’s it.
So yeah, Missouri *only* has 6.1M people, but they can leverage that 6.1M to a much larger degree than Rutgers can.
If sports literally don’t matter and location were all that mattered then Rutgers would have been taken by somebody better than the Big East long, long ago.
Truth is they were lower down the priority list. Quite possibly (and IMO it’s quite likely) below Missouri on the priority list. But Missouri took themselves out of consideration.
LikeLike
wainscott, the post you just responded to was for Marc, not you.
LikeLike
So, you cannot really prove that Mizzou would have earned more TV money/carriage fees than RU, at least with back of the envelope mathematics regarding population and carriage fees.
Also, with Rutgers, its not whether Mizzou can leverage 6.1 million better than RU can, its if Mizzou can leverage 6.1 million people to earn more than RU’s leveraging of a region with 22ish million, including 8.1 million in NJ & 8.4 in NYC.
So, lets assume the B1G earns $1 per subscriber in STL metro area for full carriage (based on newspaper accounts for BTN fees in its footprint) (and convenience of math). That’s $2.8 million, with half to the conference (half to Fox), to then be split 14 ways. $1.4m/14 is $100k per school per year. And that’s without Mizzou. Please add to this calculation with the increase you think Mizzou would merit.*
RU at $1.00, with 8.1 million in NJ is $8.1million, 4 mil split 14 ways. $286k per school–just from NJ.
RU at, say, $.75 per subscriber in NYC equals $6.3million, $3.15 split 14 ways, or $225k per school per year.
RU in NY and CT, lets say 5.5 million people, and lets say $.25 per subscriber is $1.375, leaving $687.5k to be split 14 ways, which is approximately 49k per school per year.
So, just on carriage fees alone, with RU in the B1G, each B1G school will get $660k per year just from BTN carriage fees alone. Factor in every television network’s fetish for eyeballs in NYC, and RU having 4 of the 5 highest rated regular season CFB games in NYC, you have networks that will pay a premium for any avenue into the NYC TV market, especially when apparently STL is already considered a Big Ten market based on its border with Illinois.
I went conservative on carriage rates in NYC, as I know the BTN is on expanded basic in NYC on TWC and FiOS, and is on expanded basis on FiOS overall, and Fox have leverage with its broadcast networks, YES, and other properties to get better rates for BTN.
So, With Mizzou, the questions would be:
1) What, if any, increase could Mizzou get the BTN in STL’s 2.8 metro region. Up to $1.10 per sub? $1.15? Not much higher, as even in rabid fan SEC territory (Miss., Alabama), the highest is $1.34 per sub.
2) What the payout would be for the KC market, if any, and
3) The payout in Mizzou outside of KC and STL metro regions.
*I left out the rest of Mizzou because its not considered a B1G market and thus not on expanded basic. Nonetheless, you could add in around $.20 or so per sub.
LikeLike
Wainscott, are you seriously trying to say that people in St. Louis already get the BTN on basic cable and are charged $1 per month for it? Because this is the first I’ve ever heard of it and you provided no evidence whatsoever. I’m pretty sure you made it up.
LikeLike
As a token of appreciation to Brian for his above skillful defense of my oft expressed position, here is a walk down memory lane to the last time the Buckeyes came to Columbia. I was there. It was a good game, at least for the first half. Ohio State pulled away after Andy Katzenmoyer knocked the wind out/concussed of Corby Jones.
LikeLike
The burden of proof is at least as much on you as it is on me. Missouri was actually chosen as a major conference expansion acquisitiion BEFORE Rutgers was ever chosen for anything. That would tend to support my argument more than yours. All of this pie in the sky talk about Rutgers leveraging 22 million people sounds like complete insanity to me. Rutgers can’t even leverage their own backyard to fill their damn stadium. Rutgers can’t leverage their way out of 76th place in the football tv ratings rankings. Rutgers hasn’t leveraged itself into the NCAA tournament in 23 years! So how is Rutgers supposed to leverage 22M people? How many of those 22M people even know what a Rutgers is? Probably embarassingly few.
Your estimates have very little logic and zero credibility. For one thing, you’re trying to say Rutgers is going to bring in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Why on earth you would make this claim I have no idea. And then you ask “What the payout would be for the KC market, if any” as if Kansas City isn’t a Mizzou town. It most certainly is. I’ve posted numerous times on here that Mizzou gets by far the bets tv ratings in Kansas City of any college program, and that Mizzou has tens of thousands of alumni there. How are you going to claim New York City and Connecticut for Rutgers (a flimsy claim if I’ve ever seen one) and then deny Kansas City Missouri to Mizzou. Ridiculous. That entire post by you is embarassingly ridiculous.
The SEC weighed their options and deemed Mizzou a worth addition. That proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were a smart move financially to bring in.
Households by state
Missouri 2.3M
New Jersey 3.1M
New York 7.1M
Connecticut 1.3M
Now, with all of those households, if Rutgers could actually deliver them, then a) they wouldn’t have been languishing in the Big East for all of these years, b) the ACC wouldn’t have passed on them and taken Syracuse and Pitt instead, and c) they’d rank a hell of a lot higher than 76th in TV ratings. And if Missouri were so comparably small then they wouldn’t rank 60 to 70 spots higher in tv ratings. So obviously it’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be.
Fact is people don’t care about Rutgers. They do care about Mizzou.
So that means ESPN could actually charge $1 per household or more for the SEC network.
Is Rutgers going to get $1 per household in Connecticut? Is that a real question? They’d be lucky to get twenty cents. Same with New York. New Jersey the could get more but New Jerseyites have already proven that they don’t care enough about Rutgers to 1) go to their games in person, or 2) watch them on TV, so I highly doubt they’d be willing to pay a bunch of money to see their third tier games on the BTN.
I’m sure all the numbers will come out eventually, and until they do it’s all guesswork, but I find your guesses to be silly.
A little more relevant evidence here:
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/09/espn2-sets-saturday-record-abc-has-highest-rated-game-of-day-large-audience-for-espn/
“Georgia at Missouri telecast garnered significant local interest. It was the network’s highest rated college football game in Atlanta and St. Louis ever, averaging an 18.4 metered market rating in Atlanta and 12.7 in St. Louis. The telecast was also the second highest rated college football game ever in Kansas City with a 14.0 metered market rating (Oklahoma St at Missouri on October 11, 2008 averaged a 15.0).”
LikeLike
*actually, the ACC passed on them for Miami AND Virginia Tech AND Boston College AND Syracuse AND Pitt. That would seem to indicate that they didn’t think much of Rutgers ability to leverage 22M people, as Wainscott claims.
LikeLike
LOL!
Too funny.
“The burden of proof is at least as much on you as it is on me”
Fair.
” Missouri was actually chosen as a major conference expansion acquisitiion BEFORE Rutgers was ever chosen for anything.”
True.
“That would tend to support my argument more than yours”
No.
“All of this pie in the sky talk about Rutgers leveraging 22 million people sounds like complete insanity to me. Rutgers can’t even leverage their own backyard to fill their damn stadium. Rutgers can’t leverage their way out of 76th place in the football tv ratings rankings. Rutgers hasn’t leveraged itself into the NCAA tournament in 23 years!
RU sucks on the field.
“So how is Rutgers supposed to leverage 22M people?””
By playing Michigan, Penn State, MSU, Nebraska, NWU, and other B1G teams with thousands of alumni in the NY area.
Also, doesnt have to leverage 22m. There are around 22m in the NYC region media market. You get North and Central Jersey, NYC, Westchester/Rockland/Nassau/Suffolk/Ductchess counties in NYC, and Fairfield Co (Stamford,) in southern CT. All in one handy media market. Markets are not split up. You get all or none.
“How many of those 22M people even know what a Rutgers is? Probably embarassingly few.”
Most, if not everyone, in the NY metro area has heard of Rutgers. Its a big school. Many alumni. Well-regarded. Also, Rutgers was a person.
“Your estimates have very little logic and zero credibility. For one thing, you’re trying to say Rutgers is going to bring in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Why on earth you would make this claim I have no idea.”
See above regarding media markets. You get the whole bag. Like how the LA media market also includes northeastern Indiana and possibly extreme south Wisconsin.
My estimates are just that, and are guesswork based on news reports of amounts, reduced for some measure of reasonableness. I do not know the actual amounts, but I do not claim to.
“And then you ask “What the payout would be for the KC market, if any” as if Kansas City isn’t a Mizzou town. It most certainly is. I’ve posted numerous times on here that Mizzou gets by far the bets tv ratings in Kansas City of any college program, and that Mizzou has tens of thousands of alumni there.”
I assumed as such, as KC is a nice-sized city with a big metro region.
“How are you going to claim New York City and Connecticut for Rutgers (a flimsy claim if I’ve ever seen one) and then deny Kansas City Missouri to Mizzou. Ridiculous.”
See above regarding media markets. I do not know first hand about Mizzou in KC, so please correct me. Hence the “if any,” to hedge my assumption.
“That entire post by you is embarassingly ridiculous.”
LOL.
“The SEC weighed their options and deemed Mizzou a worth addition. That proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they were a smart move financially to bring in.”
For the SEC, with no presence in STL or KC, it was a very smart move. Just because something is smart for the SEC does not mean its smart for the B1G. Context. Different strategies based on different strengths and weaknesses.
“Households by state
Missouri 2.3M
New Jersey 3.1M
New York 7.1M
Connecticut 1.3M”
What is this from and referencing?
“Now, with all of those households, if Rutgers could actually deliver them, then a) they wouldn’t have been languishing in the Big East for all of these years, b) the ACC wouldn’t have passed on them and taken Syracuse and Pitt instead, and c) they’d rank a hell of a lot higher than 76th in TV ratings. And if Missouri were so comparably small then they wouldn’t rank 60 to 70 spots higher in tv ratings. So obviously it’s not as simple as you’re making it out to be.”
RU sucks on the field because it has had inept leaders who couldn’t figure out how to capitalize on its location, except Schiano. ACC had different motivations, ie trying to shore itself up. You don’t shore yourself up with Rutgers.
As for Mizzou’s tv rank, what was it in 2012? 2011? 2010? Average rating for the last 5 years? 10 years? How many over-the-air network primetime games? How many Gameday visits? Just citing 2013 is convenient but not sufficient.
RU gets bad ratings in NY because they suck. The few games that mattered got great ratings. Even the Empire State Building was turned Scarlet when it beat L’ville in 2006.
“Fact is people don’t care about Rutgers. They do care about Mizzou.”
Well, Mizzou has been better recently, so I would sure hope so. But many people care about RU.
“Is Rutgers going to get $1 per household in Connecticut? Is that a real question? ”
You mean when I estimated $.25 in CT? Re-read my post.
“They’d be lucky to get twenty cents”
I guessed 25 cents.
” Same with New York”
BTN on expanded basic in NYC, so, probably more?
“New Jersey the could get more but New Jerseyites have already proven that they don’t care enough about Rutgers to 1) go to their games in person, or 2) watch them on TV, so I highly doubt they’d be willing to pay a bunch of money to see their third tier games on the BTN.”
RU sucks, but the mass of B1G alumni combined with the state school will get a higher rate. Also, when RU has been good, it has top ratings in NYC. Its also not what people pay, its what the cable companies will pay.
“I’m sure all the numbers will come out eventually, and until they do it’s all guesswork, but I find your guesses to be silly.”
Imagine my surprise.
“A little more relevant evidence here:”
I sure hope it is!
““Georgia at Missouri telecast garnered significant local interest. It was the network’s highest rated college football game in Atlanta and St. Louis ever, averaging an 18.4 metered market rating in Atlanta and 12.7 in St. Louis. The telecast was also the second highest rated college football game ever in Kansas City with a 14.0 metered market rating (Oklahoma St at Missouri on October 11, 2008 averaged a 15.0).””
/is letdown
//wonders why people point to one game on ESPN2 in September 2012 as concrete proof of much broader statements/claims.
//Notices the absence of any primetime game on ABC that night.
LikeLike
“actually, the ACC passed on them for Miami AND Virginia Tech AND Boston College AND Syracuse AND Pitt. That would seem to indicate that they didn’t think much of Rutgers ability to leverage 22M people, as Wainscott claims.”
Well, because for the ACC, trying to solidify and stabilize itself, you do that with good programs like Pitt & Syracuse. If you try to save yourself with Rutgers, well then, you have some problems, son.
An ACC press conference announcing RU would have been the same press conference announcing UNC and & UVa were leaving for the B1G.
LikeLike
I don’t know where to find local breakdowns for each market for each game. I did a google search for Kansas City tv ratings for Mizzou, and the article notes that the two highest rated football games of all time in the KC metro area were both Mizzou games, one vs Oklahoma State and another vs Georgia, so that would seem to indicate that Kansas City tv viewers tend to follow Mizzou. That’s all I was going for with that.
The household numbers were another quick google search.
Of course you ignored maybe the most relevant point about the ACC passing on Rutgers 5 times while taking Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Syracuse, and Pitt.
Also, you talk about Rutgers being bad at football like it’s a recent annoyance. Truth is it’s all they’ve ever been They are one of if not the least successful football program in the BCS. Terrible win %. Zero good bowl games ever. Just complete and utter futility that continues to this day. And amazingly their basketball program is even worse.
Your entire argument rests on the idea that this will somehow magically change. But joining the B1G actually makes it more difficult for Rutgers to win, not less difficult.
As for your guesswork about cable fees in NYC, I’m highly doubtful but we’ll find out.
LikeLike
ACC doesn’t have a conference owned network, and obviously haven’t been the most astute in media negotiation.
Missou wasn’t available when Rutgers was selected. That’s a given. But that isn’t the point. What was their status from the time B1G announced it was exploring possible expansion in ’09 until they joined the SEC? What was the B1G looking for?
I think Missouri has good value and had they (and UT) thought they would have been a good replacement for aTm in the PAC16 proposal it may have happened. But the PAC had no designs on NYC and the eastern corridor (Set aside the logistics) or any other such target market, save Texas. They stopped at twelve. That’s no huge slight individually to the other schools involved (ok, maybe in OkSU and TT). It is the Texas MARKET and UT’s academics, alumni base, that would have made them as attractive in their pre Mack Brown doldrums as ther were coming off their peak years. Put UT in Idaho or Montana (or Missouri) they are nowhere near as attractive an expansion target.
LikeLike
The B1G chose not to expand until the Notre Dame issue was settled. The plan the B1G was shooting for was Notre Dame and/or Texas plus some non-elite but still good teams to round out their numbers. They were waiting on Notre Dame and Texas the same way the SEC is waiting on UNC and UVA right now. Missouri was not a high enough target to take while Notre Dame was still on the table. Basically immediately after Notre Dame joined the ACC the B1G made their move. As Brian said so well above: “What we’ll never know is how strong the B10′s desire to go east was versus those being the only schools left by the time they expanded. Was the gamble on RU really preferable to the known quantity of MO to them? Of course they spun it that way after the fact, but that doesn’t mean they felt that strongly originally.”
LikeLike
My premise is that major B1G powers coming to town will generate interest, ratings, coverage, and publicity for RU. Not that RU will magically change. Though, the additional B1G should help them (assuming competent people allocate it).
Also, the ACC did not pass on RU, because that assumes it considered RU in the first place. In 2004, the ACC took Miami (no-brainer) Va Tech (political reasons), and BC (new market). In 2011, it took Pitt and Syracuse because they are both good programs and made TV happy.
Why would the ACC consider RU vs any of those–for the ACC, RU is of little value, because it cannot afford to gamble on RU when it has to increase its bottom line now.
Context is key.
Btw, did Mizzou average a 6.0 in STL this past season? http://www.stltoday.com/sports/other/media-views-spirit-for-mizzou-not-seen-in-tv-ratings/article_26682f69-c3ec-544d-856f-eef4c0526735.html
I cant fund numbers for RU. All I have is :http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/10/rutgers-appears-to-be-most-popular-in-new-york-city-market/1#.Uzxo_vldV8E
Where RU in 2011 doubled Syracuse’s ratings head to head for a Friday night game. Cuse was on ESPN, RU was on the deuce. RU has also apparently played in all top 5 ESPN2 games ratings-wise in NYC, and 4 of 5 ESPN’s highest NYC-rated games. (See also: http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/10/rutgers-louisville_tv_rating_i.html)
LikeLike
Again, say what you will about Rutgers tv ratings vs Missouri tv ratings, but I’m not going to put much stock into whatever anecdotal evidence you found there when we’ve already seen that Mizzou’s tv rating ranked 8th nationally this year while Rutgers ranked 76th. Rutgers does not have a stronger TV dynamic than Missouri.
Also, I’m not sure why you think that the ACC deeming Rutgers to be “not worth the risk” strengthens Rutgers’s case. Most damning of all is that they took Boston College ahead of Rutgers. No real way to spin that one. If anything you’re saying is valid then Rutgers should have been more valuable than BC.
LikeLike
Well, no, BC is a better program than RU.
“I’m not going to put much stock into whatever anecdotal evidence you found ”
You mean articles from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch showing Mizzou averaged a 6.0 in STL this past year while finishing 6th nationally? Anecdotal evidence is evidence without a direct, concrete source. Newspapers listing ratings is a concrete source.
Also, what was Mizzou’s national rating in 2012? or its last year in the B12? Relying on one great year as proof is a sign of overall weakness.
Remember, a national rating also takes into account opposing teams. Mizzou played some major powers this past season with national followings. Again, context.
LikeLike
“The B1G chose not to expand until the Notre Dame issue was settled. The plan the B1G was shooting for was Notre Dame and/or Texas plus some non-elite but still good teams to round out their numbers.”
Source?
When has the B1G ever invited to “round out the numbers?”
So…if Mizzu had stayed but refused to sign the GOR they would have been paired with Maryland the next year/opening? Must not have been confident enough to roll those dice. And I don’t blame them. Tha SEC was too good an offer to pass on unless you are not absolutely sure about the Mizzu/B1G invite coming the next opening, or as a “round out.”
LikeLike
“Also, I’m not sure why you think that the ACC deeming Rutgers to be “not worth the risk” strengthens Rutgers’s case”
Re-read what I typed. Don’t make up quotes.
Also, don’t confuse national and regional ratings. The articles about RU’s ratings are not anecdotal.
LikeLike
(Edit function was my unrealized Christmas wish…)
…unless you are absolutely sure…
LikeLike
The B1G told Mizzou “we are not expanding right now, so we can’t take you right now”. The SEC told Mizzou “we are expanding right now, so if you want in it’s now or never”. And no, I don’t have a link. But that’s how it went down.
LikeLike
Wainscott, all I have is anecdotal evidence when it comes to local numbers. The newspaper article I cited was from a year in which Missouri had their only losing season in the last decade. I used it because it was the only article I could find. I couldn’t tell you why Missouri’s ratings were down in St. Louis this year compared to the year before, but they were pretty good nationally. If you or anybody else knows of a source where you can look up games and ratings by city I’m sure you’d see that Missouri gets healthy ratings in St. Louis most years. The fact that they would right an article complaining about how Missouri’s ratings were down in that city would seem to indicate that they’re usually fairly strong, and the decline was newsworthy.
Point is we can get lost in all the anecdotal details but the overall picture is clear. Mizzou ranked 68 spots higher in the national TV rankings and 36 spots higher in national apparel sales. Rutgers is a weak brand.
We can go back and forth all day about what that means. For some reason you don’t think it means much. I think it means a lot. I don’t think we’re bridging that gap very well.
LikeLike
*write an article.
yeah, I’d use that edit feature quite a bit if there was one.
LikeLike
What is also clear (and stated) is the B1G had adopted an eastern corridor strategy, and it took a FB king becoming suddenly to interrupt the plan and cause a several year period of evaluation to be shortened for them. Other than UT (by itself, no coat tails) UNL was the only west side consideration. Every stated goal (demographics, markets, alumni, political and business power centers, etc.) are much better addressed in the east.
LikeLike
How is that in any way clear? On the day that Mizzou signed on with the SEC the B1G had yet to take any eastern schools at all. They could have gone either way at that point.
LikeLike
As Brian says, t’s easy to come up with all of these justifications for Rutgers after the fact. But after Missouri left, and assuming UNC/Virginia/Duke/Georgia Tech weren’t options, the B1G was down to either Rutgers, Kansas, Iowa State, a non-AAU school, or staying at unlucky 13. Of course Rutgers is going to look pretty ok if those are your options. So then you get out your PR spinners to spin away about how Rutgers was the B1G’s dream school all along. The only challenge was keeping a straight face.
LikeLike
You just don’t understand that the B1G (obviously) didn’t care about RU’s current, and really not much about their future prowess. It is the platform for PSU, OSU, Mich, Wisc, etc. to be promoted in that region. And it’s a large, rich, exceptional research U. near business and political funding, in a high population region full of future B1G students (and donating alums). Every school will benefit from RU even if they never crack the top 20 on a FB field. The others will, and they will have conference games there.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“You just don’t understand that the B1G (obviously) didn’t care about RU’s current, and really not much about their future prowess. It is the platform for PSU, OSU, Mich, Wisc, etc. to be promoted in that region.”
But I’d like to think that I do understand that, and I’m still not convinced the B10 wouldn’t have taken MO under the original scenario. I’m not sure that they would’ve taken MO, either, but my guess was that they would.
“And it’s a large, rich, exceptional research U.”
One thing I probably didn’t factor in was the addition of the medical school. I didn’t know about that at the time, I don’t think, but the COP/C and Delany presumably did. That would be a big feather for RU.
“near business and political funding, in a high population region full of future B1G students (and donating alums). Every school will benefit from RU even if they never crack the top 20 on a FB field. The others will, and they will have conference games there.”
The question is how much they will benefit financially.
LikeLike
“How many of those 22M people even know what a Rutgers is?”
Reminds me of the “What’s a Rutgers?” comment from a Tennessee columnist when Rutgers came to Knoxville in 1979. Final: Knights 13, Vols 7. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1190313-rutgers-10-greatest-d-i-victories-of-all-time-number-1
LikeLike
Brian:
I appreciate a calm, reasoned disagreement. As I said in an earlier post Missouri is a fine school that met the qualification for several conferences, the B1G included. What those conferences were looking for in addition to being qualified. Perhaps you’re right and MO could have been the partner for Maryland, had they been available at the time. It wouldn’t have been a bad choice by any means, but the long term potential needs and concerns of the current schools wouldn’t be addressed as fully.
My opinion is that transplant the two schools and location is the decider again. The corridor of population, money and power would win again (in my opinion), and the long promised eastern PSU friend(s) would be addressed to the max. Once UNL came aboard two was the next move, and is a southern Iowa added to UNL plus one eastern school really the way to address all the non competition concerns of the COP/C? Locking down the corn belt? Andy’s resentment of UNL is reasonable because their admission (in my opinion) ended any need in the center of the country. Why he’s fixated on RU and it’s single weakness (on field success) is baffling. Mizzu is fine where they are.
LikeLike
Again, you rely on one years worth of tv ratings to make a conclusion about relative strength, I never argued that Rutgers is a better brand because that would be insane. All I states is that RU is located in an area that will generate far more money over time for the Big Ten than Mizzou.
And please stop relying on apparel sales for proof of something. They have no correlation with any lasting value or importance. I’m certain that no conference even looked at apparel sales when identifying expansion targets. And I would sincerely hope that Mizzou would be significantly higher than Rutgers in apparel sales.
Also, what is anecdotal about an article that actually lists Mizzous ratings per game? The article has actual numbers in it.
LikeLike
Wainscott, you’re flailing. Apparel sales in and of themselves don’t matter, but they correlate with size and strength of fanbase. And you’re somehow arguing that maybe the last couple of years are somehow an anomaly and Mizzou usually doesn’t get good tv ratings but that simply isn’t the case. It’s a big state, lots of fans, top 25 attendance, two sports with relatively high success (9.5 wins per year in football and 25.5 wins per year in basketball over the last 7 years). Yes, 8th place in the country is an above average year for Mizzou for tv ratings, but their ratings are always fairly good. Arguing with that is pointless.
The best you can do is hope that having a doormat program in NYC for Michigan and Penn State to come in and beat up on every year will somehow translate into tens of millions of extra dollars. That doesn’t make much sense to me but the great thing is we’ll find out for sure soon enough.
And we’ll find out what Missouri was worth to the SEC soon enough as well once the SEC network gets going.
LikeLike
vp, it was an attempt at humor by me. And congrats on finding one good Rutgers victory, even if you had to go back 35 years to find it.
LikeLike
“And we’ll find out what Missouri was worth to the SEC soon enough as well once the SEC network gets going.”
1: it’s ESPN’s network that shows sec content. No equity, as far as we know.
2: and that differs how compared to what the B1G may gain from including RU (in a around 20+ million region, with a 50% stake in an actual conference owned network on top of its payouts)?
“…a doormat program in NYC for Michigan and Penn State to come in and beat up on every year will somehow translate into tens of millions of extra dollars.”
3: nice to see you are finally beginning to recognize that it’s the value the conference as a whole brings to the region (through RU access). The single school is but a piece of the play. Now if you could recognize the tenfold greater value brought to the non athletic side you might just accept that it was a well reasoned move.
LikeLike
I was curious so I looked up how many wins over ranked teams Rutgers has had over the years. Here’s the full list:
2009 win over #24 South Florida
2008 win over #17 Pitt
2007 win over #3 South Florida
2006 win over #4 Louisville
1988 win over #15 Penn State
1988 win over #15 Michigan State
1984 win over #19 West Virginia
1979 win over #17 Tennessee
And just for fun, here’s Missouri’s list
2013 win over #13 Oklahoma State
2013 win over #21 Texas A&M
2013 win over #24 Ole Miss
2013 win over #22 Florida
2013 win over #7 Georgia
2011 win over #21 Texas
2011 win over #16 Texas A&M
2010 win over #1 Oklahoma
2008 win over #22 Northwestern
2008 win over #20 Illinois
2007 win over #25 Arkansas
2007 win over #2 Kansas
2007 win over #22 Texas Tech
2007 win over #25 Nebraska
2003 win over #10 Nebraska
1998 win over #24 West Virginia
1997 win over #12 Oklahoma State
1992 win over #22 Kansas
1983 win over #11 Oklahoma
1981 win over #18 Southern Miss
1981 win over #15 Oklahoma
1983 win over #9 Mississippi State
1979 win over #16 South Carolina
1978 win over #2 Nebraska
1978 win over #20 Iowa State
1978 win over #5 Notre Dame
1977 win over #20 Arizona State
1976 win over #14 Colorado
1976 win over #3 Nebraska
1976 win over #2 Ohio State
1976 win over #8 Southern Cal
1975 win over #14 Oklahoma State
1975 win over #2 Alabama
1974 win over #14 Nebraska
1974 win over #7 Arizona State
1973 win over #2 Nebraska
1973 win over #19 SMU
1972 win over #12 Iowa State
1972 win over #8 Notre Dame
1970 win over #19 Colorado
1969 win over #20 Oklahoma
1969 win over #20 Nebraska
1969 win over #13 Michigan
1968 win over #12 Alabama
1968 win over #13 Nebraska
1963 win over #8 Arkansas
1961 win over #4 Navy
1960 win over #18 Colorado
1960 win over #20 Penn State
1959 win over #18 Air Force
1957 win over #18 Colorado
1952 win over #18 Kansas
1948 win over #4 SMU
1947 win over #13 Duke
1945 win over #14 Oklahoma
1939 win over #5 Oklahoma
1939 win over #17 NYU
1939 win over #10 Nebraska
LikeLike
cc, No, we can actually see how much money the SEC Network makes in the coming years vs the BTN, and we can look at how much is coming from New York vs Missouri. I would be surprised if the BTN makes much from New York.
As for this tenfold value of New York from Rutgers vs Missouri from Mizzou, we’ll be able to watch that too. If you really thing that New York is suddenly going to learn about the Big Ten via Rutgers I just don’t see it. They already knew about it plenty via Penn State and Michigan. The B1G already had a presence in NYC. Probalby a bigger presence than they had in St. Louis.
As for the talk of Rutgers being a big wealthy school, I’m not sure I buy that either.
From what I see, combining the various campuses of Rutgers you get 58k students, a $3.6B budget, and a $780M endowment. Combining the various campuses of the University of Missouri you get 75k students, around a $3B budget, and around a $1.2B endowment. Restrict it just to the Columbia campus and you get 34k students, a $2.1B budget, and a $700M endowment. I’d break down the Rutgers campuses but I don’t know where to find that data. I only see system wide data.
Mizzou has a med school, law school business school, veterinary school, engineering school, journalism school, etc. all at the Columbia campus and another major Engineering school in Rolla and another major med school in Kansas City, as well as a new branch in Springfield. It’s a big school AAU school as well.
Yeah Rutgers is bigger but it doesn’t dwarf Mizzou.
LikeLike
“Wainscott, you’re flailing. Apparel sales in and of themselves don’t matter, but they correlate with size and strength of fanbase. And you’re somehow arguing that maybe the last couple of years are somehow an anomaly and Mizzou usually doesn’t get good tv ratings but that simply isn’t the case. It’s a big state, lots of fans, top 25 attendance, two sports with relatively high success (9.5 wins per year in football and 25.5 wins per year in basketball over the last 7 years). Yes, 8th place in the country is an above average year for Mizzou for tv ratings, but their ratings are always fairly good. Arguing with that is pointless.”
But I’m not actually arguing that, just asking you to show how that would translate into more money for the Big Ten Conference and its member schools vs Rutgers being near more people and the largest city in the nation. This is not a new theory: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-01-24/sports/9401240148_1_football-only-schools-rutgers-virginia-tech-and-temple
And thanks for finally admitting that Mizzou’s TV ratings were above average this past year. Though, saying they are always fairly good without backup is conclusory. Arguing with that is not pointless until there is evidence to support it.
And apparel sales don’t necessarily correlate with size and strength of fan base, as much as how cool or neat an item looks. I have Arkansas Razorback basketball shorts from way back when (circa 1994-95), yet I’ve never been a Razorback fan (or been to Arkansas). The shorts looked cool and I needed a pair.
Also, why did you post a list of RU victories? Has anyon on here ever said RU was anything resembling a good program, or anywhere near Mizzou in terms of on-field success? Am I missing something. I’m fairly certain that RU’s status as a borderline dumpster-fire in football and MBB is undisputed.
LikeLike
Arkansas has one of the larger fanbases in the country. They frequently sell out their football and basketball stadiums, they get good tv ratings, and their apparel sales are excellent. To dismiss apparel sales is odd to say the least.
If strength of branding wasn’t important then Nebraska would be with Iowa State and Kansas in the Big 12 right now.
I speak of Rutgers futility at sports because it’s not just that they’re mediocre. It’s that they’re remarkably and amazingly terrible. I think that is a relevant point. It’s odd that you don’t think so.
Mizzou’s tv ratings have been strong for many years. I’ve been on this forum for at least 4 years now and have posted dozens of times on the matter. Facts are when Missouri gets on a major network like ESPN, CBS, or ABC, their numbers are fairly good. When on ESPN2 or regional networks it is less good, but that’s true of most any team. Of course when they’re ranked in the top 10 as they were in 07, 08, 10, and 13 then their ratings are better.
LikeLike
“I speak of Rutgers futility at sports because it’s not just that they’re mediocre. It’s that they’re remarkably and amazingly terrible. I think that is a relevant point. It’s odd that you don’t think so.”
But no one disagrees with you that RU is a dumpster fire of an athletic program. I’ve freely admitted it. Its just not relevant to how many more households the BTN can get on the basic cable tier as a result of RU and RU playing schools like Michigan, OSU, PSU, etc… than it could from Mizzou.
“Arkansas has one of the larger fanbases in the country. They frequently sell out their football and basketball stadiums, they get good tv ratings, and their apparel sales are excellent. To dismiss apparel sales is odd to say the least.”
I assure you, growing up in the northeast, my purchase of Arkansas shorts in no way relate to fandom. Also, having fun with apparel sales as a metric:
1) Does that mean aTm is a better collegiate brand than Nebraska, or is aTm higher because of Manziel?
2) Is Wisconsin a better brand than Tennessee
3) WVU a better brand than Penn State?
“If strength of branding wasn’t important then Nebraska would be with Iowa State and Kansas in the Big 12 right now.”
No, because UNL is a great TV draw for CFB fans.
“Mizzou’s tv ratings have been strong for many years. I’ve been on this forum for at least 4 years now and have posted dozens of times on the matter. Facts are when Missouri gets on a major network like ESPN, CBS, or ABC, their numbers are fairly good. When on ESPN2 or regional networks it is less good, but that’s true of most any team. Of course when they’re ranked in the top 10 as they were in 07, 08, 10, and 13 then their ratings are better.”
So, on one one hand, Mizzou’s ratings last year were “above-average” (your words), but now they have been strong for many years?
When Mizzou is on ESPN, CBS, or ABC, are they the main draw, or are they playing a larger school? Also, how often is Mizzou on CBS/ABC as the showcase network game?
Don’t make declarative conclusions (above-average! strong! fairly good!) with numbers. The numbers will demonstrate that.
Also, the national rating rank, does that include the SEC Title game, which featured the #1 team in the country coming off an insane victory over Alabama and drew 15m viewers? Judging by the date of the post, I know it does not include the Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
edit– without numbers. I agree about the need for an edit function.
LikeLike
“I think that is a relevant point. It’s odd that you don’t think so.”
We understand RU’s weakness on the field. It is one point among many, that obviously was overcome by others for the COP/C. It’s odd you don’t understand that. Is the decision a guaranteed success? Are any? But it was made by those with access to far more information and understanding than most (all?) of us. You are not required to agree. But continual flame thrower attacks on a school/conference for a decision based on criteria you disagree with or dismiss, and arguing your preferred criteria for a school that everyone agrees was unavailable when the opportunity RU accepted came along is tiresome.
LikeLike
What’s nonsense Andy is that you continually fail to grasp their point. In a vacuum almost any conference would choose Missouri over Rutgers. But with Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St. and Nebraska, the Big 10 doesn’t need another Iowa. They can afford to take a Rutgers. And there’s a good chance even if Missouri was “available,” they still would have taken Rutgers for #14.
And one of the prime needs is demographic. No map, but this report on the latest census projection demonstrates it. Basically, the Midwest gets few international immigrants and bleeds domestic immigrants to the South and West. And Chicago is projected to fall to #5 by 2050-and that’s assuming much higher growth rates in Chicago than are currently happening.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/004240-special-report-2013-metropolitan-area-population-estimates
LikeLike
Wainscott, I’ve been posting Mizzou’s tv numbers for years. They’ve been good for years. You keep making these stupid declarations that Mizzou doesn’t have good tv numbers without backing up that claim with facts, whereas I have consistently posted TV numbers for years so I have backed up my claims with facts. And it’s not just against the good draws. MU/KU football games got good ratings. MU/Oklahoma State games got good ratings. MU/Arkansas got good ratings. MU/Illinois got good ratings. Etc. Google it.
The Cotton Bowl got 7M viewers, making it one of the top 5 or 6 highest rated bowls this year.
As for apparel sales, no, it’s not a precise measure. But it’s a fairly good estimate. + or – 5 spots. Rutgers is 37 spots below Missouri. It’s safe to say that Missouri’s brand is much, much stronger than Rutgers’s.
You’re getting way off track here, Wainscott. It isn’t even disputable that Mizzou gets much better attendance, tv ratings, apparel sales, wins, media attention, and fan support than Rutgers. It’s an obvious fact. Why even argue with it? It seems you’re arguing just to argue.
LikeLike
cc, for the millionth time, citing the fact that the B1G took Rutgers when it took Rutgers is in no way proof that that was their plan all along. Brian explained it perfectly. Nobody has even attempted to counter him. In fact, everybody who has responded to him has agreed with him. Then you turn around and talk to me like his argument doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
bullet, while I agree that the University of Missouri and the University of Iowa are highly similar institutions as far as size, academics, location, and athletics success, the state of Missouri has more than double the population as the state of Iowa, so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Mizzou is “another Iowa”. It’s true that New Jersey has 40% more people than Missouri. That’s true. It’s also true that New Jersey is located near New York and Connecticut, although I’m not at all convinced that that will mean much as far as money. I think all agree that if Rutgers continues to be an absolute pitiful doormat athletically, they will have a difficult time leveraging the population they are located near into any kind of large monetary gain. Where as Missouri is fairly risk free and will reap moderately good monetary rewards from day 1 (the SEC decided this was true). So it is about risk/reward. Given Rutgers’s history, I’d say the risk is very high. Brian and several others on this forum have agreed with that. Some seem to be more optimistic, evidently. That’s what it comes down to. Just guesses and levels of optimism about perhaps the losingest major program in the country.
LikeLike
“You keep making these stupid declarations that Mizzou doesn’t have good tv numbers without backing up that claim with facts”
Except I am not making any declarations, and when I post links, I post links to articles with actual ratings reported therein.
“whereas I have consistently posted TV numbers for years so I have backed up my claims with facts. And it’s not just against the good draws. MU/KU football games got good ratings. MU/Oklahoma State games got good ratings. MU/Arkansas got good ratings. MU/Illinois got good ratings. Etc. Google it.”
If you’ve posted them on here for years, you should have them handy. I’ve tried googling and I cannot find anything ranking CFB teams in TV ratings other than 2013.
“The Cotton Bowl got 7M viewers, making it one of the top 5 or 6 highest rated bowls this year.”
Then again, while on a broadcast network, it drew about 60% of what Clemson-Ohio St did on ESPN. Though, Mizzou does deserve legit props for selling out its allotment of tickets in something like 17 minutes.
“As for apparel sales, no, it’s not a precise measure.”
Thanks for the acknowledgment.
“But it’s a fairly good estimate. + or – 5 spots. Rutgers is 37 spots below Missouri. It’s safe to say that Missouri’s brand is much, much stronger than Rutgers’s”
Its a fairly good snapshot of one year. Average apparel sales over an extended period of time would be better (though not that great, because its not limited to just football–Kentucky is in the top 5 of apparel sales, but I’d guess about 98% of that relates to basketball). Expansion is driven by football first, second, and third.
“You’re getting way off track here, Wainscott. It isn’t even disputable that Mizzou gets much better attendance, tv ratings, apparel sales, wins, media attention, and fan support than Rutgers. It’s an obvious fact. Why even argue with it? It seems you’re arguing just to argue.”
If you have read what I have been typing, I’ve argued virtually none of this.
My central thesis, re-stated again, is that RU will earn the Big Ten Conference more money from carriage fees and national tv deals because it is located in a larger state and near the largest city in the nation than Mizzou would, with the BTN already on expanded basic cable in STL without Mizzou (Example: http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=38z2z1z1z1z8&ID=5569)
You responded to this thesis by:
1) Arguing MU is a better brand than RU (True)
2) Trying to prove undisputed claim with apparrel sales (unnecessary and supported on one year’s worth of sales)
3) Asserting Mizzou was #8 this past season in TV ratings (True) as proof its a strong TV draw (claim unsupported based on one year)
4) Claiming MU gets better TV ratings than RU (True)
5) Using 4 to claim RU will not help the B1G do better in NJ/NYC than Mizzou would in STL/KC (Which is unproven and the gamble the B1G is taking, but that is a reasonable gamble based on RU playing not Cincy but rather Michigan/OSU/PSU/NEB/MSU/WISC, either powers in football, schools with reams of alumni in NYC, or both–and a gamble a wealthy conference like the B1G can take)
I do question Mizzou as a national TV draw because when Mizzou is on national tv, its against other major programs, making it hard to establish which team drove the matchup. It rarely gets the plum broadcast network showcase timeslots. Also, its based on a great on-field year for Mizzou. Hence, I need to see more yearly results. If Mizzou is consistently a top 15 program in the nation over a longer period of time, I’m more than prepared to concede its a better tv draw than I thought. But I cannot find such rankings on google. If you have previously supplied them, why not supply them, where you obviously know where they are (and not weekly ESPN press releases–the final rankings of CFB by average tv rating over a season).
LikeLike
“Just guesses and levels of optimism about perhaps the losingest major program in the country.”
Yeah, about that:
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1869&end=2013&rpct=30&min=5&ss=on&se=on&c1a=on&by=Wins (From 1869-2013)
32 Missouri 0.54642 645 531 52 1228
37 Rutgers 0.50736 634 615 42 1291
From 1936 (first year of the AP poll) to 2013: http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1936&end=2013&rpct=30&min=5&ss=on&se=on&c1a=on&by=Wins
38 Missouri 0.54239 455 382 24 861
51t Rutgers 0.53409 418 364 10 792
From 1979 to 2013: http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1979&end=2013&rpct=30&min=5&ss=on&se=on&c1a=on&by=Wins
61t Missouri 0.49155 200 207 7 414
76 Rutgers 0.45149 179 218 5 402
Both search results sorted by number of wins. Included only 1A teams at both start and end date of search parameters.
Rutgers is a dumpster-fire because of the rank imeptitude and inability to capitalize on the advantages it has, but its nowhere near the losingest major program in the country.
LikeLike
Just for fun, I manipulated the numbers to come up with this doozy: http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1973&end=1995&rpct=30&min=5&ss=on&se=on&c1a=on&by=Wins
From 1973 to 1995:
49t Rutgers 0.54545 135 112 6 253
73 Missouri 0.44038 111 142 7 260
Despite this, it cannot be plausibly be argued that RU is a better program than MU, or anywhere close to MU’s level–probably not even in that particular 22 year time span. However, it does show the importance of context and multiple sources of data and evidence to prove a claim. Not one year of merchandising sales and one boffo year of TV ratings.
LikeLike
“Then you turn around and talk to me like his argument doesn’t exist.”
No. Just no. I responded to Brian and agreed we don’t know what would have happened had Missouri been available. His opinion favored Mizzu but not strongly, and wouldn’t have been terribly surprised if RU was the selection. Given both schools meet minimum admission requirements my opinion was the eastern, high population, power media, business, and politics would be the choice. I also said I didn’t think selecting Mizzu would be a surprise or a failure. It would indicate a change in direction from what we now know to be the COP/C’s concerns, and addressing them.
So the argument first of all is a hypothetical with no way to definitively settle. And secondly, I did address that hypothetical sharing a differing opinion. I didn’t ignore or treat it as if it didn’t exist.
RU has been very high on the B1G list of candidates since the research began prior to the addition of PSU. They aren’t a conference salvaging desperation add. Perhaps someone at Stanford can help you understand that Stanford had tremendous value prior to the Harbaugh transformation of their FB program.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I appreciate a calm, reasoned disagreement. As I said in an earlier post Missouri is a fine school that met the qualification for several conferences, the B1G included. What those conferences were looking for in addition to being qualified. Perhaps you’re right and MO could have been the partner for Maryland, had they been available at the time. It wouldn’t have been a bad choice by any means, but the long term potential needs and concerns of the current schools wouldn’t be addressed as fully.
My opinion is that transplant the two schools and location is the decider again. The corridor of population, money and power would win again (in my opinion), and the long promised eastern PSU friend(s) would be addressed to the max. Once UNL came aboard two was the next move, and is a southern Iowa added to UNL plus one eastern school really the way to address all the non competition concerns of the COP/C?”
And your opinion is perfectly reasonable. I was just pointing out that the reasonable people can also disagree with you on this point. It’s not like the NE/MO argument.
“Locking down the corn belt?”
There may not be a lot of eyeballs, but there are a lot of ears.
LikeLike
Wainscott, I never argued that Mizzou was going to outdraw Ohio State for football tv viewers. I’ve just said that their numbers have been fairly good. As you’ve seen it’s difficult to find old numbers from a quick google. It’s easier to find new numbers. That was true when the old numbers were new as well, thus I posted them when they were newer. Now neither of us can find them. That can’t be helped. So either I’m a liar or they once existed and they were fairly good. I know I’m not lying therefore the numbers were fairly good.
Apparel numbers haven’t changed much either. If you google around you can find some of the old numbers. Here are numbers from 4 years ago, for example:
http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?157725-Apparel-Collegiate-Licensing-Revenue-Rankings
Although it’s just a partial list. Missouri is 18th. Rutgers isn’t listed. Maybe they were higher back then but I doubt it.
Anyway, quibbling over this stuff is silly. We both know I’m right.
Here’s our key disagreement that is actually disputable:
You say: “Which is unproven and the gamble the B1G is taking, but that is a reasonable gamble based on RU playing not Cincy but rather Michigan/OSU/PSU/NEB/MSU/WISC, either powers in football, schools with reams of alumni in NYC, or both–and a gamble a wealthy conference like the B1G can take”
I say People are going to be a lot more interested in Mizzou’s double overtime loss to South Carolina, their 42 points scored on Auburn, their wins over Florida, Georgia, and Texas A&M, than their going to be interested in watching Rutgers get stomped by 40 pts to Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State every year. Interest comes from competitive teams that win, not from doormats. And Rutgers will in all likelihood be a doormat in the B1G. They may do alright against Indiana and Illinois. But that’s about it. And at least Indiana and Illinois have basketball. Rutgers has nothing.
LikeLike
“There may not be a lot of eyeballs, but there are a lot of ears.”
Oh man, the Children of the Corn are gonna shuck you up for that one.
LikeLike
“Wainscott, I never argued that Mizzou was going to outdraw Ohio State for football tv viewers.”
Um, ok?
“Anyway, quibbling over this stuff is silly. We both know I’m right.”
Um, no, you are not right. Well, you are right in the mutually agreed upon fact that Mizzou has better apparel sales than RU. We differ in the meaning of that.
“I say People are going to be a lot more interested in Mizzou’s double overtime loss to South Carolina, their 42 points scored on Auburn, their wins over Florida, Georgia, and Texas A&M, than their going to be interested in watching Rutgers get stomped by 40 pts to Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State every year. Interest comes from competitive teams that win, not from doormats. And Rutgers will in all likelihood be a doormat in the B1G. They may do alright against Indiana and Illinois. But that’s about it. And at least Indiana and Illinois have basketball. Rutgers has nothing.”
See? Was that so hard? You addressed my point in a reasonable manner, and experienced similar difficulties finding evidence.
That is the essence of the gamble the B1G is making. The gamble is:
1) You are incorrect regarding interest (and I agree with you that people dont like blowouts) OR
2) That Michigan/OSU/PSU/IU/WISC/MSU alumni in and around NYC will pay for the network regardless, and that RU fans will pay for it on the off chance of an upset. AND
3) That RU will use the B1G money share to actually hire the right people and get cracking on building a better program.
Now, RU may very well remain a doormat in the B1G. Personally, I have no illusion that RU is going to morph into Iowa/MSU overnight, nor within the next 5-7 years, or, frankly, ever. But if IF IF IF RU is able to improve itself with the money flowing in from the Conference overall. it will payoff for the conference in a way Mizzou could not.* NYC likes winners. RU beat L’Ville and the Empire State Building was lit scarlet red. The Empire State Building! In Manhattan! (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?id=2656070)! Growing up in the NY area, I can tell you first hand the local sports reports on the news on Saturday nights showed RU highlights (well, lowlights, really)–but they still showed them, every weekend in the falltime. Also, the B1G is already either the most or second most lucrative college conference. It can afford to take this gamble that may or may not pay off, because at a minimum, there will be some base payout from having its major programs visit the NY area.
*Note, Brian and ccrider55 are exactly right–location is the key. Drop Mizzou in New Brunswick and RU in Columbia, and location very likely wins out. (Also, drop Mizzou or a Mizzou-type program in NJ, and it might have already been in the B1G).
LikeLike
Wainscott, yes, it’s been talked about quite a bit on this board that Missouri had a down period where it was one of the worst programs in the country. That’s true. Looking at your website you can see the rise and fall and rise again of Missouri football:
1935-1983
Missouri #30
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1935&end=1983&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&c1a=on&by=Win+Pct
1984-2002
Missouri #99
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1984&end=2002&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct
2003-2013
Missouri #23
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2003&end=2013&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct
So what you have with Missouri is a top 30 program that fell off the map for a while and then miraculously recovered. I would assume that this is fairly unique, but I really haven’t researched to see if there are other programs that have similar histories.
The dark ages did hurt Mizzou’s program, but it seems to have pretty much recovered at this point. It was darkest from 1984 to 1995. Then from 1996-2002 there was a slow but steady rebuild out of the depths. Then the last 10 years or so it’s been fairly good. In the last 7 Mizzou ranks 8th among BCS schools in wins.
The difference between Rutgers and Missouri is that Missouri had a single bad period, with relativley high success (30 bowls, 15 conference titles, 4 division titles) on either side of it.
Rutgers has nothing but dark ages. No significant success ever.
LikeLike
I brought up Ohio State because you pointed to the Orange bowl with Ohio State gettign higher ratings than the Cotton Bowl between Mizzou and Oklahoma State. Well of course Ohio State is going to get higher ratings. 1) The Orange Bowl is a better bowl, and 2) Ohio State is a top 5 program. Mizzou is more like top 20 at the moment, certainly not top 5. Although they did finish the season ranked in the top 5 for the second time in 7 seasons this year.
As far as TV in general, this year was the first year I’ve seen someone actually try to add up all the numbers and rank everyone. Missouri came in 8th but then they were a top 5 team this year so it makes sense. Prior to that all we have is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotally I can say that for as long as I’ve been following this, which is 7 or 8 years, I’ve regularly seen reports of strong tv ratings for Mizzou football and basketball games. If someone were to actually add all of these up over time I don’t know precisely where they’d rank but I’d be shocked if it was outside of the top 30, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was top 15. Probably somewhere between those two numbers.
Rutgers, on the other hand, ranked 76th this year, which may be low for them, but I’d be similarly shocked if they were top 50 over the last 7 or 8 years.
LikeLike
@Andy:
You are awesome. Below is hilarity:
“1935-1983
Missouri #30”
Btw, clicked on your link:
26 Rutgers 0.60242 271 178 5 454
30 Missouri 0.59029 293 200 22 515
“1984-2002
Missouri #99”
95 Rutgers 0.35167 71 133 5 209
99 Missouri 0.34977 72 136 5 213
“2003-2013
Missouri #23”
23 Missouri 0.65493 93 49 0 142
39 Rutgers 0.57971 80 58 0 138
“So what you have with Missouri is a top 30 program that fell off the map for a while and then miraculously recovered. I would assume that this is fairly unique, but I really haven’t researched to see if there are other programs that have similar histories.”
Rutgers isnt that far from Mizzou using your numbers. Ranked higher by winning %age, lower in raw number of wins (also, less losses)
“The dark ages did hurt Mizzou’s program, but it seems to have pretty much recovered at this point. It was darkest from 1984 to 1995. Then from 1996-2002 there was a slow but steady rebuild out of the depths. Then the last 10 years or so it’s been fairly good. In the last 7 Mizzou ranks 8th among BCS schools in wins.”
CFB is cyclical, my friend. Programs go up, they go down.
“The difference between Rutgers and Missouri is that Missouri had a single bad period, with relativley high success (30 bowls, 15 conference titles, 4 division titles) on either side of it.
Rutgers has nothing but dark ages. No significant success ever.”
I mean, without looking at the numbers I would have agreed with you. But, it turns out, RU isn’t the eastern NWU or Kansas State.
LikeLike
“I brought up Ohio State because you pointed to the Orange bowl with Ohio State gettign higher ratings than the Cotton Bowl between Mizzou and Oklahoma State. Well of course Ohio State is going to get higher ratings. 1) The Orange Bowl is a better bowl, and 2) Ohio State is a top 5 program. Mizzou is more like top 20 at the moment, certainly not top 5. Although they did finish the season ranked in the top 5 for the second time in 7 seasons this year.”
Or Clemson, But your basic point is valid and well-taken.
“As far as TV in general, this year was the first year I’ve seen someone actually try to add up all the numbers and rank everyone. Missouri came in 8th but then they were a top 5 team this year so it makes sense. Prior to that all we have is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotally I can say that for as long as I’ve been following this, which is 7 or 8 years, I’ve regularly seen reports of strong tv ratings for Mizzou football and basketball games. If someone were to actually add all of these up over time I don’t know precisely where they’d rank but I’d be shocked if it was outside of the top 30, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was top 15. Probably somewhere between those two numbers.”
It is hard to find the numbers (surprisingly). Someone on here with interns should assign this homework to them.
“Rutgers, on the other hand, ranked 76th this year, which may be low for them, but I’d be similarly shocked if they were top 50 over the last 7 or 8 years.””
I dunno. Probably in most years. Too sweeping of a generalization for me. Also, RU’s opponent matters, too. RU vs. USF might not beat out a rerun of Charles in Charge, let alone other CFB games. RU vs. Michigan? Might win its timeslot. That also applies to Mizzou. Mizzou v. Indiana is not setting ratings records. Mizzou vs. Alabama should be a top 3 game that day, at worst.
LikeLike
Wainscott, there were lots of B1G fans in NYC without Rutgers. I don’t think Rutgers improves that situation all that much as long as they’re terrible. Maybe a very small amount.
I agree that if ever they become a legit program then they can make a ton of money at it.
But as I’ve said they’ve had a hundred years to do that and never did. Now it gets harder rather than easier. Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State are going to stomp them every year. It’s going to be ugly.
LikeLike
Wainscott, Rutgers’s numbers from pre 1975 or so are fairly worthless. They were an independent and didn’t play very many D1 schools on their schedule. When they did they typically got stomped. Look up a few posts at my list of wins over ranked opponents. Ranking total wins is nice and all but you have to look at SOS as well. Missouri played a killer strength of schedule and has for a hundred years, especially compared to Rutgers. Not only did they have to play Oklahoma, Nebraska, Colorado, etc every year but they also went out of conference and played Alabama, Michigan, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc basically every year.
Rutgers 1975 schedule:
Bucknell
Princeton
Hawaii
Lehigh
William and Mary
Columbia
UConn
Lafayette
Boston University
Colgate
Syracuse
Missouri 1975 schedule
Alabama
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Oklahoma State
Colorado
Kansas State
Nebraska
Iowa State
Oklahoma
Kansas
See the difference?
LikeLike
Which is a large reason why Rutgers is so weak. For decades their school didn’t take it seriously. They half assed it. Played 3 or 4 name teams per year and then filled their schedule with nobodies. Didn’t invest any resources in it. Basically they had one foot in what would become the Big East and the other foot playing Ivy League and Patriot League teams.
LikeLike
Andy:
” Rutgers’s numbers from pre 1975 or so are fairly worthless. They were an independent and didn’t play very many D1 schools on their schedule.”
I’ve been sitting here, waiting for over a day for you to drop that bomb on my arguments. I thought it was a given after you posted the list of victories over ranked teams. I posted the fun with numbers, almost baiting you to find that out. (Yes, I’m that board at work today).
You are right, RU decided to elevate its program in the late 1970’s–that Tennessee game cited by someone was I believe its first such big game.
RU historical rivals include Lehigh and Lafayette, and I believe NYU’s fight song references RU in it, and it hasn’t played football since 1946 (though, apparently Mizzou did beat a ranked NYU once).
So, as you have now shown, presenting numbers in isolation, without context, presents a misleading picture.
LikeLike
Okay, even if you want to argue that Rutgers shouldn’t be penalized for hardly playing anybody until the mid 70s, Rutgers wins over top 25 teams since 1975
2009 win over #24 South Florida
2008 win over #17 Pitt
2007 win over #3 South Florida
2006 win over #4 Louisville
1988 win over #15 Penn State
1988 win over #15 Michigan State
1984 win over #19 West Virginia
1979 win over #17 Tennessee
Missouri wins over top 25 teams since 1975
2013 win over #13 Oklahoma State
2013 win over #21 Texas A&M
2013 win over #24 Ole Miss
2013 win over #22 Florida
2013 win over #7 Georgia
2011 win over #21 Texas
2011 win over #16 Texas A&M
2010 win over #1 Oklahoma
2008 win over #22 Northwestern
2008 win over #20 Illinois
2007 win over #25 Arkansas
2007 win over #2 Kansas
2007 win over #22 Texas Tech
2007 win over #25 Nebraska
2003 win over #10 Nebraska
1998 win over #24 West Virginia
1997 win over #12 Oklahoma State
1992 win over #22 Kansas
1983 win over #11 Oklahoma
1981 win over #18 Southern Miss
1981 win over #15 Oklahoma
1983 win over #9 Mississippi State
1979 win over #16 South Carolina
1978 win over #2 Nebraska
1978 win over #20 Iowa State
1978 win over #5 Notre Dame
1977 win over #20 Arizona State
1976 win over #14 Colorado
1976 win over #3 Nebraska
1976 win over #2 Ohio State
1976 win over #8 Southern Cal
1975 win over #14 Oklahoma State
1975 win over #2 Alabama
Quite a few more. And consider that over that 40 year period, 20 of those were by far the 20 worst seasons in Mizzou football history.
Any way you look at it Rutgers sucks. You can argue it all day long and it’s not going to get any better.
LikeLike
“Quite a few more. And consider that over that 40 year period, 20 of those were by far the 20 worst seasons in Mizzou football history.
Any way you look at it Rutgers sucks. You can argue it all day long and it’s not going to get any better.”
I Agree Rutgers sucks, but tone it down a bit. Its not like there is such a huge gap between RU and Mizzou over the last 40 years.
It is irrelevant that 20 of those 40 years coincides with Mizzou’s bad years. You take the good and the bad. Trying to discount it opens up arguments discounting the good years as unrepresentative. A programs’s history is its history, good and bad. UND fans take Rockne and Faust. Michigan fans take Bo and RichRod/Hoke. RU gets its good and bad. Same with Mizzou. I know we’ve had this debate on prior boards.
LikeLike
Mizzou from 1935-1983 = modern era Iowa, Michigan State, South Carolina
Mizzou from 1984-2002 = modern era Rutgers, Duke, Indiana
modern era Mizzou is currently on par with Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Nebraska.
Because a good 15 to 20% of Mizzou’s football history was spent at Rutgers-level futility, I can sympathize with their plight. But having seen both sides of it, I can firmly say that there is a large, wide gap between Mizzou football and Rutgers football.
And then there’s basketball, where Mizzou is perhaps the most underachieving program in NCAA tournament history, but where has won around 66% of their games over the last 50 years while making 26 NCAA tournaments, while Rutgers has 6 NCAA tournaments and none in the last 23 years.
So, no, I’m not going to tone it down.
I don’t even think Mizzou has an elite athletic program. That’s the thing. Mizzou is above average but not great. And it’s still worlds better than what Rutgers has to offer. Rutgers is awful. Period.
LikeLike
“Rutgers is awful. Period.” On the field.
And in July they’re in the B1G.
LikeLike
I’m sure B1G fans everywhere can’t wait to play them.
LikeLike
Had V Tech been available, the SEC would have preferred to go with the southern school. Virginia is one of their biggest missing markets (short of North Carolina). The academics are solid. Good proximity to a lot of member schools.
LikeLike
Missouri as a state works just as well. Missouri has a star on the confederate flag and borders 3 SEC states. Virginia only borders two.
LikeLike
They don’t moonshine as well, though. 🙂
LikeLike
Also, the University of Virginia, as far as latitude, is about 60 miles north of Springfield, MO, and about 100 miles south of Columbia, MO. So it’s not even like Virginia is really even more southern physically than Missouri is.
LikeLike
Northern Missouri is basically indistinguishable from Iowa.
The Ozarks would fit in just fine with Arkansas and Kentucky.
Missouri is a crossroads state.
KC has more in common with Tulsa and Denver.
St. Louis is more similar to Chicago and Indianapolis.
Springfield is more like Little Rock.
Cape Gerardeau is right on the Kentucky border, and the Missouri bootheel almost reaches Memphis, TN.
There is no singular Missouri identity. And Mizzou is right in the middle, taking in people from all over.
Mizzou could have been in the Big 12, B1G, or SEC just fine. But would never wholly fit in with any of them.
LikeLike
“Also, the University of Virginia, as far as latitude, is about 60 miles north of Springfield, MO, and about 100 miles south of Columbia, MO. So it’s not even like Virginia is really even more southern physically than Missouri is.”
Um, I believe people on here are speaking of culturally.
NoVa is following in the steps of MD and quickly midlandizing, but most of VA is still much more southern than most of MO. Maybe Little Dixie is close, and the southern third of MO is backcountry (like KY, AR, TN, WV, and the rest of Appalachia). However, where the people are, KC is definitely Great Plains/Midlands and StL is a North Midlands island surrounded by South Midlands/backcountry.
LikeLike
Missouri and Virginia have more in common than you might think. The appalachian nation started in western Virginia, and spread through Kentucky, Tennessee, Southern Ohio, Southern Indiana, Southern Illinois, most of Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and North Texas.
LikeLike
Oh, I understand that the backcountry stretches from VA to MO. It’s undisputable, though, that the 2 main metro areas in MO (where most of the people are) are definitely more Northern Midlands/Midwestern while only a small part of VA is something like that.
LikeLike
BTW, that is Woodard’s map and he definitely has some parts wrong. The dividing line between Midlands and Greater Appalachia in IL is more like Springfield, not Bloomington/Normal.
Also, he feels compelled to make each region contiguous for some stupid reason. Metro StL (including Metro East) is more of a Midlands island unconnected to the rest of the Midlands.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank’s Slant: Come for the football, stay for the cartography.
LikeLike
Wainscott, feel free to read and learn more.
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/features/up-in-arms.html
LikeLike
I would never have guessed that a Missouri native who claims to have a high IQ would one day be bragging that his state is at least as Southern as Virginia.
These are strange times indeed.
LikeLike
I learned that the guy who designed this is a New England Yankee who despises southerners and really doesn’t understand them. I guess that’s typical for the Puritans who burned the witches! Burn that which you do not understand!
Saw a map one time that showed the ethnic origin of the US. The north and Midwest’s largest group was German. The South was English. (of course it was Irish in MA and RI and Scandanavian in the upper Midwest and French in Louisiana-but it was basically the German north and English south).
LikeLike
I wasn’t bragging, just correcting misconceptions. Personally, my ancestors colonized Virginia in the 1600s, then migrated to Kentucky in the 1700s, and then to Missouri in the early 1800s. That was the typical pattern.
LikeLike
I have a lot of relatives who moved on to Texas after that, but my branch stayed put.
LikeLike
I’m familiar with the analysis of American history through regionalism on a basic level, and I’m also aware that this is just one or many well-regarded works on the topic. (The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau is another one).
LikeLike
It’s the new one that people have been talking about lately.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Saw a map one time that showed the ethnic origin of the US. The north and Midwest’s largest group was German. The South was English. (of course it was Irish in MA and RI and Scandanavian in the upper Midwest and French in Louisiana-but it was basically the German north and English south).”
I assume you mean this one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg
LikeLike
Not that particular one, but one showing the same thing.
LikeLike
Assuming that V-Tech had the same success as a member of the Big East that had as a member of the ACC (no guarantee, but certainly possible) I think they would have gotten the 14th slot in the SEC after the A&M addition.
LikeLike
Thats a big “if”, VT lucked into getting the basketball blue-blood and Miami-in-its down period ACC division, which at least spared them annual matchups against FSU, Clemson, and Amato-era NC State. VTech might have done equally as well in the post-2004 BE, but might have ended up on the short-end of some historic cluster-effs, particularly in 2006 when RU and USF rose up, 2007 in Pitt-WVU decided a lot of things, and in the later years when Louisville got its stuff together.
LikeLike
This whole firebomb from Andy was ridiculous. Most of Missouri’s high ratings come from actually playing in the SEC. And pretty much everyone not named Andy or living in Missouri would agree the SEC would have picked VT over Missouri. Bigger market, faster growing, access to great recruits and DC market, Southern state. ACC also didn’t need Rutgers as many ACC schools send alumni to NYC – Duke is essentially the University of New Jersey at Durham.
Sorry dude, Missouri is not the South, it’s the midwest. You are extremely off base here.
LikeLike
Well, there’s a piece of Missouri that is southern, and that for a lot longer than the piece of Virginia that isn’t very southern anymore … but with most of Virginia being southern and the rest representing a rapidly growing region, I think a lot of the SEC Eastern division would have been comfortable with VTech.
LikeLike
I guess, but if I were Mike Slive, I’d wait for a NC school and add FSU as a major program and call it a day.
LikeLike
John Infante on undoing the Northwestern union decision.
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-03-31/northwestern-union-decision-nlrb-ncaa-employees-appeal
LikeLike
Leaked documents about the potential governance changes sought by the P5:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24509028/document-details-effort-for-autonomy-among-five-power-conferences
LikeLike
LSU to play UCLA and Arizona State in home and home series.
2021 – LSU at UCLA
2022 – LSU at Arizona State
2023 – Arizona State at LSU
2024 – UCLA at LSU
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=209448941
LikeLike
So either LSU doesn’t believe a 9-game SEC schedule is coming or it doesn’t believe just the SEC schedule is enough to satisfy the playoff committee. It’s nice to see them playing home and homes instead of more “neutral” site games close to home, too.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24508843/report-penn-st-ol-miles-dieffenbach-suffers-serious-knee-injury
This could be a big blow to PSU. One of their 2 returning starters on the OL blew out his knee.
LikeLike
Medium and long term, though, Franklin has apparently been cleaning up on the recruiting trail thus far.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140402/northwestern-nlrb-union-ruling-mailbag/#all
LikeLike
Looking at the ticket revenue (http://thegazette.com/2013/04/13/major-disparity-in-big-ten-football-ticket-revenue), it looks like it only makes sense for schools like Wisconsin, MSU, and the ones under them in revenue (UofI, Minny, PU, RU, UMD, NU, IU) to sacrifice a home game for a neutral site game (that pays at least $3M).
I don’t know if Nashville or Daytona would want PU, IU, Minny, Illinois, or UMD. Maybe RU or Northwestern coming off of a good season vs. a local power.
MSU could conceivably fit in a neutral site game in 2019. Wisconsin in 2021 (because they get an extra game from playing in Hawaii). Northwestern any time from 2019 on. RU in 2021 or 2022.
LikeLike
FWIW, Michigan is getting $6 million to Florida in Dallas in 2018.
LikeLike
Doesn’t mean everyone can. Wisconsin will get $2M to play LSU in Houston next year. LSU will get $2.1M for the return trip to GB (slightly higher for inflation).
LikeLike
I know, I was just putting that out there for perspective.
LikeLike
Former USC player pushing for better treatment of walk-ons:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/bruce-feldman/24509385/former-usc-fullback-pushing-for-walk-on-reforms
LikeLike
CBS was able to get an on-the-record response from the NCAA, something the athlete was never able to get. This is laughable:
Could these clowns really believe this? Surely, the time to acclimate to a new school (after transferring) can be no worse than the time to acclimate from high school to college. If that were the real concern, they shouldn’t let freshmen play.
LikeLike
Indeed, and it’s still not a justification of a prohibition toward a transfer to particular schools. Especially if they are not on the schedule the next 2 years. So QB A can adjust at college B far away but not regional rival college C? I’m thinking of the Robert Marve situation, where the Miami coach didn’t allow him to transfer to another FL school.
LikeLike
I didn’t even know that was the stated justification. I thought it was to promote the fiction that kids pick schools and not coaches, and to prevent coaches from poaching kids/players from other schools.
LikeLike
What about freshmen acclimating to college life? Exactly.
LikeLike
Interesting article. I don’t think the transfer rules would withstand a court challenge. With no compensation, its pretty hard to justify. But it takes someone to challenge it first.
No insurance is hard to reconcile with the idea of a student-athlete. And it would seem to be a potential liability risk (I’m sure they get all kinds of waivers signed, but that doesn’t totally protect you-especially with stories of walk-ons being cannon fodder).
I’m not as sympathetic with the training table. It may be a stupid policy from a team standpoint, but it simply puts them in with all other students.
LikeLike
I don’t think the transfer rules would withstand a court challenge. With no compensation, its pretty hard to justify. But it takes someone to challenge it first.
I think there are a lot of rules that would not withstand a court challenge. But eligibility is a wasting asset. Very few athletes are willing to spend years in court, when they’d be out of school before it was finally resolved.
This is the real danger to the NCAA if the Northwestern athletes are allowed to unionize. Suddenly there would be an entity whose existence outlives the career of any one particular athlete, and that would be able to mount such challenges.
I’m not as sympathetic with the training table. It may be a stupid policy from a team standpoint, but it simply puts them in with all other students.
I am a bit more sympathetic, as there is no credible option to be on the team, and yet skip the meals. And I am pretty sure that if the NCAA allowed it, many schools would feed the walk-ons without forcing them to pay for it.
Anyhow, of the points the athlete made, this is the only one the NCAA spokesperson said they might change in the future.
LikeLike
“I think there are a lot of rules that would not withstand a court challenge.”
There have been many challenges to the NCAA over the years, and few have resulted in victories for the challengers. Even the Board of Regents v. NCAA supreme court case, where the NCAA lost, the court made it clear that the goals of amateurism are legitimate aims. Lower courts have used that idea in a host of cases.
One case, http://openjurist.org/252/f3d/1059/rhiannon-tanaka-v-university-of-southern-california, upheld a Pac-10 rule preventing a USC female soccer player from transferring to UCLA.
Courts, unlike more political bodies like the NLRB, are loathe to needlessly shake things up, and in doing so, going against a body of existing caselaw, especially as something as relatively minor in the grander scheme of life as college athletics/antitrust law (as opposed to more significant things like constitutional rights/issues). You might not think that courts will uphold a particular NCAA or conference rule, but chances are, an enterprising/media hungry attorney has already investigated a particular rule on behalf of a potential client/good publicity and passed.
I think as things play out, the O’Bannon lawsuit will end up as a more unique situation in that even a court that fully accepts the principle of amateurism on its face without any disagreement, the ideal of amateurism does not necessarily permit the NCAA to freely profit off of players likenesses, jerseys, and so forth–especially when there is a compromise situation where monies are set aside for players in trust funds that they get when eligibility expires, and continue to get as earned (like actors who get royalty checks for movies filmed 30 years ago.
LikeLike
The transfer restriction is completely unfair, but otherwise, I don’t have much sympathy, as they’re treated like any other non-compensated student. If they want to be treated like a compensated athlete, then they should seek to become a scholarship athlete.
LikeLike
I think its fair to make kids wait out a year in order to play sports if they transfer to a different school, but I agree with others that coaches should not be able to put restrictions on what schools a kid can or cannot transfer to. If I Michigan freshman guard wants to transfer to Ohio State, he should be able to, provided he lose a year of eligibility. Hoke should not be able to restrict the kid from going to OSU.
LikeLike
I think its fair to make kids wait out a year in order to play sports if they transfer to a different school…
I mistrust rules that treat sports as anything other than the optional extra-curricular activities that they purport to be. Besides that, as there is nothing requiring coaches to keep the promises they make during recruiting, I’d rather give kids the leverage to hold those coaches accountable.
The cynicism and disingenuousness implied by the NCAA spokesperson’s official response makes me trust them even less.
LikeLike
Why should walk-ons have to wait? The university isn’t giving them anything. What if someone else wants to give them a scholarship that the primary school won’t? They haven’t signed any letter of intent. There’s no commitment either way. What if they switch for academic reasons and simply want to continue to walk on?
There is no justification for the rule to apply to walk-ons.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to justifications for restricting walk-on transfers to require sitting out a year.
LikeLike
Many of the apparent motivations for the transfer rule, assuming you agreed with them, would be logical to apply to walk-ons too (i.e., to discourage poaching by opposing coaches; to discourage players from transferring for the “wrong reasons”).
What if someone else wants to give them a scholarship that the primary school won’t? What if they switch for academic reasons and simply want to continue to walk on?
They can still transfer, join the team, and receive a scholarship; they just can’t play for the first year.
LikeLike
“Many of the apparent motivations for the transfer rule, assuming you agreed with them, would be logical to apply to walk-ons too”
Apparent motivations, yes. Legal justification? No.
Walk-on’s do not sign a NLI and/or other related documents pledging to abide by various school, NCAA, and conference rules. Walk-on’s might sign some other sort of contract with a school that contains similar limitations. That’s what I am curious about. If they don’t sign anything, then I’m confused as to the basis for the restriction.
I’m also curious why any transfer restriction applies only to some NCAA team sports, but not others, scholarship or not.
LikeLike
Walk-on’s do not sign a NLI and/or other related documents pledging to abide by various school, NCAA, and conference rules. Walk-on’s might sign some other sort of contract with a school that contains similar limitations. That’s what I am curious about. If they don’t sign anything, then I’m confused as to the basis for the restriction.
I’m sure at some point walk-ons agree (i.e., are compelled) to accept all of the usual NCAA restrictions that scholarship athletes do, as a condition of joining the team. Although they receive no athletic scholarship money, in every other respect the rules treat them identically.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t you expect competitors representing an NCAA member school to agree to abide by the rules that govern?
A non signer of NLOI is free to change their commitment, with no penalty, until they actually enroll and become a student at a particular school. Signers are free to transfer to a non D1 school without penalty. They can even extend their eligibility clock by choosing to drop to D3, something no one, transfer or not, can do within D1.
I don’t find the transfer rules too onerous, but I think if a students intended school is willing to take the scholarship hit I don’t think giving them aid during the sit out year would be a problem. Allowing it would remove some of the “hostage holding” impression, especially when some are granted releases while others are not.
LikeLike
What’s the point? Who is going to poach walk-ons?
There’s no consideration to the atudent-athlete.
LikeLike
Agree with bullet.
If walk-ons don’t get the benefits of scholarship athletes, they shouldn’t have any of the restrictions of scholarship athletes (including those on working).
Now, I can see where there may be abuses (boosters paying “walk-ons” to play football), but you know what, maybe that’s a cleaner system anyhow. Those kids who aren’t interested in an actual education would just get paid by boosters to play (while taking one class), while those who value an education get the scholarship and are full-time students.
LikeLike
@Marc:
Walk ons are not compelled to sign anything. Its a choice they make in order to walk on.
The issue is what, if any, contract or agreement they sign.
@Richard & @Bullet:
If they sign a document or contract with a university agreeing to be bound, that changes the equation. Any idea what walk-ons have to do to walk on?
LikeLike
“If they sign a document or contract with a university agreeing to be bound, that changes the equation.”
You could say. But it’s BS that they have to sign anything if they aren’t actually receiving anything.
LikeLike
They are receiving the opportunity to walk-on to a CFB team. That’s hardly nothing.
LikeLike
They are receiving everything associated with college athletics, just like in the Ivy’s.
LikeLike
“They are receiving everything associated with college athletics, just like in the Ivy’s.”
The Ivies don’t offer free food after games or offer free medical care to their athletes?
LikeLike
All Ivy League aid and benefits are available to any student. That’s the point. They abandoned the idea of special benefits for athletes, other than participation in the sport. No athletic scholarships, etc…nothing to be denied as all are technically preferred walk ons. The Ivy’s don’t participate in the NOLI program.
LikeLike
So the Ivies don’t offer free food after games or offer free medical care to their athletes (that non-athletes don’t have access to)?
I’ll have to research that.
LikeLike
BTW, while trying to find out if Ivy League schools offer free training table meals, I found this gem:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19580509&id=M8ZRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2msDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7533,1500469
“‘Not Going Ivy League,’ Pitt Chancellor Says”.
That was from 1958.
LikeLike
“So the Ivies don’t offer free food after games or offer free medical care to their athletes (that non-athletes don’t have access to)?”
I’m not an Ivy alum and can’t speak from more than the things I’ve read and heard. I assume there may be training table and other things limited to the athletic team. That’s not the point. All the players are essentially a general student who walked on and made the team. Having made the team there may be some added opportunities/perks associated – aids and support in fulfilling the added responsibilities. But there is no official financial aid/benefits agreement as recruitment bait (i.e. no quid pro quo) and no division between scholarship and non scholarship team members.
LikeLike
I get that. But walk-ons in FBS evidently now aren’t allowed perks like free food from the training table. If they don’t get anything extra (like regular students), why can’t they be allowed to transfer and start playing right away (like regular students can in club sports or intramurals or a drama club)?
LikeLike
Because those perks are a part of the incentive package offered to a limited number of prospective students solely for athletic reasons. It’s a need based system in the Ivy League, with very high baselines. I’m sure everyone is getting fed and treated, whether athlete or not. Some from mega money may be paying for it, but those of modest means are being covered, again, athlete or not. That’s the distinction. It’s not athlete vs regular student, and it’s not schollie vs non schollie – because there are none of the former.
LikeLike
Clubs and inter-murals aren’t ncaa governed. Ivy’s aren’t breaking NCAA rules by not offering athletic based incentives, but they would be by allowing immediate transfers without releases being secured.
LikeLike
The Ivies may not give out athletic scholarships, but…
LikeLike
Non-scholarship doesn’t mean not recruited. Non-scholarship programs recruit players as well. Its not like high school where they just let everyone know when the tryouts are.
LikeLike
No athletic scholarships, but there is always regular, old financial aid: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/sports/financial-aid-changes-game-as-sports-teams-in-ivies-rise.html?adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1396442771-1pEKZ9ZkgU673xx+RlXXBQ
LikeLike
If they sign a document or contract with a university agreeing to be bound, that changes the equation.
I’ve never walked on, nor known anyone who did, but I’d bet they do sign something, acknowledging their receipt of the rule book, giving the AD access to their bank account statements, etc.. Except for the means of funding their education, walk-ons are covered by the same rules as everyone else. If you’re on the team, you’re governed by those rules.
Any idea what walk-ons have to do to walk on?
At most programs, there are two kinds of walk-ons. A “preferred walk-on” is recruited, just like any scholarship athlete. They just don’t get the scholarship, at least not at first, but otherwise there is no difference. Sometimes a preferred walk-on will get a scholarship later on, if they prove themselves and a spot opens up.
There’s also the kind that just shows up, tries out, and makes a good enough impression to get on the team.
LikeLike
Marc:
Correct, with a small addition. Preferred walkon is an official designation that is (I believe) a kind of roster/tryout limitation. At schools that fall practice starts before school a plain walkon is not allowed to join practice until school starts, even when they’ve been assured (verbally) of a spot and have been involved in summer “voluntary” workouts. Preferred are allowed up to the number of roster spots (which is greater than the scholarship limit) allowed prior to the start of school. I assume the rule is intended to prevent 200 athlete tryouts/eliminations, which would be a serious crimp in the playing prospects anywhere else that year for those who don’t make the cut.
LikeLike
ccrider, August camp is limited to 105 players, and you’re right that preferred walkons are generally guaranteed a spot on that list.
LikeLike
Vandy talks to lawyers to prepare for potential union drive there:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24508957/vanderbilt-consults-lawyers-on-player-unionization
LikeLike
Lexington denied the requested state monies to help finance Rupp Arena’s renovation:
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/03/30/3169557/lawmakers-strike-deal-on-state.html
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10710069/texas-longhorns-ad-steve-patterson-not-intrested-rivalry-texas-aggies
The UT AD is looking to use sports to grow their brand internationally, playing games in places like Mexico and Dubai. Playing TAMU in football isn’t high on his list.
LikeLike
He’s just playing into TAMU’s hands by doing things that are reflective of liberal policy-making. That’s been TAMU’s sell to prospective white in-state students (not as many hippies, internationals and less-qualified minorities here at College Station) for the past decade and that’s where the appeal of the non-Florida SEC gets cashed in by LSU, Bama et al. I did predict the eventual admission of UANL into the Big XII circa 2050.
LikeLike
With some effort, I think you could edit that to make TAMU and its students sound even more racist.
LikeLike
Right…because TAMU and its students are racist because of a post on a message board. All 50,000 of them… sheesh the idiocy of some.
LikeLike
No, I said he could make them sound more racist if he really tried. I’m not saying it was an accurate portrayal.
LikeLike
So you first assume he is an Ag and then you’re dumb enough to think his comments define other Ags. Where do you go to school so I can assign your ignorance to others?
LikeLike
I never assumed he was an Ag. In fact, I assumed the opposite. I said if he worked at it maybe he could make them sound even more racist than that quick comment did. That’s a comment on his writing, not on the people he’s writing about.
LikeLike
Frank:
I think you are accusing Brian of having the attitude that he is in fact ridiculing in his response. Someone else earned your response.
LikeLike
my apologies as I misunderstood. Sorry Brian.
LikeLike
Not a problem. I’m glad the misunderstanding is resolved.
LikeLike
@urbanleftbehind,
Wow… That’s quite a post.
LikeLike
April Fools?
LikeLike
TAMU Fools?
LikeLike
Partially on and off topic: Don Baylor, although of baseball fame was the first black to play FB at UT, broke a femur receiving the ceremonial first pitch in Anaheim last night. I’d link a video but don’t particularly want to view it again. Hope it was a freak accident and not the result of some underlying bone weakening problem.
LikeLike
Don Baylor didn’t play at UT. He was offered, but chose to play baseball and didn’t go to UT. He would have been on those great wishbone teams that won 30 straight games and 2 MNCs. If he had accepted that 1969 UT team would not have the distinction of being the last all white MNC team. First Black player was the next year, in 1970.
LikeLike
Oops. Can I insert a “could have been the first…”
My bad. 😦
LikeLike
Doesn’t Don Baylor hold the record for most times being hit by pitches? Kinda ironic.
Get well soon.
LikeLike
No, its Hughie Jennings.
Now if you only include players who have played since 1918, that moves Baylor from 4th to 2nd behind Craig Biggio (I thought Biggio was 1st).
LikeLike
Fools joke, not so much. You kind a see a lot of message board heroes from aTm characterize points-of-difference from UT in the same language and code words. I myself have been guilty of saying that much of UT’s mechandise sales is from illegal aliens trying to make people think they are native (US-born) Tejanos. As regards the SEC schools and their “raids” (non-athletic) on Texas, it is largely just the product of the overall Texas population boom and the needs of prospective collegians; without evidence, I cannot impugn the admissions staffs of those schools).
Considering that Don Baylor played before the advent of body armor and shin guards, could his bone marrow cancer be the effect of continous bruising from high-speed pitches?
LikeLike
Heard about the Mexico City silliness. Dubai? Now that’s new. Wonder how much they are offering.
LikeLike
Apparently it’s because of the oil and gas industry there and thus all the people from TX.
LikeLike
The only true candidates are NIU, SIU and UIC.
Those three are the only public Universities in Illinois that are classified by the Carnegie Foundation as at least a “RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity).”
For those unfamiliar, Illinois is divided into three parts: Northern Illinois, Central Illinois, and Southern Illinois.
NIU and UIC are located in Northern Illinois, SIU is located in Southern Illinois, and the University of Illinois dominates the Central Illinois region.
NIU and SIU often get the “directional” tag but both are large National Universities with extensive Graduate and Professional offerings (Law School, Engineering School, Medical School, Business School) that serve as the leading public University for their respective regions.
UIC’s status is a bit misleading because it technically houses some of the University of Illinois Graduate Programs on its campus, but often those areas are claimed by the Flagship in Champaign-Urbana. Without those, UIC is not much more than an extension of the City Colleges of Chicago with the majority of its students being Liberal Arts & Humanities majors. It’s an urban campus with a majority of the students being non-residential and does not field a football team at any level.
NIU is the true #2 Public Research University in Illinois, a member of the Universities Research Association (URA), and located in the heart of the “Northern Illinois” region, which dominates the state’s population, cultural, and economic activity.
NIU has a top Business School, a well-regarded Law School, and a recognized Engineering School that is one of the fastest growing in the country.
Located in the traditional college town of DeKalb, Illinois, NIU is also part of the (#3 ranked) greater Chicago, Illinois metro area.
The NIU Huskies compete at the highest level of intercollegiate athletics and have been the most successful college football program in the state over the last decade.
SIU is the leading research University in the “Southern Illinois” region of the state but is experiencing declines in enrollment and academic programs offered that mirror the shrinking region. The Southern Illinois region is the least populated and influential region in Illinois.
It’s clear that the leading candidate for a “promotion” would have to be NIU. Although the Big Ten is unlikely (impossible), the Big 12 would be a perfect fit.
All the other public universities are at least a tier below these three, including Illinois State. Illinois State severely lacks in graduate/professional programs and research, and is basically just a bloated Teacher’s College with an Insurance School (that serves for little more than to provide State Farm headquarters with free training for entry-level insurance agents). It belongs in the next tier down with the other true directionals: Western Illinois University in Macomb, Central Illinois University in Normal (aka Illinois State), and Eastern Illinois University in Charleston.
One reason that may explain why all three directionals never grew past their original mission as Teacher’s Colleges is that all three are located in the Central Illinois region that is dominated by the State Flagship University, U of I.
LikeLike
While MLB’s popularity may be stagnant (or even declining) domestically, it (or at least baseball) is drawing huge numbers of international players
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/01/26-1-percent-of-major-leaguers-were-born-outside-of-the-united-states/
LikeLike
For comparisons sake, only about 20% of the NBA is international.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/29/record-92-foreign-players-on-nba-rosters-to-start-season/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10708664/marquette-hires-duke-assistant-steve-wojciechowski
Marquette picked Wojo to replace Buzz WIlliams. I’m curious who Coach K picks to replace him.
LikeLike
Greg Paulus?
LikeLike
He’s at OSU right now, FWIW.
LikeLike
I know. In the biz. In a hoops context, going to Duke would be a step up.
LikeLike
Yes, it would.
LikeLike
I hope Shaka is not turning down all these jobs for a shot at Duke post-K. Now Wojo will have the head coaching gig on his resume. In addition, there lurks Dawkins, Amaker (yes, a retread, but could be the guy before the real Next Guy), Collins, and possibly Paulus. It was also rumored that Brad Stevens took the Celtics job both as a waystation and baptism-by-fire with pro-level athletes before taking over at Duke.
LikeLike
Quin Snyder is not on the list?
LikeLike
Unintentional oversight. At least he now brings pro cred and a pipeline to the ATL.
LikeLike
According to Football Scoop: http://footballscoop.com/news/13038-college-football-s-toughest-2014-schedules-belong-to
Fifteen Toughest Schedules
1. Arkansas – 103-54 (.656) opponent 2013 record; 2013 bowl opponents: 10
2. Virginia – 102-54 (.654); 2013 bowl opponents: 10
3. Tennessee – 101-54 (.652); 2013 bowl opponents: 9
4. Notre Dame – 103-56 (.648); 2013 bowl opponents: 10
5. Texas A&M – 100-55 (.641); 2013 bowl opponents: 8
6. Kentucky – 98-55 (.641); 2013 bowl opponents: 8
7. Iowa State – 97-57 (.630); 2013 bowl opponents: 8 (plus North Dakota State)
8. Syracuse – 96-57 (.628); 2013 bowl opponents: 7
9. Rutgers – 97-58 (.626); 2013 bowl opponents: 9 (plus Penn State)
Wake Forest – 97-58 (.626); 2013 bowl opponents: 7
11. Utah – 98-59 (.624); 2013 bowl opponents: 10
12. West Virginia – 97-59 (.622); 2013 bowl opponents: 8
13. South Carolina – 96-59 (.619); 2013 bowl opponents: 7
14. Miami – 96-60 (.615); 2013 bowl opponents: 10
15. Boston College – 95-61 (.609); 2013 bowl opponents: 8
Fifteen Easiest Schedules
1. Georgia Southern – 51-95 (.349); 2013 bowl opponents: 2
2. North Texas – 55-92 (.374); 2013 bowl opponents: 2
3. Northern Illinois – 55-91 (.377); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
4. Colorado State – 57-91 (.385); 2013 bowl opponents: 2
5. Middle Tennessee – 58-90 (.392); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
6. Texas State – 57-88 (.393); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
7. Marshall – 59-89 (.399); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
8. Buffalo – 59-88 (.401); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
9. Ball State – 60-89 (.403); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
10. Troy – 60-87 (.408); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
11. Louisiana-Monroe – 61-87 (.412); bowl opponents: 4
12. Utah State – 68-94 (.420); bowl opponents: 4
13. Rice – 64-85 (.430); bowl opponents: 4
14. Arkansas State – 64-84 (.432); 2013 bowl opponents: 3
Houston – 64-84 (.432); 2013 bowl opponents: 4
LikeLike
It’s important to remember that this is using the NCAA method which solely uses the records from last year for your opponents this year.
http://www.philsteele.com/Blogs/2014/MAR14/DBMar15.html
AL is near the bottom of the list with a sub-0.500 schedule (they’re #95 out of 128, 47.3%).
WI is almost as bad at #87 (48.7%).
LikeLike
Can you break this out to only cover P5 schools? I would expect sunbelt/mac schools to have weaker schedules based on their conference schedules.
LikeLike
P5: From toughest to easiest:
1. Arkansas — 103-54 65.61%
2. Virginia — 102-54 65.38%
3. Tennessee — 101-54 65.16%
4. Notre Dame — 103-56 64.78%
5. Texas A&M — 100-55 64.52%
6. Kentucky — 98-55 64.05%
7. Iowa St — 97-57 62.99%
8. Syracuse — 96-57 62.75%
9. Rutgers — 97-58 62.58%
9. Wake Forest — 97-58 62.58%
11. Utah — 98-59 62.42%
12. West Virginia — 97-59 62.18%
13. South Carolina – 96-59 61.94%
14. Miami, Fl – 96-60 61.54%
15. Boston College – 95-61 60.90%
16. Auburn 93-60 60.78%
17. California 94-61 60.65%
18. Georgia 92-61 60.13%
19. North Carolina 92-62 59.74%
20. Illinois 90-61 59.60%
21. Florida 91-62 59.48%
22. NC State 89-61 59.33%
23. Indiana 93-64 59.24%
24. Nebraska 90-63 58.82%
25. Texas 89-63 58.55%
25. Mississippi 89-63 58.55%
27. Clemson 89-65 57.79%
28. USC 89-66 57.42%
29. TCU 87-65 57.24%
30. Oklahoma St 86-65 56.95%
31. Ohio St 87-66 56.86%
32. Washington St 88-67 56.77%
33. Kansas 86-66 56.58%
34. Maryland 86-67 56.21%
35. Stanford 86-68 55.84%
36. Purdue 84-67 55.63%
36. Missouri 84-67 55.63%
36. Georgia Tech 84-67 55.63%
39. Minnesota 85-68 55.56%
40. Florida St 83-68 54.97%
41. Arizona 84-69 54.90%
41. Oregon 84-69 54.90%
43. Arizona St 84-70 54.55%
44. Michigan St 83-71 53.90%
44. Virginia Tech 83-71 53.90%
46. LSU 82-71 53.59%
47. Michigan 81-71 53.29%
48. UCLA 82-72 53.25%
48. Oregon St 82-72 53.25%
50. Mississippi St 80-71 52.98%
51. Kansas St 79-72 52.32%
52. Colorado 81-74 52.26%
53. Baylor 78-72 52.00%
54. Penn St 79-73 51.97%
55. Vanderbilt 78-73 51.66%
56. Pittsburgh 78-75 50.98%
57. Washington 85-83 50.60%
58. Northwestern 76-76 50.00%
59. Louisville 75-76 49.67%
60. Texas Tech 74-75 49.66%
61. Iowa 68-70 49.28%
62. Wisconsin 74-78 48.68%
63..Oklahoma 71-78 47.65%
64. Alabama 71-79 47.33%
65. Duke 69-82 45.70%
Apologies in advance if this doesn’t end up looking well, since I’m not good with HTML. Interesting that you’d have to go all the way down to #59 before you hit below .500 in percentages. Could this be used as an argument in favor of consolidation? I don’t know.
I wasn’t sure to include BYU or not, so I left it out. Unbelievable that they wouldn’t be included.
LikeLike
Thanks–great work!
Man, Kentucky is going to have it rough this year. Feel bad for Mark Stoops and that great recruiting class.
LikeLike
Stoops has a way to deal with it, though….
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24510429/mark-stoops-appears-on-2014-charity-makers-mark-bottle
Kinda weird after the Beer Barrel Trophy with UT Knoxville was “retired”.
LikeLike
https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/tag/pay-players/
Team revenue in NCAA MBB is only have as sensitive to changes in win% as NBA.
LikeLike
After I read their fan index, I discount anything I read from the Emory sports marketing group.
LikeLike
Why are you censoring comments?
LikeLike
Danny Manning to Wake?
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10714587/danny-manning-tulsa-golden-hurricane-visits-wake-forest-demon-deacons-decision-looms
LikeLike
Congratulations on arguing with the troll about rutgers vs. clown college. That hasn’t happened around here in at least a week.
LikeLike
Takes more than one person to argue. If people want to post ridiculous nonsense on the topic I’m always more than happy to set them straight.
LikeLike
Yes, I was set straighter than the horizon. LOL.
LikeLike
If people want to post ridiculous nonsense on the topic I’m always more than happy to set them straight.
It must be a tough life: so many people wrong on the Internet, and no one but you can set them straight. I can scarcely imagine the horrors, if you weren’t around to perform that essential service.
LikeLike
@Marc-
Off topic question–how do you post different font styles on here, such as bold, italics, underlining, and the like? Do you type into something else then paste it in the reply box?
LikeLike
Not Marc, but to answer your question… you can imbed HTML into your posts.
For example: italic <i>italic</i> will give you italic
LikeLike
cool!
LikeLike
Thanks Mike!
LikeLike
It’s not so bad if you enjoy it and limit it to very few topics.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Gophers for pulling out the win to make the NIT final tomorrow. It shouldn’t have gone to OT, but at least they won.
LikeLike
Who’da thunk the unsung Western Quadrant of the B1G could have such an accomplished MBB season?
LikeLike
Is amazing the Gophers won the game, there were periods of time where it seemed that neither team wanted to win, with some of the seriously sloppy play… Am happy the Gophs won, of course… The prestige of playing in the NCAA tourney would have been nicer, but, certainly good for lil’ Pitino and the team to get more experience (more games) in a win or go home environment.
NIT championship game this week, Hockey Frozen Four next week… Am a happy Gopher!
LikeLike
http://web1.ncaa.org/coachesTest/exec/practiceexam?division=1
Sadly, I passed the football exam.
LikeLike
I got 11/30 on the football exam.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10717660/charlotte-looking-host-additional-neutral-site-games-future
Charlotte wants to do more kickoff games, too.
LikeLike
WVU vs. Tennessee in Charlotte–bet The Dude’s already tailgating, claiming it’ll be an intra-conference matchup.
LikeLike
Big Ten should add Connecticut and Missouri ASAP. Both are cheap to buy (Missouri is free!) and could be in by 2017…
West / East
Missouri / Connecticut
Nebraska / Rutgers
Iowa / Maryland
Illinois / Penn State
Wisconsin / Ohio State
Minnesota / Michigan
Northwestern / Indiana
Purdue / Michigan State
In 2025, Kansas should be available. Try to add them and Pittsburgh to reach 18.
Eventually, I would add Notre Dame and Syracuse for 20…
West / East
Indiana / Notre Dame
Purdue / Syracuse
Kansas / Connecticut
Missouri / Rutgers
Nebraska / Maryland
Iowa / Penn State
Wisconsin / Pittsburgh
Minnesota / Ohio State
Illinois / Michigan
Northwestern / Michigan State
5 of the Top 10 football programs (Nebraska, ND, OSU, PSU, Michigan)
5 of the Top 10 hoops programs (Kansas, Indiana, Syracuse, Connecticut, Michigan State)
OWN New York City beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Madison Square Garden for Big Ten hoops tournament.
Big Ten Network with Notre Dame can go national on the Tier One sports package.
Dominate all non-major sports besides baseball.
Best academics by an order of magnitude (Ivy League notwithstanding).
True East and Midwest.
Projected 30-40% of National Championships in money sports each decade (up from 5% now).
Could compete head-to-head with ESPN at this point in terms of providing content.
LikeLike
Kellis Robinett, of The Wichita Eagle and Kansas City Star, live tweeting ESPiN head honcho John Skipper’s speech at a Landon Lecture.
LikeLike
A couple of key ones:
Bob Bowlsby on CFB playoff: “We are not optimizing the money in the postseason playoff but we are taking a big step toward a fair champion.”
Bob Bowlsby on why a big college football playoff is unlikely: “We aren’t going to play games past the first weekend of January.”
LikeLike
Well, there goes Frank’s plan from his prior post.
Hope CFB playoff never goes to 8, but if it does, Christmas Day college football triple-header would be a nice consolation prize.
Would love to see Mark Cuban’s reaction to that one (CFB moving in on the NBA’s day)
LikeLike
http://www.kansas.com/2014/04/03/3383402/espn-president-touts-internet.html
This article was linked in his Twitter, too.
That has Skipper looking at new and inventive ways to provide content and games. College sports are a main target.
In the past year, Skipper said ESPN3 streamed close to 5,000 live games to Internet audiences. He found that viewers didn’t mind tuning into games during work hours, and he joked that ESPN3 boosts productivity. He also discovered that advertisers were quick to purchase commercial time on those broadcasts.
With that in mind, he wants to boost the number of games ESPN3 carries online to 20,000 annually.
…
Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby also participated in the lecture Wednesday. When he was asked about the relationship between college sports and ESPN, he said it was “highly positive.”
But he did have one concern: Moving too many games to awkward times. That inevitably leads to missed class time and unnecessary stress on student-athletes.
Skipper said ESPN does its best to work around those concerns. But sometimes they are the cost of doing business.
For example, ESPN is pushing for more college football games to be played during the week. Skipper sees Friday evening as an underutilized timeslot.
“I think the issue now is going to be about playing on Friday night, especially with the NFL playing on Thursday,” Skipper said. “That window is not going to be as attractive in terms of national exposure … I think you will find more teams willing to play on Friday.”
ESPN has long televised a marquee college football game on Thursday night and a lesser game on Friday. Teams enjoy playing all alone in front of a national audience on Thursday, and K-State will do exactly that next season on Sept. 18 against Auburn and on Nov. 20 at West Virginia.
Friday has always been less appealing, because that’s when most high school games are played.
“We usually have agreements with conferences on how many midweek games they will play,” Skipper said. “There is an amount of cajoling and pleading, but for the most part they are overwhelmingly positive experiences.
“We have some schools that just won’t do them. They have issues at the university and they can’t do them. We have no problem with that. We try to provide the rationale for why it is a good experience. But most of the schools that do it do it again because it is such a good experience.”
K-State opened the 2013 football season on a Friday night against North Dakota State, but that game was played before the high school season began. K-State athletic director John Currie said the Wildcats would never consider going head to head with high school games. Bowlsby has also said he is against Friday games.
Skipper downplayed those concerns.
“In our experience playing on Friday in Texas and in California, the fear was always that it would affect high school football. It really hasn’t,” Skipper said. “When you have the passion and your kids are playing in high school you will go to the high school game. So I think there will be more on Friday.”
That may take some convincing from ESPN, but Skipper is confident it will happen.
Perhaps sending a message to the B10 since that’s the only major college contract they need to negotiate soon?
LikeLike
“Perhaps sending a message to the B10 since that’s the only major college contract they need to negotiate soon?”
Yes, but as history shows, the B1G is not an early adapter when it comes to scheduling games (ie November night games, Thursday night games). The right teams, the right games, the right weekends, and it could work for the B1G and not hurt local communities.
I definitely see ESPN pushing the B1G to give them a Friday night T-giving game in prime time (as I’ve stated repeatedly, more than likely involving the PSU/RU/UMD/MSU crowd rather than the more traditional B1G games played that weekend).
I also stated on the previous board that Thursday’s will be ceded to the NFL–nobody competes with the NFL and wins. Nobody. Friday is the only natural slot (and one the NFL cannot move in on).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I definitely see ESPN pushing the B1G to give them a Friday night T-giving game in prime time (as I’ve stated repeatedly, more than likely involving the PSU/RU/UMD/MSU crowd rather than the more traditional B1G games played that weekend).”
As long as both schools have to agree, I have no issue with it. Maybe they also get a Saturday primetime game among your eastern 4. I could see PU/IN going to primetime on BTN, too.
F @ 3:30 – NE/IA
F @ 8:00 – ?SU/UMD, PU/IN
Sat @ 12 – OSU/UM
Sat @ 3:30 – WI/MN, NW/IL
Sat @ 8 – ?SU/RU
“I also stated on the previous board that Thursday’s will be ceded to the NFL–nobody competes with the NFL and wins. Nobody. Friday is the only natural slot (and one the NFL cannot move in on).”
Yeah, that ship has sailed. Maybe the MAC will play then, but not the B10.
LikeLike
“F @ 3:30 – NE/IA
F @ 8:00 – ?SU/UMD, PU/IN
Sat @ 12 – OSU/UM
Sat @ 3:30 – WI/MN, NW/IL
Sat @ 8 – ?SU/RU”
Schedule looks good to me.
“Yeah, that ship has sailed. Maybe the MAC will play then, but not the B10.”
I agree it is 99% not happening, but if there is a lot of money to be made, that could sway some programs. Not the OSU/UM/PSU level teams, but certainly the lesser ones (or ones with less HS football in state. UMD/RU might be a Fri night contender.
LikeLike
“I agree it is 99% not happening, but if there is a lot of money to be made, that could sway some programs. Not the OSU/UM/PSU level teams, but certainly the lesser ones (or ones with less HS football in state. UMD/RU might be a Fri night contender.”
I was referring to Thursday nights. I could see mid-level B10 teams considering Friday nights, but it would have to include a mutual consent clause.
LikeLike
Oh. Gotcha.
Yeah. No chance of any Thursday night B1G games. Zero.
LikeLike
Get that streaming thing more ubiquitous and you will be able to attend a HS game and watch a “televised” game at the same time. Interesting that advertisers are snapping up ads on streamed broadcasts. A definition of “snapping up” would be useful.
LikeLike
God only knows how many millions school districts will have to spend to handle the bandwidth. Let alone college stadiums. Its a long time till that happens, and ESPN is at the mercy of Comcast/Verizon/AT&T/etc… If they don’t keep upgrading networks, it’ll be a lesser success.
LikeLike
Many/most of the HS’s in my area already have high speed wifi, some of the larger schools have fairly robust systems. It’s not like many HS games will concentrate more than a couple thousand. Not the same as suddenly dropping 60-100k on a system for a CFB game, in addition to the existing demand. Might take some work, but it’ll happen soon.
LikeLike
FSU actually investigated the Winston rape allegations, and 2 teammates were charged with school conduct code violations…
http://deadspin.com/fsu-investigates-jameis-winston-charges-2-teammates-in-1557216579
LikeLike
And now the fed is investigating FSU over the handling of the rape allegations.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10724489/florida-state-seminoles-handling-jameis-winston-investigation
LikeLike
Interesting
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional/chancellor-asked-uts-powers-to-step-down-notes-sho/nfQ7c/
The chancellor of the University of Texas System asked UT-Austin President Bill Powers last summer to step down but Powers refused to do so, according to notes taken during closed-door meetings of the system’s Board of Regents and obtained by the American-Statesman.
Powers told Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa that he didn’t want to resign because of the university’s ongoing $3 billion fundraising campaign and his support from students and faculty members, the notes say. Firing Powers wasn’t an option because it would have an “adverse” effect on the university, the notes quote Cigarroa as saying
LikeLike
Cigarrosa: will you quit?
Powers: No, I have strong support.
Cigarrosa: I really want you out.
Powers: It would hurt the university.
Cigarrosa: I could fire you.
Powers: Ok, try.
Cigarrosa: secretary, whatever your name is, strike the last two lines and insert I can’t fire him because it might hurt the university.
And now you know the rest of the story…
This is the fake Paul Harvey – good day.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24512281/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-forwards-recusal-policy
The playoff committee has a recusal policy draft.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24512353/will-the-playoff-selection-committee-influence-conference-scheduling
Will the playoff committee influence conference scheduling?
LikeLike
Not at Baylor.
LikeLike
NWU players vote to unionize on April 25, 2014.
http://college-football.si.com/2014/04/03/northwestern-football-players-nlrb-union-vote/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
Btw, I was listening to the Gordon Gee comments again, and he flat out stated that if the B1G thought adding UNL would cause the domino effect that it did, the B1G would have taken Mizzou and Kansas at the same time, going straight to 14. He flat out states that as fact. Gene Smith chimes in that Pitt was also on the table, which prompted Gee’s comment that PSU abhors Pitt, like OSU would never let Cincy in.
He also stated that Iowa has “tremendous pressure” about Iowa State, but that the conference is not interested in ISU.
http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/31/ohio-state-gordon-gee-controversial-comments/ – Listen starting at 10:22.
LikeLike
Boom. There you go. Official confirmation of what I’ve been saying for years on here and elsewhere. I’ve heard this from people who know curators at Mizzou. Although not the part about KU being a sure thing. I had heard that they were an option but not a definite.
LikeLike
We’ve known Gee supported Missouri all along. This part is more informative. “Because thought about adding Missouri and Kansas at the time. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that. I think we should have done that at the time.” Sometimes he confuses what “we would have done” with “what I thought we should have done”, and at that time still thought could be done.
Had he figured the KU/KSU separation out? Or where UT/OU would land (assuming death of B12 is only way to untie the Kansas knot)? Was he for closing the seaboard strategy, limiting it to two, or foreshadowing an over 16 monstrosity? Or just had a little mouth/brain interface control malfunction?
LikeLike
He said had they anticipated the domino affect coming he’s sure they would have gone ahead and taken Missouri at the time.
Had Texas made the move to the Pac 12 that would have made it pretty obvious.
The story I’ve long heard was that Texas staying put is what halted Missouri’s move to the B1G. If Texas would have moved it would have been done.
It’s interesting that during the interview he mentioned 5 or 6 times specifically that the B1G was/is interested in Missouri.
I’ve heard (from a less reliable source) that the B1G is still interested in Missouri. Gee says that multiple times in this interview. Even so, I can’t imagine Mizzou leaving the SEC. At least not for a fairly long time, because who knows what the distant future could bring. It’s impossible to predict that kind of thing.
LikeLike
Nobody doubts there was interest from some parties. Were the votes there? There is nothing really new here, it was almost a year ago. What’s new is attributing B1G intent to the personal comments/wishes of a bit of a loose cannon made to a group of boosters. He also had some colorful comments about the Irish, and Missouri/aTm’s new home.
LikeLike
“He said had they anticipated the domino affect coming…”
Really? When has a power conference add not resulted in a domino affect? Especially with Colorado leaving too, and the strong possibility of a PAC 16, aTm obviously wanting to go SEC? I’d say some of the dominos they may have anticipated didn’t fall. If UT doesn’t halt the 16 Kansas very likely is in the PAC in place of Utah.
But what prevented them from inviting Missouri anyway?
LikeLike
I agree, and I think the B1G is a very deliberate conference on a number of levels. One of those is with expansion. I don’t think B1G presidents would have been comfortable making such a drastic move at once of going from 11 to 14.
Indeed, events back them up, because Gee also notes a shift in B1G thinking once UND joined the ACC as a partial.
Gee notes that RU was added as a market compliment to UMd (my words, his thought). I thought that was interesting. He mentions that UMd’s president and provost are both OSU guys and they instigated the process, but that UMd (and to a lesser extent, RU) allow the B1G to gain in a zero-sum manner with the ACC losing.
He’s also quite explicit that GT and Texas were considered and rejected on geographic concerns.
LikeLike
“…and Texas were considered and rejected on geographic concerns.”
Huh. That’s a funny way to spell Tech problem.
LikeLike
@ccrider55-
Just out of curiosity, why is it a Tech problem, as opposed to another Texas state school? Does TT have that much political muscle/clout?
LikeLike
Bullet, or someone else would know far better than I. They do have a large number of alums in the legislature. But probably more important, aTm was going to a power conference too. TT potentially could have been relegated. However, I was merely quoting the leaked email that gave away that UT and the B1G had in fact been in talks at some level, but they had unacceptable requirements/impediments (an hour longer flight not being mentioned).
LikeLike
In 1994 Tech or Baylor had almost all the key offices in the state. Not true anymore, but they do have a huge swath of West Texas politicians supporting them and the universities don’t want unnecessary enemies.
Some of it is simply that a strong Tech is good for UT. UT has restricted enrollment to roughly 50k since 1980 as they believe quality would suffer if they increased. They are getting pressure to increase to 60-75k as Texans, particularly from Republican suburban areas, can’t get there kids into UT or A&M. A&M has complied with Gov. Perry and increased their enrollment from the 45k they had been sticking at for 20 years to over 55k in just a couple of years. So a strong Tech decreases enrollment pressure and more strong universities in the area increases collaboration opportunities locally.
Houston’s enrollment has not increased anything like the universities in the rest of the state since they left the SWC. I have UH graduate friends who don’t even consider UH for their kids, but will look at an LSU or Alabama. That, despite the fact that UH is a much better school than it was 20 years ago. Its gotten better despite not being in a major conference, but its still not attracting students with options.
LikeLike
That chart posted in this thread shows how much Texas students going out of state has been growing in the past few years.
LikeLike
@bullet:
Thanks. So, basically, TT is the third public school in the state now, as opposed to UH/UTSA/North Texas/UTEP?
LikeLike
The third that is in a power conference. Conference affiliation isn’t as important to the others. Changing conferences would hurt only TT, unless it is to another power conference.
LikeLike
Right.
If you want to talk about research (and exclude the medical schools), Houston is 3rd and Tech is 4th. Quality of students, UT-Dallas is 3rd and a lot of schools are pretty close for 4th. By size Houston is 3rd, UNT is 4th, Texas St. is 5th, UTA is 6th and Tech is 7th, then UTSA, a big drop to UTEP, UTD, UT-Pan American. Now Tech and Texas St. are the only ones on that list that aren’t predominately commuter schools. And Tech leads in political influence as Houston’s alums are heavily concentrated in the Houston area and the DFW area can’t agree on anything so the influence of those schools is limited.
LikeLike
Thanks, bullet and ccrider55 for the info!
LikeLike
It’s interesting Gee mentions possibilities as:
Kansas, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke.
LikeLike
In that case, I think the Kansas/Kansas State separation would have worked out. Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas being offered at once means it’s much more likely that Texas is going to bolt with the other 5 to the PAC-10. At that point, the Kansas legislature is not going to do anything to mess things up for Kansas unless they believe they are more likely to get Kansas State included than to end up with both left out. Unfortunately for Kansas State, it would be much more likely the Big Ten went east for school #14 than go to 15 with both Kansas schools.
At the time, I sure didn’t want a 3 school expansion, but but given we ended up at 14 in 3 years anyway I wish they’d gone for it.
LikeLike
I think you have cause and effect backwards. Kansas wasn’t going to cause UTAH to do anything. If UT was leaving then the Kansas pair had decisions to make, but they weren’t leaving the B12 until it was, not might soon be, dead. And there was the still standing BE that would have invited them together, and ISU too, probably.
LikeLike
Damn predictive text.
UTAH=UT
LikeLike
I would think an eastern seaboard strategy may threaten OSU preeminence in recruiting as being one of, if not the pre-eminent (and this was happening right before the Sandusky inferno) furthest east power in the B1G. New Jersey, PA and Beltway area prospects could start staying home and there would be a Big Ten option for the nerds of the Carolinas and the ATL (and Ohio natives would start looking at those schools also). Again this would be thinking in the comparatively narrow interests of sports performance supremacy and not in terms of TV markets and ratings, which seems to be a third (if even that) priority of Gee behind team and academic standing. Once you add schools to the E, S, and SE – I would not be surprised to see OSU in a western or prairie division if UM/MSU balked at being placed back into a Legends-like division again.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“I would think an eastern seaboard strategy may threaten OSU preeminence in recruiting as being one of, if not the pre-eminent (and this was happening right before the Sandusky inferno) furthest east power in the B1G.”
1. That might be a consideration for Urban Meyer, but Gee wouldn’t have cared about that at all. Recruiting students to OSU in the future is much more important to him than making the FB coach’s job a little easier.
2. PSU was always expected to be a peer to OSU in FB. PA used to be a great state for recruiting plus they were the CFB power in the northeast. If anything, adding RU (and UMD to a lesser extent) might hurt PSU since those kids can stay home and still play in the B10.
3. OH is a top 5 state for recruiting, plus OSU has a strong enough brand to recruit nationally. RU and UMD aren’t threats to them. It may hurt ND more.
“(and Ohio natives would start looking at those schools also).”
I doubt OSU is worried about losing recruits to UNC et al.
“Once you add schools to the E, S, and SE – I would not be surprised to see OSU in a western or prairie division if UM/MSU balked at being placed back into a Legends-like division again.”
I’m the rare person here that often puts OSU into unlikely divisions when we do hypothetical expansion situations. Other than preserving The Game, I don’t think the B10 has shown many OSU rivalries need preserving.
Rather than pure E/W, I preferred Inner/Outer. But I also came up with this idea:
W = OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
E = MI, PSU, MSU, PU, UMD, RU, IN
With teams listed in order of 1 locked crossover game. That’s more balanced, which I consider very important. I’d also rather see OSU play true B10 teams than newbies every year. But I know PSU really wants to keep the OSU game so that lineup wasn’t going to happen.
And for 16 (add UVA and UNC for example):
W = NE, WI, IA, MN
N = MI, MSU, NW, IL
E = PSU, RU, PU, IN
S = OSU, UMD, UVA, UNC
This put a king in every pod, kept the western team together for drivable games, kept the ACC teams together for familiar faces, kept an eastern rival for PSU, and kept most of the rivalries in pod. Add 1 locked game and things are set.
NW vs SE:
S and N are locked (OSU/MI, others rotate)
W and E are locked in order (NE/PSU, others rotate)
NE vs SW:
S and N are locked (OSU/MI, others rotate)
W and E are locked in order (NE/PSU, others rotate)
NS vs EW
N and E are locked (MI/PSU, others rotate)
S and W are locked (OSU/NE, others rotate)
Or with divisions:
I don’t see OSU going west in this set up because PSU wants to play them and the B10 wants to keep bringing the big brands into the new markets, but I’d prefer it.
Most likely:
W = NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN
E = OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU, UMD, UVA, UNC
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Btw, I was listening to the Gordon Gee comments again, and he flat out stated that if the B1G thought adding UNL would cause the domino effect that it did, the B1G would have taken Mizzou and Kansas at the same time, going straight to 14. He flat out states that as fact. Gene Smith chimes in that Pitt was also on the table, which prompted Gee’s comment that PSU abhors Pitt, like OSU would never let Cincy in.”
I think you need to add some caveats.
Gee can’t speak for the whole B10. He favored MO and KU, but that doesn’t mean 70% of the votes would have supported it.
1:28: “My view, very candidly — and I’ve said this to you before and I’m not certain if [athletic director] Gene [Smith] shares this, we haven’t really talked about this — but I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences of about 16 to 20 teams. And the possibility of them bolting from the NCAA is not unlikely.”
Gee was thinking in terms of imminent superconferences, and he was dead wrong. If the B10 was going to 20, then MO and KU make more sense than if 14 is the end.
6:05: “The blocking strategy is that we simply have now put the ACC in an almost no-win position. So who do they immediately go to? Louisville. They may think about Cincinnati. They may think about Connecticut. But they’ve lost their foothold in that middle part of the area, in that middle part of the Atlantic coast.”
Clearly the eastern strategy was part of the B10’s thinking.
9:14: “I think the Big Ten needs to be predatory and positive rather than waiting for other people to take away from them. Very candidly, I think we made a mistake. Because thought about adding Missouri and Kansas at the time. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that. I think we should have done that at the time. So we would have had Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and then moved into that other area. I think, by the way, that that can still happen.”
Gee thinks they made a mistake, which means the rest of the COP/C wouldn’t approve adding MO and KU then. Again, he also says they would also have moved into the east. So going east was always part of the plan, he just had a bigger conference in mind.
He also says AAU is important.
LikeLike
Yes, that is an important caveat that Gee speaks for himself, not the conference.
I get the sense like you that MU & KU were weighed and measured and considered, but he seems pretty certain in the audio that had the conference gone right to 14, that MU & KU would have been invited. I think the big caveat there is that the B1G is not known for such big moves–even the BTN, a gamble when it started was done with a major TV partner (Fox) and done in a slow and deliberate manner in order to get maximum money and eyeballs. So as much as Gee seems certain that MU & Ku would have been 13 & 14 had the B1G anticipated the chaos that followed UNL, he also implicitly acknowledges, as you point out, that others evidently felt less strongly about those schools. But part of that feeling was no doubt a general reluctance to go to 14 right away–this is a conference, after all, that was happy with 11 for about 20 years.
When he spoke about the AAU, I got the sense that it was more than important, that it was a straight up requirement (and he was vocal in opposing the UNL boot)
Also, as a general statement, I’d recommend listening to the audio–Gee says things that the transcript misses.
LikeLike
I did listen to the audio, I just didn’t comment on it much.
LikeLike
Speaking of Gee…
Now that he’s back in West Virginia, I wonder how his view of realignment changes (assuming it does) now that he’s in a different kind of position, turning from relative aggressive to somewhat defensive (if you want to believe the idea that security in the B12 is not guaranteed at the end of their GoR)?
LikeLike
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400550683
Congrats to the Gophers on winning the NIT. The B10 lost the final the past 2 years (IA and MN) and in 2006 (MI), but we also won it in 2004, 2008 and 2009 (MI, OSU and PSU respectively).
4-3 in the finals the past 11 years is pretty good. Too bad we can’t match that in the NCAA.
LikeLike
The bigger issue is if younger Pitino shares his dad’s early career wanderlust.
LikeLike
Most Gopher fans (including me) assume that Minnesota is purely a training ground for Richard until Daddy decides to retire. Which I am fine with — hopefully, we’ll get another five years with RIchard, get our new practice facilities built and be in a better position to recruit that next coach.
LikeLike
aTm upgrading its football complex, including locker rooms:
http://college-football.si.com/2014/04/03/texas-am-aggies-bright-football-complex-renovations/
LikeLike
Andy….aren’t you a big supporter of Heath at Mo.? Zach Price….arrested twice in the same day….they don’t even do that at OSU or MSU…..Calrk and Rector….arrrested and suspended….Criswell booted from the team…..you’re trust may have been misplaced.
LikeLike
Zach Price arrested for punching some guy who his girlfriend was cheating with. The guy sustained “minor injuries”. Apparently he also bumped the guy’s car with his car. Sucks but kids do dumb things sometimes, especially when it comes to that sort of situation.
Criswell was a senior so you can’t really boot him from the team. He’s not coming back either way. He did graduate so at least he was going to class. The trouble he got was he was sending his rent money to his mom instead of paying his rent.
Clark and Rector were riding in a car that had less than 35 grams of marijuana in it. That amount of marijuana has been basically decriminalized in Columbia, MO. The equivalent of a parking ticket. Don’t even need to go to court. Neither is even suspended at this point.
So yeah, 3 things all together, none of them a huge deal, but unfortunate that they all came so close together. We hadn’t really had any basketball related incidents in a while.
Pick me any program at random and I could find fairly similar incidents or worse quite easily.
LikeLike
Nothing to see here, people move along…
“The thing about DUI is, I mean, what’s the big deal if there isn’t an accident? Bottomline, if those police officers would have just minded their own business then he would have made it home just fine and nobody would have known the difference.”
“Oh and, I mean, look up at the definition of assault, it’s really just the “threat” of bodily harm. Battery is the one to actually worry about.”
“Arson? What does that even mean? Did he intentionally set that fire? Maybe, but maybe not.”
“And, sure, a guy was murdered, but everyone dies at some point, so only his timeline got a bit bumped up. Nobody lives forever, I’ve been saying that for years.”
*and to avoid an 8000 word response, I would like to publically state that the above quotations are a fictional work of satire and were not actually spoken by Andy about crimes (which may or may not have even occurred) by anyone related to the University of Missouri athletic department.
LikeLike
wow, you’re really obsessed with me, aren’t you?
Nothing I said was anywhere hear as dumb as your works of “satire” there. But you just can’t help yourself, can you?
You’re, what, a Nebraska fan, right? Do you want me to start digging into Nebraska’s sordid past of player transgressions? Because I’m pretty sure I could bring out some real nasty ones.
LikeLike
The point is that you are such a homer that you would explain away any negatives about Missouri and the SEC with your Andy-logic.
Maybe you ought to lighten up, buddy.
LikeLike
Your stance would be much more convincing if you actually pointed out one single solitary thing that I said that was improperly defending anyone. Instead you decided to write a fictional farce well beyond anything I would ever say. Pretty much proves you have no point whatsoever.
LikeLike
You understand that satire is an exaggerated parody to playfully criticize someone’s faults, right? So, by definition it would clearly and intentionally be going beyond anything you would actually say.
When Tina Fey portrayed Sarah Palin on SNL, she didn’t just read Palin quotes verbatim. You are my Palin, Andy. Does that make me obsessed with you? Maybe, but it can’t hold a candle to your obsession with Rutgers University. Seriously.
Anywho, the point of my criticism is that you are a complete and utter homer. Did you explain away an actual homicide by a Missouri player? No, but everyone on this board can easily imagine you doing so. That’s what’s funny (to me, but not you – clearly), that one can think of increasingly elaborate and preposterous situations involving the University of Missouri that still cannot crack your homerdom.
LikeLike
Thank you for proving my point, Arch. You’ll go on and on about how much you don’t like me, but you literally can’t point to anything specific that I said that was improperly defending someone. I could have done that but chose not to. Instead I just laid out each of their situations factually.
One guy punched a dude. That’s a crime. I said it sucks. I also said that it does happen in situations like that, which is true, obviously. It’s not all that uncommon. But it’s a crime. Never said it wasn’t.
Another guy was basically stealing money. Took his rent money, didn’t pay rent, sent money to his mom. I never defended that at all. I just noted that he was a senior and it came out after the regular season anyway so he was gone anyway.
Third I just accurately pointed out what happened. Less than 35 grams. Municipal ticket. Equivalent to a parking ticket in Columbia. Don’t even need to go to court. All factual statements.
So again, you’re not going to address any of that because you can’t. You’ll just taunt me like always because that’s what you do. If you actually pointed out something specifically that I did wrong then maybe you’d have a point, but your entire point seems to be that you enjoy taunting me. As you have for 3 or 4 years now. So congrats on that. Good for you.
LikeLike
Would it be better to communicate with you through idioms, since satire didn’t work out?
How about:
“You can’t see the forest for the trees.”
LikeLike
nope, still didn’t actually point out anything I said that was improperly defending anyone.
LikeLike
Wow, outstanding irony Andy!
Unintentional, but still.
LikeLike
By that measure, there’s irony from you too. You keep repeatedly proving me right by showing that you’re doing nothing but taunting me without any substance or specifics, like usual.
LikeLike
Andy:
“Pick me any program at random and I could find fairly similar incidents or worse quite easily.”
If you’d skipped the last four words and add a “probably” it would be unassailable.
Pick me any program at random and I could probably find fairly similar incidents.
See? Non homerish, completely true, and not confrontational.
LikeLike
So the absence of the word “probably” makes it homerish? I’m sorry but I don’t see it at all.
And remember I’m responding to a guy who’s blatantly flaming me on purpose.
Also, I don’t think “probably” is necessary at all.
I may have to go back 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, but every program has players who commit some misdemeanors or have some money troubles. It’s a given with large numbers of college kids.
LikeLike
Probably is necessary unless you can right now tell us (and provide support/links) the equal or worse transgressions at every other school in the NCAA.
You don’t take support well, do you…
LikeLike
Well if you want to get that anal about it I suppose I need to use the word “probably” in just about every obviously true statement I make. Still has nothing to do with being a homer.
And besides, basically everyone on this board is a homer. They just take greater lengths than me to hide it.
LikeLike
“So the absence of the word “probably” makes it homerish? I’m sorry but I don’t see it at all.”
No, it was the inclusion of “or worse.”
“Probably” is to provide unassailability to your statement. List every school and violation, and provide links. Then you may pronounce to your hearts content.
LikeLike
The “or worse” thought was inspired by a list I had seen compiled about the various incidents on the ku basketball team over the last 10 years. I’ll post it here unless it passes the word limit for a comment:
2003
After going on national television and proclaiming “I don’t give a **** about North Carolina, Roy Williams in a surprise move takes the knife which he has used to stab anyone in reach in the back with the last 10 years and plunges it squarely in KU fans hearts – proclaiming the KU head coaching job to be a stepping stone job by leaving for North Carolina, just as his predecessor did. Tears are shed by all parties.
In an ironic twist of fate, after being chastised by KU fans for coaching a brand of basketball that is a disgrace to the game and not really basketball while hammering KU out of the 2001 NCAA tournament, Bill Self leaves Illinois and is introduced as Kansas basketball coach
Darnell Jackson becomes Self’s first commit to Kansas as after receiving over $5,000 in improper benefits during his recruitment.
2004
Departing players receive customary graduation checks from appreciative boosters. Team sets off on illegally organized barnstorming tour where they receive the gate money to supplement their income.
Omar Wilkes and David Padgett announce they are transferring from Kansas basketball program.
Kurtis Townsend hired as assistant basketball coach. Townsend’s experience includes being a member of the staff at California (1993-1997) during one of the largest NCAA recruiting violation investigations in history which landed the school on 3 years probation.
Julian Wright commits to Kansas without ever visiting campus. Wright, who had previously eliminated Kansas from his list apparently and inexplicably changed his mind and committed on the spot during a Self and Townsend in-home visit. Scheduled visits to various other schools are abruptly cancelled.
Townsend brings along recruit CJ Giles, who had followed the assistant from his time at USC, then signed a LOI at Miami when Townsend took a job there. When Townsend was added to the ku staff, Giles again switched courses and became a jayhawk. Perhaps not surprisingly, Rodrick Stewart, another one of Townsend’s former players and recruits, transfers to Kansas from USC, see the following article for explanation:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/cbasketball/176969_locke09.html
2005
Departing players receive customary graduation checks from appreciative boosters. Team sets off on illegally organized barnstorming tour where they receive the gate money to supplement their income.
Alex Galindo and Nick Bahe announce they are transferring from Kansas basketball program.
Only 300 fans show up for Kansas basketball awards ceremony. Majority of seating for 2,024 remains empty; “The ones who didn’t show up can sit behind their desk, their computers or whatever and complain till next season,” said always-quotable Keith Langford.
Highly publicized bar fight involving starting guard J.R. Giddens occurs. Multiple witnesses report that Giddens was the primary instigator in an attack that saw 10-12 people beat Olathe resident Jeremiah Creswell with fists, bricks and bottles. Saying he was trying to defend himself, Creswell brandished a knife and stabbed Giddens and four others. Witnesses said KU forward C.J. Giles also threw a punch and tossed bricks at Creswell as he lay defenseless on the ground getting stomped.
At some point in June, Kansas athletic department receives anonymous tip regarding improprieties centering around J.R. Giddens and NCAA recruiting violations.
Ronnie Chalmers, previously a high school coach in Alaska with only 5 years of experience, but more importantly, recruit Mario Chalmers’ father, is announced as Director of Kansas Basketball Operations. His son also amazingly elects to come to Lawrence in a surely unrelated occurance.
Keith Langford and Aaron Miles, never able to adjust to Bill Self’s slow and methodical hi-low offense, go undrafted in the 2005 NBA draft
Known for his lack of sportsmanship as well as being on scholarship despite stealing felony amounts of merchandise from Wal-Mart, J.R. Giddens develops into a one dimensional player and thus becomes expendable given all the off the court issues he brings to the table. Giddens announces he is leaving the Kansas basketball program under request from Self to get a fresh start elsewhere. It also alleviates Lawrence Police from having to apply any charges against him from his assault.
Giddens states, “I’m not saying Kansas threw me out like a battery. But they get McDonald’s All-Americans every day. They weren’t going to let me stay around campus and be Moulaye Niang. Bill Self used to always tell me, “Micah is coming in and he’s better than you.” He would just say little stuff like that and I was like, “Dang, man, you’re not even for me, are you?” I wanted to stay at Kansas but I felt like they just pushed me out the door. I’m sitting here worrying if I’m ever play basketball again and you guys are over here talking to me in an inappropriate manner? I’m 19 years old. You guys are supposed to my college coaches. Bill Self was telling my teammates not to have any contact with me. Darnell Jackson and Jeremy Case were two of my best friends, and they weren’t even allowed to talk to me. That was very kind of Kansas basketball and Bill Self, to tell people to stay away from me like I was a team cancer.”
With only walkon Christian Moody ever avging more than 1 rebound a game at the D1 level as returning players, CJ Giles receives no similar treatment and remains on KU’s team by necessity.
Among other undisclosed violations and disclosed violations, such as the discovery of massive and rampant academic fraud within ku’ football program, kansas announces that it also discovered that its basketball staff had traditionally engaged in a practice of allowing monetary payments to graduating players and other Jayhawk players who had exhausted their eligibility by boosters in violation of NCAA rules. A self-imposed two year probation is levied against their athletic department. Other sanctions are levied against women’s basketball and men’s football. Curiously, men’s basketball escapes all (self-imposed) punishment.
Rodrick Stewart suffers gash on head after getting having a bottle smashed over his head during a fight at a Lawrence, Kansas bar.
Not exactly clear when, but Brandon Rush commits to Kansas basketball program. Rush narrowed his college choices to Illinois and Oklahoma, when Missouri would no longer offer a scholarship and their AD blocked allowing him to walk on due to too many potential off the court issues. Then he couldn’t qualify at Illinois. Then he couldn’t qualify at Oklahoma. Rush decided he would have to enter the draft straight from high school as he couldn’t qualify at a D1 university, except it looked as though he wouldn’t be a first round selection, something his brother had already had happen to him. His older brothers talked him out of it. Two weeks after school started he got into KU and began taking classes, and even though he at times carried a 0.0 GPA in high school at Westport managed to get a 3.6 at KU while missing the first two weeks of classes. This strangely coincided with the same time frame which their compliance department was noted to be severely understaffed and inadequate by the NCAA and academic fraud was occurring.
Sherron Collins commits to Kansas amidst various media reports that he was steered by his coach/street pimp Anthony Longstreet, considered by Chicago Public League coaches as the new Landon “Sonny” Cox for his ability to recruit players to Crane. Scheduled visits promised to various other schools are abruptly cancelled. Afterward, Longstreet, without being prompted or even accused of taking money, bizarrely challenged local sportswriters to “get the proof, produce the canceled check.” Thereafter, Longstreet refused to ever speak again on the subject. He explained, “Right now, I’ve been told to be quiet because this stuff is getting too ugly.”
Darnell Jackson ruled ineligible by NCAA Eligibility Committee for 9 games for receipt of $5,000 in benefits from a Kansas booster over a three year period while being recruited by Kansas. Apparently the NCAA feels 9 games seems rather sufficient and ignores their prior precedence of treatment for lesser offenses.
A cbssportsline.com article suggests that J.R. Giddens is also ultimately wrapped up in the Darnell Jackson scandal, questioning: “Did Don Davis also have a “relationship” with Jackson’s best friend and former AAU teammate, J.R. Giddens, the McDonald’s All-American who signed with Kansas in 2003? Because if the answer is yes, Kansas has a big, big, big problem.”
2006
Kansas loses to Nevada AT HOME (72-70), falling to a record of 2-3 for the first time in over 30 years. After the game, ESPN TV cameras captured an exchange between Kansas University assistant coach Joe Dooley and 19 year old Nevada player Nick Fazekas. When Fazekas held out his hand to shake Dooley’s in an apparent show of sportsmanship, Dooley instead screamed “F*** YOU!!!!” directly at Fazekas. Afterward, Coach Bill Self reprimanded Dooley stating: “Obviously, in a hotly contested game like this one, emotions were high after the game. Coach Joe Dooley responded in an inappropriate manner to an exchange with a Nevada player.” Coach Dooley added: “”I have great respect for the Nevada team. They played well tonight. I responded in a negative manner to something that was said to me following the game. I certainly apologize to the Nevada program and this is not the manner in which Kansas basketball should be represented.” However, replays of the exchange show Dooley’s statement to be less than truthful as Fazekas clearly did not do or say anything to Dooley prior to the exchange other than making the gesture of holding out his hand.
Reports surface regarding NCAA investigation into potential violations involving Kansas freshman Brandon Rush. The potential violations centered around Rush’s involvement with an agent and possible payment of travel expenses by NBA teams the previous summer during Rush’s workouts with the teams.
The NCAA suspends Brandon Rush after the NCAA determined that he had improperly received benefits from an agent after applying for the 2005 NBA draft. An appeal by kansas is granted within one day and Rush is re-instated without missing any games.
Micah Downs announces he is transferring from the kansas basketball program
Christian Moody becomes the first jayhawk player since the 1980s to not be eligible for his graduation checks from alumni, as the pending investigation causes ku to cease such open forms of paying their players. Later, his agent writes a note requesting video of him missing free throws to lose a game to Missouri be taken down from youtube.com as he feels it is hindering his client from finding gainful employment…all of which could have potentially been avoided had the NCAA not had rules against paying amateur athletes and allowed ku’s boosters to funnel money to Moody in the typical ku tradition.
The NCAA responds that ku failed to demonstrate Institutional control and that the minor violations self reported in basketball in ku’s report do not seem to be all-inclusive. ku fans continue to say nothing will come of the allegations, at least those who are aware ku is under investigation as the news media fails to provide any coverage to the story.
ku placed on probation for major violations across multiple sports and for Lack of Institutional Control. The selection is the 5th for the ku’s men’s team, no other men’s basketball team in history has more NCAA probations. The committee seems somewhat impressed with ku’s innovative strategy of eliminating the middleman (by electing to not maintain a compliance department, ku didn’t detect or report any violations in a timely manner, which resulted in them being able to claim a statute of limitations on many violations and go unpunished). However even though they were allowed to get away with a large percent of their violations, they are still charged with:
Illegal payments given to potential recruit in excess of $5,000
Tickets illegally given to recruits to sit behind the bench at NCAA tournament games
Money funneled to current student athletes through illegal barnstorming gate money
Illegal payments given to players after eligibility is exhausted with approval of the coaching staff through a network of alumni
Providing illegal transportation to recruits
Providing illegal clothing and other benefits to recruits
Providing illegal transportation to family members of recruits
Making special arrangements to facilitate a vehicle for family members of recruits
Failure to report violations
Failure to employ a compliance auditor
Negligence to provide adequate oversight
Violation of probationary period and deemed a Repeat Offender
Lack of Institutional Control
NCAA hands out punishment of three years probation. Reduction in the total of grants-in-aid award in the men’s basketball program to no more than 12 during the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons; also reduced the total of official paid visits by a total of eight from the maximum number allowed during the 2006-07 and 2007-8 academic years. Dissociation of a representative of the university’s athletics interest for a period of four years; annual compliance reporting required — Summation, probation and a reduction in 2 scholarships to be taken in the years ku chooses for the above violations…or in laymen’s terms no impact to on the court peformance.
ku manages to avoid being tagged with what the NCAA considers it most serious offense of being a ‘repeat violator’ (major violations within a 5 year period of last investigation) for the first time in their last 2 probations based on their innovative strategy of purposely eliminating their ability to self monitor through a functioning compliance department. All of the violation occurring within the 5 year window went unreported and now are considered outside the statute of limitations. ku moves into a 3 way tie (with Minnesota and Cincinnati) for men’s basketball programs with the most instances of probations all time in NCAA history.
CJ Giles suspended indefinitely for failing to pay child support.
Giles re-instated to team, then just five days later kicked off team for misdemeanor battery to a female. No bricks were thrown or heads stomped. She was only dragged off a bed and out of the room by her ankles, then beaten about the head with a closed fist. Explaining the incident, Giles stated to police he told the woman in his apartment to leave and when she asked why, he told her his girlfriend was on her way to his room.
2007
No graduation checks are publically distributed.
Brandon Rush participates in improper workouts with the Knicks in preparation for the upcoming NBA draft. The workout forfeits Rush’s eligibility per NCAA rules, and upon suffering an injury at the workout multiple sources said his family and advisers worried about his college eligibility and believed he needed to keep the story quiet until he left Kansas for the NBA.
2008
Brandon Rush arrested for failing to appear in court. The hearing is ultimately delayed until after the basketball season so that his on court production is unaffected.
Sherron Collins is accused of sexually assaulting a woman in an elevator. The authorities and coaching staff are made aware of the incident, but nothing is made public until after the season concludes.
Brandon Rush arrested for failing to pay child support. The hearing is delayed until after the basketball season so that his on court production is unaffected.
2008
Reports surface that Darell Arthur, ku’s leading scorer in the championship game, did not legitimately graduate from high school and passed through the NCAA clearinghouse by submitting fraudulent transcripts. As an ineligible player, per NCAA rules ku would be required for forfeit all games in which Arthur was a participant….which would result in ku being the first ever 40 loss team in a single season, the worst season in the history of the NCAA.
A judge rules in favor of the women Sherron Collins sexually assaulted in an elevator in May of 2007, granting damagers in excess of $75,000. She accused him of exposing himself and rubbing against her repeatedly on May 18, 2007 in an elevator at a University of Kansas apartment complex. Collins does not bother to show up to court, not realizing laws were applicable to him during his period of eligibility as a basketball player in Lawrence. Despite the incident occurring roughly a year earlier, it is the first time the case is made public, allowing Collins to participate in the entire 2007-08 season without missing any playing time.
The school district that provided fraudulent transcripts for Darell Arthur for passing grades in classes not attended and work not done conducts and internal investigation on itself. Surprisingly, they find themselves not guilty. No follow up investigation or questions are ever asked by the local media.
Lawrence officials elect not to go to trial in Sherrod Collins sexual assault case. The woman files a civil suit as her only option of pursuing justice and Collins remains on the team.
It becomes apparent that key recruits the Morris twins are not going to qualify academically. Faced with the proposition of having only 1 player on the roster over 6’7, Self arranges for the Morris twins to finish up their high school classes in Lawrence.
Ronnie Chalmers, no longer the father of a ku player after Mario declares early for the NBA draft, vacates the Director of Basketball Operations position. No immediate word which upcoming recruit’s family member will fill this vital position.
While living in university paid for housing prior to being eligible for scholarship benefits, 18 year old Markieff Morris drunkenly shoots a lady with a BB gun from his dorm room window. Jayhawk towers is declared a less safe environment for women than Bagdad, as ku players will molest you in the elevators and sniper you as you attempt to flee the building. Deemed too important to next year’s season, no action is taken and ku anxiously awaits the determination if the Lawrence high school replacement classes are enough to clear him academically.
Mario Chalmers and Darell Arthur are kicked out of the NBA rookie camps for smoking marijuana with prostitutes. Both players are fined $20,000 and required to attend next year’s camp over again.
ku alum Roger Morningstar, who is using his connections in the athletic department to make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from improperly distributed funds, boasts he wife Linda love to invite the Collins clan to their home. “We have to walk a tight line being a booster,” Roger Morningstar said. “It’s legal (by NCAA rules) to have them over for dinner and talk. So we’ve had them over a lot.”
Two weeks after school starts (shades of Brandon Rush before them), the Morris twins are cleared to play ball for ku. “While it may have taken a bit longer than we had hoped, the important thing is that the process worked,” Self said regarding having them take classes in Lawrence.
Dallas School District re-opens case regarding Arthur not really being a college eligible player. Winston Ashmore, Arthur’s Math teacher said when Arthur was failing Algebra I as a freshman in the fall of 2002, his coach asked for leniency. Ashmore said when he refused, Arthur was abruptly moved to another class. A closer examination of Arthur’s grades reveal that his English III grades of 75, 60, 70 and 65 don’t actually add up to a 70 as is reflected on his transcript. In fact, the average should be 67.5, meaning he should have failed the course that is needed to graduate and qualify as an NCAA student athlete. “Like I said, he [Arthur] just kind of checked out that third six weeks,” Yourse, his English teacher said. Melanie Kidd was Arthur’s theater arts teacher in the fall of 2004. She said she remembers Arthur failed the course during the final six weeks. Arthur made a grade of 50, she said. According to his transcripts, Arthur’s grades for the last six weeks of theater arts are also missing. A block of grades from Arthur’s Algebra II were also missing on the transcript from the fall semester of 2005. All that is present is a final grade, which was changed from “failing” to a passing grade of 70 nine months later in September the following year.
2009
During a ‘no contact period’ as defined by NCAA rules, Self pays a visit to the #1 unsigned recruit in the nation John Wall, and states in front of witnesses:
Self: “I’m not supposed to be talking to you, and you know that, but I just wanted to tell you that was a great win.” Demonstrating quite the bravado and respect for NCAA regulations for someone piloting a program on serious probation.
Confirmation comes in the Darell Arthur case, that his grades were artificially changed and that his ‘graduation’ from high school wasn’t legit. His high school vacates their state championship for using ineligible players. Per NCAA rules the use of an ineligible player resulting from him violating the NCAA ethics clause, the proper application would result in forfeiture of all games participated, and KU would fall to 0-78 for the prior to years – the worst two year record in the history of NCAA basketball. Additionally Self would fall behind James Naismith for last place all time in winning % at ku with a 0.428. However, despite the school district and the local media already completing the legwork of the investigation and compiling the relevant information the NCAA never looks into the instance and instead forces Memphis to vacate all their wins during the same year for the same offense.
After promising more scholarships than he has available, Self pushes two lesser role players, guard Tyrone Appleton and forward Quintrell Thomas, out the door to make room for potential incoming recruits. Appleton was scheduled to be a senior, and has to move to the DII level to avoid having his college basketball career ended by the decision.
Sherron Collins elects not to test the European free agent market and barring being jailed announces he will return to ku for the upcoming season. Anthony Longstreet breathes a sigh of relief at remaining on the payroll and he isn’t faced with the ethical dilemma of going public for another year. Elevators everywhere are deemed unsafe for female riders.
Top recruit Xavier Henry elects not to attend classes in Lawrence over the summer. His father explains why ku is a good fit by saying “Xavier is not interested in attending class. If he didn’t have to go to college, he wouldn’t do it.”
Collins balloons up to 230 pounds, fatter than the last offseason when Self criticized him for being out of shape. Self suggests running stairs as a solution, but Collins seems to prefer to take the elevator.
Xavier Henry’s father claims that Henry would much rather go to Kentucky, and actually may back out of his commitment to ku. kansas fans begin bashing the family and decide they would be better off without him. Then Xavier refutes his father’s claims and remains committed to ku, and all is forgotten.
Sophomore guard Tyshawn Taylor is hospitalized for a dislocated finger after attempting to beat up members of ku’s football team on campus. “Gas yall up aite. Real n—–z do real things point plankn. Keep my name out ya’ mouth for you get smacked in it. N—–z be muggin me you know I be muggin back.” writes Taylor on his facebook page. “point plankn” is a slang term related to participating in organized gang activity. “Point Plank” refers to the Jersey City and Bergen Point Plank Road, which existed as a major New Jersey thoroughfare in the 19th century. “Point Plank” now describes the blighted area in the Greenville section of south Jersey City, roughly bordered by Grand Street and Garfield Avenue. This is one of the highest crime-infested neighborhoods in the United States, notorious as a crack cocaine distribution center, with significant drug and gang-related violence. “Point plankin'” thus refers to the participation in said drug and gang-related activity. Tyshawn Taylor, not coincidentally, is from Jersey City.
The fight included upwards of 100 people. Among them were seen the Morris twins, Mario Little, Sherron Collins, Tyshawn Taylor, Brady Morningstar, Travis Releford, Tyrel Reed, Thomas Robinson, Elijah Johnson. A second fight breaks out the next morning involving 30 to 40 individuals after one of the Morris twins pushes a football player down the stairs.
Reports surface that the AD and administration are not shocked by this behavior as it is status quo for the last five years, which has featured regular brawls between the two programs. In an effort to remain consistent the police, AD, and University determine the best course of action is taking no action. To try to apply the laws of regular society in these instances is ludicrous…they are athletes and are not subject to societal norms. The appropriate response is determined to remain point plankn.
23 year old junior Brady Morningstar is arrested for driving while intoxicated. After conferring with his coaching staff and assessing their options, the conclusion is reached by Self that Morningstar is limited athletically and would play at most a reserve role, so he is suspended for a semester.
Markieff Morris is the driver in a two car accident. Neither himself nor the 16 year old female he is transporting are injured, but the car is registered to former NBA and ku player Scott Pollard. With only 4 days remaining on their probationary period, another potential violation is uncovered if a booster is providing improper transportation benefits to a student athlete. As the incident is being reported, Pollard himself calls up in an attempt to intimidate the host into an apology and instead engages the host in a shouting match and is informed he “is a badass.” Pollard explains he ‘sold’ the car to Morris’s teammate Tyshawn Taylor and was unaware of the accident even though he is still listed as the vehicle’s owner and claims he took the car’s license plates off at the date of the sale.
2010
It is reported that Taylor’s entire family has moved from their impoverished inner city neighborhood in New Jersey to live in Lawrence, similar to Raef Lafrenz’s 40 year-old Iowa schoolteacher parents being able to completely retire and move to Lawrence during their son’s career a decade earlier. While not directly employed in a public fashion by the University during Taylor’s eligibility like Mario Chalmers and Danny Manning’s families, no word yet on whether Scott Pollard is allowing the family to drive his vehicles.
The KC Star does a feel good piece explaining that Taylor’s family is not alone. “At Kansas, Sherron Collins’ mother moved to Lawrence for about a month this year before heading home to Chicago to address a family health concern. Jeanell Taylor came this season, while Angel has been in town for both of her sons’ seasons. The mother of Xavier and C.J. Henry lives in Lawrence now. So does the father of KU freshman Jeff Withey, who moved from San Diego. Mario Chalmers’ parents moved from Anchorage, Alaska, to Lawrence after his dad got a job on Bill Self’s staff.” What a great family atmosphere they have created.
In anticipation of their matchup of two top 10 teams in Lawrence against KSU, assistant coach Curtis Townsend sends 4 floor tickets to Samantha Ryan, star of Fine Ass B!tches 4. Said porn star Ryan, “So excited for my floor seats at the KU/KSU game! Coach Townsend kicks major ass! Rock Chalk Jayhawk Go KU!” No explanation given by ku’s lead recruiter of why such an obligation was necessary or granted.
ku’s toughness was called into question after the first weekend loss to Northern Iowa as a #1 seed. Senior Sherron Collins wept as he made his way from one locker to the next after missing 11 shots and committing 5 turnovers in the loss. “Everybody’s teared up. This is terrible, it hurts so bad,” Collins said. Marcus Morris fell in a heap after the final buzzer and while crying, had to be assisted off the court. As did red-shirt Mario Little who remained sobbing on the bench after the rest of his teammates had headed through the tunnel to the locker room. Back in the locker room the Morris twins were crying into towels. So were Tyshawn Taylor and Xavier Henry. Brady Morningstar was bawling loudly. The toughness question had been answered.
2010-11
Less than a week after their season came to an early end, ku kicks the offseason off in typical fashion with an embarrassing scandal when it is revealed that both the IRS and Federal Investigators are looking into illegal practices within the ku ticket office.
Brandon Rush is suspended by the NBA for 5 games for his 3rd failed drug test. Simultaneously, ku AD Lew Perkins is being blackmailed. The blackmailer threatened to reveal that KU was covering up failed drug tests by their basketball players and other student athletes, which seems to have major credibility since Chalmers and Arthur were caught with marijuana at the NBA rookie camp and now Rush has violated the drug policy.
ku signs the nation’s #1 recruit Josh Selby. In an article discussing his decision is the following excerpt: “they approached a light-blue Mercedes-Benz with tinted windows. Selby, keys in hand, popped the trunk, threw sneakers in it and joked with Forbes. Selby said goodbye, and drove away. There has been at least one teacher who helped Selby through his development. His name is Scottie Bowden and he was a principal at Golden Ring Middle School when Selby was a student. He then coached him with the Baltimore Select team, which he helped found in 1992. Bowden has remained a supporter, offering advice and sometimes allowing Selby to drive his Mercedes-Benz. “ The back history on his ‘teacher’ that provides him a Benz: “Scottie Bowden, a representative of Adidas, had invested many weekends and about $20,000 of company money in Justin (a 10 year old basketball player) and his teams. Bowden had provided the boy and teammates with sneakers and travel money to tournaments in an effort to build brand loyalty in a 10-year-old with distant NBA prospects. In Justin, had Bowden accurately identified a star? Adidas pays Scottie Bowden to find impact players and get them into Adidas gear. “It’s about brand loyalty,” Bowden said. “But this is a business. And if that’s what I’ve got to do now, then that’s what I’m going to do.” Bowden, who is the principal at Golden Ring Middle School in Baltimore, gets about $100,000 worth of Adidas equipment and cash each year as a consultant.
Director of the Williams Educational Fund, Rodney Jones resigns. The WEF is the primary vehicle that Kansas boosters use to contribute money. Charlette Blubaugh, Kansas’ ticket director, resigns. Brandon Simmons, assistant athletics director for sales and marketing, resigns. Jason Jeffries, assistant director of ticket operations, resigns. Ben Kirtland, associate athletic director for development who was ultimately responsible for all of the athletic department’s fundraising activities, resigns.
Former ku player Roger Morningstar and father of current player Brady allegedly has made over $800,000 through illegitimately re-funneling tickets with his various contacts inside the athletic department over the last 8 years.
The ticket scandal leads ultimately to Dana and David Pump. Former director of summer basketball camp Max Shapiro refers to the brothers as “the Pimps” and alleges they are in the business of “selling players” to various schools. Among the players who played on the Pumps traveling AAU teams are ku signees Mario Chalmers, David Padgett, Omar Wilkes, Tyrel Reed, Elijah Johnson, Jeff Withey, Travis Releford and Brady Morningstar. Prior to accepting the job as Director of Basketball Operations at ku, a position he would hold only for the timeframe that overlapped when his son played at ku as a way to legally funnel money to the family for Mario’s services, Ronnie Chalmers served as the coach of one of the Pumps AAU teams.
The ‘Points’ system created by Lew Perkins to prioritize the quality of season tickets available to alumni is called into considerable question. The system is build on a variety of unpublished factors, reportedly most prominently including financial donations to the school’s athletic department. The larger the donations, the higher the priority alumni receive for season tickets. But recent reports have profiled donors who are dissatisfied with the system’s shrouded points formula, as well as allegations of prime seats in Allen Fieldhouse ending up on online auction sites or in the hands of ticket brokers.
ku issues its own self report on the ticket scandal. For a period of at least 8 years approximately 4,000 to 6,000 basketball tickets per year were being improperly distributed, which equates to as many as 300 tickets per game. These tickets that went missing were not nose bleed seats, but some of the very best seats in Allen Fieldhouse. The report also states that on numerous occasions season ticket holders complained regularly about this, being moved back without explanation and then noticing different people sitting in their old seats every game. Neither the ku AD or really anyone at ku appears to have either noticed this bizarre trend of unknown individuals sitting on the front rows or took the time to follow up on any of these complaints. But the practice only went on for 8 years, after the FBI was tipped off ku was able to conduct an internal investigation and get to the bottom of it.
Additionally from the report ku paid the husband of Charlette Blubaugh (former associate athletics director of ticket operations) $115,000 as a consultant. Perkins didn’t even know Blubaugh was on the payroll. According to the report, “further research must be done to see what, if anything, (Blubaugh) was doing in 2009 and 2010.” Blubaugh used two of her own former addresses to set up accounts for businesses to receive tickets called Kansas City Women’s Clinic and the Harridan Consulting Co. Neither were real businesses.
CBS Sports reports that key ku recruit Josh Selby, the #1 recruit in the nation per Rivals, has questions about legitimacy of his amateur status. The questions arise from his relationship with the business manager for NBA star Carmelo Anthony.
The KC Star exposes that in addition to his other examples of gross negligence and abuses of power Lew Perkins has been billing obscene amounts of travel expenses back to ku alumni and taxpayers due to his personal view of self importance. He charged the athletic department more than $150,000 from July 2008 to May 2010 for 22 flights on university-owned and leased planes, at times for such vital trips as visiting relatives or picking up his dog. Perkins explained, “I consider my time very valuable.” Having already played the card of being incompetent and incapable of performing basic job functions to distance himself from the ticket stealing scandal he orchestrated and the various bribes he accepted, Perkins turns to one of the only explanations left saying, “I’m old. I can’t remember yesterday. I wish I could tell you my mind is better than it is.” Which is a huge comfort I’m sure that for only $4 million plus a year you can get a bumbling, confused old man when the situation suits him.
2 months after stating, “I have loved my time here at the University of Kansas and I will continue leading Kansas Athletics over the course of the next year,” Perkins said in July of 2010….Lew Perkins resigns effective immediately.
Kassie Liebsch was a systems analyst working in the KU Athletics ticket office at the time of the ticket scandal and became interim director of ticket operations after Blubaugh resigned. KU associate athletics director Jim Marchiony then deemed Liebsch should be given that role full-time. “There was an extensive investigation done,” Marchiony said, “and the results of the investigation indicate that Kassie was not involved in the kind of behavior that the others were involved in.” Less than 6 months later five former employees at the University of Kansas are indicted on federal charges. Among them is Kassie Liebsch. Its almost like you can’t fully trust the findings of the internal investigations that ku conducts. Very weird.
The regular season starts without Josh Selby being declared eligible by the NCAA. Finally two games into the season the NCAA determines that he received $4,607.58 in improper benefits which include clothes, transportation, meals and lodging for Selby and his family. The NCAA suspends him for 9 regular season games of his freshman year, citing a rule that impermissible benefits in excess of $1,000 equates to a 30% of games suspension. The impermissible benefits total nearly $1,000 less in value than what was uncovered in Darnell Jackson’s ultimate 9 game suspension, and only about $4,200 more than what was uncovered in MU’s 2004 investigation that led to 3 years of probation and an off campus recruiting ban.
Despite being cleared academically on Sept 7th, Selby elects to not attend classes until October 27th. Despite missing basically half of the first semester, he obtains a 3.0 GPA.
Jayhawk senior Mario Little is arrested on charges of battery, criminal damage and criminal trespassing after engaging in physical acts of violence against two males and two females.
A person familiar with the search process to replace shamed Head Corruption Officer Lew Perkins said Kansas Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little offered the job to Bubba Cunningham of Tulsa after a search committee submitted a short list of finalists and ranked him as their No. 1 preference. “Kansas wants him and he wants Kansas.” Two days later Bubba Cunningham tells ku no and signs a contract extension with Tulsa.
Sophomore point guard Elijah Johnson is arrested for neglecting to pay parking tickets. The incident stemmed from several months prior, and Johnson was falsely under the belief that societal norms did not apply to him while he still retained eligibility. He played in ku’s game the next day and will not face team discipline. “He hasn’t done anything wrong,” Self said of his arrested player.
Less than one month after his arrest for battery and criminal trespassing and damage, Mario Little is re-instated to the basketball team. He is required to receive weekly counseling through the remainder of the basketball season. Self summarized the situation in a statement as “I’m more concerned about what’s best for our program rather than an individual.”
It becomes public that high profile ku booster Doug Compton who owns a private jet named Jayhawk One and is a business partner of Danny Manning and Larry Brown, is also the employer of the Morris twin’s mother as the receptionist as his huge real estate complex. Although previously unemployed, her alledged salary in her new role is a modest $85,000. Mrs Morris came all the way from Philadelphia to supply her unique skill set, just as Cole Aldrich’s father had done in his employment with Compton during his son’s eligibility period.
In addition to employing the parents of ku players, Compton also has a son who is the video manager for the team. In a very unique situation, this video manager is the roommate of a basketball player from Baltimore. High profile recruit Josh Selby rooms not with his teammates, but the son of a multi-millionaire. Doug Compton Jr. would be a rather fine roommate to have if you wanted lots of nice things and needed to borrow some spending money.
ku announces that Christian Garrett, a 6-foot-3 combo guard has been added a second-semester walk-on player. Garrett is a teammate of DeAndre Daniels, a 6-8 5 star forward formerly committed to Texas who is now expected to choose KU over Texas and Kentucky. Having grown up in Westlake Village, CA, Christian Garrett always wanted to walk-on at kU. That’s why he travelled across the country to attend IMG and that’s why he took recruiting visits with Daniels to NC State, Oregon, Kentucky, Kansas and other schools.
Thomas Robinson, Elijah Johnson, Josh Selby, and both Morris twins are flagged for flagrant or technical fouls. After numerous articles calling into question the character of the Morris twins in particular Self offered, “They have developed a reputation that is not favorable at all. It is to the point now it’s going to cost them. We thought we had this thing addressed to the point we wouldn’t have to revisit it again. We have had to revisit it.”
2011 Offseason
Josh Selby leaves Lawrence in early April to work out in preparation for the NBA draft. “As far as schoolwork, he is OK there. He has put himself in a position he could afford to miss a few days,” Self states. Selby never returns to class. He enrolled 10/27 and played his first game for ku 12/18. Thanksgiving break began 11/24 and ended 11/28 with the last day of class for ku 12/9 with finals starting 12/13. That leaves a total of 39 possible class days for Selby in his first semester. For Selby’s second semester, there were 45 possible class days between the first day of class 1/21 and the end of ku’s season. Of those 45 possible class days, ku had 7 road games including one each to KSU and MU. Assuming one lost day travel for the 5 remaining road games and counting two days Selby would have missed for the Big 12 tourney and another 5 days missed for the first two rounds, he would have missed at a minimum 19 days of classes, leaving 36 days to attend class….So there is a grand total of 36 and 39 total days over two semesters that Selby could have potentially attended class at kU.
Self states, “Josh made above a 3.0 his first semester and worked with his professors to complete his work second semester, I feel good about Josh leaving here knowing he took care of his business the way that he should have taken care of it.” Selby appears to have handled business in the classroom and leaves Kansas in good standing which is of course an important thing for the program from an APR perspective.
Selby skips the season ending team banquet. Several days later, the former #1 rated player in the nation who shot 37% from the field on his way to less than 8 ppg declares for the NBA draft. “There’s a lot of fans that have said some negative things. I didn’t know that many KU fans would say that,” Selby said. “I don’t know what it is, but all it is doing is creating a monster.”
Sophomore Royce Woolridge announces he is transferring, leaving ku with 5 returning scholarship players.
Thomas Robinson is arrested and charged with battery after an altercation at The Cave nightclub due to punching two bouncers and spiting on one of them.
Hoopsworld.com reports that “When Selby was trying to decide whether or not to leave Kansas after his disappointing freshman season, the school did everything they could to keep him for one more season. Apparently, that included convincing others that Selby wasn’t nearly as athletic as people thought. School officials had been telling people that Selby wasn’t a great athlete and the general consensus was that Kansas did it to lower his draft stock so that he would come back for his sophomore season.” Chad Ford questions Selby in an interview saying that he had been told the same thing, and Selby responds that although he has heard that sentiment he disagrees that his athleticism should deter teams from drafting him despite what the school he committed to is relaying to potential teams.
After ku gets a commitment from 141st ranked player Jamari Traylor, CBS columnist Dennis Dodd questions the legitimacy of Traylor’s high school IMG Academy company also representing Bill Self. Certainly a conflict of interest exists when a major sports marketing corporation funds a high school and sends it players to play for its clients.
After San Diego State’s Steve Fischer complains of Self stealing Kevin Young, who had previously signed a financial aid agreement with the Aztecs, Self responds that Young had decommitted from San Diego prior to ku being involved and the jayhawks would certainly not have recruited a committed player. To which Young himself immediately contradicted by saying he had been in contact with ku’s lead recruiter Townsend since May. One week after signing with ku, the jayhawks also sign freshman to be Merv Lindsey from the same AAU team, who was previously set to walk on at Texas Tech and had no D1 scholarship offers during the early signing period. Several sources stated that AAU coach Kool Aid Perry was “influential” in orchestrating Young’s move to Kansas eight months after he signed a financial-aid agreement with SDSU.
ESPN holds their annual awards show the ESPY’s. For the 3rd time in the last 6 times the category was announced, ku is on the losing end of the Best Upset Award. Important to keep in mind, that isn’t 50% of the time they are the losers of the biggest upset that season in college basketball…but in all of sports as voted on by the fans.
Battery charges against Thomas Robinson for punching and spitting on bouncers are dismissed, provided he does 20 hours of community service and writes a letter of apology to the victim.
School begins without Braeden Anderson, Ben McLemore and Jamari Traylor in Lawrence, who have yet to arrive due to eligibility issues. Each of the signed players attended 3 different high schools. Mclemore in particular is in question considering his first three years were spent in the Wellston School District that was closed due to loss of accreditation from poor academic performance. He then briefly attended Oak Hill Academy before being kicked off the team and out of the school. And he finished the last semester of his senior year at the Christian Life Center in Humble, TX. The school has 144 students in grades 1st through 12th but boasts having the former Houston Rockets guard Rafer Alston as the head basketball coach and athletic director, and the school despite its small size has placed two players in the NBA draft since 2008. Its most recent NBA success story is Latavious Williams who after four years at a Mississippi high school had completed only 2 of the 16 core courses that the NCAA requires for eligibility for an athletic scholarship. Williams spent one year at Christian Life Center where he said he completed the 14 other core courses he needed and graduated.
17 days after classes started, Ben McLemore and Jamari Traylor begin attending school at ku despite not yet being cleared by the NCAA academically. Braeden Anderson never arrives on campus.
Ben McLemore and Jamari Traylor are both ruled ineligible for the 2011-12 season as partial qualifiers. All partial qualifiers in the Big 12 must be approved by the league’s faculty athletic representatives. Traylor and McLemore are both approved for aid by the ku faculty reps. Despite Big 12 bylaws that state Big 12 schools can award two men’s scholarships and two women’s scholarships in a given year to student-athletes who do not qualify but no more than one scholarship may be in the same sport, ku reports both are expected to join the team next year.
ku has just 8 scholarship players available to play for 2011-12. The remaining gem of the recruiting class is Naadir Tharpe, who avged 14.5 ppg at the high school level. Scholarships are granted to Justin Wesley and Conner Teahan, both walkons. Wesley is a transfer from Lamar who avged 1.2 ppg and 1.3 rebounds, Teahan 1.1 ppg and 1.0 rebounds for ku.
2011-12
Senior Tyshawn Taylor wastes little time creating his customary off the court distractions, getting suspended for the entire exhibition season along with teammate Elijah Johnson for violation of team rules. This means that ku opens the exhibition season with only 5 available scholarship players. Self explains, I told them their punishment was going to be severe and I was going to hold them out of the two exhibition games.” Both Taylor and Johnson served suspensions last year as well and missed games.
After MU announces their upgrade to the SEC, Self states “We couldn’t care less what Missouri wants. If in fact they want to play us, it will be strictly determined if we want to. It will not be determined by other people, because I’ll be honest, the majority of Kansas fans don’t give a flip about playing Missouri.” Asked to clarify his comment the next day Self states, “I don’t really talk to fans, but the ones that have talked to me, they couldn’t care less.”
Ineligible freshman Ben McLemore arrested for failure to appear in court from an minor in possession ticket..
LikeLike
Now do the rest of the NCAA.
Then “probably” wouldn’t be appropriate, assuming you find equal or worse at every school.
You going to do Missouri, too?
LikeLike
Missouri’s has already been posted on here. Every little thing that happens has you or arch or bullet or mushroom or one of those guys posting it.
Since what I’m saying so obviously true, I think the burden of proof is on you to find a counter example. Find me an example of a high major basketball program that hasn’t had any off the court misdemeanors of any kind over the past several years. I dare you.
LikeLike
btw, if anyone appreciates humor I really encourage them to read the lengthy ku post I posted. Wasn’t written by me. Very humorous. And as far as I know completely factual.
LikeLike
“Since what I’m saying so obviously true…”
No. What you’re saying is probably, perhaps very likely true. But absolute, all encompassing statements require evidence, or at least attribution to a corroborating source that can provide it.
I guess I’ll keep future potential support to my self. I am curious though. Just how would your original point have been hurt (if not helped, as I suggested) by the small changes I suggested?
LikeLike
I guess I go by the 99.9% rule. If the odds are less than 1 in a thousand of a statement being false, I don’t bother to use the word “probably”. Sue me.
LikeLike
An absolute statement is either T or F. Are you suggesting 99.9% = 100%?
I wonder if GCU has equal or worse violations…? They do fit the criteria “any”, and even the unstated college, and NCAA member.
LikeLike
I was talking about major basketball. The kind that actually recruits players and gets crowds and plays on tv. Where recruiting is a big deal and you end up bringing in kids from diverse backgrounds. Odds are 99.9% that all of them are going to have a misdemeanor or two once every several years. And probably a lot more often than that. cc, I’m pretty sure you’re a pathological arguer and you don’t even care if what you’re arguing makes any sense or not. This is at least the third time I’ve argued with you when you were defending a truly pedantic and worthless position, seemingly only to give yourself the excuse to keep arguing. It’s pretty lame.
LikeLike
“Odds are 99.9% that all of them are going to have a misdemeanor or two once every several years. And probably a lot more often than that.”
“Odds are 99.9%…”
Using a qualifier (with another, depending on how you interpret “odds are”).
“And probably…”
And another.
See? That’s all I was suggesting in my original post. And actually to support your statement (minus the “or worse”).
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
I actually use those words a lot on here and everywhere. I didn’t and still don’t think it was necessary in that case due to the 99.9% rule.
LikeLike
So I won’t use probably. That 99.9% of the players get a misdemeanor or two is total and absolute nonsense even if you include speeding tickets.
Quit excusing things.
Stop while cc gave you an out. Probably many schools have similar issues. That’s where you stop.
LikeLike
I agree, bullet. Which is why I didn’t say that.
What I said was that 99.9% of major basketball programs are going to have a player or two who commits some kind of misdemeanor if you go back 1 year, 3 years, 5 years.
LikeLike
Ok.
I read your “all of them” as referring to the players, not the schools. Nowhere near 99.9% of the players get misdemeanors.
Your 99.9% is still too high when referring to schools. There are schools like Rice and Northwestern and Stanford. That’s more than 1 out of 1000.
LikeLike
And add Kentucky and North Carolina to that list with Rice, NW and Stanford. UK’s players don’t stay long enough to get into trouble. UNC’s players don’t even go to school.
LikeLike
I tried posting these all at once but the post didn’t go through, so I guess I’ll have to post them one at a time.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_13673677
LikeLike
http://www.rangerpulse.com/?p=1872
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/22/one-week-four-arrests-for-rice-players/
LikeLike
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1812778/posts
LikeLike
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/mar/27/sports/sp-33220
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/06/07/2947117/police-detail-arrest-of-unc-basketball.html
LikeLike
http://onlineathens.com/stories/121598/dog_1215980025.shtml
LikeLike
http://www.wdrb.com/story/18423462/former-uk-basketball-player-accused-of-sex-abuse-sodomy
LikeLike
http://www.aseaofblue.com/2013/7/1/4482382/did-you-know-that-kentucky-has-had-nine-players-arrested-in-the-last
I have more but I think I’ve made my point.
LikeLike
I think you have. You simply aren’t worth having a conversation with if it even tangentially relates to Missouri.
You don’t seem to understand the UK and UNC comments were jokes.
LikeLike
In other words, I’m completely right, like usual. And you guys were flaming me with petty nonsense, like usual.
LikeLike
Andy(tm): Protecting Missouri from the Internet since 1979.
LikeLike
frankthetank losers(tm): trolling Missouri with bullsh*t and lies since 2010.
LikeLike
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.607996609899790522&pid=15.1
LikeLike
What’s funny is that Missouri catches all of this grief on here even though by all available evidence Missouri runs a remarkably clean program compared to its peers.
Missouri ranked first the APR this past year in the SEC in football and ranked second in all sports in the SEC behind only Vanderbilt, and also ranked top 10 nationally in APR in football and in all sports.
Missouri is one of only 10 BCS schools to have never been on probation for football.
Full list: Boston College, Duke, Iowa, Louisville, Missouri, Purdue, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Washington State
http://www.footballgeography.com/college-football-fbs-and-ncaa-probation/
Yes, Missouri went on probation for basketball 10 years ago, but since then they’ve beefed up their compliance staff tremendously to the point where it was difficult to find coaches who would agree to coach for Mizzou due to the level of oversight they would have to endure. There haven’t been any significant NCAA issues with the basketball program since 2004.
The Wall Street journal created a chart of “admirable vs embarassing” and “weakling vs powerhouse”. Out of 125 programs, Missouri was listed as the 2nd most “admirable”. I’ll link to it in a second post as multiple links in a post tend to cancel out the post.
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/TEAMS082913?ref=SB10001424127887324324404579041092507233498
So to hear you guys flame me you’d think Missouri was some sort of embarassingly corrupt program, when in fact it’s fairly easy to prove that the exact opposite is true.
LikeLike
What’s funny is that Missouri catches all of this grief on here even though by all available evidence Missouri runs a remarkably clean program compared to its peers.
I don’t think Missouri catches much grief here. Most of us would agree that it is indeed a fairly clean program compared to its peers. But we aren’t absurdly pro-Missouri either. That fact that we see other sides to the story, is what you call “grief”.
Most of us don’t relentlessly homer for our alma maters. Brian favors Ohio State, but a fairly high percentage of his posts don’t mention OSU favorably, or OSU’s rivals unfavorably. In fact, most of his posts aren’t for or against any particular school. I favor Michigan, but most of my posts are not about Michigan.
In comparison, most of your posts are nakedly pro-Missouri, to the extent that you hardly seem capable of discussing anything else.
LikeLike
I basically never bring up Missouri on my own on here. Has it happened? Yes. But it’s fairly rare.
Other people bring them up 95% of the time.
I come in and unapologetically defend them with facts and sound arguments, and then people get into back and forths with me. Often the back and forths are petty trolling of me without much substance, like we see here.
I never make unreasonable or homerish claims about Missouri. I admit it’s not an elite academic school. Based on various measures it ranks somwhere between 60th and 100th among schools. Probably somwhere down the middle. I admit they don’t have an elite athletic program either. Definitely above average, but not elite at all. There is basically no homerish bias in anything I write about them ever. Even when a scandal is pointed out on here I go out of my way not to defend any actual wrong doing, but instead I just clear up any exaggerations that may have occurred.
I never exaggerate or stray from the facts. Brian long made a game of trying to prove that I do. He failed. For everything he showed that I was slightly off on in Missouri’s favor, there was another thing I was slightly off on to Missouri’s detriment. Yes, people make small honest mistakes sometimes. I have not systematically lied or exaggerated in any pro-Missouri way. I don’t need to. I’m perfectly comfortable with the facts as they exist.
If people started spouting nonsense about Ohio State, Brian would step in and set the record straight. I know this because I’ve seen him do it.
I don’t know if you’d defend Michigan. I probably wouldn’t. I’m a Michigan alum too but I’m not particularly passionate about their sports teams. Maybe you aren’t either, I don’t know. But there isn’t a lot of Michigan bashing on here. There is a lot of Missouri bashing.
LikeLike
Though, Mizzou football suspends Dorial Green-Beckham for, well:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/police-say-dorial-green-beckham-will-not-face-any-charges-for-burglary-incident-183835928.html
His third run in with the law. He’s a rising junior.
LikeLike
The Second Illinois School to the Big Ten bill passed the IL State Senate this week:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/4/5582274/siu-to-the-big-ten-illinois-senate-does-not-understand-college-sports
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10728528/big-ten-leads-all-conferences-ncaa-tourney-earnings
Tournament shares earned this year
B1G – $25.6 million
PAC – $22.4 million
SEC – $20.8 million
XII – $20.8 million
ACC – $17.6 million
AAC – $17.6 million
LikeLike
to show the value of not mega-sizing-per school shares:
B1G 2.1
Big 12 2.1
Pac 12 1.9
AAC 1.6
SEC 1.5
ACC 1.3
LikeLike
to show the value of not mega-sizing-per school shares:
I know it’s only basketball, but this really shows the benefit to the Big XII of not expanding to 12 schools. I haven’t seen the football math, but I believe it’s similar (although, of course, much higher numbers).
It also shows the potential drawbacks of the ACC’s 15-school strategy. I’ll bet that if you ask the average fan to name the best basketball conference, a plurality would choose the ACC; yet, they were dead last in payout per school among power conferences, behind even the lowly AAC.
(I do realize that this was a bad year for the ACC, in that none of their teams over-performed their seed, and several under-performed. These might not be typical long-term results.)
LikeLike
The old Big East made lots of money with units shares with 16 teams because it had multiple teams each years going deep into the tourney. A top MBB conference that does well each year in the tourney will do well, as more good teams equals more money in unit share calculations.
LikeLike
You know it’s a year bad year for the ACC when even Rutgers can claim a title in basketball this season. 😉
LikeLike
except NCAA payouts don’t define the revenue “health” of a league’s basketball revenue. You get value from bigger leagues from exposure, better TV ratings, season tickets sales etc. I think it is a mistake to take one factor and describe it as “really showing” the benefit of not expanding.
LikeLike
True, but along with higher reward, the risk is higher, too. The ACC in spite of arguably there worst showing is still not begging paupers. A smaller number will be subject to higher volatility.
LikeLike
how can they have these totals before even playing the final 4? Can’t leagues earn more money by winning games in the final 4 vs losing them?
LikeLike
“Conferences receive a unit for each game their teams play in the tournament except the final.”
All game participants but the final are known.
LikeLike
1) Excludes the final
2) The Final 4 participants are known.
LikeLike
Why exclude the final? I don’t get it.
LikeLike
Perhaps a nod to the possibility that the “should have been” finalists might have met in the semi’s due to the imperfect science of bracket seeding? The money not assigned for that one game just increases the amount available in the pool for every other game
LikeLike
Maybe they didn’t want to wait an extra week to figure out the shares.
LikeLike
Not counting the play in games (do they earn a share?), counting the finalists would change each share from 1/124th of the pool to 1/126th.
LikeLike
Not counting the play in games (do they earn a share?)
Linked article confirms that Iowa received one:
Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio State earned one unit each as they bowed out in their opening games.
LikeLike
So each share would move from a 1/132nd to a 1/134th of the pool if they included the finalists.
LikeLike
What about the Big East?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10728419/oklahoma-texas-rivalry-game-renamed-red-river-showdown
The Red River Rivalry née Shootout will henceforth be the AT&T Red River Showdown (TM).
LikeLike
God forbid they use Shootout.
LikeLike
We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10723200/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-meets-makes-recommendations
What we know about the CFP committee rankings:
• The committee members will meet in Dallas during the season to discuss and release their top 25 rankings. The rankings are expected to start in midseason, in October, but it’s unknown after the initial rankings if it will be weekly or bi-weekly.
• The Top 25 rankings will consist only of the 25 teams. The committee will not disclose first-place votes or total number of poll points — like the AP and coaches’ polls do — for each team. So, for instance, it will be unknown how close team No. 4 is from No. 5. How individual members voted also will not be revealed.
• The final poll, which determines the four playoff teams and other non-major bowl game pairings,will be released from Dallas. When that final poll is released — either on the Saturday night after the final games are completed, or on Sunday — is still to be determined.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24513484/michigan-stadium-to-host-real-madrid-vs-manchester-united-friendly
The Big House will host Man U vs Real Madrid this August.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24513601/emmert-not-the-only-one-taking-questions-on-sunday-at-final-four
Mark Emmert and 3 members of the D-I steering committee on governance will take questions Sunday at a press conference.
LikeLike
From the glass houses and throwing stones department…
[redacted] reports 37 violations
http://www.columbiatribune.com/sports/mu/mu-reports-violations/article_294e4dd2-b6a4-11e3-aa26-10604b9f6eda.html
LikeLike
Did you actually read the article?
“The majority resulted in no penalty from the Southeastern Conference or NCAA and minor institutional penalties, including education to the involved coaching staff and a disciplinary letter to the coach who committed the violation. One violation consisted of a coach returning a phone call from a number he didn’t recognize. It turned out the number belonged to a prospective student-athlete, and the coach returned the call six days before the beginning of the permitted contact period.
There were four reported Level I violations, which the NCAA considers the most egregious.
MU reported a Level I violation by the baseball program that began in 2010 and was not discovered until June 2013. It was reported to the SEC and NCAA in July. Throughout four summers, baseball staff members performed tasks beyond operating the baseball facility when the facility was rented by an outside group of prospects, according to the released documents. Also, non-coaching staff members who had responsibilities to the program were present during the prospects’ competition.
The SEC took no additional action, and NCAA action is pending. The university’s action included education to baseball and facilities staff members, disciplinary letters, requiring 20 hours of community service for two staff members and requiring three individuals to meet with Athletic Director Mike Alden. Additionally, no outside groups may rent the baseball facility this summer, and MU can host only one team camp this summer.
Missouri reported a Level I violation committed by the women’s track and field program in which a coach broke NCAA rules with text messages to two prospective student-athletes. Institutional action included a letter of admonishment to the coach and education to the coaching staff. The coach was prohibited from having telephone contact with prospects for 14 days. Additionally, the coaching staff was prohibited from contacting those two prospects for 30 days upon reaching the first permissible contact date. The SEC took no additional action for that violation, and NCAA action is pending.
The football program committed a Level I violation when a coach responded to a prospective student-athlete’s text message. No SEC or NCAA action was taken. MU’s action included education to the coaching staff and a letter of admonishment to the involved coach. The university ruled that the involved coach could have no communication with any prospect for two weeks, and the coaching staff could have no communication with the involved prospect for 30 days.
The other Level I violation consisted of a student-athlete using his photo in promotional material. The released documents did not indicate the sport involved with that offense. MU’s action included having the student-athlete pay $116 to a charity.
”
That’s some pretty terrible stuff right there. I’m dying of shame.
LikeLike
MO would have to work pretty hard to get a penalty from the SEC.
LikeLike
No idea if that’s true, but if you read that article you’d see it’s all ticky tack nonsense that won’t get a penalty from the NCAA either.
LikeLike
“Improved” helmet?
Not sure what to think. Trying to improve safety by making the head more useful/safer as a weapon sounds like working at cross purposes.
http://edge.si.com/edge/2014/04/03/riddells-new-speedflex-helmet?eref=sihp
How can a helmet “flex in a way that directs the force of impact (that incoming strong safety) away from a player’s head.” unless there is a way to transfer that force elsewhere? There is nothing attached to shoulders or pads in order to transfer the force. What force is transferred is through the neck, just like current and past helmets. It may dissipate energy better. But won’t that potentially increase head use (it is a useful weapon)? And lessen the imperative to reduce/eliminate head hits? I do like the impact tracking potential.
LikeLike
the SpeedFlex features several aesthetic changes—especially on the top of the helmet, where the shell has a paneled look that allows actual movement on the helmet. That “flex,” as the company calls it, within the shell, face mask and at the point where the face mask attaches to the helmet, dissipates the energy of any hit throughout the helmet system and away from the head.
It sounds sort of like a car frame that directs the force around the outside while using crumple zones to absorb force.
LikeLike
A helmet doesn’t protect your brain. It protects your skull. These helmet companies can tinker and tinker, but as football players continue to get bigger, faster, and stronger, you’re only going to see even bigger hits.
Football isn’t a contact sport. Basketball is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport. Until that changes, you’re going to continue to get brains bouncing around inside the skull (causing concussions) no matter what kind of helmet they put out there.
LikeLike
I’m all for improving the current helmet design though. Even if it doesn’t help concussions, every little bit of safety helps.
LikeLike
Then again, as you correctly noted, while every bit helps, it can provide a false sense of security and safety, as no helmet can prevent the brain from crashing into the skull on impact.
LikeLike
I agree. Before hard helmets there were some head hits, but the consequent pain, broken noses, teeth, etc were a part of the calculation in deciding how to hit. The helmet gave a sense of security/protection, and it did reduce external/surface damage. But is did so at the cost of increasing the number and intensity of head impacts through the impression of being impervious. This new helmet improvement continues to address external damage concerns, and internal to the extent energy dissipation is improved.
I applaud the improvements in energy dissipation, but there is so much energy until there is a way to transfer some of that energy directly to the shoulders/torso the brain is still going to impact the interior skull surface.
LikeLike
There were also a number of deaths due to skull fractures. Those weren’t the good ol’ days.
LikeLike
Yes, they nearly banned the sport.
LikeLike
I don’t believe hard shelled helmets were a result of the threat of banning, unless several decades delay was an acceptable delay in implementation, or they consulted an oracle that said a helmet would eventually be invented.
LikeLike
No, but the leather helmet did help reduce the death toll considerably. However, they didn’t have the technology to make hard shell helmets until the late 30s. 1938 was the first year they came out, and they became mandatory very quickly. They also introduced the face mask at that same time, greatly reducing facial injuries.
LikeLike
Was the leather helmet not already in use?
The formation of the NCAA and rules was the result of the developing concern, not any simple equipment addition.
Wiki: “The NCAA dates its formation to two White House conferences convened by President Theodore Roosevelt to “encourage reforms” to college football practices in the early 20th century, which had resulted in repeated injuries and deaths and “prompted many college and universities to discontinue the sport.””
I may be wrong but wasn’t the most important (regarding safety) the elimination of the flying wedge?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Was the leather helmet not already in use?”
When?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_football_helmet
Additionally, other sources credit the invention of the football helmet to U.S. Naval Academy Midshipman Joseph M. Reeves (later to become the “Father of Carrier Aviation”), who had a protective device for his head made out of mole skin to allow him to play in the 1893 Army-Navy Game after he was told by a Navy doctor that he must give up football or risk death from another kick in the head. Reeves went to a local shoemaker/blacksmith and had a crude leather helmet fabricated to protect his skull.
In 1917 they created the raised helmet. Helmets were around but not universally worn in the early 1900s. They didn’t became mandated by the NCAA until 1939.
From your link:
The death toll rose to 33 in 1909 (The NY Times via the Chicago Tribune claimed 26 deaths at the time) and it was that year, specifically a game between Harvard and Yale in November 1909, that veteran sportswriter Frank Deford says was the real turning point in the sport. So, in 1910, new rules were implemented that made the line of scrimmage requirement 7 men and reduced the reward for a field goal to 3 points. By 1912, the touchdown was changed to 6 points. Pushing and pulling the ball carrier was disallowed and players running interlocked interference was banned. The flying tackle, which called for a tackler to leave his feet, was also put on the shelf. But, they did not ban touchdown celebrations.
The first rule changes came in 1905, and they only helped briefly. The flying wedge had already been banned at this point and the death toll maxed out. Things got better by 1910.
LikeLike
“Was the leather helmet not already in use?”
When?
When the threat to ban FB was active. The creation of a governing body ended that threat, not equipment changes. Players died at a higher rate a few years later. And, as you noted, helmets weren’t NCAA mandated until 33 years after the threat by T.R. had passed.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“When the threat to ban FB was active.”
Then the answer is yes, but not widely in use.
“The creation of a governing body ended that threat, not equipment changes.”
Actually, I think it was the rules changes they implemented that greatly reduced the death toll that ended the threat.
“Players died at a higher rate a few years later. And, as you noted, helmets weren’t NCAA mandated until 33 years after the threat by T.R. had passed.”
And they changed more rules to curb it, thus probably saving the sport.
When this thread started, all I said was that people also died when wearing the leather helmets and they weren’t the good ol’ days. Some people advocate a return to no helmets as a way to stop dangerous hits, but I think the end result would just be more injuries and deaths. The mentality of players needs to change before an equipment change would help.
I may have missed where you specified “hard helmets” and just read that as helmets. Maybe bullet did, too.
LikeLike
I think we basically agree. I thought some were saying helmet improvement was the solution, then and now.
Energy dissipation is the helmets goal. Why does it still have a hard shell which concentrates the energy delivered when making a hit? There are flexible semi ridged plastics that can deform and return to shape, and can be formulated to varying specs.
LikeLike
Not predicting either way but this is interesting…
https://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen/status/452499211385569280
LikeLike
Whether they actually unionize is not the issue. It is whether they are categorized as employees eligible to, if they chose to.
LikeLike
Well, it’s part of the issue. The biggest was to win the court case, get explicit rights, and create a precedent. But a lot of the momentum would get lost if they lost the union vote.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chicago/college-football/story/_/id/10734087/pat-fitzgerald-urges-northwestern-wildcats-players-vote-union
Fitz says vote no.
LikeLike
Question: After this latest round of realignment, has the SEC caught up a bit with the B1G in academics? It appears to me that they have. The B1G has added 3 programs that rank in the bottom half of their academics, while the SEC has added two schools that rank in the top half of their academics.
Now, it’s indisputable that the top half of the B1G easily outclasses the SEC. And also that the bottom half of the SEC is not at all B1G calibre. But I would argue that the top half of the SEC now matches up pretty favorably with the bottom half of the Big Ten. Now, we could go by reputations and US News rankings etc, and the B1G is going to win fairly easily there. But lets look at a couple of concrete measurements; federal research dollars national ranking and ACT composite scores. By those measures I think a case could be made:
national federal research dollar ranking / school / ACT Composite 25 and 75 percentiles
Bottom half of B1G
38. Iowa 22 / 28
39. Maryland 28 / 32
52. Purdue 24 / 30
55. Michigan State 23 / 28
57. Rutgers 25 / 30
93. Nebraska 22 / 29
96. Indiana 24 / 29
Top half of SEC
21. Vanderbilt 32 / 25
35. Texas A&M 24 / 30
42. Florida 26 / 31
59. Kentucky 23 / 28
69 Missouri 23 / 28
75. South Carolina 24 / 29
77. Georgia 25 / 31
LikeLike
typo…Vandy should read 32 / 35.
LikeLike
I thought about it, and thought what the heck, why not compare USNews top 7 SEC to bottom 7 B1G and see how that goes. Here it is. Not quite as good but still pretty comparable I think:
68. Purdue
69. Rutgers
69. Minnesota
73. Michigan State
73. Iowa
76. Indiana
101. Nebraska
17. Vanderbilt
49. FLorida
60. Georgia
69. Texas A&M
86. Alabama
91. Auburn
97. Missouri
LikeLike
Andy, at the undergraduate level, Texas A&M, Georgia and Florida report 25-75 splits that are the equal or better than every Big 10 — setting aside Northwestern and probably Michigan — by next year Florida will catch them. Otherwise, OSU, Univ of Illinois, Wisconsin — equals Georgia’s profile — and Florida has a slightly better profile than any of them.
But remember, there are so many games that the public universities actually have more options available for them to “game” the system. These scores (assuming that they are accurate — USC, Emory and Florida have all been caught cheating) represent that very best scores — the very best way to represent the data.
Still, the SEC is not really improving — the Big 10 is sagging – at the undergraduate level.
LikeLike
Averages:
Bottom Half of Big Ten
Average Federal Research Rank: 61.43
Average ACT Score: 26.71
Average US News Ranking: 75.75
Top Half of SEC:
Average Federal Research Rank: 54.0
Average ACT Score: 27.71
Average US News Ranking: 67.0
So yeah, I’d say it’s fair to say that the top half of the SEC has caught up with the bottom half of the Big Ten academically.
LikeLike
That you compare the bottom half of the B1G to the top half of the SEC academically is an indication that there is still a ways to go before the two conferences are academic equals. But the SEC could only improve academically, and with aTm and Mizzou, they did. But only UF, Vandy, Mizzou, and maybe UGA would ever be considered Big Ten worthy academically.
LikeLike
A&M is SEC worthy. Kentucky does a fair amount of research but their USNews ranking is a little lower than Nebraska so probably not. South Carolina is a stretch as far as qualifying for the B1G, but they’re not as bad as some of the other SEC schools.
LikeLike
should read A&M is B1G worthy.
LikeLike
So you believe A&M wouldn’t be worthy? Explain, please.
LikeLike
No matter what the SEC does it will have anchor weights in the west via MS and AL. They can continue to improve their upside but averages will still be lower.
LikeLike
Academically, the bottom half of the SEC sucks. No doubt.
LikeLike
If you are going to devote so much energy to your embarrassing obsession with the conference that spurned your school, at least do some real research for your stats.
Rutgers rank of 57 in research dollars was before they regained control of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ in July 2013, which should move them into the top 30.
LikeLike
Also, the ACT is not a valid ranking to use for a northeastern school because the vast majority of people in that region take the SAT instead.
LikeLike
All of these schools reported ACT averages so I used them. I assume they’re accurate.
LikeLike
They may be accurate but an incomplete metric based on the prevalence of SAT takers who apply to RU.
LikeLike
It would probably lead to slightly higher ACT averages rather than lower ACT averages. Probably the students who end up taking both tests are more serious students and/or like taking tests more. But if the sample size of ACT tests is high enough then it shouldn’t matter either way.
LikeLike
Andy, I am glad you raised this issue. I posted a year ago on this blog that the gap between the SEC and Big 10 at the undergraduate level is shrinking over time — and it still is shrinking. Unfortunately for the SEC and for the Big 10, the primary reason for the narrowing gap is that the quality of the undergraduate student enrolled in the Big 10 has declined while the quality of the SEC has not improved. Instead, the gap between the elite undergraduate programs — almost entirely private — and the public universities is widening — and the remaining schools are being compressed. This is not say that everyone is not competitive and trying to improve rankings — they are. Every subscale of every important ranking is analyzed and strategies offered (and sometimes implemented) to influence the ranking. There are many, many strategies being employed. Contrary to how some responded to you, Andy, you can rest assured that every university is pursuing a strategy that yields the best possible ranking within the operative financial constraints. Still, the 25-75 split is the best indicator and the ACT/SAT issue is irrelevant since it is easy to translate the scores from one to the other for ranking purposes. Finally, the competitive situation and historical trend is even worse for the domestic application pool — which some deem to be more important for state-funded institutions.
LikeLike
Interesting post, thanks for sharing. That definitely makes sense.
LikeLike
@rich2
I don’t know about the Big 10 schools, but I’m pretty sure your info on SEC is inaccurate. I know UGA, Florida and Texas A&M have gotten much tougher to get into. LSU was once open admission.
LikeLike
And while SAT/ACT scores may be easy to translate, direct comparisons like Andy did don’t work in many cases because the sample size produces really odd results for some schools.
LikeLike
Yes, but like I said, it typically works in the favor of the school who doesn’t have as many students taking that test. For example, Rutgers’s ACT score will be higher than it should be (slightly) and Mizzou’s SAT scores will be slightly higher.
LikeLike
Alright, I don’t know what the Rutgers med school acquisition will do to their ranking but yes it should probably go up by at least 10 spots I would think.
LikeLike
Also, as we’ve been over a million times, the SEC didn’t actually spurn Mizzou.
Mizzou basically had a conditional verbal offer in 2010. Mizzou was told that they would be team #13 or #14 if and when the B1G expanded that far. But then they stayed at 12. The SEC approached Mizzou and invited them, Mizzou went to the B1G and was told “we’re not expanding right now and we can’t speed up our timetable to accomodate you, we haven’t decided if we’ll expand past 12 ever” and the SEC told them “It’s now or never if you’re joining”, so Mizzou joined the SEC.
Gordon Gee basically explicitly confirmed this in an interview Wainscott posted about 50 posts up.
No I don’t have a link but from what I’ve heard I’m quite certain what I’m saying is true.
LikeLike
bah, should read “the B1G didn’t actually spurn Mizzou”. Man, I suck at typing today.
I guess technically the B1G did spurn Mizzou for spot #12, and Missouri people were pretty pissed about that. But it came along with basically a conditional verbal offer for spot 13 or 14. I’ve heard this from multiple people and Gee basically confirmed it in that interview Wainscott posted.
LikeLike
Universities receive applicants who provide scores for the ACT, SAT and both. Every P5 conference admits more than enough undergraduates to enable the school to provide a stable score. There is no small sample problem at a Big 10 school. The scores published are the “most flattering” for the university.
LikeLike
Should we swap the bottom seven B1G for the top seven SEC? That actually might be a good deal for the B1G. Not so much for the SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t want all 7 nor do I want to lose all 7. I’ll trade NE, RU and UMD for Vandy, UGA and UF.
That gives me a southern block that is almost contiguous with the current footprint. I’d still have 13/14 in the AAU and even better demographics. I don’t dislike NE, but they’re the newbie so they go.
Divisions:
NW = MI, OSU, PSU, MSU, NW, IL, IN
SE = UF, UGA, Vandy, WI, IA, MN, PU
LikeLike
For the SEC I’d keep Mizzou, Vanderblt, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
Create two divions:
North: Missouri, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State
South: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
It would be all contiguous, all decently good academic schools, better athletics.
LikeLike
Well, I guess A&M wouldn’t be contiguous. But I’d rather keep the state of Texas in the fold.
LikeLike
Congrats to C. Vivian Stringer and the Scarlet Knights wbb team for winning the WNIT.
LikeLike
Now being in the B1G means even better years to come for Rutgers?
LikeLike
Duffman,
In theory it should. Vivian Stringer was a very successful coach at Iowa for many years. Her husband got cancer and passed, which forced Vivian to move to Rutgers. She was not only an institution at Iowa, but a beloved coach and university figure. I’m happy she’s back in the BIG, and I’m sure she will be happy recruiting in some of her old stomping grounds.
LikeLike
credit to gfunk, he assured me UConn would beat Florida. He was right, I was wrong.
LikeLike
Andy, I’m being careful right now & trying not to post much because Brian will find me and attack me with his nonsense : ). I’ll say it again, IMHO, UConn to the BIG is a no brainer. Great basketball schools should always have a seat at the table – March Madness is here to stay.
Florida had suspect offense all year. But I really like this team & the journey they took to get to this FF. Donovan does it in a way I can truly respect & doesn’t mind the backseat to Kentucky mania in the SEC.
As strictly a Spartans basketball fan, I knew we were in trouble after seeing UConn go through Iowa State (who may have been the favorite if not for tragic injuries) – it didn’t help that our guard play was suspect against Va and Harvard as well. Appling was just not the same after the Georgetown game. But I was extremely confident we’d beat Florida and maybe win it all if we got past UConn. Izzo knows how to coach against Donovan, but not against Ollie. In fact, Izzo’s performance in the Elite Eight was the worst I’ve seen him coach in an Elite Eight, and he has several to choose from.
Btw, and this includes Brian, my favorite naysayer and all things clueless about college hockey: UConn is on the brink of becoming the Modern Era’s Co-King. If they win #4, they will equal Duke. Moreover, they won 2 of their NCs at Duke’s expense, semi-final game & NCG.
UConn unquestionably has the best 1-2 basketball program in the country & it’s not even close. Such a remarkable quality took years of dedication and hard work & why it’s not a part of this conference or, hold on I’m about to throw up, the ACC – is just absurd. Football has way too much say in this matter & again, the AAU thing is overrated. CT has the resources & will to make UConn a premier flagship in decades to come. Delany loves to talk long game, but fails to see this reality.
Media reports have been pretty universal as well – they bring it to MSG. Big time!
PS Let the countdown begin : ).
LikeLike
Academics are an issue with UConn. Based on the metrics I posted above, UConn’s federal research dollars ranking is 118, which would put it at 15th place in the B1G.
On the other hand, their ACT average is 26 / 30, which is about average for a B1G school.
USNews ranking is 57, which is about average for a B1G school.
But they’re not AAU. And their enrollment is only 18k, which would make it the smallest school in the league. Also their endowment is only $358M, which would be the smallest in the B1G.
It seems like UConn is a better fit for the ACC. Strong undergrad academics, but small enrollment, small endowment, not much research, small football stadium, etc.
I’m not saying it couldn’t work, but they’re not as much of a natural fit as Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Virginia, North Carolina, even Pitt (although Penn State wouldn’t go for Pitt). UConn is probably about on par with Syracuse and Kansas, meaning they could take them but they probably won’t.
LikeLike
18000 is undergrad enrollment only. They have about 7500 grad students, which is a lot and fits the Big 10 model there. They also have a very specific plan, funded by the state, to increase undergrad enrollemt by 6000+ within 10 years, which would put them at about 33000 total..Their level of state support is impressive.
They improve basketball, add a 7th hockey team, and have a sound and successful athletic program. If I recall correctly (I may not), they have 16 NCs to their credit.
They help with the NY market, and add a 4th eastern team so you can have 2 sets of travel partners.
They are at least as goopd a fit for the BIG as the ACC. If I were Delany. I’d insist they increase ffottball capacity to 52000, which is doable, as the stadium’s only 10+ years old and built for it.
LikeLike
I suppose they may build their way up to it. They’ll need to improve football, increase their enrollment, and make a run at AAU status. Maybe in 30 years.
LikeLike
I think you underestimate how much Delany wants more east coast presence….and what I see as U Conn’s strengths….
The real problem with U Conn is not U Conn but #16. There’s just no suitable strong academic school which also has a strong football program…….and also if you take U Conn you’re also messing with a potential UNC/Virginia or OK/TX add down the road when the GORs run out. I don’t favor those adds as I’d rather the Big 10 stays in only 2 regions anyway………but that’s out there as a possibilty if the financial #s play out as predicted.
On the other hand……… if you’re OK with staying at 15 for an uncertain amount of time U Conn makes some sense IF the NCAA gets away from the division requirement. Each Big 10 team could have 2-3 protected football rivals each year and play every other school at least every other year..
LikeLike
You can have uneven divisions, can’t you? You just have to play everyone in your division. Makes for uneven scheduling. I thought the exemption granted to the previous uneven was for one year being able to miss one division team in the larger division. The NCAA didn’t mandate even number conferences, but for scheduling they are very much preferred.
LikeLike
Correct. You just need to play a full divisional round robin or get a waiver. It makes for very messy scheduling, though. And UConn isn’t worth that hassle.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“I think you underestimate how much Delany wants more east coast presence”
1. Delany’s opinion is largely irrelevant. The COP/C controls expansion and where it goes.
2. The mid-atlantic is also on the east coast, and the B10 has a foothold there.
3. The COP/C want growing states from which to recruit future students. VA is much more than double the size of CT and growing much faster.
4. UConn doesn’t come close to reaching the academic bar. UVA is AAU and has been I-A for a long time. UVA would be a great partner for UMD and could be paired with UNC for 16 teams.
5. The B10 doesn’t need to expand again, so future additions really need to bring value. UConn doesn’t bring it in several of the most important areas. It would be the RU gamble times 5, and UConn doesn’t have the academic qualifications.
LikeLike
In a couple of ways tjhey are a better institutional fit than Pitt. First, their campus is small town/rural, like IU, PUR, ILL, PSU, IOWA….Second, Pitt’s campus is VERY small–something like 300 acres. U Conn’s is larger. Finally, U Conn is 100% state funded….Pitt’s like 10%.
That said, Pitt’s obviously a research powerhouse and has a huge endowment……
LikeLike
I obviously misspoke when I said U Conn was 100% state funded……..but what I’m getting at is it is more of a flagship school than Pitt. PSU’s state funding is also very low…………..
LikeLike
Pitt was never going to be an option regardless. And Missouri’s off the table too. So their only competition left, really, is Kansas. And I’d say UConn is as good or better than Kansas. Yes, Kansas is AAU, but UConn’s academics are actually better. Football is similar. Basketball is similar. UConn has a better location.
That said I don’t think the B1G would take either unless they improved significantly.
LikeLike
The ACC has asked the NCAA to do away with the necessity for divisions to have a championship game. That, of course, makes it even more worthless to have a league championship ghame, but it’s just a money grab anyway.
IF the NCAA does away with the division requirement going to 15 or 16 is much easier, as scheduling flexibilty increases greatly
LikeLike
I still think Uconn goes ACC before it is all said and done. Just between mens basketball and womens basketball is too much bling for the ACC to ignore.
LikeLike
You should check out the UConn boards – they overwhelmingly prefer the BIG, which is a great bonus. Positive energy is always nice.
LikeLike
CT also has an excellent pool of in-state applicants, always one of the top 5 k-12 states.
LikeLike
Conneticut as a stae is very education-oriented.
LikeLike
While true, it’s not as if UConn has to this point reflected the benefits of an educated pool if students to choose from.
LikeLike
Well the Northeast does have a lot of competition for students, so many classic universities, esp in Mass.
Another bonus on CT is the fact that they’ll likely never get a major professional franchise again – they can truly get behind UConn in banner years like this one.
LikeLike
It is interesting that the ACC hasn’t taken U Conn…….The U Conn board blames BC , but I think the more likely cause is Clemson, FSU, and Miami. While Pitt and Syracuse were both great bball adds, their best days as football programs are probably behind them. I don’t think those schools would be thrilled with another mediocre NE football program…….that’s obviously a big issue for the Big 10 as well
LikeLike
THE FOOTBALL POTENTIAL IN THE BIG IS ALREADY THERE:
The BIG’s top programs just need to finally have consistent success at the same time. It hasn’t happened since Neb joined the league – PSU issues from hell, OSU and Tressel, Mi RRod years, etc. At least when PSU joined the conference OSU and MI were often at their best & frankly the BIG was really damn good in the 90s and early 2000s because these powers were generally firing on all cylinders.
It also helps that MSU and WIsky are becoming national powers, not yet contenders, but really close. That’s 6 programs that should consistently contend across the landscape.
Ultimately, I really think the BIG has plenty of football potential with current membership and Rutgers and Md, no doubt, have upside due to in-state talent.
Thus, I really think the BIG is fine adding a power basketball school – it would be a great move in the long term – short term as well. UConn can sustain themselves financially, as well as bring a lot to the table, esp in hoops, which matters for the BTN & conference membership.
The fact that they are already in the FF after losing Calhoun is pretty damn amazing.
UConn is the most underrated of the basketball powers. It’ about time they be recognized as one of the 5 best in the modern era. Because they are.
LikeLike
Speaking of UConn, it’s interesting to see the geographical breakdown in the responses to the poll question on who one would prefer to win the championship.
No surprises that Kentucky residents would vote for UK and northeast residents would vote for UConn. However, it’s interesting the breakdown in the other states, even in the South.
LikeLike
Funk….I agree with you on U Conn and would add them if the divisional requirement in football went away….but I really don’t like the idea of adding U Conn AND Kansas…..that’s way too basketball centric when fball drives the $$sss….esp. when the SEC’s won so many NCs in fball recently…..and I really don’t like KU as a potential Big 10 member….As far as I can see, the ONLY thing they add is men’s basketball…….poor academics, no market, 90 years of mediocre football, small and old football stadium, smallish school in BT terms, mediocre in all other sports……I like U CONN a LOT more than KU…………
LikeLike
It is interesting that the ACC hasn’t taken U Conn…….The U Conn board blames BC , but I think the more likely cause is Clemson, FSU, and Miami. . . . I don’t think those schools would be thrilled with another mediocre NE football program.
Exactly: in taking Louisville, they got UConn’s rough equivalent in basketball and a far better football program. (Going into Monday night, UConn and Louisville are tied in the number of men’s basketball championships with 3, but Louisville has 40 all-time tournament bids to UConn’s 31, and 10 Final Fours to UConn’s 5.)
I really think the BIG is fine adding a power basketball school…
Expansion needs to be better than just “fine”. It needs to be compelling.
…– it would be a great move in the long term – short term as well.
How on earth could it be “great” in the short term? Football is by far the largest money-maker — you cannot rationally dispute that — and UConn brings nothing in football.
As of today, UConn would bring another mouth to feed without bringing enough revenue to make up for it. Two power leagues, including the far more desperate ACC, took a pass on them. Don’t you think you ought to figure out why?
The fact that they are already in the FF after losing Calhoun is pretty damn amazing.
Not really. Kings tend overwhelmingly to remain kings.
UConn is the most underrated of the basketball powers. It’ about time they be recognized as one of the 5 best in the modern era. Because they are.
There might be a legitimate case for this. They’re tied for 11th on the all-time bids list, but four of the teams ahead of them (UCLA, Indiana, Villanova, Notre Dame) have not been top national powers in recent years. Another school ahead of them (Syracuse) has more tourney bids, but the same number of FFs and fewer championships.
By that reckoning, you could get UConn to about sixth in the contemporary era behind UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisville, and Duke. But “king” status tends to be very durable, which is why, to the average fan, Indiana seems like it’s in UConn’s class, even though the Hoosiers haven’t been to an Elite Eight since 2002, nor won it all since 1987.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t count on it anytime soon.
UConn’s chances of joining the ACC died in the short and even medium term as soon as the ACC signed a GOR.
LikeLike
Why?
LikeLike
When the ACC signed a GOR, they effectively ended any chance that they’ll get poached within the next decade. Unless they lose a school, they have no reason to add expand.
LikeLike
gfunk,
I’m so sorry you find facts inconvenient for your delusion of UConn being a good addition for the B10. Unfortunately for you, multiple people point out how bad your idea is every time you make it, not just me. I agree there is something very “no brainer ” about your idea, but I’ll bet we disagree on what it is. Your hypersensitivity about the WCHA also got shot down by multiple people. You’re pretty much UConn’s and the WCHA’s Andy at this point. Congratulations.
“UConn unquestionably has the best 1-2 basketball program in the country & it’s not even close.”
A point nobody has ever argued, despite your continued posting of it as if it was under debate.
“Such a remarkable quality took years of dedication and hard work & why it’s not a part of this conference or, hold on I’m about to throw up, the ACC – is just absurd. Football has way too much say in this matter & again, the AAU thing is overrated. CT has the resources & will to make UConn a premier flagship in decades to come. Delany loves to talk long game, but fails to see this reality.”
Yes, because you’re clearly so much smarter and/or better informed than all the conference commissioners and school presidents about the value of UConn. What do they and all their consultants know? Once they find out gfunk disagrees with them, I’m sure they’ll all change their tune.
LikeLike
The difference being Missouri was actually decently close to actually joining the B1G, and unlike UConn Missouri has actually joined another power conference, and across the board is a more logical choice than UConn, so it’s not really the same thing. But yes, he is making a case for something like I sometimes do, so there’s at least that similarity.
LikeLike
My stalker finally arrived. Have at it, that’s all I say to you from now on besides the fact that your dumb behind only cares about football like most other Bucknuts, Your stupid statements about the WCHA, which will likely hold the greatest history in all of college hockey for decades to come, pretty much describes your irrelevance to me on this board. But I don’t mind slapping back once in a while. Why do you even care about hockey anyways? OSU is awful, you can’t ride our coattails or other BIG powers, the passion isn’t there in Columbus. And I say to all but you, I know where you stand: I am perfectly fine with UConn in the BIG. College Basketball is vastly more entertaining to me than CF, which is just loaded with corrupt politics & a phony system. Do I still watch games every year? Sure. But nothing on par with my basketball passion.
As for others who continue to holdout for further football additions to the BIG, these teams aren’t coming & until then it might be a good idea to root for your team & maybe write a letter or two to various high school sports associations throughout the BIG because the prep football is pretty average. Someone slamming KU football, point taken. But we often hear about Va being so desired for the BIG, KU did better than Va in the BCS era – at least they got to one of these games and won. Moreover, as stated very clearly: the BIG has plenty of football powers and others on the brink. But you can’t force these programs to score better recruits, hire better coaches & frankly, yet again, high school football throughout much of the BIG is just not measuring up, in fact it hasn’t for many decades now. I know much of Minnesota’s previous success depended greatly on southern talent. Wake up folks, it’s 2014 and BIG football has really only had one good decade since 1970 – the 90s – and a year here and a year there. Try, just try putting value in other sports. Maybe it’s contagious and we may see more economic value added to these sports. But you have to try.
LikeLike
“only cares about football like most other Bucknuts,”
In terms of expansion, yes. The presidents and media have shown that’s the only sport that really matters. It’s foolish to think otherwise. Why did the ACC take UL over UConn? Why was KU scrambling a few years ago when it looked like the B12 might implode?
“Your stupid statements about the WCHA,”
You mean saying they didn’t get screwed when the B10 teams returned to the B10? The WCHA never had permanent claim to those teams. The teams belong to the their schools, and those schools chose to belong to the B10. Once the B10 had 6 teams, they were always going to make it a conference sport.
“which will likely hold the greatest history in all of college hockey for decades to come,”
Another point nobody argued. Any other straw men you’d like to knock down?
“Why do you even care about hockey anyways?”
Why do you care why I care?
“OSU is awful,”
Most of the time, yes they are.
“College Basketball is vastly more entertaining to me than CF”
Which is fine. That doesn’t make it more important to expansion, though.
“Try, just try putting value in other sports.”
If people prefer to watch CFB, why should they put more value in other sports?
“Maybe it’s contagious and we may see more economic value added to these sports. But you have to try.”
So sports we like less could prosper at the expense of our preferred sport? Why would we do that? America has spoken, and it prefers FB to other sports for now.
LikeLike
“Try, just try putting value in other sports. ”
-I do. UConn has no wrestling program of note. They have no business in the B1G.
LikeLike
Amen.
LikeLike
And that’s 1 of only 5 sports that all 14 B10 schools have for men (FB, MBB, golf, cross-country).
LikeLike
Why doesn’t Wisconsin play baseball? 13 of 14 will next year. It can’t be any harder than for Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, MSU, etc.
LikeLike
“Why doesn’t Wisconsin play baseball?”
Title IX.
LikeLike
Oh…duh.
I guess the question should be: what women’s sport(s) are the others schools sponsoring, that Wisky isn’t, that allows baseball for them?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I guess the question should be: what women’s sport(s) are the others schools sponsoring, that Wisky isn’t, that allows baseball for them?”
WI chooses to have men’s rowing which nobody else has. They also play men’s hockey, which most schools don’t. Of the other hockey schools, everyone has at least one of field hockey, women’s gymnastics or women’s lacrosse.
LikeLike
Brian:
My question was intended to be rhetorical, but I arriviste the information. Thanks.
LikeLike
…appreciate…
LikeLike
Great basketball schools should always have a seat at the table – March Madness is here to stay.
But the Big Ten has great basketball schools. The Big Ten earned more tournament credits (both overall and per school) than any other league.
Football has way too much say in this matter…
Football earns way more money. Even if you think that’ll change eventually, it’s still many years from happening. No one is going to expand now based on that premise.
…the AAU thing is overrated.
The people deciding disagree with you.
CT has the resources & will to make UConn a premier flagship in decades to come…
You seem to be contradicting yourself: if AAU membership doesn’t matter, then why is UConn trying to attain it?
Who knows for sure what’ll happen in decades? If you’re the Big Ten, you can afford to wait, because right now UConn lacks the attributes they want, and if that changes, UConn will still be there.
Delany loves to talk long game, but fails to see this reality.
Delany doesn’t expand; the university presidents do.
LikeLike
MarcShepard,
Tell me something I don’t know about football’s influence on these matters. I know. I truly do. I’m just going to continue debating here because I think “football’s influence” is unfair, esp since basketball often pays its own way, esp a school like UConn.
Don’t tell me Delany has nothing to do with expansion – he damn near brings a gun to the table. The Delany worship on here, not saying you in particular, is egregious. He constantly gets whooped by Slive and even Swofford in the game of expansion. I just don’t think the ACC lost too much sleep over Md, and they will inevitably get ND fully aboard, which is a huge statement.
Yes the BIG has great basketball schools, but no NC since 2000. That’s not just bad luck, that’s the inability of BIG schools to deliver on the recruiting trail and lock down its local talent. They’ve had plenty of opportunities, but every FF& NCG exit has been because of a talent deficit & often the other team has a Midwestern kid who contributed towards the win (Sean May, Anthony Davis, Shane Battier, Al Hoford, Chane Behanan, Antoine Walker, I could really extend this list) <—- Carefully read there. UConn has won 2 NCs since 2000 & they may just win their 4th. If they win their 4th, they will suddenly be tied with Duke for most NCs in the Modern Era, while beating them in route for 2 of them, and Ky for 2 of them as well. Do we even need to talk about BIG Women's Basketball? What UConn would bring there is beyond significant.
UConn is a no brainer & they would simply elevate the basketball as whole & minus football, they'd hold their own in many other sports.
Boneyard UConn Forums – check them out. A lot of UConn fans have a positive attitude about the BIG, respectful they mostly are & they truly prefer the BIG over the ACC. Yet this board comes across as snotty & harsh. I've come to think that other conference fans diss the BIG with regularity because there is a lot of arrogance in this fan base, often rooted in "we're the smartest schools" and "we make the most money" & "we do it right". Total BS on the last point – there have been plenty of NCAA violations in the BIG under Delany's term, I know he's not at fault, just giving an historical time frame. Meanwhile the SEC & ACC have racked up NCs in either basketball or football. The left for dead Big East won more NCs than the BIG in the modern era – twice as many.
The BIG is becoming a past-clinging fanbase that routinely loses the big games. In basketball, it's unacceptable because the recruits are here in this footprint & in excess. Just ask Illinois, who still hasn't won a NC.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Tell me something I don’t know about football’s influence on these matters. I know. I truly do.”
You certainly don’t show any evidence of knowing it.
“I’m just going to continue debating here because I think “football’s influence” is unfair, esp since basketball often pays its own way, esp a school like UConn.”
FB more than pays its own way. If that’s the criterion, then FB should be running the show.
“Don’t tell me Delany has nothing to do with expansion – he damn near brings a gun to the table.”
No. Just no. He works for the COP/C and they aren’t afraid to disagree on matters they feel knowledgeable about. Expansion is one of those issues. They’re likely to rubber stamp him on purely athletic issues, but they don’t view B10 membership as a purely athletic issue.
“The Delany worship on here, not saying you in particular, is egregious. He constantly gets whooped by Slive and even Swofford in the game of expansion.”
Constantly? There haven’t been enough expansions to justify that word. Plus, how did he get whipped by Swofford in taking UMD from the ACC? That’s one of the dumber arguments you’ve made on this topic.
“Do we even need to talk about BIG Women’s Basketball? What UConn would bring there is beyond significant.”
Since when is anything about WBB significant?
“UConn is a no brainer”
Clearly it isn’t because you can’t find anyone that matters that supports your view. The 2 conferences that might add them have both passed and not a single person of relevance has advocated for adding them.
LikeLike
I’m just going to continue debating here because I think “football’s influence” is unfair…
Since when was fairness a requirement? Conference expansion is about making money, and I gather you don’t dispute that football drives more revenue than every other sport put together.
UConn is a no brainer…
The people with brains don’t agree.
It’s indisputable that two leagues already passed on UConn. So, what do you know that they don’t? The only fact you’re bringing to the table is UConn’s basketball prowess, which both the Big Ten and ACC were undoubtedly aware of when they made their decisions.
Boneyard UConn Forums – check them out. A lot of UConn fans have a positive attitude about the BIG, respectful they mostly are & they truly prefer the BIG over the ACC.
Since when does fan attitude determine which schools the Big Ten will invite?
Yet this board comes across as snotty & harsh.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have nothing against UConn. It is a very good school. Two people in my family went there. That doesn’t blind me from making a realistic assessment of the school’s prospects.
LikeLike
As a Minnesotan, I could give a crap less about any of these eastern additions–And, I am sure they probably feel the same about me and the university in my backyard…
Please get over your UConn fantasy… We already have too much B.S. “eastern” presence for a, (strike that), THE MidWestern conference… Delany’s wet dream of owning NYC is just that, a wet dream… NYC is pro-sports all the way…I laugh that the boys continuously were discussing Madison Square Garden as the basketball mecca during the NIT final four… Somehow, I don’t think so… and UConn does not have anything to do with MSG anyway—that’d be the highly over-rated Knickerbockers…
I believe that many have argued—the university of Connecticut====
1. NON-AAU.
2. Poor (at best) and short-lived D-1A football program.
3. In a state with low and steady and/or declining population.
4. Football is king, not men’s basketball, definitely not women’s basketball.
If the ACC had no desire, why in God’s name would the B1G want to add…
Seems to be some reasoning behind this (maybe aforementioned)… Please do tell…
Respectfully signed,
University of Minnesota Fan
B1G Fan
LikeLike
1. Just a way to keep new blood out – UConn would be a member if the organization were merit based.
2. How many BCS games has Minnesota taken part in?
3. How is Minnesota’s growth rate?
4. How does Minnesota football help the Big Ten – by losing each year to the other teams? Many schools could do that!
Respectfully signed,
The Facts
LikeLike
Mark,
“1. Just a way to keep new blood out – UConn would be a member if the organization were merit based.”
Based on what?
NE’s AAU report showed UConn as #81 on the list based on their 4 primary criteria, and the AAU only has 62 members and has said they don’t want to grow. Only 3 AAU members are below #81, and 2 others that were are now out (NE and SU). The last 2 new members added were #31 and #37 on the list. (Yes, the data is a decade old by now but it’s the only AAU list I’ve ever seen.) 22 other schools were ahead of UConn on the list for potential members. UConn also failed to score in one of the 4 categories, having no major award winners on their faculty (83 schools did have at least 1).
The ARWU uses similar criteria, and its latest rankings put UConn #86-108 in the US, indicating they probably haven’t climbed the AAU list much.
And FYI, in 2010 The Chronicle of Higher Education called ARWU “the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities”.
“2. How many BCS games has Minnesota taken part in?”
MN is already a member, though. Even if they weren’t, I think they’d get added due to fit, academics, location, hockey, decent revenue sports and MSP.
“3. How is Minnesota’s growth rate?”
As of 7/1/2013, the Census Bureau puts MN as the 27th state with a growth rate of 2.2%. CT is #41 at 0.62%. MN is also larger, at 5.4M to 3.6M.
“4. How does Minnesota football help the Big Ten – by losing each year to the other teams?”
Jerry Kill has made them respectable again, going 8-5 (4-4). They bring a medium size state and some old rivalries, too.
UConn was fully I-A as of 2002. Since then, they are 78-69 as an independent/BE member versus 72-79 for MN in the B10.
Respectfully signed,
The Actual Facts
LikeLike
Mark, I’m all for UConn in the BIG & I am from Minnesota.
But the answer to no. 3 is that Minnesota consistently adds population within its borders every year, Minneapolis and Saint Paul is a thriving metro that is truly one of the best and most underrated metros in the country & it is easily one of the most important economies in the US. Like CT, we are an excellent public education state for k-12. I mean I could go on here in just about every department that matters: healthcare, fitness, literacy, Fortune 500 companies, arts and humanities, money, safety, where to raise a family. CT had zero growth between 2000-2010. Minnesota is a far cry from Rust Belt BIG states & culturally speaking, we tend to mimic the west more than the east.
As for football, Minnesota hasn’t done much since post-segregation, but our total history far exceeds UConn & the Gophers were decent last year in a season where the BIG showed some promise, as a whole, in term of conference depth. Btw, Minnesota owns a nearly 500 record against PSU since they joined & beat them and Neb last year. Minnesota just chokes in most bowl games & I mean “chokes”.
As I said, I get plenty of crap on here for wanting UConn in the BIG, but I’ll stay the course. They absolutely deserve to be in the BIG, and would truly elevate the most televised game on the Big Ten Network – hoops.
LikeLike
1. Just a way to keep new blood out – UConn would be a member if the organization were merit based.
You can look it up: the AAU has steadily added at least a couple of schools per decade, the most recent being Boston University (2012) and Georgia Tech (2010). They are very selective, but they do add new members. UConn is certainly a good school, and it will probably get better, but they’re well below most of the AAU’s current membership by every relevant measure.
2. How many BCS games has Minnesota taken part in?
3. How is Minnesota’s growth rate?
4. How does Minnesota football help the Big Ten…?
It hardly helps UConn’s cause to suggest that the Big Ten already has schools that do not carry their weight.(*) Why would you want another?
(* I am not conceding that the Gophers don’t carry their weight. I am only pointing out that, even if so, it doesn’t lend any support to UConn.)
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“As a Minnesotan, I could give a crap less about any of these eastern additions–And, I am sure they probably feel the same about me and the university in my backyard…”
It’s not just MN fans that feel that way. Many fans of East division teams have said the same thing. AT leats you don’t have to play them every year in football.
“We already have too much B.S. “eastern” presence for a, (strike that), THE MidWestern conference… ”
Yeah, I miss those days.
Did PSU bug you for that same reason, or were you OK with them as #11? If you were in control, would we have stopped at 12 with NE? Would you have added KU and MO to get to 14 rather than expand to the east? How would you have dealt with the pending demographic problem for recruiting future generations of students?
“Delany’s wet dream of owning NYC is just that, a wet dream… NYC is pro-sports all the way…”
I don’t think even he believes the B10 can own NYC. He just wants exposure there, much like the ACC is seeking by moving their tournament there. Any BTN money we make in NYC is gravy, really. If we can make solid money in NJ and get some media coverage of the B10 in NYC, Delany will be thrilled.
LikeLike
Brian,
I’ve never understood the Penn State add. Culturally, they definitely have more in common with the east coast than the midwest. Of course, the powers that be in the conference must have had some master scheme–11 schools just never made sense–especially when PSU didn’t fit the midwest.
I understand that PSU is a good school–both academically and athletically (though I get sick and tired of the “we are” B.S. (Please get over yourselves, penn state)
The contrived rivalries STILL don’t make sense. That silly trophy the Gophers and the Nittany Lions play for is just that…silly… and forced… The Axe, Floyd of Rosedale—those are real trophies for real rivalries… People now talk about Nebraska and PSU being rivals—gimme a break—If any B1G school has any claim to any semblance of a rivalry with Nebraska, it is Minnesota… who has played Neb far more than any other B1G school–and has the series lead.
I have nothing against PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, or UConn, for that matter… I just haven’t digested what has been fed to me–and quite frankly think I’ll spit it up…
When you are midwest born and bred, the east coast is a very harsh reality… There are parts of the east coast that are kinda midwest (upstate New York comes to mind), but culturally, the rest of it is far from Chicago or Minneapolis, or even more-so… the rural farm and forest country of the Midwest/Great Lakes states…
While monetarily some of these changes will benefit everyone… The tradition and history is being thrown out the window… It’ll take years and years for the new to become accepted fully…
There are several on this board that have obvious ties and loyalties to a certain school. Mine are with the U of Minnesota. Frankly, I always root for the Gophers—and really have little interest in rooting for any other schools, regardless of conference affiliation.
Have a nice day!
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“I’ve never understood the Penn State add. Culturally, they definitely have more in common with the east coast than the midwest. Of course, the powers that be in the conference must have had some master scheme–11 schools just never made sense–especially when PSU didn’t fit the midwest.”
As a fan, I certainly would have preferred to stick to 10.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-12-10/sports/9312100144_1_commissioner-jim-delany-big-southwest-missouri
The rumors said the B10 was looking to add MO, KU and RU. There were also rumors that UT talked with the B10 at this point. This was just before the B8 and SWC were about to merge, and the SEC had just gone to 12. Perhaps the COP/C’s plan was to add ND to get to 12 until they realized even adding PSU wasn’t enough to attract ND.
My guess is they actually had no grand plan, just saw a school that was a football king and state flagship that would bring money and was looking to join a conference.
“The contrived rivalries STILL don’t make sense. That silly trophy the Gophers and the Nittany Lions play for is just that…silly… and forced… The Axe, Floyd of Rosedale—those are real trophies for real rivalries… ”
They never do. Rivalries have to develop naturally. I just hope MN can breathe some life back into the Axe by winning a time or two fairly soon.
“People now talk about Nebraska and PSU being rivals—gimme a break—If any B1G school has any claim to any semblance of a rivalry with Nebraska, it is Minnesota… who has played Neb far more than any other B1G school–and has the series lead.”
PSU and NE are jealous of OSU and MI having The Game, especially since they both used to have major rivals and don’t play them anymore. The schools have a little history with each other, but it’s basically 2 kings with no real conference rival looking to get a prestigious game.
“When you are midwest born and bred, the east coast is a very harsh reality… There are parts of the east coast that are kinda midwest (upstate New York comes to mind), but culturally, the rest of it is far from Chicago or Minneapolis, or even more-so… the rural farm and forest country of the Midwest/Great Lakes states…”
Yep.
“There are several on this board that have obvious ties and loyalties to a certain school. Mine are with the U of Minnesota. Frankly, I always root for the Gophers—and really have little interest in rooting for any other schools, regardless of conference affiliation.”
So, how are you taking the transition to B10 hockey? I know most MN fans were upset.
LikeLike
I’ve never understood the Penn State add. Culturally, they definitely have more in common with the east coast than the midwest.
You write as if the whole Big Ten, even the original ten, were culturally homogeneous. There are some pretty substantial differences among the original schools. How culturally similar are Michigan State and Northwestern, really? I’m not really sure if your comment is about the state or the school, but PSU absolutely resembles the major flagships in the Big Ten like Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; and western PA is culturally more like Ohio than New Jersey.
I understand that PSU is a good school–both academically and athletically (though I get sick and tired of the “we are” B.S. (Please get over yourselves, penn state)
Get a life. I don’t begrudge any school their traditions, and they shouldn’t begrudge yours.
The contrived rivalries STILL don’t make sense. That silly trophy the Gophers and the Nittany Lions play for is just that…silly… and forced.
Granted, that was not one of the league’s better ideas.
People now talk about Nebraska and PSU being rivals—gimme a break—If any B1G school has any claim to any semblance of a rivalry with Nebraska, it is Minnesota… who has played Neb far more than any other B1G school–and has the series lead.
Most of those Nebraska-Minnesota games are not in living memory, and there is no continuity that would make it seem like a rivalry (to most people), unless you look it up. Nebraska and PSU have played some epic games in more recent times that a lot of people still remember.
When you are midwest born and bred, the east coast is a very harsh reality… There are parts of the east coast that are kinda midwest (upstate New York comes to mind), but culturally, the rest of it is far from Chicago or Minneapolis, or even more-so… the rural farm and forest country of the Midwest/Great Lakes states.
As a Midwesterner who now lives on the East Coast, I have to disagree with that, at least when you state it so broadly; for instance, Chicago has much more resemblance to New York than it does to Iowa City.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You write as if the whole Big Ten, even the original ten, were culturally homogeneous. There are some pretty substantial differences among the original schools. How culturally similar are Michigan State and Northwestern, really? I’m not really sure if your comment is about the state or the school, but PSU absolutely resembles the major flagships in the Big Ten like Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Minnesota; and western PA is culturally more like Ohio than New Jersey.”
I think he was talking about the culture of the people, not the schools. And PSU has a very strong eastern influence. Even western PA isn’t officially the midwest.
“Get a life. I don’t begrudge any school their traditions, and they shouldn’t begrudge yours.”
Lots of people hate the traditions of other schools. We are …, The OSU, the tomahawk chop, etc. I see no reason why someone isn’t allowed to dislike them.
“As a Midwesterner who now lives on the East Coast, I have to disagree with that, at least when you state it so broadly; for instance, Chicago has much more resemblance to New York than it does to Iowa City.”
The difference between rural and urban is always large, and more of the east is urban than the midwest. All of the culture maps show the large differences in ethnic background, word choice, religion, politics, etc. In addition, Chicago and NYC are very different in attitude (especially in regards to how they treat the rest of the midwest). Of course they share many similarities due to being large cities, but those are more superficial in many ways.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd…
Regarding culture… I really meant more to generalize the area, rather than PSU specifically… Eastern/east central PA is definitely east coast. And, yes there certainly are differences in each state/university’s “culture”… Heck, just here in Minnesota, there’s a huge difference between the more rural out-state areas and the Twin Cities metro area… I happen to have grown up in rural SW MN farm country. I now reside near the Twin Cities. I have traveled/worked all over the country. Generally speaking, this midwestern boy did not appreciate the east coast—particularly NYC and Jersey. Upstate New Yorkers I found to have similar values/lifestyles as to what I grew up with… Generally, we as humans tend to ally with those more/most similar to ourselves… no?
Regarding various traditions… they are just that… doesn’t mean we all have to like them.
Brian…
Regarding the inaugural B1G hockey season… As a big Gopher hockey fan, there is some level of disappointment with reduced games/reduced importance with some of our historical rivals from the WCHA days. The other in-state schools and North Dakota are all big rivals—so hurts a bit. Of course, in the end, I believe that all parties knew that at some time this could happen, as the U of M is Big Ten in all other aspects (except women’s hockey at this time). Bottom line… Wisconsin is a big rival—the other B1G schools will gradually become bigger rivals as competition increases in the future… and… we happen to be playing arguably our biggest hockey rival (“The Fightin’ WHioux”) in this upcoming Frozen Four… So, all is not lost…
LikeLike
I think the upsets and close games in the B10 tournament were good for the league. If MN and WI had just waltzed into the title game, it would’ve confirmed their worst fears.
Maybe you guys can slide the Little Brown Jug over to the hockey match-up with MI and play for the Axe on the ice, too. I’m sure MN fans will enjoy dominating OSU.
LikeLike
Culturally UConn fits in better with the B1G than the ACC. It’s just not elite enough of a school. I know the ACC has some an academic lightweight in Louisville (close to UConn’s prestige), but Louisville brings it in football and basketball and is Southern as well. UConn is just some state school in the Northeast, a region where strong students don’t go to state schools.
Don’t get me wrong, I think losing any school hurts, but of all the schools in the ACC to lose Maryland was the one that hurt the least. Culturally they’re more B1G than ACC, they haven’t been strong in football or basketball except for randoms years, the best students in MD don’t go to Maryland, ACC already has DC covered with UVA/VA Tech/UNC/Duke. Trading Maryland for a Notre Dame partial and a Louisville is considered a win.
Adding Pitt and Syracuse are ‘whatevs’ to most ACC people, but we get it for market reasons and ‘Cuse brings the heat in basketball. And it seems most people consider Pitt and Syracuse decent to good academic schools, although I think once you get out of Top 40-ish schools you’re bragging about being the the smartest kid on the short bus.
Remember, prestige is not about the quality of a school. Prestige is about what others perceive to be the quality. UConn and Maryland don’t have that prestige and aren’t likely among the Top 3 choices for strong students from their own states.
LikeLike
“Culturally UConn fits in better with the B1G than the ACC. It’s just not elite enough of a school.”
“Remember, prestige is not about the quality of a school. Prestige is about what others perceive to be the quality. UConn and Maryland don’t have that prestige and aren’t likely among the Top 3 choices for strong students from their own states.”
FSU. Clemson. NCSU. VTech. Louisville.
The collective epitome of eliteness.
LikeLike
BTW, you must be 18 years old.
Once you’re 10 years older, you’ll realize that if people ever caught you saying something like you just did, they’d laugh in your face. And not for the reason you think, either.
LikeLike
As someone who attended a “Top 40-ish” school, all I can say is that you have no idea what you are talking about.
LikeLike
I stand by my statement. NC State and FSU are by no means elite, but students from that state still rank them in Top 3 in terms of choices of where they want to attend. Who wouldn’t like FSU – great football and great babes? NC State is the safety for UNC – tons of my friends went there once rejected from UNC.
I’m over 30, and I’ve lived all around the US, so I have a perspective. When I meet someone from Michigan or Northwestern I think “wow, good school, must be smart”. When I meet someone from Wisconsin I think “either smart from Wisconsin/the Midwest (but was rejected from Michigan) or a yankee who couldn’t get into their top choices”. When I meet someone from other B1G schools I think “midwest kid. may or may not be smart. at least they’re fun”. I know you guys don’t want to hear that, but that’s how East Coast people think.
Frug, my guess is if you attended a ‘Top 40-ish’ school it was like 49 or lower (yes, think about it). Some B1G school that has a great rep in the Midwest, but can’t attract people outside of Iowa or Chicago’s rejects.
LikeLike
To Richard, other than Louisville, the NC State, FSU, Clemson, VA Techs are comparable to the bottom of the B1G. But the top 10 of the ACC is ranked higher than the top 10 of the B1G so I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. No one shoots to go for the bottom school or the bottom job so check yourself.
LikeLike
I’ve lived around the country too. While the bottom of the 11 member Big 10 is not a “lot” better than Alabama or Tennessee, they are better. And they are also better than NCSU, FSU, Clemson and Virginia Tech. Noone considers those elite schools. But pretty much all the Big 10 is considered among the top public schools in the country. And while its hard to compare privates and publics, no one considers Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest or Miami, FL as elite private schools. They’re all good, but they’re not Duke, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice or Stanford or comparable to Ivy League schools.
LikeLike
At least Gundy waited until 40 to make a beneficial advantage of age claim. 😉
LikeLike
@JustSmithinIt
#29 by Times Higher Education
#25 by ARWU
#41 by USNWR
LikeLike
Oh, and my school has no problem attracting students from outside of the Midwest. In fact, it has the largest international enrollment of public school in the country and the second largest of any school behind USC.
Oh, and don’t say that’s how “East Coast people think”. It’s not.
It’s how people in Virginia (whose flagship by the way is virtually unknown to international employers), North Carolina and north of Pennsylvania think.
LikeLike
And sorry for the triple post, but where are you getting the idea that the top 10 ACC schools are better than the top 10 Big Ten schools.
According to the Times Higher Education rankings (which are easily the best ranking system since they adjust for the schools’ mission) only 4 or 5 ACC schools (depending if you count Notre Dame) outrank the 10th best Big Ten school.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14/world-ranking
LikeLike
frug,
“And sorry for the triple post, but where are you getting the idea that the top 10 ACC schools are better than the top 10 Big Ten schools.”
USN&WR, because that’s the only source his mind can handle.
“According to the Times Higher Education rankings (which are easily the best ranking system since they adjust for the schools’ mission) only 4 or 5 ACC schools (depending if you count Notre Dame) outrank the 10th best Big Ten school.”
Some stats:
THE ranks the top 400 schools in the world. All ranks given below will be ranks within the US only, but only apply to those that made the top 400 (109 total US schools).
Schools in the top 400:
ACC – 10/15 (no Clemson, FSU, NCSU, SU, UL)
B10 – 14/14
B12 – 5/10 (no OkSU, TT, Baylor, TCU, WV)
P12 – 11/12 (no OR)
SEC – 6/14 (no UK, UT, AL, AU, MS, MsSU, LSU, AR)
Ranks:
ACC – 13, 20, 28, 37, 43*, 50, 55, 69, 73, 84, NR, NR, NR, NR, NR
B10 – 14, 16, 21, 22, 27, 29, 33, 34, 40, 48, 49, 54, 63, 82
B12 – 19, 71, 84, 92, 103, NR, NR, NR, NR, NR
P12 – 3, 6, 9, 18, 36, 46, 47, 58, 59, 92, 92, NR
SEC – 42, 52, 61, 82, 84, 92, NR, NR, NR, NR, NR, NR, NR, NR
* – partial member
Also worth noting: #7 Chicago (CIC member), #11 JHU (B10 lax member)
Average rank (NR = 125/150)
B10 – 38/38
P12 – 49/51
ACC – 73/81
B12 – 99/112
SEC – 101/115
LikeLike
@Brian
In fairness, I should add that the THE does have one big problem, (it uses self reported data that not all schools provide), which explains a couple of the omissions (like Syracuse and Oregon), but even those schools wouldn’t have changed the rankings much.
LikeLike
“I know you guys don’t want to hear that, but that’s how East Coast people think.”
Oh I know how East Coast (by which you really mean the Northeast corridor) people think. I’ve lived and worked there. No where else have I’ve encountered more elitist self-important snobs (and I’ve lived in the Midwest and CA as well).
The fact of the matter, however, is that the Midwest and CA have strong public schools, so, for instance, few kids who want to becoming engineers in IL or CA would turn down UofI or one of the 2 top UC’s (respectively) for a private if they have to pay full-freight.
Outside the bubble of the Northeast corridor, you’ll find that people don’t see schools like Syracuse, Wake, BC, or Miami as being better than the good state schools in the B10, Texas, or the UC system, (and they almost always consider schools like FSU, VTech, NCSU, Clemson, and Louisville to be worse). In fact, the stereotype of a Miami or Syracuse kid is a rich kid who couldn’t get in to a good school and needed his parents to buy his way in to school.
That’s why a terrific trader who I once worked with (from Chicagoland) once made the observation that the top kids from a school like OSU are usually better than some kid from Harvard, because in Midwestern states like OH & WI, quite a few kids who could get in to an Ivy decide not to go because they figure that they can do just as well by going to OSU or UW and they’d pay much less.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“I’ll say it again, IMHO, UConn to the BIG is a no brainer.
…
Great basketball schools should always have a seat at the table
…
UConn unquestionably has the best 1-2 basketball program in the country & it’s not even close. Such a remarkable quality took years of dedication and hard work & why it’s not a part of this conference or, hold on I’m about to throw up, the ACC – is just absurd. Football has way too much say in this matter & again, the AAU thing is overrated. CT has the resources & will to make UConn a premier flagship in decades to come. Delany loves to talk long game, but fails to see this reality.”
You seem to bounce back and forth between what you think should happen and what will happen. Are you talking about what should happen in your ideal world or in this one?
If you feel CFB is overvalued and MBB undervalued, that’s certainly a valid opinion. The same with the merit of AAU membership as a criterion. But all the evidence shows CFB is valued much more highly and that AAU is all but required, so we generally speculate accordingly.
Maybe in your ideal world, the B10 would have grown more like this:
11. SU
12. UConn
13. KU
14. MO
Certainly my ideal B10 would be different than the current one.
But we added PSU and then NE, and the COP/C said football, AAU and demographics were key to future expansion.
Given that, why would we take UConn as a serious candidate now? Why did the ACC also pass on them?
LikeLike
Bring on UConn.
At least they’ve won 2 NCs since 2000.
AAU = overrated & I went and graduated from 2 of them – it’s just overstatement by a bunch of elites..
They’d be a fine addition.
Those of you who don’t want them are just whining over tougher competition on the hardwood.
The ACC had no problem adding Lville, which is a lesser school than UConn, academically, all fronts. The BIG already has more AAU schools than any other conference & by good doses. The AAU is not some static organization & universities do inevitably get added to it.
The ACC gets slammed for its football, but they just won a NC & didn’t choke against the SEC. They also have better football recruits to draw from, if they can beat out SEC schools in some years – but at least they have local access.
UConn brings proven quality and another great rivalry in the making, esp to the eastern BIG schools.
UConn, UConn, UConn.
LikeLike
AAU = overrated & I went and graduated from 2 of them – it’s just overstatement by a bunch of elites.
Even if true, it’s the elites who make the decisions, not us.
The ACC had no problem adding Lville, which is a lesser school than UConn, academically, all fronts.
The ACC had just lost Maryland, and needed to get back up to even numbers. Louisville was the best choice available at the time, better than (ahem!) UConn. The Big Ten has no need to expand, much less to take a school that even the more-desperate ACC passed over.
The ACC gets slammed for its football, but they just won a NC & didn’t choke against the SEC.
The ACC gets slammed because its football inventory has a lot of dead wood. They have FSU, but their median is a lot lower than the SEC or even the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Marc,
I don’t agree about ACC football.
Clemson beat OSU.
Many of their schools are based in states with tremendous talent pipelines – sure they have SEC competition. What FSU did last year could be the shape of things to come. Miami can’t stay down for too much longer, Clemson is knocking on the door. I don’t buy ND’s hype, but they did play in the previous BCS title game & the ACC, despite a selective schedule, simply gives them exposure in talent rich states: Fl, Ga, and to some degree Va, NC, & SC. All these states exceed much of the BIG’s hs footprint in terms of talent – sure Oh, Pa, NJ and Md offer talent, but Fl and Ga alone are above anything the BIG offers. I’m not sure about Il or Mi hs football, but the they’ve certainly declined over the past 20 years & Illinois can’t seem to ever lock down its state in either of the big 2: hoops & football.
Moreover, the BCS era is over. 4 teams have a shot to win it all now, which is also good for the BIG. But a school like OSU simply pisses on themselves against the SEC & even the power ACC schools, minus Miami. OSU has choked against Clemson in at least two big games I can think of & there goes Woody Hayes, and I distinctly remember them getting train wrecked by a Bowden FSU team. Other BIG programs need to step up. The Buckeyes history is worthy and deserving of respect, but they are chokers & Urban doesn’t have Fl talent to pluck from.
LikeLike
gfunk,
You completely sidestepped the entire question, I noticed.
“AAU = overrated & I went and graduated from 2 of them – it’s just overstatement by a bunch of elites..”
Overrated in your opinion. Or are you claiming we are overrating it in comparison to how important it actually is to the COP/C? Because they seem to value it highly, and their opinions are the only ones that actually matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities
A spokesman for nonmember University of Connecticut called it “perhaps the most elite organization in higher education. You’d probably be hard-pressed to find a major research university that didn’t want to be a member of the AAU.”
“Those of you who don’t want them are just whining over tougher competition on the hardwood.”
You can’t have it both ways. Earlier you said we only care about football, and now we’re afraid of hoops competition. If we only care about football, why would we worry about hoops competition? If we care about hoops competition, then how can we only care about football?
Your hoops argument might make sense if it was IN/PU/IL fans leading the charge against UConn, not fans of football schools. The only one supporting UConn besides you is an IN fan.
“The ACC had no problem adding Lville, which is a lesser school than UConn, academically, all fronts.”
If UL was lesser on all fronts, the ACC wouldn’t have chosen them. They are much better in FB and that got them invited. Their academics are much worse and they aren’t near a major metropolis, but still they got the nod over UConn. Because FB means that much more than hoops in the real world.
“The AAU is not some static organization & universities do inevitably get added to it.”
They’ve stated that they aren’t looking to get bigger. Four schools left or got booted in the past 15 years and 4 others were added, for no net change. UConn is ranked on par with the next schools most likely to get the boot, not the most likely additions.
“The ACC gets slammed for its football,”
Because their BCS history was terrible (5-13) among other things.
“but they just won a NC & didn’t choke against the SEC.”
That’s 1 team in 1 season, not an entire conference.
LikeLike
Btw, Brian, I don’t even read your posts anymore. I see you tag my alias and then your typical rant just gets blurry and I move on.
LikeLike
I don’t agree about ACC football.
Clemson beat OSU.
You can always find single games that buck the trend. Add up many dozens of games over the last 10-20 years, and get back to me.
Many of their schools are based in states with tremendous talent pipelines – sure they have SEC competition.
And that’s their problem: in the best recruiting states where they overlap the SEC, they generally have the less-desired school.
What FSU did last year could be the shape of things to come. Miami can’t stay down for too much longer, Clemson is knocking on the door.
FSU will probably always be a king, but go back and read what I said. The ACC’s problem is that their median is low, brought down by the likes of Duke, Wake Forest, etc. That would likely be true even if Miami returns and Clemson finally busts down that door.
LikeLike
No matter what happens in the second game, I have to think UConn is hard to beat at this point, with the way they’ve handled Florida tonight.
LikeLike
Florida was overrated Transic. The bottom half of the SEC crashed in the NIT, the top 3 teams were no doubt worthy and they proved to belong in this tourney. But, UK nearly beat them in the conference tourney & the way Ky is playing right now, I had them by double digits in a re-match. I just couldn’t buy Florida’s run to the FF – no enough major challenges – not exactly their fault. Most of the premier teams in that bracket were limping into the tourney, lacked experience, or had truly obvious flaws (Syracuse, OSU, KU, UCLA, etc.).
A UConn-Wisky NCG is very interesting to me, but it probably favors UConn – but Jim Jackson’s kid is quietly impressing me & the Brust kid could come out of left field. The Badger’s backcourt is something that could actually frustrate UConn. If Ky, esp the Harrison twins, continue to elevate – their length may be the biggest challenge UConn has faced in the tourney. But man, UConn has at least two players with a NC, people forget this fact. They are no longer under the radar. And they are just gold in the Final Four – they’e still only lost one game in the Final Four – Sparty 2009.
PS Could we have a 7 vs an 8? Doubt that has ever happened.
LikeLike
The thing about Kentucky is they have 5 freshmen starters so you can’t really look at their body of work and expect it to be predictive of how they’re playing now. They’ve grown up over the course of teh season adn are playing their best ball now.
I think Florida’s 30 game win streak made them overconfident. I think they were partly a victim of not running into enough resistance over the course of the year. The SEC needs to get better at basketball.
LikeLike
Florida looked pretty dominant the first 9 minutes-16 to 4. Then they just couldn’t find the hoop the rest of the game.
LikeLike
Wisky on serious danger alert here. This is exactly how you beat them – get a lead and take away the rebounds and clamp down on D.
LikeLike
Wow! This may turn into the game of the tourney. At least I hope.
LikeLike
Which team is the ghost of Adolph Rupp rooting for? Kentucky or White Wisconsin?
LikeLike
That’s just brutal Wainscott. But I’m laughing right now. Don’t forget the light skin Blacks, likely bi-racial kids Ryan recruits.
LikeLike
Rupp had a name for those kids, too…
LikeLike
Maybe you should keep a comment like that to yourself next time….
LikeLike
Next time, keep a comment like that to yourself.
LikeLike
What’s wrong with poking fun at a racist basketball coach? He’s the one who hated blacks, not me.
LikeLike
It’s not something to poke fun at. Lots of people suffered mightily from people like Rupp.
You would be wise to remember that going forward.
LikeLike
Seriously? So my mocking an racist is somehow condoning racism? Come on.
LikeLike
Well that was a great game. Again, and SEC king gets the victory over a BIG team. This isn’t getting old, it’s getting routine.
LikeLike
Interesting how they have a Kentucky broadcast-TBS, Wisconsin broadcast-TrueTV and a neutral one. Curious how the others covered that foul with 16 seconds left. The Kentucky broadcast was pointing out how the WI player took a couple steps with each foot and then jumped into the UK player. Rex Chapman was not happy. WI was nearly perfect. Their only miss of the night (19-20) at the free throw line cost them. They just didn’t miss open 3s either.
LikeLike
That miss didn’t really cost them but maybe an OT, which Ky was better positioned to win. I mean after they hit that 3, it just seems like fate at this point – 3 games in a row. Wow!
And though I wanted Wisconsin to win, Jackson travelled on that 3 point attempt – I mean he clearly TRAVELLED.
One thing about the last two teams: destiny is strong in each of their corners. Who will be the next team to join Duke as 4x NCs in the Modern Era? UConn, especially, has overcome huge odds to get here, though they’ve stayed the course of traditional basketball power. But they got left in the cold during expansion & none of these current players was responsible for the actions that led to the sanctions.
Both teams will have at least 2 players with previous NC experience. Yes, remember UConn won it all in 2011. Giffney (<– misspelled) and Napier have rings, for sure. Someone on the Ky bench was there in 2012.
LikeLike
Polson and Hood for KY.
LikeLike
Got to hand it to Jim Nantz, he inadvertently cursed Jackson – like father like son. Dad goes down to the Fab Five, son goes down to the Ky Five, or whatever they are called. Hey but at least Ky did this to Louisville as well.
LikeLike
Basketball Hell…………….I just can’t stand those MFers. God must hate college basketball.
LikeLike
No, she just values it one fourth as much as CFB. 🙂
LikeLike
gfunk could you show us on the Brutus doll where the bad man touched you? Good lord dude.
LikeLike
I hope that part of the reason why neither the ACC nor the Big 10 embrace UConn is due to abysmal graduation rate (10%?) in their MBB and the stain that continues to be associated with its program. I believe they still are the only P5 school banned from the NCAA Div. 1 Tournament due to its low APR — which is a low bar to set expectations. In fact the UConn vs. Kentucky final is not too attractive for these reasons — “all that is good and great about MBB” — where is the James Earl Jones cue?
There must be a situation in which the Big 10 makes a value judgment that is not about the value of tier 1 cable subscribers. The UConn case is a very low bar that I expect the Big 10 to clear — it should be an easy one.
LikeLike
I hope that part of the reason why neither the ACC nor the Big 10 embrace UConn is due to abysmal graduation rate…
I suspect UConn was already disqualified on a host of issues more important to the league: a small, fairly stagnant market; a smaller student body and worse academics than the rest of the Big Ten; and a poor football program.
Had it qualified on those issues, the graduation rate in men’s basketball might have been a concern. Right now, even a squeaky-clean basketball program wouldn’t get UConn into the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I hope you are wrong. I guess I have more confidence in the Big 10 Presidents.
UConn had a zero graduation rate last year (not the 10% I thought it had). This is the beacon on the hill that would draw the Big 10 to accept it? I hope that this performance — over a decade — would be a deal breaker not a minor consideration.
LikeLike
What I meant, is that because UConn fails to qualify on structural grounds, the B1G would not even have reached the point of considering graduation rates.
I was not saying that their poor graduation rate is a minor issue in itself, only that it’s not something they would have looked at because they never got that far.
LikeLike
This is a terrible showing for “college” athletics – UConn, which got banned for not graduating players, and UK, which should be (and has a coach who was was stripped of two national titles for recruiting violations). Maybe we should do what Bobby Knight’s advocated and take away a scholarship for each player that doesn’t graduate.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/fitting_ncaa_tournament_final.html#incart_river
An article that says the same thing.
LikeLike
UConn to the BIG. Love it. Not a damn thing you can say that will change my opinion. Whether it happens or not.
In other interesting facts: BIG still w/o a national championship since 2000. I don’t even want to talk about women’s basketball.
And the state of Michigan just lost their player of the year to UGa, in part because they didn’t even bother to offer the kid until way after the fact.
LikeLike
I don’t really care about your opinion. It’s the sudden slide into unstable childlike behavior that concerns me. Is everything OK at home?
LikeLike
UGA announced 2 midwestern signees. One they were competing against Michigan. The other they were competing against Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
LikeLike
gfunk,
The Big Ten is one of, if not the, best basketball conferences in the country. Very easily, this league could win 5 of the next 10 championships. It does not need UConn or Kansas in order to be validated.
Remember that the Big East went from 1985 to 1999 without winning a national title. Were the late 80’s and the 90’s just a bunch of awful years for Big East basketball? Nope. It was still one of the best leagues, probably #1 or #2 with the ACC during that era. Sure enough, it garnered 5 titles from ’99 to ’13, and only one of those titles was from a team it added (Louisville). With a league so strong that Purdue, which was a top five team just a few years ago, is the worst team in the league, it’s just a matter of time before someone goes all the way.
Heck, should I be freaking out for the ACC because this is the fourth straight year with no ACC teams in the Final Four, and only one team made the Sweet 16? Nope. The league has the programs to make it strong in this sport for the long haul. Same goes for the Big Ten. It’s the Big East and the AAC which should feel insecure because there’s so little history behind many of their teams. In the Big East’s case, exposure on FS1 is a struggle, and for the AAC, their best teams are a threat to move to other leagues. Long-term health is a concern for them. The Big Ten will be fine.
The Big Ten is loaded with power. It’s just that the NCAA tournament is a combination of skill and luck. We have a #7 and #8 seed playing for the title, for goodness’ sake!
LikeLike
It is truly amazing how little most things change. Concerns for safety, professionalism, alumni influence, FB money, etc were all concerns that pre date the 20th century. A 2003 Harvard Crimson article provides an entertaining/informative view of a history most mistakenly deem irrelevant to FB today.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/first-and-100.html
LikeLike
In honor of gfunk, let’s look at idealized expansion scenarios.
Starting point: roughly 1991, but with a beefed up BE and no Temple
ACC = UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT
BE = BC, RU, SU, Pitt, WV, VT, Miami, UConn, UC, UL
B8 = OU, OkSU, CO, NE, MO, ISU, KU, KSU
B10 = WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI, MSU, OSU
P10 = UW, WSU, OR, OrSU, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, AZ, ASU
SEC = LSU, MS, MsSU, AL, AU, UGA, UF, UK, UT, Vandy
SWC = UT, TAMU, TT, Baylor, Rice, UH, SMU, TCU, AR
Ind. = ND, PSU, FSU, SC, etc
Requirements:
1. State what assumptions you’re making if you change from reality (MBB = FB in importance, TV $ is irrelevant, academics don’t matter, etc).
2. The NCAA’s current CCG rules still apply unless that was one of your changes under #1
My preferences:
1. The 12 team CCG loophole is never found/exploited.
2. TV money doesn’t get so big.
3. The SWC gets their cheating under control.
ACC = UMD, UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT, FSU
BE = BC, RU, SU, Pitt, WV, Miami, UConn, UC, UL, PSU
B8 = OU, OkSU, CO, NE, MO, ISU, KU, KSU, Utah, BYU, Boise
B10 = WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN, MI, MSU, OSU
P10 = UW, WSU, OR, OrSU, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, AZ, ASU
SEC = LSU, MS, MsSU, AL, AU, UGA, UF, UK, UT, Vandy, SC
SWC = UT, TAMU, TT, Baylor, Rice, UH, SMU, TCU, AR
Ind. = ND, etc
I think it would be a lot more interesting to see these more regional conferences and not have CCGs everywhere.
LikeLike
ACC = UMD, UVA, UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF, Clemson, GT, Florida State
CUSA = Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern, Rice, Tulane, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville
B8 = NE, MO, KU, WI, IA, MN, IL, IN, MI, OSU
Big East = Penn State, BC, RU, SU, Pitt, WV, VT, Miami, UConn
PAC = UW, WSU, OR, OrSU, Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC
SEC = LSU, MS, MsSU, AL, AU, UGA, UF, UK, UT, Vandy
SWC = UT, TAMU, TT, Houston, AR, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State
WAC = Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, BYU, Colorado, SMU, TCU, Baylor
LikeLike
agreed about more regional conferences.
i wonder if in 10 years the old football playing BigEast has thoughts
about getting the band back together:
10 teams:
partial ND, Louisville, Cinci, Pitt, WV, Navy, Temple, UConn, BC, Cuse.
I’ll be curious how Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC gel into the ACC over
the next 10 years. In the near term, the ACC would be smart to split
divisions OldBigEast/Wake and OldACC to get more rivalries.
LikeLike
Here’s my 1991 conference expansion. 7 conferences of 10. 70 BCS schools. Each with 2 private schools except for Big 8 w/ just BYU.
Big East
Boston College. Connecticut. Syracuse. Rutgers. Penn State
Pittsburgh. West Virginia. Cincinnati. Kentucky. Louisville
Loses Va Tech in Miami to ACC, kicks out Temple, adds king Penn St & 3 Appalachia schools.
Atlantic Coast
Maryland. Virginia. Virginia Tech. North Carolina. North Carolina State
Duke. Clemson. Georgia Tech. Florida State. Miami
Loses Wake since they don’t need 4 NC schools. Adds 2 schools in Florida & a 2nd in Virginia.
Southeastern
Florida. Georgia. South Carolina. Wake Forest. Tennessee
Vanderbilt. Alabama. Auburn. Mississippi. Mississippi State
Loses outliers Kentucky & LSU so becomes more southeastern with Sakerlina & Wake from the Carolinas.
Southwest
Louisiana State. Memphis. Arkansas. Oklahoma. Oklahoma State
Texas. Texas A&M. Texas Christian. Texas Tech. Baylor
Kicks out Rice, Houston, SMU. Expands small footprint into 3 states with both Oklahoma schools, LSU & Memphis.
Big Ten
Ohio State. Michigan. Michigan State. Notre Dame. Purdue
Indiana. Illinois. Northwestern. Wisconsin. Minnesota
Trades Iowa for Notre Dame. Could get Penn State instead of ND.
Big 8 (renamed Midwest Conference – MWC)
Iowa. Iowa State. Missouri. Kansas. Kansas State
Nebraska. Colorado. Utah. Brigham Young. Boise State
Loses both Oklahoma schools that wanted to play in Texas so expands w/ 3 west schools & Iowa joins in-state rival.
Pacific 10
Arizona. Arizona State. UCLA. USC. California
Stanford. Oregon. Oregon State. Washington. Washington State
Stays the same.
With no championship games, I’d give each conference champion an automatic birth into the College Football Playoff & take the best at-large team for an Elite 8. Play those 4 games at BCS sites (Orange, Peach, Cotton, Fiesta) & the winners play at the other 2 BCS sites (Rose, Sugar) & the Championship played at highest bidding city.
LikeLike
I like the 12 team conferences and ccgs, but not the 14+ team conferences. 12 still feels like one conference and you play everyone fairly frequently.
So based on 1991, the 3 Cal schools who dropped fb still drop and I allow 5 post 91 moveups-UMass, UConn, UCF, USF and Buffalo, to represent under-represented or growing areas.
Pac 12
UW, WSU, OU, OSU, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, UA, ASU + Colorado and Hawaii
WAC
SDSU, FSU, Utah, BYU, Wyoming, Colorado St., New Mexico, UTEP + UNLV, Utah ST., NMSU and San Jose St.
Big 12
Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Houston, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Nebraska, Iowa St.
SEC
LSU, UM, MSU, AL, Auburn, UF, UGA, TN, UK, + S. Carolina, La Tech, Memphis
Magnolia
Rice, TCU, Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, Air Force, Army, Navy, Tulane, Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt
Big 10
IA, MN, WI, IL, NW, IU, PU, MSU, UM, tOSU + Notre Dame and Pitt (Penn St. is out to strengthen the east)
East-the hodgepodge conference
BC, Syracuse, Temple, Rutgers, Penn St., UMass, UConn, UCF, USF, E. Carolina, Southern Miss, UL-L.
MAC
NIU, BSU, WMU, EMU, CMU, Toledo, BGSU, Miami, Ohio, Kent, Akron, Buffalo
ACC
FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, UVA, VT, MD, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville
LikeLike
For Brian, Greg, and other wrestling fans: a dramatic change in how the team national championship will be decided. There will be a national dual tournament before the standard three day individual tournament. Points will be accrued by participating, advancing placing and winning the dual tournament that will carry over to the standard tournament. I like it. Duals use to be much more important, but over the decades (same with other individual sports) it’s become almost strictly how you do the final weekend of the year.
Click to access DI-M-Wrestling-Bracket-Dual-Champ-Scoring-Model-20140401.pdf
LikeLike
Although I may be making a big assumption that the D1 wrestling committe recommendation is adopted…
If it is 2016 would be the first year it would be in effect
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of the idea at all. If you want to expand the national duals, go right ahead but keep it separate from the tournament. Wrestling is finally getting to the point where the field is leveling out. Moving to that sword of hybrid format will just tilt it back in favor of 2-3 programs & make the scoring less competitive.
LikeLike
…replace ‘sword’ with ‘type’ (or ‘sort’).
LikeLike
The field hasn’t hardly changed in 50 years (other than losing nearly half of the D1programs). The focus on the season has shortened from months – to three days in March. I doubt this will alter the contenders, unless they chose to skip and deprive themselves of those points. March Madness is not just about the final weekend. Other sports shouldn’t be reduced to a single weekend of relevance, either.
LikeLike
So we should spread out the Track & Field or Swimming/Diving championships over a month because that’s how basketball does it? I don’t find that to be a compelling argument.
This move will just further unbalance the field. The smaller teams with one or two really good wrestlers are going to be hurt because they don’t have the overall depth of the big programs like Iowa, PSU, Oklahoma St or Minnesota.
How about we focus on actually improving the quality of wrestling rather than implementing gimmicks to placate ESPN?
LikeLike
“So we should spread out the Track & Field or Swimming/Diving championships over a month because that’s how basketball does it?”
We should re emphasize the dual in track, also. As with wrestling dual meets use to be an integral part of the season and drew far more fans. Coaches job evaluations use to not simply be based on end of season performance. Today they are practices held in different workout gear.
“This move will just further unbalance the field.”
You can’t “further” anything that isn’t occurring. Cael and others were to boycott these duals (he, and others have declined to participate several years) because it doesn’t fit their preparation for nationals (as they have been scored until now). The dual is fan friendly, as opposed to two/three day, all day, into the night tournaments. Much like with FB games, this plan should make every formerly meaningless dual a part of reaching and effecting what kind of post season success the team has (Minny upseting UNL or PSU in FB isn’t simply a meaningless scrimmage). Interest will be higher.
“How about we focus on actually improving the quality of wrestling rather than implementing gimmicks to placate ESPN?”
We lose very many more programs and there won’t be anything left to improve the quality of.
If getting coverage is a gimmick it is one I don’t see a huge downside to. I’m not a fan of the mothership, but in this case our interests align strongly.
LikeLike
“We should re emphasize the dual in track, also.”
Why?
You are arguing moving to the basketball model would make the regularly season more important while at the same time admitting that the NCAA tournament has completely devalued the regular season. That does not follow.
“As with wrestling dual meets use to be an integral part of the season and drew far more fans.”
This past season PSU set a new single match attendance record of almost 16K (breaking the previous record set in 2008). Iowa was the first school to have three matches draw more than 10K. Combined it was the first time there has been four matches viewed by more than 10K in a single season.
Since 2010 eleven programs have set individual attendance records (Bloomsburg, Boston, Bucknell, Chattanooga, Nebraska, Ohio State, Penn State, Rider, Rutgers, Utah Valley & Virginia Tech), nine more set records between 05-09 (CMU, Cornell, Hofstra, Illinois, Iowa, Lehigh, Missouri, Old Dominion & UC Davis) & five others set records more recently than 2000 (Fresno St, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma St & Penn).
“Coaches job evaluations use to not simply be based on end of season performance.”
And they still aren’t. Tim Flynn is never going to lose his job for not winning national titles.
“Today they are practices held in different workout gear.”
How many dual meets have you attended over the past few years? I’ve been going to dual meets for 30 years and that hasn’t been my experience.
“You can’t “further” anything that isn’t occurring.”
What exactly do you believe isn’t occuring? Despite PSU’s strong run over the past few years wrestling is far more competitive than it was 20 or 30 years.
“Cael and others were to boycott these duals (he, and others have declined to participate several years) because it doesn’t fit their preparation for nationals (as they have been scored until now).”
I don’t care what Sanderson does or doesn’t do.
I do however care about the All-American caliber wrestlers on small team who will have sit idle for a month while this scheme is being employed.
“The dual is fan friendly, as opposed to two/three day, all day, into the night tournaments.”
Have you ever been to nationals? Fans flock to it in droves. They make plans years in advance to attend.
Why do you believe another dual meet between Olahoma St & Edinboro (only) will grow attendance?
“Much like with FB games, this plan should make every formerly meaningless dual a part of reaching and effecting what kind of post season success the team has (Minny upseting UNL or PSU in FB isn’t simply a meaningless scrimmage).”
All those ‘meaningless’ duals already have an effect on the post season as they directly influence seeding.
“Interest will be higher.”
Show me actual evidence of that being true.
“We lose very many more programs and there won’t be anything left to improve the quality of.”
As I’ve already pointed out. Interest in wrestling has been on the upswing for a number of years.
LikeLike
I’ve been attending duals since the 60’s and NCAA’s randomly since the 70’s beginning at U Wash [program cut] and , U Az [program cut]. I’m fully aware of the stats, attendance, demographics, etc of the sport. 35 years of watching programs dropped suggests pockets of avid support in strong wrestling areas says nothing about the overall health of the sport. You do realize UVU was a CC about a decade ago, and two other attendance records you cite (Freso St and UC Davis) got dropped. BC is at risk and VT was deciding whether or not to drop when they went big and hired Brands.
“You are arguing moving to the basketball model would make the regularly season more important while at the same time admitting that the NCAA tournament has completely devalued the regular season.”
In a continuum wrestling has gone far past the basketball model. 3 or 4 weeks of relevance is still 2 or 3 more than wrestling has now. But no, I’d hope its more like the FB model in that even early conference duals would be meaningful for reaching the dual tournament for the teams ranked in the teens, twenties, and even the thirties.
“This past season PSU set a new single match attendance record of almost 16K (breaking the previous record set in 2008).”
I applaud that. (How’s ISU’s attendance been since Cael left?) this is what the sport as a whole needs have seen on TV, during the year, not just one weekend in March. BTN, P12N and some regional nets have been expanding coverage. Now ESPN has moved tournament coverage from condensed, tape delayed finals only to all session TV coverage, semi session and final session live on main ESPN channel, and every individual match streamed live. Much as the B1G will need to be involved with the WWL in sports come new contract time having ESPN interested in wrestling events beyond just three days is a huge promotional/visibility boost. And the duals isn’t simply an idea of their’s. Several attempts, as you know, have had modest success. But they lack the imperative that the NCAA now would provide. And ESPN is willing to contribute to the effort.
I do agree with the down time issue for teams not involved. But there are potential solutions, and the up side (to me) out weighs the down.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“I don’t care what Sanderson does or doesn’t do.”
I think it’s a problem when elite teams skip the national duals to focus on the nationals. Maybe combining them isn’t the right approach, but how about requiring the top teams to participate or their wrestlers are ineligible for the nationals? That way you get a true dual champ and still have the nationals as always.
“I do however care about the All-American caliber wrestlers on small team who will have sit idle for a month while this scheme is being employed.”
You think it’ll take a month? They wrestle twice a day or more in the nationals. A 24 team duals setup could be a long weekend:
Friday night – Round 1 (16 teams compete to face the 8 teams with byes)
Saturday morning – Sweet Sixteen
Saturday night – Elite 8
Sunday morning – Final Four
Sunday night – 3rd place and Finals
The next weekend, have the nationals.
“Show me actual evidence of that being true.”
I don’t think anyone can without trying it first. That’s the only source of evidence.
“As I’ve already pointed out. Interest in wrestling has been on the upswing for a number of years.”
Apparently ESPN’s telecast got 40% better ratings this year than last year.
LikeLike
http://www.intermatwrestle.com/articles/13144
An interesting and somewhat relevant article and mailbag, including this:
Q: At this point, less than a whole week after the 2014 NCAAs finished up, who are your NCAA finalists in each weight class and your top five team finishers in 2015?
— Nick M.
Foley: This all depends on the rule changes in the offseason. If riding time, stalling and out of bounds are amended then this will need to be updated. But assuming that a more aggressive style of the sport will be called …
125: Jesse Delgado (Illinois) vs. Thomas Gilman (Iowa)
133: A.J. Schopp (Edinboro) vs. Cory Clark (Iowa)
141: Logan Stieber (Ohio State) vs. Devin Carter (Virginia Tech)
149: Jason Tsirtsis (Northwestern) vs. Hunter Stieber (Ohio State)
157: James Green (Nebraska) vs. Dylan Ness (Minnesota)
165: Alex Dieringer (Oklahoma State) vs. Nick Sulzer (Virginia)
174: Taylor Massa (Michigan) vs. Bob Kokesh (Nebraska)
184: Gabe Dean (Cornell) vs. Max Thomusseit (Pittsburgh)
197: J’den Cox (Missouri) vs. Kyle Snyder (Ohio State)
285: Nick Gwiazdowski (North Carolina State) vs. Mike McMullan (Northwestern)
Top five teams: 1. Iowa 2. Penn State 3. Ohio State 4. Minnesota 5. Oklahoma State
LikeLike
While PSU has won 4 straight national titles, Iowa has won 6 of the last 7 Big Ten Dual titles, so this change will help us realize who the great team truly is.
* tongue in cheek
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“For Brian, Greg, and other wrestling fans: a dramatic change in how the team national championship will be decided. There will be a national dual tournament before the standard three day individual tournament. Points will be accrued by participating, advancing placing and winning the dual tournament that will carry over to the standard tournament. I like it. Duals use to be much more important, but over the decades (same with other individual sports) it’s become almost strictly how you do the final weekend of the year.”
Here’s an article about it.
http://hawkcentral.com/2013/06/13/ncaa-proposal-would-radically-alter-wrestling-championships/
I do like the general concept of making duals more important. It’s odd to see a team sport change into an individual sport for the championship. It also stresses quality depth over having 1 or 2 elite wrestlers. From the scoring, it looks like the individual results would matter about twice as much as the duals which is a decent starting place.
Will they let the conferences do the same thing (maybe just the top 4 teams)? It’s be interesting to see conference dual championships leading into the nationals.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how other states do this, but Minn HS wrestling does team duals for state team championship, and then individual championship for top 2 wrestlers from each division’s regions.
I probably am biased… But, am glad to see this, as the Golden Gopher wrestling program has been dominant over the years in duals competition… 3 NWCA duals titles in a row, 7 total…
As a former wrestler myself, IMHO, the team mano-a-mano concept is a more pure form of determining a team champion—your team, top to bottom, head-to-head against my team…
One negative is it does mean more matches that may potentially impact the individuals tournament (i.e. chance for injury, etc)
LikeLike
Some pretty pointed comments by Bowlsby about the NCAA:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685266.html
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24517017/ncaa-class-warfare-closer-bcs-types-push-low-revenue-schools-away
A full article about it.
LikeLike
Is there a legislative limit to the number of games an NCAA basketball team is allowed to play? I know there can be no games earlier than a particular date in the fall, but is there a limit on the total number of games, as there is in football?
LikeLike
Yes.
LikeLike
From the NCAA manual:
17.3.5 Number of Contests.
17.3.5.1 Maximum Limitations—Institutional. An institution shall limit its total regular-season playing schedule with outside competition in basketball during the playing season to one of the following (except for those contests excluded under Bylaw 17.3.5.3): (Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)
(a) 27 contests (games or scrimmages) and one qualifying regular-season multiple-team event per Bylaw 17.3.5.1.1; or
(b) 29 contests (games or scrimmages) during a playing season in which the institution does not participate in a qualifying regular-season multiple-team event.
That’s for the regular season. The conference tourney and 1 postseason tourney (NCAA, NIT, CBI) don’t count against the limit.
LikeLike
Is it still 2 preseason tournaments over a four year period, on top of those limits?
LikeLike
Those count as part of the regular season, and you can go to one every year if you want, but not the same one more than once every 4 years.
LikeLike
Thanks for the update. I looked it up after the fact and saw the 2 in 4 rule was stricken a few years back, after only a few years in place to begin with.
LikeLike
Thanks…I knew it had to be somewhere. It might be interesting to compare the “season inflation” in both football and basketball.
In 1976, the Indiana Hoosiers completed a perfect season with a 32-0 record, the last team to have accomplished that feat. This year, Wichita State had a chance to do the same, but they would have needed to go 40-0, a 25% increase in the number of games the perfect Indiana team played.
In 1976, the maximum number of football games was 12 (not counting the Hawaii exception, which very few can take advantage of). The maximum number of football games has now expanded to 15 if you play in a CCG, and then in both rounds of the playoff. Coincidentally, it’s the same 25% increase.
I haven’t done the math, but I suspect the basketball inflation has been greater, in that there are more teams that can take advantage of the extra games that have been added over the years.
LikeLike
I saw somewhere online that the max number of games a team could play in a season was 43, playing all games in a pre-season tourney, a full regular season, playing all rounds (without byes) in a conference tournament, and playing all rounds in the NCAA tourney, including the final game. (though, I don’t know if this includes the play in games/first round).
LikeLike
Michigan hosting Penn State in first night conference game at the Big House:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24517928/michigan-to-host-penn-st-in-big-houses-first-big-ten-night-game
7pm, ESPN/ESPN2 on October 11th.
Two night games at the Big House this year (UND the other).
LikeLike
The Michigan-Notre Dame game is in South Bend.
LikeLike
Ah, ok.
I got that from the article: “The game will also mark the first time the Wolverines will ever play two night games at home in the same season; the Notre Dame game scheduled for Sept. 6 will also be played in primetime.”
LikeLike
Rutgers AD continues to prove she has no business holding the job.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/college-sports/story/_/id/10743947/rutgers-athletic-director-julie-hermann-bashes-ailing-new-jersey-newspaper
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/04/julie_hermann_it_would_be_great_if_the_star-ledger_went_out_of_business.html
The Star-Ledger laid off 167 people last week, the latest round of devastating cuts in a struggling industry. They were advertising execs and business writers, clerks and copy editors. Some had worked at the newspaper for decades. Most have families and mortgages.
It was, for anyone who works here – or, for that matter, anyone with an ounce of compassion – an awful couple days.
Clearly, it wasn’t for Julie Hermann. She must have been tickled, because this is the same woman who stood up in front of a class of journalism students a few weeks ago and said it would be “great” if the newspaper died.
LikeLike
Eh, I think its much ado about nothing. Not exactly earth-shattering that someone in a position of authority would dislike the press.
I think her qualifications for the job are wanting, but for other reasons (such as verbally abusing her players when UT’s volleyball coach)
LikeLike
I disagree. That paper has had a never-ending string of anti-Hermann articles and a lot of anti-Rutgers coverage. Many RU fans comment about the quality, quantity and tone of their coverage on other blogs. I think she has a right to express the opinion that it would be great for RU and her if that paper died.
LikeLike
Not sure why the Ledger just doesn’t focus on newsworthy events. It’s as if they search for negative stories about RU. There must be a faction of its readers that dislike the big public university or there is an axe to grind. Either way that certainly doesn’t seem to make good business sense. For the most part here in Wisconsin the newspapers like to pump a lot of sunshine on the big public universities in Milwaukee or Madison. Less attention on the smaller public schools.
Rutgers is better off hiring an existing or former sports writer and publish positive stories about the athletics department.
LikeLike
http://www.onthebanks.com/2014/4/7/5591196/rutgers-football-julie-hermanns-war
While her frustration with the paper may be palpable, she has to know how the press is going to handle this. A public figure cannot be saying these things. She has to know better.
Julie hasn’t just declared war on the Star Ledger, she’s declared war on sports reporters/reporters/newspapers in general. When you say you want one to die, it’s not a huge leap of logic to hope they all die. Julie Hermann has essentially turned all reporters against her.
LikeLike
Except they are dead wrong. It is a huge leap of logic to jump from one newspaper to all media everywhere.
OTB has been anti-Hermann from day 1, too. Some of their own readers called out the editor/writer for it because it got so blatant.
LikeLike
Well, RU has decided to respond by hiring Tom Luicci to be their Senior Director of Digital Media.
http://www.scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=14725#.U0cHyvldXh4
LikeLike
Or, he’s leaving a sinking ship.
LikeLike
Here’s the full audio of her lecture, which was recorded on February 27:
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/04/ohio_legislators_seek_to_asser.html
Some Ohio legislators assert that college athletes aren’t employees.
“I think this is a statement of what we all thought was obvious, and that is athletes are not employees of their university,” said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican.
A final committee vote on the legislation, House Bill 483, is expected on Tuesday. The measure would then have to pass the full House before heading to the Senate for consideration.
LikeLike
Coach Calipari is rumored to be the next Lakers coach
LikeLike
Digger Phelps retiring from ESPN.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/new-york/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10745611/manhattan-jaspers-keep-coach-steve-masiello
Manhattan retains their coach, but he’s on unpaid leave until he finishes his degree this summer.
LikeLike
If, say, Western Illinois or CSU, hired Simeon’s basketball coach, Robert Smith and let him take classes until he attained a bachelors, would that placate some of the south suburban mob who insisted that he be considered for the Illini head coaching job. By then, he may be in prime position to clean up Groce and successor(s) mess by the early 2020s.
LikeLike
It seems a little early to write off Groce to me. It takes time to turn around a roster unless he was given free reign to cut kids who did nothing wrong.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/pro-sports/mls-is-coming-to-atlanta/nfSzm/
MLS is expanding to Atlanta for 2017 (when the Falcons’ new stadium opens). It’s part of a southeastern push as Orlando joins in 2015 and Miami is expected to be next. The goal is 24 teams by 2020, and Atlanta would be #22.
LikeLike
Probably won’t use the Thrashers nickname.
LikeLike
In use: Falcons, Braves, Hawks, Thrashers, Dream, Silverbacks
LikeLike
Thrashers were in use.
Besides, not sure Atlantans are all that interested in another professional sports team. It seems they have enough issues caring about the ones presently there.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure the name is still legally taken.
LikeLike
Even if it is, it would not stop a MLS team from using it if it wanted to. Trademark laws would not bar usage in another sport, only the logo would be affected.
If the San Diego Chargers moved to LA and changed its name to the Dodgers, it could, just could not use or copy the logo or other similar trademarked imagery.
LikeLike
Update: Atlanta Phoenix is the rumored name.
http://soccer.si.com/2014/04/09/mls-expansion-atlanta-minneapolis-realignment-miami/?eref=sihp
LikeLike
@wainscott ~ precisely, the main concern is brand identity and brand confusion in the new marketplace. Unless a team already has substantial brand identity under the old name, a new name is the better marketing move, and with MLS clubs relying so heavily on selling a live game day experience to fans who can already watch the high flying European clubs on TV, local brand identity is particularly critical to an MLS club.
LikeLike
Trademark laws protect brand identity. As a made-up word Exxon has been successful in preventing any line of business from using its trademark, not just other oil companies. Dodgers is fairly unique and might hold up the same way. Another Los Angeles Dodgers would clearly be trading off the fame of the baseball team, regardless of the sport. With all the licensing fees trademarks are protected now more than they were in the twenties when the New York Giants Football Club (1925) was formed, giving NYC baseball and football teams with the same name for 33 years. This also occurred in St. Louis for 28 years, but that football team had used Cardinals for the prior 38 years in Chicago, and for another 26 years after leaving St. Louis.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Huskies. I felt bad for them getting left without a seat when the realignment music stopped so it’s nice to see them win.
LikeLike
Since hiring Calhoun in ’86-’87, UConn has as many national titles as Kansas, Indiana and UCLA combined.
LikeLike
The inevitable discussion will be whether UConn is a “blueblood” or “king” along the likes of UCLA, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, and Duke.
This is just my opinion, but I think they still fall short. It’s not because they don’t compare favorably in certain areas with the old-line kings. They have more than Kansas now (how weird is that?) and they’re tied with Duke. It’s just that for all their success, they still don’t have that national cache. There’s a reason these exclusive tournaments like the one with Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and Michigan State, or the new one like it with Florida, MSU, Texas, and UNC don’t include UConn. For whatever reason, they still haven’t built a huge fanbase or following. Indiana still has that, 27 years after its last national title.
LikeLike
Michael,
Really depends on the definition of a “king” program. UConn in basketball is like Miami in football. It’s not a program with a long history (like UCLA in BB, or Notre Dame in FB), nor a massive fan base. But it’s national championships success is unmatched in the modern era. I believe that UConn is a king program, but not a blue-blood.
Regarding UConn ever finding a seat at the big boy tables…it’s clear that their lack of getting invited has some element of luck and opportunity. The last team in each conference (Loiusville, Rutgers, TCU/WVU, Utah) gets some questioning. UConn seems to be in a good position for future consideration by the ACC & B10. Unfortunately for UConn, there is no interest in expanding.
LikeLike
The Miami football comparison strikes me as a good one. But although the list of blue-bloods changes very slowly, it does change. UConn might be on its way, though I agree they’re not yet in that league.
UConn seems to be in a good position for future consideration by the ACC & B10. Unfortunately for UConn, there is no interest in expanding.
They got passed over for reasons that still seem correct to me, notwithstanding their modern basketball success. They could land at the big boy table eventually, but you have to think of it as a 10, 20, 30-year project, requiring a much better football program, and if they covet the Big Ten, much better academics.
LikeLike
The main difference between Miami and UConn is that Miami’s championships were more consolidated and the product of more dominance. Half of UConn’s titles came as the product of getting hot at the right time, not straight dominance (2011: .500 conference record, this year was a #7 seed). Miami had 4 titles in 11 years or so.
Also, Miami had a much broader cultural impact, which goes a long way towards getting people to think of you as a King. The colorful personalities, flamboyant success, location in a major city, etc…
Lets also see if Ollie is lured to Oklahoma City to coach the Thunder, as is rumored (Kevin Durant is a huge fan; Ollie finished his NBA career with the Thunder 4 years ago). If Ollie leaves, his replacement will speak volumes as to the true worth of the job.
LikeLike
Anyone interested in the academic aspect of this topic should google “Next Generation Conneticut” as it relates to U Conn……………..
There are alot of reasons for the Big 10 to add U Conn, and a few not to. However, the few on the negative side have merit…..there’s no doubt about that. I just think it would be helpful if people had all the facts on hand when they make their arguments.
LikeLike
There are alot of reasons for the Big 10 to add U Conn, and a few not to. However, the few on the negative side have merit…..there’s no doubt about that. I just think it would be helpful if people had all the facts on hand when they make their arguments.
Which facts do you think we don’t have on hand? And more importantly, which facts do you think the B1G and ACC didn’t have, when both leagues decided not to add UConn?
Anyone interested in the academic aspect of this topic should google “Next Generation Conneticut” as it relates to U Conn.
I can’t speak for others, but I am well aware of this. The thing you have to bear in mind, is that many of UConn’s competitors are trying to get better too. It’s not as if UConn is (necessarily) going to rise while all of the other expansion candidates stay the same. If you’re the Big Ten, your reaction to this is “wait and see.”
LikeLike
Can’t speak for the other Big 10 schools, but I’m pretty sure that IU, Pur, ILL, and PSU don’t have anything like Next Generation going. They are all trying to maintain their levels of state funding. Now that’s not to say that there are not educational initiatives going on all over…..but the bottom line is the bottom line. I don’t know many schools outside Florida and the SW that have the state funding to add 6000 undergrads. $ talks, BS walks.
I will write up what I see as the advantages & disadvantages of adding U Conn, but I’ll wait for Frank to start a new thread first.
LikeLike
Plus, regarding UConn, every public statement from a Big Ten school president I have seen has mentioned the requirement and extreme importance of AAU membership for any prospective university. To them, AAU is shorthand for they necessary academic quality to be seriously considered.
With that, I just do not think UConn would be considered without having AAU membership, regardless of any school plan to upgrade academics. As Marc noted correctly, its not as if UConn is improving while other schools, be them Big Ten schools or other potential expansion candidates, are standing pat. UConn’s improvements would have to be that much greater to catapult it into AAU consideration.
That said, UConn does deserve congrats for its basketball programs extreme success, and if nothing else, it should be able to keep it up playing in the AAC.
LikeLike
Can’t speak for the other Big 10 schools, but I’m pretty sure that IU, Pur, ILL, and PSU don’t have anything like Next Generation going. They are all trying to maintain their levels of state funding.
Those schools are already IN the Big Ten. They need to be vigilant about maintaining their existing advantage, but they aren’t the ones trying to get into the club.
Now that’s not to say that there are not educational initiatives going on all over…..but the bottom line is the bottom line. I don’t know many schools outside Florida and the SW that have the state funding to add 6000 undergrads. $ talks, BS walks.
Achievements talk; plans are vaporware. I’m not saying they won’t add 6,000 undergrads, but let’s see if they really do it. States often announce plans that they fail to realize. And then let’s see whether the academic quality goes up, or if they add 6,000 by lowering the bar.
Schools are generally added to a conference because of what they have NOW, not for future plans that might or might not achieve fruition. Anyhow, the Big Ten is more concerned with research, not undergraduate student numbers. Research mostly occurs at the graduate level.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Anyone interested in the academic aspect of this topic should google “Next Generation Conneticut” as it relates to U Conn”
It sounds like a nice plan, but that’s all it is for now. Lots of states and schools have plans for improving, but few actually climb the ladder very much. It’s not like the other research schools stand on their laurels.
“There are alot of reasons for the Big 10 to add U Conn, and a few not to. However, the few on the negative side have merit…..there’s no doubt about that. I just think it would be helpful if people had all the facts on hand when they make their arguments.”
A plan to improve isn’t really a fact. If and when they improve, then they’ll get considered again. But even if their plan works, CT is still small and growing very slowly. They are still forced to play football in a small stadium well off campus. They still have no football history. What is their plan to address those issues?
LikeLike
For whatever reason, they still haven’t built a huge fanbase or following. Indiana still has that, 27 years after its last national title.
I get what you are saying to an extent, but to be honest at this point UConn is probably a bigger TV draw than Indiana.
LikeLike
I’ll also add that despite facing a tournament ban, last year UConn had better attendance than Florida and nearly the same as Texas.
LikeLike
“I get what you are saying to an extent, but to be honest at this point UConn is probably a bigger TV draw than Indiana.”
In 2013, IU, on average, got 3 times as many TV viewers of their bball games than UConn did:
Click to access average-team-tv-ratings.pdf
IU led all schools in TV ratings in 2013.
LikeLike
“I’ll also add that despite facing a tournament ban, last year UConn had better attendance than Florida and nearly the same as Texas.”
IU had close to double the attendance of UConn.
New Mexico, Dayton, PU, Minny, and KSU outdrew UConn handily.
LikeLike
@Richard
Indiana was also the preseason #1 team in the country and benefited from playing a Big Ten schedule (notice that 6 of the top 8 teams, including the top 4, were from the Big Ten).
Connecticut, on the other hand, was facing a Big East schedule and a tournament ban.
Also, to Micheal’s point, UConn and Indiana are actually playing in the same preseason tournament next year.
LikeLike
I don’t think you can urgue against UConn as a king in Bball any longer. The benefits of winning their fourth title are not included in recent tournament invites so I don’t see how that argument is even relevant.
LikeLike
Congrats to the Lady Huskies as well.
LikeLike
You mean the Evil Empire of women’s basketball.
LikeLike
UConn : ). They have now officially become the second team to win 4 NCs in the Modern Era & the only team to beat Duke and Ky TWICE, each, in the process – all four victories coming in either a NCG or semi-finals game.
That’s damn amazing.
UConn to the _ _ _ finish it Brian.
LikeLike
@gfunk: It would be nice to see you run some numbers. The Big Ten’s payouts are well known. Add UConn, pick an available partner school (they’re not going to add just one), and show us how the Big Ten can expand without losing money.
By the way, not that I am discounting UConn’s achievement, but when exactly (in your estimation) did the “modern era” begin?
LikeLike
When the field went to 64. But,things changed when Wooden retired and incremental expansion & the elimination of home court games came into play as well, but 1985 – that’s pretty much conventional wisdom. Look at the Wiki page on tournament expansion. It’s pretty accurate.
You can argue UConn didn’t start getting to the tourney until 1990, but since then they’ve been pretty damn good.
Since 1990:
14 Sweet Sixteens
10 Elite Eights
5 Final Fours
4 NCs
58 tourney wins, which is nearly as much as Indiana and Michigan State & both these teams had remarkable achievements before 1985 – IU earned 4 NC, MSU 1 NC, both appeared in multiple FFs before 1985.
Listen, this is all available via Wiki and ESPN team pages. Find a team on ESPN, scroll down, click “Tournament History” – a detailed record of the team’s tourney performance manifests.
UConn is quite a successful “modern era” program.
PS Duke has been overall more successful in the “modern era”, but NCs mean a lot, and how UConn won its NCs counts for something. As stated, they had to beat Duke and Ky, each twice, in final four play to win their NCs.
LikeLike
Marc,
Add 6 more victories here & a NC:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/history?team1Id=7721
–Gfunk
LikeLike
“and how UConn won its NCs counts for something.”
It does? Some NCs mean more than others?
“As stated, they had to beat Duke and Ky, each twice, in final four play to win their NCs.”
Is it fair to give bonus points for beating Duke or UK since those teams can’t do that? Why is beating the name on the front more important than the quality of the team?
1991 – Duke beat UConn, #1 UNLV and KU to win the title
1992 – Duke repeats (UConn never has), beating UK (best game ever), IU and MI’s fab five
2001 – Duke beat UCLA, UMD (conference foe in the Final 4 is always tough) and AZ to win it
2010 – Duke played no big names but did beat David (Butler)
Where are their bonus points?
LikeLike
Those are big dogs Brian, and you damn well know it. But them aside – 4 NCs, 3 since the BIG last won it in 2000 – ouch! Just facts here.
To think UConn doesn’t deserve serious consideration as one of the Modern Era’ best (1985 – to present), well that’s tragic stupidity. And I highly doubt they’re going to falter much, not with Ollie as their coach, as well as their recent history. Their eputation is plenty to build on for the long-term.
Man, keep stalking. Btw, I sure as hell hope your some BIG employee who’s on these boards doing research. May I suggest: UConn should be in the BIG, sir! And if you’re so bent on AAU status, then Nebraska should be sent packing. And good job with Rutgers – they continue to impress me with their AD and all things PR. what an impressive addition thus far. It’s nice to know they have one NCAA title as well. Good job!
LikeLike
gfunk,
“To think UConn doesn’t deserve serious consideration as one of the Modern Era’ best (1985 – to present), well that’s tragic stupidity.”
And yet again I point out that nobody has denied they deserve that status. I just don’t see why you artificially inflate their achievements since they stand on their own just fine.
LikeLike
Not sure how the numbers would work, but my pick to go along with UConn would be one of the following: Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech. All three are AAU to counter non AAU UConn. Virginia would be my first choice since it seems to have the most potential football wise of the three. You’ve added a basketball power in UConn, so that negates some of the basketball prowess of Duke, and Georgia Tech would be on an island without another southern team.
In the end, football is what dooms UConn. Say what you want about Rutgers, but I see it becoming a second tier B1G football program with good in state recruiting (significantly better than most of the B1G except for Ohio, on par with Pennsylvania) and a solid fan base. I envision Rutgers expanding High Point Solutions stadium to somewhere in the low 60k range over time, putting it in the middle of the B1G attendance list. If you move UConn into the B1G, I suppose it too could find itself in the 2nd tier of the B1G since it does have a tradition of building elite basketball programs from basically nothing, but it lacks the advantages football wise that Rutgers has. It also would have to construct a new stadium on campus with capacity of at least 50k with the capability of being expanded. I’m not sure if the interest in UConn football is there for this to happen.
LikeLike
Agree that football would be the issue, and with what you said about Rutgers football.
Disagree that U Conn would have to build an on campus stadium. The present stadium is 10-15 years old and was constructed with expansion in mind. It makes sense for U Conn and the state to be where it is.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Disagree that U Conn would have to build an on campus stadium. The present stadium is 10-15 years old and was constructed with expansion in mind. It makes sense for U Conn and the state to be where it is.”
It never helps a school to have an off campus stadium. If students can’t walk there, their attendance drops dramatically. It also kills the tailgating aspect for them. Ask MN fans how much better it is to play on campus.
LikeLike
Actually, the only thing that PSU, NE, MD and RU had in common was being large, land-grant, state flagship universities.
Both PSU and NE were traditional, but fading, football powers, and were historically weak in all other sports. MD (except for men’s basketball a while back) and RU are historically weak in all sports.
NE and PSU added few local TV sets and viewers but were national draws. MD and RU may or may not add actual viewers, but the potential is there. The problem is that people in Boswash are pro fans and ignore college sports. Perhaps the regular appearances of OSU, Mich, Wisky, PSU and NE will change that.
As to AAU, the B1G must have known that NE was about to get kicked out, so while it’s important, it doesn’t appear to be determinative.
So UConn might still be a candidate for the B1G. While it is non AAU, so is NE. It is land-grant school and a state flagship, but it is small by B1G standards. It is truly excellent in basketball (both men’s and women’s) and a nonentity in football. It might add viewers in NYC and Boston, just a speculative as MD and RU.
Perhaps the chief reasons for adding UConn are that it is available and it is northern. The southern schools are not culturally compatible with the B1G regardless of recruiting issues.
Gee’s suggestion that the B1G should add MO and KS still look good.
LikeLike
Maryland has not been historically weak in all sports. It has been in big trouble financially as of late, but it has been solid all around. In hoops it has long been a top 30 program, at worst, and it has had a winning record in the ACC. Rutgers has never been anything but mediocre in basketball, and football’s decent seasons can be counted on two hands.
Don’t hold your breath on UConn. Short of an unlikely Big 12 expansion into the northeast, they will still be there in 5-10 years if the Big Ten really wants them by then. Besides, the Big Ten is already at 14. Going to 16, and having even fewer games against traditional B1G teams, is probably more than most schools are willing to do.
LikeLike
Both PSU and NE were traditional, but fading, football powers, and were historically weak in all other sports.
In the Big 8 era Nebraska won 230 championships, 27 more than second place Kansas. To this day, Nebraska is second all time in Big 12 championships behind Texas (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_12_Conference_champions)
I don’t know how you can say Nebraska is historically weak in all sports.
LikeLike
The issue of membership invitations from different time frames being driven by completely criteria aside, I’m going to have to pick a few nits…
“NE and PSU added few local TV sets and viewers but were national draws.”
—PSU added few local TV sets? Pennsylvania is the 6th most populous state (5th when PSU joined the B1G) and has half again many people as New Jersey. What is your definition for ‘many’ local TV sets?
On a similar note how do you figure that PSU was a ‘fading power’ when it was invited?
LikeLike
“I don’t know how you can say Nebraska is historically weak in all sports.”
He must be a basketball fan. Nebraska has had one of the top all around programs in the country. One of the few non-west coast schools to win volleyball. One of the few northern schools to get to the college world series. Generally 2nd in the Big 12 behind Texas in the CapitolOne Cup and its predecessors.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Both PSU and NE were traditional, but fading, football powers, and were historically weak in all other sports.”
I think that’s factually incorrect, but I’d be happy to hear your argument about their weakness in all other sports. MBB, sure. But I count 23 national titles for NE outside of FB and 71 B12 titles, 2nd most in the B12. PSU has 75 national titles (#7 overall) with 49 coming before joining the B10 (only 2 were FB).
“MD (except for men’s basketball a while back) and RU are historically weak in all sports.”
UMD has the second most ACC titles of anyone (end of 2012: UNC 251, UMD 192, Duke & NCSU 120).
“NE and PSU added few local TV sets and viewers but were national draws.”
PA is the 6th largest state in the US, and most of that was added by PSU.
“MD and RU may or may not add actual viewers, but the potential is there. The problem is that people in Boswash are pro fans and ignore college sports. Perhaps the regular appearances of OSU, Mich, Wisky, PSU and NE will change that.”
That’s the gamble the B10 is taking, yes. Even if they don’t, they’ll still pay something to get the BTN so it isn’t an all or nothing gamble.
“As to AAU, the B1G must have known that NE was about to get kicked out, so while it’s important, it doesn’t appear to be determinative.”
But they were in, showing they had AAU quality. The COP/C understood that the rules regarding medical schools and ag research worked against NE, plus they might have thought the vote would fail (it was close). Likewise, a school like ND has proven it has quality academics despite not being an AAU member. That doesn’t mean others get a free pass.
“So UConn might still be a candidate for the B1G.”
In the future, when they upgrade some things.
“It might add viewers in NYC and Boston, just a speculative as MD and RU.”
CT is a small (#29 – 3.6M) and slowly growing (#41 – 0.62%) state. MD (5.9M, 2.69%) and NJ (8.9M, 1.22%) have huge legs up in their home states. Plus, Boston isn’t home to nearly as many other B10 alumni, making it a lost cause.
“Perhaps the chief reasons for adding UConn are that it is available and it is northern. The southern schools are not culturally compatible with the B1G regardless of recruiting issues.”
Not all northern schools are fits, either.
LikeLike
“As to AAU, the B1G must have known that NE was about to get kicked out, so while it’s important, it doesn’t appear to be determinative.”
But what do you mean by “the B1G must have know” … sure the Presidents and upper administrators would have know, but they are mostly academic politicians, not actual academics … as long as the people that could have kicked up a fuss at the time of the decision didn’t know, that’d be enough to sneak in a two-time FB dynasty with the national brand recognition that goes along with that. Plus one of the academic snob schools is a western school where there was particular incentive for those in the know to keep quiet about UNL’s pending eviction.
LikeLike
“As to AAU, the B1G must have known that NE was about to get kicked out, so while it’s important, it doesn’t appear to be determinative.”
But what do you mean by “the B1G must have know” … sure the Presidents and upper administrators would have know, but they are mostly academic politicians, not actual academics … as long as the people that could have kicked up a fuss at the time of the decision didn’t know
The people who knew about Nebraska’s likely expulsion from the AAU, are the same people who’ve made AAU membership a criterion for admission to the Big Ten: the university presidents. It’s not as if that criterion was forced on them against their own preference. I think they truly believe in it, but are willing to make an exception in the rare, compelling case (e.g., Notre Dame).
LikeLike
Well, Marc, I’m a pragmatist, and I believe its more likely that, like most politicians, they hold to it because its politically expedient to do so. Obviously what is politically expedient in internal academic politics carries a lot of clout in institutions that get a bucket load more money in academic and research funding for their big money grad schools than in athletic funding, but so long as the institution meets a certain standard of perceived quality, then the add is not going to expect to see pushback from the academic side, which generally has more serious fights to pursue against the athletic department than which teams they play during the various sports conference schedules.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Well, Marc, I’m a pragmatist, and I believe its more likely that, like most politicians, they hold to it because its politically expedient to do so. Obviously what is politically expedient in internal academic politics carries a lot of clout in institutions that get a bucket load more money in academic and research funding for their big money grad schools than in athletic funding, but so long as the institution meets a certain standard of perceived quality, then the add is not going to expect to see pushback from the academic side, which generally has more serious fights to pursue against the athletic department than which teams they play during the various sports conference schedules.”
But NE did get some pushback supposedly, so we have a rough idea of where they’ll draw the line. And that was for a FB king. Meanwhile, RU and UMD sailed through the process.
LikeLike
Not sure how the numbers would work, but my pick to go along with UConn would be one of the following: Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech. Virginia would be my first choice…
The ACC is unlikely to lose just UVA. If UVA gives up on the ACC, then probably multiple schools will. The UConn partisans would need to explain how UVA+UConn is better than UVA+ another ACC school.
But of course, you have the thought process reversed. It’s not as if they’d pick UConn, and then ask, “Who can come along?” More likely, they’d hook one ACC school, and then look for #16.
LikeLike
AACK!!! ?
Short trip…
LikeLike
Unfortunately, until the landscape settles (i.e. unions, NCAA governance) I don’t think UConn is going anywhere.
There’s an outside chance in the future (post 2016) if sports rights fees continue to rise and the ACC chooses to expand for additional content* to sell/spur ESPN to create the ACC Network. UConn football needs to become a consistent top 25 contender or it will be an uphill battle.
*If the divisional title game requirement goes away, three five team divisions with ND’s five games result in a nice 9 game schedule.
LikeLike
Mike,
That really is the scenario that has to play out for UConn to get into the ACC. Seems pretty unlikely, but it’s a shot. I would add that basketball and other Olympic sports would need to be of greater financial importance.
LikeLike
UConn to the _ _ _
Atlantic 10
LikeLike
It could work. Their FB would be no worse than if would remain in the AAC – probably an independent or an informal scheduling network of “northern” schools with Temple, UMASS, Army, NDSU (as it upgrades), Idaho.
LikeLike
: ). They’d still perform better than any BIG team.
Yet again, 1 NC since 2000 – constant runners up, and routine final four flameouts.
I prefer to watch high-stakes, dramatic competition & believe such will attract more attention & inevitably higher tv ratings & increased fan interest. If you’re afraid of better competition UConn brings to the BIG, then thank God you’re not on the court or field of play.
You want to continue to preach football and AAU, then take comfort in your elitism. But I don’t see how you can claim BIG football deserves elite status, aside from the economic angle: 1.5 NCs since around 1970 & a huge disparity in Rose Bowl wins with the Pac12. Keep clinging. The BIG’s bowl record, especially the past 10 years is what it is: horrible.
LikeLike
You can’t count NE or PSU’s success, not official BIG members at the time.
LikeLike
You want to continue to preach football and AAU, then take comfort in your elitism.
The elitism isn’t mine, but I believe I am accurately stating the priorities of those who decide.
But I don’t see how you can claim BIG football deserves elite status, aside from the economic angle.
The economic angle is the ONLY angle. All of the other criteria are at least arguable. You might not win the argument, but you could entertain it. The Big Ten took Nebraska, knowing it might not be an AAU school for much longer, and we know they would’ve taken Notre Dame in a heartbeat.
But money is absolute: no one expands to lose money. If you cannot demonstrate that UConn would make money for the Big Ten, none of your other facts matter.
LikeLike
As for the economic angle,its really the economics of football that matter:
http://snyuconn.com/uconn/football/uconns-attendance-and-power-5-conferences/
“It wasn’t UConn’s Northeast footprint or its 21st national ranking among public universities that lost it. The lack of football tradition and game-day environment at Rentschler Field (capacity 40,000) did, according to an ACC source.”
Those same problems doomed USF and Cincy to the ACC, as well.
As for basketball, well, UConn will generally sell out the 10k Gampel Pavilion on campus, but doesn’t usually come close to selling out the 16k XL Center in Hartford (2 late season sellouts, 8 total regular season games)
Also, an Indiana vs UConn game at MSG in November (part of the 2K Sports Classic) drew about 10k folks, so its not like UConn will always sell out MSG.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“Yet again, 1 NC since 2000 – constant runners up, and routine final four flameouts.”
Making the finals 6 times in 15 years is a bad thing? 14 Final Four teams in 16 years is a bad thing? OK.
“If you’re afraid of better competition UConn brings to the BIG”
Yes, that’s been our whole concern. We haven’t mentioned any other reasons not to invite them at all.
“But I don’t see how you can claim BIG football deserves elite status, aside from the economic angle:”
1. They are 1 of the 5 remaining power conferences as determined by the NCAA for controlling the I-A postseason
2. TV ratings
3. Attendance numbers
4. More BCS bowls than any other conference
5. 2nd most BCS bowl wins of any conference
6. Contains the team that most frequently appeared in BCS games and won the most
That’s all in addition to the economic angle.
“1.5 NCs since around 1970”
Which conveniently dances around the politics of split titles and the titles won by teams now in the B10. It’s also a carefully chosen date to avoid the B10 performance in the 60s.
NE – 1970*, 1971, 1994
PSU – 1982, 1986
* – split title
Splits:
1973 PSU was perfect but got no share
1994 should’ve been split between NE and PSU
1997 was split between NE and MI
1960s:
B10 titles in 1960* (MN), 1961* (OSU), 1965* (MSU), 1966* (MSU), 1968 (OSU), 1970* (OSU)
* – split title
So it could’ve been 8 since 1970ish, or 11 since 1960.
“a huge disparity in Rose Bowl wins with the Pac12.”
Only with USC, actually. The B10 is 31-35 against the P12 in the Rose, 7-17 versus USC and 24-18 versus everyone else. The P12 has a lot more total wins because the B10 didn’t play there regularly until after WWII, so the P12 has played in 95 games to 68 for the B10.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll read this one Brian. Stop pluralizing your statements because your homies may support you, this isn’t a democracy. This is the Internet and aliases, for all I know you’re some giant, talking gorilla – a stalking one who takes my bait. I frankly don’t care that most people on here don’t want UConn in the BIG. I prefer basketball by a country mile over football & so my preference should be for obvious reasons. But the hypocrisy on here is often dizzying, your loaded with it Brian.
The only point you’ve proven about BIG football, minus 1.5 NCs, is that $ buys the conference into BCS games. That Mi-VTech game was a classic! Both teams would have been pummeled by numerous SEC-Big12 schools that didn’t get a BCS bid. Btw, you should point out that some of the BIG’s BCS wins have been vacated – at least two.
Why are you pointing out PSU & Neb history outside the BIG? That’s absurd & incredibly inaccurate – you can’t inherit program history – that belongs to the actual conference or in PSU’s case, independent record books. They were successful those years in part because they weren’t in the BIG, esp during weak decades where the Pac12 won the vast majority of Rose Bowls (70s and 80s).
I don’t care if OSU has the most BCS wins, they failed in their last two NCGs and were badly beaten, though a better fight against LSU. Until OSU can actually beat an SEC team without violations, the perception will deservedly stick. Until OSU can beat Clemson from the so-called awful ACC, then perception will also continue to stick. At the end of the day, I choose Michigan or Neb to better represent BIG blue bloods. Mi owns OSU, still, head to head & Neb frankly has better history since the 70s and doesn’t choke against the SEC, half the time. Mi also shows up in half or more of its games against the SEC, throw in PSU as well. Heck, Minnesota has a 2-0 bowl record against the SEC, you know that team OSU owns in conference play.
I don’t support the Rose Bowl matchup with USC, sorry the Pac12, because it’s a home game much of the time & the game is played in a familiar, Pac12 venue. But again, $ talks & the BIG loves pimping it. The days of migrating Midwesterners to California have faded as well. Neutral sites, please!
I also see the rise of CF, post-segregation, as a better measuring stick for football performance – so the early 70s is a better start to measure conference success, as well as the BIG lifting bowl bans outside the conference champ. The BIG has had one great decade since the 70s, otherwise average or often less, esp in bowl games. Decades before, while interesting and relevant, do far less to address the current, downward trend of BIG football – better recruiting and winning more OOC games would be a nice trend. Don’t you think?
But, BIG football fans are great, all sports for that matter, and great NFL talent still comes out of this conference – thank tougher weather at the next level here – BIG players are better prepared & that league doesn’t care where the games are played. You earn home field in NRL, you play in the elements.
Keep dreaming, as will I. UConn, UConn.
LikeLike
Well at least you’re honest Gfunk. You freely admit that you don’t care about data points that don’t support what you want to be true. Have you ever thought about posting over on CSNBBS forums? You’d fit in swimmingly.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“UConn to the _ _ _ finish it Brian”
Sunbelt? MAC? CUSA?
LikeLike
UConn to the _ _ _
Big 12, along with Cincy and maybe USF/UCF
LikeLike
To replace the then leaving Texahoma four?
LikeLike
UConn to the ACC.
This would be a no-brainer for basketball. Gets a quality competitor and helps the ACC get a bigger foot into New York, New England, and surrounding markets.
Football-wise, it’s a tough sell. There is market potential, but Huskies football has a lot to be desired. It would also throw off the divisions – although if you also added Cincinnati or Temple (gulp) it would help to re-align the divisions with better geography (but, perhaps at the expense of competition….)
You could have 4 pods – NorthEast, Central, NC, and South. Play the three teams in your pod and two from each other pod. Play every team at least twice in four years. Play Notre Dame about once every three years. Championship game is the two “best” pod winners. Or petition the NCAA to allow a 4-team conference championship tournament. Pod 1 v. Pod 4, Pod 2 v. Pod 3 at higher seeded team’s home field. Championship game in Charlotte. Eventually, championship game could also be played in Yankee Stadium occasionally.
2013 Scenario:
NE POD
Syracuse (5-4)
Boston College (4-5)
Pittsburgh (3-6)
*UConn (3-6)
Central POD
*Louisville (8-1)
Virginia Tech (6-3)
*Cincinnati (5-4)
Virginia (1-8)
NC POD
Duke (6-3)
North Carolina (4-5)
Wake Forest (2-7)
NC State (0-9)
South Pod
FSU (9-0)
Clemson (8-1)
Georgia Tech (4-5)
Miami (4-5)
ACC Tournament, Round 1 – December 7, 2013
Syracuse (#4-NE Pod) at Florida St. (#1-South Pod), at Tallahassee, Florida
Duke (#3-NC Pod) at Louisville (#2-Central Pod), at Louisville, Kentucky
ACC Championship – December 21, 2013 – Charlotte, North Carolina
Louisville v. Florida St.
ACC Basketball 2013
Virginia (16-2)
Syracuse (14-4)
Duke (13-5)
North Carolina (13-5)
*Louisville (13-5)
*Cincinnati (12-6)
*UConn (11-7)
Pittsburgh (10-8)
Clemson (9-9)
Florida St. (8-10)
NC St. (8-10)
Miami (6-12)
Wake Forest (5-13)
Georgia Tech (5-13)
Notre Dame (4-14)
Boston College (4-14)
Virginia Tech (2-16)
LikeLike
Go with East/West
East: UConn, BC, UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake
West: Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, Louisville, ND*, SU, Pitt
FSU gets the pod they’d prefer but must play at least 3 northern schools yearly in exchange. Cuse gets to recruit in the South, as their AD has intuited lately. ND gets to play Pitt, FSU, Miami, GT but would have to hold their nose at SU instead of BC.
The Virginia and NC schools stick together and no longer have to be separated. As well, they only have to make a northern trip once but UConn/BC get as many opportunities to recruit in those states.
* If ND is still stubborn then use Cincy as a stand-in. Cincy also has decent athletics and would not offend the deep South schools so much.
LikeLike
ESPN going to broadcast Cricket:
http://qz.com/196399/espn-wants-americans-to-watch-cricket/
LikeLike
…{cricket}…{cricket}…
LikeLike
It might work if its most crucial demographic were slackers instead of high-achievers with little time for viewing frivolous sports from the old country. In all seriousness, several suburbs in the Chicago area do have a budding cricket community that is proportional in participation to its Indian and Pakistani populations.
LikeLike
Or, it might work if it gets better ratings than what would normally be aired at 9am on Sunday mornings on ESPN2.
Countless ESPN executives, past and present, have said that live programming will always draw better than other types of programming.
LikeLike
Also, the “high-achievers” are probably home on Sunday morning to watch.
LikeLike
I like T20 cricket quite a bit but if ESPN wanted to fill Sunday Morning 9am with live sports, not letting la liga, serie a, or the premier league out of its grasp would’ve been on the agenda.
Now, you could argue that the rights fees for those became too expensive whereas T20 could be dirt cheap for espn so the additional viewership gained from top-league european club football wouldn’t be worth it.
LikeLike
If you watch baseball, cricket is just as interesting.
LikeLike
With three day at-bats…
LikeLike
Have you ever watched cricket? It’s fascinating stuff.
LikeLike
Yes I have, and no it isn’t. But neither is baseball so your previous comment may be true.
LikeLike
Test cricket packs all of the excitement of an afternoon of baseball into five days of play.
One day cricket is more exciting, but Test Cricket is the real thing … a game from another era, where the soil of the local area helping decide whether it produces fast bowlers or spin bowlers, and where the wear of the wicket over the course of the game brings different attacking tools into play. And where the guy that is throwing the ball is the attacker and the guy with the stick is defending his wicket.
When I was in Oz, test cricket was the perfect test or research paper grading sport, since you could look up every time there was a big commotion and get two or three replays of the action, and otherwise concentrate on grading without missing much of the course of the game.
LikeLike
UConn would be better served elevating what remains of “eastern” football into a conference worthy of P5 consideration or at least supplanting the Mountain West as the “next best” for the next 10-12 years that the GORs are still in effect. That means welcoming UMASS (saw your tweet, I’m actually glad) and building a football (and extending an old pre-BE MBB) rivalry. Army as the 14th can work and in fact earn you political capital if you ensure that Army-Navy remains scheduled after the CGC and:
1. Keeping them in the same division/not even having divisions and awarding the team with the best record of the 2 an automatic win for comparison purposes when determining the division champs/top 2 qualifiers .
2. Putting them in different divisions or pods and only scheduling 11 total games prior to the CCG. Same automatic win rules apply when determing winners. Conversely, if both academies qualify, then the CGC becomes a “bracket buster” or “clarifier game” for teams in different divisions who have yet to have met in the regular season.
LikeLike
While I agree that the best hope for the AAC is working towards becoming the ‘best of the rest’ conference I don’t see how inviting UMass would accomplish that goal. UMass hasn’t shown any inclination in spending the money to make their FB program competitive. The way things stand right now they’d be more of a burden to the conference.
To be honest Buffalo is currently laying a stronger foundation than UMass.
LikeLike
The AAC is already loaded down with programs that have no recent history (or no history whatsoever) of fielding nationally competitive football programs. Adding UMass and Army to that cohort of schools would not improve the problem; it would make it worse.
The best case for the AAC is that it will have one or two schools that put up gaudy records every year against a weak schedule, much as Boise and TCU were able to do in the Mountain West. It’s early yet, but we’re already seeing TCU reverting to the mean as they play a P5 schedule in the Big XII.
LikeLike
Boise did most its damage while still in the WAC, and it has experienced somewhat of a revert-to-mean in the MWC – a major reason C. Peterson could not afford to wait another year or two for a perfect P5 job. Shaka Smart faces this same quandary.
LikeLike
Yes it’s way too early to start jumping to conclusions about the success of TCU (or WVU, A&M & even Nebraska) but there is one at least one difference in that case. TCU had heavily invested in their AD & was spending at levels similar to (or greater than) their current B12 peers.
UMass has made no such efforts.
LikeLike
IMHO – the best indicator of a school’s ability to compete over time is it’s athletic budget relative to its peers. UMass (29MM) in the AAC would be last (private schools not reported) in the AAC, who have a range from 63MM (UConn) to to 35MM (ECU).
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
LikeLike
While it’s not perfect there’s definitely a strong correlation between the two.
LikeLike
An exercise for our UConn promoters… Where would UConn rank in the ACC or Big Ten?
LikeLike
Why would Army every want to join an upgraded version of the 2005 CUSA that they had to flee because the football competition was too demanding? Better to rejoin the CUSA, now that its been watered down a bit and there is a more reasonable hope of playing out of it into a bowl game.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24518721/source-notre-dame-georgia-working-to-finalize-home-and-home
ND and UGA working on a home and home.
LikeLike
The article mentions that Notre Dame hasn’t played an SEC team in the regular season since 2005.
When was the last time UGA played a regular-season game north of the Mason-Dixon line?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“When was the last time UGA played a regular-season game north of the Mason-Dixon line?”
In a true road game? Does @CO in 2010 count? If not, try @MI in 1965.
LikeLike
I should point out that OSU and UGA had a loose agreement to schedule a home and home but neither side got around to finalizing it before the option ran out. That was when the B10 was looking at doing the P12 scheduling alliance or 9 games so scheduling was up in the air a bit for OSU.
LikeLike
UGA did play west of the Mason Dixon line a few times recently-Arizona St., Oklahoma St. and then Colorado in consecutive years.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/04/top-10-opening-thursday-night-college-football-matchups/
The best games on the opening Thursday night. They listed 10, but the quality drops off really quickly.
1. Texas A&M at South Carolina
2. Boise State vs. Ole Miss (at Atlanta, GA)
3. Rutgers at Washington State
LikeLike
Being part asian, FTT, isn’t the goal for your twins: HYPSMW or bust? Amy Chua would be very disappointed in you.
LikeLike
I get the HYPSM part but the W part I’m stumped. Williams, Wharton or Washington U of St. Louis?
LikeLike
I’m guessing Wharton, given the other schools on the list and East Coast obsession with private elites (and Williams being a lib arts college, unlike the other universities named).
Personally, I’m of the opinion that C, C, C, C, C (several of them), M, N, V, W, CM, JH, R, D, & D (as well as the lib arts colleges like W, A, & S) are fine schools as well, but I don’t run in those circles.
LikeLike
In my time it was one of the C-M-O-G liberal arts schools, and UIUC was a backup school if you didnt get into UM or ND.
LikeLike
“UIUC was a backup school if you didnt get into UM or ND.”
Not true for engineers. Or at least the smart ones.
LikeLike
as an addendum to Richard’s reply ….and not if you lived in DuPage County or Kane County south of about Lake Street (US 20). UIUC as third choice behind UM and ND was more of a north shore/north suburban sentiment. One observation related to Ohio State is that it has cut into ND’s appeal in the greater Chicago area as the “subway alumni” ‘s favorite football school. You NEVER used to see Buckeye gear being worn out here until the late 1990s.
LikeLike
From the perspective of 1980s non- Asians, UIC used to stand for the University of (current Cleveland MLB club) and (the former mascot of Pekin (IL) High School). So what happened in the intervening years – shouldnt those demos have naturally elevated the school to a higher status by now? One of UIC’s computer science department directors whom I used to work on PPP projects with constantly lamented the fact that UIC could not reach the level of at least a UCLA to UIUC’s Cal-Berkeley.
LikeLike
UMD has released a video about their marketing campaign to tout their entry into the B1G, called “Think B1G”
LikeLike
It does a pretty good job of explaining the non-athletic benefits.
LikeLike
And its interesting how sports are described by name when they get to the athletics side. Kevin Anderson, Director of Athletics: “We’re going into the Big Ten to be competitive and to have that record in the Big Ten as well. You go and you look at us competing in the Big Ten in Football. You got to the Horseshoe. You go to the Big House. Everywhere you’re going to go, there’s going to be sell-out crowds. Basketball, Field Hockey, Soccer … you know Lacrosse is becoming a big sport in the Big Ten. Our student athletes are going to have the opportunity to perform in front of thousands and thousands of people. We’re going to have to compete at the highest level. But you know what? We’re ready to do that. It’s very exciting, this is the time to be a Terp.”
LikeLike
He didn’t also come out and say, “Our volleyball and wrestling programs are going to struggle for several years.”
LikeLike
OT – The UNC academic scandals have started to get attention from within Congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/us/unc-academic-fraud-investigation/index.html?c=&page=0
LikeLike
Some wonderful quotes in there:
UNC
“Two internal reviews commissioned by the university found there was no evidence that counselors or anyone in the athletics department knew about the abuse.
UNC’s athletic reform Chairwoman Joy Renner told CNN that she believes the students found the easy classes by word of mouth and that UNC officials were stunned as to why Nyang’oro would offer paper classes.”
Do they really think people will believe them if they say something ridiculous enough times?
NCAA
“The NCAA declined to sanction the university, saying the scandal was academic in nature, not athletic.”
When reached for comment, the NCAA said its “rules only govern academic fraud as it relates to athletics departments and student-athletes. Any broader issue is not under the NCAA’s purview.”
Penn St. anyone?
LikeLike
I think their accreditation should be at stake, as should the validity of their accreditation agency. How is that group not digging into this?
LikeLike
If you have been watching the Clayton and DeKalb County Georgia accreditation issues, you will know that the accreditation agency (which is the same as the one that does many college accreditations) is very political.
LikeLike
Isn’t there some power that can strip their right to grant accreditation (DOE or something)?
LikeLike
The AAU might say something, but then maybe some of the members are worried about their own cutting of corners (of course UNC skipped the corner and ran right through the building on the corner).
LikeLike
UConn is the best college basketball program of all time, if you count both its men’s and women’s programs. It has the most titles, the most tournament wins, the best winning percentage, and the highest average margin of victory.
As the linked article notes, this is a remarkable achievement, in that practically all of UConn’s success has been accumulated in the last 20 years. Its closest competitors have accumulated their success over much longer periods of time. And of course, this works only if you count men’s and women’s basketball together. No one is even close to UCLA’s 11 men’s titles, but UCLA’s women’s program is practically a non-entity.
LikeLike
What else has become so successful over the last 20 years? Answer: ESPN. Coincidence? I think not.
LikeLike
When you figure out how ESPN managed to win all those games for the Huskies, come back and let us know.
LikeLike
It should be noted that almost all of their success has been since Calhoun was hired. They had a nice run in the 50s and early 60s in the Yankee conference, but made only 1 elite 8 appearance before Calhoun. Likewise, Geno was hired about the same time. By 1990, both programs were going strong.
I’d like to see their record if they had to play in a major conference without HoF coaches for a while. The men didn’t win a BE title until 1990 (started in 1979), but now they have 9. The other schools have longer periods with major competition.
LikeLike
Mark Blaudschun on UConn and conference realignment.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=10190
LikeLike
I like how he dismissively sets aside the academics issue, ignoring that both BC and RU are considered to be better institutions of higher learning than UConn (though, with the addition of Louisville, the ACC has definitely reduced its academic standards).
I do think a much better argument could be made for UConn over BC for the ACC than it could be for UConn over RU to the B1G, due to academics, geographic proximity, tv potential, etc,..
In fact, I could see that in a do over, the ACC might very well take UConn over BC, seeing that BC has proven that, without Doug Flutie on the roster, it has virtually no relevance in Boston and plays in a stadium not much larger than UConn’s. UConn does have more BCS appearances than BC, and without starting a conference network, access to Boston might be of less importance than the basketball name of UConn might have more value, and maybe even some regional spillover into Massachusetts. A virtual football wash, and a clear UConn MBB advantage.
For the market and demographic-hungry B1G, UConn has less value, and does not meet clear-cut academic standards. But for the more needy ACC, UConn might help more than BC.
LikeLike
The biggest gap in his analysis is that he proposed UConn plus Georgia Tech to the Big Ten. Now, if Georgia Tech is willing to leave the ACC, then who else is willing to leave the ACC? Would UConn be preferred over Virginia? Over North Carolina?
I agree that if there were a do-over, the ACC might very well prefer UConn to BC.
LikeLike
I missed his UConn and GT to the B1G proposal. Truly weak work from a well-sourced sportswriter. Yes, if GT is willing to look elsewhere, then other ACC schools are, as well–and ones more appealing to the B1G presidents than UConn (coughUVacough).
LikeLike
I like how he dismissed academics since he knows he can’t win that argument, and then bemoans the fate of poor UConn and the BE. But at the end he was happy to rip GT from the ACC to make 16 for the B10.
LikeLike
The only true candidates are NIU, SIU and UIC.
Those three are the only public Universities in Illinois that are classified by the Carnegie Foundation as at least a “RU/H: Research Universities (high research activity).”
For those unfamiliar, Illinois is divided into three parts: Northern Illinois, Central Illinois, and Southern Illinois.
NIU and UIC are located in Northern Illinois, SIU is located in Southern Illinois, and the University of Illinois dominates the Central Illinois region.
NIU and SIU often get the “directional” tag but both are large National Universities with extensive Graduate and Professional offerings (Law School, Engineering School, Medical School, Business School) that serve as the leading public University for their respective regions.
UIC’s status is a bit misleading because it technically houses some of the University of Illinois Graduate Programs on its campus, but often those areas are claimed by the Flagship in Champaign-Urbana. Without those, UIC is not much more than an extension of the City Colleges of Chicago with the majority of its students being Liberal Arts & Humanities majors. It’s an urban campus with a majority of the students being non-residential and does not field a football team at any level.
NIU is the true #2 Public Research University in Illinois, a member of the Universities Research Association (URA), and located in the heart of the “Northern Illinois” region, which dominates the state’s population, cultural, and economic activity.
NIU has a top Business School, a well-regarded Law School, and a recognized Engineering School that is one of the fastest growing in the country.
Located in the traditional college town of DeKalb, Illinois, NIU is also part of the (#3 ranked) greater Chicago, Illinois metro area.
The NIU Huskies compete at the highest level of intercollegiate athletics and have been the most successful college football program in the state over the last decade.
SIU is the leading research University in the “Southern Illinois” region of the state but is experiencing declines in enrollment and academic programs offered that mirror the shrinking region. The Southern Illinois region is the least populated and influential region in Illinois.
It’s clear that the leading candidate for a “promotion” would have to be NIU. Although the Big Ten is unlikely (impossible), the Big 12 would be a perfect fit.
All the other public universities are at least a tier below these three, including Illinois State. Illinois State severely lacks in graduate/professional programs and research, and is basically just a bloated Teacher’s College with an Insurance School (that serves for little more than to provide State Farm headquarters with free training for entry-level insurance agents). It belongs in the next tier down with the other true directionals: Western Illinois University in Macomb, Central Illinois University in Normal (aka Illinois State), and Eastern Illinois University in Charleston.
One reason that may explain why all three directionals never grew past their original mission as Teacher’s Colleges is that all three are located in the Central Illinois region that is dominated by the State Flagship University, U of I.
LikeLike
That was the plan back in 1984 for NIU to eventually be wooed by the then Big 8. Would be a great rival for Iowa State. It seems to me however that NIU has become somewhat of a “suitcase college” in more recent years. I could see it becoming a more bucolic version of a commuter school if the UP-West rail line was extended west from Elburn.
LikeLike
“That was the plan back in 1984 for NIU to eventually be wooed by the then Big 8”
What plan was this?
LikeLike
Probably a plan devised by NIU that the then Big 8 would have never considered.
LikeLike
Why do I perceive this is an NIU person?
LikeLike
Univ. Of Illinois Set To Unveil Results Of Rebranding Process With Nike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/04/08/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Illinois-Rebranding.aspx
LikeLike
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/tracking-the-terps/bal-maryland-big-ten-celebration-plans-20140408,0,1098482.story
The school says a Big Ten-themed ice cream flavor will be unveiled by dining services on July 1.
LikeLike
Terrapins n’ Cream?
LikeLike
There also will be a Big Ten night at Nationals Park June 30 (though, alas, the Nats are playing the Colorado Rockies, not a team from a Big Ten state), and a good crowd is expected…not necessarily for the Big Ten festivities, but for a Bryce Harper bobblehead. giveaway.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if this has been covered here already but since scheduling is a recurring topic I thought I’d share what mattsarzsports has speculated would be the game times for Big Ten teams in week 3.
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2014/03/way-too-early-week-3-cfb-tv-guesses.html
12pm ESPN: Iowa St. at Iowa
12pm BTN: Kent St. at Ohio St.
3:30pm ESPN: Penn St. at Rutgers
3:30pm BTN: Miami (OH) at Michigan
4pm FS1: Minnesota at TCU
7pm FOX: Illinois at Washington
7:30pm NBC: Purdue vs. Notre Dame (confirmed)
8pm BTN: West Virginia at Maryland
10:30pm CBSSN: Nebraska at Fresno St.
For comparison, he has:
Week 1
Thursday
8pm BTN: Eastern Illinois at Minnesota
10pm FS1: Rutgers vs. Washington St.
Saturday
8:30am ESPN2: Penn St. vs. UCF (confirmed)
12pm ESPNU: FAU at Nebraska
12pm CBSSN: Ohio St. vs. Navy (time confirmed)
12pm BTN: Western Michigan at Purdue
12pm BTN: Northern Iowa at Iowa
3:30pm ABC/ESPN2: LSU vs. Wisconsin
3:30pm ESPNU: California at Northwestern
3:30pm BTN: Indiana St. at Indiana
3:30pm BTN: Jacksonville St. at Michigan St.
8pm BTN: James Madison at Maryland
8pm BTN: Youngstown St. at Illinois
Week 2
Saturday
12pm ESPN2: Akron at Penn St.
12pm BTN: Central Michigan at Purdue
12pm BTN: McNeese St. at Nebraska
12pm BTN: Middle Tennessee at Minnesota
3:30pm ABC: Virginia Tech at Ohio St.
3:30pm BTN: Ball St. at Iowa
3:30pm BTN: Western Illinois at Wisconsin
3:30pm BTN: Western Kentucky at Illinois
4pm ESPNEWS: Maryland at USF
7:30pm NBC: Michigan at Notre Dame (confirmed)
8pm ESPN: Michigan St. at Oregon
8pm BTN: Northern Illinois at Northwestern
8pm BTN: Howard at Rutgers
LikeLike
Why did UNL agree to play at Fresno State? Oof.
LikeLike
When was it agreed to? Fresno was fairly good for a number of seasons some time back.
Some Central Valley exposure/recruiting? They’ve played UCLA (SoCal) a couple times recently.
LikeLike
It was done within the last 10 years. I think while Pat Hill was still there.
LikeLike
Nebraska signed a few two-for-one deals with Wyoming/Fresno St/So Miss. Cheaper than just playing guarantee games and a better home opponent.
LikeLike
Believe it was a 2 home, 1 away deal.
LikeLike
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/with-an-8-percent-graduation-rate-are-the-university-of-connecticut-basketball-players-really-students-140408?news=852868
With an 8% graduation rate of men’s BB players and no AAU status, there is zero chance that B1G presidents would welcome UConn. Academics are too weak.
I believe that at the time that BC went to the ACC, the president of BC was very tight with Donna Shalala, the president of Miami, who moved at the same time. In addition, BC was much better than UConn in football at that time. Since being in the ACC, BC football has really been lousy. BC made much more sense to the ACC at the time. In retrospect, who knows.
In addition to the B1G, right now the academic people at the ACC might also well reject UConn. Yes, they took Louisville, but that was forced by the ACC football people. The ACC does not need UConn bball, or at least they feel that way.
By the way, just a couple of weeks before Miami and BC jumped to the ACC, Shalala swore to the other Big East presidents that Miami would never do that. Miami was really down in the dumps as an independent and being picked up the Big East revived the football program. Miami would never forget that – as long as “never” did not last more than 10 days or so.
Shalala was really the lowlife in that entire situation. I am not even sure what the move did for Miami. If Miami did not jump, BC would not have moved. (And VaTech probably would also have been stuck in the Big East) Then if the Big East eventually split between the bball schools and the football schools, there would have been a serious eastern football league, the B1G could not have moved east and the leagues today would be very different.
Some of the Big East schools really felt betrayed by Miami and BC. UConn sued BC. Many people believe that the bitterness of that litigation has never passed, so BC is keeping UConn out of the ACC, just as Cincinnati, Pitt and Iowa State will have big problems getting into the B1G, and FSU, GaTech and Clemson have SEC issues with UFlorida, UGa, and U South Carolina.
Part of this is about not sharing markets, but a big part is just animosity toward the other school.
The belief is that BC will never forgive UConn and be able to block ACC entry. I does not seem likely that the ACC is looking for another school in the northeast in any event. UConn does not add to the southern flavor of the ACC.
Bottom line is that UConn and Cincinnati are in a really tough situations and may have no way out the mess for many years. Any of the major conferences which want UConn can be fairly sure that they will be available. Cincinnati may have an outside shot with the Big 12. UConn has no where to go.
As far as Rutgers, as has been said many times, they were looking for a lifeboat (like UConn now). Any lifeboat. Sixty years ago Rutgers (in New Brunswick – not Newark or Camden) was a viable candidate for the Ivy League, but that never happened. For many decades Rutgers biggest athletic rivals were Princeton (starting in football in 1869), Lehigh, and Lafayette. Relatively small schools with very strong academics and all within a 75 mile or so radius. Rutgers College had about 5,000 undergraduate men at the time and Douglass, the women’s college across town had about 3,000.
That is one reason that RU has no athletic history. There were much closer to the Ivies than to the Big Ten. Over the few of decades, RU has been lousy in sports for different reasons. Mostly really bad coaches (with a few exceptions) and the total inability to keep NJ athletes in state. Sports has not been a top priority at RU over the years. As recently as two years ago, the “Group of 100” professors at RU continued to lobby that all big time sports should be dropped and this huge state university should go back to playing Lehigh and Lafayette. Can any of you imagine a large group of professors at a B1G school demanding the end of big time sports at the school?
That seems to have slowed down with the entry into the B1G, which even these idiots in the Group of 100 have to admit helps academically.
The football success under Schiano made a big difference for the instate perception of Rutgers. As an example, ten or twelve years ago it was impossible find a car with a red “R” sticker. Now they are not common, but not unusual. Without Schiano, the football stadium would not have been expanded and there probably would not have been a B1G invitation, which RU was seeking for 20 years or s.
It may never happen, but if joining the B1G leads to RU spending more on coaches and keeping top Jersey players, they will compete in the B1G. If not they should still be second tier in the B1G, just based on the number of really good Jersey players (in both football and bball. The top high school bball player in the country this year (Karl Townes) is a 7′ center from Jersey going to be a one and done at Kentucky, no doubt. The top ranked B1G football recruit is Jabrill Peppers from Jersey to Michigan)
The players are in NJ. Whether they will ever stay is the issue.
Then there is the Star Ledger. Yes, the AD at RU is a complete moron for being quoted hoping the Ledger goes out of business. The fact is that the Ledger has been anti-Rutgers sports for many years. They seem to have agreed with the Group of 100 that RU should never have gone “big time”. The Ledger is a major paper. Before the newspaper industry started collapsing, the Ledger was one of the top 20 in the country in circulation, even with the NY and Phila papers circulating in NJ.
If you are a high school stud and pick up the major paper in the state and read negative article after article about RU sports, it may have an impact.
LikeLike
People are pretty oriented towards the immediate. BC hasn’t been very good the last couple of years, but they have won 2 ACC Atlantic titles, which until FSU won the last two years tied them for the most in that division with FSU and Clemson.
To date division titles in ACC:
Virginia Tech 5
FSU 4
Georgia Tech 3
Boston College 2
Clemson 2
Duke 1
Wake Forest 1
Miami, UNC, NCSU, Pitt, SU, UVA, MD-0
LikeLike
By the way, just a couple of weeks before Miami and BC jumped to the ACC, Shalala swore to the other Big East presidents that Miami would never do that. . . . Shalala was really the lowlife in that entire situation.
I don’t think you can pin that one on Shalala. She is merely one of many university presidents who have sworn loyalty to their current conference — up to the very moment they left.
I am not even sure what the move did for Miami. If Miami did not jump, BC would not have moved. (And VaTech probably would also have been stuck in the Big East) Then if the Big East eventually split between the bball schools and the football schools, there would have been a serious eastern football league, the B1G could not have moved east and the leagues today would be very different.
Miami realized what everyone else did: the ACC was the stronger brand. You can grumble about what might have been, but you can’t begrudge a school for seeking the best home for its sports. Joining a conference isn’t forever.
Suppose that instead of swearing undying loyalty to the BE, Shalala had admitted that Miami was willing to consider better offers. What would be different now? As far as I can tell, nothing. Even if you think Shalala lied, it doesn’t appear to be a lie that actually changed anything.
LikeLike
I think Shalala’s promises were more than the “usual” university presidents swearing loyalty. UConn was specifically relying on those promises as the basis for upgrading its football program to Division I. (I don’t recall what year they changed the names) Now, UConn may have ended up doing it anyway, but my recollection from all of those years back was that UConn was specifically saying to Miami, “Hey, we don’t want to start this multi-year process of upgrading and spending hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money (at least partially) building a football stadium if you guys are just going to jump ship. Are you guys staying put?”
Now, shame on UConn (and the Big East) for not getting Shalala’s promises in writing and trying to get some larger financial penalties for leaving, but if Shalala was being honest that Miami was actively looking to move, I am sure UConn would have insisted on something to protect them or possibly not make the move up at all. So I think the lie did change the way things worked out.
LikeLike
BC’s animosity toward UConn is well documented and it’s been reported that BC vociferously objected to adding UConn at any point to be the only New England school, including around 2011.
Also, back in 2003, the ACC was targeting BC for its Boston presence. Problem was even then BC was not all that relevant in the Boston market, being a smaller private school technically in the suburbs.
It’s real value was being a good academic fit for the ACC, but as we’ve now seen, academic fit is less critical to the ACC with the Louisville addition. Hence, ACC concerns about academics ring more hollow than concerns over UNL losing AAU status because it doesn’t have its own med school, because it had AAU status when it was invited to join.
LikeLike
“It’s real value was being a good academic fit…”
And here I thought its real recognizable asset is named Doug Flutie.
LikeLike
Its funny, because outside of Flutie, there isn’t much there in terms of BC football history, except for some random years of success here and there. Kind of like Rutgers. Most of BC football today as we know it is directly because of Flutie.
LikeLike
Amen. They’ve been “Doug Flutie” away from being the natural new Big East Boston outpost.
LikeLike
Much like TCU, BC happened to get good at the right time, and was able to punch its golden ticket to a power conference. In an alternative world (no Flutie), they could quite easily have been in the AAC.
LikeLike
I am not even sure what the move did for Miami.
Guaranteeing yearly games against FSU in all sports they offer. You might say that there wasn’t a real fear of losing FSU on their FB schedule but, as we’ve seen with Texas/A&M and MU/KU, no one should assume that FSU/UM would continue to play if they had remained in different conferences. Also, they must have thought the ACC would provide them with enough stability in order to give themselves enough time to improve their basketball program, which it looked to have succeeded last year. Right now, Miami has it good that they can play both FSU and Pitt/Cuse/BC/Ville whenever they can.
Finally, they, like WVU, RU, VT and Ville, were never a BE original. Direct your anger towards BC, Cuse and Pitt. Those three were the ones that always wanted it both ways, siding with the basketball schools on critical matters.
LikeLike
OT – Another example of political correctness run amok?
University of Utah student government: Changes are coming to Utah fight song
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600501/University-of-Utah-student-government-Changes-are-coming-to-Utah-fight-song.html
LikeLike
How is looking at being more inclusive “political correctness run amok?” Seems appropriate as society/organizations evolve.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m a bit more cynical when it comes to these types of stories. Let’s say that the school started out as a women’s college and then decided to accept men later on. Then, let’s say that the school’s fight song refers to the strength and talent of their students, which would at the time be all women. I can understand the feeling of being gender-neutral but does that necessary mean one ignores the history of the school because of campus politics? I’m not saying that no school fight song be ever changed but I’m really tired of campus politics interfering with even things people find doesn’t merit political interference.
LikeLike
Then again, in reading the fight song lyrics, maybe it should be changed, because its silly and unimaginative.
LikeLike
Rutgers Wrestling 2014-15 Big Ten Schedule
Date Opponent Location
Jan. 2, 2015 IOWA TBA
Jan. 9, 2015 at Illinois Champaign, Ill.
Jan. 11, 2015 MINNESOTA TBA
Jan. 16, 2015 PENN STATE TBA
Jan. 18, 2015 at Maryland College Park, Md.
Jan. 25, 2015 at Nebraska Lincoln, Neb.
Feb. 1, 2015 OHIO STATE TBA
Feb. 6, 2016 at Wisconsin Madison, Wisc.
Feb. 8, 2015 at Northwestern Evanston, Ill.
Exciting schedule for wrestling fans. For those looking for wins, not so much.
LikeLike
Let’s see, they get the 4 national title contenders at home (could be the top 4 teams in the nation). That should be fun. At NE and at WI should be tough, assuming they are as good as last year. At IL and at NW might be winnable. Certainly at UMD is winnable.
LikeLike
OT – SEC revenue up more than $41M; Slive gets 25% boost in base pay
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/04/09/sec-revenue-increase-texas-am-missouri-mike-slive/7498891/
The 15% jump in total conference revenue still left it just shy of what the Big Ten reported as its total revenue for a tax year that ended June 30, 2012; the Big Ten reported $315.5 million in revenue for that period. However, the SEC’s revenue surge continued to increase the financial pressure on the other conferences.
Among the major conferences, the ACC had the next-greatest revenue total during fiscal 2011-12: $223.3 milllion, and that was with a $56.6 million increase over its income for 2010-11. No other conference reached $180 million in 2011-12, although the Pac-12’s 57.4% increase over 2010-11 put it at $175.9 million.
The SEC reported that its radio and TV rights revenue for 2012-13 was $204.2 million in 2012-13, up from $163.3 million the year before.
So, basically, even without updated info from B1G, the numbers still make an argument for two conferences pulling away from the rest in terms of revenues. The distributions from the SEC Network will make for a telling tale as to whether this trend accelerates or do market forces slow it down.
LikeLike
aTm and Missouri: “Those two schools each received about $19.5 million in their first cuts of the SEC’s primary pool of shared revenue…” “The SEC’s other 12 schools received around $21 million apiece from the main revenue pool in 2012-13…”
Hmmmm. Jr. payout in spite of not needing to purchase equity in a conference owned network?
LikeLike
I though Missouri didn’t join the BIG because they wouldn’t accept a junior cut. Where is Andy to clarify.
LikeLike
That was just about the date they joined. Missouri didn’t join soon enough to get 100% for that year.
LikeLike
And/or perhaps basketball credits stay with the conference and aTm/Missouri only had one year’s worth contributed/divided? Not saying…just asking, cause I thought they joined for that year. What part did they miss?
LikeLike
The gap was in payment was caused by some conference revenue being earned prior to A&M/Mizzou joining. Nothing to do with “jr members”.
Also, this is old news. Those number were announced by the SEC in May of ’13.
LikeLike
Yea, that’s what I’d guessed. I was just alluding to another situation – UNL buying equity in the BTN is a similar to previously earned revenue. It’s a previously purchased entity that the original schools shouldn’t be expected to just give away a portion of to a new member. Partial/reduced disbursement is a common way for this to occur.
LikeLike
Not really. Average distributions were:
2011 2012
B10 23.7 24.8
SEC 20.3 20.7
B12 19.0 19.8
P12 11.1 18.0
ACC 16.9 18.3***
***(FSU’s distribution which was at the average of $16.9 the year before-all of the ACC’s 2012 haven’t been made public yet).
Note that the B12 and SEC don’t include Tier 3 and the P12 didn’t in 2011. The SEC had the smallest increase. And its possible the B10 was 2nd smallest as the Big 12 was signing new Tier 3 deals. At best, the B10 was right in the middle in growth.
LikeLike
The SEC may have increased revenues 15%, but it was also feeding 2 more mouths.
LikeLike
note that B12 revenue included forfeited payments by CU, NU, A&M and Mizzou. True operating revenue is inflated by this temporary “revenue” stream.
LikeLike
The B12 forfeited payments were all distributed in previous years, so that does not inflate the current B12 payout, but reduced payments to TCU and WV) do. The divisor was 9 last year and will be 9.33 this year.
LikeLike
Doesn’t it take five years to get all previously earned NCAA basketball credits disbursed to the conferences? Not that it would be a significant percent of the totals.
LikeLike
In addition, $15 million of the A&M/Missouri exit fees were paid to help out WVU, so the prior year wasn’t particularly inflated.
LikeLike
And my figures are the averages. So 11 Big 10 schools got more while Nebraska got less than the average. Last year the 8 recurring members in the Big 12 got $22 million while TCU and WVU got less.
LikeLike
Just to clarify:
B10 in 2011-2 = $315M
SEC in 2012-3 = $314M
The article didn’t make that as clear as they could.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24519799/report-sec-tax-return-sets-2012-13-revenues-at-3145-million
When the SEC announced distributions of $20.7 million per team at the end of its 2013 spring meetings, those figures lagged behind those reported for the Big Ten (which set the per-school distribution at $25.7 million). And the $314 million in total revenue for the SEC in 2012-2013 trailed the $315 million reported by the Big Ten for its 2011-2012 return.
So the SEC still has a bit of a gap to close where the Big Ten is concerned, and likely still will when it releases its figures for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. But the SEC Network kicks off this August — meaning that 2014-2015 is the year when the revenues arms race will truly be one worth watching.
I’d say that the first year of the B10’s new deal (2017-8 or sooner) is really the year to watch. After that, all the major deals will be set for a while.
LikeLike
And I meant to mention:
“B10 in 2011-2 = $315M
SEC in 2012-3 = $314M”
The SEC made about the same amount a year later (so escalation in the TV deal of 4% or so) with 2 more teams (automatic escalation to keep the per team share the same, or 12-17%).
LikeLike
Yes. The SEC isn’t going to make much the first couple of years with their buyouts and startup costs. That’s straight from some ADs. They do expect it to take off pretty well after that.
LikeLike
Referring to the SEC Network not making much the first couple of years.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/05/larry-scott-pac-twelve-unions/7273567/
Larry Scott is really against a union.
The decision last week by a National Labor Relations Board official in Chicago to upend collegiate athletics by characterizing Northwestern University’s scholarship football players as “employees” is a terrible idea that will do nothing to improve college sports and may well destroy them.
Yes, those are strong words. And let me be clear — I am not defending the status quo. The Pac-12 Conference, of which I have been commissioner since 2009, along with other conferences around the country, have been pressing for NCAA reform that would reflect the evolving needs of student-athletes, allowing for increased academic support, improved student-athlete health care, and enhanced athletic scholarships up to the full cost of attendance. I am confident reform is coming within the NCAA in the next few months, and soon universities will be allowed to provide this additional support for student-athletes.
But there is absolutely no question that turning students into employees would take us in precisely the opposite direction that we need to go.
LikeLike
Echoing Bowlsby from a few days ago.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/polls/2014/04/which-home-game-are-you-most-excited-michigan-excluded
Just an idea how excited OSU fans are about adding RU.
For which home game are you most excited? (Michigan excluded.)
VT 73%
UC 23%
RU 2% (26 out of 1223 votes)
Kent State 1% (14)
IL 0% (6)
IN 0% (6)
LikeLike
Hmm. More excited than about UofI or IU.
Then again, you really didn’t expect the RU game to draw more interest than the VTech game, did you?
LikeLike
From the comments, some/much of that “excitement” is solely about welcoming RU to the B10 properly by crushing them. In future years, they’ll drop down to the noise level with IU and UI.
No, I certainly didn’t expect them to match VT. One might have expected a new conference member to at least compete with an AAC team and to crush a MAC team for interest, though.
LikeLike
An in-state AAC and in-state MAC team, mind you. Likely, fans (at least in OH) want to play/beat up on neighbors more than coaches & AD’s do.
LikeLike
OSU fans generally have very low interest in playing the other OH teams. Fans of those schools get excited, so the AD keeps scheduling them, but most OSU fans aren’t driving the demand.
LikeLike
The poll shows otherwise (unless you’re saying a bunch of UC fans are voting in that poll, which . . .maybe).
What do you have to back up your assertion? Anecdotes?
LikeLike
No, it’s OSU fans from the Cincinnati area that voted for UC mostly (some UC fans, too, but not tons). That’s why I generalized. Most OSU fans aren’t from the Cincinnati area, and few of them show much interest in UC. I base that on knowing literally hundreds of OSU fans from all over the state of OH and around the country, including a wide range of ages. Also from living in the state for more than a decade, as well as remembering quite well when OSU last played UC in a game.
LikeLike
Dang, Kent State only needed to swing 7 votes to hit number 4 (given that number one is so automatic is was left off the list).
LikeLike
Hate to see Illinois so far down. The Illibuck trophy sad means little to most.
LikeLike
True. But remember that this sort of poll only let’s you pick #1. I’d rather see a poll where each game gets a 0-10 measure on the interest scale (0 = I-AA, 10 = MI).
MI – 10
VT – 7
IL – 5
UC – 4
IN – 3
Kent – 3
RU – 1
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10758585/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-says-subsidizing-ncaa-athletes-possibility
Adam Silver suggests maybe the NBA would help pay for athletes to stay in school an extra year.
LikeLike
Makes sense. Cheaper and less risky than investing millions in building the NBADL.
LikeLike
The schools can’t get contractually involved with a professional entity in providing any student aid. May as well as become a subsidiary. Now, if there is a 100% NCAA governed and controlled fund created to provide assistance within NCAA guidelines I’m sure contributions would be happily accepted…
LikeLike
A sad story about Lacey Holdsworth, the 8-y/o Mich St fan who lost her battle with cancer.
Michigan State superfan Lacey Holsworth loses her battle with cancer
LikeLike
The new B1G offices in NYC will be in, as predicted by myself and others, midtown Manhattan, focusing on branding, communications, compliance, and championships. Satellite office will also be in DC.
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/041014aad.html
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/98797/big-ten-to-open-new-york-office-in-june
900 Third Avenue to be precise. It’s a 32-story building, apparently.
LikeLike
Madoff had his offices across the street.
LikeLike
Might be fiction, but interesting reading on how athletes get paid now:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview
LikeLike
I wonder how similar or different the monetary transaction/compensation aspect of the growing coed-oldster Sugar Daddy phenomenom is.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview
Recruiting in the SEC.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-football/2014/04/34961/years-b1g-winners-could-hinge-lots-returning-starters-2013
A look at returning starters in the B10.
LikeLike
And people wonder why OU/UT have little interest in the SEC…
LikeLike
I’m going to assume that was a reply to the recruiting post. Is it any wonder the SEC won so many titles lately? They oversigned to get a huge (but legal) advantage, and then paid players big money on top of that to get an even bigger and illegal advantage.
LikeLike
I heard an OU fan once say joining the SEC would be like a recovering alcoholic getting a job in a bar.
LikeLike
And the first team is eliminated from FB post season competition this year:
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-on-college-football/24521520/unlvs-appeal-of-postseason-ban-denied
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/04/10/pac-12-football-fewer-night-games-more-regional-broadcasts-and-the-negotiations-with-espn-and-fox-sports-1/
Interesting things happening on the west coast.
The Pac-12 is moving toward a reduction in night football games next season.
…
But the reduction could very well come at a cost: More regional telecasts on the Pac-12 Networks, which potentially could limit availability to viewers throughout the league.
We’ll get to the end result in a few minutes. Let’s start with the background:
The conference and its member school weren’t happy with the number of night games last season: By my count, 33 started at 7 p.m. or later (Pacific Time) on ESPN, Fox Sports 1 and the Pac-12 Networks.
As detailed here, there were two issues:
1. ESPN and Fox need inventory at 7/7:30 p.m., at the conclusion of games in the eastern and central time zones.
2. At the same time, ESPN and FOX have in their contract with the Pac-12 what’s known as a window of exclusivity.
When the networks broadcast Pac-12 games nationally at 4 or 5 p.m., no other Pac-12 games can be televised.
That forces the Pac-12 Networks to schedule games in early window (12/1 p.m.) and especially in the late window (7/7:30 p.m.).
And that’s in addition to all the night games on ESPN and FS1.
Last season, there were 16 Saturday night games on ESPN and FS1 last fall (most of them on ESPN) and another 17 on the Pac12Nets.
The fans, donors and coaches weren’t thrilled, and they told the athletic directors, and the athletic directors told the presidents, and the presidents directed commissioner Larry Scott and deputy Kevin Weiberg to reduce to number of night games moving forward.
Which brings us to the discussions/negotiations that began months ago ….
In a significant show of good faith, ESPN and Fox agreed to eliminate the window of exclusivity AND cap the number of night games at a slightly higher total than they showed in ’13.
(Remember: There are no restrictions in the original contract regarding the number of night games that can be shown by the ESPN and Fox families, and the networks paid $3 billion in part because the conference offered unprecedented flexibility with the schedule. More games in new real estate equals more money.)
Naturally, the league had to give up something in return, and it was this:
A reduction in the minimum number of national telecasts (i.e., ABC or FOX over-the-air) from the current total of 10. (FOX was responsible for eight, ABC for two, and not surprisingly, FOX was pushing for the reduction.)
All told: Fewer national telecasts but far fewer night games and a cap on the number of night games in the future.
Seems like a fair deal … like a good deal for the Pac-12, right?
But the conference said no.
Why in the world … ?
Based on everything I’ve gathered from sources, the league determined that removing the exclusive window would not reduce the net total of night games below the 2013 figure.
Even if the Pac12Nets moved a handful of games into the late-afternoon window, FS1 would likely offset that reduction with a slight uptick in night games on its schedule — not in 2014, perhaps, but in future years as the network acquires more programming.
According to sources, Scott was under significant pressure from Pac-12 presidents/chancellors to reduce the total, using the 2013 figure as a baseline.
A deal would have achieved that goal relative to night broadcasts in future years, but it would not have reduced the total compared to the ’13 figure.
So Scott walked away.
Read more in the article.
LikeLike
There is an obvious solution if the networks would pay for it.
Expand to 14. Let the new schools play a disproportionate number of night games. Hawaii and one of SDSU/UNLV/BYU/Houston/New Mexico.
LikeLike
The only PAC expansion will involve UT, or won’t happen.
As a hypothetical though, you know better than to suggest BYU. California already is covered to the tune of four members, and ISU gets into the B1G before a Cal St school is allowed in the PAC by the UC schools. UNLV…maybe in a couple decades…maybe. UNM? Good school, basketball…and nonexistent FB. Houston is in Texas and a good school…but not without a partner. Hawaii I’d jump at. Recruiting, with guaranteed trips to paradise? How much would bag men have to fork over to compensate?
LikeLike
Being a little facetious here.
Could keeping the money and not keeping the night games bother them enough to expand? Probably not. But it is a solution. And Hawaii gets them closer to Asia as Scott keeps talking about.
LikeLike
SDSU is a possible final addition for the same reason TCU was added to the Big 12. Getting into Southern California more often. Going to 14 reduces the number of games against UCLA and USC for teams in the other division. The northern schools in the Big 12 were the ones who wanted TCU, not the Texas schools. And SDSU is the highest rated Cal St. school from a research standpoint.
LikeLike
The powers that be in U Cal system don’t give a rat’s a$$ about some small southern California LA suburb market that they already dominate. The money it might represent is couch cushion change compared to the system battles they engage in. Is UT welcoming UTSA to the Big12? Now picture them being of another, disliked, inferior, competitor for the same funds from the state. And a system that has divergent emphasis and mission. Now ask them to join and enjoy the benefits of top level visibility and promotion, thanks to their sworn enemy?
LikeLike
Although the Pac-12 schools want fewer night games, they aren’t willing to do it at all costs: otherwise, they would have accepted the deal ESPN and Fox offered them.
If they didn’t do that, they’re not going to take two clearly sub-optimal schools. I agree with @ccrider55 that a Pac expansion not involving Texas is difficult to imagine.
LikeLike
If sub optimal is defined as not their white whale (UT), then yes. They did expand with a long time target and AAU school and one of the best non power conf member schools that filled a market, and is decent academically. (And supposedly passed on the Okla schools)
They may be measuring/balancing loss of in-stadium income against increased TV income. Many of their schools have far longer “local” travel, and challenging terrain if weather is uncooperative. I like evening games in September. November, not so much.
LikeLike
If sub optimal is defined as not their white whale (UT), then yes.
It’s not so much “Texas or nothing”. It’s that I can’t think of any other school remotely close to their territory that would improve their brand. This is unlike, say, the Big Ten, where you can think of many options besides Texas that would be worth considering, if the opportunity arises.
They did expand with a long time target and AAU school and one of the best non power conf member schools that filled a market…
I can’t think of any schools left that make as much sense as those two did; and of course, the benefit of being able to add a CCG can’t be reaped again.
LikeLike
Agreed. Even were UO and Stanford to remain powers, UW returns to Don James like success and USC recovers and an argument could be made that they were in a similar position as the B1G currently finds itself not needing a home run and could look at a RU/Maryland type of add, where would they find one? All the population centers (except sin city) in the western third of the country are already covered. Several UCal’s are academically fine but add nothing else. UNM? Maybe I f Albuquerque was three or four times it’s size it would be a possible project. No, it’s Texas that brings the worthwhile population. If the B12 looks likely to be sound as GOR expiration approaches, and there is a driving need to go beyond 12 (what that would be I don’t know) perhaps a Rice/Houston long term project for the academics and the inroads.
LikeLike
Another aspect of this I wanted to touch on:
The P12 had 33 night games, 16 on ESPN or FS1 and 17 on P12N. The fans and presidents complained about the number of night games, and the nights they were on.
The B10 fans are complaining about wanting more night games. The B10 had 18 night games, with 10 on the ESPN family (or FOX) and 8 on BTN. I didn’t count 5pm games as night games, either. I do realize the B10 had no weekday games to bitch about.
Where is the sweet spot, or is the grass always greener?
I think the distribution of them is a small problem:
Week 1 – 5
Wk 2 – 2
Wk 3 – 4
Wk 4 – 2
Wks 5, 6, 8 and 9 – 1 (week 7 had a 3:30 and a 5pm game)
Wk 10 was the start of November, so none until the CCG
I could see trying to get 1 per week on BTN with the expansion to 14 teams. As long as both teams are OK with it, I’m not against November night games. They could be good exposure for the smaller brands.
Better OOC games may help get another 1 or 2 in September.
Having more ranked teams should mean another 1-2 during the season.
What is it people are looking for?
LikeLike
I know that schools like NU and IU like night games because we get higher attendance for those games.
I’m not sure why the Pac schools are b*tching. Maybe only old fogies who want to get to bed by 9PM go to their games?
LikeLike
Richard,
“I know that schools like NU and IU like night games because we get higher attendance for those games.”
And the AZ schools won’t play home day games until mid-October due to the heat.
“I’m not sure why the Pac schools are b*tching. Maybe only old fogies who want to get to bed by 9PM go to their games?”
Multiple reasons according to Wilner’s other columns and my interpretations of them:
1. Games that used to be earlier and on FX in 2012 moved to 7 PT on FS1. That means a lot fewer viewers (FX > FS1 and 10pm ET is too late to keep eastern viewers). I can understand the presidents being upset about getting fewer viewers just to help FS1 get started.
2. The west coast is used to thinking of the 5 PT slot as the best one since that’s when the premier national games play. Playing after that makes the games seem less important.
3. Football kicks off at 9am PT, so many western fans are used to starting their day early. Starting games at 7pm PT makes for a very long day for them.
4. The P12’s tradition of daylight football is at least as strong as the B10’s. Many of their fans prefer an afternoon game to a night game.
5. The P12 might have an urban problem. The schools in major cities can struggle with traffic and such in LA/SF/Seattle/etc at dinner time. Few conferences have as many urban schools as they do.
6. Utah and CO don’t want to kickoff home games at 8:30 CT. I’m guessing Utah has a lot of old fogey fans that would rather go to bed early, too, especially since they can’t spend the day tailgating like most other schools (lots of Mormons means lots of fans not drinking).
7. Many of their night games were also on weekdays. Again, I can understand presidents complaining about that.
8. Games the P12 wanted on FOX went on FS1 instead. They don’t see the point in night games if they aren’t maximizing exposure with them.
LikeLike
I would speculate the distances are further, meaning its hard to get home after the game.
LikeLike
I think it’s the exclusivity clause that forces P12N games to 7 or later starts. Plus the 2 week, and sometimes 6 day before decision time for ESPN/Fox to decide which window they’ll use.
LikeLike
Yes, that clause is why they had so many night games. Richard was wondering why they complained about them.
I was wondering if B10 fans are chasing a goal that won’t make them any happier, just upset in different ways.
I know more night games will probably me more BTN night games, which means a lot less exposure (fewer homes have and watch it). But if it’s just moving BTN afternoon games to night, that’s more of a wash. People without BTN can’t see them either way. But those night games would then conflict with the game of the week on ABC, meaning fewer viewers than normal. You certainly don’t want them hurting the national broadcast of another B10 game (ABC ratings = money for everybody).
Perhaps just using more staggered start times would help. Bring back the 1:30 start so they kickoff as the noon games go to halftime. Make the AAC or MAC kickoff at 10am on ESPN2, then B10 at 1:30. Likewise, they could use that 5pm slot more often.
LikeLike
“I was wondering if B10 fans are chasing a goal that won’t make them any happier, just upset in different ways.”
It really depends on the school.
Out in the cornfields, Iowa doesn’t seem terribly fond of night games (as their fans have to drive back to whatever corner of IA they live in).
NU and IU get better attendance at night (though in NU’s case, you won’t see a ton of night games either because we draw a lot of families, and parents want their young kiddies in bed early).
I don’t think schools like UM or UW or OSU will want more than one highlight/premier night home game per season. At most two.
So in short, the best deal is one where the conference isn’t forced to schedule an onerous number of night games and the individual schools can choose to a large extent how many they want.
This can happen even with 1 marquee primetime B10 game per week for about 10 weeks sold as a separate TV package (which was a strategy that I’d proposed a while ago).
LikeLike
I think distance when some fan bases may not see the need for the exclusivity. Hypothetical Utah at WSU in November with neither in contention (or possibly struggling for bowl eligibility) gets assigned to P12N and at 7:30. Other than a few not willing to travel (and bitch about it) where is the viewership gain for the protected national game? Perhaps a “last choice” clause would allow for AD unattractive game to be on the participating schools regional channels in the afternoon would be a alternative in November? I doubt you could budge ESPN/Fox from their ability to select and use the evening/night window, and I think the fans might grumble but understand those. It’s the unselected being bumped back in November that frustrates.
LikeLike
Richard,
“It really depends on the school.”
Which could mean just shifting the dissatisfaction from one group to another rather than reducing net dissatisfaction.
“I don’t think schools like UM or UW or OSU will want more than one highlight/premier night home game per season. At most two.”
Gene Smith has been saying he wants 2, mostly because OSU keeps playing 3 night games every year (I think 3 has been the B10’s max) and he’d rather play 2 at home than two on the road. It’s easier on the players and better for the team.
“So in short, the best deal is one where the conference isn’t forced to schedule an onerous number of night games and the individual schools can choose to a large extent how many they want.”
So where does that fall, numberwise? 33 for 12 teams felt like too much for P12 fans (3 per team), but B10 fans have complained about 18 for 12 (1.5 per team). Split the difference at 24 for 12 which becomes 28 for 14? That’s a convenient number (basically 2 per team as well as 2 per week on average). Maybe they should do a better job of spreading the games around more equally rather than vastly increasing the number.
2013 night games:
4 kings – 9, 8 ESPN (2/team), 1 BTN (0.25/team)
3 princes – 4, 2 ESPN (0.67/team), 2 BTN (0.67/team)
Other 5 – 8, 2 ESPN (0.25/team), 6 BTN (1.2/team)
Who wants more night games, when in the season, and what network will carry them?
The other 5 seem the most likely to want to increase their exposure, but those will likely be BTN games. The princes seem really under-served, and they could pull some ESPN slots potentially, especially with strong OOC games. The kings already get a lot of coverage, so I don’t think they are chasing a big increase in night games.
Can the B10 get games like MSU/WI to be on BTN, or will ESPN always get them for afternoon games? Can the B10 get ABC to air king/prince conference games (OSU @ MSU this year, for example)? I can see trying to get a few more night games in September, but that’s really down to having more good games to choose from.
“This can happen even with 1 marquee primetime B10 game per week for about 10 weeks sold as a separate TV package (which was a strategy that I’d proposed a while ago).”
Honestly, the B10 schedule doesn’t always have a marquee game. Especially in double bye years like 2013 and 2014.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1375237.html
Here are CFN’s guesses of the best B10 games each week that seem marquee:
August 30
1. Wisconsin vs. LSU (in Houston)
September 6
1. Michigan State at Oregon
November 8
1. Ohio State at Michigan State
November 28
2. Nebraska at Iowa (Black Friday)
I could see those on Saturday at 8 on ESPN.
—
This next group seem below the marquee level ABC requires (more like 3:30 games for them). Who is looking for this tier of games, and do we want to risk losing the exposure of the 3:30 national slot? How well will they do when up against the national game of the week on ABC?
September 20
1. Miami at Nebraska
October 4
1. Nebraska at Michigan State
October 11
1. Penn State at Michigan
October 18
1. Nebraska at Northwestern
October 25
1. Michigan at Michigan State
November 15
1. Nebraska at Wisconsin
November 22
1. Wisconsin at Iowa
—
And then there are the bad weeks. Do these seem marquee?
September 13
1. Penn State at Rutgers
September 27
1. Minnesota at Michigan
November 1
1. Indiana at Michigan
—
Other years should be a little better with only a single bye week. And hopefully the B10 can get more highly ranked teams in the future making for more desirable games nationally.
LikeLike
“Which could mean just shifting the dissatisfaction from one group to another rather than reducing net dissatisfaction.”
Um, no, it means that schools don’t have to have the same number of night games.
“This next group seem below the marquee level ABC requires (more like 3:30 games for them).”
I disagree on a bunch of these. They’re all good enough to be primetime games besides maybe NU-UNL (especially Miami-UNL, OSU-MSU, UNL-Wisconsin, & PSU-UM). I also disagree with CFN, as for TV purposes, OSU-PSU is a better matchup than UM-MSU. For that matter, I disagree with how you rank the matchups (UNL-Iowa more marquee than UNL-Wisconsin? Huh?) For that matter, the carrier doesn’t have to be ABC or match up to the current ABC gotw levels. Look at what types of ND games NBC shows in primetime for the shamrock series.
“Who is looking for this tier of games, and do we want to risk losing the exposure of the 3:30 national slot? How well will they do when up against the national game of the week on ABC?”
I don’t see anything special about exposure in the 3:30 timeslot. Primetime would get us exposure as well. Also, 3:30 has us going up against the SEC game of the week. Frankly, I think that’s more challenging than going up against the “best of Pac/B12/ACC” in primetime.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Um, no, it means that schools don’t have to have the same number of night games.”
That already don’t, and the dissatisfaction exists. And please note that I said “could.” It wasn’t a definitive statement of what would happen.
“I disagree on a bunch of these. They’re all good enough to be primetime games besides maybe NU-UNL (especially Miami-UNL, OSU-MSU, UNL-Wisconsin, & PSU-UM).”
Based on ABC’s history of games shown, what makes you think they’d ever pick those? OSU and MSU are predicted to be AP top 10 teams. WI is projected at #17, and nobody else in the top 25. Also top 13 – OR and LSU. Neither Miami nor NE is top 25 projected, so I don’t call that truly marquee. WI is but NE isn’t, so I doubt such a B10 game would get GotW status from ABC unless the slate is weak across the board. Neither PSU nor MI are top 25 projections either, so I don’t see that being a GotW despite the brands involved. I did put OSU/MSU in that marquee group, so I’ll assume that was a typo on your part.
Could those games be national? Sure. But they wouldn’t be GotW type of marquee games, which is what I said originally.
“I also disagree with CFN,”
Feel free. I just used them as a neutral source to pick the top games.
“as for TV purposes, OSU-PSU is a better matchup than UM-MSU.”
I believe they were solely going by quality of game, not what’s best for TV. That said, I think PSU will still be a diminished brand until they get their player numbers back up. MI/MSU is more likely to be important and a battle of better teams.
“For that matter, I disagree with how you rank the matchups (UNL-Iowa more marquee than UNL-Wisconsin? Huh?)”
I pulled out the NE/IA game solely because it’s on Black Friday, when the competition is much weaker. I wouldn’t rate it above NE/WI if it was a Saturday game.
“For that matter, the carrier doesn’t have to be ABC or match up to the current ABC gotw levels.”
It doesn’t have to be ABC, no. But I used them as a baseline for judging “marquee” status. If some network wants to buy that 10 game package but not pay as much per game as ABC does for their GotW selections, then slightly lesser games could work. But they’d have to compete head to head with the GotW selection on ABC which is always tough.
“I don’t see anything special about exposure in the 3:30 timeslot.”
The ADs seem to, as they often stress the value of that national slot. Perhaps because it let’s them keep day games, but maybe they like the number of available viewers, too. I don’t know.
No broadcast network has yet committed to a conference GotW in primetime. CBS does that for the SEC at 3:30, but not at 8pm. ABC uses multiple conferences. FOX doesn’t do one every week. NBC only does ND games, and only a few per year at 8pm.
LikeLike
Before the usual suspects chime in, yes, MU basketball player Zach Price was kicked off the team for the assault charges.
And yes, even though former #1 recruit in the nation Dorial Green Beckham was never arrested or charged, he was kicked off the football team for having been accused of pushing a woman down 4 stairs and she fell and bruised her hand, and even though she didn’t want to press charges.
As I said up thread, all programs have their share of players getting into trouble for one thing or another. Bullet brought up Stanford, Northwestern, Rice, etc, and within seconds I found google results of their players being arrested for this and that.
Off the field/court arrests are inevitable. The question is what does a program do about it. Years ago when Lawrence Phillips was accused of pushing/dragging a woman down some stairs, Tom Osborn famously declared that Phillps “needed football in his life”, and he played anyway. Florida State had a fairly high profile example of this just this past season with their QB. Mizzou doesn’t do it that way. Commit that kind of offense and you’re gone, even if you’re the #1 recruit in the country.
LikeLike
The #1 recruit in the nation deserves one free bitch throw, imo…..,
What really sucks is that,aside from those those arrests, he was probably a model citizen at Mizzou………I’m pretty sure you told us as much………you guys are never going to compete in the SEC that way!!!!!
LikeLike
troll troll trollololo…. never said any such thing, liar.
LikeLike
If you go back enough years. I remember the Rice one because it was the only one I had heard of in 20 years. I’m sure it wasn’t the only one, but they are pretty rare there, not 5 or 6 or 10 or 12 a year like a lot of other schools.
LikeLike
The story I heard for the gun arrests is a little different from what one would expect in this day and age. Yes, the two arrested actually had a shotgun in their room. But it was an antique shotgun. One of the fathers had sent it to Houston to be repaired. The player picked it up when it was done and put it in his rook expecting to drive it home on the weekend. Charges were dropped on that one.
As for the marijuana case, I don’t have any info on how that was resolved. Before these I’ve not found another Rice player arrested since a bar fight in west Texas in the early 1960s.
LikeLike
Congrats to MN on a last second win to advance to the hockey title game. #1 MN vs #3 Union tomorrow night.
LikeLike
Last half second, and a man down.
LikeLike
Not a big hockey fan but watched most of that game. Was rooting for MN, I thought ND outplayed MN most of the night. MN was very lucky to win………,.
Hockey is like soccer in that so many goals are so arbitrary…..to me that’s a problem with both sports….
LikeLike
Agreed, low scoring sports that defense generally dominates often have a fluky feel to the outcome. It’s why I dislike the one and done format for the Frozen Four, or home and homes in soccer. Baseball’s long series remove that since of fluke outcomes.
LikeLike
I agree with you guys regarding the potential for “flukey” goals/wins in the current format… I don’t think we’d ever see any series type play in the NCAA playoffs–simply due to too many games… Wouldn’t mind seeing some type of round-robin tournament, where a single loss would not eliminate you… Winners follow winners bracket, losers to losers… 2 losses and you are out. Would have to expand time to complete the tournament—could be done though, as right now, the Frozen Four skips the basketball final four weekend… Don’t know if the powers that be would ever change the current format…
Go Gophers! Title #6 on the line…
LikeLike
No, I doubt the NCAA will ever change. Nor should they, really. The larger goal is to limit the number of games for the players, not find the most definitive champion possible. The Cinderella factor is fun, too.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was living in Australia when they were eliminated (from the fifth World Cup in a row) in a home and home against Iran, when Asia had 3.5 teams and Oceania 0.5 … came out of Iran with a 1-1 draw, were leading 2-0 early in the second half. The game ended 3-3 and Iran went on the away goals rule. If anything, the turning point in the match was when a serial pitch invader got onto the playing field and cut the net, causing a substantial delay, which may have been the (at the point of the delay) likely trip to the World Cup taking their heads out of the game at hand. But even home and home is better than single elimination … as hard as the away goals rule elimination is to take, losing in a penalty shoot-out in a single elimination association football tournament is worse.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10767938/report-says-missouri-tigers-follow-federal-law-handling-suicide-case
An independent report says the University of Missouri failed to follow parts of the federal law that governs sexual harassment when handling the case of a former swimmer’s suicide.
The report released Friday says the Columbia campus should have investigated 20-year-old Sasha Menu Courey’s 2011 death after her parents raised questions about the events leading to her suicide.
Menu Courey alleged she was sexually assaulted by as many as three football players 16 months before she died.
The school previously said it didn’t act sooner under the Title IX law because neither Courey nor her parents sought a police investigation and didn’t respond to a later request for information. The case has been referred to Columbia police.
The external report was prepared by the Dowd Bennett law firm.
LikeLike
So if you read the actual report, what it says is that Mizzou did nothing wrong while the student was actually at Mizzou. Where they failed is that there was no written policy in place to handle what they should have done when a year after her suicide it was revealed in a newspaper article that her diary talked about how she was raped years ago while at Mizzou. Official written policy was that they ask the alleged victim if they wanted an investigation. Because the alleged victim was deceased, Mizzou opted to contact the former student’s parents. The parents declined to respond (even though they admit they got the correspondence). Mizzou took this as a “no”. The investigation found that Mizzou should have investigated anyway. This would seem to be a judgment call but regardless this was the issue in question, according to the investigation.
LikeLike
Andy,
Is there no decency or common sense? The young girl committed suicide…that is not the expected outcome for most students at a university. I would expect that the university should be bending over backwards to prevent suicides. Your comments are mere legal excuses in case they get sued…hardly a glowing endorsement that the university is taking the right actions.
LikeLike
What are you talking about?
OK, facts of the case: Girl is diagnosed as mentally ill. Has attempted suicide in high school. Comes to Mizzou. She and her parents never tell Mizzou or her coaches about her mental illness. She again has problems. Attempts suicide again, this time at Mizzou. Mizzou recommends that she withdraw from school and seek psychiatric care. She is released to her parents and taken to Boston (thousands of miles from Mizzou) and committed to a psychiatric institution there. She commits suicide a year later while commited at that psychiatric institution. Mizzou has had nothing to do with her for quite some time at that point.
To review: girl has mental illness for years with suicide attempts before, during, and after her time at Mizzou. She is at Mizzou for a fraction of that time. She gets neither better nor worse while at Mizzou. Investigation found that Mizzou did everthing right by her while she was alive.
So, please, Mr. Random Outraged Internet Dude, please tell me specifically what you are outraged about?
LikeLike
“Everything right?” Yes, and so did Joe Paterno. At least he acknowledged he messed up.
LikeLike
It’s hilarious. You guys are always eager to waggle your fingers but you never even attempt to get into any specifics as to what you’re actually bitching about.
I’ll ask again: what, specifically, are you saying Mizzou did wrong here?
There was an independent investigation. They said that when the newspaper article came out a year after the girl’s death Mizzou should have gone ahead and investigated even without the parent’s permission. So they did fault Mizzou with something.
But they looked into all the stuff from when she was alive and didn’t find anything wrong.
You’re apparently just assuming Mizzou did something wrong here just because. Am I getting that right? Or do you actually have a point?
LikeLike
Andy,
Fascinating how you present facts. I guess that her telling multiple health care professionals at Missouri about the rape by athletes doesn’t strike you as concerning. The fact that her diary corroborates her story or that she spiraled downward after the rape must be mere coincidence.
You do fine work tarring the victim while whitewashing Missouri’s inaction as normal behavior.
LikeLike
Dude, are you aware that HIPPA laws forbid healthcare professionals from sharing her information without her permission? D’oh. Guess that just blew up your entire argument. Got anything else?
LikeLike
Not to mention that it’s textbook behavior for borderline personality disorder sufferers to fall into imaginary false realities and that basically nothing she wrote in that diary can be taken as literal truth. Check out the book “I Hate You, Don’t Leave Me: Understanding the Borderline Personality”.
LikeLike
Self-diagnosing, Andy??
LikeLike
har har, more trolling, no details.
What, specifically, did Missouri do wrong?
LikeLike
First, you misspelled HIPAA. Second, the information became public and the university did not take actions. Third, there is conflicting information about whether she also told non-health professionals…and the university has chosen to not investigate.
LikeLike
first, ok, I did.
second, they did investigate when they found out, a year after her death, but before progressing to an in depth investigation they asked permission from the parents, and permission wasn’t given, so they didn’t proceed. The police could have investigated just as much the university at that point. As you said, the information, or what little there was, was public. The police had complete access to it. They also chose not to investigate. So why isn’t the heat on them? It’s the police department’s job to investigate rapes, not the University. The University is just an academic institution. Nobody ever requested an investigation from either party.
third, the girl’s diary doesn’t even make sense. Clearly written by a crazy person. Her account of the alleged rape itself is completely nonsensical. She said she was having consensual sex with her boyfriend, but then he left the room and some other guy came in and started having sex with her, but she never saw his face. And she wasn’t mad at her boyfriend about this. Then later she told a friend it was several guys, and the story became much more brutal. But again, she never saw any of their faces and doesn’t know who they are. Might it have happened? Sure. Might it have also been the fantasies of someone who is mentally disturbed? Yes. And again, the story of her telling a Mizzou official, according to her diary this happened shortly before her suicide, and nearly a year after she left Mizzou. She says she called up her academic advisor and told her, but was “relieved” when the academic advisor didn’t acknowledge that she had said it and changed the subject. Now, could this have happened? Sure. Is it likely? Well, how likely is it that an academic advisor would ignore a girl who callls out of the blue to report a rape and then just change the subject? Again, sounds like the imaginings of a crazy person. On top of that, the official in question says that the conversation never happened, and there’s no record of the phone call ever taking place. So…
But I know, I know.. It’s much more fun on here to bash Mizzou than it is to actually look at the facts.
And I challenge anyone to point out anything I said that wasn’t true. You won’t be able to. I’ll tell you that right now.
LikeLike
There’s a disturbing pattern-Notre Dame, Montana, Missouri, FSU.
Notre Dame has already had their investigation and basically just got reprimanded by the feds. Montana, Missouri and FSU are still on-going. Montana was a continuing pattern.
LikeLike
Um, what? Missouri’s investigation isn’t ongoing. It’s over. There’s the result. The end.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24522464/temple-president-price-hike-could-force-owls-out-of-the-linc
Temple may have to find or build a new stadium soon.
LikeLike
No stadium. Semi-private, so maybe unions can work on Temple. Dropping football maybe?
LikeLike
OT – This may have some indirect effect on BTN or not, but just read that Service Electric Cablevision has dropped YES from its systems on April 1.
http://web.yesnetwork.com/carriers/sec/statement.jsp
LikeLike
Bullet posted this link above. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/10/5594348/college-football-bag-man-interview
Thanks, Bullet, for the link.
I don’t think this got as much attention as it deserves. It is very long, so maybe folks skipped it for that reason. I also agree that it could be a great great fictional account. But there are many aspects that “ring true.” Given so much discussion of “rural,” I’d guess this bagman “works” for ‘Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, MissSt or maybe Arky.
I want to raise the article again in terms of why the Olympic model could never work for “paying” athletes. As I’ve said before, the Olympic model will simply open the floodgates of booster money going into CFB and BB (and hockey and wrestling). The structure, actors, financiers, business owners, job providers, bagmen, etc., are already in place.
What is already happening becomes semi-public and then expands by 1000x. The competition between booster groups to fund player “endorsements” would be fierce and, ultimately, ugly to the average CFB fan.
Now maybe we all would get used to it. No one is upset when LeBron makes his millions. He is lionized for it, in fact. So, maybe 10 years in, when the #1 QB recruit gets his $1M “endorsement” deal to go the USC, ‘Bama, where ever, we will all shrug.
But that future CFB would be very different from what we experience now.
LikeLike
That’s the real problem with allowing them to do endorsements. Alabama’s endorsement deals will pay more than UAB’s or Mississippi St.’s or Memphis, maybe even more than SMU!
LikeLike
Bag man = endorsement representative.
No one is speeding if the speed limit is raised to 800 mph…
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem with that though. We already see schools with big money have tremendous advantages because they have the best facilities, coaches, stadiums, and usually fan following. What edorsements would do is shift a lot of that donated money from the school (which uses it on facilities and coaches) to the players. Yeah it’s a different model and I hate to see the change, but that bridge was crossed long ago and at this point it’s the only fair way to go in my opinion.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I also agree that it could be a great great fictional account. But there are many aspects that “ring true.””
It’s also corroborated by a long stream of comments over the years from anonymous coaches and former players that have said this stuff goes on down south.
“I want to raise the article again in terms of why the Olympic model could never work for “paying” athletes.”
It’s simple – there is no competition in the Olympic model. The US can’t buy an elite sprinter by offering them more endorsements than their home country. Thus, no business has an incentive to spend more than an athlete is worth to them in business terms.
LikeLike
The other difference is that there is no recruiting pipeline for high school speed skaters, so no one is offering a young kid hookers and wads of $100 bills, in the hope that he might be the next Apollo Ohno. But there are plenty who would gladly offer the moon to a 5* QB, merely on the hope that he might be the next Johnny Manziel.
LikeLike
“It’s simple – there is no competition in the Olympic model. The US can’t buy an elite sprinter by offering them more endorsements than their home country.”
Eh, there sort of is. Multiple Gulf states have bought Kenyan long-distance runner (and other athletes) by essentially paying them (and giving them citizenship). Other athletes have decided to represent the US after immigrating here in part because the sponsorship potential if they win as an American is much greater than in their own country.
LikeLike
But they have a built in delay period, similar (but longer I believe) to the NCAA year ineligible unless appeal or a release is granted.
LikeLike
I’d be willing to bet the problem is worse in big time basketball with AAU coaches and runners. This article highlighted football but if the same was done in basketball, the payments would be bigger and the cheating would be national…including the B1G.
LikeLike
I don’t think the payments would be bigger for hoops, actually. There may be more small-scale cheating in hoops, but I don’t think the big brands actually need to cheat that much. So many players want to go to Duke, UK, KU, etc that those schools don’t need to cheat to get an elite class and their brand power is so great that a second-tier school can’t really buy a player away from them since the potential NBA payoff is so much better. In football, the competition is different.
LikeLike
For BIG and LAX fans: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/lacrosse/bs-sp-lacrosse-quint-kessenich-hopkins-terps-0411-20140410,0,7228599.story
Highlights of the decades-long MD-Johns Hopkins LAX rivalry.
LikeLike
The TV history may be the most relevant part to the B10.
In 1998, WMAR-TV, the ABC affiliate in Baltimore, televised the Maryland-Johns Hopkins game. Big crowd, party atmosphere with local flavor, and an exciting game that had strong TV ratings and received sponsorship ample enough to foster a “Game of the Week” format the following spring. That initial package has led to more coverage on ESPNU and other national cable stations.
The rivalry was the foundation for national television coverage of a sport that was widely unseen, other than the NCAA title game, outside of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. That television coverage has continued to fertilize growth across the nation. So while the Terps and Blue Jays have accounted for only two national championships since 1987, their impact on the big picture remains enormous.
The rivalry represents the past and the future of the sport. As both programs get set to enter the Big Ten in 2015, Maryland and Hopkins could play twice a year, a regular-season game followed by a potential matchup in the Big Ten tournament. The Big Ten Network will continue to spread the gospel, showcasing a rivalry that’s almost as old as Michigan-Ohio State football. Fans hope to see Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers and Michigan take the next step to greatness — ramping up their programs to compete with the two traditional powers — and eager to see new growth at other conference schools like Northwestern, Minnesota and Michigan State.
Neither Maryland nor Hopkins is as dominant as it once was. The Terps have been sniffing around an NCAA title forever, but they haven’t held gold since 1975. Hopkins hasn’t appeared at championship weekend since 2008 and is in jeopardy of missing the NCAA tournament for the second consecutive season.
It should be interesting to see what joining the B10 together does for their rivalry. Both fan bases will expect to play for the title every year. Their annual regular season game should be for the #1 seed most of the time, but I’m not sure that matters much. It’ll be more about pride and trying to establish B10 dominance. I guess the closes football equivalent would be if ND and USC suddenly both joined the MWC.
LikeLike
“I guess the closes football equivalent would be if ND and USC suddenly both joined the MWC.”
LOL @ that. Yeah, I agree. That is probably a good analogy.
Despite that, I hope the B1G LAX teams have a lot of spunk and at least give MD and JH a run for their money.
In addition to the television numbers, I thought the live attendance numbers were interesting too. tOSU and TSUN are playing before the OSU Spring Game at the ‘Shoe. I will be interested to see the attendance. That’s the kind of thing that MD and JH can’t accomplish, but something they might be able to capitalize on.
LikeLike
61,058 for the spring game.
17,641 for the lacrosse game before hand.
OSU skunked MI 15-6, scoring 10 unanswered goals and holding MI scoreless for the final 35:24.
LikeLike
Chicago’s snub is leading to a not unpredictable crisis in Brazil.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/04/12/4055384/rio-2016-olympic-crisis-5-things.html
Rio is a beautiful city, but it can’t control its own slums. Its ridiculous to think it could handle an Olympic games. They may yet pull it off, but they are way behind.
LikeLike
The IOC is reaping what they sow. They’re so busy spreading the wealth by giving the Olympics to a variety of countries that they keep getting worse and worse results. Russia was a fiasco, and Putin has 100% control to get things done. Greece was a disaster, and Brazil is too. They should’ve at least waited to see how Brazil did with the World Cup.
FIFA is having the same issue since they want to spread the WC around. How will Brazil do this year? Having to move it to winter so Qatar can host it? Russia in 2018?
Maybe these groups should be more concerned about the finished product and less about the diversity of hosts.
On the other hand, I think US cities are crazy to host the Olympics. You lose a ton of money and it’s a major pain in the butt for the residents.
LikeLike
“FIFA is having the same issue since they accept bribes to spread the WC around.”
Fixed.
“On the other hand, I think US cities are crazy to host the Olympics. You lose a ton of money and it’s a major pain in the butt for the residents.”
???
Has any American Olympics in the past 3 decades ever lost money?
OK, I looked here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_the_Olympic_Games
Every American Olympics from LA ’84 onward has made money.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Fixed.”
You think FIFA doesn’t take bribes any more?
“Has any American Olympics in the past 3 decades ever lost money?”
Yes. It all depends how you look at the books.
Atlanta shows a $10M profit in your link, but they also spent over $600M in tax dollars (on infrastructure and security and such, none of which they include in the cost of the games). I call that losing money.
LikeLike
Increase in security, I agree, should count. Unless the infrastructure was a one time Olympic use only and then tear it up, yes. If not…?
LikeLike
A certain amount of that infrastructure was single use and then demolished or repurposed, unfortunately. They also tore down the old housing projects (worst in the nation) and replaced them with what mostly became dorms for local colleges. I’m not sure the public benefited greatly from that, since the public housing wasn’t all replaced. GT gained a lot since most of the events were on campus, but that’s not accessible to most taxpayers.
LikeLike
“You think FIFA doesn’t take bribes any more?”
Huh?
Oh, I see what happened. So Brian, when people say “fixed” on the internet, they usually say that after “correcting” the stuff in quotes that they copied (usually in a snarky fashion). Perhaps I should have made it more obvious by highlighting the parts of your statement that I changed:
“FIFA is having the same issue since they <b.accept bribes to spread the WC around.”
Fixed.
There, better?
LikeLike
Ugh, formatting fail.
“FIFA is having the same issue since they accept bribes to spread the WC around.”
Fixed.
LikeLike
Fixing the fixed fix? 😉
LikeLike
If you’re going to do that, then it’s also traditional to do it using strikethrough or something to show you are changing what was actually written. Especially since you made it a “quote.”
Besides, I think they actually do want to spread it around. They also take bribes to help decide which of those places might get it, but I think they have aimed for diversity lately. I don’t think South Africa outspent everyone else, and Brazil probably didn’t either. Qatar clearly did and Russia probably did.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10772179/notre-dame-stadium-install-artificial-turf-prior-2014-season
ND is moving to fieldturf.
LikeLike
Notre Dame says that 37 of 47 Northeast and Midwest FBS programs (states of Nebraska and Kansas and east; states of Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia and north) feature stadiums with some form of artificial turf.
LikeLike
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/purdue-football-field-spring-game/
And this is why only 10 schools still have grass (PU, MSU and who else?).
LikeLike
Northwestern (actually switched to grass from turf in 1997).
LikeLike
PSU and Pitt also play on grass (Pitt, however, is in an NFL stadium where likely the Steelers take care of the groundswork).
LikeLike
Typical B10, traditional to the end despite the weather.
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2012/7/2/3129894/is-natural-grass-dying-in-college-football
As of 2012:
82 artificial turf
44 grass
AQs:
turf – 47%
grass – 53%
Indies:
turf – Army, Navy
grass – ND, BYU
Non-AQs:
turf – 94%
grass – 6% (ECU, FAU, NMSU)
B10:
turf – 8
grass – 4 (NW, PU, MSU and PSU)
The Grass 10:
MSU, NW, PSU, PU, Pitt, UConn, UVA, VT, ISU, ND
LikeLike
Not really more traditional if you look at the numbers. In the northeast quadrant of the country (as that article defined it), there are 11 non-B10 P5 schools (one of which plays indoors). 4 of them have grass fields. There are 14 B10 schools (all of whom play outdoors). 4 of them have grass fields.
LikeLike
The move to turf is fairly recent for most schools. Obviously it used to be 100% grass, and even 20 years ago grass dominated. The last 10+ years have seen a lot of schools move to turf.
Since grass was the original surface, using it is traditional.
LikeLike
Right, I get that, but my point is that the B10, on average, isn’t being more traditional/conservative than the other power conference schools (who have the money to spend on grass) in the same part of the country.
LikeLike
It was just a throwaway comment. It wasn’t intended to be a profound insight. It’s also just coincidence that so many of those schools that still play on grass are regular foes for ND.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1393116.html
A look at would would’ve happened with DGB if there was a union.
LikeLike
I doubt it would have made much difference. He was a repeat offender. Not just three run ins with the law, but also “a lot of stuff you guys don’t know about” per Pinkel. It adds up. Difference is right now they get to keep all that quiet, but if he would have fought it via lawyers or a union it would have all come out.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2014/04/35008/spring-game-attendance-shows-ohio-states-rise-program
Spring games are older than you probably think.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/04/how_does_ohio_states_spring_fo.html
Spring game attendance in 2014:
Penn State Saturday, 72,000 (free, plus free autograph session)
Tennessee Saturday 66,548 (free)
Nebraska Saturday 61,772 ($10)
Ohio State Saturday 61,058 ($5, price originally $20 and $12)
Florida State Saturday 36,500 (free)
Florida Saturday 35,834 ($5)
LSU April 5 18,565 (free)
Michigan April 5 15,000 (free)
Indiana Saturday 9,231 (free)
Maryland Friday 8,319 (free)
Wisconsin Saturday 8,204 ($5)
Purdue Saturday 7,175 (free)
Illinois Saturday 5,105 (free)
Minnesota Saturday 5,000 (free)
Northwestern Saturday N/A (free, no game, just open practice)
Still to come
Alabama April 19
Michigan State April 26
Iowa April 26
Rutgers April 26
LikeLike
The NFL may be moving to broadening the use of replay.
LikeLike
I don’t know how you could review holding or interference or even personal fouls. Every now and then a ref calls something phantom, but mostly its judgemental. So 99.99% would be upheld.
LikeLike
I doubt it will happen, but I don’t think doing it would be that hard. I think the coach should be able to challenge the call/non-call of an objective penalty (delay of game, 12 men on the field, offside, etc). I could see calling personal fouls if a player did something the refs all missed, too (like if the guy who should have seen it was taken out of the play). Similarly, I could see asking for the replay ref to use all the various camera angles to overturn a PI penalty if a camera angle shows a gap or that the hit was early/late. Likewise, I could see overturning holding if the cameras show something else made a defender move (he tripped, someone rolled up on him, etc). What I highly doubt is that they”ll make the subjective parts of a penalty (did he disrupt the player or just touch him) reviewable.
LikeLike
Paging Andy!!
I have seen some posts above, but did not follow them. So, sorry, if already discussed/beat to death. But I got this email from a good friend (‘Bama fan). Is this true, Andy?
Email:
“Mizzou fitting right in [in the SEC]. They have 12 Bball players and 8 have been arrested in the last 3 months. The grown-ups need to fix this.”
FYI, my friend is a ‘Bama homer, but acknowledges/relishes the SEC reputation for bad behavior.
Anyway, Andy: is this true?
LikeLike
Last year Mizzou had a total of 1 athletics department arrest. This year they have 8. You can track all of the arrests back to 2010 here:
http://arrestnation.com/2014-arrest-stats/
That’s 2014, you can look up other years.
This is a particularly bad year for Mizzou. Over the last 5 years they’re about average.
Everybody gets arrests. The question is how do you deal with those arrests? That’s what separates the Stanfords and Missouri’s from the Florida States, Nebraskas, and Auburns.
Mizzou isn’t tolerating this stuff. Heavy suspensions and dismissals are the norm. Just kicked the #1 recruit in the country off the team and he didn’t even get arrested for his latest offense. he was given a second and a thrid chance and that was it for him.
It’ll regress to the mean soon enough.
Oklahoma had 8 arrests last year and 0 this year. It’s normal for it to go up and down.
LikeLike
Fair enough. And the relative “mildness” of the offenses has Mizzou only #9 in the Fulmer Cup standings. So there’s that.
LikeLike
Columbia PD are busy bodies. Eager to arrest kids for very minor stuff, athlete or no athlete.
LikeLike
Looking at the list over the last 5 years, about half of them are for posession of less than 35 grams of marijuana, which is a municipal offense in Columbia equal to a non-moving violation in a car. But it still counts as an arrest. There’s also a disturbing the peace violation, a scooter accident, 3 unpaid speeding tickets, 2 DWIs, 4 car accidents that resulted in arrests.
So very little actual thuggish behavior, although there is some of that.
LikeLike
It depends on the type of arrests. If they get arrested for armed robbery, that’s different than public intoxication.
LikeLike
For Missouri n the last 4 years (complete list of arrests):
1 third degree assault
2 second degree assault
10 possession of small amount of marijuana
1 peace disturbance
3 leaving the scene of an accident (one of them was a scooter accident)
2 unpaid speeding tickets
Also these are arrests, not charges. At least a third of these arrests did not result in charges.
http://arrestnation.com/teamsschools/university-of-missouri/
LikeLike
The Seminoles have a new look for next year: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/nike-unveils-new-rebranded-florida-state-uniforms/
LikeLike
Looks pretty good.
LikeLike
Congrats to Union. Those 2 minutes in the first period killed the Gophers. Gostisbehere seemed to be everywhere on the ice and MN couldn’t stop taking penalties.
LikeLike
Union played a phenomenal game. It appears that they were no fluke, as they also took down another traditional hockey power Boston College en route to their first title.
As a Gopher fan, the loss stings… However, gotta give credit where credit is due… Union was the better team when it mattered… last night… Congrats to Union College…
LikeLike
We deserved to lose – our typical complacency at crucial moments manifested – the last half of the first period (Union Blitzkrieg Bop) and their 5th goal were such boneheaded blown assignments by our D. I don’t think people realize Union beat us in OT at Mariucci a few years back with pretty much this same team, now grown up and seasoned. Whereas we are young, talented, but not very experienced yet. We had great opportunities to tie yesterday, even when the game was 4-5 with less than 3 minutes, but you could just tell Union had the edge: fantastic leadership and clearly the best player on the ice (man that’s a tough name to spell) to rightfully claim their first NC.
Minnesota will continue to lose talent to the NHL every year unless Lucia stops recruiting primadonnas. Locally the press has declared this program as underachievers under Lucia where players care more about getting to the NHL – this has been going on since the Holy Cross meltdown shortly after the back-to-back titles. It’s not that Lucia is the Cal of college hockey, guy can coach & doesn’t seek media attention whatsoever – but something is amiss. Btw, I absolutely agree with this media characterization. For example, of the four former Gophers amongst the top 25 in NHL scoring (Blake Wheeler, Kyle Okoposo, Thomas Vanek and Phil Kessel) – only Vanek won NCs at Minnesota. The others were fairly accused of protecting their NHL stock while at Minnesota & playing conditionally.
Again, the better team won. Last year we had more veteran leadership, but we gift wrapped the game to Yale, whose goalie became an unstoppable force. I will be haunted by last year’s Gopher team for years. This year’s team actually overachieved, quite young and despite our high ranking much of the year, most fans here were surprised & no one I knew was remotely overconfident we’d win yesterday. I think this bunch will stick together and bring Lucia, aka “The Don” into retirement with a NC. But “The Don” is certainly getting old.
Rough year for Minny sports: 3 NCAA second places. Our women’s hockey team also lost to a small NY school and don’t even mention the wrestling title – if you don’t know – find out for yourself. That was heartbreaking, and now PSU has won 4 in a row. But the duals are coming soon, Minnesota will flourish under this system.
LikeLike
“It’s not that Lucia is the Cal of college hockey, guy can coach & doesn’t seek media attention whatsoever – but something is amiss.”
Not sure why you think being the Calipari of college hockey is a bad thing or that something is amiss (if your goal is winning national titles). Gophers hockey has won more national titles than UK basketball since 1990. True as well if you go back to 1970.
LikeLike
No we haven’t. We’ve won 2 NCAA titles since the Herb Brooks era. Ky has won 3 hoop’s titles since 1996 & in a sport with far more div 1 participants. Maybe you’re confusing Minn-Duluth with UofMn. They won a title in 2011. But you are right, if you go back to 1970, we’ve won 5 titles, Ky 4. But Minny hockey’s titles only go back to 1970.
Be mindful, BC has 4 titles since 2001 & far less NHL prospects.
What is actually “amiss” with Lucia’s coaching is consistent discipline & part of that issue is the complex his many NHL prospects bring to the rink – they don’t want to get injured.
LikeLike
Right. However, more titles since 2000.
LikeLike
Hey gfunk…
While it is disappointing to not win the championships when they are near at hand, this years Gophers (in all 3 sports you mentioned) overachieved.
The women’s hockey team was as dominant as ever and ran into a team that played a better final than they themselves. Sometimes the best do lose…
The wrestling team under J Rob has always been in the mix—and with as dominant as Penn State has been the last few years, this very close runner-up finish by the Gophers was quite awesome.
I bet if you would have asked any Gopher men’s hockey fan at the beginning of the year whether they’d be happy with Frozen Four runner-up—nobody, and I mean nobody, would be disappointed. This is/was a very young team–they overachieved ALL year long–with a couple of to be expected minor hiccups here and there. They ran into a buzz-saw in Union, in the championship game.
In my mind… I would not call this a rough year at all—I don’t know how anyone could be pissed with NCAA runners-up—in any sport…
Until proven otherwise, these are KIDS playing the games…
The standards us fans sometimes hold these kids to, can be a little unreasonable…
Go Gophers! Ski-U-Mah!
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
Totally agree. They overachieved, but not last year, not in 2005, not in years they missed the tourney recently. I mentioned their overachievement on the UConn hockey board.
I’m very congratulatory to Union and Clarkson – they both deserved to win. I think my post says as much as well.
But I think it’s fair to say Lucia needs to be more cautious with who he recruits – some of the players I mentioned clearly played below potential and effort while here. It was really hard watching that 2005-2006 team.
We’ve lost a lot of talent to the NHL and they had plenty of eligibility left.
LikeLike
How dare you enjoy watching your team be in the top 2 in the nation?!? That’s just 1st loser. That’s why the Olympics only give out one medal per event. Oh, wait.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/an-olympic-bronze-can-bring-more-joy-than-a-silver-medal-study-suggests/article16794814/
As a side note, bronze medalists may actually enjoy the Olympics more than silver medalists.
LikeLike
Brian is in la-la land right now. I was thrilled to watch this game, but can’t say I “enjoy” seeing us lose. Who does enjoy seeing their team lose? But at I don’t cry or burn couches and certainly give praise to the other teams and seek better answers from the teams I root for, like any sane fane.
LikeLike
Sorry that last post was so done on an iPad, this one as well. You’ll figure it out Princess.
LikeLike
Have a tough time detecting sarcasm?
LikeLike
In other news Bo Pelini brought his cat to the Nebraska spring game.
LikeLike
No pictures?
I hope it wasn’t a tiger or lion. Actually saw someone walking his 6 foot full grown tiger on a leash in Houston one time.
LikeLike
http://nbccollegefootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bo-pelini-cat-22.png?w=752&h=375
LikeLike
There’s also video:
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/nebraska-bo-pelini-cat/
LikeLike
Good PR move on his part but I do feel bad for the poor thing:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlC0dTbCUAAtXv7.jpg:large
LikeLike
Since we’re entering a lull in activity (that is, if you’re not already closely following baseball, outdoor track & field or lacrosse), I thought I’d try to start a discussion that promises to go in somewhat interesting directions. If you were to list 20 programs today that you think are the most disliked, regardless of your personal opinion, which programs would those be? I’m sure some would list their regional rival or someone in conference which they intensely dislike, but try to take into consideration the macro view when answering. Ex: Would people outside your region take an interest in your hated rival?
Also, historic athletic performance may not necessarily be a factor. Some are disliked for reasons beyond that, I’ve found out.
So with all that said, I’ll start with 10 which are obvious (in no particular order). If you see your school listed, don’t take it personally:
Notre Dame
Alabama
USC
Duke
UNC
Michigan
Penn State
Kentucky
Ohio State
Miami
The next 10 is the most likely to vary. I’ll just go ahead and list them. If asked then I’ll try to give a good explanation for each of them:
Texas
Florida State
UConn
Oregon
West Virginia
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Rutgers
Auburn
BYU
LikeLike
I wouldn’t think Alabama would be in the top 10. Probably Texas would bump them out. Not sure why UConn, Oregon (ugly uniforms?) or WVU would be 2nd 10. Noone cares about Rutgers. Don’t think anyone outside of Texas and Oklahoma has really paid attention to A&M.
I would add Georgetown, UCLA, Nebraska, Colorado (the least favorite place to visit in the Big 12 despite Boulder) and Villanova. Marquette is top 10 on my personal list, but I don’t think that’s national.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I wouldn’t think Alabama would be in the top 10.”
You’ve been in Atlanta for too long. The rest of the country has hated AL since the Bear and all the cheating. Saban and oversigning and all the SEC hype has made that hate worse.
“Not sure why UConn,”
Calhoun and Geno.
“Oregon (ugly uniforms?)”
Phil Knight buying himself an athletic department and athletes.
“Don’t think anyone outside of Texas and Oklahoma has really paid attention to A&M.”
Johnny effing Ineligible (I mean Football).
LikeLike
There seems to be a lot more anomosity towards Florida and Auburn than Alabama. I think they have been given gifts some in the last few years, but goes on ESPN and friends who promote them.
LikeLike
bullet,
“There seems to be a lot more anomosity towards Florida and Auburn than Alabama.”
That hasn’t been my experience in the north or with other northerners. UF and AU comes in spikes when they do something, but AL hate is eternal and deep.
LikeLike
“I wouldn’t think Alabama would be in the top 10.”
Many of its fans have taken fanaticism to another level, to say the least.
“Not sure why UConn…”
A lot of sports media are filled with SU grads. The bitterness between SU and UConn in hoops. The APR thing.
“…WVU would be 2nd 10.”
Bias against Appalachian folk from coastal elites. See 30 for 30: Requiem for the Big East, right towards the end of the documentary.
“Noone cares about Rutgers”
Depends on the meaning of “cares”. Message board people have blasted Delany/COP/C for the Rutgers add. It seems like Rutgers gets people going whenever it comes up in conversation.
LikeLike
Transic,
The biggest winners always top the list of most hated.
Obvious to me from football (13):
USC
UT
OU
NE
ND
OSU
MI
PSU
AL
Auburn
UF
FSU
Miami
Factor in hoops (7):
Duke
UNC
Kentucky
UL
SU
UConn
TN
Others that may be close:
OR
TAMU
LSU
UCLA
IN
LikeLike
You missed the West Coast in hoops. I’d replace Tenn. with UCLA, ‘Zona, and IU there.
Actually, this is all kind of a silly list. If you go to an SEC message board, there’s hate for everyone everywhere (so UGa and LSU definitely would be higher on the list along with ‘Bama, UF, Auburn, and heck, even SC & Arkansas and Ole Miss) while it’s been harder to find anyone who actually hates PSU recently (Franklin will probably change that).
And no, I don’t see many people who _hate_ RU (except maybe Andy). People may think that RU got lucky with the addition, but get more satisfaction from seeing RU lose than their own team win? Not many people feel that way about RU.
LikeLike
Yeah, I haven’t encountered anyone who “hates” Rutgers. They don’t win often enough to be worth rooting against. The hated teams are practically always the ones that win a lot, which is the antithesis of Rutgers.
LikeLike
Richard,
“You missed the West Coast in hoops. I’d replace Tenn. with UCLA, ‘Zona, and IU there.”
I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t judge it too be as hate-filled. I had TN there for WBB and Bruce Pearl cheating. UCLA has been down for so long and the west coast isn’t as fervent in hating teams. AZ would be higher if Olsen was still there.
“Actually, this is all kind of a silly list.”
Of course it is.
“while it’s been harder to find anyone who actually hates PSU recently (Franklin will probably change that).”
Read a discussion of “it” and you’ll see lots of hate for PSU.
LikeLike
For me, there’s just no way, under any circumstance I can root for a true rival team…
Wisconsin and Iowa will ALWAYS be 1, 1A on my list…
Down with Bucky… Down with Herky…
There are other schools on this list due to personal negative experience with their fans…
Texas Tech—fans are absolutely obnoxious…
North Dakota—the hockey rivalry is brutal… their fans… see TTU…
Other schools…
ranked in order of distaste…
– Florida State (Free Shoes University) — (1)the Indian war chant, (2) the scandals they somehow get away with… uck!
– Auburn University — see part 2 of FSU…
– UConn– I just very much dislike Connecticut (rotten Groton comes to mind)
– Oregon– not a fan of Phil Knight–or what he’s doing with his stockpile.
– Alabama — no real hate… just tired of them winning…
– Texas — can I just say I dislike everything about Texas? You can have the entire state…
– North Carolina — see part 2 of FSU…
– Duke — can’t wait to see the inevitable fall, when Coack K finally leaves…
– Penn State — “We Are … insert bad stuff…”
– Ohio State — see Alabama
– Michigan — I want our “Jug” back…
Dishonorable Mention: Miami, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas
LikeLike
I would move BYU up the list. The entire MWC views BYU as a hated rival. BYU dominated the WAC and MWC. But when BYU “abandoned” them for independence, it shot the dislike through the roof. The religious element takes it to another level.
Similarly, most of the PAC 12 disdains BYU because of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ position on proposition 8 in California a few years ago.
And, of course, the school up north is BYU’s true rival. The Holy War is pretty brutal.
LikeLike
No, the Big Ten shouldn’t have added UConn over Rutgers
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/4/13/5605100/no-the-big-ten-shouldnt-have-added-uconn-over-rutgers
Enjoy
LikeLike
Wow! How nice to see a refreshing, data-driven analysis.
LikeLike
I would have taken RU over U Conn, but I’d point out the following:
!. U Conn is the higher rated school for undergrads, and has a large # of graduate students.
2. The state of Con. is more generous with higher education $ than is NJ. The current billion $, funded, educational initiative at U Conn may be unique to northern or midwestern public schools.
3. U Conn’s overall athletic dept. is solvent and much more successful than RU’s.
4. By all appearances, U Conn is a better-run university.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“1. U Conn is the higher rated school for undergrads, and has a large # of graduate students.”
THE – 103. RU, NR. UConn
ARWU – 39. RU, 86-108. UConn
USN&WR – 57. UConn, 69. RU
Wikipedia’s student numbers:
UConn – 18,000 + 7900
RU – 44,000 + 14,800
“2. The state of Con. is more generous with higher education $ than is NJ.”
Endowments:
UConn – $358M
RU – $784M
Budgets:
UConn – $2.0B
RU – $3.6B
RU seems OK for money at the moment, but I won’t dispute that CT’s generosity is nice.
“3. U Conn’s overall athletic dept. is solvent and much more successful than RU’s.”
Form USA Today’s AD expenditure database:
41. RU: Revenue – $64.0M, Expenses – $64.0M, Subsidy – $28.0M
42. UConn: R – $63.6M, E – $63.8M, S – $17.3M
Neither set of numbers looks great, plus we know RU has intentionally spent extra money to try to draw an invitation to a better conference (expanding the stadium, etc).
RU used to hold 41.5k, similar to UConn’s 40k. Now RU can hold 52.5k. That will quickly turn into a lot of revenue for them with OSU, MI, PSU, etc coming to town. They’ll also get the B10 money. Spending money to make money may well work out for them in this case.
I won’t argue about the athletic success at UConn versus RU. RU gets a terrible return on investment in terms of on the field results.
“4. By all appearances, U Conn is a better-run university.”
The AD I’d give you. The whole university, though? I’d like to see you at least back that up with some supporting evidence. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but that’s a pretty broad statement to throw out unsupported.
LikeLike
“1. U Conn is the higher rated school for undergrads, and has a large # of graduate students.”
— Undergrad focused rankings only:
35 Rutgers 338.2730
42 Connecticut 315.2284
Research focused rankings only:
29 Rutgers 641.0087
48 Connecticut 396.3148
LikeLike
B10 wanted to steal the East Coast away from the ACC. B10 with the additions of Maryland & Rutgers have turned the ACC into a conference that stretches all along the Atlantic Coast to a regional conference that is barely audible outside North Carolina & Virginia.
LikeLike
The article contains a number of smaller errors.
Storrs CT is 2.5-3 hours via car from NYC (Penn Station, specifically). Round trip would be 5-6 hours.
RU stadium seats 52k, Illinois seats 60k. Not close enough to compare the two.
LikeLike
According to the Nate Silver study cited in that article, realignment candidates would rank like this:
4. Notre Dame
6. Texas A&M
11. Georgia Tech
13. Virginia Tech
18. Nebraska
19. Oklahoma
23. Missouri
29. West Virginia
30. North Carolina
32. Rutgers
33. Texas Tech
35. Boston College
36. Virginia
38. Florida State
39. Syracuse
40. Kansas
41. Oklahoma State
43. BYU
47. UConn
51. Duke
52. Iowa State
56. Colorado
58. Maryland
59. NC State
60. Kansas State
67. Utah
70. Cincinatti
73. Louisville
This seems to be a measure markets/fans. To get the full picture you’d also have to factor in academics, and presumably something else, otherwise schools like Louisville and Utah would not have been chosen.
Looking at that list Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech seem way too high considering their actual football attendance. Rutgers does too, really. I have a hard time believing that Rutgers has more fans than some of those schools listed behind them. Florida State seems a little low. The rest of it basically make sense.
LikeLike
I’d probably disagree with a few of those. Most notably Texas Tech at #33 and OK St at 41 over Colorado at 56. The market value of TT and OK St is largely wrapped up in access to major Texas markets, which depends on them being associated with the major Texas players (UT, OU, and previously A&M). ON their own I really question if they’d be worth nearly as much.
LikeLike
People in Colorado don’t care about the Buffs for the most part.
LikeLike
That’s an overall list that, as you partially note, is devoid of context (As you correctly note, academics is not on there, but the ranking only cares about number of fans and where those fans are.)
However, each conference has different realignment aims and goals. So for the B1G, for example, RU makes more sense since its by far the best school to capture NYC CFB football viewers (to the relative extent such a massive market can be “captured”), especially when combined with PSU, Mich, and OSU, all top 10 teams in NYC. And that’s present day, shitty RU.
” I have a hard time believing that Rutgers has more fans than some of those schools listed behind them. Florida State seems a little low”
RU also has more fans by the sheer population size and school size. Even though a school like FSU has a vastly superior program, having a greater percentage of fans in a much smaller area will result in smaller actual numbers than having a lesser percentage of fans in a much larger area. 60% of 1,000,000 is still a smaller number than 5% of 20,000,000. (mathematical example of my point, not actual numbers from the article)
LikeLike
Again, we can go back and forth all day, but you cannot legitimately assume that the B1G really wanted Rutgers if they had other options. It very well could be as simple as this: by the time they expanded Rutgers was the highest ranked school on their board that was still available.
Would they rather have Rutgers or Notre Dame? Of course Notre Dame. But Notre Dame wasn’t available.
Same is true of Texas as well.
Notre Dame and Texas are not in New York.
There is zero proof that the B1G had to take New York.
Nebraska isn’t in New York. They took them.
All of the talk of New York is all well and good but they are justifications for Rutgers made after Rutgers was added. Had they taken somebody else they would have listed justifications for that school.
On that list Rutgers ranks moderately high but I still see some better options ranked ahead of them that the B1G may well have rather had if they were available. But they weren’t.
LikeLike
I think Andy’s exactly right that Rutgers was the best school available at the time. No one would dispute that if Notre Dame had been available, the Big Ten would’ve taken Notre Dame. However…
There is zero proof that the B1G had to take New York.
“Had to” is a strong phrase. The Big Ten certainly had aspirations in New York (I think this is beyond argument), with which Rutgers helped them. Smart business people are capable of having more than one aspiration at a time.
Obviously, Notre Dame would have helped in so many other ways that, had the Irish been available, Rutgers wouldn’t have gotten a sniff. But that doesn’t mean that the Big Ten’s New York aspirations were entirely a sham. Do you think they’re opening a New York office solely as post-hoc window dressing to justify the Rutgers add?
LikeLike
It’s really just a matter of conjecture as to where the line would be drawn. Do they draw it at Texas? Notre Dame? Virginia? North Carolina? Duke? Georgia Tech? Missouri? Which of those schools would have been picked ahead of Rutgers had they been available. My guess is all of them. But we’ll never know.
LikeLike
The Big Ten had been talking about adding Rutgers since PSU was added in 1992.
LikeLike
The Big Ten had been talking about taking Missouri since before that.
LikeLike
Notre Dame too. And Kansas.
LikeLike
I don’t think moving east was an after-the-fact justification as much as a BTN-related business play.
I think my overall point is this: Rutgers, as its current, shitty program, is still 32 on that list, where would probably have placed it further down. Can you imagine how much higher it would be with a few good seasons, even without a CFB playoff appearance? Potential, not the present.
“Would they rather have Rutgers or Notre Dame? Of course Notre Dame. But Notre Dame wasn’t available.”
An uncontested statement presented to prove an uncontested matter. Of course UND would have been taken over RU.
“Same is true of Texas as well.”
Same as above, with the following caveat: I think the B1G would like Texas, provided Texas plays nicely with other B1G schools. I’m not convinced that UT would do that, But more lucrative than RU by far because its Texas. Had UT wanted in but wanted its LHN, too, the B1G would have said no, turning down UT money.
“Notre Dame and Texas are not in New York.”
True, but not relevant. UND also helps in the NYC market, despite not being in NYC. Its the second most popular team in NYC according to the Nate Silver study
“There is zero proof that the B1G had to take New York.”
Not a provable statement. A business decision.
“Nebraska isn’t in New York. They took them.”
Brand names are brand names, regardless of location.
“All of the talk of New York is all well and good but they are justifications for Rutgers made after Rutgers was added. Had they taken somebody else they would have listed justifications for that school.”
Well, yes. But there has to be internal justifications in order to first make a decision to be defended publicly afterwards.
“On that list Rutgers ranks moderately high but I still see some better options ranked ahead of them that the B1G may well have rather had if they were available. But they weren’t.”
Maybe so, but I think GT could have been convinced if it was a true B1G target. UND, UNC no.
LikeLike
OT – Clemson QB Chad Kelly dismissed from team
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-04-14/clemson-chad-kelly-dismissed-from-team-quarterback-escorted-from-field-police
LikeLike
http://www.dailycamera.com/Sports/ci_25548022/CU-football:-Buffs-to-break-ground
CU football: Buffs to break ground on May 12 for new facilities
The school issued a carefully worded press release late Friday afternoon effectively buying itself another month to complete the fundraising. CU officials had hoped to conduct the groundbreaking in conjunction with the spring game but were unable to raise one-third ($47.6 million) of the funding on time. The CU Board of Regents mandated that one-third in private donations be reached before moving forward.
But CU is close enough in those efforts that athletic director Rick George, chancellor Phil DiStefano and President Bruce Benson felt comfortable enough to commit to the May 12 date to break ground.
LikeLike
https://csg.umich.edu/executive-branch/executive-committee/presidents-posts/task-force-report-august-2013-sexual#overlay-context=
MI’s student government issued a report on the handling of the Gibbons sexual assault case by the university.
Read the pdf, it has better formatting.
The CSG Task Force made the following findings pursuant to Executive Order 3-
030. The findings are organized by each question delegated to the CSG Task Force by the
CSG President.
I. Did OSCR, or any other person employed by the University, intentionally
delay the completion of the investigation of the allegations of sexual
misconduct against Brendan Gibbons until late Fall of 2013?
The CSG Task Force finds that University failed to explain the four-year delay
between Brendan Gibbons’s conduct and the permanent separation. Despite a statement
by President Coleman that she is “very comfortable with the processes and what
happened,” University officials erroneously relied on FERPA to deny requests for
information regarding procedures followed in the Gibbons case. Second, the CSG Task
Force finds that the University failed to investigate third-party complaints of Gibbons’s
conduct within sixty days of receiving the complaint. Third, the CSG Task Force believes
Brady Hoke knowingly issued false statements in December 2013 concerning the status of
Gibbons.
First, University officials claimed that FERPA and University policies protect
information regarding procedures followed in the Gibbons case from disclosure. A brief
review of FERPA forecloses this argument because FERPA explicitly allows the University
to disclose the final results of disciplinary proceedings when a student is found responsible
for a non-forcible sex offense. …
Second, the University failed to investigate Gibbon’s alleged sexual misconduct
within the sixty-day period specified in the Sexual Misconduct Policy. …
Furthermore, the Office for Civil Rights Notice of Investigation letter cites an
August 2012 complaint made by a student to the University. In order for that individual’s
January 16, 2014 complaint to OCR to be timely it must be filed within 180 days of the
University’s last action related to the August 2012 complaint. If the University properly
investigated the August 2012 complaint within sixty days, the January 16, 2014 OCR
complaint would not be timely. In addition, the 2012-2013 OSCR Annual Report states
that one instance of sexual misconduct filed during the 2012-2013 school year was
“Unresolved: investigation in process.” This designation is the first of its kind in a sexual
misconduct case. While the CSG Task Force cannot conclusively state that this designation
refers to the Gibbons case, the University should provide more details about the delay. If
the August 2012 complaint is indeed related to the Gibbons case, the University
investigation lasted over 445 days – much longer than the recommended sixty-day deadline.
…
Third, the Athletic Department plays an integral role in disciplinary actions regarding
students athletes. Student athletes sign a Financial Aid Agreement with the University
which requires that the student athlete follow the University’s policies and rules. The
University also requires student athletes to sign a schedule attached to the Financial Aid
Agreement which states that the financial aid can be revoked if the student athlete is
convicted of criminal offense. The schedule does not list violating the Sexual Misconduct
Policy or other portions of the Statement as grounds for reducing or revoking financial aid,
but the Financial Aid Agreement requires full compliance with University policies as a
condition for the financial aid.
…
Either OIE/OSCR failed to consistently communicate with the Athletic
Department, the Athletic Department failed to consistently communicate with its coaches
regarding ongoing student athlete disciplinary matters, or Brady Hoke knowingly issued
false statements in December 2013 concerning the status of Gibbons.
…
II. Did OSCR properly apply the Statement of Student Rights and
Responsibilities throughout their investigation of the allegations of sexual
misconduct against Brendan Gibbons?
No. The CSG Task Force finds that the University did not properly apply the
Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities to cases of sexual misconduct that occurred prior
to 2011 but were investigated under either the interim or final Sexual Misconduct Policy.
Question IV (below) discusses this finding in more detail.
III. Did any person employed by the University leak any confidential
information, including the decision to expel Brendan Gibbons, with
regards to the investigation of the allegations of sexual misconduct
against Brendan Gibbons?
Probably not. …
LikeLike
Keep in mind that this is coming from Dennis Dodd, so I can’t vouch for its validity, but I would be surprised if there wouldn’t be further speculation on this:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24526912/expect-acc-to-once-again-play-influential-role-as-playoff-era-begins
This was hidden towards the end of the article:
Deregulation is expected to fly through and could be passed quickly by the NCAA board of directors. Both Swofford and Bowlsby have indicated there is no push-back from other conferences on the measure.
Then its up to conferences on how to determine their champion in the playoff era.
So why no push-back? “Peace In Our Time”? O’Bannon forcing cooperation among P5? Are other conferences contemplating doing away with divisions as well?
LikeLike
Other schools probably don’t want divisions either. The Pac wants equal access to SoCal. The SEC would rather protect just a few rivalries and then play everyone else equally. Maybe only the B10 will keep divisions, though even that is uncertain.
LikeLike
I think you’re right. I’m pretty sure the B10 would stay as is, but solely because they need OSU, MI and PSU playing in NJ and DC as often as possible. Also, the shape of the conference means divisions minimize travel.
To go no-divisions and keep all the eastern kings playing the newbies means locking a lot of games. I’d guess they lock 4 per school, leaving 5 games for the other 9 schools.
OSU – MI, PSU, RU, UMD
MI – OSU, MSU, RU, UMD
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD, NE
RU – OSU, MI, PSU, UMD
UMD – OSU, MI, PSU, RU
NE – PSU, WI, IA, MN
WI – NE, IA, MN, MSU
IA – NE, WI, MN, NW
MN – NE, WI, IA, PU
MSU – MI, WI, IN, IL
NW – IL, PU, IN, IA
IL – NW, PU, IN, MSU
PU – IN, NW, IL, MN
IN – PU, NW, IL, MSU
LikeLike
The top-5 frontrunner from one division squaring off against the 7-5 fortunate son from the other division needs to be a thing of the past. It might make the regular season “divisional races” a bit more heated in November…but it makes NO ONE happy for the CCGs.
The top-5 team…nothing to gain in the eyes of the CFP committee b/c the foe is a patsy.
The 7-5 team…even their fans are usually nonplussed about being a 7-5 “champion” and wanting to travel pre-bowls to a random city.
The league…their CCG is going to get weaker ratings.
The CFP committee…their job gets harder b/c the best teams aren’t facing off at the end of the season.
And for the Big 12 and AAC to not even have CCGs isn’t fair to the conferences that do. Sure, they might be “round robin” but they get to skip one extra tough game (the CCG is often challenging) that the Big 10, SEC, Pac-12, and ACC don’t get to skip.
LikeLike
The down point of eliminating divisions is that scheduling becomes the difference maker, especially in leagues that have 14 or more teams.What if a team finishes 8-1 and #2 in conference, but didn’t have to play the 4 toughest teams? Don’t you still have all the same negatives? The 8-1 conference champ contender/pretender is still a patsy, the CCG attendance and TV ratings suffer, the best teams still wouldn’t face off, etc.
I think it would be kind of cool if the conference went to a format where you had three divisions or pods and then have a 4-team conference championship tournament that includes the three division winners and a wild card contender. For instance, here’s a 2014 B1G hypothetical (potentially argues for adding Kansas or Missouri in the West):
EAST
Ohio St. (8-0)
Penn St.(5-3)
Michigan (5-3)
Rutgers (2-6)
Maryland (2-6)
CENTRAL
Michigan St. (7-1)
Northwestern (5-3)
Indiana (3-5)
Illinois (1-7)
Purdue (0-8)
WEST
Wisconsin (7-1)
Nebraska (6-2)
Iowa (4-4)
Minnesota (2-6)
CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT
Saturday, December 6, 2014
#1 Ohio St. (EAST winner) v. #4 Nebraska (wild card) , at Columbus, Ohio
#2 Michigan St. (CENTRAL winner) v. #3 Wisconsin (WEST winner), at E. Lansing, Michigan
Saturday, December 20, 2014 – B1G Championship in Indianapolis, IN
#1/#4 winner v. #2/#3 winner
LikeLike
PAC 12 scenario:
NORTH
Oregon (8-1)
Washington (5-4)
Oregon St. (4-5)
Washington St.(3-6)
SOUTH
Stanford (7-2)
UCLA (7-2)
USC (6-3)
California (1-8)
MOUNTAIN
Arizona St. (7-2)
Arizona (4-5)
Utah (2-7)
Colorado (1-8)
CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT
Saturday, December 6, 2014
#1 Oregon (NORTH winner) v. #4 UCLA (wild card), in Eugene, Oregon
#2 Stanford (SOUTH winner) v. #3 Arizona St. (MOUNTAIN winner), in Palo Alto, California
Saturday, December 20, 2014 – PAC 12 Championship – in Las Vegas, Nevada
#1/#4 winner v. #2/#3 winner
LikeLike
SEC 2014 Scenario:
WEST
Missouri (7-1)
LSU (5-3)
Texas A&M (4-4)
Arkansas (0-8)
CENTRAL
Auburn (7-1)
Alabama (7-1)
Vanderbilt (4-4)
Mississippi St. (3-5)
Ole Miss (3-5)
EAST
South Carolina (6-2)
Georgia (5-3)
Florida (3-5)
Tennessee (2-6)
Kentucky (0-8)
SEC CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT
Saturday, December 6, 2014
#1 Auburn (CENTRAL winner) v. #4 South Carolina (EAST winner), in Auburn, Alabama
#2 Missouri (WEST winner) v. #3 Alabama (wild card), in Columbia, Missouri
SEC Championship – in Atlanta, Georgia
#1/#4 winner v. #2/#3 winner
LikeLike
ACC 2014 Scenario:
SOUTH
Florida St. (8-0)
Clemson (7-1)
Miami (5-3)
Georgia Tech (5-3)
NORTH
Syracuse (4-4)
Boston College (4-4)
Maryland (3-5)
Pittsburgh (3-5)
Virginia (0-8)
CENTRAL
Duke (6-2)
Virginia Tech (5-3)
North Carolina (4-4)
Wake Forest (2-6)
NC State (0-8)
ACC CONFERENCE TOURNAMENT
Saturday, December 6, 2014
#1 Florida St. (SOUTH winner) v. #4 Syracuse (North winner), at Tallahassee, Florida
#2 Duke (CENTRAL winner) v. #3 Clemson (wild card), at Durham, North Carolina
Saturday, December 20, 2014 – ACC Championship in Charlotte, North Carolina
#1/#4 winner v. #2/#3 winner
This scenario shows that patsy Syracuse and pretender Duke both make the ACC conference tournament…but so does top-10 Clemson. Florida St. would likely cruise passed Syracuse and face top-10 Clemson in the ACC championship game, instead of pretender Duke.
With the semi-finals games at the home stadiums, tickets will sell. The championship game in Charlotte would likely host the best matchup possible. And, if it doesn’t and Duke beats Clemson (or Syracuse cinderellas FSU), they either show that they belong in the CFP discussion, or they show that the supposed contenders were actually pretenders.
LikeLike
Sorry, left Maryland in the ACC for 2014. Switch Virginia Tech into the North division and place Louisville in the Central division. The likely result would be Virginia Tech as the champ of the North (still a pretender, but better than Syracuse) and Louisville winner of the Central.
ACC Championship Tournament would thus be,
#1 Florida St. (SOUTH winner) v. #4 Virginia Tech (NORTH winner), in Tallahassee
#2 Louisville (CENTRAL winner) v. #3 Clemson (wild card), in Louisville
Pretty decent conference tournament, actually.
LikeLike
And whither the Big XII winner…or would they be forced into some sort of game with the “best of the rest”/Notre Dame on December 20?
LikeLike
I think it would be kind of cool if the conference went to a format where you had three divisions or pods and then have a 4-team conference championship tournament that includes the three division winners and a wild card contender.
I do not think they are keen on introducing another game to the schedule.
LikeLike
Another side benefit is that by leaving 1 division short a team, it can faciltate measured 1-at-time (instead of pairs) conference expansion in the B15 (Kansas or though I hate to say it UCONN), SEC and ACC (replenishment with UCONN or CINC if the SEC takes a team).
LikeLike
allthatyoucantleavebehind,
I agree with most of what you said. However,…
“And for the Big 12 and AAC to not even have CCGs isn’t fair to the conferences that do. Sure, they might be “round robin” but they get to skip one extra tough game (the CCG is often challenging) that the Big 10, SEC, Pac-12, and ACC don’t get to skip.”
But the B12 plays 9 conference games while the ACC, B10 and SEC don’t (for now, at least). The B12 champ can’t miss any good team, while AL has shown how easy it is to miss the best teams from the other division in an 8 + 1 system.
LikeLike
The B12 not having a CCG is not unfair to the other conferences, but the other conferences just may allow it to give a potential playoff bound B12 champion another chance to get knocked out of playoff contention. Even if rule changes allow a CCG, TX and OK will still be against one. However, the other 8 may overrule the kings since they need the money more.
LikeLike
I don’t think there is anything not fair about not having a CCG. The round robin play is important and even more important is that no one forced the conferences to go to 12 and have a CCG. Those who still do things the old fashion way shouldn’t be punished.
LikeLike
So why no push-back? “Peace In Our Time”?
Because the general trend is de-regulatory, with the P5 leagues doing more of what they want. Two of the five P5 leagues are publicly on the record as supporting this change, and the other three might very well want it in the future.
Now, of all the things the leagues now prevent each other from doing, I’ve long said that this was one of the weakest, in terms of its legislative justification. If the ACC decides its champion in a way you personally dislike, it doesn’t really affect anyone besides the ACC, so you might as well let them do it.
I do realize that some regular posters here see a legislative justification, which I never have been able to grasp, but if the article is correct, apparently those with authority to act are either agreeing with me, or think they have more important battles to fight.
LikeLike
Almost none of them agree with you. They have dismissed it without thought previously. However, some like the money potential and some have more important battles to fight. The NCAA didn’t like the championship game concept at all as it was approved for a larger division II conference many years ago when the Division II championship had fewer teams. They tried to stop the SEC, but realized what they were doing fit within the rules.
Still remains to be seen whether they approve. The stipend was supposed to be a done deal as well.
LikeLike
All you know is that “almost none of them agreed with me” the last time it came up for a vote, which was not recently, and probably different people were voting.
Opinions change. Twenty years ago, “almost none of them” agreed with a playoff in FBS. Now we have one.
If we made a list of all the behaviors (in sports and otherwise) that are now legal but formerly were not, and vice versa, we’d be writing all day. Nothing is decided once and for all time.
LikeLike
Transic,
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24526912/expect-acc-to-once-again-play-influential-role-as-playoff-era-begins
Let’s start from the top before getting to the nugget you mentioned.
He recalls the day his conference may have saved itself, at the same time saving college football.
Saved CFB? Exaggerate much?
It was about this time a year ago that the ACC announced a grant of rights that effectively stopped conference realignment in its tracks. The musical chairs league-hopping that almost tore the game apart was all but finished when the ACC members agreed to a grant of rights.
The game was almost torn apart? That’s news to me. I thought some schools changed conferences and a few major rivalries were lost.
It only stopped things because the B12 had already signed one, so all the top leagues either had one or didn’t need one. None of the AQs were looking to take more BE or lower schools. It’s not like it actually stopped small schools from shuffling around, it just stopped it in the AQs.
“It was a very pivotal point, not just for our conference,” said Swofford, the ACC commissioner. “I think it settled the overall landscape with the major conferences.”
It also put the ACC in a leadership position that continues today.
Swofford’s view is much more fitting. How does the ACC being last to sign a GoR make them a leader in anything?
The ACC is also considering its own network.
No, ESPN is considering an ACC network. Huge difference.
—
Now, on to the deregulation of CCG.
He notes that the ACC and B12 worked together on legislation, but they want very different things. The ACC wants to eliminate the mandatory divisions with round robin play. The B12 wants to reduce the minimum number of teams required in addition to that.
“This was hidden towards the end of the article:
Deregulation is expected to fly through and could be passed quickly by the NCAA board of directors. Both Swofford and Bowlsby have indicated there is no push-back from other conferences on the measure.
Then its up to conferences on how to determine their champion in the playoff era.
So why no push-back?”
Because the others are only talking about the generic concept of deregulation and haven’t gotten into the details yet? Maybe the others won’t be as willing to let a 10 team league have a CCG once it comes to actually voting. The division change seems more likely to be universally acceptable since every conference has had some issue with their divisions (lost rivalries, infrequent play, poor balance, etc). If that part of the rule change happened, both the ACC and P12 would probably switch things up. The SEC probably would as well. The B10 is the only one that seems happy with their current divisions, and that’s because they want to force OSU, MI and PSU into NJ and DC as much as possible. Dropping divisions would make it harder to do that.
B10 math (for 9 game schedule):
RU with divisions: 3 kings * 100% + 1 prince * 100% + 1 king * 44% + 2 princes * 44% =
3.44 kings + 1.89 princes annually
(Not quite accurate because I didn’t use parity-based scheduling which would reduce NE, WI and IA games)
RU with no divisions: 4 kings * 69% + 3 princes * 69% =
2.77 kings + 2.07 princes annually
I don’t think the B10 is ready to reduce the number of kings visiting RU and UMD for a while, especially the eastern ones, so I think they’d keep the divisions for a while.
“Are other conferences contemplating doing away with divisions as well?”
The SEC has been struggling with how to preserve rivalries and keep an 8 game schedule. I could easily see them dropping divisions to keep the 8 game schedule. The ACC clearly wants to change, perhaps to just dropping the full round robin. The P12 might prefer equal LA access for everyone, so they could drop divisions as well. The B12 wants other changes, so they won’t fight it. The B10 is the only one that seems content, and 2 years ago they would have preferred to not have WI in the CCG.
LikeLike
“None of the AQs were looking to take more BE or lower schools. It’s not like it actually stopped small schools from shuffling around, it just stopped it in the AQs.”
I’ll have to agree here. Proof of that is the schools that are most likely to be coveted by another P5 conference today are the ones most likely to refuse to move. The last few rounds (with maybe the exception of Texas A&M as a full member of the SEC) has been mainly picking low-lying fruit. It isn’t like a UMD or Louisville would be on the same level as a P5 king. But they got the poaching conferences what they wanted to strengthen themselves. Anyone else would have to provide a compelling reason for a conference to elevate it from the G5 level. Maybe that’s UConn or maybe not. I don’t know the answer to that question.
LikeLike
40 bowls.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10784863/aac-sun-belt-play-new-orlando-bowl-game-beginning-2015
LikeLike
Awesome. Can’t wait to see UT Arlington play Tulane in a bowl game.
LikeLike
Both of them 5-7.
LikeLike
As a fan of college football, I welcome more college football. If you don’t like more college football, don’t tune in.
LikeLike
In 2012 only 2 eligible bowl teams didn’t play.
Last year it was 9-1 6-6 team from each of CUSA, MAC and MWC, 4 6-6 teams from Sun Belt, 7-5 Toledo from MAC and 8-4 WKU from Sun Belt.
The only teams better than 7-5 not to make it the last 2 years were teams leaving for other conferences so they got no help from the conference office (MTSU and LT in 2012, WKU in 2013).
LikeLike
A few details on the LSU/Wisconsin game in Houston this August.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/8914116-123/lsu-football-season-opener-with
“LSU’s 2014 season opener against Wisconsin in Houston will kick off in prime time, ABC and ESPN announced Tuesday.
The game will be played in Reliant Stadium in Houston on Aug. 30. A kickoff time has not been set.
LSU and Wisconsin will meet again to kick off the 2016 season in Lambeau Field, the second game of the two-year deal between the schools and ESPN.
LSU will make a combined $5.4 million from the deal.
The school has secured 34,000 seats to sell at Reliant Stadium, said Brian Broussard, associate athletic director for ticket sales at LSU. LSU originally received just 25,000 seats, according to the game contract.”
LikeLike
LSU-Wisconsin trumps ‘Bama-WVU for a primetime spot that night.
Maybe FSU-OKSt. as well, though that could also be a primetime game.
LikeLike
The schedule has firmed up since yesterday.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250628/espns-2014-season-opening-neutral-site-schedule-announced.aspx
Bama/WVU 3:30p EDT on ABC and ESPN2
Florida State/OK State 8pm on ABC
LSU/Wisconsin 9pm of ESPN
LikeLike
Wish it was a home and home but nobody wants to give up home games these days and neutral site games offer payouts that are somewhat similar to home games. Just think the fans and players/schools would prefer to travel and play in the campus environment. The Lambeau game should be pretty cool but it is not Camp Randall or Tiger Stadium.
LikeLike
Kevin – I agree. I’ve been to Madison and Green Bay for games. While Lambeau is awesome, Madison is right up there with Athens as the greatest college towns I’ve visited.
I’d rather have done Houston and Met Life with Syracuse, and home and home with Wisconsin.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10786090/cuonzo-martin-leaves-tennessee-volunteers-california-golden-bears
Cuonzo Martin left TN to take the HC job at Cal in hoops. Neither league is a hoops powerhouse, and neither school is a major brand, so why make this move?
LikeLike
The Vols athletic department has a bit of a cash squeeze due to the number of simultaneous FB head coach salaries they are paying … so there could possibly be an element of the Vols being unable to match an offer from Cal. Many Vols BBall supporters expected the Vols to do better this last season, so there could also be a degree of reluctance to match an offer from Cal even if it might have been feasible ~ at least this avoids a repeat in BBall of paying hefty annual salaries to people to NOT coach the Vols.
LikeLike
Brian,
Coach Martin was treated horribly by the Tenn fan base. While I don’t doubt that the athletic department has some cash flow problems, the environment down there became too toxic for him to stay. The Tenn fanbase deserves a foot in its “collective ass” for creating such an untenable workplace. I can understand expressing frustration with your programs performance, but the racial undertones that were behind this criticism went way beyond what I would consider normal or accepted. Coach Martin performed pretty well given the mess he inherited. He deserved better…
As for Cal, don’t sleep on the basketball talent in the state of California. The Bay Area produces plenty of talent and southern California is a hoops hot bed as well. Let’s not forget the Seattle area either. Given the right coach and resources, Cal could be a top program year in and year out. Great campus, great school, and alums starving for a good program.
This will be a good fit for both… I wish he and his family well.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/99089/abcespn-selects-b1g-prime-time-schedule
The B10 night games for ABC/ESPN in 2014:
Sept. 6 – Virginia Tech at Ohio State, 8 p.m. ET, ESPN
Sept. 20 – Miami at Nebraska, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Oct. 4 – Nebraska at Michigan State, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Oct. 11 – Penn State at Michigan, 7 p.m. ET, ESPN or ESPN2*
Oct. 25 – Ohio State at Penn State, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
Nov. 1 – Illinois at Ohio State, 8 p.m. ET, ABC or ESPN or ESPN2
That’s 6, including a November game (barely). And remember, some more may get added as the season progresses. Decisions for November, especially, tend not to be made until a few weeks in advance so they can see how good the teams are.
In addition, some others are known:
8/31 – WI vs LSU
9/6 – MI @ UND
9/13 – PU vs ND
Plus the BTN will have some.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/04/theres_still_a_chance_ohio_sta.html
For those wondering about OSU @ MSU:
Mark Rudner, the Big Ten’s senior associate commissioner for television administration, told Cleveland.com that there still could be more primetime games released later this spring or early in the summer.
“The schedule is not yet complete,” Rudner said. “The Big Ten Network is going to have some games, ABC could still schedule an additional game. Whatever games are left will be announced in the next week or month or so.”
On the same night as Ohio State-Michigan State, CBS will likely choose to televise major SEC matchup Alabama-LSU. Because ESPN/ABC always is looking for competition, Ohio State-Michigan State could provide incentive for that matchup, particularly because of the success of last year’s Big Ten Championship Game.
LikeLike
Brian,
While there is still time to add some, I don’t think the Big Ten contract allows for Disney to add night games in the season. I think the Big Ten Network is similar. By the time the season starts, I think we’ll know all the Big Ten night games for the season.
LikeLike
Indeed. Eric is correct.
LikeLike
Eric,
“While there is still time to add some, I don’t think the Big Ten contract allows for Disney to add night games in the season.”
Perhaps, but they can add more before the season starts.
Mark Rudner, the B10’s guy in charge of TV, said as much in the link I provided. I’ll repost it here:
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/04/theres_still_a_chance_ohio_sta.html
Mark Rudner, the Big Ten’s senior associate commissioner for television administration, told Cleveland.com that there still could be more primetime games released later this spring or early in the summer.
“The schedule is not yet complete,” Rudner said. “The Big Ten Network is going to have some games, ABC could still schedule an additional game. Whatever games are left will be announced in the next week or month or so.”
On the same night as Ohio State-Michigan State, CBS will likely choose to televise major SEC matchup Alabama-LSU. Because ESPN/ABC always is looking for competition, Ohio State-Michigan State could provide incentive for that matchup, particularly because of the success of last year’s Big Ten Championship Game.
“I think the Big Ten Network is similar.”
My point was that the BTN hasn’t released their night game list yet, so they will be adding some to those we currently know about.
LikeLike
My point was that the BTN hasn’t released their night game list yet, so they will be adding some to those we currently know about.
I expect to see at least one night game (if not two) on the BTN until conference season starts. It wouldn’t surprise me to see BTN night games during conference season until November.
LikeLike
There will be at least 1 night game on the BTN almost every week of the season.
I believe one goal of the BTN is to make sure every B1G team has at least 1 Saturday night primetime game.
LikeLike
American Athletic Conference Announces Changes To Football Schedule
http://theamerican.org/news/2014/4/15/FB_0415144244.aspx
Tulane at Tulsa – Thursday, Aug. 28 (Time and TV yet to be known)
Texas-San Antonio at Houston – Friday, Aug. 29 (9 p.m. ET ESPNews)
Temple at Houston – Friday,Oct.17 (9 p.m. ET ESPNU)
LikeLike
Leak of Illini Uniforms: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24528971/photos-new-illinois-uniforms-potentially-leaked
LikeLike
What they don’t show is that one option is all orange, from helmet to jersey to pants. They also have an all white combo. The only mixed one has the orange helmet and blue jersey (they don’t show the pants). You can see them all here:
LikeLike
Syracuse has worn an all-orange alternate uniform (http://overcomingthechair.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/syracuse.jpg). Optometrists in central New York do solid business for weeks afterward.
LikeLike
Oklahoma St. also will wear all orange.
LikeLike
These comments show the complexity of reforming, even with deregulation.
http://www.athleticsscholarships.net/2014/04/15/texas-and-usc-comments-show-difficulty-of-reforming-ncaa.htm
Texas is concerned about deregulation of meals because of abuse and asking for clarification.
For example, a school might be able to give a “walk-on” meals in the partial scholarship sports, effectively surpassing the scholarship limits for that sport. There’s also the concern that schools could give meal money which gets pocketed in addition to giving the full cost of the scholarship.
Texas and USC are concerned about the additional regulations of requiring CPR for coaches. One concern is that people hired in mid-season couldn’t go to work until they got certified. Texas has a different concern that this goes against de-regulation and is an additional rule when they would prefer there simply be someone certified there, not necessarily the coach.
LikeLike
“For example, a school might be able to give a “walk-on” meals in the partial scholarship sports, effectively surpassing the scholarship limits for that sport.”
Big. Whoop.
If a school wants to add 200 walk-ons by providing them with free meals, I say bully for them. Does anyone seriously think that some team will gain a massive advantage by adding walk-ons by offering them free meals? More than they already get with their coaches, training facilities, and brand?
LikeLike
Yes. Add 50 athletes to track when many athletes only get 1/4 scholarship. Its a huge advantage. Do the same in other partial scholarship sports.
LikeLike
Do you really think its a coincidence that SEC West schools have produced 7 of the last 14 BCS title game participants when the SEC East used to be the dominant part of the conference and the SEC West schools abused over-signing, basically getting the equivalent of 10 more players to evaluate?
LikeLike
So the last 14 title game participants:
7 SEC West (3 teams)
2 Big 12 (2 teams)
1 SEC East
1 Big 10
1 ACC
1 Independent
1 Pac 10/12
SEC East was 10-5 before the last 7 years and 1-6 since in the SEC title game.
LikeLike
One concern is that people hired in mid-season couldn’t go to work until they got certified.
I don’t see how this is such a burden, especially given the consequences if something bad happens and there isn’t anyone who knows what to do . I got certified in CPR and an AED in less than a day. I can’t imagine trainers and classes are a scarce resource, especially in Austin or LA. When was the last time Texas hired a coach without experience or hasn’t been on a staff in the last calendar year who (thus) wouldn’t already be certified?
LikeLike
This doesn’t apply to just USC. It also applies to Idaho and Troy and Appalachian St. Some of these schools might hire someone who had been out of the profession or in a high school where it wasn’t required. Texas hired a guy who was retired last year to be their defensive coordinator on a few days notice.
Even in LA, finding an open class might take a week or so. And the Texas comment was simply asking why it had to be a coach as long as someone was present.
And its another administrative requirement. Someone would have to keep track of when everyone’s certifications expired. I have a hard time remembering where I keep my card and when the last time I took CPR was. HR would have to get the $5 million coaches and other coaches on the road all the time to stay in compliance.
LikeLike
I’m not concerned about the administrative requirements. Athletic compliance already keeps track of certifications (i.e. recruiting exams, etc) so one more item to keep track of isn’t significant. Since there has actually been athletes who have died, I see this as a reasonable requirement to be a coach.
LikeLike
Even small schools have CPR/FA requirements for certain staff members already. GT (and presumably many other schools) requires everyone who teaches an activity like fitness classes or martial arts to be first aid and CPR qualified. Why shouldn’t HCs be held to the same standard?
LikeLike
Are hospital CEOs required to be certified? Or to even be doctors?
And when they are trying to “deregulate,” why add such a requirement? The exact same effect, with less bureaucracy, is obtained by simply requiring a CPR certified person is present. And it would probably be someone better practiced than the head coach.
LikeLike
My Brian impression:
Are hospital CEOs required to be certified? Or to even be doctors?
I don’t think the requirement is for Athletic Director’s to be certified.
And when they are trying to “deregulate,” why add such a requirement?
Because people have died.
The exact same effect, with less bureaucracy, is obtained by simply requiring a CPR certified person is present.
So this requirement is acceptable, but the other isn’t?
And it would probably be someone better practiced than the head coach.
What happens when there is a situation (i.e. meeting room) where that person isn’t present. In this case, more is better.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Are hospital CEOs required to be certified? Or to even be doctors?”
Hospital CEOs aren’t running workouts of tens of people, plus they are surrounded by CPR trained people literally seconds away all the time.
“And when they are trying to “deregulate,” why add such a requirement?”
To save lives and reduce liability.
“The exact same effect, with less bureaucracy, is obtained by simply requiring a CPR certified person is present. And it would probably be someone better practiced than the head coach.”
It’s one more person to pay, and 1 more person around the players. That’ll lead to one more person providing some coaching. Besides, the coaches have to pass an NCAA test. Compared to that, FA/CPR certification is trivial. And you still haven’t answered why coaches shouldn’t be held to the same standards as fitness instructors.
LikeLike
Because those people are the only ones there in most of those cases.
LikeLike
And would you really have wanted Joe Paterno in his last days to be the only one certified?
LikeLike
No, I’d expect every coach to be certified, just as every trainer and strength coach should be. Nobody who works with exercising people should be untrained in basic first aid, CPR or AEDs (if there’s one available).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10790373/syracuse-orange-lsu-tigers-play-home-home-series-starting-2015
Syracuse and LSU agreed to a home and home in 2015/2017.
LikeLike
Wow! It’s one thing to play Wisconsin. It’s another to play Syracuse. I guess the Cuse stadium being a dome helps ease the concern of southern schools. Then again, Arkansas just played in Piscataway last year.
LikeLike
The games are in September, so I doubt weather was a concern. LSU has long been the most ambitious SEC powerhouse in terms of OOC scheduling.
LikeLike
transic – LSU had to move a lot of games around to put together the LSU/Wisconsin series. An Arizona State home and home had to be delayed, and maybe Syracuse was the best LSU could get. If you didn’t already know, in the last dozen years, LSU has played Oregon State, Oregon, Arizona State, Arizona, Washington, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia in the regular season.
LikeLike
So when is LSU planning to ditch the SEC and join the P12?
LikeLike
Brian – I wouldn’t go that far, but we Tigers do love a road trip.
LikeLike
That would be a hell of big gulp – TX, OK, LSU and 1 more.
LikeLike
I think you’re going to see the SEC and P12 start to play more often. A&M has agreements with Oregon, ASU and UCLA.
LikeLike
The NYT did an in depth article on the Jameis Winston investigation and how it was botched by several people/groups.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24529058/new-york-times-report-shows-new-details-in-winston-investigation
A summary of the NYT piece and what it found.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24528941/report-ncaa-could-change-guidelines-on-punishment-for-academic-cheating
The NCAA may change their stance on academic scandals.
When it comes to academic fraud, the NCAA’s been consistent in one area: if the fraud happens outside of an athletic department or college players, the NCAA usually steps aside.
Thinking is: If a university has academic impropriety happening at a level that transcends what’s going on with only players, then it’s a university issue and not the NCAA’s call to step in.
But that could be changing.
A report in the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests the NCAA is rethinking its approach to punishment in these instances. The most recent and infamous example is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Many students — some in sports, some not — were found to have participated in phony courses within the Department of African and Afro-American Studies.
“An academic scandal that spanned at least 14 years and potentially more than 200 classes. Many of those enrolled were athletes,” according to the most recent story on UNC’s corrupt academic past from the Raleigh News & Observer.
The NCAA has acted in the past as a participatory consultant in UNC’s own internal investigations, but it never took the lead on the matter because the reported fraud never happened solely through athletic channels.
Now the NCAA is considering when and how it should get involved in these types of spots. The Leadership Council is undergoing meetings this week, and the Board of Directors meets on April 24 to approve or deny any suggested alteration in legislation that’s been put forth by the Council.
…
It is among the trickiest of spots for the NCAA. When does it get to deem what’s worthy of further involvement or punishment?
How frequent is the cheating and how often is it happening primarily through athletic departments/personnel — and explicitly for athletes? That’s a tough call for the NCAA to determine, no matter the scenario. Each possible nefarious situation can be different, and reasoning over what the right punishments should be remains the grayest of areas for the organization to govern.
LikeLike
Nothing gray about UNC. The classes were set up to help student-athletes stay eligible. Counselors steered athletes to those classes. The regular students were incidental. It doesn’t take any stretch to question whether those “student” athletes would have been eligible without the fake classes.
LikeLike
I disagree. There’s tons of gray because I don’t see the regular students as incidental. They made up roughly 50% of the students in the classes in question, IIRC. That’s not incidental.
Whether the NCAA should attempt to punish UNC for this is a different discussion. I’m all for them saying that athletes were fraudulently eligible and the AD knew or should have known something was up. What penalty is reasonable is the problem. Sure, you can vacate wins and take down records and banners and put them on probation. That’s easy. But what else? Is a postseason ban appropriate? A fine? A temporary prohibition from counting classes from that department (or maybe all independent study classes) for eligibility?
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/12/2675141/accrediting-agency-wants-clear.html
I do think the bigger punishment should be from the accreditation agency, SACS, or the DOE. They have told UNC they need to make good on the degrees all those people got, perhaps by giving them free classes to replace the bogus ones.
LikeLike
Everything I’ve read is that regular students were a minority, especially in the last minute classes not on the regular list that were clearly set up just for athletes that a few others got wind of.
LikeLike
Ban them from March madness for a couple years. That would get their attention.
LikeLike
UNC men’s basketball is like Goldman Sachs — too big to fail.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24528424/letter-of-complaint-sent-to-clemson-over-religious-activities
Someone complained about Dabo Swinney making religion too prominent in Clemson football. I can see the concerns with them having a team chaplain and distributing bibles to players. It’s not a major problem, but they might want to sit down with Dabo and draw some boundaries.
A lot of schools could potentially face the same issue as many HCs are very vocal about their beliefs and their behavior can be construed as proselytizing. For state schools, they have to make sure that religion isn’t determining who gets recruited or who gets to play.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10795870/freedom-religion-foundation-lodges-complaint-clemson-tigers-dabo-swinney
Some more details about it.
This is the one thing that might be an issue:
Swinney personally invited James Trapp to become team chaplain — in violation of the Constitution and university guidelines on hiring chaplains — and gave Trapp access to the entire team for Bible studies.
If he violated school guidelines, then some (minor, presumably) punishment is deserved.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24529269/going-to-pot-no-ncaa-gets-it-right-by-reducing-standards-on-marijuana
The NCAA cut the penalties for street drugs (read: pot) significantly.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd isn’t up on the latest research. Maybe too busy toking.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/15/marijuana-brain-changes/7749309/
Really don’t understand the significance of this anyway since schools determine what the penalties are. Some don’t care (Florida for example). Others are pretty strict (Georgia). It should be totally in the schools purview as I haven’t seen anything indicating it is a performance enhancing drug. Actually seen some suggesting the opposite.
LikeLike
Here’s a better article about it.
http://www.drugfreesport.com/newsroom/insight.asp?VolID=68&TopicID=3
The schools do have control mostly, because the NCAA only tests in the postseason. It’s those positives that are getting their penalty reduced.
As for enhancing performance, I recently heard that someone is developing a new strain of pot that actually would be a PED. Besides, the reason pot was treated as a PED was because it could be used to mask pain, allowing people to train longer and harder and potentially injure themselves severely, not because you got faster or stronger from it.
LikeLike
The Big Ten isn’t the only conference to be announcing a move into a New York office.
http://nypost.com/2014/04/15/big-lease-for-the-big-east/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10792327/minnesota-state-mankato-players-refuse-practice-former-coach
Minnesota State, Mankato’s HC was fired over a child porn accusation, but subsequently cleared by the judge. Recently an arbitrator ruled he was improperly fired and should be reinstated. Despite accepting the HC job at Minot State in January, he chose to return to MSM.
Today was his first day back, and the players refused to practice. Instead, they demanded that the interim coach keep the job. Obviously the school is bound by the arbitrator’s decision and the players should understand that.
The coach shouldn’t have put anybody in this position. He should’ve taken the fresh start at Minot State (perhaps with MSM paying any salary difference) rather than forcing someone else out of a job. At least one coach at MSM will have to lose his job and April is a tough time to go find a new one.
LikeLike
And some people think unions would be no problem?
Grambling started it. Now Minnesota-Mankato.
The strikes turned me off to baseball.
LikeLike
The whole Minn State-Mankato thing is one ugly disaster that never should have happened…
I have never understood parents fascination with taking pictures of their children bathing naked– I mandated that my mother destroy those pictures of my brother and I when I was old enough to figure out how silly those pics were (teens)…
To put those pictures on a portable device that others can see—especially a device that is property of your employer—beyond me.
The next shame—someone else sees those pictures and assumes that they are child porn– when indeed they were not. This is a direct product of the whole corporate PC HR police run amok…
All just one big bad mess…
Re: the coach coming back— supposedly, his family is from that area, and he wanted to continue building what he started building with his football program. I cannot understand how he’d want to go back to the people that almost successfully strung him up–strange…
Re: the football players not playing– very interesting—
This story probably will continue…
LikeLike
Yes, it’s been an ugly story all around. Those photos shouldn’t have been on that phone (Who was he going to show them to?), but he shouldn’t have been in trouble once someone realized they were his kids.
The firing was dumb, but thinking you can step back in like nothing happened after being accused of child porn in naive. Especially to do it knowing you are forcing someone else who did nothing wrong to get fired at a time when finding a new job is hard. I hope he at least works hard to help that poor guy find a new job (maybe he can move to Minot as an assistant if they promote from within).
I assume the players will cave in right away. If not, they’ll lose their scholarships and the coaching situation won’t change.
LikeLike
People and their sense of entitlement.
The inmates have been running the asylum for some time now.
LikeLike
Before you jump on me, I’m referring to the HC who refuses to leave MSM.
LikeLike
Why should he leave? He won his case. It was up to MN-M to buy out his contract which they refused to do. Why was MN-M phone snooping on its head coach in the first place? Were they trying to find some pretext to fire him without paying out his contract? We will never know, but we do know they could have paid about $500K (or less) to buy out his contract and get rid of him permanently. He was not fired until after the charges were dismissed, over 8 months after he was suspended without pay.
Any new coach stepping in that situation should have insisted on having a contract without a contingency that allowed MN-M an out if the former coach wanted to return.
LikeLike
But why still go back? If I’m convinced that my past employer treated me like crap, I would first try to find a better situation to go to. It may have worked out for him (maybe) but it’s still a giant risk.
There’s still likely going to be an air of suspicion, despite what he would prefer.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/04/17/minnesota-state-players-to-unite-behind-hoffner/7830529/
And the players are back.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/94691/ncaa-reverses-mid-year-enrollee-ruling
The NCAA has changed their mind about mid-year enrollees.
As a result, the decision this week states if a school signs a prospect to an agreement and takes advantage of the relaxed restrictions, it will be in violation, retroactively, of NCAA rules if the prospect does not enroll at the school.
Penalties would be determined by the NCAA enforcement staff, based on the circumstances and significance.
Mid-year enrolling prospects remain eligible to sign agreements – which are binding for the school but not the recruit — with multiple programs.
The Legislative Council also ruled this week that college programs must ensure that prospects are enrolled in the high school coursework necessary to graduate at midyear before offering the financial aid agreements.
The new ruling could discourage programs from commenting publicly on a signed mid-year prospect out of concern that if the recruit changes his mind, the school will have unwittingly committed an NCAA violation.
LikeLike
http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/20140416_Behind_West_Chester_breakaway__a_bid_for_more_resources.html
A state school in PA wants to go private so it can spend more on athletics.
LikeLike
Is this serious? Coaches are trying to lead the school private so it can spend more on athletics? There has got to be more to this or a lot less to this than the article indicates. If this is for real, you’ve got to say Division I isn’t alone with crazy priorities.
LikeLike
The coaches at West Chester University are not looking to upgrade to Division I or to leave the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference.
What they are doing as a group is supporting legislation that would take West Chester out of the state’s higher education system.
The real hope for the coaches is that West Chester gains autonomy in making decisions regarding athletics, and maybe that could result in more resources.
…
Last month, state Sens. Andrew Dinniman (D., Chester) and Robert Tomlinson (R., Bucks) proposed legislation that would allow healthy universities with more than 7,000 students to exit the state system. The schools also would have to buy their way out of the system over a period of years by acquiring assets under the state’s domain. Tomlinson is on West Chester’s board of trustees.
And last week, Frank T. Brogan, the new chancellor of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, promised more autonomy at colleges within the system. It’s possible that compromises will be reached that keep West Chester from wanting to break away. Such a move could negate the need for the proposed bill, Tomlinson told The Inquirer.
LikeLike
How much are college athletes actually worth?
http://thebiglead.com/2014/04/16/the-fair-market-value-estimates-for-college-football-and-basketball-players-seem-a-tad-overstated/
LikeLike
Getting out one step ahead of the sheriff:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24530608/missouris-frank-haith-has-emerged-as-a-serious-candidate-at-tulsa
LikeLike
“Frank is looking for a way out of Missouri,” one source said. “This might be it.”
Haith just finished his third season at Missouri by missing the NCAA Tournament with a team talented enough to make it, and Mizzou fans have undeniably turned on him because of underachieving on the court and problems off of the court — most recently the arrest and dismissal of Louisville transfer Zach Price. Sources told CBSSports.com that Tulsa is willing to pay in excess of $1 million for Haith, and that he’s seriously considering going because he knows one more bad season at Missouri could be his last.
LikeLike
Can the talent gap between SEC programs and B1G programs really be bridged simply by “recruiting harder?”
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/99257/prospect-b1g-must-recruit-harder-like-sec
LikeLike
No. But it does show that things are different down south. I can’t imagine wanting coaches from 20+ schools to text/call/etc me every day for over a year. That would drive me nuts.
LikeLike
But these are HS kids who have been pampered and told how great they are since middle school at least. A lot of them lap up that ego stroking. The smart recruiters figure out what works with each kid.
LikeLike
Replace ‘harder with ‘dirtier.’
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/04/jim_delany_no_matter_how_many.html
The Big Ten will never change its name. I wouldn’t put it past them to link the 10 to something else (10 core values, etc), though.
LikeLike
Never understood those who advocated willingly abandoning the Big Ten name and all the branding benefits it comes with. The Big Ten will change its name at the same time Madison Square Garden gets a new name.
The more interesting aspect from a marketing standpoint is how the Big Ten is unique in the college sports world for having a number in the name that transcends the actual number of conference teams and itself became the brand. Probably because from 1949 through 1990, the name and number remained the same, forging a brand identity from stability that neither the Pac or the Big 8/12 could match. The modern Pac formed in the early 60’s as the Pac8, went to 10 in 1978 with the two AZ schools, and changed to the Pac12 after adding CU and Utah.
I also think the Big8/12 never had that strong of a brand, the Big8 because of its heartland location and weaker roster of schools (except for Okla and Neb–which were really brands unto themselves), and the Big12 because of its lack of tradition/history. To me, the only reason the Big12 didn’t once again adjust its name was because they want it to become a brand, and junking Big12 would have forfeited whatever brand equity it built up since 1996.
LikeLike
Well the Pac has a name that means something. The number is incidental.
I always thought the Big 10 should have just claimed NJ as the 10th state (Philly suburbs) and stopped at 12 teams. If they had added ND or Pitt, they instead of Rutgers or Maryland, they could have claimed 10 states. As it is, their name is kind of awkward.
LikeLike
The Big 12 looked at new names, but couldn’t come up with anything that worked any better.
The Atlantic 10 has long since been something other than 10 schools.
LikeLike
It may be awkward as a number, but the brand equity of Big Ten is undisputed. All of that would be lost changing to Big Fourteen.
Unlike the Pac, the number is not incidental–quite the contrary, its critical to the brand’s identity.
LikeLike
Big Ten had the subliminal 11 in the logo for a long time. B1G is almost B16 if there are two more adds. They remain the Big Ten, but include some level of accuracy.
Not sure what to do with 14…
LikeLike
I thought the subliminal 11 was very clever and well done. Less so the B1G that looks like a 6.
For 14, maybe Big Teen? Otherwise, I got nothing.
LikeLike
The Big Ten will change its name at the same time Madison Square Garden gets a new name.
For those not familiar with the history, the present Madison Square Garden is the fourth building to have that name, and it is not actually located at Madison Square (although two of its predecessors were).
LikeLike
And only the first one was an outdoor venue (the garden aspect of the name).
LikeLike
I wouldn’t put it past them to link the 10 to something else (10 core values, etc), though.
I’m surprised it already hasn’t happened.
LikeLike
They’re probably just waiting a few years before bringing back leaders and legends plus 8 more corny terms.
LikeLike
You beat me to that idea.
LikeLike
Not surprised a conference of such great academic heavyweights can’t even count the number of their schools correctly
LikeLike
As opposed to the conference that thinks that South Bend, IN and Louisville, KY are located on the Atlantic Coast?
LikeLike
And Pittsburgh, PA, too. Not exactly located on the Outer Banks.
LikeLike
It is rare for head coaches to leave a MBB program for a lateral job without any underlying reason.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24530514/at-what-point-will-schools-realize-who-can-and-cannot-be-hired-away
LikeLike
Even rarer for a coach to take a step down from a state school in a power conference to a Presbyterian school in center of the country.
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/new-rule-protect-passers-low-hits
The NCAA is one step closer to being the NFL. They’ve added the PF penalty for a low hit on a passing QB.
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which met via conference call Wednesday, approved a new football rule to better protect passers from low contact at or below the knee.
The rule specifically covers a scenario in which a quarterback is in a passing posture with one or both feet on the ground. In that situation, no defensive player rushing unabated can hit him forcibly at or below the knee. The defensive player also may not initiate a roll or lunge and forcibly hit the quarterback in the knee area or below.
Exceptions for these types of hits occur when:
* the passer becomes a runner, either inside or outside the tackle box;
* the defender grabs or wraps the passer in an attempt to make a conventional tackle;
* the defender is not rushing unabated or is blocked or fouled into the passer.
A violation of this rule applies when defenders are rushing unabated to the quarterback, and it will result in a 15-yard roughing the passer penalty.
LikeLike
I like this in principle. Auburn’s lineman tried to go after Georgia’s Aaron Murray’s knees a couple years ago (and the ref looked right at it and it was really a late hit and called nothing). But it seems really difficult as written. What if you have a Johnny Manziel? You have to hit him when you have a shot, anyway you can.
LikeLike
What if you have a Johnny Manziel? You have to hit him when you have a shot, anyway you can.
Oh really? Why is that? There are already various types of hits that are illegal (e.g., blows to the head). This just adds another that is especially prone to causing serious injuries. Yes, it does mean that some QBs might remain upright in situations when, under the old rules, they would have gone down.
LikeLike
Flags, anyone?
LikeLike
Upright and run for a touchdown.
LikeLike
Exactly. A few more TDs will be scored. A few more knees will be saved. It’s a fair trade.
LikeLike
bullet,
“But it seems really difficult as written.”
Does it? I thought the rule was pretty clear. When he’s planted to throw, you can’t wipe out his knee.
“What if you have a Johnny Manziel? You have to hit him when you have a shot, anyway you can.”
As long as he’s moving (exception 1), he’s fair game. And you can still hit him between the thighs and shoulders while he’s throwing.
LikeLike
Purdue football: 10 items of interest regarding south end zone project at Ross-Ade Stadium
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/15/purdue-football-10-items-of-interest-regarding-south-end-zone-project-at-ross-ade-stadium/7754543/
Items include video board on both end zones, new sound system, bridges connecting the south end zone with the rest of the stadium. Feasibility study to be completed by the end of the summer.
LikeLike
Missouri is officially a springboard to CUSA.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10797288/frank-haith-missouri-tigers-deal-coach-tulsa-golden-hurricane-per-sources
LikeLike
Actually….
Since Tulsa is moving onto the AAC next season, you could say that Haith is moving to a better basketball conference….
LikeLike
Well, even though Haith won 73% of his games at Mizzou, the fans absolutely hated him. And the AD didn’t seem to like him much either. So he left. It will be interesting to see who Mizzou can bring in to replace him.
LikeLike
Bruce Pearl would have been a good fit. Alas.
LikeLike
Nah. Our AD shies away from controversy as best he can. Pearl just had a show cause against him.
Believe it or not there’s talk that Missouri is one of the few jobs that Gregg Marshall would leave Wichita State for, but he’s demanding humongous amounts of money, so I don’t know if it’ll work out.
Ben Howland is looking for a job. That might work.
I’ve heard Greg McDermott mentioned but I hope it’s not true.
Who knows, there are a ton of names being thrown around.
LikeLike
And what is Marshall’s connection to Mizzou that he would leave Wichita State for, after turning down dozens of schools over the last few years?
LikeLike
Read the last couple of paragraphs of this article. It was written before Haith left:
http://blogs.kansas.com/lutz/2014/04/15/marshall-to-tennessee-forget-about-it/
Also, Jason King of the KC Star tweeted that Marshall might be interested, and one of the reporters on rivals also said that he had heard from a source “who should definitely know” that Marshall would be interested if the price is right.
Why would he be interested? I don’t know. I guess Columbia MO is fairly close to Wichita, maybe he likes the area? No idea.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Or not: http://www.kwch.com/blogs/bruces-for-what-its-worth/for-what-its-worth-missouris-next-in-the-rumor-mill/25546154
“Don’t expect that next guy to be Gregg Marshall—Missouri doesn’t fit the profile for Marshall any more than Tennessee does. Sure, the Tigers probably make the call—who wouldn’t? Marshall has become the most coveted of the coaches who are perceived to be available; his name is at the top of everyone’s wish list along with VCU’s Shaka Smart, who also continues to spurn interest from big-time suitors.”
Looking at Marshall’s bio, I see no ties to Missouri. Not certain about his wife, though.
LikeLike
So a Wichita news anchor’s unsubstantiated opinion vs multiple sources who claim to be connected to Marshall himself. Okay.
I’m hearing today that Marshall is definitely interested in talking to Mizzou about the position. Whether he’ll actually take it is unknown at this point.
LikeLike
What multiple sources? You linked to an article relaying the poster’s opinion and linked to a Bleacher Report reporter relaying his opinion. I linked to someone else’s opinion of the matter. Nothing concrete either way. I know you want Marshall, but you haven’t linked to anything that says he would consider it.
I’m sure Mizzou folks and AD employees hope he’ll consider it, but that’s true of most schools looking for a basketball coach and want one who has had great success at every stop.
For all we know, he could love being in the state of Kansas and the only job he’d leave Wichita for would be KU if Self were to go to the NBA. Or he could want to go back home to the Carolina’s and build a program at USC or Clemson. I just made both of those up, and they are just as reasonable as unsourced Marshall would be interested (possibly based on the idea that its the closest major program to Wichita that has an opening based on a perceived preference that Marshall doesn’t want to leave the Heartland and has the resources to top his $1.76mil/year salary)
See: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/17/4966460/possible-candidates-if-missouris.html
Note: Wish List and More Realistic Option. Marshall is under the former.
LikeLike
An ESPN reporter reports on more realistic names:
Also, UNL’s Tim Miles and someone named Kim Anderson at a directional Missouri school.
LikeLike
Jason King was a reporter for the Kansas City Star for years. He’s now an analyst for Yahoo Sports. He’s a legit reporter with a lot of sources in the KC area, so he would have sources at Wichita State. The rest of the sources I’m referring to are behind paywalls.
Doubt me if you want but I’m not making any of it up if thats’ what you’re getting at.
Goodman’s tweet was just what he threw together yesterday morning when the story just broke. I wouldn’t take it as gospel.
LikeLike
Jason King may be all those things, but he doesn’t base his statement on any reporting–its all his opinion. His Twttter feed last night on this point consists of several statements saying why its possible, and the reasons why its not likely. Though he didn’t really have a good answer when asked by a follower why the positives King listed for Mizzou don’t apply to Tennessee (his response was his uninformed speculation that maybe Mizzou would pay more than Tenn).
And if something is behind a paywall, instead of using it as an excuse, maybe.. copy/paste?
I don’t think you’re making it up, I think your personal sources are giving you their wants/wish, not actual reality. And I think you want Marshall very badly (who wouldn’t) and will grab at anything to support your deepest hopes.
LikeLike
Then again, Bob Lutz, in a new article based on his own thoughts, thinks the timing decreases Mizzou’s chances of getting Marshall.
http://www.kansas.com/2014/04/18/3411530/bob-lutz-can-and-will-missouri.html
LikeLike
Wainscott, seriously, you are one of the worst arguers I’ve ever encountered. King based that only on his opinion? Where does it say that? It doesn’t say that. You made that up completely. He’s sticking his neck out there making an unpopular claim based on his own personal knowledge.
What I’ve read, again, behind paywalls, are multiple people claiming actual first hand knowledge, and not anonymous message boarders but actual paid staff, who say that Marshall is actively interested in investigating the Missouri opening.
Bob Lutz is not a great source and that article doesn’t take a very strong stand.
You’re free to believe whatever you want. You’ve provided basically nothing. I’ve provided what I can and told you about the rest. If you don’t want to believe me it’s your loss.
LikeLike
And even still the Lutz article that you posted basically confirms all I’ve been saying. He’s saying if Missouri wants to pay enough then they’ve got a good shot at it. But then he goes off talking about Mizzou hiring Kim Anderson, who has never coached at the Division 1 level. So he’s all over the place.
LikeLike
“Wainscott, seriously, you are one of the worst arguers I’ve ever encountered.
HAHA.
King based that only on his opinion? Where does it say that?”
Generally, when one prefaces something by saying “I’m sure Ill get ripped for saying this”, its an opinion not based on actual reporting. Maybe its informed opinion. but if he had actual knowledge, he would have cited a source (ex. source close to Marshall, or source with knowledge, source close to the situation, or even the generic “sources”, etc…).
“It doesn’t say that.”
See above.
“You made that up completely.”
Nope. See his Twitter feed, which you linked to. Of note: https://twitter.com/JasonKingBR/status/456895019887382528
“He’s sticking his neck out there making an unpopular claim based on his own personal knowledge.”
He is? 1) its not unpopular, as much as unsourced. He doesn’t state the basis of his knowledge. Maybe they’re based on conversations with him. But he doesn’t say so, so why do I assume it is? 2) King is smart enough to know that to stand out on social media, one has to make outlandish or out there or bold claims to get attention. A necessary evil, something done by all reporters at some point.
“What I’ve read, again, behind paywalls, are multiple people claiming actual first hand knowledge, and not anonymous message boarders but actual paid staff, who say that Marshall is actively interested in investigating the Missouri opening.”
Now, on a Windows machine, highlight the relevant text with your mouse, then right click on the highlighted text, and go to Copy. Then, come to this page, go to the dialogue box, right click, and press Paste.
On a Mac, highlight the text and then press and hold the apple key and C, then to paste, press the apple key and V.
If you’re using Linux, I can’t help you.
Copy-paste these comments, since they are the main basis of your complaint.
Now:
“Bob Lutz is not a great source and that article doesn’t take a very strong stand.”
If that’s true, then why did you initially rely on him as your first line of proof, before mentioning King?
Andy says:
April 17, 2014 at 10:45 pm
Read the last couple of paragraphs of this article. It was written before Haith left:
http://blogs.kansas.com/lutz/2014/04/15/marshall-to-tennessee-forget-about-it/
LikeLike
I linked to Lutz’s original article because all of my good info is behind paywalls. I know it’s not great. Obviously if he’s talking about Kim Anderson as a serious candidate for Mizzou then he’s got some issues.
No, I’m not going to give you free access to paywalled info. That’s a no-no. If you want the info then pay for it. I’ll paraphrase. One, a paid staff member at a major sports recruiting website, said something along the lines of I talked to someone who definitely would know and they told me that Marshall is willing to entertain offers from Mizzou, but they would have to be in the neighborhoold of $2.7M/yr. He makes $1.7M now. A different paid staff member said something along the lines of, I’ve heard from multiple sources that Marshall has interest in the Missouri job. So there you go. You can implicitly call me a liar all day long but I’m not one so you’re wasting your time.
As for your interpretation of King’s tweet, I find it preposterous. “I’m going to get ripped for saying this” isn’t at all the same as “It’s just my opinion”. What it actually means is “I’m sharing this info but I know a lot of people won’t believe me”. Because most people like you would reflexively think it unlikely.
Now do I think Missouri will actually hire Marshall? I have no idea. If he wants that much money Missouri might not think he’s worth it. But then again with all of that SEC Network money coming in they may as well spend it on something.
LikeLike
Mike White would be a great hire. Hope Mizzou passes and A&M gets a shot at him next year when Kennedy is bounced.
LikeLike
Could be. He’s only, what, 36 years old? Not much experience. But seems like a good coach.
Ben Howland and Chris Mack are other options.
LikeLike
“No, I’m not going to give you free access to paywalled info. That’s a no-no”
DAMMIT. MY WEEKEND IS RUINED. Can I pretty-please have a sneak peak on the Rivals message board?
“If you want the info then pay for it.”
So little chance I’ll do that. Better things to do with my money. Also, I don’t care one bit about Mizzou athletics (or any sport, for that matter, to pay for message board access).
“I’ll paraphrase. One, a paid staff member at a major sports recruiting website, said something along the lines of I talked to someone who definitely would know and they told me that Marshall is willing to entertain offers from Mizzou, but they would have to be in the neighborhoold of $2.7M/yr. He makes $1.7M now. A different paid staff member said something along the lines of, I’ve heard from multiple sources that Marshall has interest in the Missouri job. So there you go. You can implicitly call me a liar all day long but I’m not one so you’re wasting your time.”
Contrary to what you thought, i never thought you were making it up. I think these Rivals and other message board folks are inflating their sense of self worth by passing along juicy gossip that reflects nothing more than hopes and dreams.
I say Rivals because above you listed the Rivals message board. (” and one of the reporters on rivals also said that he had heard from a source “who should definitely know” that Marshall would be interested if the price is right.”)
“As for your interpretation of King’s tweet, I find it preposterous. “I’m going to get ripped for saying this” isn’t at all the same as “It’s just my opinion”. What it actually means is “I’m sharing this info but I know a lot of people won’t believe me”. Because most people like you would reflexively think it unlikely.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I think he’s throwing something out there to generate interest and try to stand out in social media, and throwing out Marshall’s name for a head coaching job will do that. I don’t think he has any concrete knowledge or reporting, only mere hunches/opinions/beliefs. If he had actual knowledge based on reporting, he’d say so.
I think there’s zero chance that Marshall goes to Mizzou. Its not a top-tier program, its at a football school in a football conference, and he has no known ties to Mizzou or Missouri. Just about any benefit you could list for going to Mizzou, I could replace Mizzou with Tennessee and it would apply with equal force, and Tennessee is closer to his home area of the Carolinas. Though, multiple reports discount any chance he goes to UT (and I’m personally agnostic on the point).
I think he’ll sit happy at Wichita until a super elite job opens up (If Indiana chokes next season, Crean might be canned; of if Calipari or Bill Self go off to the NBA).
LikeLike
You’re basically a jackass who likes to argue with anything and everything anyone says. Congrats.
LikeLike
In my experience, the Rivals boards have more bad information and poor analysis than just about any other source. You can sometimes get good stuff there, but the odds of any particular post being true are comparatively low.
LikeLike
They guys I’m citing are paid regional and national rivals staff claiming to have directly spoken to people close to Marshall himself. Maybe they’re lying but I doubt it.
LikeLike
And then on top of that there’s Jason King, who believe it or not is a very well respected reporter. And he lives in Kansas.
LikeLike
“You’re basically a jackass who likes to argue with anything and everything anyone says. Congrats.”
Pot calling the kettle black? I don’t go on message boards to spread rumors in the hopes they may be true. I deal in facts and reasoned, informed opinions, not nameless and faceless posters on a Rivals message board. As for Jason King, I trust he’s a fine reporter, but until he relays that his info comes from knowledgable sources, or any sources at all, it has less value.
LikeLike
You seek out any and every argument you can, no matter the subject, and when you can’t find one, you make one up.
I’m not inventing rumors here. I’m sharing actual information.
You are a joke.
LikeLike
And I already said three times they’re not nameless, faceless posters. They’re paid staff who’s livelihoods depend on their reputations. Apparently you can’t read.
LikeLike
I see you’ve devolved into name calling for reasons that aren’t entirely clear. Your reluctance to give Mizzous Rivals reporters some publicity isn’t my problem, because I don’t have any way to test the veracity of nameless and faceless reporters on a message board. How about you name them and I’ll google them to get the info.
As for my reading ability, it’s quite good. Good enough to tell when someone is going personal as a result of getting beat on substance. You like to make bold claims on here and them have to qualify them when someone has the temerity to challenge them and you’re unable to defend yourself. God knows the many debates on these threads that could have been cut off at the pass if you had only provided data. But you prefer bold strokes to the fine pencil. It’s not my ability to read that’s the issue, it’s your inability to actually prove your claims, big or small.
LikeLike
No, I’m just really tired of you berating every damn thing I post on here. There’s nothing even remotely controversial about what I’m saying. All I said was that there are multiple journalists who have said that they’ve heard from sources close to Marshall that he will entertain offers from Missouri. That’s not far fetched in the least. They didn’t say he’d take the job, just that he’d entretain offers. You could have just let that be. I was only sharing some basic information. But you just had to come in for the 50th time and dismissively berate even the possibility that what I was saying might be true. You’re a creep.
LikeLike
@Andy – I don’t doubt that people at Mizzou are putting out feelers to Marshall and he may take some calls. I just think he’s in that Shaka Smart/Mark Few/Brad Stevens category where he’s not taking anything less than one of the bluest of the blue blood jobs (Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana and UCLA… and both Marshall and Smart openly rebuffed UCLA last year) or the NBA (which Stevens ultimately did). I simply don’t believe a single story about any of those guys unless it’s so obvious of a move that it’s a can’t lose situation money and reputation-wise. That isn’t a knock on Mizzou – I just think every program outside of the ones listed above overrates their poaching power (including my own school of Illinois).
LikeLike
If you had responded to any of my posts with sourced information this would be over with. But you haven’t, instead projecting your fanboy hopes on the basis if Rivals posts.
And again, you devolve into name calling. Creep? Jackass? Joke? That’s unnecessary. If you can’t engage on substance, don’t engage.
LikeLike
They guys I’m citing are paid regional and national rivals staff claiming to have directly spoken to people close to Marshall himself. Maybe they’re lying but I doubt it.
I don’t think the Rivals staff lie. I think they get played. I also think their function is to peddle catnip for homers. If the story is susceptible to an interpretation that the homers want to hear, then that’s what they’re going to publish.
They also need to keep turning out material in order to retain subscribers, so a lot of their “stories” are based on very little real content, simply because they need to say something in order to stay in the game.
LikeLike
I posted links to two journalists, plus I told you about two non-anonymous paid staff members who’s articles are behind paywalls who I’m explicitly not supposed to cut and paste their stories outside of the paywall. I didn’t even mention all of the anonymous supposed insiders who say that the talks are already going on between Mizzou and Gregg Marshall because those are less credible. Yes, those exist too. You can doubt all you want but it’s pretty clear that Marshall is talking to Missouri. Will he take the job? I’d say there’s a good chance he won’t. But they’re going to talk it over. It makes zero sense to doubt that. He’s already talked to Wake Forest and Cal, and Missouri is at least as good of a job as those two.
LikeLike
Guys, I’m not saying Marshall will definitely take the job. All I’m saying is there’s a repeating message from multiple people, anonymous and non-anonymous, that Marshall and Missouri are going to have some serious talks about it, and he’s either going to say yes or no. I don’t know why that’s so hard to believe. There’s a perfectly good chance he’ll say no. I never said otherwise.
LikeLike
Tulsa gave him a 7 year contract?!?
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10797288/frank-haith-missouri-tigers-deal-coach-tulsa-golden-hurricane-per-sources
LikeLike
Yeah, for $13,000,000! Crazy.
LikeLike
According to Matt Sarz: http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2014/04/some-items-related-to-big-ten-american.html
* Big Ten Network night games should be announced next week and kickoff times for their homecoming games should follow in the next month. I believe the goal of the conference is to have each team showcased once in primetime, but that does not mean that they will host a primetime game. Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue and Rutgers should each appear in Saturday night games on BTN.
As for homecoming, here are the dates for all Big Ten schools. ESPN did not select any of the homecoming dates to be moved to primetime. BTN certainly could and ESPN could end up moving a few of these to 3:30pm and put them on ABC or one of the ESPN platforms.
Illinois – 10/25 vs. Minnesota
Indiana – 10/18 vs. Michigan St.
Iowa – 10/11 vs. Indiana
Maryland – 10/18 vs. Iowa
Michigan – 11/1 vs. Indiana
Michigan St. – 9/27 vs. Wyoming
Minnesota – 10/18 vs. Purdue
Nebraska – 9/27 vs. Illinois
Northwestern – 10/18 vs. Nebraska
Ohio St. – 10/18 vs. Rutgers
Penn St. – 9/27 vs. Northwestern
Purdue – 9/27 vs. Iowa
Rutgers – 11/1 vs. Wisconsin
Wisconsin – 10/25 vs. Maryland
After these get moved, the first three weeks’ kickoff times for Big Ten controlled games tend to come out. Sometimes the first three weeks’ come out first before the homecoming games. Either way, homecoming kickoff times will be set in advance of the season.
* One interesting item centers around the announcement of the Virginia Tech-Ohio St. game as a night game on 9/6. ESPN requested the Michigan St.-Oregon game to move from 9/13 to 9/6 with the guarantee that it wouldn’t be a night game and that it would be on national television.
Now that VT-OSU is the primetime game on ESPN, coupled with the stipulations mentioned above and that NASCAR is on ABC that evening, I think it puts the MSU-UO game in the 3:30pm time slot on ABC or maybe a 4:30pm slot before VT-OSU on ESPN. Either way, it frees up FOX to take the USC-Stanford game on 9/6 as their primetime game. If MSU-UO were to have aired on ESPN in primetime, I don’t believe FOX could have aired USC-Stanford at the same time. The windows on ABC and FOX has been provided a level of exclusivity with respect to other Pac-12 games, though there seem to be exceptions to this.
IMO, Michigan St-Wyoming and Penn St-Northwestern will be primetime games on BTN. Rutgers-Wisconsin has a good chance to be at 3:30 on BTN, as well as Nebraska-Illinois. The rest I see as noon kickoffs on BTN.
LikeLike
I see Nebraska vs NW as either an afternoon (330) or prime time game, like it was last year.
LikeLike
Sorting the homecoming games.
Could be important:
Northwestern – 10/18 vs. Nebraska
Could be good:
Penn St. – 9/27 vs. Northwestern
Michigan – 11/1 vs. Indiana
Features a good brand:
Indiana – 10/18 vs. Michigan St.
Michigan St. – 9/27 vs. Wyoming
Nebraska – 9/27 vs. Illinois
Ohio St. – 10/18 vs. Rutgers
Rutgers – 11/1 vs. Wisconsin
Wisconsin – 10/25 vs. Maryland
Has a newbie:
Maryland – 10/18 vs. Iowa
Not flashy but might be good games:
Illinois – 10/25 vs. Minnesota
Iowa – 10/11 vs. Indiana
Minnesota – 10/18 vs. Purdue
Purdue – 9/27 vs. Iowa
The B10 will be pushing to get the newbies a lot of exposure, so I could see the good brand group of games being night games. The top 3 games should be attractive for TV, too. Unfortunately, the last group seems destined for noon starts and I don’t like that for western division games. They should at least get bumped to afternoon local time.
LikeLike
Seems about right. Schedule will change based on records.
I could see that UMD- Iowa game moving up if both have winning records by that time. You should also probably knock the UM vs IU game down a notch.
Also, the RU vs. Wisky is a sneaky candidate for primetime if RU has a decent record–Wisky has a big NYC presence and could get good BTN ratings.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Schedule will change based on records.”
Yes, of course. Especially for teams like NW (no draw if bad, decent draw if good).
“You should also probably knock the UM vs IU game down a notch.”
I put it there for IN’s offense and MI’s brand.
“Also, the RU vs. Wisky is a sneaky candidate for primetime if RU has a decent record–Wisky has a big NYC presence and could get good BTN ratings.”
Yes, I think any of the games in that group could go prime time depending on the competition. OSU/IL is at night on 11/1, which may or may not keep BTN from showing WI/RU then.
LikeLike
I consider it our first moral victory of the season only one school is playing us for their homecoming this year. 1-0 baby!
LikeLike
ALL HAIL THE ONCE AND FUTURE PEACH BOWL!
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college-football/chick-fil-a-bowl-will-restore-peach-to-its-name/nfcpT/
LikeLike
It’s not like they wanted to do it.
The change back to Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl stems from last April’s decision by College Football Playoff organizers to make the Atlanta bowl one of six rotating sites of national semifinal games.
The playoff organizers stipulated that the Atlanta bowl’s name would have to become more in sync with the other five in the semifinal rotation, all of which include a traditional moniker as well as a corporate sponsor: Allstate Sugar Bowl, Discover Orange Bowl, AT&T Cotton Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl and Rose Bowl Presented by Vizio.
At the time, speculation immediately surfaced that Peach would rejoin the name, but bowl officials later tested other options that would satisfy the playoff’s naming requirements. They ultimately determined that Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl made the most sense.
…
“If we had our druthers, we’d rather have remained the Chick-fil-A Bowl,” he admitted. “But the playoff group did not give us that option, so we’re willing to play by the rules. We’re not worried about it. We’re indelibly joined to the Peach name, and we’re part of it.”
LikeLike
This interesting… in an NBA with out any time lost to injuries.
Not even a healthy Derrick Rose stops the Indiana Pacers’ march to the top of the Central Division. The Bulls’ worse record in our alternate universe doesn’t mean the Bulls would be worse with Rose, but more likely that the rest of the league gets even more of a full-strength bump than Chicago does, leading to 1.6 more losses for the Bulls
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-wouldve-happened-if-nobody-had-gotten-hurt-in-the-nba-this-year/
LikeLike
Lots of stuff going on. NCAA puts out some details on their governance proposal.
Click to access BOD%20Agenda.materials%204.24.14.pdf
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24532563/autonomy-defined-ncaa-boards-agenda-for-change-this-week
Here’s a summary from Dennis Dodd.
LikeLike
Assuming this passes in that body, should we then start referring to a “Group of 65” from there on?
LikeLike
Interesting article on “two and done.” Sounds like it is done-except for getting buy-in from the players’ association.
Also interesting (and disturbing) is the NBA telling the NCAA they should change their rules:
In addition, Silver said Emmert and the team owners talked about other ways to potentially ease a player’s transition from college to the NBA. This could include changes in officiating and game play, such as reducing the NCAA’s shot clock, which is 35 seconds compared to the NBA’s 24.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10803355/adam-silver-says-pushing-back-nba-age-limit-top-priority
LikeLike
I’d really like to hear Emmert’s take on that. It’s hard to imagine why they’d change the rules for all 340 Division I schools, when only a tiny percentage of the players will ever sniff the NBA.
There’s a bit of hypocrisy on both sides. Emmert wrings his hands about kids who don’t really want to be in college, but meanwhile the better schools are raking in the dough, hand over fist, on the talents of those same kids.
The “two and done” puts off their exit by one year, but no one doubts that they’ll still be exiting. It does force some marginal students to at least prove they can pass one full year of college.
LikeLike
Then again, the NCAA, on the issue of minimum number of years, genuinely has no say. Its entirely between the NBA and its players association. The NCAA is just a much easier target.
LikeLike
The NCAA could make true freshmen ineligible. I know that’s a throwback, but it could be done.
LikeLike
Might force some to actually find their class rooms…
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The “two and done” puts off their exit by one year, but no one doubts that they’ll still be exiting. It does force some marginal students to at least prove they can pass one full year of college.”
It makes a big difference academically. Before they really only need to pass classes in fall. They only need to do well in spring if they didn’t want to hurt the school’s APR. But now they’ll have to stay eligible through 4-5 semesters, so some effort will have to be put in. Maybe they’ll learn something despite themselves.
LikeLike
The NCAA women have a 30 second shot clock; hard to justify a 35 second shot clock for men, but it is what it is.
LikeLike
The length of the shot clock is completely arbitrary. You can’t justify any specific value for it. MBB has higher scores than WBB despite the longer shot clock.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10800648/texas-longhorns-ad-steve-patterson-counters-northwestern-push-players-union
UT’s AD is against a union.
The athletic director with the largest budget in the nation said Thursday he doesn’t support paying athletes nor a system in which they can market themselves, and doesn’t understand the recent quest by some Northwestern football players to unionize.
Steve Patterson, who took over as AD at the University of Texas this past November, told ESPN.com that he listened to the case made by former Northwestern quarterback Kain Colter, which was backed by the College Athletes Players Association, and it wasn’t clear what he was seeking.
“It’s interesting when you look at the objections of the plaintiffs in the case; we address all of them,” Patterson said. “If our athletes get hurt, we pay all their medical bills. If they want to come back and graduate, we pay for them to come back and graduate. We do everything that they say they wanted.”
Northwestern players, who were found by the National Labor Relations Board last month to be university employees, are set to vote on whether to unionize late next week.
Patterson, who oversees an annual athletic budget of roughly $170 million, said the “whole thing smells of guys in the legal profession looking for a fee.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10802216/ncaa-proposal-force-hardship-transfers-sit-year
Athletes getting hardship transfers would still have to sit out a year but wouldn’t lose a year of eligibility according to a new NCAA proposal.
The council recommended the elimination of immediate eligibility for players approved for hardship waivers. The NCAA says the proposed change would give athletes a year to focus on academics and the circumstances that led them to transfer in the first place before they can play.
The proposal is also intended to reduce concerns about waiver process abuse and claims of inconsistent decision-making.
LikeLike
This is not really much of an improvement. You’ll still have inconsistent decision-making, as the proposal doesn’t eliminate the committee of bureaucrats who decide whether or not you get the extra year of eligibility.
The “year to focus on academics” is an obvious crock, given that true freshmen are allowed to play.
LikeLike
It’s a way to prevent school-hopping. The committee should have a much easier time, because they aren’t deciding whether or not a player can transfer but whether or not they get the year of eligibility back. I’d guess they’ll approve a much higher percentage of cases under this rule. I’d also guess fewer players will apply for it since they have to sit out that year.
LikeLike
I am aware of the purpose, but even assuming you agree with it, the NCAA ought to be honest. Don’t say you’re “giving them a year to focus on academics” unless that is the actual purpose, which it transparently is not.
LikeLike
I disagree. I think they sincerely do want someone who is transferring due to a major life event to have more time to focus on school since the life event will be quite distracting. If your parent has cancer, the last thing you need is 40 hours of sports on top of a full course load while dealing with their health issues.
As always, you just assume the worst of the NCAA. They don’t want players to chase playing time all over the country, but they also are humans that feel bad for someone with a sick relative. It’s possible to have multiple motivations.
LikeLike
As always, you just assume the worst of the NCAA.
That’s absolutely true, and I am very comfortable with that position. Last time it was polled, their popularity was somewhere below the U. S. Congress, which is (to me) an accurate indication of their credibility. I generally assume that most of what they do is for entirely self-serving and disingenuous reasons, because that is their track record.
LikeLike
“I generally assume that most of what they do is for entirely self-serving and disingenuous reasons, because that is their track record.”
You do realize that the “they” and “their” actually is “we” and “our”, unless you are only referring to unaffiliated fans/parties and not to the schools who’s membership constitutes the NCAA.
LikeLike
I’m not clear. Would this rule grant a 6th year to the 5 year eligibility clock similar to the medical hardship? But without having to have lost both the RS year, plus another, due to injuries that preclude being cleared throughout the seasons in question? I think it is a good idea. It would relieve the current choice of possibly ending college career early to attend to the hardship, or staying and suffering from not attending to it. I do believe a transfer could still be granted immediate playing eligibility in some cases, as does happen occasionally now.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I’m not clear. Would this rule grant a 6th year to the 5 year eligibility clock similar to the medical hardship?”
Yes. All transfers would sit out a year, but hardship cases wouldn’t lose a year of eligibility while sitting out.
“I do believe a transfer could still be granted immediate playing eligibility in some cases, as does happen occasionally now.”
This would no longer happen. The new rule would replace that with them getting their year back.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t they allow those who are currently allowed immediate eligibility to continue? Or perhaps I’m wrong about immediate hardship eligibility being granted currently.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Why wouldn’t they allow those who are currently allowed immediate eligibility to continue?”
Because they feel players have been abusing the system and they don’t like being on the spot to determine which situations deserve hardship status. Besides, they seem to feel that if you have an actual hardship then you shouldn’t have the time to focus on sports that year.
“Or perhaps I’m wrong about immediate hardship eligibility being granted currently.”
Athletes apply for a waiver to grant it and the NCAA says yes just over half the time.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10803501/jeff-capel-promoted-duke-blue-devils-coaching-staff-mike-kyzyzewski
Wojo has been replaced. Jeff Capel gets promoted to his spot and Jon Scheyer fills Capel’s role.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24531695/winston-accusers-attorney-says-fsu-should-continue-investigation
Jameis Winston’s accuser’s lawyer is pressing FSU to re-open their investigation. FSU ended it because Winston refused to cooperate and the lawyer says that can’t be sufficient grounds for stopping a Title IX investigation.
LikeLike
Frank,
What was Seabrook thinking? A 5:00 major late in the 3rd period when you’re up by 1? The ‘Hawks are gonna need something special at home to dig out of this hole.
LikeLike
Breaking news – 3 games suspension for that hit.
Also, weird facts about the SC playoffs so far:
West – Home teams are undefeated (3 2-0, SJS 1-0)
East – Home teams have all lost at least once (TB is 0-2, Boston is 0-1, Pitt and NYR are 1-1)
LikeLike
Congrats to the CBJ on the first playoff win in franchise history.
LikeLike
Hypothetically Virginia is willing to move to the B10 in 2022 once their GOR expires but the B10 needs a partner for them to get to 16 members, who do they bring along with them with the assumptions that; Notre Dame, Texas and North Carolina aren’t interested.
Virginia Tech? Kansas? Missouri? UConn? Pitt? Georgia Tech? Syracuse? Duke?
LikeLike
Tiger,
“Hypothetically Virginia is willing to move to the B10 in 2022 once their GOR expires but the B10 needs a partner for them to get to 16 members, who do they bring along with them with the assumptions that; Notre Dame, Texas and North Carolina aren’t interested.
Virginia Tech? Kansas? Missouri? UConn? Pitt? Georgia Tech? Syracuse? Duke?”
I have a hard time believing UVA would leave the ACC with UNC still there. If they did, then the money difference must be huge. It also means the B10 is even more committed to the ESE push. Based on that, a B12 team seems unlikely. MO is not on the table. I don’t understand why people even keeping mentioning them. They aren’t leaving the SEC. VT probably is, too, unless UVA made them a condition of joining and the B10 wanted a unified front to keep the SEC in the south. I’d be shocked to see Duke leave UNC behind, too.
Pros and cons (geographic order):
SU
+ In a populous state, helps in NYC
– Lost AAU status, weak football lately, not a state flagship
Pitt
+ Academics, cultural fit
– Location (BTN is already on PA TVs)
VT
+ Helps solidify VA and DC, strong football
– Academics, doubles up in a state so less TV money
Duke
+ Academics, hoops, large and growing state
– Football, small school, tied to UNC
GT
+ Academics, large and growing state
– Sports success, smaller school, weak market control, on an island geographically
If I was the B10, I’d be tempted by GT, Duke, VT and maybe Syracuse. They all have major downsides, though. I assume Duke would pass. Then it comes down to priorities.
If NYC is priority #1 – SU
If academics is king – GT
If keeping the SEC out of the footprint is king – VT
If easy TV money is #1 – SU (NY is a huge state)
If the B10 wants a new market to gamble on – GT (higher market share than RU has in NYC)
I think if you add UVA, you have to keep them happy and provide local foes. UMD is a decent rival for them, but they’ll want another. Based on that, I’d be tempted to take VT and keep the SEC in NC and below (if the ACC is losing teams to the B10, clearly the SEC will be sniffing around too).
TV money:
MD + VA + DC = 5.93M + 8.26M + 0.65M = 14.84M = 4.95M per school (population, not $)
How much of that would just UMD and UVA bring in versus also having VT? I don’t know. I do know large parts of the state don’t have strong UVA ties. VT would also provide an eastern anchor for football and tie in to parts of OH, PA and MD culturally. 4.95M per school would put those three schools just a little behind MN and way ahead of IN, PU, IA and NE. There is also value in having a solid dividing line between B10 territory and the SEC. BTW, VT has wrestling and elite lacrosse.
Academics:
They aren’t AAU, which is normally a killer. Politics and/or money would have to overcome this.
AAU – no (were #91 on the published list)
USN&WR – 69 (same as MN and RU, ahead of MSU, IA, IN and NE)
ARWU – 68-85 (1 level below UVA, GT and IA, above NE)
THE – 276-300 (1 level below NE)
If those hurdles are too much, then the question is how much you worry about GT being isolated. Would you rather have GT and access to Atlanta while risking the SEC getting into VA and the DC market? I wouldn’t, but the COP/C may feel otherwise.
If they pass on GT due to distance, then SU seems the next best choice. They provide a big state and can help in NYC. They provide a hoops brand, too. Unfortunately, their football has been down and they left the AAU voluntarily. It would provide another lacrosse brand, though (good for UMD and UVA and protection against JHU leaving). They have club hockey and have talked about going D-I if they can get past the Title IX issues. They used to have varsity wrestling and want to bring it back. They have elite lacrosse, too.
Academics:
AAU – not anymore (like NE)
USN&WR – 62 (same as UMD, ahead of 7 others)
ARWU – 109-131 (1 level below NE)
THE – NR
Again, they’d have to overlook the academics to say yes.
If none of those combos are acceptable to the COP/C, then they might look westward at KU. Instead, they might prefer to stay at 16.
LikeLike
… prefer to stay at 14.
LikeLike
Virginia Tech has a women’s lacrosse team, but no men’s program.
UVa’s dream partner almost certainly would be UNC. The Tar Heels are in C’ville this weekend for a baseball series (the highly-ranked Cavs have won the first two games, and the Sunday finale is beginning as I write this), and the local news-talk station last night referred to UVa’s win over “arch-rival North Carolina.” (With the Blue Devils and Wolfpack in the Triangle, UNC doesn’t feel the same way.) Chapel Hill would be a tough nut for the Big Ten to crack, though, for reasons we’ve often discussed.
LikeLike
That was an editing error. I was talking about UVA having elite lacrosse.
LikeLike
You’re way too high on Va Tech ever getting into the B1G. Any potential need and want from Virginia as a state for the conference would be satisfied by UVA. Va Tech cannibalizes that and does so without AAU academics. Market driven expansion requires new markets more than higher shares if existing ones. If Va politics made taking both the only path, I think the B1G would pass and focus elsewhere for two more teams, especially if western teams would see it as a means to exclude them from more primetime games and when Iowa has it’s own instate politics to consider and could organize a western bloc against adding two Va schools.
I do agree that UVA is not leaving an otherwise stable ACC unless the cash gap is staggering enough to tempt UNC.
I think the conference seriously considered GT and felt the distance and lack of contiguity was too much to overcome, especially for a school not even #1 in its own city.
I don’t think Duke would leave the ACC . I think Syracuse would get a nod over Va Tech, but the chances of them getting a nod are very small due to the recent loss of AAU membership and being a middling football program nowadays. Only reason I consider them is for decent overall academics, basketball name brand, and the availability of some instant, built in rivals. But I’d have standing pat and Kansas ahead of Syracuse. (Though standing pat isn’t an option in this hypo).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“You’re way too high on Va Tech ever getting into the B1G.”
Probably, but note that I prefaced it by saying you’d need to think keeping the SEC out of the B10 footprint was the top priority. I analyzed all the same weaknesses that you did.
“If Va politics made taking both the only path, I think the B1G would pass and focus elsewhere for two more teams,”
That would virtually end the southern push, then. Nowhere else but TX has the demographics they say they want, so it sounds like they’d just stop at 14.
“especially if western teams would see it as a means to exclude them from more primetime games”
That didn’t stop them with RU and UMD, and they knew the eastern kings would be playing the newbies a lot.
“and when Iowa has it’s own instate politics to consider and could organize a western bloc against adding two Va schools.”
1. IA’s politics don’t matter. ISU could never get enough votes to get in. Besides, ISU is probably happier in the B12 with their other old rivals.
2. A western bloc of whom? If Delany tells them it will make them more money and get them more access to future students, which presidents will say no to back IA? It’s not like anybody else is pushing for ISU to join instead. IA has 3.0M people. VA has 8.3M.
LikeLike
“That didn’t stop them with RU and UMD, and they knew the eastern kings would be playing the newbies a lot.”
UMD and RU were schools they were amenable to and provided significant potential for large sums of money.
“1. IA’s politics don’t matter. ISU could never get enough votes to get in. Besides, ISU is probably happier in the B12 with their other old rivals.
2. A western bloc of whom? If Delany tells them it will make them more money and get them more access to future students, which presidents will say no to back IA? It’s not like anybody else is pushing for ISU to join instead. IA has 3.0M people. VA has 8.3M.”
I was a bit unclear, so let me clarify. There is no chance ISU would ever get into the Big Ten.
However, I could see the head of UIowa coming under pressure (like the UVa chancellor was in 2003) to oppose the addition of teams felt unworthy in the east, shifting the power and media balance further to the east, in the hopes of one day getting ISU in the Big Ten.* I could see a Gov of Iowa threatening the IU head with his job if he’s unsuccessful. I could see Iowa organizing a few schools to vote against, say, Va Tech for a variety of reasons (Iowa, Minny, IU could oppose out of concern they would get fewer primetime games as happened this year; NWU, Mich, Wisc could oppose on snobbish/academic grounds). So I think an Iowa forced to act due to state politics could potentially derail a Va Tech invitation. Now, if the UIowa leader was told to get ISU in or else, well, we’d find out what that “or else” would entail in short order. I believe that technically, 10 of 14 teams must approve expansion invitations, but that in practice, such offers would have to be unanimous or virtually unanimous. Not even Delany would try to force something through without getting wide support first–he’s too smart for that.
*While almost all of us know that ISU will never get in the B1G, try telling that to a thick-headed Governor. Also, Gordon Gee in his infamous recording mentioned that Iowa is already under tremendous political pressure regarding ISU.
Also, more money and access to students are critical, but not in and of themselves the end game–otherwise, FSU would have gotten a B1G invite.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“UMD and RU were schools they were amenable to and provided significant potential for large sums of money.”
And if UVA and VT combined don’t cost them money and provide more access to a growing part of the country for recruiting students?
“I was a bit unclear, so let me clarify.”
Please do.
“There is no chance ISU would ever get into the Big Ten.”
Agreed.
“However, I could see the head of UIowa coming under pressure (like the UVa chancellor was in 2003) to oppose the addition of teams felt unworthy in the east, shifting the power and media balance further to the east, in the hopes of one day getting ISU in the Big Ten.*”
That’s 1 vote out of 14.
“I could see Iowa organizing a few schools to vote against, say, Va Tech for a variety of reasons (Iowa, Minny, IU could oppose out of concern they would get fewer primetime games as happened this year; NWU, Mich, Wisc could oppose on snobbish/academic grounds).”
Why would any of these presidents be swayed by IA’s president? Maybe they’d have voted no anyway, but why would they change their minds?
“I believe that technically, 10 of 14 teams must approve expansion invitations, but that in practice, such offers would have to be unanimous or virtually unanimous. Not even Delany would try to force something through without getting wide support first–he’s too smart for that.”
If he gets 10 votes, the other 4 will cave to give the appearance of unanimity. You can’t win a vote 10-4 and then not enact the thing voted upon. They might straw poll beforehand and decide not to officially vote at all, but don’t expect 10 schools to cave to 4 hold outs.
LikeLike
“And if UVA and VT combined don’t cost them money and provide more access to a growing part of the country for recruiting students?”
Versus adding UVa and a school in another state? There is less money to be made by doubling down in a state. The economics don’t work in Virginia any more than Florida.
“Why would any of these presidents be swayed by IA’s president? Maybe they’d have voted no anyway, but why would they change their minds?”
Well, some reasons I listed could be academics, some could be a desire by some of the western schools to prevent an even greater shift of conference attention and focus eastward, hurting them. Kind of how UNC and Duke opposed expansion in 2003 out of fear of reducing the import of basketball.
And then there are the reasons we don’t know about that would possibly allow Iowa to generate support in opposition.
“If he gets 10 votes, the other 4 will cave to give the appearance of unanimity.”
Probably, but not always. The final vote tally might not be released if not unanimous. Or, such as happened in the ACC, negative votes might be disclosed publicly.
“You can’t win a vote 10-4 and then not enact the thing voted upon.”
Not in dispute under the By Laws, but having 4 schools opposed is not the best for conference comity. Delany has long maintained the B1G erred big time (no pun intended) in the process and manner in which it added Penn State in 1990 (secrecy from AD’s, no consultation with other parties other than some presidents, an overall rushed process), and there was resentment that lingered for a while. Delany explicitly referenced this when the B1G announced its intention to investigate expansion in December 2009, in order to analyze and consider all options in a calm, deliberate manner, and to ensure every one is on board. These are Presidents who work together on a daily basis, and if some are vocally opposed to something as large as expansion, I don’t think a simple majority rules mentality would win out.
“They might straw poll beforehand and decide not to officially vote at all, but don’t expect 10 schools to cave to 4 hold outs.”
They most definitely would straw poll ahead of time. If 9, there would be some whipping, but if a vote isnt flipped, no vote would occur.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Versus adding UVa and a school in another state?”
If there was an obvious candidate in another state, obviously they would choose them. But with UNC off the board, there are no obvious choices. They all might bring more money than VT, but not having VT might have a cost too.
“There is less money to be made by doubling down in a state.”
Obviously.
“The economics don’t work in Virginia any more than Florida.”
The economics would work just fine in FL.
“Well, some reasons I listed could be academics,”
Which wouldn’t be swayed by UI’s opinion.
“some could be a desire by some of the western schools to prevent an even greater shift of conference attention and focus eastward, hurting them.”
But they pushed for this current expansion eastward. Nobody but Gee was pressing to expand in the west as far as we know.
“These are Presidents who work together on a daily basis, and if some are vocally opposed to something as large as expansion, I don’t think a simple majority rules mentality would win out.”
Lots of B10 decisions go against the wishes of a few schools. That’s why they require a 70% vote, not unanimity.
LikeLike
“If there was an obvious candidate in another state, obviously they would choose them. But with UNC off the board, there are no obvious choices. They all might bring more money than VT, but not having VT might have a cost too.”
Not having Va Tech won’t cost much, if anything.
“Obviously.”
Glad you agree
“The economics would work just fine in FL.”
Incorrect.
“Which wouldn’t be swayed by UI’s opinion.”
Iowa leaders would be capable of pitching different arguments to different audiences in order to get a desired result. Some would be swayed by less exposure, some by academics.
“But they pushed for this current expansion eastward. Nobody but Gee was pressing to expand in the west as far as we know.”
No, they agreed to past expansion into the NYC and DC metro areas in a broader stroke, not doubling down in one state.
“Lots of B10 decisions go against the wishes of a few schools. That’s why they require a 70% vote, not unanimity.”
No. Expansion requires 70% vote to prevent a base majority rules ram down on such a major decision. I don’t know what the normal, non-expansion number is. That lots of decisions go against the wishes of a few schools is similarly immaterial, because few, if any of those, are anywhere near the importance of expansion. You cannot undo expansion.
LikeLike
Regarding the economics in FL, MR. Sec reported a while back that the SEC (pre-aTm and Mizzou) originally desired adding FSU, Clemson, aTm, and Texas, and if the Texas schools weren’t available, Miami and GT, in order to own the south, but that the SEC was advised that expanding markets was more lucrative than owning the south. Hence, Mizzou over FSU.
Don’t take my word for it, take FSU now-former AD’s word. http://mrsec.com/2013/03/fsu-a-d-spetman-talks-openly-about-switching-conferences-and-the-sec/
““Unless you bring in a revenue for them so that they don’t reduce their conference distribution to themselves, they aren’t going to bring you in. That’s what I don’t think people evaluate as much. It would be great to be in the SEC with our radius of schools and the way our fans travel and their fans travel, but if they bring Florida State into the SEC, I’m trying to see, how do we sell that we bring them enough additional revenue that we pay for ourselves and they make more money off of us? They have Florida just two hours away that has the TV market here.””
If it does not actually work in Florida, it will not work in Virginia.
LikeLike
Well if the SEC’s contract were up for renewal instead of having a dozen years to run as it did at the time, I think the economics would have been different. As it was, their new revenue was going to come from a conference network, not from their Tier I and Tier II. If you are able to monetize Tier I and Tier II, a king in the same state wins over a non-king every time.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Not having Va Tech won’t cost much, if anything.”
Nice assertion, but it’s pure opinion. Nobody knows what harm letting the SEC into VA might do.
“Incorrect.”
Prove it. 2 schools in FL would yield more money per school than not having any schools in FL. Thus, the economics work.
“Iowa leaders would be capable of pitching different arguments to different audiences in order to get a desired result. Some would be swayed by less exposure, some by academics.”
The other side would be doing the exact same thing. If multiple schools lobby for it and IA lobbies against it, would should I expect IA to sway them? No, I’ll stick to expecting them to vote their conscience on things like academics and exposure.
I’m done with this topic.
LikeLike
“Nice assertion, but it’s pure opinion. Nobody knows what harm letting the SEC into VA might do.”
True, but people can study it and make predictions/projections/assessments. Plus, if the B1G striked into VA first, cable networks might resist adding a second college sports channel.
“Prove it. 2 schools in FL would yield more money per school than not having any schools in FL. Thus, the economics work.”
1) No one compared having 0 vs. 2 schools in FL. The issue I was discussing was one school and adding a second one in the same state. Adding a second school would dilute the amount of money earned on a per school basis, especially in VA. Making declarative statements about things not in dispute is fine, but not all that relevant.
2) See the second post above, which cites to the former FSU AD talking about the importance of new markets. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Take his. If there wouldn’t be more money for the SEC from adding FSU, the economics won’t work in a smaller state like Virginia with two non-King programs.
“The other side would be doing the exact same thing. If multiple schools lobby for it and IA lobbies against it, would should I expect IA to sway them? No, I’ll stick to expecting them to vote their conscience on things like academics and exposure.”
Stick with what you want. But a motivated school president could probably get enough support to oppose something, since it takes only 5 “no” votes to stop expansion, Different schools would have different motivations, some based on concerns adding weaker academic schools in a difficult location to travel to in the east who would take from them prime time opportunities–which are in finite supply, but someone can use those different motivations in order to achieve a desired result, much like a president swaying different members of congress with different carrots/sticks in order to support/oppose a bill. And Va Tech on academics would be an easy no for most B1G president due to the lack of AAU status. Say what you will about the virtue of the metric, but its what they use and consider to be of prime importance.
Also, Delany is smart enough not to proceed in the face of heated opposition by even 1 or 2 presidents. Its how he lasted 25 years. Ask Dan Beebe what happens when you try to force the will of some schools upon a broader group, or the will of most schools upon a smaller number.
“I’m done with this topic.”
Good to know.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24534813/players-as-employees-looking-at-the-real-costs-of-a-college-football-union
Since we are throwing out hypotheticals, I was reading this article by Jeremy Fowler and he mentioned that if NW wins the union battle, that could actually give the private schools an advantage in recruiting in that the private schools could give recruits some sort of compensation (whether it be medical benefits, trust monies, whatever) that the public schools cannot. Which brings me to my hypothetical.
Would the public schools not want to compete against the private schools that can offer additional compensation? Assuming Notre Dame stays independent, that leaves 16 private universities. Do they form their own conference?
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
I’d cross off Pitt, I don’t think they add much to the B10 already being in Big Ten region… Duke is never leaving the ACC unless North Carolina leaves, in which case they are very likely a package deal not to mention the state of North Carolina is very much pro SEC…
I don’t think we’ll know much about the next B10 expansion until after the B10 signs its new TV/media deal which is coming up quite soon. If the B10’s new TV deal makes the SEC’s, Pac 12’s, Big XII’s TV deals look 2nd class as some analysts have projected; I think it could be a seismic shift that causes a school or two like Notre Dame, Texas & North Carolina desire the B10; which would be death to one of the Big XII or ACC. Missouri potentially too could be interested but I think they’ve found a home, not the one they really wanted but the one they belong in…
After removing who doesn’t have mutual interest: Duke, Missouri & Pitt… What’s left is just Virginia Tech, Kansas, UConn, GT & Syracuse… I really could see any one of them being #16 to Virginia being #15… Virginia Tech currently provides the most in football (least in basketball) but that is mostly attributed to their head coach who built that program to where it is. Their fan-base imo is pretty much at its peak as-is their on-field success. Post Beamer, I think VT might look significantly less appealing (right now they are above the others on my list, I could easily see them dropping behind other universities if their football suffers post Beamer)…
What happens on the football field in the next eight years (tlll whenever the B10 decides to expand) could have major implications on who #16 is in this hypothetical. If any of Syracuse, Kansas, UConn, Kansas or GT start winning 10 games a season and going to major bowl games, they start to look a lot more attractive to the B10 than they do today, jumping ahead of Virginia Tech. It would be interesting to see how the state of New York took to a successful Syracuse football program, you could argue the same for UConn who is pretty much just as close/connected to NYC as Syracuse…
I’d also agree with whoever (Brian) brought up the defensive move of adding Virginia Tech so the B10 doesn’t allow the SEC in their new state. Adding VT certainly strengthens the Virginia addition not to mention gives both of them a strong incentive to leave the ACC…
I think there are five real B10 expansion targets; Texas, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia & Missouri; probably in that order. VT is currently the most attractive of the bunch as far as complimentary additions (#16 to a strong #15) with the caveat that a lot can change in eight-to-ten years and if #15 is Virginia, VT is a likely #16.
LikeLike
No to Va Tech. UVA would do everything the B1G would want and need in Virginia. Va Tech would merely cannibalize that. Also, it’s not AAU and won’t be anytime soon.
Also, no Mizzou. No team is leaving the SEC by choice, and no school is getting kicked out.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“UVA would do everything the B1G would want and need in Virginia. Va Tech would merely cannibalize that.”
You keep saying that like UVA is a dominant sports brand in the VA. Large parts of the state don’t care at all about UVA. According to Nate Silver, VT has 1.3M football fans to UVA’s 840k. Adding VT would definitely increase the total BTN money. Would it increase the share per team? I really don’t know. But I think UVA + VT would be at least a modest gain plus it would prevent the SEC from undermining the BTN in VA. The question is what that is worth to the COP/C.
LikeLike
UVA is a unique school because its value is really in the entire school. Its athletics are decent/good’ seldom great. But its one of the top academic schools in the nation overall, and arguably among the top 5 public schools in the country. It is a school with a wealthy and passionate alumni base.
Its not that its the top brand in Virginia–its that it has some value to the AD’s but has amazing value to the Presidents.
As for the BTN, i think UVA would be able to get the necessary carriage by itself, and the B1G would not be able to charge double for with both schools vs a school in another state.
Regarding the prospect of competing in Virginia with the SEC, I don’t think that keeps Delany up at night. The broader benefits of having UVA I think would make the presidents happier than the possible hit the BTN would take in some of the Virginia TV markets. Between UMD and UVa, the BTN would be secure in DC and Northern VA, which has about 1/3 of the states population, but 7/20 of the nations wealthiest counties). Maybe it would be a dogfight with the SEC in Newport News/Norfolk, but that’s also a military/Navy town, But a dogfight for what–ratings don’t drive expansion–carriage fees do. I think UVa could get decent enough carriage fees to make Presidents happy–if they wouldn’t, then UVa would have never been so heavily rumored to be a target. And I think those carriage fees would not be impacted by the SECN.
If Virginia were a more populous state, and if Va Tech were in or near that other major state population center, then I possibly could see the conference adding both (academics aside).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“UVA is a unique school because its value is really in the entire school. Its athletics are decent/good’ seldom great. But its one of the top academic schools in the nation overall, and arguably among the top 5 public schools in the country. It is a school with a wealthy and passionate alumni base.
Its not that its the top brand in Virginia–its that it has some value to the AD’s but has amazing value to the Presidents.”
But that’s the problem. UVA lacks a passionate fan base that will demand BTN on expanded basic. Most of them have a top end cable package anyway. BTN needs large numbers of fans demanding it be on the lowest possible tier. Otherwise, they have no leverage in negotiations.
“As for the BTN, i think UVA would be able to get the necessary carriage by itself, and the B1G would not be able to charge double for with both schools vs a school in another state.”
No, they couldn’t charge double. But they could get it on a lower tier in many places that would just go with the sports tier for UVA. This is why the BTN and B10 have media consultants that know the details and can tell them what to expect. I’m suggesting that we really don’t know what the money difference would be.
“Regarding the prospect of competing in Virginia with the SEC, I don’t think that keeps Delany up at night.”
I think his ego would cringe at the SECN getting on expanded basic in VA while BTN was stuck on a higher tier (or not available at all because they refused to put it with the SECN). I doubt he’d like the media to report that the SECN was making significantly more per household in VA than the BTN was either (and I think it would be $0.10-0.25 higher). That’s why I think they might want a bulwark and to avoid a mixed footprint.
“The broader benefits of having UVA I think would make the presidents happier than the possible hit the BTN would take in some of the Virginia TV markets. Between UMD and UVa, the BTN would be secure in DC and Northern VA, which has about 1/3 of the states population, but 7/20 of the nations wealthiest counties).”
It partially depends how well the BTN does with just UMD, no?
“Maybe it would be a dogfight with the SEC in Newport News/Norfolk, but that’s also a military/Navy town, But a dogfight for what–ratings don’t drive expansion–carriage fees do.”
Ratings drive carriage fees.
LikeLike
“But that’s the problem. UVA lacks a passionate fan base that will demand BTN on expanded basic. Most of them have a top end cable package anyway. BTN needs large numbers of fans demanding it be on the lowest possible tier. Otherwise, they have no leverage in negotiations.”
Demand isn’t driven by the fans, its driven by the conference and the cable company anticipating what subscribers will reasonably pay based on interest. They don’t count calls to the “Tell Company X to Add BTN”. If it did, then BTN stands no chance in New Jersey.
But as the article I link to below discusses, leverage is far more complex. Fox has leverage to use, and Comcast will be forced to play nice in carriage disputes because of either existing consent decrees and/or future agreements/promises made in order to get its TWC acquisition approved.
“No, they couldn’t charge double. But they could get it on a lower tier in many places that would just go with the sports tier for UVA. This is why the BTN and B10 have media consultants that know the details and can tell them what to expect. I’m suggesting that we really don’t know what the money difference would be.”
They have media consultants to tell them things like new markets are most important for a cable channel, more so than penetration in existing markets. Otherwise, Pitt would have been invited to join the B1G, and FSU the SEC. New markets = more money.
“I think his ego would cringe at the SECN getting on expanded basic in VA while BTN was stuck on a higher tier (or not available at all because they refused to put it with the SECN). I doubt he’d like the media to report that the SECN was making significantly more per household in VA than the BTN was either (and I think it would be $0.10-0.25 higher). That’s why I think they might want a bulwark and to avoid a mixed footprint.”
Fair enough. You make a good point about Delany. However, I don’t think the Presidents would be so concerned if it meant having to swallow Va Tech.
“It partially depends how well the BTN does with just UMD, no?”
No doubt. And I personally think the #1 choice will be not to expand at all. But if there is expansion to be done, UVa will be a prime target.
“Ratings drive carriage fees.”
BTN is not exactly a ratings champion. Your statement is way too simplistic. See: http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/180551311.html . The endgame is to get those who don’t care about the network to nonetheless pay for it on a basic tier. That’s independent from ratings.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Demand isn’t driven by the fans, its driven by the conference and the cable company anticipating what subscribers will reasonably pay based on interest. They don’t count calls to the “Tell Company X to Add BTN”. If it did, then BTN stands no chance in New Jersey.”
That’s not what the cable companies have said. After each expansion, the little companies have said they had to add the network at the demanded price or lose their customers. Fan demand is the leverage the conference/network uses to push the carriage rate higher. It’s also why every time there is a dispute between a network and a cable company, they advertise it and tell customers to call their cable company and demand channel X.
“They have media consultants to tell them things like new markets are most important for a cable channel, more so than penetration in existing markets.”
VA would be a new market, and the difference between 40% penetration and 70% penetration there is important.
“Otherwise, Pitt would have been invited to join the B1G, and FSU the SEC. New markets = more money.”
The BTN has full penetration in Pittsburgh. Pitt wouldn’t provide anything. VT clearly would provide something.
“BTN is not exactly a ratings champion. Your statement is way too simplistic. See: http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/180551311.html . The endgame is to get those who don’t care about the network to nonetheless pay for it on a basic tier. That’s independent from ratings.”
And the only way you get that to happen is to have enough people that demand it be available that they can get away with charging everyone for it. Without the demand, the companies would rather lose a handful of customers than drive off even more with a price hike.
LikeLike
I bring this up often here but I had family in Virginia that lived there during VT’s rise to prince status. VT was a very distant 2nd to Virginia in the mid 90’s in football, when VT was a Big East member…
I see VT & Virginia similar to Georgia & Georgia Tech, Michigan & Michigan State, Penn State & Pitt or North Carolina & NC State… VT will always be the lil’ brother to the larger, wealthier state school. VT is at their peak right now while Virginia is in a down period yet Virginia is still the top program in the state. If Virginia turns the tide in football, VT will be a distant 2nd again.
LikeLike
It really depends where you are in the state. I’ve had family in VA for over a decade and their area is all VT despite being 200+ miles from VT. I know that isn’t true everywhere, but neither is the reverse.
LikeLike
“That’s not what the cable companies have said. After each expansion, the little companies have said they had to add the network at the demanded price or lose their customers. Fan demand is the leverage the conference/network uses to push the carriage rate higher. It’s also why every time there is a dispute between a network and a cable company, they advertise it and tell customers to call their cable company and demand channel X.”
They advertise and tell them to call, but the real leverage is behind the scenes. Fox can and would leverage Fox Network, FS1, FS2, FX, and other regional sports networks to get the best deals. That’s the leverage that matters.
“VA would be a new market, and the difference between 40% penetration and 70% penetration there is important.”
Not really, since its still a relatively smaller pool than another state.
“The BTN has full penetration in Pittsburgh. Pitt wouldn’t provide anything. VT clearly would provide something.”
I don’t think its clear at all what Va Tech would provide that UVa wouldn’t give the BTN and the B1G.
“And the only way you get that to happen is to have enough people that demand it be available that they can get away with charging everyone for it. Without the demand, the companies would rather lose a handful of customers than drive off even more with a price hike.”
Customer demand is secondary to larger leverage. Fox can and will leverage its other properties to get a better rate for the BTN. That leverage counts more than customer demand, especially in the numbers we’re talking about for BTN.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“They advertise and tell them to call, but the real leverage is behind the scenes. Fox can and would leverage Fox Network, FS1, FS2, FX, and other regional sports networks to get the best deals. That’s the leverage that matters.”
According to whom?
“Not really, since its still a relatively smaller pool than another state.”
100% of KS = 2.9M people = 35% of VA
“I don’t think its clear at all what Va Tech would provide that UVa wouldn’t give the BTN and the B1G.”
Which isn’t what I said. I said it was clear it would provide something monetarily.
“Customer demand is secondary to larger leverage. Fox can and will leverage its other properties to get a better rate for the BTN. That leverage counts more than customer demand, especially in the numbers we’re talking about for BTN.”
Again, according to whom? Cablevision is suing Viacom for “illegal bundling” of channels. That sort of leverage may no longer apply.
LikeLike
“According to whom?”
According to reality: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2012/11/20/michael-hiestand-big-10-fox-expansion/1718311/
“Says Neal Pilson, a TV sports consultant who’s an ex-head of CBS Sports: “The more powerful platforms you own, the more leverage you have in negotiations. It’s like a rising tide, all the ships come up.”
“100% of KS = 2.9M people = 35% of VA”
1) So?
2) KU would interest B1G more than Va Tech. The basketball brand trumps anything Va Tech brings to the table.
“Which isn’t what I said. I said it was clear it would provide something monetarily.”
I know what you said, and I disagreed with it. Still do, because I don’t think Va Tech on top of UVa would bring much, if anything, in addition.
“Again, according to whom? Cablevision is suing Viacom for “illegal bundling” of channels. That sort of leverage may no longer apply.”
Well, the presence of a lawsuit would signify the brutal effectiveness of that strategy, no? Also, that case will take years until there is a final resolution.
LikeLike
Perhaps they don’t bring anyone with them. With a 9 game schedule the B1G could dispense with divisions, assign each school 4 permanent rivals and assure every school visits every other at least once every four years.
LikeLike
Not if they want to keep an exempt CCG. Unless the rule is changed, you have to have round robin divisional play to get that 13th game.
LikeLike
With the coming changes I’m assuming the B1G, SEC, ACC, PAC 12 and BIG 12 can do as they please. And I apologize for my math – an 8 game schedule with 3 permanent rivals and 5/11 of the rest on the schedule every year would work.
LikeLike
Yes, per John O, since the Big12 and ACC already want to liberalize that rule, if the BigTen threw in with them, it seems like the rule would get liberalized.
LikeLike
I wonder how much value would be B1G place in keeping the Va/NC schools in the ACC in place in order to ward off the SEC in those two states? Experience has shown us that once a conference with mostly flagships adds another state flagship then that conference dominates the attention in that new state. Before the SEC added SC, Clemson was the school that had more attention in that state. Now it’s more or less even, maybe an edge to SC. Florida State, even with their NCs, has a hard time dislodging UF from its perch in the state of Florida.
That’s probably why Brian brought up the option of splitting Va/NC so that the SEC doesn’t go above the state line. But if the B1G can’t bring in Va Tech then there’s a chance that the gains in getting into a new state may be diminished by a P3 rival entering the same market. I don’t know if that’s true or not. Just putting it out there.
ND and Texas are special cases, in that each has large devoted fan bases despite heavy competitors surrounding them. But neither UVA, UNC, NCSU or VT can claim that. Maybe UNC with basketball but that’s it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10811829/tennessee-volunteers-target-mike-white-louisiana-tech-bulldogs-coach
Tennessee has targeted LT’s Mike White to replace Cuonzo Martin.
LikeLike
The transition for football from LT to Tenessee didnt work out so well (D. Dooley). Lets hope thats not Strike 1 with the fan base.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10817841/michael-white-remain-coach-louisiana-tech-bulldogs
Not a problem since White decided to stay at LT.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10819200/tennessee-targeting-southern-miss-coach-donnie-tyndall
And now they’re looking at Southern Miss’s coach.
LikeLike
And they got him.
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/04/20/all-night-games-for-osu-football-isnt-so-far-fetched.html
Not a great column, but it provides some good history on the change of regular season game times:
pre-1984 – virtually all OSU home games started at 1:30
1984 – the first 3:30 home games and the first night game (and fans weren’t pleased)
2002 – last season with only 1 night game for OSU
2006-2013 – OSU has averaged 3.0 night games per season (4 last year)
2013 – OSU had 4 night games
2014 – OSU has 3 night games already scheduled and may get 2 more
Gene Smith says it will never get to an all night game schedule, but he could see as many as 8 in a season happening eventually (4 home, 3 road). One reason it won’t get to all 12 is The Game, which neither side wants at night nor is the weather consistently good enough to stage it at night.
“There’s some novelty in playing at night, and you don’t want to reduce that,” Smith said. “There’s a specialness to a night game. I think there’s a number I’m comfortable with, and that operationally we’re comfortable with, and that’s probably three or four night games at home a year.
“Could it get to five? Who knows, it might. But I would think three or four is probably what’s realistic for us. We could have two or maybe three on the road — I could see that happening. That’s my guess of what it might look like.”
I think he also has a point with the novelty aspect. If all games are at night, then TV will need some daytime games instead anyway.
LikeLike
Auburn spent $3.1 million on its BCS title game trip. Will get $2 million back from its payout share.
http://auburn.247sports.com/Bolt/Auburn-spends-31-million-on-BCS-trip-28239009
LikeLike
No real shock there. Teams bring everyone and the kitchen sink to the NCG.
The expenditures included $1.7 million in transportation cost for 370 players and staff, a group of 439 band and cheerleaders and 39 faculty members, and $1.1 million for meals and lodging for eight days.
439 band members and cheerleaders? Auburn has 380 people in their marching band, apparently. The full OSU band is 225 people (192 perform).
Off topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Philip_Sousa_Foundation#The_Sudler_Trophy
Auburn won the Sudler trophy in 2004 (says you have a great band tradition, but you can only win once). Of course, the first 3 winners were from the B10 (started in 1982). 8 current B10 schools got honored before Auburn (NE got it before joining the B10), and 2 more have since then (what’s up, MN and WI?). The first SEC school got it in 2000 (also after 8 current B10 members).
Looks like MN, WI, UMD and RU need to get to work on their bands.
LikeLike
Something we didn’t really consider in the last post about more neutral site games in an eight team playoff: travel costs and overhead to a second neutral site game. Maybe not as extreme, but not cheap (still bringing team, staff, band, cheerleaders, families, some faculty probably).
LikeLike
$3 million is by choice. Teams don’t take 400k buy games to lose money. It doesn’t cost that much unless you choose to spend the money for other purposes (bringing alumni with you to push for donations, for example).
LikeLike
Yes, it is a choice, but it’s a choice most schools make and will factor into the costs and benefits of a second neutral site game. They won’t leave alumni and key faculty and admin home.
LikeLike
Bowl expenses allowed and money distribution are up to the conference. Auburn may have netted less than a SEC school that stayed home; however, it still pocketed bowl money after its cut of the Sugar and other SEC bowls where it had no expenses. Auburn knew the SEC rules, and chose to spend way more than the allowed reimbursement.
LikeLike
Saw this on a Reddit AMA. Another reason why cable providers and networks don’t want a’la carte programming.
The PTC [Parents Television Council] wants a’la carte so they can argue against objectionable programming by having their membership unsubscribe from a channel to have a more substantial effect on revenue for said Network.
http://nr.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/234j85/i_used_to_work_in_standards_practices_for_a_big/cgub1gh
LikeLike
“Parents Television Council”
—Blech
LikeLike
They’re just as bad as the MPAA which has let violence in PG-13 movies more than triple since the rating first appeared in 1984 (PG-13 films are now more violent than R films) but is bound and determined to protect the children from nudity and swearing.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10818446/central-missouri-kim-anderson-finalists-missouri-tigers-job
MO is looking at a D-II coach (Central MO) who is also an alumnus.
LikeLike
He was Norm Stewart’s top assistant for a long time. Just won the D-II national championship. He’s been a finalist 3 times already and all 3 times he didn’t get the job. Expect more of the same.
Who knows who Mizzou will hire but common names thrown around right now are Gregg Marshall, Ben Howland, Chris Mack, and Matt Painter. We’ll find out in a week or two probably.
LikeLike
UMD planning to allow a hotel to be built on part of their property
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/u-md-plans-115-million-luxury-hotel-and-conference-center-in-college-park/2014/04/15/9ec19f66-b38d-11e3-8020-b2d790b3c9e1_story.html
Many of the 80,000 to 90,000 annual visitors to the university seek lodgings outside the county, officials say. At the same time, U-Md. expects the number of visitors to increase with the school’s entrance into the Big Ten Conference, raising its profile as a competitive athletic and academic institution.
“I already know that when Ohio State comes here, there will be about 30,000 fans,” Loh said. “They are going to make a big weekend out of it. They will go to see the sights of Baltimore and Washington, D.C. But where will 30,000 people stay? Even our hotel is not going to be large enough to accommodate them.”
“Our conference center will be booked,” Loh said. “It will have a huge economic impact on the whole region.”
LikeLike
There already is a hotel at the west end of campus as part of the University College (adult education) complex. This would be at the east end, on the east side of U.S. 1, just north of Ritchie Coliseum. College Park officials have been trying to upgrade that part of town for years.
LikeLike
UMass has lots of meetings at its conference center. Slive was there yesterday in a conference where he was talking about a variety of current sports topics.
LikeLike
Prince George County = Chicago’s South Suburbs?
LikeLike
More proof of the separation between P5 and G5 or are some increasingly nervous of the AAC football product?
The same ol’ games being played with scheduling
LikeLike
More proof of the separation between P5 and G5 or are some increasingly nervous of the AAC football product?
I don’t know about “increasingly” nervous. A number of AAC schools are better at football than some P5 schools, which was also true when these schools were in the Big East.
The AAC isn’t a single “football product”; it’s a collection of separate products, and USF is one of the better ones. The Hoosiers replaced USF with FIU out of Conference USA, apparently preferring a game they’d be more likely to win.
LikeLike
Slive, as do his colleagues, want to modify the collegiate model, not do away with it.
“I’m not in favor of them being employees,” Slive said. “What does ‘payment’ mean? If payment means they are going to be employees, then I am not in favor of it. … Whatever we do, at least from my perspective and the perspective of my colleagues, is to be done within the collegiate model. … This is about higher education, so we need to do more within the context of higher education, not in the context of employment.”
If student-athlete and employee become synonyms, universities and their labor lawyers will be working nights for months to come, no matter how the Northwestern football players vote this week.
Support for increasing student-athlete benefits goes back at least three years, when NCAA president Mark Emmert first supported a $2,000 stipend toward the full cost of attendance. That proposal slogged to a halt, thanks to the Division I schools that don’t want to pay it. With outside pressures coming to bear, the five equity conferences, as they prefer to be known, are about to form their own subdivision with their own rules.
A new subdivision will be a square peg to the round hole of the way that the NCAA currently operates. These changes, Slive said, “require a 21st century governance model within the NCAA and its structure that will preserve the collegiate model and allows our schools to make decisions that put student-athletes first. This is the No. 1 priority of the five conferences and we are committed to seeing it through.”
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10817368/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-lays-goals-five-conference-subdivision
I just wonder if those five commissioners are making a public face of a unified front while, behind the scenes, they’re each hiding a knife behind their backs.
Just kidding. Still, yeah, one could sense the nerves jangling up within the higher ups.
LikeLike
All these things are issues with the union movement and with the various lawsuits. The NCAA seems unable to grasp that. And then maybe the bottom 100 in Division I don’t care as they don’t think it will impact them.
LikeLike
They really should have a 4th division. Division II and III are bulging at the seems with the slow implosion of the NAIA over the past couple of decades. They don’t need more schools pushed down from Division I.
LikeLike
What are the membership capacities of Division II and III, and what are the diseconomies of scale for expanding beyond those numbers? Off the top of my head, I can’t come up with any reason why every non-scholarship athletics department in the country cannot be a member of Division III, if they wish to be.
LikeLike
It just makes their championships unreasonably large. Division III has 442 members. Division II has 311.
LikeLike
Get your prime time BTN Saturday nigt schedule here:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/99482/btn-selects-eight-prime-time-games
LikeLike
About as expected.
Sept. 13
Penn State at Rutgers, 8 p.m. ET
Sept. 27
Cincinnati at Ohio State, 6 p.m. ET
Illinois at Nebraska, 9 p.m. ET
Oct. 4
Michigan at Rutgers, 7 p.m. ET
Oct. 18
Nebraska at Northwestern, 7:30 p.m. ET
Nov. 15
Michigan State at Maryland, 8 p.m. ET
…
Here’s the breakdown of Big Ten prime-time games by team:
Ohio State: 4 (three home, one road)
Nebraska: 4 (two home, two road)
Penn State: 3 (two road, one home)
Michigan State: 2 (one home, one road)
Rutgers: 2 (two home)
Michigan: 2 (one home, one road)
Illinois: 2 (two road)
Northwestern: 1 (home)
Maryland: 1 (home)
Additional Big Ten-controlled prime-time games could be announced in the coming weeks.
…
* Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, Minnesota and Wisconsin don’t appear on the Big Ten’s prime-time schedule. Iowa fans undoubtedly will be disappointed with no Big Ten prime-time games for the second consecutive season, as the Hawkeyes are a legitimate contender in the West Division. The problem likely is a schedule with the two most appealing games — Wisconsin and Nebraska — at the very end, when weather is a bigger factor. The Black Friday game against Nebraska has consistently been a noon ET ABC national broadcast, a spot not worth relinquishing. Still, I wouldn’t want to be athletic director Gary Barta today. Wisconsin faces a similar issue as its top home games — Nebraska and Minnesota — come at the end of the season. Although it would have been great to see Nebraska-Wisconsin under the lights again, the Nov. 15 date likely prevented it. Indiana had three home prime-time games last year and has been a frequent night-game participant in recent years. Purdue gets the Notre Dame game, but its chances for an additional prime-time contest were hurt by last year’s 1-11 clunker.
…
* Remember, this list and the ESPN/ABC list contain only games controlled by the Big Ten (i.e. in Big Ten stadiums) Additional night games involving Big Ten teams include Wisconsin-LSU in Houston (Aug. 30, 9 p.m. ET, ESPN), Michigan at Notre Dame (Sept. 6, 7:30 p.m. ET, NBC), Purdue-Notre Dame in Indianapolis (Sept. 13, 7:30 p.m. ET, NBC) and Nebraska at Fresno State (Sept. 13, 10:30 p.m. ET, CBS Sports Network). The kickoff time for Rutgers’ opener Aug. 28 against Washington State hasn’t been set, but it will be a night game.
…
This year’s prime-time schedule contains only one date, Oct. 4, where both BTN and ABC/ESPN are airing games at the same time. That night, Nebraska visits Michigan State on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and Michigan visits Rutgers on BTN. There were two such dates last year (Sept. 7 and Sept. 14).
LikeLike
As for the schools without a prime time cobference game, the ESPN article and related tweets from Adam Rittenberg make it clear that schools have the final decision as to moving a game to the nighttime. I find it hard to believe that if Wisconsin and Nebraska desired to move their game to the night, the conference would have denied them. Same if Wisconsin and Minnesota wanted to move to the nighttime.
Plus, Iowa plays in a national time slot with better exposure than any BTN game, so they shouldn’t be too upset. And Purdue does play UND at night and was 1-11. Indiana is a surprise, but their most marketable games are against the biggest brands who already have several night games.
LikeLike
I find it hard to believe that if Wisconsin and Nebraska desired to move their game to the night, the conference would have denied them.
My guess is that ABC/ESPN weren’t willing to let this game fall to the BTN nor were they willing to commit to putting this game in prime time. The time will be set thirteen days before kick off.
LikeLike
Mike, the thing is, if they decide to move a game to night at that point, it would probably take both schools being on board. I really don’t see the visiting team often agreeing though if they can help it.
LikeLike
@Eric – There may be some special consideration for November night games the Big Ten negotiated from ESPN, but I would be surprised if ESPN has the option to move the game and NU and UW could veto it.
LikeLike
According to Adam Rittenberg, ESPN’s Big Ten blogger, the teams have the final say on night games. ESPN could want a game at night, but if the team’s don’t, and ESPN cannot convince them otherwise, then the game won’t be at night.
I’m sure ABC would love to have Michigan-Ohio State as the prime time game. But neither school will ever consent to moving that game to 8pm. Hence, its on either at Noon or 3:30pm.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“As for the schools without a prime time cobference game, the ESPN article and related tweets from Adam Rittenberg make it clear that schools have the final decision as to moving a game to the nighttime.”
They have final approval, not the final decision. If no network wants the game at night, the schools can’t force it.
“I find it hard to believe that if Wisconsin and Nebraska desired to move their game to the night, the conference would have denied them.”
It’s in mid-November and I think most B10 schools are very cautious about pushing night game back into winter weather.
“Same if Wisconsin and Minnesota wanted to move to the nighttime.”
Only BTN could consider that a primetime game, and I doubt either school wanted it.
“Plus, Iowa plays in a national time slot with better exposure than any BTN game, so they shouldn’t be too upset. And Purdue does play UND at night and was 1-11. Indiana is a surprise, but their most marketable games are against the biggest brands who already have several night games.”
The effort to get RU more exposure hurt other schools. So do the divisions.
West – 7 night games
East – 14 night games
LikeLike
“They have final approval, not the final decision. If no network wants the game at night, the schools can’t force it.”
I am of the view that if teams want a matchup on BTN and it’s a decent one, the network, as house organ, will try to oblige. I could be wrong though.
“It’s in mid-November and I think most B10 schools are very cautious about pushing night game back into winter weather.”
We’re I’m agreement there, because as I wrote I’m sure that’s a game the BTN would have wanted but was probably denied by the schools.
“West – 7 night games
East – 14 night games”
Good catch. The eastern media strategy is already taking shape.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I am of the view that if teams want a matchup on BTN and it’s a decent one, the network, as house organ, will try to oblige. I could be wrong though.”
They have to balance everyone’s financial interests, too. Maybe they need that game in the afternoon to fill a slot (double bye weeks mean fewer games each weekend), or maybe ABC wants it for an afternoon slot.
LikeLike
Well, all true. That’s why I said they would try to oblige. No guarantee of success.
An example of obliging: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-10/sports/ct-spt-0910-northwestern-football-20130910_1_kickoff-western-michigan-venric-mark
“A time to thrill: Saturday is Yom Kippur, so NU President Morton Schapiro asked athletic director Jim Phillips to request a kickoff after sundown, allowing Jewish fans to attend the game guilt-free. The result is an 8 p.m. kickoff.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10821903/north-carolina-tar-heels-reading-specialist-mary-willingham-resign
UNC’s whistleblower is resigning.
Mary Willingham said in an email to The Associated Press on Monday night that she met with Chancellor Carol Folt earlier in the day.
Willingham says in the email that she and Folt “clearly have different ideas and opinions.”
“She has a job to do and I hope that she does the right thing — academics should be in charge of this great university, not athletics,” Willingham said.
She says she will meet with her supervisor after she posts her grades next week to submit her letter of resignation and finalize details.
LikeLike
Reading between the lines, she was forced to resign and told not to say that or they would make sure she never got another job in academia.
Their study is another pathetic effort. They found 7% reading at a 4th to 8th grade level by including baseball and volleyball players. She found 60% using football and basketball players only.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Reading between the lines, she was forced to resign and told not to say that or they would make sure she never got another job in academia.”
I don’t see that. That’s a huge lawsuit waiting to happen for firing a whistleblower, and she’s already shown she’s willing to speak out. Black balling doesn’t work that well in academia when you stood up for academics over athletics.
“Their study is another pathetic effort. They found 7% reading at a 4th to 8th grade level by including baseball and volleyball players. She found 60% using football and basketball players only.”
Three outside experts hired by UNC issued reports earlier this month saying Willingham’s research data doesn’t support her claims. One of them estimated about 7 percent of athletes from Willingham’s research read at fourth- to eighth-grade levels.
It wasn’t their study, but done by outsiders. Saying her data doesn’t support her claims is a strong statement for an academic to make about a peer. I’d need to see the reports before dismissing it as biased.
LikeLike
“hired by UNC”
That’s the key phrase. And they aren’t comparing the same population. That’s like saying she’s wrong saying a lot of apples are wrotten because we looked at apples and oranges and none of the oranges were rotten.
Have you seen this article which throws into doubt anything UNC says about this:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in-fake-classes-scandal-unc-fails-its-athletes-whistle-blower#p1
From page 6:
In this volatile atmosphere, Folt convened her faculty on Jan. 17 to hear what amounted to an indictment of Willingham led by Dean. The defendant was tried in absentia for defaming the university. Pointing to slides projected on a large screen, Dean, a scholar of organizational behavior, accused Willingham of making slanderous statements about the academic abilities of Carolina football and basketball players. Her assessments “are virtually meaningless and grossly unfair to our students and the university that admitted them,” he said. “Using this data set to say that our students can’t read is a travesty and unworthy of this university.” The verdict, recorded on videotape, was swift: The assembled scholars erupted in applause.
“In 25 years of faculty meetings, I’ve never seen anything like it,” Smith said later. “It was a public conviction and an intellectual execution.”
At Dean’s order, Willingham turned over her data on the 183 athletes to him. He declared that the diagnostic test she used, the Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA), assesses vocabulary and isn’t recommended for judging literacy levels. She further muddled her results, he added, by miscalculating grade-equivalent levels.
After Dean’s presentation elicited applause, Frank Baumgartner, a political science professor, got to his feet. He mused aloud about the university’s focusing on Willingham as a form of coverup. “President Nixon went down for denial,” he told his colleagues. In an interview later, he elaborated: “What I heard was stonewalling,” he said. “The university is trying to distract us by going after Mary Willingham when there are much bigger issues here about sports and academics, and they’re not unique to North Carolina.”
LikeLike
Maybe she’s just fed up. “Hostile work environment” sounds like a lawsuit to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/21/us/unc-whistle-blower-resigns/
“It’s been a hostile work environment the entire year,” Willingham told CNN. “I stuck it out because I wanted to make good on promises to my students, but it has not been fun.”
Last month, a Washington whistle-blower group wrote a letter to UNC, demanding the university apologize to Willingham and launch an investigation into the way it says she has been publicly smeared, most specifically by Provost Jim Dean. The group said it was possible that North Carolina whistle-blower laws were broken.
LikeLike
bullet,
“That’s the key phrase.”
Not everyone is willing to sell their soul to protect UNC. Perhaps they got three experts they could buy a result from, but maybe those experts were right. Until I see all the data, results and conclusions for myself, I’m not going to assume one side or the other is lying.
“And they aren’t comparing the same population.”
It sounds like they did. They went on to present data from a larger population to make UNC look better, but when they said her data didn’t support her claims they were looking at the exact same population and reaching a different result until I see evidence to the contrary.
That’s like saying she’s wrong saying a lot of apples are wrotten because we looked at apples and oranges and none of the oranges were rotten.
http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/message-from-provost-james-w-dean-jr/
To assess the validity of the claims and the results of an internal review, the University engaged three experts to independently analyze and report on the data set, which was provided on Jan. 13 to the University’s provost, the chief academic officer. The data set comprised results of a Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA) Reading Vocabulary subtest — a 25-question, multiple choice vocabulary test — given to 176 new student-athletes during the eight-year period.
According to an executive summary, the outside experts “also determined that the majority of the students referenced in the public claims scored at or above college entry level on the SATA Reading Vocabulary subtest. The data set was based on those scores.”
The reports, produced by faculty in psychology or education at the universities of Minnesota and Virginia and Georgia State University, and the executive summary are posted at http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu. The executive summary was produced by the Office of the Provost and approved by the independent experts.
The 176 student-athletes in the data set represented a small fraction of 1,800 total student-athletes who attended UNC between 2004 and 2012. Those students took the SATA Reading Vocabulary subtest shortly after arriving on campus as part of a screening process to identify possible learning differences or learning disabilities. This is common practice at many NCAA Division I universities.
The University hired the experts based on their knowledge of adult literacy, assessment and measurement in education, and multivariate analysis. They were Dr. Nathan Kuncel, distinguished professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota; Dr. Lee Alan Branum-Martin, associate professor of psychology and co-investigator in the Center for the Study of Adult Literacy at Georgia State University; and Dennis Kramer, assistant professor of higher education at the University of Virginia. (For details, refer to the end of this release.)
Although the experts worked independently of one another, they reached similar conclusions in their reports. The executive summary reported the key findings and results as follows:
* “The SATA RV subtest, a 25-question multiple choice vocabulary test is not a true reading test and should not be used to draw conclusions about student reading ability.”
* “The data do not support the public claims about the students’ reading ability.”
* “Reading ability should not be reported as grade equivalents.”
* “The difference in demographics between the SATA test norm and the demographics of the UNC student-athletes is important to understanding conclusions that can be drawn from the data.”
* “The SATA subtests were administered in low-stakes settings, meaning that the result of the test had relatively unimportant consequences to the taker. Low-stakes settings are thought to influence test results.”
* “While SATA RV (the 25-question, multiple choice vocabulary subtest) results can be informative as part of screening for learning differences and/or disabilities, they are not accepted by the psychological community as an appropriate measure of reading grade level and literacy.”
Those sound like genuine concern over issues with Willingham’s report, and they are from other professors (MN, UVA and GSU).
LikeLike
Click to access Executive-Summary-of-External-Independent-Review.pdf
Here’s the executive summary of the report from those 3 experts.
In addition to lots of questions about what data she used and how she used it, they couldn’t replicate her calculations. They couldn’t get the math to give the result she claimed. That seems like a reasonable concern for experts to have.
LikeLike
They publically accused her of slandering UNC athletes BEFORE they even hired these experts. They never told the NCAA about her when she told the administration about her issues. She worked with these kids personally. She’s a learning specialist. You don’t need a test to understand these things. I found her CV:
Click to access 2013resume.pdf
And UNC had fictional classes to keep these kids GPAs up,-and they went to them. Some of their advisors steered them to these classes. CNN published the study that shows there is a problem in many places, and unlike UNC, many of the other schools acknowledged there was an issue. UNC seems to believe if you deflect and lie enough, people will start to believe you.
All of it adds up to zero credibility for anything produced by UNC. And note that the first thing they attack is the relevance of the test. While probably a valid complaint that it is not technically a reading test, that is a red herring that indicates this is an expert who gives you what you told them you want. And even if it is only 7% who can’t read at a HS level, when you factor out the non-rev athletes, it can get to be a pretty high percentage. That is not a defense.
Have you ever heard of a trial where the expert gives testimony that hurts your case? They always slant it the way of the side who hired them. And amazingly, both sides often have experts saying the opposite thing. If UNC hadn’t already made up its mind to deny there was any issue when everyone else knows there is, and to blame it all miraculously on one professor you could give this more credibility. But they have gone on a full scale attack on her. This is not about finding the truth. Its about deflecting the blame from the UNC administration by attacking critics. The vociferousness and almost unprecendented nature of their attacks on her (probably worse than Jan Kemp at UGA) indicates to me their problem is probably far worse than that at other universities.
LikeLike
bullet,
“They publically accused her of slandering UNC athletes BEFORE they even hired these experts.”
Yes, but please show me where I defended UNC in any of this. I’m pointing out that you’re basically doing the same thing to these 3 experts that you’re accusing UNC of doing to Willingham.
“You don’t need a test to understand these things.”
But you do need one to have quantitative data, and the experts say she made mathematical mistakes in her number crunching.
“All of it adds up to zero credibility for anything produced by UNC.”
But these experts are tenured professors at other universities. They aren’t beholden to UNC. They’d get paid either way, and it’s not like they make a career out of investigating UNC.
“And note that the first thing they attack is the relevance of the test. While probably a valid complaint that it is not technically a reading test,”
So you are upset with them for attacking the test, but you admit they’re correct about the complaint?
“that is a red herring that indicates this is an expert who gives you what you told them you want.”
They quoted the instructions that come with the test that also say it isn’t a reading level test. Are the test-makers in UNC’s pocket, too?
“And even if it is only 7% who can’t read at a HS level, when you factor out the non-rev athletes, it can get to be a pretty high percentage. That is not a defense.”
It is a defense to her claim of 60%. Anything above 0% shouldn’t be acceptable, but her case loses authority if her claims are grossly inflated.
“Have you ever heard of a trial where the expert gives testimony that hurts your case?”
Yes. More importantly, I know a professor who frequently is called to testify due to his specialty. He’d be offended that you are essentially calling him a liar. He truthfully answers the questions asked of him. The lawyers do the spin by choosing what to ask or not choosing to call him at all.
LikeLike
And the experts spin when questioned by the other side by deflecting, avoiding a direct answer and tossing out red herrings like the scientific validity of a test.
Her tests don’t need to be precise to present a truth. Maybe her 60% is inflated. UNC shouldn’t be spending money attacking her. It should be spending money fixing the problem. They know they have a serious problem, but they are in denial. All they have to do is talk to the tutors.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Her tests don’t need to be precise to present a truth.”
Yes, they really do. Nobody is arguing the broader point, but you attacked the other experts for saying she was wrong. If she was mathematically wrong, were they not supposed to point that out?
“Maybe her 60% is inflated. UNC shouldn’t be spending money attacking her. It should be spending money fixing the problem. They know they have a serious problem, but they are in denial.”
It would be easier to fix if they could get an accurate description of how big the problem is. That’s one reason (not the only one) they keep hiring investigators.
“All they have to do is talk to the tutors.”
You think they’d get pure truth from their own tutors?
LikeLike
I attacked UNC for hiring the experts and the experts and UNC for their spin.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I attacked UNC for hiring the experts and the experts and UNC for their spin.”
What spin from the experts? They were asked very specific questions and answered them. They never claimed they were doing a full investigation of the issue.
LikeLike
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-22/mary-willingham-the-fake-classes-whistleblower-at-university-of-north-carolina-resigns-after-meeting-with-chancellor
From the article:
“For an excellent analysis of this sad and outrageous situation, please read a blog post by Willingham’s friend and backer Jay Smith, a tenured UNC history professor. “The clash between Willingham and the university has never really been about statistics,” Smith writes. “The clash is all about the current model of collegiate athletics and whether the university can tolerate in its midst an insider who is determined to expose the defects of the collegiate model. The vehemence of the assault on Willingham shows how desperately UNC administrators, and UNC sports fans, cling to the myth that all is basically well in the Emerald City. Willingham urges us to look behind the curtain.”
Based on my own examination of the facts—described in this Bloomberg Businessweek cover story and related online dispatches—I believe Smith is putting it politely. Too politely. There’s something very much un-well in Oz.
NOTE: Peter Grauer, the chairman of Bloomberg L.P., which owns Bloomberg Businessweek, is a trustee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and sits on its Foundation Board and the UNC Global Research Institute Board.”
LikeLike
And from the blog linked in the Business Week article:
The aggressiveness and the tenor of the attacks on Willingham nevertheless betray an anxiety–a kind of panic–that goes far beyond a disagreement over numbers. The all-out assault reflects a fundamentally cynical strategy to discredit and defame someone who has embarrassing facts to reveal. This strategy first emerged into the open only days after Willingham went public with her knowledge of Academic Support Program malfeasance in November of 2012. Prefiguring the University’s response to the CNN story thirteen months later, athletic department spokesperson Steve Kirschner rushed to accuse Willingham in 2012 of making up key details of her narrative and of “unfairly” attacking all student-athletes at UNC. (The trope that Willingham is out to embarrass, humiliate, and harm athletes is now the stock in trade of athletic department defenders.) Whatever legitimate questions University administrators might have raised about Willingham’s statistics in the wake of the CNN report, their immediate response to the story belied any concern for impartiality or for getting at the truth. In response to the most sensational claim aired by CNN–that Willingham had taught at least one non-reader on the men’s basketball team–both the University, in a general press release, and coach Roy Williams responded by questioning Willingham’s credibility. They instinctively denied her statement–”we do not believe that claim,” said the University–and effectively called her a liar. (The Provost would later make the accusation official, telling Paul Barrett of Bloomberg BusinessWeek that Willingham “lied” about reading abilities.) They made these emphatic statements before they had examined one shred of statistical evidence, before they had talked to Willingham about her experiences, and before they had bothered to see if others on campus might be able to corroborate her story. Instead they reflexively opted for denunciation. (When Willingham subsequently offered to identify the non-reading player for Roy Williams at a personal meeting, he backpedaled; “it’s not my place” to look into such things, he said. No one in the administration took her up on the offer either.)
LikeLike
bullet,
Who are you arguing with? I haven’t defended UNC’s overall actions, I’m defending the 3 experts that you attacked. I do think UNC needs a detailed investigation, because otherwise they’ll never know how widespread the problem really was. That’s why I don’t blame them for hiring those experts. I blame them for the limited set of questions they asked them to answer.
For the sort of accusations Willingham was making, you can’t make major math errors. She made it easy to show she’s wrong on the details which can hide the fact that her general point still stands. But attacking the experts because they were paid to point out her errors isn’t fair. They did their job – nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLike
Since we’ve been discussing about the future risks of playing football, another story comes out about a player being forced into retirement but with a new twist:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/jaguars-linebacker-russell-allen-said-he-is-retiring-after-suffering-on-field-stroke-172422209.html
That’s the scariest part of Allen’s story. It wasn’t one big hit. Even after multiple viewings, it seems like a normal play.
Allen said he started seeing double on the sideline in the second half, but went back in and finished the game. When headaches persisted on Monday, he informed the team what happened. An MRI showed that he had a stroke, MMQB wrote. A small part of his cerebellum was inactive. Three neurosurgeons confirmed the injury, the type of stroke that has never happened to a pro football player before, as far as they knew. It was the kind of injury seen in a small percentage of high-speed automobile accidents, MMQB wrote.
Concussions are one thing, but when leagues now have to take into consideration the possibility of strokes happening during play, that takes it into a whole other dimension. At some point, people in and out of football are going to have to accept that football comes with certain risks and those who choose to participate in it as adults are responsible for learning this. The problem comes at the school level, where there’s debate about the extent that boys should be allowed to participate.
LikeLike
Yes. Football is at its core a violent game. To truly fix most of that would require going flag instead if tackle. Judging by pro bowl ratings, that’s not happening anytime soon.
Then again, Mike Utley and Dennis Byrd were paralyzed in consecutive seasons and only some lesser rule changes were made in response. It’s going to take something like that in a Super Bowl to really get folks to consider the nature of the sport.
LikeLike
IMHO – to deny financial aid for a transfer is a rule that shouldn’t exist. Shame on Kansas St. for exercising it.
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/18/4968431/kansas-state-committee-denies.html
NCAA rules dictate that transfers must sit out a year before they can play at a new school, but they are only allowed to immediately receive financial aid if their previous school approves of the transfer by granting a scholarship release.
K-State’s athletic department denied Romero’s initial request to transfer, which she made after athletic director John Currie fired the coach she signed with, Deb Patterson, and hired Jeff Mittie as her replacement. Romero, of Las Palmas, Spain, decided her playing style wasn’t a good fit with her new coach.
Romero appealed that ruling before a committee Wednesday. She said the committee informed her that her transfer request had been denied Thursday morning. Upset by the news, she waited until Friday to share the verdict.
“My release has been denied,” Romero said. “My parents and I are still requesting some information from the university about my appeal hearing.”
[snip]
Men’s basketball players Angel Rodriguez, Adrian Diaz and Michael Orris, however, were granted transfer requests last season. And incoming women’s basketball recruit McKenna Treece was granted a release from her letter of intent in the past few weeks. But K-State is fighting to keep Romero as it did with senior offensive lineman Manase Foketi and others in recent seasons.
LikeLike
There are a lot of bad examples of this. In some cases, unlike this one, its someone who doesn’t play.
The transfer rules (and the tightening by the NCAA just passed) are one of the things wrong. The NCAA schools can drop a scholarship after a year, but won’t let someone leave.
You can stop any significant recruiting by simply banning contact by coaches, making the new school and player disclose any contact and having severe, pre-defined penalties for non-disclosure and violating the rules. For example, ban the player from competing for that school, but forcing the school to continue financial aid to them and have it count against their scholarships, even if the player transfers again.
LikeLike
Here’s the voting under the NCAA proposal
24 P5 (4 votes each + 1 commissioner with 4 votes)
12 G5 (2 votes each + 1 commissioner with 2 votes)
24 rest (1 vote each + 2 commissioners with 1 vote)
2 student-athletes (1 vote each)
You know who doesn’t get a vote? Students who aren’t athletes who have mandatory student fees that support athletics.
LikeLike
Forgot the link:
http://bloguin.com/crystalballrun/2014-articles/south-carolina-president-outlines-new-ncaa-structure.html
LikeLike
bullet,
“You know who doesn’t get a vote? Students who aren’t athletes who have mandatory student fees that support athletics.”
Actually, many school do have student votes on raising student fees for things like athletics. It’s not a vote in the NCAA, no, but they aren’t voiceless. They can also choose to switch schools at will as a way of expressing their view.
LikeLike
Yes, but I think of all these things they want to offer student-athletes that regular students don’t get. And most P5 schools lose money on athletics. So it will be fees or tuition paying for it indirectly, if not directly.
LikeLike
Most students at most schools want their sports teams to be good, and that doesn’t come for free. I agree with Brian that those who think they are over-paying for athletics can choose to go elsewhere.
LikeLike
Money’s fungible. Its buried in tuitions as well. Its not just student fees. And student fees are one of those things that are like fine print. You may not notice until you write the check. Tuitions are rising very fast (not that much is due to athletics) and any extra makes things tougher.
LikeLike
Students are virtually voiceless, because the schools know they have a captive audience. Few, if any, students will go to a weaker school simply because of a higher quarterly athletic fee. Colleges know this and exploit it.
LikeLike
I agree that hardly any students are likely to transfer in protest over an athletics fee. But in a broader sense, there is plenty of available data and media coverage about what schools cost. Students do vote with their feet.
LikeLike
You know who also doesn’t get a vote? Crab People. Yeah, that’s right. The Crab People have ZERO voice in the process. How DARE they!
LikeLike
Is it me or does the makeup of the P5 remind you of the UN Security Council? In particular, the five countries that have veto power for when certain topics are discussed in that body.
Should the P5 gain autonomy, whose to say that a P5 conference wouldn’t have veto power over what the other 4 might propose? There could be something the B1G and PAC might favor but the SEC and/or the B12 might oppose, especially if it has something to do with APR rules or transfer rules. The ACC would be like a France, occasionally playing two factions against each other to gain a favorable position.
LikeLike
A lot of the rules negotiations take place in private which means that by the time people like us hear about it, there’s already pretty strong consensus in favor. That’s what makes the exceptions interesting, e.g., Mark Emmert believed the “full cost of attendance” rule was going to pass.
The reason for the proposed new governance structure is exactly that: the P5 were frequently not getting what they wanted. I’m having trouble thinking of a recent example of the opposite case, where a rule passed that any of the P5 leagues publicly opposed.
So, the Security Council analogy might be relevant: they aren’t likely to enact anything that one of those leagues staunchly disagrees with. Of course, part of the point is that those leagues are so similar, that what is disliked by one will probably be disliked by others.
(I do realize that schools vote, not leagues, but there clearly are, at times, positions that leagues take, advocating positions that their members, or a strong majority thereof, have agreed upon.)
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10825295/tim-floyd-strong-candidate-missouri-tigers-head-coach-job
Now MO is looking at Tim Floyd.
LikeLike
A lot of bad info out there. Floyd is not a candidate at Mizzou.
https://twitter.com/DanWetzel/status/459126984283783168
LikeLike
Missouri and Gregg Marshall are still in talks. There’s a chance he’ll take the job. Missouri is offering serious money. But he’s also happy where he is so it may not happen.
Chris Mack and Ben Howland are some other possibilities. We’ll find out in the next few days.
LikeLike
Or maybe it will be someone on this board:
https://myhr.umsystem.edu/psp/tamext/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL?Page=HRS_CE_JOB_DTL&Action=A&JobOpeningId=12999&SiteId=6&PostingSeq=1
LikeLike
(Note: All public universities post coach job openings online. This isn’t unique to Mizzou in any way.)
LikeLike
2014 NFL Schedule is out: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000343517/article/2014-nfl-schedule-path-back-to-super-bowl
NFL returns to Saturdays with a doubleheader on Dec 20. The two games on that day are set, one in the afternoon, and one in primetime. Of the two games, there will be a soft-flex, putting the better of the two on primetime, TBD closer to.
Only a matter of time before the NFL plays a primetime Friday night game in late December (antitrust rules on prevent Friday games until the 2nd week of December).
LikeLike
Frank –
White Sox fandom seems to hold steady in places that I expected would be more Cubs-friendly based on anecdotal evidence.
-Cicero (has a lot of people seeking differentiation from “la veinte-seis”)
-West Joliet (less gritty than east Joliet, although it does have a strong Irish factor)
-Non-Hyde Park SE Side and South Suburbs east of I-57 (the Ernie Banks influence, a viewing audience available to watch day baseball, antipathy toward the Orland Park – Oak Lawn – Bridgeport axis of power). Hyde Parkers seem to gravitate to the Sox as a badge of South Side authenticity.
However, the results seem to disprove the popular “Union Station – Sox station” and “Ogilvie Station – Cub station” theory, as “old” Naperville is still Cubs as is north DuPage (north along Lake St/Irving Park Rd) to Elgin and the Milwaukee North corridor.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2014/04/24/in-latest-legal-filing-maryland-submits-acc-conducted-market-analysis/
Market analysis done by the ACC. Lots here.
LikeLike
According to the analysis, ESPN and the ACC will meet within the next 60-90 days “to determine whether an ACC Network can be successful.” If ESPN, after assessing the market viability of such a network, decides to proceed, then it has “indicated it will do a deal on the same terms and conditions as it has with the SEC on the SEC Network.”
LikeLike
Could we infer from the above statement that ESPN turned down the ACCN?
LikeLike
?
LikeLike
ESPN and the ACC were to meet within 60 days. If they did and two years later there isn’t any talk of a network did the ACCN get turned down?
LikeLike
Has it been two years since the SECN was agreed to and it’s model/structure decided? Because it is referenced as the way an ACCN would be structured.
LikeLike
This article announcing the SECN is dated May 2, 2013. The agreement is at least that old.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/9235260/sec-espn-announce-sec-network-2014
LikeLike
“The agreement is at least that old.”
Um…no.
So the agreement/negotiation talked about could not be older than that. The ambiguity in the articles timelines doesn’t preclude a more recent discussion as what is cited.
LikeLike
Surprised by the basketball units. Thought the B1G led in that category. Maybe that was before realignment and new additions. But that unit total was from 2012 so not sure how accurate it is.
LikeLike
That includes what UL, SU, Pitt and ND earned in the Big East. So its “funny money.” The ACC won’t see a dime of those units. And if those 4 do as well in the ACC as in the Big East, it will mean a number of current ACC schools who did before now won’t make the NCAA.
LikeLike
Heres a good question. according to http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2012-13_Revenue_Distribution_Plan.pdf. the units a team earns in the ncaa tournament stays with the original conference unless d: the conference disbands, or e: if a conference falls below the minumum 6 team requirement. Does Syracuse, ND, Louisville, and Pitt try to sue for their units by suggesting the Big east conference is not the one the played under
LikeLike
f. If fifty (50) percent or more of the member institutions in a given conference leave the
conference simultaneously and the remaining conference membership falls below six member
institutions, the conference shall be considered disbanded and each member institution shall retain the units it earned in the basketball fund as if the conference had in fact disbanded (for
the purposes of the basketball fund distribution). Seems to me that since the 7 catholic schools and louisville all left, that is half and therefore the ACC gets the units. Any thoughts on this?
LikeLike
The Big East never fell below 6 teams. The 7 Catholic schools inherited the old BE credits, history, and recognition in NCAA records as a continuing entity.
LikeLike
Actually, the Big East still existed when those other teams announced they were leaving and then the Catholics and UConn, Cincy and USF worked out a deal on the credits and exit fees. Basically the 3 left behind got the exit fees and the credits from those who left. The Catholics took theirs with them. And those 3 worked out deals with the new schools they were inviting on how the windfall would be shared.
LikeLike
That is why I find this interesting.
So for the lawyer types who know far more than me. Could any school (Such as Pitt, Cuse, and ND) argue for clause F based on the fact that in 2013 10 schools officially left the Big East. This meant that for a brief period of time the conference was a 6 team league that then added 6 teams and changed the name.
I would imagine that Pitt, Cuse, and ND would want to make that argument because it represents 31 unit credits for NCAA tourney basketball to transfer to the ACC. I just don’t know if it has been argued or will be. I re read that Revenue Distribution Plan and I am pretty positive that Louisville is screwed out of their 18 unit credits because they didn’t leave until the next year.
LikeLike
At the June/July boundary 2013, 5 BE basketball schools remained (Rutgers & Louisville still there) to become part of the American, 7 left for the new BE, 3 left for the ACC, Temple (BE football) became a all sports member, and 4 new schools were added. Since all the departures and additions took place at midnight, the argument would be that for some period of time less than a second the American had 5 members for basketball. If that was a winning hand I think the lawsuits would already have been filed.
LikeLike
“Could any school (Such as Pitt, Cuse, and ND) argue for clause F based on the fact that in 2013 10 schools officially left the Big East. This meant that for a brief period of time the conference was a 6 team league that then added 6 teams and changed the name.”
No.
1) A 6 team league is not “falling below six teams”
2) The split-up of the old Big East was negotiated. All parties agreed to certain things.
LikeLike
“I re read that Revenue Distribution Plan and I am pretty positive that Louisville is screwed out of their 18 unit credits because they didn’t leave until the next year”
Louisville also got its exit fee cut by $4 million and was allowed to leave the Big East a year early for far more lucrative pastures.
LikeLike
Syracuse, Pitt, and UND also negotiated with the Big East to leave the conference earlier than required by the conference by-laws. Presumably, they waived those tourney credits as part of the release to go to the ACC sooner and get the revenue bump from joining the ACC earlier vs. extra time in the old Big East.
LikeLike
THAT IS GOOD ANALYSIS
NO SPIN HERE
LikeLike
If I had to guess, this was created by the ACC to clam member schools thinking about leaving and to counter the ACC naysayers after the Maryland announcement.
I wonder if Maryland filed this with the court to remind the ACC it can air a lot dirty laundry if they don’t settle.
LikeLike
I think Maryland filed this study to prove that them leaving does not financial harm the conference. It’s still tops in a bunch of categories and has the best future according to the study.
LikeLike
That is a good point. I had forgot that was one of Maryland’s arguments.
LikeLike
Anybody have a link to the filings in that case?
LikeLike
Well, since they’re touting the large footprint as a reason for sticking together, then they shouldn’t have a problem with Wake and BC as members, right?
LikeLike
One step closer to P5 autonomy: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-board-directors-endorses-restructuring-process-seeks-feedback
LikeLike
B12 vs. P12 in Mexico City: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24538364/pac-12-big-12-in-talks-with-espn-to-play-in-mexico-city
No word if The Gasden Purchase Bowl will feature Tejas and UArizona.
LikeLike
*Gadsden Purchase
LikeLike
ESPN president no-likey the one-and-done rule in MBB.
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaab/eye-on-college-basketball/24538386/espn-president-rips-college-basketballs-one-and-done-rule
LikeLike
The economics behind CFB football helmets:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24538862/helmet-hustle-a-look-at-how-schools-buy-and-sell-pricey-headgear
LikeLike
Deadspin had an excellent post today regarding the origins of the NCAA and amateurism, and within it, linked to this fun article: http://si.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1146513/1/index.htm
LikeLike
CBS Sports: Big Ten schools projected to make $45 million with new TV deal
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24540002/big-ten-schools-projected-to-get-45-million-with-new-tv-deal
——————————————–
While it hasn’t had the most success on the field in recent years as its conference counterparts, there’s one area the Big Ten has been able to maintain its dominance: revenue. Thanks to the Big Ten Network Big Ten schools have been bringing in more money annually than schools around the country — there’s a reason every conference wants a network now — and the conference doesn’t expect that to change.
According to a report in the Journal & Courier, the Big Ten projects that its revenues will continue to grow each year, and with a new television deal on the way, the conference expects 12 of its 14 schools to pull in approximately $44.5 million during the 2017-18 school year. That would be the first year of the new television deal.
The two Big Ten schools who won’t bring in the full amount are the newest members, Maryland and Rutgers. Like Nebraska, the new Big Ten members won’t receive their full share until after spending six years in the Big Ten.
——————————————–
LikeLike
Fox and ESPN will have a nice bidding war for those TV rights, and I expect the conference to sell packages to both networks. Probably in a manner that, among other things, ensures a prime time game on network tv each week of the season (with 8 primetime games on ESPN this year, that could leave 5 or 6 for Fox).
LikeLike
Some more details from the Journal & Courier article:
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-to-continue/8187133/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=
Future projections: $30.9 million in 2014-15; $34.1 million in 2015-16 and $35.5 million in 2016-17 for the 11 schools, excluding Nebraska.
LikeLike
Some more from that article:
* Everyone gets full shares starting with 2020-1
* Bowl money:
Eleven conference schools are expected to receive around $4.7 million from bowl distributions in 2014-15, more than double the projections this year. By 2016-17, the league is projecting schools will receive $7.1 million from the league’s bowl agreements.
* TV money only:
The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.
* Historical distributions:
Revenue Purdue has received from the Big Ten since 2007-08:
2007-08: $18.8 million
2008-09: $19.2 million
2009-10: $20 million
2010-11: $22.8 million
2011-12: $24.7 million
2012-13: $25.4 million
LikeLike
http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2014/04/27/btn-profit-shares-boost-big-ten-revenue/8333073/
In addition, their is BTN profit-sharing to consider.
BTN was quick to show a profit in less than five years, kicking in a clause of sharing its financial success with conference schools. However, those profit shares – estimated at $1 million per school – were held back from the 2012-13 distribution to help with the transition of Maryland and Rutgers.
In the latest revenue information supplied to schools from the Big Ten, profit shares are included, starting in 2014-15 and continuing through 2017-18. The schools, though, have been cautious to include this money in budgets because they haven’t seen them yet.
If the profit shares come through in 2017-18, the 12 schools will actually earn around $45.5 million from the league.
It’s not a lot, but every $1M counts.
LikeLike
Taking a tangent off a conversation from a couple days ago, what would be best for the B10:
A. Virginia in B10, Virginia Tech in SEC along with say Syracuse or Kansas in B10
B. Virginia, Virginia Tech in B10; North Carolina, Duke in SEC with a dead ACC; Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, etc look Big XII bound.
LikeLike
A
LikeLike
(A), but the alignment has much less to do with it than the ACC not dying part.
LikeLike
Can’t see the Big Ten taking two new members from the same state…with the one exception being UNC and Duke, and that only would happen in a four-team expansion with UVa and Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
Can’t remotely compare the two scenarios, you’ve got the same Virginia schools leaving the ACC yet assume NC & Duke leave for the SEC in the 2nd scenario without any basis for them doing so…
I’ve long believed NC & Duke culturally are far more similar to the SEC (but academically more similar to the B10) though it’s very far from a given the ACC is dead (North Carolina leaves) if they lose Virginia & Virginia Tech. Losing those two would be a huge blow to the ACC but they aren’t conference killers…
I’m slightly partial to only bringing Virginia in most B10 expansion scenarios but understand why the B10 would bring both UV & VT aboard. Most notably, VT is very likely to end up in the SEC if the B10 doesn’t take them and the B10’s other expansion candidates after VT are incredibly mediocre: Kansas, Syracuse, UConn, Pitt etc. Mostly basketball schools with weak football in weak markets.
My hope is Virginia takes off in football before the B10’s next expansion (in say 2023) and is a clear #1 program in Virginia in both basketball and football. In that scenario, you don’t need VT nearly as much as you would in an expansion in 2014 where VT is relatively equal in that sport that matters most, football. My other hope is the B10’s new tv deal is large enough to get the attention of one of the B10’s top expansion targets; Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina if and when the B10 expands in circa 2023.
LikeLike
If we assume that the B10 must take A or B, then it’s obviously A. I don’t see any way the B10 would want two new schools from the same state, other than UNC and Duke.
Kansas would probably be the B10’s next choice, assuming (which is unlikely) that none of the ACC’s other AAU schools want to move. Whatever the Jayhawks’ drawbacks may be, I don’t see Syracuse as better.
If the proposed conference championship game rule passes, then the B10 might just take UVA by itself, and not go to 16. (This would mean not having divisions for football.)
By the way, in scenario B the ACC wouldn’t be dead, since there would still be a number of pretty good schools needing homes (BC, Pitt, Syracuse, NC State, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame except for football). My guess is they’d merge with the AAC’s more desirable members (e.g., UConn, Cincinnati, USF, UCF), retaining the ACC name.
LikeLike
Would UND want to be part of that leftover ACC and AAC hybrid in Scenario B? Probably, but it could also mean UND could look to joining a conference like the B1G for the financial windfall. Independence is prized by UND, but how much would the school and alumni be comfortable leaving on the table each year versus being in a Leftovers conference?
LikeLike
Would UND want to be part of that leftover ACC and AAC hybrid in Scenario B?
That hypothetical conference would be better than the old Big East, in which ND was happy to be a non-football member for many years.
Probably, but it could also mean UND could look to joining a conference like the B1G for the financial windfall. Independence is prized by UND, but how much would the school and alumni be comfortable leaving on the table each year versus being in a Leftovers conference?
I don’t know at what point the alumni reach their tipping point. To many of them, football independence is practically a religion, and you don’t compromise a religion for mere monetary gain. Some highly influential ND alumni will simply never accept joining a football conference, no matter how much it is worth.
Even today, ND is leaving money on the table by not joining the Big Ten. At some point, does the disparity become large enough that they feel they have to do it? I don’t know. Non-ND fans and media pundits have long predicted the demise of ND’s football independence, and it hasn’t happened.
LikeLike
I don’t know if a leftovers conference is better than the old Big East, but I agree with the central point that UND alumni do treasure independence above all else. But I do think that there would be a tipping point where UND and its alumni would be more open to considering a conference, and that tipping point is the money gap.
UND gets about $15mil/year from NBC for 5 football games (which in and of itself shows, as an aside, that UND is far and away the best brand in CFB). UND gets 1/15 of 20% of the total ACC revenues (80% classified as football money, which UND does not get- http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/notion-notre-dame-pulling-fast-acc-staying-independent-football-fightin-mad-article-1.1160425). Factor in bowl money, college hockey, and the school will probably pull in $20mil/year.
Now, If the B1G projections are accurate, and schools like Purdue, Indiana, NWU, and Minny are each getting $45mil/year in 2017, a number that will only go up in subsequent years, then I think you could start to see some UND alumni reconsidering independence, as well as the UND administration, because of the financial windfall it could lead to.
Bottom Line: I don’t expect UND to join a conference for football until, at the earliest, the next batch of realignment starts up when the GoR’s approach expiration (about 13 years until expiration, so probably about 10-11 years until any changes would be considered). By that time, if the school is getting less than half the money of far inferior athletic departments, I could see the school and alumni start reconsider its stance. They could very well choose to remain independent, but even something as cherished as that has a price.
LikeLike
Being an East Coaster and having had to deal with Domers throughout my life, I think I have a good grasp of what they are, right down to keeping Saturdays at South Bend as holy. Does a tiger change his stripes? Does a Domer change his religion? I know of jihadists who wobble more than a Domer to the idea of football independence.
What happened with respect to the @¢¢ was that they concluded that it was in their best interest to give up 5 games in exchange of guaranteeing exposure in the Southeast and Northeast by playing games in those areas. Why go through the trouble of scheduling Miami and Pitt for one year when the @¢¢ can do that for them? They don’t have to call up Shalala when Swoffy will do. Swoffy did the work by assembling the teams for them. Plus another former Big East school in Louisville to replace Maryland. As a matter of fact, they couldn’t care less about Maryland.
I understand the Midwesterners here have had a particular history with the Domers but East Coasters actually had an association with them through the former Big East. One thing I can count on is Domers will do what’s best for themselves because they can.
Forget them. Focus on those who want to be in the B1G. And there are some good candidates out there who could be ready by years time.
LikeLike
“So, still a loss, just less of a loss. GET ME DELANY ON THE PHONE! I’m sure he’ll be interested in a plan that loses his conference $24 mil/year.”
We just established it wouldn’t lose the entire value. That likely would remain the same. There would be the possible loss of a reg. season TV broadcast game. Or just take it to the BTN. It might drive considerable interest from more distribution partners, and raise BTN’s bargaining power.
But the B1G isn’t the one promoting a change in the 12 game limit rule, so why are we talking about anyone but the ACC?”
1) Nothing was actually established–it was claimed. I don’t believe that a non-exempt CCG would generate much if anything more than a normal conference slate. If it would, conferences would be doing it, and would have done it for years by now.
2) The B1G was an example used by others, so I continued with it.
LikeLike
You said “traditional rival.”
I used them interchangeably, because traditional rivals tend to be (or once were) conference rivals. Not true overall, obviously.
“That’s news to MSU (MI) and PSU (Pitt).”
MI doesn’t consider MSU its main rival, and PSU doesn’t consider Pitt its main rival.
“They are for next season, so most people include them. It’s not like we’re discussing the past.”
Wait, RU and UMD are joining the Big Ten?!?
“Who haven’t traditionally ended the season against each other. Sometimes they do, but it hasn’t always been the case. The played in October for most of the 90s, for example. Many NW fans also don’t see IL as a major rival.”
Its the best either school has. Not every rivalry is OSU-UM.
“MSU – plays MI during the season”
One-way rivalry.
“PSU – rarely plays Pitt”
Not often played.
“NE – traditional rival is OU”
Yes. But thats not an option now, so Iowa it is.
“IA – traditional rivals are ISU, WI and MN”
UW and MN are traditional rivals, that game means a tremendous amount to both states and fan bases.
“IL and NW – don’t always end the season”
They do more often than not.
“WI and MN – have as big or bigger rivalries with IA as with each other”
UW and MN are traditional rivals, that game means a tremendous amount to both states and fan bases.
“RU and UMD – lack real rivals”
Yep.
Of course thats just the Big Ten.
“The locked rivalries that end the season annually:
IN/PU
OSU/MI
WI/MN”
Wait, so WI and MN isn’t a a main rivalry, but its a locked rivalry game?
“No, when you incorrectly stated that all but 2 teams would only get 11 games I explained how they would all get 12. I didn’t advocate for anything. I’m against all CCGs. They are dumb money grabs because they can backfire on your championship aspirations, and that’s worth more than you make.”
Actually, your arguing for something is advocating for something, like your reply to BruceMcF above.. Unless you just spent time playing devils advocate for no particular reason.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I used them interchangeably, because traditional rivals tend to be (or once were) conference rivals. Not true overall, obviously.”
Which is a problem since several B10 schools fit that exception. NE used to have a conference rival. PSU always had an OOC rival. RU and UMD don’t really seem to have football rivals (maybe WV for UMD).
“MI doesn’t consider MSU its main rival,”
Again, you changed terms. Traditional and main are NOT interchangeable terms.
“and PSU doesn’t consider Pitt its main rival.”
Says whom? From the PSU AD:
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/061411aaa.html
One of the nation’s fiercest football rivalries is set to be renewed, as old rivals Penn State and Pittsburgh will meet again on the gridiron in 2016 and 2017.
Tim Curley, Penn State Director of Athletics, and Steve Pederson, Pitt Director of Athletics, made the announcement today that the long-time rivals are scheduled to meet September 10, 2016 in Pittsburgh and September 16, 2017 in Beaver Stadium.
“We are very excited about renewing our rivalry with Pitt,” Curley stated. “We have worked our schedules to play some of our neighboring rivalries like Syracuse, Rutgers and Temple and are glad to have identified dates that worked for our schedules to play Pitt. The Penn State-Pitt game was one that football fans across the Commonwealth have been passionate about. There have been many memorable Penn State-Pitt games, featuring outstanding players and coaches, and we look forward to playing the Panthers again. ”
The Nittany Lions have met the Panthers more than any other opponent – 96 times – with Penn State owning a 50-42-4 series advantage. The teams first met in 1893 and played every season from 1900-31 and 1935-92, often in a compelling final game of the regular season
“One-way rivalry.”
Wrong.
“Not often played.”
Wrong – 96 times.
“Yes. But thats not an option now, so Iowa it is.”
That doesn’t make IA their rival.
“UW and MN are traditional rivals, that game means a tremendous amount to both states and fan bases.”
I didn’t say it didn’t. But fans on both sides have said the rivalries with IA are stronger/better.
“Yep.”
Thus, they aren’t ending the year playing a rival.
“Of course thats just the Big Ten.”
Which was what we were discussing because I refuted your claim about B10 teams mostly ending with traditional rivals.
“Actually, your arguing for something is advocating for something,”
I’m only arguing for factual correctness. You stated something incorrect and I corrected you. Your vast overreaction doesn’t change that.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I used them interchangeably, because traditional rivals tend to be (or once were) conference rivals. Not true overall, obviously.”
“Which is a problem since several B10 schools fit that exception. NE used to have a conference rival. PSU always had an OOC rival. RU and UMD don’t really seem to have football rivals (maybe WV for UMD).”
Alright.
“MI doesn’t consider MSU its main rival,”
Again, you changed terms. Traditional and main are NOT interchangeable terms.”
In this context they are, the context being the final game rival.
“and PSU doesn’t consider Pitt its main rival.”
Says whom? From the PSU AD:
http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/061411aaa.html
One of the nation’s fiercest football rivalries is set to be renewed, as old rivals Penn State and Pittsburgh will meet again on the gridiron in 2016 and 2017.
Tim Curley, Penn State Director of Athletics, and Steve Pederson, Pitt Director of Athletics, made the announcement today that the long-time rivals are scheduled to meet September 10, 2016 in Pittsburgh and September 16, 2017 in Beaver Stadium.
“We are very excited about renewing our rivalry with Pitt,” Curley stated. “We have worked our schedules to play some of our neighboring rivalries like Syracuse, Rutgers and Temple and are glad to have identified dates that worked for our schedules to play Pitt. The Penn State-Pitt game was one that football fans across the Commonwealth have been passionate about. There have been many memorable Penn State-Pitt games, featuring outstanding players and coaches, and we look forward to playing the Panthers again. ”
The Nittany Lions have met the Panthers more than any other opponent – 96 times – with Penn State owning a 50-42-4 series advantage. The teams first met in 1893 and played every season from 1900-31 and 1935-92, often in a compelling final game of the regular season”
They once were fierce rivals. But its now dormant.
“One-way rivalry.”
Wrong.
Great context here.
“Wrong – 96 times.”
How many times in the last 20 years?
“Yes. But thats not an option now, so Iowa it is.”
That doesn’t make IA their rival.”
It makes them their rivalry game in the B1G.
“UW and MN are traditional rivals, that game means a tremendous amount to both states and fan bases.”
“I didn’t say it didn’t. But fans on both sides have said the rivalries with IA are stronger/better.”
Support for this statement?
“Yep.”
Thus, they aren’t ending the year playing a rival.”
Great context here.
“Of course thats just the Big Ten.”
“Which was what we were discussing because I refuted your claim about B10 teams mostly ending with traditional rivals.”
You didn’t refute anything. You might think you have.
“Actually, your arguing for something is advocating for something,”
“I’m only arguing for factual correctness. You stated something incorrect and I corrected you. Your vast overreaction doesn’t change that.”
Overreaction? Hardly. And are you referring to the 11 vs 12 games thing? That’s the correction you hang your hat on? I thought we hd moved past that. Its still a dumb idea, because only the 1 vs 2 and maybe the 3 vs 4 games would have meaning, especially vs having a traditional rivalry game in the final week and then having a separate CCG. Like its done now and will be done going forward. Again, that no conference has done something is a sign its not a good idea, even if legal.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“It makes them their rivalry game in the B1G.”
Two teams playing the final game doesn’t make it a rivalry.
“And are you referring to the 11 vs 12 games thing?”
Yes, since that’s all I added to this whole discussion. Everything else has been you fighting strawmen. Feel free to quote anywhere that I actually advocated for a conference to play a final week CCG or said it was a wise idea.
LikeLike
“Two teams playing the final game doesn’t make it a rivalry.”
True.
“Yes, since that’s all I added to this whole discussion. Everything else has been you fighting strawmen. Feel free to quote anywhere that I actually advocated for a conference to play a final week CCG or said it was a wise idea.”
In your various replies to myself, Marc Shepherd, and BroceMcF, you made statements defending and elaborating on the concept that I interpreted as advocacy.
LikeLike
“If the proposed conference championship game rule passes, then the B10 might just…”
What proposed rule? Here’s what is being hashed out and likely to be passed. Nothing regarding change in number of allowed games.
“Areas in which the membership generally agrees on autonomy for the five conferences include:
-financial aid, including full cost of attendance and scholarship guarantees;
-insurance, including policies that protect future earnings;
-academic support, particularly for at-risk student-athletes; and
-other support, such as travel for families, free tickets to athletics events, and expenses associated with practice and competition (such as parking).”
LikeLike
I think he was referencing the ACC’s proposal to do away with the two division requirement in order to stage a conference championship game.
LikeLike
Yea, I know. Just pointing out that there is no such requirement, as long as held within the allowed 12 games (with the Hawaii exception). The rule change needed would be to allow a 13th game, for a couple teams/conference, for what ever reason that conference chose, since they don’t decide how conferences decide champions. They do allow a 13th game with restrictions that directly address the need – conferences that are too large for full RR and partial would often result in unreliable/questionable results. It is a number of games allowed rule, not a championship rule. No one is required to implimented it, but they also can’t just chose to impliment just a portion of it (the 13th game) and ignore the rest.
LikeLike
Those are two separate rules. One is that to have a conference championship game, you must have a minimum of 12 teams in 2, 6 team divisions, and a divisional round-robin schedule. The other rule is that the conf championship game does not count toward the maximum number of games a team may play. The ACC seeks a rule change that merely eliminates the divisional and round-robin requirements and allows the two best teams in the conference to play in the championship game. Its proposal does not affect the number of games overall.
I think that ultimately, there will be a 13th game added to the regular season, but that’s more for tv/content reasons.
LikeLike
Just pointing out that there is no such requirement, as long as held within the allowed 12 games (with the Hawaii exception). The rule change needed would be to allow a 13th game, for a couple teams/conference, for what ever reason that conference chose, since they don’t decide how conferences decide champions.
None of us have seen the exact wording of the proposed legislation. In its public statements, the ACC has referred to having the ability to stage a CCG without being organized into divisions, so (until shown otherwise) I am assuming that it is crafted with that purpose in mind.
I am also assuming (until shown otherwise) that it won’t be used for silly ideas that no sane conference would choose, e.g., staging a 13th game between two random teams having nothing to do with determining a champion. The wording probably won’t allow that, or it’ll allow it but no one will do so.
I also realize that, even under the existing rule, conferences could choose CCG participants any way they wanted, as long as the game is the 12th rather than the 13th. I take that to be a joke (i.e., an illustration of the way the rules could be used to do something stupid), since no FBS conference has been organized that way, nor can I recall any of them seriously considering it.
LikeLike
“None of us have seen the exact wording of the proposed legislation.”
Because there isn’t any…yet. Rarely is legislation put forward until you know it will pass, or until it has been negotiated into a form that will. As I’ve said before, if change comes I expect it to be a loosening of the requirement to play every team in division. With eight, or even seven team divisions an argument can be made that missing one wouldn’t destroy the ability of division champs to legitimately claim a place in the CCG most of the time. And the trade off by improved conference cohesion with more cross division games would make the occasional uncertainty acceptable.
This (CCG rules) is a minor concern compared to the structural changes currently being addressed.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Those are two separate rules.”
No, they aren’t. It’s all part of the exempt game rule.
“One is that to have a conference championship game, you must have a minimum of 12 teams in 2, 6 team divisions, and a divisional round-robin schedule.”
Only if you want that game to be exempt from counting against the 12 total games limit.
“The other rule is that the conf championship game does not count toward the maximum number of games a team may play.”
It does count unless it meets those specific conditions mentioned above. They are both part of the same rule. From the NCAA manual:
17.9.5.2 Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS] The maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following: (Revised: 10/28/10)
…
(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;
“The ACC seeks a rule change that merely eliminates the divisional and round-robin requirements and allows the two best teams in the conference to play in the championship game.”
Actually, we don’t know exactly what they want since we haven’t seen their proposal.
LikeLike
I stand corrected, though in practice they are two different ideas, as conferences will only want to have a championship game if it is exempted from the 12 game limit. The issue really is dealing with the sub-requirements in the rule for having a championship game. But yes, it is one rule overall.
LikeLike
“The issue really is dealing with the sub-requirements in the rule for having a championship game.”
The issue really is dealing with the sub-requirements in the rule for qualifying for an exemption to the twelve game limit.
It’s a subtle but distinct difference. It is not a requirement for CCG’s. Holding a CCG within the prescribed method is the requirement for the exemption. If an “open” CCG was valuable enough on its own merit as some suggest, there are ways to schedule one into the allowed twelve. But it’s not, and no one has.
LikeLike
But no one suggested that having an open CCG was important enough to sacrifice a conference game, and since in practice schools would only be able to schedule 11 games (because the 2 CCG members would be unknown when scheduling would be done), non-CCG schools would lose a game. No chance they approve of that.
Having a extra game-CCG is a non-negotiable business requirement for all conferences wanting a CCG. The point is to change the sub-requirements to maximize the chance of getting the two best teams to play in the extra CCG, as well as promoting maximum scheduling flexibility for conference games.
LikeLike
The ACC request is for rule simplification of the exemption from this:
c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;
to something like this:
c) Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] ;
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“But no one suggested that having an open CCG was important enough to sacrifice a conference game, and since in practice schools would only be able to schedule 11 games (because the 2 CCG members would be unknown when scheduling would be done), non-CCG schools would lose a game. No chance they approve of that.”
No, all the teams could be paired for the final week (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc). Everyone would still get their 12 games.
LikeLike
“No, all the teams could be paired for the final week (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc). Everyone would still get their 12 games.”
In theory, I suppose. In practice, I don’t think that would work due to the potential loss of traditional rivalry games that week, the uncertainty in scheduling home vs. away, uncertainty for tv, and the loss of an extra 13th game for the CCG–probably the biggest issue of all.
The idea has not been floated by any conference currently eligible to hold a CCG because it results in losing an additional CCG on top of a 12 game slate..
LikeLike
“…and the loss of an extra 13th game for the CCG–probably the biggest issue of all.”
No, they want a 13th as an invitational, an extra “bowl” game. A CCG is intended to discover the best team, not the best final matchup.
LikeLike
What?
The CCG is an extra, exempt game. I was responding to a comment about how it would be doable to just have the CCG as the 12 game, non exempted.
(Reposting in right thread)
LikeLike
Sorry. I misunderstood.
Would an “open” CCG actually be worth much more than currently being bid (for division winners games)? Would, for example, a Oregon/Stanford matchup be worth more to Fox or ESPN than having UCLA or USC (and the LA market) included, even if a supposedly “undeserving” division champ?
LikeLike
No worries.
I think in most situations, the best teams that year regardless of division (if any) would make the best game for fans and tv alike, regardless. The networks may even pay more for the game, assuming and wagering that in most years at least one name brand will play, and for the B1G CCG, gambling on getting a OSU-UM game. There are exceptions of course but thats my general view.
I thing an open CCG is more for the entire conference season than the game itself, meaning if all he restrictions on having an eligible CCG are lifted, scheduling and rivalry preservation would be easier. Both the “best teams” and “logistics”issues combine to demonstrate the utility of an open CCG.
As an aside , I also thing the 12 team rule led to the last round if expansion. Everyone wanted to copy the SEC.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“In theory, I suppose.”
Isn’t that all we’re discussing?
“In practice, I don’t think that would work due to the potential loss of traditional rivalry games that week,”
They’d all be scheduled the penultimate week instead.
“the uncertainty in scheduling home vs. away,”
You could essentially tell teams they alternate between home and away in the final week. It wouldn’t be 100% true, but you could reimburse a school that loses a home game twice in a row. The pairings might not be perfect, but it would mostly work out.
“uncertainty for tv,”
They don’t know who will play in the CCG but they’re fine with that. TV would just pick the top few games and leave the rest for tier 3.
“and the loss of an extra 13th game for the CCG–probably the biggest issue of all.”
It’s only a loss if you were eligible to play one in the first place.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“The networks may even pay more for the game, assuming and wagering that in most years at least one name brand will play, and for the B1G CCG, gambling on getting a OSU-UM game.”
Even knowing it will be a back to back rematch? Almost everyone threw a fit about that possibility under the old divisions. Suddenly it’s not a problem anymore?
“As an aside , I also thing the 12 team rule led to the last round if expansion. Everyone wanted to copy the SEC.”
That really depends on your POV. If the B10 was so worried about copying the SEC, they probably wouldn’t have waited 20 years to expand to 12. Back in the 90s people claimed the SEC expanded in response to the B10 going to 11. If so, then I don’t think the CCG was the determining factor then. It certainly doesn’t explain conferences going to 14 now. In other words, I think expansion was bound to happen for TV money reasons regardless of the CCG rule. A CCG pays only a small amount of the total TV money a conference gets each year.
LikeLike
“Isn’t that all we’re discussing?”
No. We’re discussing a potential elimination of sub-requirements to stage a CCG, not the staging of an non-exempt CCG. Staging a non-exempt CCG would be asinine for an otherwise eligible conference.
“They’d all be scheduled the penultimate week instead”
Most schools love having their big rivalry games as their last regular season game. Its not an accident those games are played in the last week of the regular season. See: OSU and UM, ending the season since 1934.
“You could essentially tell teams they alternate between home and away in the final week. It wouldn’t be 100% true, but you could reimburse a school that loses a home game twice in a row. The pairings might not be perfect, but it would mostly work out.”
Why am I telling teams to do this? Why am I burdening schools to sell tickets in under a week to a game, when they wouldn’t know until the Saturday before who they are playing and where. Oh, and we’re still dealing with the lost revenue from an exempt CCG.
“They don’t know who will play in the CCG but they’re fine with that. TV would just pick the top few games and leave the rest for tier 3.”
Or, TV could just tell conferences not to do this half-baked proposal, keep 12 regular season games, and give us a prime CCG matchup not drowned out by lesser games.
“It’s only a loss if you were eligible to play one in the first place.”
Only the B12 is presently ineligible. All others are eligible, and will not do anything to lose the CCG game and the money it brings in.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“No. We’re discussing a potential elimination of sub-requirements to stage a CCG, not the staging of an non-exempt CCG. Staging a non-exempt CCG would be asinine for an otherwise eligible conference.”
No, you said everyone else would only get 11 games with a non-exempt CCG. I pointed out that wasn’t true. I wasn’t advocating anything, just pointing out how it would work. Thus, the theory of it.
“Most schools love having their big rivalry games as their last regular season game.”
And many non-B10 schools don’t play it then. Heck, not all of the B10 schools get to play their rival to end the year, either.
“Its not an accident those games are played in the last week of the regular season. See: OSU and UM, ending the season since 1934.”
It also used to be the week before Thanksgiving traditionally, and many fans have hated the move to Thanksgiving weekend. As long as it was the last regularly scheduled game, I doubt many would complain.
“Why am I telling teams to do this?”
Because for some dumb reason you can’t figure out a champion in 12 games without playing a title game of some sort.
“Why am I burdening schools to sell tickets in under a week to a game, when they wouldn’t know until the Saturday before who they are playing and where.”
Because for some dumb reason you can’t figure out a champion in 12 games without playing a title game of some sort.
“Oh, and we’re still dealing with the lost revenue from an exempt CCG.”
But gaining some revenue to offset that by having a non-exempt CCG.
“Or, TV could just tell conferences not to do this half-baked proposal, keep 12 regular season games, and give us a prime CCG matchup not drowned out by lesser games.”
TV can only make suggestions. What are they going to do? Refuse to televise the games?
“Only the B12 is presently ineligible. All others are eligible, and will not do anything to lose the CCG game and the money it brings in.”
And they don’t have to. This whole discussion started because ccrider55 pointed out that there are no requirements for how to stage a CCG, only for how to stage an exempt one. People can follow the rules for an exempt one, or stage a non-exempt one, or not have one. It’s their choice. He just doesn’t understand why people act like it’s some huge burden on the conferences. They have choices.
LikeLike
“Even knowing it will be a back to back rematch? Almost everyone threw a fit about that possibility under the old divisions. Suddenly it’s not a problem anymore?”
Why not? UM and OSU are the best brands in the B1G. Why would TV be opposed if they’re the best teams? Fans may have thrown a fit about a rematch, but TV wouldn’t if the matchup is good.
“That really depends on your POV.”
True
“If the B10 was so worried about copying the SEC, they probably wouldn’t have waited 20 years to expand to 12.”
The B10 is one example. Also, the B1G explored UND twice in the meanwhile, and took UNL eventually. The B1G wasn’t going to expand just to get to 12, but if team #12 added significant value, which UNL did. But the B1G didn’t need to copy the SEC. The B12 and ACC did copy the SEC, seeing an opportunity to make a quick buck on a championship game. But neither really replicated the SEC in that regard.
“Back in the 90s people claimed the SEC expanded in response to the B10 going to 11.”
I thought it was well established that the B1G taking PSU got the ball rolling on the conference realignment front back then. Once PSU, a major independent, sought to join a conference, lesser independents decided to link up (USC). Also, with the SWC slowly imploding, Kramer saw a ripe opportunity to get a second tier independent and a SWC refugee in new markets to get his game (which at the time was a big gamble). I dunno if the SEC specifically responded to PSU joining, since PSU isn’t really a market competitor with the SEC, but the SEC was determined to be active in the face of instability, which PSU joining a conference did cause.
“If so, then I don’t think the CCG was the determining factor then.”
It was for Kramer. He saw an opportunity to try something new and it worked out great for the SEC. Arkansas and USC were not critical TV markets.
“It certainly doesn’t explain conferences going to 14 now. In other words, I think expansion was bound to happen for TV money reasons regardless of the CCG rule. A CCG pays only a small amount of the total TV money a conference gets each year.”
Yes, TV did, does, and will drive expansion. The CCG is a very small part of that, and one that got less important once conferences went past 12. But its still content, and its still something that once it exists, conferences will not relinquish by choice (and in the B12 case, will not add without good options for overall TV purposes). Hey look–we agree on something!
LikeLike
It is rather silly to point out that the present rules permit a CCG in the 12th week, and in that case the two teams could be selected any way the league wants. No league uses that system, and no league is known to have seriously considered it. In their minds, it appears to be an unacceptable option.
To point out that the rules permit something no one wants to do, is not really a very illuminating comment. One could probably make an infinite list of things the rules allow, but that no one does because they make no sense.
No, they want a 13th as an invitational, an extra “bowl” game. A CCG is intended to discover the best team, not the best final matchup.
You keep saying that, but it’s a complete strawman. The stated intent is that the winner would be conference champion. Therefore, it’s not like an invitational or a bowl, where the only thing the winner gets is the pleasure of having won.
I am sure the participants would be selected via a method having something to do with being the two best teams that year (by some rational criterion), not merely (like an invitational) because the two teams are popular and would do well on TV.
Whether or not this particular method of staging a CCG personally appeals to you, surely you can see the difference between that and “let’s just invite two well-known popular teams.”
LikeLike
“No, you said everyone else would only get 11 games with a non-exempt CCG. I pointed out that wasn’t true. I wasn’t advocating anything, just pointing out how it would work. Thus, the theory of it.”
You pointed it out with a ridiculous, silly thought.
“And many non-B10 schools don’t play it then. Heck, not all of the B10 schools get to play their rival to end the year, either.”
I count most B1G schools playing their traditional rival the last week. MSU, PSU dont, the rest do.
“It also used to be the week before Thanksgiving traditionally, and many fans have hated the move to Thanksgiving weekend. As long as it was the last regularly scheduled game, I doubt many would complain.”
Its been the last week of the regular season since 1934. Traditional rival.
“Because for some dumb reason you can’t figure out a champion in 12 games without playing a title game of some sort.”
I can figure it out just fine. You can’t figure out the simple concept that, given the opportunity to make more money by playing more games, conferences will do that. Like the B1G, for example, getting $24mil/year from Fox just for the CCG.
“Because for some dumb reason you can’t figure out a champion in 12 games without playing a title game of some sort.”
You can’t figure out the simple concept that, given the opportunity to make more money by playing more games, conferences will do that. Like the B1G, for example, getting $24mil/year from Fox just for the CCG.
“Oh, and we’re still dealing with the lost revenue from an exempt CCG.”
“But gaining some revenue to offset that by having a non-exempt CCG.”
So, still a loss, just less of a loss. GET ME DELANY ON THE PHONE! I’m sure he’ll be interested in a plan that loses his conference $24 mil/year.
“TV can only make suggestions. What are they going to do? Refuse to televise the games?”
Pay less money to conferences due to having one less prime-time game that the B1G, for example, gets $24 mil/ year just for one extra game?
“And they don’t have to. This whole discussion started because ccrider55 pointed out that there are no requirements for how to stage a CCG, only for how to stage an exempt one. People can follow the rules for an exempt one, or stage a non-exempt one, or not have one. It’s their choice. He just doesn’t understand why people act like it’s some huge burden on the conferences. They have choices.”
They do have choices, and almost all have chosen to stage an exempt CCG for the extra cash. Considering no power conference ever staged a non-exempt one, I’m thinking they considered and swiftly rejected doing so. Not even the B12 does that now. So, in practice, since no conference actually stages a non-exempt CCG, and never has (to my knowledge), referring to it as staging a CCG is commonly accepted shorthand for the exempt-CCG,
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Why not? UM and OSU are the best brands in the B1G. Why would TV be opposed if they’re the best teams? Fans may have thrown a fit about a rematch, but TV wouldn’t if the matchup is good.”
That wasn’t what people said a few years ago. They were sure it would devalue that game, that one or the other team would rest players the first time around or the coaches would hide the playbook. They didn’t believe TV could generate hype two weeks in a row for the matchup, either, so it would cost everyone money.
“The B10 is one example.”
One of 4, yes. The P10 expanded because the B10 opened Pandora’s box in 2009 and they wanted to be on par with the B10. The B12 almost had to be at 12 since the Big 8 absorbed UT and needed teams in TX. They certainly haven’t rushed to get back to 12, though. The ACC has grabbed every football program with a pulse they could find. Yes, they chased the CCG money.
“It was for Kramer. He saw an opportunity to try something new and it worked out great for the SEC. Arkansas and USC were not critical TV markets.”
Do you have some support that the SEC wouldn’t have expanded without that rule?
“Yes, TV did, does, and will drive expansion. The CCG is a very small part of that, and one that got less important once conferences went past 12.”
That said, I don’t see how you can claim the exempt CCG rules drove the last round of expansion. The last round was conferences going from 12 to 14. Before that, conferences were looking to expand anyway. Maybe some would’ve been at 11 instead of 12, but maybe not. But with the rules in place, of course they chose to stage the CCG.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It is rather silly to point out that the present rules permit a CCG in the 12th week, and in that case the two teams could be selected any way the league wants.”
No, it isn’t. It’s a simple explanation of the actual rules. Would it have been silly to point out that the rules would allow a 12 team conference to stage a CCG back in 1990? After all, no I-A conference had done so. What if the B12 stays at 10 teams and decides to use this method in the future to hold a CCG because the rules don’t change to allow them to hold an exempt one?
LikeLike
“That wasn’t what people said a few years ago. They were sure it would devalue that game, that one or the other team would rest players the first time around or the coaches would hide the playbook. They didn’t believe TV could generate hype two weeks in a row for the matchup, either, so it would cost everyone money.”
And yet they still did it, and Fox gave the B1G $24mil/year just to play it.
“One of 4, yes. The P10 expanded because the B10 opened Pandora’s box in 2009 and they wanted to be on par with the B10. The B12 almost had to be at 12 since the Big 8 absorbed UT and needed teams in TX. They certainly haven’t rushed to get back to 12, though. The ACC has grabbed every football program with a pulse they could find. Yes, they chased the CCG money.”
B12 won’t rush to 12 without suitable schools available and willing to join. The P12 wanted to keep up with the B10, wanted new markets, and wanted to have its own CCG.
“Do you have some support that the SEC wouldn’t have expanded without that rule?”
Not right now, but I’ll supplement this post later tonight with some.
“That said, I don’t see how you can claim the exempt CCG rules drove the last round of expansion. The last round was conferences going from 12 to 14. Before that, conferences were looking to expand anyway. Maybe some would’ve been at 11 instead of 12, but maybe not. But with the rules in place, of course they chose to stage the CCG.”
I claimed it in the context that 12 is some magical number that conferences wanted to get to to have the CCG, in that, if the rule to have a CCG was 10 teams in 2 5-team divisions with a round robin, I don’t think you would have seen a push to go to 12 as quickly. And thanks for recognizing that of course they chose to stage the CCG.
LikeLike
“The SEC planned to take advantage of a little-known NCAA rule that allowed a conference with 12 members to organize as two divisions and play a separate conference championship game. The rule was originally adopted for the benefit of a Division II conference, and no Division I-A conference had ever invoked it. Kramer and the SEC presidents quickly realized that a championship game would make a future television package far more attractive to the networks.”
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/1990-sec-expansion-southeastern-conference/
The SEC championship owes its existence to a Yankee and a bunch of Division II schools in Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia. At the 1987 NCAA convention West Chester (Pa.) State athletic director Dick Yoder requested permission to hold season-ending playoff games in the 14-member Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference and in the 12-member Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association to determine their respective champions. “I would like to point out,” said Yoder at the time, “in all the country this amendment only affects these two conferences.”
Not for long. The SEC recognized a juicy loophole when it saw one. In giving its blessing to the PSAC’s and the CIAA’s title games, the NCAA had decreed that a league with at least a dozen members could add a championship showdown to the schedule. In the summer of 1990 the SEC welcomed aboard its 11th and 12th members, Arkansas and South Carolina. In November of that year the league announced that starting with the ’92 season, it would cleave into Eastern and Western divisions, with the conference winner to be decided by a title game.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1004647/2/index.htm
LikeLike
“So, still a loss, just less of a loss. GET ME DELANY ON THE PHONE! I’m sure he’ll be interested in a plan that loses his conference $24 mil/year.”
We just established it wouldn’t lose the entire value. That likely would remain the same. There would be the possible loss of a reg. season TV broadcast game. Or just take it to the BTN. It might drive considerable interest from more distribution partners, and raise BTN’s bargaining power.
But the B1G isn’t the one promoting a change in the 12 game limit rule, so why are we talking about anyone but the ACC?
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“You pointed it out with a ridiculous, silly thought.”
Yes, factually correcting you is a ridiculous, silly thought. Of course.
“I count most B1G schools playing their traditional rival the last week. MSU, PSU dont, the rest do.”
Definitely not – MSU, PSU, IL, NW, NE, RU, UMD, IA
That’s 8 of 14, and MN and WI are iffy. How do you get from 6 to most of the B10?
“Its been the last week of the regular season since 1934.”
Actually, MI has played a game after OSU multiple times. And it’s been the week before Thanksgiving for almost every year of that period since 1934. And the key words are “regular season.” If the CCG is the 12th game, then the 11th game is the end of the regular season.
“You can’t figure out the simple concept that, given the opportunity to make more money by playing more games, conferences will do that. Like the B1G, for example, getting $24mil/year from Fox just for the CCG.”
Actually, nobody has ever debated that point. Nice strawman, though.
“Considering no power conference ever staged a non-exempt one, I’m thinking they considered and swiftly rejected doing so.”
I’d actually guess they have spent little, if any, time even contemplating that the rules allow for it.
“Not even the B12 does that now.”
Of course not:
1. They didn’t like the CCG when they had it because upsets hurt them multiple times
2. They get to have a round robin and thus already have a true champion
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“And yet they still did it, and Fox gave the B1G $24mil/year just to play it.”
And the fans protested so much that the ended the chance of getting OSU/MI in a CCG the second time around. The CCG didn’t gain or lose value because of that decision so far.
“B12 won’t rush to 12 without suitable schools available and willing to join. The P12 wanted to keep up with the B10, wanted new markets, and wanted to have its own CCG.”
So that’s 3 of 4 that didn’t just want to copy the SEC. Thanks for agreeing you were wrong.
“I claimed it in the context that 12 is some magical number that conferences wanted to get to to have the CCG,”
Which explains the moves to 14 teams how, exactly?
“in that, if the rule to have a CCG was 10 teams in 2 5-team divisions with a round robin, I don’t think you would have seen a push to go to 12 as quickly.”
And yet you just agreed that the B10 went past 10 for its own reasons, not the exempt CCG, and then the P10 expanded to match the B10 while the B12 isn’t chasing 12 members. All that undermines your theory that the rule drove expansion.
“And thanks for recognizing that of course they chose to stage the CCG.”
Free money is free money. Nobody ever debated that. Please stop acting like anyone ever disputed that.
An exemption isn’t necessary to stage one is all that was ever said. The rest was you going bananas.
LikeLike
“Yes, factually correcting you is a ridiculous, silly thought. Of course.”
Oooh, good one.
“Definitely not – MSU, PSU, IL, NW, NE, RU, UMD, IA”
Conference rivals. PSU and MSU dont have mutual rivals. RU and MD arent yet in the conf. NW and IL are traditional rivals.
“That’s 8 of 14, and MN and WI are iffy. How do you get from 6 to most of the B10?”
All except MSU and PSU (and soon to be RU and MD
“Actually, MI has played a game after OSU multiple times. And it’s been the week before Thanksgiving for almost every year of that period since 1934. And the key words are “regular season.” If the CCG is the 12th game, then the 11th game is the end of the regular season.”
I said regular season. Its the traditional rivalry game for both schools.
“Actually, nobody has ever debated that point. Nice strawman, though.”
You were arguing how conferences could have a nonexempt game even if eligible for an exempt one.
“I’d actually guess they have spent little, if any, time even contemplating that the rules allow for it.”
I’m sure they spent a minute or two and then said no.
“Of course not:
1. They didn’t like the CCG when they had it because upsets hurt them multiple times
2. They get to have a round robin and thus already have a true champion”
They choose not to, also because there is no worthy school to expand with.
LikeLike
“It is rather silly to point out that the present rules permit a CCG in the 12th week, and in that case the two teams could be selected any way the league wants.”
No, it isn’t. It’s a simple explanation of the actual rules. Would it have been silly to point out that the rules would allow a 12 team conference to stage a CCG back in 1990? After all, no I-A conference had done so.
It would not have been silly to point out that, “If you grow to 12 teams, this is what you’re allowed to do.” As soon as the SEC met the rule’s requirement, that’s exactly what they did. There weren’t many precedents in I-A for having this option, and electing not to use it.
Your other option (to stage a CCG within the existing regular-season game limit) has been available to everyone forever, and no one has done it. I’d say the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is a credible option, when the professionals who could have done it at any time, consistently choose not to.
If your only point is to say, “I realize this is not credible, but just as an FYI, here’s something dumb that the rules don’t disallow,” go ahead.
What if the B12 stays at 10 teams and decides to use this method in the future to hold a CCG because the rules don’t change to allow them to hold an exempt one?
Then it’ll be a pretty good indication that I am mistaken, and it was credible option after all. But one could make an awfully long list of things the rules have never disallowed, but nobody does because they’re stupid. Nothing in the Big XII’s public comments suggests they have ever entertained this.
Some people in the XII have worried that the league will be disadvantaged in the playoff seeding, because the other leagues’ champions are playing a 13th game. Playing a CCG within 12 games does not solve that problem for them, and it introduces many others (e.g., having five other meaningless games the final week of the season that are not known until six days in advance).
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Conference rivals.”
You said “traditional rival.”
“PSU and MSU dont have mutual rivals.”
That’s news to MSU (MI) and PSU (Pitt).
“RU and MD arent yet in the conf.”
They are for next season, so most people include them. It’s not like we’re discussing the past.
“NW and IL are traditional rivals.”
Who haven’t traditionally ended the season against each other. Sometimes they do, but it hasn’t always been the case. The played in October for most of the 90s, for example. Many NW fans also don’t see IL as a major rival.
MSU – plays MI during the season
PSU – rarely plays Pitt
NE – traditional rival is OU
IA – traditional rivals are ISU, WI and MN
IL and NW – don’t always end the season
WI and MN – have as big or bigger rivalries with IA as with each other
RU and UMD – lack real rivals
The locked rivalries that end the season annually:
IN/PU
OSU/MI
WI/MN
“You were arguing how conferences could have a nonexempt game even if eligible for an exempt one.”
No, when you incorrectly stated that all but 2 teams would only get 11 games I explained how they would all get 12. I didn’t advocate for anything. I’m against all CCGs. They are dumb money grabs because they can backfire on your championship aspirations, and that’s worth more than you make.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It would not have been silly to point out that, “If you grow to 12 teams, this is what you’re allowed to do.” As soon as the SEC met the rule’s requirement, that’s exactly what they did. There weren’t many precedents in I-A for having this option, and electing not to use it.
Your other option (to stage a CCG within the existing regular-season game limit) has been available to everyone forever, and no one has done it. I’d say the burden is on you to demonstrate that it is a credible option, when the professionals who could have done it at any time, consistently choose not to.”
All I’ve ever done is point out that’s it’s a legal option. I’ve never advocated for one. I’m against all CCGs.
“Then it’ll be a pretty good indication that I am mistaken, and it was credible option after all.”
So maybe you should stop calling it stupid in advance.
LikeLike
It IS quibbling to point out that a conference hypothetically could have a CCG as part of its regular conference season, since it implies EITHER the other schools don’t play OR the other schools play some kind of pointless game, neither of which are useful for selling season tickets.
Within the commercial realities of big time college football, the commercially beneficial CCG option is a 13th game after the 12 game regular season, so the issue is about under what terms the big time conferences would be permitted to have that commercially beneficial CCG.
In terms of reforming the rules, elmininating the divisional round robin requirement and reducing the numbers requirement are logically distinct, but its possible that they are not politically separable, since the main point to reform for the ACC is overcoming divisional alignment issues while the main point to the Big12 is allowing them to have a CCG without adding any schools that would otherwise water down their value per school.
Where they might become politically separable is where the other three would all support one but oppose the other reform. After all, the Big12 could divide into arbitrary five school divisions playing a complete round robin … and plus five cross division games … while the ACC is not affected by whether or not the team limit is reduced from 12 to 10.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“It IS quibbling to point out that a conference hypothetically could have a CCG as part of its regular conference season, since it implies EITHER the other schools don’t play OR the other schools play some kind of pointless game, neither of which are useful for selling season tickets.”
How are the games any more pointless than the 12th game is now? Many will have bowl implications and the rest will have pride and momentum on the line. It’s hardly like the CCG is attainable for most teams by that week anyway.
LikeLike
“And the fans protested so much that the ended the chance of getting OSU/MI in a CCG the second time around. The CCG didn’t gain or lose value because of that decision so far.”
What? Divisions were made geographic because its easier and more logical, not because of fan outrage.
“So that’s 3 of 4 that didn’t just want to copy the SEC. Thanks for agreeing you were wrong.”
1) You’re harping on a throwaway comment for unknown reasons.
2) I haven’t been proven wrong by you. Conference can have multiple motivations. Having a CCG because the SEC proved they can be profitable was one.
“I claimed it in the context that 12 is some magical number that conferences wanted to get to to have the CCG,”
“Which explains the moves to 14 teams how, exactly?”
It doesn’t. Once you have the game, its not a motivation to expand.
“And yet you just agreed that the B10 went past 10 for its own reasons, not the exempt CCG, and then the P10 expanded to match the B10 while the B12 isn’t chasing 12 members. All that undermines your theory that the rule drove expansion.”
It undermines nothing, because conferences can have multiple motivations. A big one for conferences was having a CCG while ensuring expansion targets were a good overall fit.
“Free money is free money. Nobody ever debated that. Please stop acting like anyone ever disputed that.”
But you are by saying that conferences can have a CCG within the context of a 12 game season. They can, of course, but none ever has
“An exemption isn’t necessary to stage one is all that was ever said. The rest was you going bananas.”
But it is necessary to stage one as an extra game, its not if you want to do one in the last week of the season. Seeing that no conference has ever done that, your position is just wrong.
Oh, and the ACC proposal was co-sponsored by the B12, because the B12 wants to do away with the 12 team minimum to stage an exempt CCG. Bowlsby knows losing a week of conference games for a CCG is a stupid idea.
LikeLike
Wainscott says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:01 pm
“So, still a loss, just less of a loss. GET ME DELANY ON THE PHONE! I’m sure he’ll be interested in a plan that loses his conference $24 mil/year.”
We just established it wouldn’t lose the entire value. That likely would remain the same. There would be the possible loss of a reg. season TV broadcast game. Or just take it to the BTN. It might drive considerable interest from more distribution partners, and raise BTN’s bargaining power.
But the B1G isn’t the one promoting a change in the 12 game limit rule, so why are we talking about anyone but the ACC?”
1) Nothing was actually established–it was claimed. I don’t believe that a non-exempt CCG would generate much if anything more than a normal conference slate. If it would, conferences would be doing it, and would have done it for years by now.
2) The B1G was an example used by others, so I continued with it.
(Reposting into right thread)
LikeLike
Wainscott says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm
You said “traditional rival.”
I used them interchangeably, because traditional rivals tend to be (or once were) conference rivals. Not true overall, obviously.
“That’s news to MSU (MI) and PSU (Pitt).”
MI doesn’t consider MSU its main rival, and PSU doesn’t consider Pitt its main rival.
“They are for next season, so most people include them. It’s not like we’re discussing the past.”
Wait, RU and UMD are joining the Big Ten?!?
“Who haven’t traditionally ended the season against each other. Sometimes they do, but it hasn’t always been the case. The played in October for most of the 90s, for example. Many NW fans also don’t see IL as a major rival.”
Its the best either school has. Not every rivalry is OSU-UM.
“MSU – plays MI during the season”
One-way rivalry.
“PSU – rarely plays Pitt”
Not often played.
“NE – traditional rival is OU”
Yes. But thats not an option now, so Iowa it is.
“IA – traditional rivals are ISU, WI and MN”
UW and MN are traditional rivals, that game means a tremendous amount to both states and fan bases.
“IL and NW – don’t always end the season”
They do more often than not.
“WI and MN – have as big or bigger rivalries with IA as with each other”
UW and MN are traditional rivals, that game means a tremendous amount to both states and fan bases.
“RU and UMD – lack real rivals”
Yep.
Of course thats just the Big Ten.
“The locked rivalries that end the season annually:
IN/PU
OSU/MI
WI/MN”
Wait, so WI and MN isn’t a a main rivalry, but its a locked rivalry game?
“No, when you incorrectly stated that all but 2 teams would only get 11 games I explained how they would all get 12. I didn’t advocate for anything. I’m against all CCGs. They are dumb money grabs because they can backfire on your championship aspirations, and that’s worth more than you make.”
Actually, your arguing for something is advocating for something, like your reply to BruceMcF above.. Unless you just spent time playing devils advocate for no particular reason.
(Reposting into right thread)
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Divisions were made geographic because its easier and more logical, not because of fan outrage.”
They changed their complete thinking in 2 years on how to form divisions. Part was to use the eastern kings to try to make the newbies useful additions and cover their own asses on the stupid expansion. Part was because people complained about divisions based on competitive balance, and especially about the chance for a rematch of The Game. Do you really think Delany and company suddenly changed their minds about the value of balance versus geography?
“1) You’re harping on a throwaway comment for unknown reasons.”
Because you said it and I think you were wrong, and now you seem to be agreeing.
“2) I haven’t been proven wrong by you.”
You actually proved yourself wrong, honestly.
“But you are by saying that conferences can have a CCG within the context of a 12 game season. They can, of course, but none ever has”
You contradict yourself in the span of two sentences. Pointing out facts is nothing more than pointing out facts. Whether anyone has done it or not doesn’t change the rules.
“Seeing that no conference has ever done that, your position is just wrong.”
No, because my position is that it’s legal. You’ve admitted that it’s legal. You agree with me.
“Bowlsby knows losing a week of conference games for a CCG is a stupid idea.”
Which, back when this all started, I pointed out to you wouldn’t have to happen. Everyone would get a full slate of games. This factual error was all I pointed out in the first place.
LikeLike
“They changed their complete thinking in 2 years on how to form divisions. Part was to use the eastern kings to try to make the newbies useful additions and cover their own asses on the stupid expansion. Part was because people complained about divisions based on competitive balance, and especially about the chance for a rematch of The Game. Do you really think Delany and company suddenly changed their minds about the value of balance versus geography?”
Rematch for The Game was a small reason. The old divisions were done with good intentions (competitive balance) but were bad in practice (seemingly arbitrary, without order). The new divisions made things easier and simpler.
“1) You’re harping on a throwaway comment for unknown reasons.”
“Because you said it and I think you were wrong, and now you seem to be agreeing.”
Im not agreeing or disagreeing. Stating a fact. CCG was an element.
“You actually proved yourself wrong, honestly.”
Not really.
“You contradict yourself in the span of two sentences. Pointing out facts is nothing more than pointing out facts. Whether anyone has done it or not doesn’t change the rules.”
When did I ever argue it was illegal? Its legal, its also stupid to do.
“Seeing that no conference has ever done that, your position is just wrong.”
“No, because my position is that it’s legal. You’ve admitted that it’s legal. You agree with me.”
I never challenged the idea its legal. I said its a stupid idea.
“Which, back when this all started, I pointed out to you wouldn’t have to happen. Everyone would get a full slate of games. This factual error was all I pointed out in the first place.”
Except that Bowlsby wants to do it on top of a full slate of games. An extra game, not one built into existing games. Is it unclear that conferences want more games, and will sooner work to get an extra game for a CCG than do it in the last week of the season?
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“CCG was an element.”
That wasn’t your starting position. You said it was the driving factor. Of course it was a factor.
“I never challenged the idea its legal.”
You did when you said my position was wrong, because that was my position.
“Is it unclear that conferences want more games, and will sooner work to get an extra game for a CCG than do it in the last week of the season?”
That is entirely irrelevant to what I pointed out. Nor has anybody been arguing that point with you as far as I have seen.
LikeLike
“That wasn’t your starting position. You said it was the driving factor. Of course it was a factor.”
It was a big factor.
“I never challenged the idea its legal.”
“You did when you said my position was wrong, because that was my position.”
I said it was dumb, ridiculous, and stupid. I never challenged its legality.
“That is entirely irrelevant to what I pointed out. Nor has anybody been arguing that point with you as far as I have seen.”
Except by you, by continuously advocating that conferences could have a nonexempt CCG, and trying to lay out the supporting points for that point.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I never challenged its legality.”
You said my position was wrong. My position was solely that it was legal. Therefore, you challenged its legality.
“Except by you, by continuously advocating that conferences could have a nonexempt CCG, and trying to lay out the supporting points for that point.”
You can lie to yourself about what happened to your heart’s content, but every comment on the subject is here for everyone to see. I never advocated for any such CCG nor provided any supporting points other than its legality by the rules and the ability for all teams to play 12 games.
LikeLike
“You said my position was wrong. My position was solely that it was legal. Therefore, you challenged its legality.”
Saying a position is wrong does not challenge its legality. Wrong is not a legal term.
“Except by you, by continuously advocating that conferences could have a nonexempt CCG, and trying to lay out the supporting points for that point.”
“You can lie to yourself about what happened to your heart’s content, but every comment on the subject is here for everyone to see.”
It is??
“I never advocated for any such CCG nor provided any supporting points other than its legality by the rules and the ability for all teams to play 12 games”
Supporting points from you:
“No, all the teams could be paired for the final week (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc). Everyone would still get their 12 games.”
Brian says:
April 30, 2014 at 2:10 pm
Wainscott,
“In practice, I don’t think that would work due to the potential loss of traditional rivalry games that week,”
They’d all be scheduled the penultimate week instead.
“the uncertainty in scheduling home vs. away,”
You could essentially tell teams they alternate between home and away in the final week. It wouldn’t be 100% true, but you could reimburse a school that loses a home game twice in a row. The pairings might not be perfect, but it would mostly work out.
“uncertainty for tv,”
They don’t know who will play in the CCG but they’re fine with that. TV would just pick the top few games and leave the rest for tier 3.
“and the loss of an extra 13th game for the CCG–probably the biggest issue of all.”
It’s only a loss if you were eligible to play one in the first place.
Seems like an a lot of supporting points to me, and that’s from one post. Only later on did you start claiming you weren’t advocating for it, just pointing out its legality, which was never actually disputed.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Saying a position is wrong does not challenge its legality. Wrong is not a legal term.”
It does when the position is that something is legal.
“I never advocated for any such CCG nor provided any supporting points other than its legality by the rules and the ability for all teams to play 12 games”
““No, all the teams could be paired for the final week (1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc). Everyone would still get their 12 games.””
See above.
Explaining the obvious mechanics of how something would work doesn’t advocate for it either. I merely corrected the many strawman points you threw out (they’d only play 11 games, all rivalries would be cancelled, etc) with obvious ways to bypass your fake hurdles.
LikeLike
“It does when the position is that something is legal.
“I never advocated for any such CCG nor provided any supporting points other than its legality by the rules and the ability for all teams to play 12 games””
No, it really doesn’t. Cherry-picking your quotes does not advance your cause. I called your position wrong because you were actually advocating something that I felt is just wrong, as in incorrect, or stupid.
“See above.”
Oh, where you were explaining your idea?
“Explaining the obvious mechanics of how something would work doesn’t advocate for it either. I merely corrected the many strawman points you threw out (they’d only play 11 games, all rivalries would be cancelled, etc) with obvious ways to bypass your fake hurdles.”
If you want to claim after the fact you weren’t arguing for something, knock yourself out. I wasn’t throwing out straw men, I was showing reasons why your proposal was a bad idea, one so bad its been legal for over 100 years and has still not been implemented, and one that the B12 now won’t consider, instead opting to join the push to eliminate the requirements to hold a separate CCG.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“No, it really doesn’t.”
Yes, it really does. By definition. If my position is that X is legal and you say my position is wrong, then you are saying X is illegal. You can lie to yourself all day long that my position was something else, but it never was and you know it.
“I wasn’t throwing out straw men,”
Yes, you were. You said teams would only get 11 games which is obviously wrong. You said the rivalries wouldn’t be played which is obviously wrong. You made up multiple fake hurdles to attack.
“I was showing reasons why your proposal was a bad idea,”
I didn’t propose it. Go back and read the comments again. You were already talking about it before I said anything.
LikeLike
“Yes, it really does. By definition. If my position is that X is legal and you say my position is wrong, then you are saying X is illegal. You can lie to yourself all day long that my position was something else, but it never was and you know it.”
No, it really doesn’t. Go review the context when I called your position wrong. I called it wrong as a synonym for stupid, because I never challenged the legality. You keep saying I challenged the legality of your proposal when I never did that.
“Yes, you were. You said teams would only get 11 games which is obviously wrong. You said the rivalries wouldn’t be played which is obviously wrong. You made up multiple fake hurdles to attack.”
No. They are reasons your proposal is dumb. You lost a week of conference games in a week in which rivalry games are usually played. The uncertainty of the scheduling in the last week on a conference wide basis, and the 11 games thing. Showing I erred on the 11 games thing doesn’t change the reality that your idea is dumb.
“I didn’t propose it. Go back and read the comments again. You were already talking about it before I said anything.”
You advocated for it as if it were your proposal.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“No, it really doesn’t.”
Yes, it really does if you use English.
“I called it wrong as a synonym for stupid,”
You really don’t seem to understand synonyms. You substitute words that most definitely do not mean the same things and act like they do. Perhaps a refresher English course would be helpful.
“You keep saying I challenged the legality of your proposal when I never did that.”
If you can read and comprehend English, then yes you did. I had a factual position (X is legal). You said that position was wrong. The only way the word wrong applies in that situation is to say that X is illegal.
“You advocated for it as if it were your proposal.”
Again admitting that you were wrong by trying to spin it into something else. It’s tedious.
LikeLike
“Yes, it really does if you use English.”
Look up wrong in a dictionary.
“You really don’t seem to understand synonyms. You substitute words that most definitely do not mean the same things and act like they do. Perhaps a refresher English course would be helpful.”
Well, seeing you never heard of a dictionary, heres one definition for wrong: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong
: the state, position, or fact of being or doing wrong: as
a : the state of being mistaken or incorrect
“If you can read and comprehend English, then yes you did. I had a factual position (X is legal). You said that position was wrong. The only way the word wrong applies in that situation is to say that X is illegal.”
Not in the least. Go and lookup the context when I called your position wrong. I was talking about the merit of your proposal, not as a legal issue, because it is legal, but as a practical, smart thing for conferences to do. Your position that there is a viable way to have a nonexemption CCG is legally right, but was, is, and always be, wrong in practice. Saying something is legal but wrong as in incorrect or mistaken does not challenge legality. And considering others in this threat noted you were advocating things technically legal but stupid and impractical, I’m quite comfortable in my position.
“Again admitting that you were wrong by trying to spin it into something else. It’s tedious.”
I learned from the master. You should be proud. And since you are by far the most vocal proponent of this idea, I just consider it your adopted proposal at this point.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Go and lookup the context when I called your position wrong.”
There is no relevant context. I had a factual position (X is legal) that you said was wrong, which equates to you saying X is illegal. No context in the world changes that.
“I was talking about the merit of your proposal,”
I didn’t propose anything, as you admitted last time, and I had no stated position on the merit of X. My position was that X was legal and you said my position was wrong. You didn’t say X was wrong, you said my position was.
You were wrong. Accept it and move on.
“Your position that …”
That was never my position, and you trying to ascribe it to me doesn’t change anything.
You may have been arguing against that false position, but I never held it nor claimed to hold it. In fact, nobody claimed to hold it.
LikeLike
“There is no relevant context. I had a factual position (X is legal) that you said was wrong, which equates to you saying X is illegal. No context in the world changes that.”
Apparently, you have issues understanding that the word wrong does not dispute legality of your proposal. Considering the context when I used the word wrong was referring to the merits, not legality of the position.
“I didn’t propose anything, as you admitted last time, and I had no stated position on the merit of X. My position was that X was legal and you said my position was wrong. You didn’t say X was wrong, you said my position was.”
You have no stated position, yet have expended this much effort, first amplifying and clarifying it, then denying it? I don’t think thats actually true, despite what you claim.
“You were wrong. Accept it and move on.”
But I’m not actually wrong, and you asserting it doesn’t actually change anything.. You advocated something that was just dumb, stupid, ridiculous, wrong, unworkable, and then defended it by merely claiming its legal. Which was never disputed.
“That was never my position, and you trying to ascribe it to me doesn’t change anything.”
I need not ascribe it to you, since you went to great length to clarify and define it.
“You may have been arguing against that false position, but I never held it nor claimed to hold it. In fact, nobody claimed to hold it.”
I’ll copy paste from myself: Your position that there is a viable way to have a nonexemption CCG is legally right, but was, is, and always be, wrong in practice. Saying something is legal but wrong as in incorrect or mistaken does not challenge legality. And considering others in this threat noted you were advocating things technically legal but stupid and impractical, I’m quite comfortable in my position.
And you and others at the beginning of this thread did hold it. You actually got the ball rolling by: “One is that to have a conference championship game, you must have a minimum of 12 teams in 2, 6 team divisions, and a divisional round-robin schedule.”
Only if you want that game to be exempt from counting against the 12 total games limit.”
And then you continued to pedantically claim that its legal, though I and others attacked the wisdom, not legality of your position, and defended it. Some choice quires from you:
“No, it isn’t. It’s a simple explanation of the actual rules. Would it have been silly to point out that the rules would allow a 12 team conference to stage a CCG back in 1990? After all, no I-A conference had done so. What if the B12 stays at 10 teams and decides to use this method in the future to hold a CCG because the rules don’t change to allow them to hold an exempt one?”
“How are the games any more pointless than the 12th game is now? Many will have bowl implications and the rest will have pride and momentum on the line. It’s hardly like the CCG is attainable for most teams by that week anyway.”
LikeLike
What?
The CCG is an extra, exempt game. I was responding to a comment about how it would be doable to just have the CCG as the 12 game, non exempted.
LikeLike
BruceMcF:
It isn’t quibbling when being used to highlight we aren’t talking about a CCG rule. It is a 12 game rule, with specific requirements needing to be met in order to get a 13th game exception. That exception is based on the inability of a 12 or more team conference to reasonably/legitimately decide a champion without basically eliminating OOC competition. Too many missed matchups for fair ranking. The NCAA prescribes no misses in each half, and the two division winners get an extra regular season game. You call it a commercially viable CCG. It is a commercially viable extra game. The NCAA doesn’t prescribe how conferences decide a champion, only how many games may be played and create exceptions for specific purpose (Hawaii) or remedy (excessive conference size).
LikeLike
ACC would be dead as a football power conference and a member of the P5 but they’d still be much better off than the current AAC.
LikeLike
“Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, etc look Big XII bound”.
The ACC will expand to include Big 12 schools before the Big 12 expands to include any ACC schools. The ACC footprint’s population dwarfs the Big 12. Take out Texas and the Big 12 doesn’t have much to attract FSU, Clemson, etc.
And, Texas doesn’t want to travel eastward for conference games because of time zone changes and how they affect student athletes – especially in Olympic sports. They will look westward first, to the PAC 12…if there is any reason to leave the Big 12.
LikeLike
“Texas doesn’t want to travel eastward for conference games because of time zone changes and how they affect student athletes”
They don’t want to play an hour earlier, so instead they’ll play two hours later?
LikeLike
K-State is adding seats and renovating part of its football stadium: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/26/4983771/k-state-announces-plans-for-third.html
LikeLike
Frank, this Nats fan salutes former Illini star Tanner Roark, who pitched his first major-league shutout and retired the first 16 hitters he faced.
LikeLike
Update on the slow SEC Network roll out:
http://m.oanow.com/news/auburnuniversity/article_4882d054-cccc-11e3-ade3-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm
LikeLike
The little guys are pretty easy. Its Comcast, Time Warner, DirectTV, Charter, Verizon and about 3 other relatively large ones who are the biggest targets. With the Longhorn Network, they have about 30 carriers signed up. The two most recent were Time Warner and Dish. There is only 1 small carrier, along with DirectTV and Comcast who aren’t. 4 of the 5 holdouts were 4 of the 6 biggest carriers in the country.
LikeLike
I know, but I would imagine they would have been presented with offers by now. Its not like they have much room to negotiate or protest if Comcast or Charter get a better deal later on. They would pretty much have to accept a take it or leave it offer.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure everyone will have/insist on a clause that a “better deal” made later will grandfather into existing similar agreements. That’s the place the P12N is with DTV. Everyone else accepted except them. Concession to DTV would cause reductions from everyone else.
LikeLike
I mean the large players will insist on that. But mom-and-pop’s cable company with 150,000 subscribers in rural Alabama probably don’t have the bargaining power to pay that like DTV or Comcast of AT&T.
But that could be the reason to do the bigger deals first and then focus on the smaller ones. Makes good sense to me if it is the case.
LikeLike
That’s what I was thinking. Let the larger guys set the rate.
LikeLike
SEC to stay at 8 conference games, but will require one P5 opponent in addition starting in 2016.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx
This should last until about one week after a 1 loss SEC team is passed over by the playoff committee due to weak scheduling for a 1 loss team in another P5 conference.
LikeLike
Well, at least we know that Texas and Texas A&M won’t play any time soon. Could the same be said for KU and Mizzou?
I see teams like Mizzou, A&M, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida very much in demand, as well as Bama and Auburn. Florida, Georgia, SC and UK already have in-state rivals, so I foresee some difficulties there.
I could also see Rutgers and Arkansas getting back together. From perusing the RU sites, both fanbases seem to enjoy those two games.
Maybe Northwestern and Vandy go back to playing each other again.
Hypothetical match-ups:
Arkansas-Rutgers
Vanderbilt-Northwestern
Mizzou-Iowa
LSU-Oregon
Texas A&M-Texas Tech
Florida-Ohio State
Auburn-Michigan State
Alabama-Oklahoma
Georgia-Clemson
Kentucky-West Virginia
Tennessee-North Carolina
Mississippi-TCU
Mississippi State-Texas
South Carolina-Florida State
LikeLike
“Florida, Georgia, SC and UK already have in-state rivals, so I foresee some difficulties there.”
What difficulties? Those in-state rivals already meet the criteria. Those matchups aren’t going to change.
Florida – FSU
Georgia – Georgia Tech
Kentucky – Louisville
South Carolina – Clemson
The other teams are unlikely to set up long term rivalry games with OOC teams. Instead we’re just going to see the usual home & home setups with various schools around the country. They’ll just be P5 members rather than Chatanooga St.
Why are you over thinking this?
LikeLike
I wasn’t arguing permanent match-ups, except to show who the other teams would play based on past events. It may be a minor change to you but it’s still significant. Before, there was always a chance a SEC team could back away from a scheduled OOC game and replace it with another body bag game.
Second, those in-state games are played at the end of the season, which is usually preceded by a body bag game. A required P5 game means one less body bag game. I’m sure they may try to schedule the likes of Dook and then claim they played a P5 OOC game but there are less of those types in the P5 than in the FCS. Even Dook is not much of a pushover these days. I would then laugh if they have to reach into the likes of BC…*gasp* yankee schools to finish their schedules.
Who this would hurt would be the G5 schools, especially those who are regional to the SEC footprint, and these are always paid games, not home-and-home.
LikeLike
I’m sure they may try to schedule the likes of Dook and then claim they played a P5 OOC game but there are less of those types in the P5 than in the FCS. Even Dook is not much of a pushover these days.
Duke is generally going to schedule at most one non-ACC P5 team per year, and they won’t all be SEC teams. Over the next five seasons, Duke is playing Kansas and then Northwestern four in a row. They do have both Northwestern and Baylor in 2018, but that won’t be a regular occurrence for them.
Notwithstanding their 2013 season, I suspect Duke long-term is not going to be consistently strong in football. They want to reach a bowl like veryone else, and they’re going to be strategic about scheduling difficult non-conference opponents (i.e., it won’t happen very much).
LikeLike
“Second, those in-state games are played at the end of the season, which is usually preceded by a body bag game. A required P5 game means one less body bag game.”
—Why do you believe the schools with longstanding in-state rivalries would have to give up a body bag game? They don’t need to change their scheduling to add a P5 game because they ALREADY meet the OOC criteria.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure SEC teams will start replacing “Chattanooga State,” i.e., some relatively inexpensive home-only FCS game, with Power 5 teams. Those games probably aren’t going anywhere. More likely, games like Texas A&M’s (as an example) against SMU or Rice or more likely to go. (And A&M isn’t the best example because they’re scheduled for at least one P5 opponent from 2016 forward, anyway.)
If teams don’t already have P5 teams on their schedules, then they’re much more likely to replace their most difficult games with P5 teams, rather than their easiest game with a P5 team. It’s bad news for the G5 leagues, especially the AAC, and not so much for the true bodybag FCS games.
LikeLike
Worth noting, is that Mizzou and Arkie are going to be protected rivals which makes sense.
That said, I really don’t like the 6-1-1 approach going forward. Someone could stick around long enough earn their bachelors, masters and doctorate at Florida and still never get to see their team play Auburn.
LikeLike
Worth noting, is that Mizzou and Arkie are going to be protected rivals which makes sense.
This has to be a trophy game.
1. The Walmart Cup (both schools have Walmart exec boosters)
2. The deed to the boot heel (see history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootheel)
3. Trophy of the Ozarks
4. Tickets to the 9AM Yakoff Smirnoff show in Branson
Any other suggestions?
LikeLike
SEC sticking with 8 game conference schedule, but starting in 2016, teams will be required to play at least one non-conference game each year against a Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12 or ACC opponent. The conference office says it will assist with this scheduling.
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/250851/sec-announces-format-for-future-football-schedules.aspx
LikeLike
OK, so who plays Alabama?
And who plays Kentucky?
LikeLike
FL-FSU
UGA-Georgia Tech
SC-Clemson
UK-Louisville
Those 4 are set. Vandy usually plays Wake or Duke. Wake has been their last game before (while UK plays TN and the other 3 eastern schools play their in-state rivals.
The rest will probably play various teams. It may not really be any change. I think the 14 schools played 14 P5 schools last year.
LikeLike
In 2014 Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Texas A&M have 4 body bag games. Mississippi also does not technically qualify with its neutral site game against Boise St. The SEC scheduling help is probably for Missouri whose 4th body bag game technically qualifies (Indiana), but is not going to help any strength of schedule. So half the SEC schools without permanent OOC rivals will need to improve their scheduling. Other 2014 SEC P5 OOC: LSU-WI, AL-WV, AR-TT. TN-OK, Auburn-KSU.
LikeLike
Over the past few seasons Mizzou has played Indiana, Illinois, Arizona State, Syracuse, Ole Miss, San Diego State, Nevada, and New Mexico in the non-con. Go a few more years back and they played Clemson, Michigan State, and Ohio State. Mizzou typically plays one decent noncon game. Indiana is weaker than usual. Next up is Purdue. The rest have yet to be scheduled although Illinois is rumored to be on the table again.
LikeLike
A&M has Arizona State in ’15 (neutral site game in Houston); UCLA in ’16 and ’17; and Oregon in ’18 and ’19.
LikeLike
All that is going to happen is these SEC schools who schedule 4 cupcake games a year will now schedule 3 of them along with schools like Wake Forest, Kansas, Purdue, Indiana, Iowa State, NC State, Syracuse, Minnesota, etc…
Outside of their ‘rival’ games with mostly ACC schools, SEC OOC scheduling is a huge joke.
LikeLike
@Wolverine – It wasn’t as bad as I thought. I still want to see them play 10 P5 games.
LikeLike
Pretty much what I expected, outside of Georgia there are very few SEC programs willing to play a second P5 out-of-conference opponent.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24543532/indiana-is-waiting-for-your-call-sec-team
IN tweeted their phone number in case the SEC is interested.
LikeLike
I would imagine that most everyone on this board understands that many non-conference games are scheduled years in advance–especially if they are home-and-home or more.
If the powers that be doing the scheduling are doing their homework, they are conscientious regarding how many home vs away and strength of schedule (figuring in what their conference skeds look like as well).
Often-times a team may be a powerhouse or a powder-puff at the time the game(s) is/are scheduled, and that changes by the time the game(s) is/are played on the field.
Sometimes the so-called cupcake games can be ones with the largest risk—see Michigan vs Appalachian State…
I know Jerry Kill and Norwood Teague (AD) at Minnesota are being relatively cautious with their scheduling during this time of rebuilding the dumpster fire that the previous coach/AD left. What point would there be for Minnesota to schedule ‘Bama or LSU when you are trying to rebuild? There is no benefit at all in scheduling a game where you likely will not be competitive (though many smaller schools will take the fat check to show up and get stomped–waste!) Schedule winnable games to build confidence, get you in bowls… Then… as your team improves, schedule a few tougher games here and there.
If you’re gonna call out schools–call out schools like the Florida Gators–who rarely (if ever) leave the comfort of their own state/stadium for non-conf games…
LikeLike
If you’re gonna call out schools–call out schools like the Florida Gators–who rarely (if ever) leave the comfort of their own state/stadium for non-conf games…
Florida plays an SEC schedule and Florida St. every year. Occasionally, they play Miami. I wouldn’t call them out.
I know Jerry Kill and Norwood Teague (AD) at Minnesota are being relatively cautious with their scheduling during this time of rebuilding the dumpster fire that the previous coach/AD left. What point would there be for Minnesota to schedule ‘Bama or LSU when you are trying to rebuild? There is no benefit at all in scheduling a game where you likely will not be competitive
I understand what they’re thinking, but I hate that attitude. I’m not saying craft and OOC of Alabama, USC, Florida St, and Texas but there is nothing wrong with challenging yourself at least once OOC. Like Appalachian St., you just might get a program propelling victory.
LikeLike
“Florida plays an SEC schedule and Florida St. every year.”
So? They are playing 8 of 13 possible conference opponents. Woo hoo! Everyone plays in their own conference, and most will be playing more going forward. The bottom of the SEC is not magically better competition by virtue of conference affiliation.
LikeLike
So? They are playing 8 of 13 possible conference opponents. Woo hoo! Everyone plays in their own conference, and most will be playing more going forward. The bottom of the SEC is not magically better competition by virtue of conference affiliation.
@cc – I was just showing that Florida was playing at least nine (sometimes ten) BCS conference teams a year. I wasn’t making any comparisons between conferences. Just because they don’t leave Florida for OOC games, there isn’t a reason to call out Florida’s schedule as weak. In most cases they played the same amount or more BCS level games as the Big Ten and Big 12 kings. Take a look at this chart I posted before:
http://t.co/gE6eXA9rPa
There’s plenty of schools with weaker schedules than Florida to pick from and call out.
LikeLike
Kentucky and Vanderbilt get a pass.
Florida has, by design, one of the weakest ooc schedules of any major school.
Compare them to USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Notre Dame, Nebraska, Alabama, LSU, Penn St. All of those but their SEC mates and Notre Dame will be playing 9 conference games. Notre Dame and USC have never played an FCS team. Florida usually tries to schedule a weak one every year.
LikeLike
Kentucky and Vanderbilt get a pass.
Why?
Florida has, by design, one of the weakest ooc schedules of any major school.
Compare them to USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., Notre Dame, Nebraska, Alabama, LSU, Penn St.
From 2008 to 2013 Florida played 8 games against BCS level teams. Here are the BCS level teams for the teams you mentioned except for Notre Dame and USC:
Nebraska 6 – Va Tech (2), Washington (2), UCLA (2)
Texas 5* – Arkansas, UCLA (2), Ole Miss (2)
Oklahoma 6*- Washington, Miami, Florida St (2), Notre Dame (2)
Ohio St 6 – USC (2), Miami (2), Colorado, Cal (2)
Alabama 6 – Clemson, VA Tech (2), Penn St (2), Michigan
LSU 7 – Washington (2), North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia (2), TCU
Penn St 7 – Oregon St, Syracuse (3), Alabama (2), Virginia
*nine conference games 2011 to 2013
I didn’t include ND and USC because ND doesn’t play in a conference and USC typically plays 10 or 11 BCS level teams a year. How are the above schedules materially different from Florida’s?
All of those but their SEC mates and Notre Dame will be playing 9 conference games.
I’m not talking about the future schedules. I think the SEC should go to nine conference games. However, calling out Florida for weak scheduling in the past doesn’t hold up. They schedule better than the average SEC team (link above) and are fairly consistent with other perennial top 25 teams.
Notre Dame and USC have never played an FCS team. Florida usually tries to schedule a weak one every year.
FCS teams pop up on all of the other team’s schedules you mention. Each one of these teams plays 2 to 3 over matched opponents a year.
LikeLike
Mike,
“From 2008 to 2013 Florida played 8 games against BCS level teams. Here are the BCS level teams for the teams you mentioned except for Notre Dame and USC:
Nebraska 6 – Va Tech (2), Washington (2), UCLA (2)
Texas 5* – Arkansas, UCLA (2), Ole Miss (2)
Oklahoma 6*- Washington, Miami, Florida St (2), Notre Dame (2)
Ohio St 6 – USC (2), Miami (2), Colorado, Cal (2)
Alabama 6 – Clemson, VA Tech (2), Penn St (2), Michigan
LSU 7 – Washington (2), North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia (2), TCU
Penn St 7 – Oregon St, Syracuse (3), Alabama (2), Virginia
*nine conference games 2011 to 2013
I didn’t include ND and USC because ND doesn’t play in a conference and USC typically plays 10 or 11 BCS level teams a year. How are the above schedules materially different from Florida’s?”
1. Most of those schools played home and homes against BCS foes that required leaving their home state. UF hasn’t played an OOC game outside of FL since the 90s.
2. There’s more to an OOC schedule than the top schools on it. How many FCS games has UF hosted compared to those others? I know OSU doesn’t play one every year (only 3 ever, IIRC). How bad are the other non-AQs on their schedule?
3. UT and OU played 9 B12 games in addition to an AQ OOC game, putting them 1 AQ game ahead of UF.
4. The B12 teams can’t miss the best teams in their own conference. The B10 locks games amongst the kings. How often has UF played AL lately?
LikeLike
Florida-in addition to FSU
Hawaii, Miami FL, The Citadel
Charleston Southern, Troy, FIU
Miami O, USF, Appalachian
FAU, UAB, Furman
Bowling Green, ULL, Jacksonville St.
Toledo, Miami FL, GA Southern
And the Florida AD doesn’t hide his scheduling strategy. He gets the cheapest, easiest wins he can get and figures the fans will pay for it.
LikeLike
Kentucky and Vanderbilt aren’t as good as Florida. So they get a pass for scheduling easier. Bowling Green is much less a sure win for UK and VU than for Florida. Its normally not going to be a mismatch. Florida scheduling these schools is like a heavyweight scheduling welterweights.
LikeLike
@Brian
1. Most of those schools played home and homes against BCS foes that required leaving their home state. UF hasn’t played an OOC game outside of FL since the 90s.
I don’t dispute that. However, if they did leave the state of Florida would they be playing a better team than Miami or FSU?
2. There’s more to an OOC schedule than the top schools on it. How many FCS games has UF hosted compared to those others? I know OSU doesn’t play one every year (only 3 ever, IIRC). How bad are the other non-AQs on their schedule?
I know that there is more to an OOC than the top teams. I just don’t see a whole lot of difference between body bag games. Florida plays an FCS team every year. That’s crap and I’m not going to defend it. Here’s the breakdown between Ohio St and Florida:
OSU – 2 FCS, 8 MAC, 2 SB, 1 CUSA, 1 MW, 1 WAC, Navy (+7 P5)
UF – 6 FCS, 2 MAC, 5 SB, 1 Big East, 1 WAC (+8 P5)
The only real difference over six years I see is that instead of the 4 FCS teams, OSU played 4 more low majors. Since I didn’t see North Dakota St on Florida’s schedule, was Ohio St’s schedule more difficult? Probably. Are they really that different? No. They were both expected to win each one easily. Overmatched opponents are overmatched opponents.
3. UT and OU played 9 B12 games in addition to an AQ OOC game, putting them 1 AQ game ahead of UF.
I noted that. Texas didn’t play an AQ team in 2009 so they are even with Florida at 8. OU one ahead. I also miscounted OSU’s total above. It should be 7.
4. The B12 teams can’t miss the best teams in their own conference. The B10 locks games amongst the kings. How often has UF played AL lately
That’s not Florida’s fault. They are locked into a yearly game with LSU if that makes you feel better.
LikeLike
Mike,
You asked how the schedules were “different from Florida’s.” I pointed out several ways.
“I don’t dispute that. However, if they did leave the state of Florida would they be playing a better team than Miami or FSU?”
Where you play matters. Traveling out of state impacts how your team plays. Playing schools you don’t play every year impacts performance.
“I know that there is more to an OOC than the top teams. I just don’t see a whole lot of difference between body bag games.”
Then you aren’t paying attention. I-AA games are much easier than non-AQ games in general. Some non-AQs are much tougher than others. UF scrapes the bottom of the barrel in both groups.
“Florida plays an FCS team every year. That’s crap and I’m not going to defend it. Here’s the breakdown between Ohio St and Florida:
OSU – 2 FCS, 8 MAC, 2 SB, 1 CUSA, 1 MW, 1 WAC, Navy (+7 P5)
UF – 6 FCS, 2 MAC, 5 SB, 1 Big East, 1 WAC (+8 P5)
The only real difference over six years I see is that instead of the 4 FCS teams, OSU played 4 more low majors.”
That’s a huge difference. Plus OSU had to prepare for Navy’s triple option when Navy was good. Plus OSU was facing the MAC teams near home, not 1000 miles away in unfamiliar weather. OSU faced a much higher chance of losing than UF did in those games.
You also forgot this difference:
@Cal, @Miami, @USC (over 1200 miles away) vs @FSU, @Miami (less than 350 miles away)
And this one:
November OOC games:
OSU – none
UF:
2008 – Citadel the week before FSU
2009 – FIU the week before FSU
2010 – App State the week before FSU
2011 – Fulman the week before FSU
2012 – ULL the week before Jacksonville State the week before FSU
2013 – GA Southern the week before FSU
It’s a lot easier to play your rivalry after a week to rest and prepare rather than after a conference game.
“That’s not Florida’s fault.”
Who is at fault is irrelevant. It’s still a major difference in the schedules.
LikeLike
@Brian –
Where you play matters. Traveling out of state impacts how your team plays. Playing schools you don’t play every year impacts performance.
I understand that distance makes an impact, but do you consider that a greater factor than a rivalry game? I don’t.
Then you aren’t paying attention. I-AA games are much easier than non-AQ games in general. Some non-AQs are much tougher than others.
I don’t dispute that for all non-AQ teams. However, I don’t think there is that big of a difference between the bottom of FBS (Sun Belt/MAC) and FCS (7 wins vs SB/MAC last year). Neither should make a team like UF or OSU break much of a sweat. It wasn’t that long ago some of those SB/MAC teams were FCS.
UF scrapes the bottom of the barrel in both groups.
Like Troy, Toledo, Miami (OH), and UAB? Teams that both UF and OSU have played in the past six years.
Plus OSU was facing the MAC teams near home, not 1000 miles away in unfamiliar weather. OSU faced a much higher chance of losing than UF did in those games.
The only team Floida has played that fits that description is Hawaii. It is less than 1000 miles from Gainesville to Cleveland. Most of UF’s OOC opponents are from Florida or the south.
You also forgot this difference:
@Cal, @Miami, @USC (over 1200 miles away) vs @FSU, @Miami (less than 350 miles away)
I didn’t. I consider the impact of a rivalry game on teams to be much greater than the impact from travel.
It’s still a major difference in the schedules.
The original discussion was calling out Florida for its easy non-conference schedules. Florida isn’t toughest OOC scheduler out there but they are not worthy of being called out.
LikeLike
@Mike
The MAC teams were not FCS recently except Buffalo (1999). Akron is the next most recent, moving up in 1987. The rest were never FCS (excluding 1982 when the NCAA moved some of them down for 1 year).
Meanwhile FAU and FIU were 2006 and Troy was 2002.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I understand that distance makes an impact, but do you consider that a greater factor than a rivalry game? I don’t.”
Results show that long distance travel for a game makes a huge difference. Look at the record for B10/P12 games played home versus away (2000-2013).
B10 at home: 18-11, 0.621
B10 away: 9-24, 0.273
Those are mostly home and homes, often between disparate talent levels, but the record flips by 0.35 based on who’s at home.
For comparison, let’s look at The Game (1946-2013):
OSU at home: 19-14-1, 0.574
OSU at MI: 15-17-2, 0.471
Location matters fairly little between 2 largely equal teams.
Now an unequal rivalry versus a similar game (1946-2013):
MI vs MN: 52-11-1, 0.820
OSU vs MN: 39-4, 0.904
That’s a 0.08 difference.
So yes, I think travel to play an unfamiliar foe is a bigger deal. I think the numbers support that.
“I don’t dispute that for all non-AQ teams. However, I don’t think there is that big of a difference between the bottom of FBS (Sun Belt/MAC) and FCS (7 wins vs SB/MAC last year).”
I-AA hasn’t done better than 0.100 against I-A since 2007, and not better than 0.200 since 2000.
Since 2000, the MAC is 0.137 against the AQs. Over that same period, the AQs have 20 total losses to I-AA. That puts I-AA at roughly 0.025. So yes, MAC games are significantly tougher.
“The only team Floida has played that fits that description is Hawaii. It is less than 1000 miles from Gainesville to Cleveland.”
Yes, it’s 963. Sorry for the huge exaggeration.
“Most of UF’s OOC opponents are from Florida or the south.”
Not their MACrifices.
“The original discussion was calling out Florida for its easy non-conference schedules. Florida isn’t toughest OOC scheduler out there but they are not worthy of being called out.”
Any team that hasn’t left the state in over 20 years is well worth calling out.
LikeLike
@bullet – Don’t forget UMass in 2012. They’re still in the MAC.
LikeLike
Results show that long distance travel for a game makes a huge difference
Which of following games for Ohio St is more likely to be tougher? Assume everything but Rivalry/Travel is constant.
A) Michigan in Ann Arbor (Rivalry)
B) Cal in Berkley. (Travel)
I am not disputing that long travel doesn’t have an effect, because it does. I am saying that it is less of a factor than playing against a hated rival.
“The only team Florida has played that fits that description is Hawaii. It is less than 1000 miles from Gainesville to Cleveland.”
Yes, it’s 963. Sorry for the huge exaggeration.
“Most of UF’s OOC opponents are from Florida or the south.”
Not their MACrifices.
Yes, those three games UF played against the MAC were teams not from the south. Here’s the breakdown of Non P5 Games:
SC – 3
AL – 3
FL – 3
OH – 3
NC – 1
LA – 1
GA – 1
HI – 1
75% of UF’s non-P5 games (82% overall) are against teams from the south. That should qualify as “most.”
Any team that hasn’t left the state in over 20 years is well worth calling out.
As long as they are playing Florida St and Miami I don’t think that’s fair. There are plenty of teams to call out for weak scheduling. I would much rather see UF play their in state rivals over a game against a generic P5 team.
LikeLike
Mike,
“Which of following games for Ohio St is more likely to be tougher? Assume everything but Rivalry/Travel is constant.
A) Michigan in Ann Arbor (Rivalry)
B) Cal in Berkley. (Travel)”
B. Playing an equally good team 2500 miles and 3 time zones away is harder than playing a rival 2500 miles away. OSU has done both multiple times.
OSU @ MI – 21-25-3, 0.459
OSU @ USC – 5-9-1, 0.367
“I am not disputing that long travel doesn’t have an effect, because it does. I am saying that it is less of a factor than playing against a hated rival.”
And I’m saying the results prove otherwise. You know how your rival plays. The players are always up for it. It’s a 50-50 sort of game every time. A peer from across the country is unfamiliar, the emotions aren’t as high, the surroundings are unfamiliar, and the team doesn’t play as well.
“As long as they are playing Florida St and Miami I don’t think that’s fair.”
That’s nice, but lots of people disagree with you. Many CFB fans and media members have called out UF for the same reason.
LikeLike
http://jeffschultz.blog.ajc.com/2014/04/28/sec-blew-it-by-not-expanding-to-9-games/
Atlanta columnist calls the SEC cowards.
LikeLike
Trouble in paradise?
http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2014/04/lsu_ad_slams_sec_scheduling_pl.html
LikeLike
Just grousing or letting it be known they are “poach-worthy”?
LikeLike
It’s much ado about nothing, but I’d love to see them actually do something in protest.
LikeLike
transic/urban/brian – there’s no trouble in paradise and LSU’s not going anywhere, but LSU has been very consistent about getting rid of the locked OOD games. I think its safe to say that Tennessee will probably never consistently be the Tennessee of the 40s and 50s or the 90s. Since the SEC went to divisions, Florida has been the best team in the conference.
The conference did throw LSU a small bone though. My Tigers will be given extra consideration by the TV partners to keep games at night.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=209483442
I’m guessing in the even numbered years, CBS will use its primetime slot for Bama at LSU. The odd numbered years will be tougher, when LSU plays Auburn, Florida, and A&M at home.
LikeLike
LSU’s not going anywhere
I would certainly hope that’s the case. There is no better situation for LSU than where they are, other than scheduling issues, it seems. But why the tone from the athletic director? Yes, it’s not the first time there have been comments on this issue. Are the other schools tone-deaf and that’s why he went to the media on this?
LikeLike
Transic – LSU’s AD Joe Alleva has been very consistent in his criticism of the 6-1-1 format since the SEC expanded to 14. The timing in the release of the continuation of the 6-1-1 format just makes it news.
Personally, I’d be for a 6-3 format. Tenn/Bama, UGA/Auburn, and Vandy/Ole Miss can play each other OOC in years the SEC doesn’t schedule them. I’ve been boycotting the 1-AA games for the last few years, but plan to go this season, since the Sam Houston State game will be the first game in the renovated/expanded Tiger Stadium.
Who’s going to the LSU/Wisconsin game in Houston?
LikeLike
So what’s your position on CCG deregulation and does this decision affect your opinion either way?
LikeLike
transic – I’m against elimination of divisions. Without divisions, I think a CCG is pointless.
LikeLike
Alan,
I know LSU has been consistent on this and I agree with them. LSU is getting screwed competitively. Maybe LSU should suggest SOS-based scheduling for that 1 rotating game, so at least AL plays UF, UGA and SC more than UK and Vandy while LSU plays UK and UT more than UGA and SC.
LikeLike
Brian – I don’t think the SEC would ever go for that. It’s interesting that the schools you mentioned were scheduled backwards in the first two years of the SEC’s “bridge schedule” for 2012 and 2013. LSU got top ten teams South Carolina and Georgia, while Alabama drew Vandy and Kentucky. This season, LSU does draw a Kentucky team on the upswing, and Bama finally gets Florida coming off its worst season in just about forever. We just can’t ever win the scheduling war with Bama.
LikeLike
Why TV Networks, Not Unions, Will Determine The Future Of College Sports
http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2014/04/why-tv-networks-not-unions-will-determine-the-future-of-college-sports/
Apologies if this was posted before, as I haven’t seen anyone link it here.
LikeLike
NBA owners resisting TV requests for Flex tv scheduling:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/04/28/Media/NBA-flex.aspx
LikeLike
Maryland and the ACC are headed for mediation.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/99982/acc-maryland-headed-for-mediation
LikeLike
Just before all the dirty laundry was going to go on public record.
LikeLike
Mizzou hires Division II coach Kim Anderson. I guess they weren’t interested in Gregg Marshall after all.
I suspect that the fan base will overall be displeased with the AD as this is not a “splashy hire”. Not a great month for the AD there, what with the FB and MBB arrests, the MBB coach leaving for Tulsa, puzzling suspension of the XC coach. The Men’s XC program will likely be on their 4 coach in 6 years, something like that.
No reason that Kim Anderson can’t eventually get Mizzou to be a tournament caliber team every year, the SEC just isn’t very deep, but will the fan base give him enough of a grace period to rebuild their roster?
Let the Andyspin begin…
LikeLike
Link to article: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24543881/missouri-names-kim-anderson-as-next-coach
LikeLike
Sounds like Marshall and [redacted] couldn’t come to terms. According to reports, they did meet.
LikeLike
According to @Dave_Matter:
Marshall agent: Marshall agent: “With Kellen (his son) about to be a senior in high school, and with a top-10 caliber squad returning next… … the timing was off to really even consider leaving WSU.”
LikeLike
I would hope that Mizzou talked to Marshall. The AD should be fired if he didn’t reach out.
LikeLike
He might be the least experienced Div I coach in the SEC, but he makes up for it by being the oldest as well.
I imagine we can assume he wasn’t the first choice, or else it wouldn’t have taken this long to hire him. The paywall sources must have been onto something with the Gregg Marshall talks. Or, it could have been a different coach(es) that was/were in talks. I’ve heard that there was no truth to the Tim Floyd rumors. Of course, I’ve heard there was no truth to the Gregg Marshall talks too. That was from an article with his agent though, so not as reputable as paid bloggers on a paywalled message board/blog. I’m waiting to hear if Marshall is getting a raise from WSU.
LikeLike
“Anderson spent 12 seasons at Central Missouri and complied a 274-94 record, with seven NCAA Tournament appearances and three Final Fours. Anderson, 58, also spent 11 seasons on staff at Missouri over two stints (1982-85 and 1991-99).”
http://tracking.si.com/2014/04/28/missouri-hires-kim-anderson-basketball-coach/
FYI, Kim Anderson is a man and he’s been hired for the MBB team. Sorry, but the name suggested a “she” and that “she” was hired for WBB.
LikeLike
I’m in utter disbelief.
So here’s what I know: Gregg Marshall asked for too much money, well over $3M per year, and Missouri wasn’t willing to pay that. That’s fair. I can accept that.
But then it came down to Ben Howland and Kim Anderson. And they went with Kim Anderson. Just insane. I have no idea why. Haven’t heard yet. But I can absolutely say for sure that Ben Howland wanted the job and as of yesterday was still a serious candidate.
This is just nuts.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
FWIW the case for Kim Anderson;
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/article_7dc79342-9c8e-53d6-9d44-80538c9fba37.html#.U17W-GcUlYw.twitter
LikeLike
Probably because Howland didn’t burn bridges with LA high school coaches and area AAU programs while at UCLA as much as burn, napalm, and vaporize them. Stuff like that doesn’t stay local and doesn’t get fixed easily.
LikeLike
Could be. No idea. Had to have been something.
LikeLike
Many of the area’s AAU coaches already disliked the conservative offensive system that Howland ran, feeling it didn’t showcase their players’ talents to NBA scouts. Howland’s long-time friendship with David and Dana Pump, the twins who ran the Double Pump AAU program, also irked some coaches, as they felt the Pumps used their relationship with Howland to poach players from other AAU teams. Howland’s mistreatment of Williams, however, was an even bigger issue. It led several AAU coaches to conclude that Howland couldn’t be trusted, and they began advising their best players not to consider UCLA.
This had a stunning effect: Howland and his staff struggled to recruit Southern California. Of the 10 players the Bruins have signed since the Class of 2010 (Williams’ class), only one (2011 signee Norman Powell) hails from Southern California, and he is from San Diego. Howland supporters have claimed that a lack of elite local talent forced him to look elsewhere and necessitated moves like the hiring of Korey McCray from the renowned Atlanta Celtics AAU program to be a Bruins assistant coach, which opened new recruiting grounds in the East. But there was no shortage of talented local players; many just wanted nothing to do with Howland and UCLA.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/-college-basketball-mens-tournament/news/20130325/ucla-ben-howland/#ixzz30HLRySIm
LikeLike
And this one:
http://www.bruinsnation.com/2012/2/29/2832533/sports-illustrated-exposes-howland-and-guerrero-for-wrecking-ucla
(Btw, the post above this should be in quotation marks)
LikeLike
I mean, on the one hand Kim Anderson isn’t a totally inexplicable hire. In the last 10 years he’s won 78% of his games, made 3 final fours, and won the national championship this year. Yeah, it’s D2, but it proves that he can coach. Also, he was Norm Stewart’s right hand many for over a decade, and Norm won fourteen Big 8 regular season and tournament titles and 731 games overall. So it’s not totally crazy. But it’s just a little hard to believe that he was the most qualified man for the job Missouri could get.
LikeLike
*right hand man (not many)
LikeLike
Dave Matter subsequently confirmed on Twitter that Howland was eliminated because of his UCLA baggage. The subtext on his reporting on Marshall is that Mizzou wasn’t willing to pay him close to what Pinkel makes (not many programs have two coaches getting $3mil+/year–with coaching staffs, that would be $9-10mil/year just for coaches on two teams–that”s a lot of money).
A Kentucky blogger also speculated that Marshall wants to wait another year or two to see if Indiana and/or UK come open. Both programs would have their pick of candidates and have the resources to pay Marshall top dollar, which is the only reason to give credence to that report. I wonder if Marshall would truly want the Kentucky cauldron, since its the exact opposite of what he’s become accustomed to at WSU in terms of players leaving early.
LikeLike
Prehaps OrSU should send a thank you card to Mizzou (assuming they hire him)?
LikeLike
Links:
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaab/eye-on-college-basketball/24551790/ben-howland-still-being-available-is-weird-but-good-for-oregon-state
and
http://zagsblog.com/articles/source-ben-howland-is-a-very-serious-candidate-at-oregon-state/
LikeLike
I think the odds of Oregon State landing Marshall are as close to nil as possible without actually being nil.
Meaning: it would probably take something absurd, like Coach K/Calipari money to lure Marshall to a massive rebuilding project at a school with no meaningful MBB tradition, especially when he can wait another few years for a King program to open up and get paid big salary there (not including all related extra monies coaches at King programs get–endorsements, tv shows, commercials, etc…that would be very unlikely to be offered on anywhere near the same scale for Marshall in Corvallis, and that can add significant income on top of the salary).
LikeLike
OH, you meant Howland. Ok, please strike my reply. I thought you were referring to Marshall.
OrSU has nothing to lose re: Howland. If he’ll go there, he’s better than anyone else they can reasonably expect to get.
LikeLike
That’s what I meant. I often disagree with Andy, but on this I shared his appearant shock that Missouri didn’t hire him.
LikeLike
A brief Q&A on how the BTN picks night games.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24543528/steering-committee-explains-autonomy-draft-proposal
A Q&A on the autonomy proposal.
LikeLike
Update on the B1G push into NYC/DC:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/99991/delany-on-east-coast-pre-expansion-push
“Delany estimates 1 million Big Ten alumni — half from Maryland and Rutgers, half from existing Big Ten schools — live in the eastern corridor. The Big Ten already has a regional presence because of Penn State, but no direct ties in the major cities.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10856218/college-football-playoff-officials-discuss-how-select-teams
The playoff committee may do some mock selections to iron out their process.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10855870/acc-schedule-not-set-athletic-directors-split-preferences
The ACC schedule format is really undecided.
ESPN.com recently interviewed every athletic director in the ACC about scheduling preferences, and there was no overwhelming majority. Half of the athletic directors — including a surprising vote from Georgia Tech, which already has a built-in rival against Georgia — were in favor of a nine-game conference schedule. Three schools — Boston College, Virginia Tech and North Carolina — didn’t give a specific preference, and three schools — Duke, Clemson and Florida State — would prefer to stay at eight games. Louisville AD Tom Jurich, who was simply thrilled to be a member of the conference this summer, was indifferent.
While no vote is guaranteed at the spring meetings, which will be held May 12-15, many athletic directors are hoping for some closure to the ongoing debate.
“I’m a believer that the nine-game schedule would be a win for the conference and I believe it would be a win for the University of Miami,” Hurricanes athletic director Blake James told ESPN.com. “That’s where I’m at with it. There’s a lot of things you have to go through to get to that point, but I’m in favor of a nine-game conference schedule. It gives us, as a [newer] member in the league, more regularity of playing the teams in our conference. I want our fans to have the familiarity of everyone in the ACC.”
Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich had a different take.
“For Clemson, our position has been and continues to be an eight-game conference schedule,” he said. “Part of the reason for that is we’re one of the four schools that has an end-of-the-year out-of-conference rival. In essence, that gives us nine games of significance. In the years when Notre Dame will rotate onto the schedule, that will give us a 10th game of significance. If you have that trifecta of in-state rival, Notre Dame game and a ninth conference game, then you’re looking at 11 games of significance.”
Heaven forbid you play 11 games of significance.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/69876/ad-opinions-mixed-on-acc-scheduling
Some more details:
A few athletic directors, including North Carolina’s Bubba Cunningham, have indicated they would vote in favor of whatever schedule format is most likely to lend itself to an ACC channel. A nine-game format would increase the ACC’s league schedule from 56 to 63 games.
“I am in favor of getting a separate channel, and however we have to do that, I’m willing to consider,” Cunningham said. “I’m flexible because I think a channel is very important to us.”
LikeLike
James Franklin might have a problem in the Vandy rape case:
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2014/04/29/james-franklin-allegation-surfaces-vandy-filing/8476049/?sf25591322=%5B%271%27%5D
LikeLike
http://www.college-football.si.com/2014/04/29/james-franklin-vanderbilt-sexual-assault-case/
Above link wasn’t working. Even if false, this is why it was idiotic for PSU to hire this guy with this out there:
Referring to records, the attorneys said the victim was contacted by Franklin and Galt during a medical examination four days after the rape to explain “that they cared about her because she assisted them with recruiting.”
It went on to say that at some point, “Coach Franklin called her in for a private meeting and told her he wanted her to get fifteen pretty girls together and form a team to assist with the recruiting even though he knew it was against the rules. He added that all the other colleges did it.”
Per the report, Franklin declined to comment when reached by phone on Tuesday.
LikeLike
Maybe Penn State should just quit football for 5 years and then start over. I assume the Big Ten will once again do nothing. Even the NBA has a backbone and its a straight up for profit group.
LikeLike
Maybe the B1G should shut down the school. Give it a break. The guilty parties are either dead in jail or on trial and the level of guilt is certainly open for debate.
The large number of PSU students, alumni and current athletes should not have to pay for the behavior of a few.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“The large number of PSU students, alumni and current athletes should not have to pay for the behavior of a few.”
Why not? This argument never made any sense to me. How else can the NCAA punish a school? The NCAA found the school and its fans created an unhealthy environment. That means the current students and alumni were part of the problem.
PSU fans certainly were all for OSU getting broadly punished for the behavior of a few. It’s amazing how quickly that opinion changed.
LikeLike
This argument never made any sense to me. How else can the NCAA punish a school?
As a general matter, a system that punishes innocent people is not desirable. We accept this in the typical NCAA case, because: A) The offenses are things only they can punish (they aren’t crimes or infractions in any other venue); B) Institutions could evade punishment by firing the coach (or whoever was responsible), and the NCAA has no jurisdiction over people no longer employed in collegiate athletics.
This case was rather different. There was no exact rule on their books that covered it, and both the civil and criminal court system is well suited to inflicting its own sanctions in such cases. It’s not as if, had they done nothing, the perpetrators would’ve gotten off scot free. I suspect Penn State’s civil liabilities will eventually be higher than the NCAA’s fine. Sandusky, needless to say, is in prison for life, and two of his main enablers were indicted as well.
The NCAA found the school and its fans created an unhealthy environment. That means the current students and alumni were part of the problem.
Whatever they may have “found” in order to justify a penalty that went entirely outside of their usual enforcement mechanism, I don’t buy that the students and alumni were “part of the problem,” when they had no idea what Sandusky had done. I have no reason to believe that PSU fans and alumni are any more passionate about football than those at any other king program. To hold them responsible for something they never knew, nor could have known, is laughable.
PSU fans certainly were all for OSU getting broadly punished for the behavior of a few. It’s amazing how quickly that opinion changed.
I am not fond of issuing punishments based on what the opposing fans want.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As a general matter, a system that punishes innocent people is not desirable.”
By his narrative, prison punishes innocents because the family misses their loved one. Claiming the students and alumni are punished by the football team suffering is a huge stretch to me.
“I don’t buy that the students and alumni were “part of the problem,””
I am not fond of limiting punishments based on what you buy.
LikeLike
Very funny, but why don’t you try to make the case that PSU students and alumni encouraged the shielding of a child rapist they didn’t know existed. Or do you just believe that anything the NCAA says must be true, just ’cause they said it?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Very funny, but why don’t you try to make the case that PSU students and alumni encouraged the shielding of a child rapist they didn’t know existed. Or do you just believe that anything the NCAA says must be true, just ’cause they said it?”
Just like in a court of law, the truth doesn’t matter. PSU was found guilty and punished based on that finding.
The case is fairly simple – the people put JoePa and his football program on such a high pedestal that PSU employees felt pressure to hide anything negative for fear of disrupting the machine or suffering the consequences personally to shield Saint JoePa. Look at the continuing backlash from many PSU fans at anyone (even other PSU fans) that evens hints that JoePa might have made an error in this case. You don’t have to believe it, but the NCAA did and PSU signed off on it.
LikeLike
Maybe the B1G should shut down the school.
— The B1G doesn’t have the authority.
The best solution would have been for the NCAA to revoke PSU’s membership but unfortunately it didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to do so.
LikeLike
Just don’t see this being a big deal. People need to get over it. He didn’t commit rape. He didn’t cover it up. The only thing he is guilty of is recruiting the kids that committed the rape and they would have raped somewhere else.
As far as the pretty girls I think every school has something similar that informally show recruits around campus.
LikeLike
#1 Him saying that about the pretty girls is just pretty stupid. Maybe someone says that. The head coach shouldn’t.
#2 Talking to her 4 days after the rape (depending on who knew what-this snippet doesn’t give us that info) could be viewed as intimidation and an effort to cover it up.
#3 Penn St. knew all this was out there and that they would get some bad publicity, and, conceivably, it could blow up. It was a pretty stupid hire given what they were trying to get over. For another school, it might be an acceptable risk. For PSU, just stupid.
LikeLike
Just to compare NBA and Penn State/Big 10:
1. Penn State has the worst scandal in NCAA history, and the school does nothing on their own. The national group has to come in, and the only penalty it can come up with is a fine, no bowls for a few years and a few scholarship reductions. That’s it. Big 10 does nothing.
2. Longest tenured NBA owner makes racist comments. Banned from the NBA for life, $2.5M fine, forced to sell team.
Which one would you guess to be the for profit group, and which one is supposed to be for the public good? Then, after the wrist slap, Penn State hires a coach with these allegations. Who is running the university?? Where is the Big Ten?? Leaders and legends in their own minds only.
LikeLike
Where is the Big Ten??
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/072312aaa.html
Now you could argue whether they go far enough. However, they may be limited to what their bylaws say.
As for Donald Sterling, consider who the NBA wants to appeal to (which is a global fanbase) and why keeping him around would be bad for business. They couldn’t afford that PR hit that would drive out fans quickly. Better to take immediate action and deal with litigation from the sanctioned owner later.
LikeLike
1. Penn State has the worst scandal in NCAA history, and the school does nothing on their own.
Totally untrue. Penn State did a ton, including commissioning the very report that the NCAA eventually used against them, and implementing its recommendations. (In their shotgun settlement with the NCAA, Penn State committed to implementing those recommendations, but they were already doing so anyway.)
The national group has to come in, and the only penalty it can come up with is a fine, no bowls for a few years and a few scholarship reductions. That’s it.
Short of the death penalty, what more could they do? As it is, the penalties fell entirely on innocent people. How much more punishment, exactly, do you feel they ought to have imposed against people who didn’t commit the offense in question? The NBA at least punished the actual offender.
And of course, beyond what the NCAA did, Penn State will pay many millions in restitution to settle various lawsuits, eventually more than the fine itself. Even if the NCAA had done nothing, no rational observer could say that Penn State got away with it for free.
Big 10 does nothing.
Wrong again. The Big Ten imposed its own penalty. Look it up.
LikeLike
A for profit might be quicker. The Clippers owner is bad for business.
LikeLike
Agreed. When sponsors were dropping left and right, getting rid of Donald Sterling became every bit as much of a business decision as it was a social justice decision for the rest of the NBA. It would be no different than, say, a law firm partner having racist comments get out into the public and then clients start dropping. The other law firm partners might have to pay fair market value for the racist partner’s shares, but they could certainly force him out to ensure that no further damage to the business occurs. The private sector can move relatively quickly and swiftly when it comes to those types of decisions.
LikeLike
Mark,
“1. Penn State has the worst scandal in NCAA history, and the school does nothing on their own. The national group has to come in, and the only penalty it can come up with is a fine, no bowls for a few years and a few scholarship reductions. That’s it. Big 10 does nothing.”
If you’re going to make accusations, it helps to have your facts straight. The B10 censured PSU, put them on probation, made them ineligible for the CCG for 4 years (length of their bowl ban) and fined them all of their share of B10 bowl money for those same 4 years (estimated at $13M).
That’s not nothing. It’s 5 times the fine the NBA levied on Sterling, and that’s in addition to the even bigger fine the NCAA levied ($60M). In total, that’s 29 times the fine Sterling got, plus the offenders at PSU are all also out of the sport and school.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Just don’t see this being a big deal.”
Of course you don’t. If true, he’s admitting to an intentional NCAA violation at the minimum.
Visiting a rape victim 4 days later when your players are accused of the rape is questionable at best. Unless they were friends, the last thing she probably wanted at that point was a man stopping by.
LikeLike
What’s with the “Of course you don’t” comment? I am not a PSU alum nor supporter but I do think people are ready to attack James Franklin for any news item.
if true is the key question. So i will reserve judgement but frankly certain NCAA rules are foolish. Just about every BCS school has unpaid recruiting hostesses. And probably a majority are pretty. Getting pretty girls to host recruits isn’t a crime but if they are encouraged to perform sex with the recruits I would be disappointed and would have a different viewpoint.
With regards to contacting the rape victim 4 days later if he didn’t know her I would agree that is awkward but if he did know her (which is more likely) I think that is the appropriate thing to do.
If it was someone I knew I would want to reach out. It’s not like she has the bubonic plague.
The article was poorly written and suggested he asked her to get 15 pretty girls together at the 4 day after the rape meeting. The reality is that Franklin was accused of asking to get this 15 girls together at different date and likely asking a different individual than the rape victim.
Mark’s analogy of the NBA vs. B1G treatment proves my point. The NBA went after the offender and didn’t take down the entire Clippers organization inflicting pain on the other employees and all the fans. The NCAA should have let the court system work itself out.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“What’s with the “Of course you don’t” comment?”
You’re defending him. I assume you wouldn’t do that if you thought it was a big deal.
if true is the key question. So i will reserve judgement but frankly certain NCAA rules are foolish. Just about every BCS school has unpaid recruiting hostesses. And probably a majority are pretty. Getting pretty girls to host recruits isn’t a crime but if they are encouraged to perform sex with the recruits I would be disappointed and would have a different viewpoint.
With regards to contacting the rape victim 4 days later if he didn’t know her I would agree that is awkward but if he did know her (which is more likely) I think that is the appropriate thing to do.
Referring to records, the attorneys said the victim was contacted by Franklin and Galt during a medical examination four days after the rape to explain “that they cared about her because she assisted them with recruiting.”
Contacting her while she’s still undergoing medical tests related to the rape? That might be a better time for a note/card and some flowers.
“Mark’s analogy of the NBA vs. B1G treatment proves my point.”
No, it really doesn’t.
“The NBA went after the offender and didn’t take down the entire Clippers organization inflicting pain on the other employees and all the fans. The NCAA should have let the court system work itself out.”
The NCAA said PSU was part of the problem, not just the individuals. Apples and oranges.
LikeLike
I just disagree with the NCAA assertion that PSU is part of the problem. Judge and jury on the 50-100k students and employees. Indicting the entire PSU community is a bridge too far to cross in my opinion. I know plenty of PSU alums and they are no different than at any other major football campus. The PSU community itself didn’t rape little boys. Were there a few bad actors? Probably, but that doesn’t extend to the rest of the PSU community.
Based on my travels I’d say that there are worse so called culture problems at a 1/5 to 1/4 more BCS programs than at PSU. And I will define culture problems as being highly passionate and having a win at all costs mentality. I don’t think PSU fits into the mold of the win at all costs culture that we see at many other schools across the country.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I just disagree with the NCAA assertion that PSU is part of the problem.”
And that’s a perfectly reasonable position to take. But when assessing what the NCAA did to PSU, you have to take into account that they did hold PSU in general responsible, not just the individuals. That’s why the case is so different from Sterling.
LikeLike
@Frank
A little different take on the Sterling case dealing with privacy.
Personally, I feel like I do about the Duke lacrosse players. They hired a drug using hooker/stripper to come into their house and got burned. Stiviano is just a little higher priced. He bought her Bentleys and got taped.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/29/sterling-racism-ugly-but-loss-privacy-will-even-worse/b91202r8anGXFqeS3iQSml/story.html?rss_id=Top-GNP
LikeLike
link not working-I will update.
LikeLike
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/29/sterling-racism-ugly-but-loss-privacy-will-even-worse/b91202r8anGXFqeS3iQSmI/story.html?rss_id=Top-GNP
LikeLike
One of the articles said he knew he was being taped, that he had trouble remembering what he said. Makes me wonder if he has dementia. It can lead people to say unreasonable things and be cranky. Maybe he can sue the NBA for discriminating against those with health issues! (I am being serious about the dementia).
LikeLike
So are you saying that Sterling didn’t actually do/say what we all think he did, or that the Duke players did actually rape that girl?
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-states-are-in-the-midwest/
My vote would be NE, KA, ND, SD, IA, MO, MN, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH
LikeLike
People in the old Northwest Territory tend to define it as just that. People in the Great Plains (ND, SD, NE, KS, OK) tend to have a broader definition, with Ohio the only state of the NW Territory they sometimes leave out.
I go with your vote, but would add Oklahoma.
LikeLike
The northern counties of Texas aren’t Midwest, and sagebrush isn’t part of what makes up the breadbasket of the country. 🙂
LikeLike
We only claimed Greer County as part of Texas after we became a state. And before that, only parts of the panhandle.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/which-states-are-in-the-south/
I’d say the confederate states (note I’m considering Missouri a Union state) plus Kentucky, Oklahoma (which can be cross listed as a Southwestern state) and maybe West Virginia.
LikeLike
11% of respondents did not identify as Georgia as part of the south?
LikeLike
Probably because they were thinking it is in the southeast and not the south. Some people make that distinction (TX is in the south but not the southeast, for example).
Other notes:
People were less sure of FL
MD is considered northern
VA only got 50% while NC was over 60%
There is a buffer zone of Ozark/Appalachian states that neither side really claims decisively
LikeLike
Americans aren’t very good with geography.
South IMO is the 11 seceding states + Kentucky.
At the time of the War of Northern Aggression, Maryland, Delaware and the southern half of Missouri were definitely southern, but they aren’t anymore. They were worried about Lincoln being assassinated in Baltimore on his way to the inauguration. Industrialization, immigration and the feds changed those states.
My Georgia wife insists that Texas isn’t part of the South. Its definitely not “Deep South” which is SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR and FL north of Orlando.
LikeLike
Texas could be the touchstone of 3 regions: Houston and East Texas are Deep South, Dallas would be the southernmost reach of the Great Plains, and Round Rock-Austin-San Marcos-San Antonio are definitevely Southwest.
LikeLike
Houston isn’t Deep South. Dallas is closer to being Deep South. If any part is, it would most likely be NE Texas east of Dallas.
LikeLike
The real South:
TX, LA, AR, MS, TN, KY, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, VA, WV
The real North:
SD, ND, MN, IA, NE, IL, IN, WI, KS, OH, MI, PA, NJ, MD, NY, DE, CT, MA, RI, VT, NH, ME
“Border” states:
OK, MO
🙂
LikeLike
I think it’s hard to pinpoint which region exactly that West Virginia belongs to.
My wife’s uncle lives in Charleston, WV, the state capital, and we’ve been there several times. Charleston looks very much to me like an old industrial Midwestern town that happens to have small but prevalent mountains around it. If you doubled the size of it and flattened out the topography, it would be Dayton, Ohio’s twin. The steel mills and cargo ships carrying coal and salt remind me of a scaled down (and less cosmopolitan) Cincinnati. The steel mills and bridges everywhere also reminded me of Pittsburgh, a city which itself clearly is not southern but is not clearly either Midwestern or Northeastern. The way it is built upon the Kanawha River does not resemble many southern towns, other than maybe Memphis or New Orleans, although I’ve never thought of either of those as being quite as industrial-oriented. FWIW, the NFL team of choice seems to be the Steelers, then the Bengals.
Charleston’s accents do fit in well with the South. People, typically, have a rather long southern drawl. The area also seems to fit in just fine with the Bible Belt: lots and lots of small chuches. On the other hand, one could argue that much of the Midwest is known for a prevalence of churches.
Huntington is right where Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio meet one another. It doesn’t remind me very much of anything in the Carolinas or other parts of the South besides Kentucky, and would fit in with Ohio just as well.
Eastern West Virginia contains extreme western suburbs of DC, which I think of as much more of a northeastern city.
Northern West Virginia, including Morgantown, Wheeling, and the panhandle, identifies more with western PA than they do with the South. WVU’s oldest rivals are northern teams: Pitt, Syracuse, Penn State, and Maryland. Only Maryland could ever have been labeled as southern.
I think there are a few reasons why West Virginia seems to be automatically classified as Southern rather than Northeastern or Midwestern: (1) Accents. People in West Virginia tend to talk with a similar pattern of speech as those in Kentucky, West Virginia, and those to the South. (2) The Ohio River. This has long been the delineation line between the South and Midwest. (3) It was once part of Virginia, historically a slave and, historically, a very, very southern state in culture. (4) Poverty. Frankly, I think people identify the South as THE region for poverty in this country. With West Virginia having many economic and cultural qualities that are similar to the Midwest and to western Pennsylvania, it’s a blur whether it should be Southern or Midwestern. I think what largely pushes WV into the South in people’s minds is that it has long had a high poverty rate for many decades. People are much more apt to group West Virginia with other poor southern states like Kentucky and Mississippi than they are to group them with other industrial states like Ohio and Michigan. At the same time, the decline of manufacturing has led to high unemployment and more poverty in those states. I suppose the difference is that in Ohio and Michigan, to be blunt, it’s more of an urban poor, and in WV, there’s more rural poverty.
LikeLike
My vote = OH, IN, IL, IA, MN, WI, MI
As far as the others:
KY and WV are Appalachia
A small part of western PA would qualify, but not the whole state
A part of MO would qualify, but overall MO is southern
ND, SD, NE, KS and OK are Great Plains, not midwestern
MT, WY and CO are mountain states
LikeLike
A part of MO would qualify, but overall MO is southern
I’d actually say exactly the opposite.
Only about 1/3 of Missouri of is really Southern, the rest (including both the major metro areas) are distinctly Midwestern.
Also, who in their right mind thinks of Montana, Wyoming and Colorado as Midwestern? That has to be a Northeastern thing, right?
LikeLike
frug,
“Only about 1/3 of Missouri of is really Southern, the rest (including both the major metro areas) are distinctly Midwestern.”
They have Branson and the Ozarks. Those aren’t midwestern. St. Louis is, KC is plains. Living in IL may color your opinion of MO.
“Also, who in their right mind thinks of Montana, Wyoming and Colorado as Midwestern? That has to be a Northeastern thing, right?”
The survey asked self-identified midwesterners only. I’d guess it was people from plains states, especially the western parts of those states.
LikeLike
They have Branson and the Ozarks. Those aren’t midwestern. St. Louis is, KC is plains. Living in IL may color your opinion of MO.
True, but those are the low population areas (Branson only has 14,000 in the entire metro area.)
I guess it mostly comes down to the fact that I don’t identify the Great Plains as an entire separate region (which is why I think of KC as a Midwestern city).
And while this could be the result of living in Illinois, growing up in Oklahoma we learned in school that Missouri was a Midwestern state (and having spent the past week and half in the state, I would bet that is how most people in Oklahoma still feel). That also seemed to be the general opinion when I moved to Kentucky as well.
LikeLike
frug,
“True, but those are the low population areas (Branson only has 14,000 in the entire metro area.)”
Sure, but a large portion of the state.
“I guess it mostly comes down to the fact that I don’t identify the Great Plains as an entire separate region (which is why I think of KC as a Midwestern city).”
But I and many others do. The survey would have different results if they told you in advance what regions were allowed. If the plains don’t count, then obviously the midwest is bigger. But the change in farming style, the dust bowl, Civil War history, etc all make the plains a separate area to me.
“And while this could be the result of living in Illinois, growing up in Oklahoma we learned in school that Missouri was a Midwestern state”
The survey shows no region really claims MO. It’s sort of at the triple point between the south, plains and midwest. Parts of it fit with each.
LikeLike
This quote from the southern survey covers Missouri:
Also, does anyone know what’s going on with Missouri? Mostly excluded from the South and Midwest, it appears to be the geographic equivalent of the last kid picked during dodgeball.
LikeLike
Missouri is Midwest AND South AND Southwest. It’s at the crossroads of multiple regions. Illinois and Iowa on one side. Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkasnsas on another, and then Oklahoma and Kansas on the other side. Some of Missouri has a lot in common with Dallas and Denver. Another area has more in common with Chicago and Indianapolis. Then there’s a big part of the state that would fit in with Memphis and Little Rock. Missouri was a slave state, and that tension is definitely still there. East side of Missouri accents are similar to Chicago. Southern Missouri accents sound more like Tennessee. Southwest Missouri accents sound like Oklahoma/Texas.
You just can’t pin Missouri down. That’s why Mizzou could have been a part of the Big 12, SEC, or B1G. They would somewhat fit in any of the three but not all the way in any of them.
LikeLike
Coming from IL, I count the Great Plains as Midwestern (if you ask anyone from ND to KS whether they are in the Midwest, pretty much no one will say “no”). So I have OH on west to that line of states from ND->OK as part of the Midwest. I knew a guy (from southern IL) who counted AR as part of the Midwest as well. In CO & the plains, some folks count the Midwest as any place east of the Rockies.
Also, if you ask folks in MO if they are in the Midwest or South, the vast majority would say “Midwest”. Even the folks in Branson. Even the folks in “Winter’s Bone” country where they still subsist on hunted game over the winter.
LikeLike
@Richard – That’s pretty much how I’d define the Midwest. There might be distinct subsections of the Midwest (the Great Lakes region compared to the Great Plains) and border areas are going to have hybrid attributes (i.e. the Southern tip of Illinois is going to feel more Southern than Northern), but that’s no different than recognizing that there are distinct subsections of the South (Florida and Northern Virginia are quite different than Alabama). The most populous areas of Missouri (St. Louis and Kansas City) seem to identify much more with the Midwest than the South and that’s how I’ve always thought of them. I’ve always considered Kansas and Nebraska as Midwestern states, too. On the other hand, I’ve never thought of Kentucky or Arkansas as Midwestern at all – those are completely the South to me (even though the border areas like Louisville might have some Midwestern tendencies). Oklahoma is really the only state that’s confounding to me – it’s at the crossroads of the Midwest, South and West with attributes of all of them. Also, Texas and Florida seem to almost defy being part of any region – they really have their own distinct cultures and demographic mixes where I wouldn’t readily call them Southern in the way that, say, Georgia is.
LikeLike
Colorado is difficult as well. The plans are Midwestern, the front range is like the west coast, and the rest of the state culturally a rocky mountain state.
LikeLike
As someone who was born and raised in Oklahoma (and spent the past 10 days in the state) I can say that Oklahomans do not think of themselves as Midwestern. Southern or Southwestern is how most would classify themselves.
For me, the trickiest state is West Virginia. It sits right at the border of the Midwest, South and Northeast but isn’t really a member of any of them.
LikeLike
This graphic shows that West Virginia is definitely part of the South. I guess Oklahoma, too.
LikeLike
Oklahoma is South by Southwest.
I spent several months in Tulsa during grad school. They’ve got Oral Roberts University and a lot of Bible thumping for the Southern vibe put there is also a Route 66 Cowboy/southwest thing going on too. I haven’t spent as much time in Oklahoma City but my quick impression there was the same as Tulsa only that Tulsa is maybe 65/35 South/Southwest whereas OKC was more like 40/60. There is also a large Native American population (relatively speaking) that adds to the southwest element.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“That’s pretty much how I’d define the Midwest. There might be distinct subsections of the Midwest (the Great Lakes region compared to the Great Plains) and border areas are going to have hybrid attributes (i.e. the Southern tip of Illinois is going to feel more Southern than Northern), but that’s no different than recognizing that there are distinct subsections of the South (Florida and Northern Virginia are quite different than Alabama).”
It all comes down to how many regions you think there are to start. To me, there are enough historical and cultural differences between the midwest and the great plains to consider them separate areas.
* Midwest states are better at corn, soy beans and pork, Plains states are better at wheat and beef
* The Plains have a lot of Far West in them, the Midwest doesn’t have any (11 nations)
* The Midwest were Union states without slaves in the Civil War, the Plains weren’t states for the most part
* The Midwest states have significantly higher levels of athiests and Catholics while the Plains lean more towards Lutherans and Methodists (the high number of Baptists in MO show it’s Southern – http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/geog1000/MapLinks/ReligionMaps.html)
* The Plains states were largely part of the Louisiana purchase while the Midwest was the Northwest Territory
When I put those sorts of things all together, I see a clear distinction between the 2 regions.
LikeLike
Greg:
I think the reliability of the tooth lost indicator is being lost due to the use of crystal meth. The map showed WI and MI as more “southern” than TX.
Arch:
A few of the southeastern native Americans managed to survive Andrew Jackson’s deportation to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma except for the panhandle which came from Texas).
LikeLike
“To me, there are enough historical and cultural differences between the midwest and the great plains to consider them separate areas.”
There are enough historical and cultural differences between VA and LA (the state) that you can consider them separate areas. However, the vast majority of people in both states consider their state southern.
What you are saying is that the Great Lakes region and Great Plains are separate regions, but you don’t get to tell people that they’re not Midwestern when they believe they are, and you don’t get to define the Midwest to exclude the Plains when pretty much every single person in KS (and NE and MO and the Dakotas) consider themselves to be in a Midwestern state.
BTW, some people on the Plains consider OH to be an eastern state, not a Midwestern state, so if we’re going to go my what people outside of a particular state think, then OH is not a Midwestern state.
LikeLike
Richard,
“There are enough historical and cultural differences between VA and LA (the state) that you can consider them separate areas. However, the vast majority of people in both states consider their state southern.”
And many southerners consider VA not southern but mid-Atlantic, apparently, as the survey showed people didn’t overwhelmingly include VA in the south.
“What you are saying is that the Great Lakes region and Great Plains are separate regions,”
Yes, nice reading comprehension. I stated my opinion on that topic.
“but you don’t get to tell people that they’re not Midwestern when they believe they are,”
Actually, I can tell them anything I want. This started with discussing how we would define the Midwestern states. I don’t need anybody’s permission to have an opinion on the subject, nor to explain my position. I didn’t tell anyone they were wrong, I just expressed my opinion like many others did.
“and you don’t get to define the Midwest to exclude the Plains when pretty much every single person in KS (and NE and MO and the Dakotas) consider themselves to be in a Midwestern state.”
Yes, I do. Frug started this by linking the survey and giving his personal opinion. I did the same thing.
“BTW, some people on the Plains consider OH to be an eastern state, not a Midwestern state, so if we’re going to go my what people outside of a particular state think, then OH is not a Midwestern state.”
And they’re perfectly welcome to that opinion. I happen to disagree with it and would tell them so.
LikeLike
For the south, I would take the Confederate States, plus Kentucky, Oklahoma, Missouri, and maybe Kansas. I would also include southern parts of West Virginia, Indiana, and Illinois as part of the South.
LikeLike
Kansas?
LikeLike
Everyone that I’ve ever met from Kansas (which admittedly is less than 10 people) is very Southern in their attitudes, beliefs, taste, etc. A few even had a bit of a twang.
LikeLike
Pretty much no Kansan born and raised in Kansas considers themself a southerner.
“country” ≠ “Southern”
LikeLike
New England is the most well-defined region of the country: Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine. It’s all six of them, and no one else.
Everywhere else, it’s less clear. Do Maryland and Delaware count as the Northeast? What about West Virginia? Does the West include Texas, Oklahoma, and the Plains States, or just the states from Colorado and west?
Here’s another one: where exactly is the “Mid-Atlantic?” Maryland and Delaware, for sure, but where else? Is New York too far north? Is North Carolina (which some people around here consider the state be in) too far south? What about West Virginia?
LikeLike
Mid-Atlantic – The north moves down in the wintertime and the south comes up in the summertime. 😉
Seriously, since I live here, I see NYC, Long Island and Westchester as a bit different from New England. Not as much emphasis on lobster diving and ocean fishing as the latter. Summers here can get as sticky and humid as in the South. New Jersey is right across the Hudson and a big chunk of that state is intertwined with the big city. Therefore, I think the Mid-Atlantic starts right at the NY-Conn border.
The real South starts a little past D.C. and takes in parts of southern MD, DelMarVA including southern DE, connecting to the Tidewater area. Then the line cuts through WV to the Ohio River, over to Cairo, IL, then cuts through a big chunk of Missourah on the Missouri River line, to Columbia, where it cuts south to below Belton, MO to the state line, then moves to the state line between AR and OK, down to Texas, taking in the eastern part of the state to the Gulf of Mexico, finally across to Florida, cutting out Dade, Palm Beach and Broward counties.
LikeLike
As a real Southerner, we don’t consider WV a southern state. It was a Union state. I consider it analogous to Pittsburgh or Ohio. In fact I often joke my Pittsburgh friends that Pittsburgh is the capital of WV.
Unfortunately it’s hard to make the case that Arkansas is not the south geographically speaking. Culturally, I’d lump it in with Kentucky and WV as mountain hicks, but whatever.
Having lived in DC, if I had to pick whether Maryland was Southern or Northern, I’d pick Southern. Southern Maryland is definitely southern, and Marylandites are not as annoying as yankees.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10859331/college-football-playoff-1st-ranking-released-oct-28
The first CFP rankings will come out on 10/28/2014 and be weekly on Tuesday nights from then on. I like that they’re taking a little extra time. I always thought the polls rushed to vote rather than giving voters the time to analyze the whole weekend properly.
LikeLike
Surprised no one has posted it yet. FSU’s Winston got caught shoplifting crab legs from a Publix. Everyone is having a lot of fun with it. A lot of the jokes are pretty creative.
LikeLike
Because he didn’t get crabs the last time he broke the law?
LikeLike
He just misunderstood the new unlimited snacks rule…
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24546204/lsu-cancels-2017-2020-home-and-home-series-with-nc-state
LSU cancelled a future home and home with NCSU. Yes, it conflicted with their rescheduled SU series, but it’s hardly like SU and NCSU are killers. I hope they have something bigger in mind than wanting SU as the marquee OOC game that year.
LikeLike
Brian – my understanding is that LSU asked NC State if the ’17 game could be moved and NC State refused. This would have resulted in LSU home games against both NC State and Syracuse in the same season. Because LSU wanted to alter the contract and NC State refused, LSU had to pay the buyout.
Going forward, it appears that LSU will adopt the unofficial SEC OOC schedule of one P5, 2 mid majors, and one I-AA team. If LSU had prevailed on eliminating permanent OOD opponents, I think they would have been more open to scheduling more than one P5 school. Since my Tigers will have a more difficult schedule than Bama almost every year, the AD’s thinking is that making it substantially more difficult than Bama is not a smart move.
LikeLike
It seems like a sensible compromise for the SEC would have been as follows:
Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia, and Arkansas-Missouri would be permanent cross-division opponents. Those schools would play the remaining six schools from their opposite divisions only twice every twelve years. For instance, Georgia would play each of Alabama, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU, Arkansas, and Texas A&M only twice every twelve years.
Meanwhile, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Texas A&M would NOT have permanent cross-division rivals. Instead, they would take turns for two years at a time playing Florida, Vanderbilt, Kentucky and South Carolina.
Maybe even Arkansas and Missouri wouldn’t have to be permanent cross-division opponents. I just put them together because it’s Missouri’s closest conference rival, and more frequent play against a nearby opponent might help integrate them into the conference better. The other permanent matchups (A&M-SC, Vandy-Ole Miss, Miss. State-Kentucky, and LSU-Florida) do not seem as crucial to be annual matchups. Florida and LSU would welcome an end to their annual series, and A&M and SC have virtually no history together at all. The Mississippi schools and Vandy and Kentucky have long histories, but it is very questionable why those are so important to preserve while old games like Auburn-Tennessee and Auburn-Florida are not.
LikeLike
I believe part of the problem was that Vandy, Kentucky and the Mississippi schools were in favor of keeping the permanent crossovers intact as it meant an easier schedule for themselves.
I would post the link, but I really can’t remember where I read that, so maybe it was just speculation on the part of some random columnist.
LikeLike
Arch – you are correct. Miss State would rather have Kentucky on their schedule every year, as Ole Miss would rather play Vandy, and vice versa. The vote to keep permanent OOD opponents was 10-4. The four opposed were LSU, A&M, South Carolina, and Mizzou.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24545407/musings-from-college-football-playoff-meetings
Some CFP/bowl info.
ESPN brought several executives to the playoff meetings as it outlines its nearly $6-billion playoff investment.
New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day will feature six playoff games, including the two semifinal games, and ESPN wants those games “packaged very tightly together,” ESPN senior vice president of programming acquisitions Burke Magnus said.
Which means, New Year’s Day games such as Capital One Bowl or Gator Bowl must be reshuffled. ESPN and the bowl games are evaluating that process.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24546142/college-football-playoffs-recusal-policy-plan-will-address-allegiances
More on the recusal policy.
The working recusal policy, as reviewed by commissioners and likely approved this week, mandates members would lose voting privileges regarding a team where they have a direct allegiance, CBSSports.com has learned.
LikeLike
There is some growling that the recusal policy is too narrow: you can vote for a school you were formerly associated with, as long as you don’t work there now. That policy could come under pressure if there is a close vote between very similarly qualified teams.
Basketball has a similar recusal policy, but not the same stakes, as every team with a credible shot at winning it all is going to be in the tournament (i.e., the seeding goes down to 16, but no one seeded worse than 8th has ever won the title).
LikeLike
Of course with some of these people, they would have to recuse themselves on half the teams! A number of ADs move around quite a bit.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24545029/sec-to-experiment-with-8-football-officials-but-whats-right-number
The big 5 are moving towards 8 officials.
LikeLike
ESPN’s Joe Schad tweeted:
“Big 12’s Bob Bowlsby said he believes it is very likely in August a rule will allow conferences to decide who is in and if to have title gm”
and
“Big 12 reiterates it has no plan for title game but supports ACC initiative to eliminate restrictions on divisions and 12-tm requirement”
and
“Bob Bowlsby said he hasn’t heard anyone suggest leagues shouldn’t be allowed to handle title games how they want”
Apparently the only restriction (taking Bowlsby and Schad at their word) is that it will have to be a title game, i.e., a game after the regular season with the conference championship on the line, as opposed to just a random 13th game between popular teams that get good TV ratings.
LikeLike
Really hope this leads to the end of divisions in all 14 team leagues. Doubt it will though.
LikeLike
I’ve no doubt the ACC will make the switch as soon as they are allowed to. I suspect the other leagues will let them be the pioneers, and decide later whether to take advantage of the new rule.
It would benefit the SEC particularly, as their 6-1-1 format means schools can go many years without facing each other. Eliminating divisions would give them so much more flexibility. On the other hand, they have the most successful CCG in the country and might be reluctant to fiddle with what’s already working.
LikeLike
Marc is exactly right. The ACC will implement this change as soon as allowed once the proposal is adopted. The other leagues will follow it with varying degrees of interest. It would be a great proposal for the SEC for those reasons he mentioned (and, truthfully for all the power conferences with divisions). It would help the Pac12 because it would allow non-CA teams to potentially get more games in CA in a season, generating exposure and access to prime conference recruiting grounds (which was a big issue when they implemented divisions in the first place). As is the B1G’s MO, I would anticipate the conference being the last of the power conferences to eliminate divisions. If its done, it likely will be driven by the western conference teams trying to get more games against UM, OSU, and PSU than they currently do. The B1G has a long tradition of intra-conference cooperation and equal division of resources, so I wouldn’t expect the eastern teams to seriously oppose it.
I think the B12 in a few years will adopt a CCG under this rule while remaining at 10 teams, giving it a true round-robin schedule and then a rematch for 2 teams in the CCG. Since it would no longer need to add teams to get the CCG, there wouldn’t be any dilution of money per school, only pure profit from the extra game. But more than the money element, the speed in which the conference adopts it will be linked directly to if and/or when a B12 team is excluded from the 4-team playoff due to the lack of a CCG.
LikeLike
“It would help the Pac12 because it would allow non-CA teams to potentially get more games in CA…”
Not a chance. The weekenders (CA schools playing yearly) will not go away.
Everyone keeps focusing on how this might help the top few schools in a conference and ignoring the risk posed to the larger number of mid level, and even the generally bottom teams. They would be risking losing a once in a decade or two shot at a conference title to the junior version of a BCS poll/formula, to a popularity contest.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
That could be. I was going off of the difficulties the conference had in making its divisions after it added Utah and Colo. They debated several variations (the zipper, the north south,) and ultimately picked the north-south. The CA schools got to keep playing each other every year, reducing access for the northwest schools, but those schools got equal revenue sharing in return. (http://www.cougcenter.com/2010/10/19/1761419/pac-12-alignment-revenue-sharing-details-emerge).
Also, eliminating divisions won’t eliminate protected games. Even without divisions, the CA schools can still get annual games against one another. It would result in more equal distribution of games against CA schools for the non-CA schools, potentially allowing every non-CA school a game in LA each year (vs either USC or UCLA) (I say potentially because I haven’t done the math on getting a game in LA, but the math works to get a game vs an LA school each year). So, instead of Arizona and ASU getting games against both LA schools each year, they each would get only one, but they would also get Washington and Oregon more frequently as well.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
“They debated several variations (the zipper, the north south,) and ultimately picked the north-south.”
Wasn’t so much picked as arrived at, with other concessions that won’t be bargained away. The weekenders were/are not removable, which means no possible gain in total CA access, and any LA access increase for the northwest is balanced by equal loss for the mountain/desert schools. You have a built in four vote against not counting what/who the LA schools would prefer. Hint: how many times has USC played in Pullman in the last half century? And would they ever if not required by the conference?
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
“The weekenders were/are not removable, which means no possible gain in total CA access”
Total gain isn’t the issue, its gain for some schools to make it more equitable. I agree the weekenders are locked, but that would mean that USC and UCLA would each have 3 locked games in a 9 game conference schedule, leaving all teams guaranteed to play at least 1 LA school each year.
“and any LA access increase for the northwest is balanced by equal loss for the mountain/desert schools.”
Yes, but those mountain and desert schools get Oregon, Stanford, and Washington more frequently, too. Oregon especially is a marketable program nowadays.
“You have a built in four vote against not counting what/who the LA schools would prefer.”
If the weekender games are all preserved, that takes a big issue off the table for them.
“Hint: how many times has USC played in Pullman in the last half century?”
I count 17 on football reference.
“And would they ever if not required by the conference?”
Probably not. But I don’t see why that matters. Also, for all I know, WSU might prefer to play them in CA rather than their smaller stadium in Pullman for the recruiting and exposure benefits.
LikeLike
To update, on football reference, I count 39 games between USC and WSU overall, 17 of them hosted by WSU (2 in Seattle in the 1970’s; 2 in Spokane also in the 70’s)- WSU’s stadium was built in 1971 and held 26k at that time. Since 1977, they have played 30 times, 13 of them in Pullman, 17 in LA. Not a big gap.
Link: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/play-index/rivals.cgi?request=1&school_id=washington-state&opp_id=southern-california
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Everyone keeps focusing on how this might help the top few schools in a conference and ignoring the risk posed to the larger number of mid level, and even the generally bottom teams. They would be risking losing a once in a decade or two shot at a conference title to the junior version of a BCS poll/formula, to a popularity contest.”
That’s a very good point. Funny how everyone loves Cinderella in hoops but wants no part of it in CFB.
LikeLike
“That’s a very good point. Funny how everyone loves Cinderella in hoops but wants no part of it in CFB.”
Well, if the two CCG participants are determined by anything other than conference record, then yes, it would decrease the odds of a lesser program getting a spot in the CCG. If UM, PSU, and Purdue all had equal records and comparable wins, I suspect Purdue would get shafted there (unless the B1G reapplies its old Rose Bowl tiebreaker to give teams with longer droughts an extra tiebreaker)
If, however, the participants are determined based on conference record like they are now, then, in the context of the B1G for example, all it would do would be a reversion to how champions were decided pre-CCG, but instead of determining a champion, you determine the top 2 teams to play the CCG. That does, however,add an extra hurdle for the CInderella to win the conference title.* Bur it does not hamper access to the game. But it also virtually eliminates the chance that an otherwise undeserving .500 team making a CCG just because they were the best in a bad division.
*1995 NWU would have had an extra hurdle before going to the Rose Bowl, in the form of 1995 OSU. Cinderella would definitely had a massive hurdle in that one.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind is that the Arizona and Mountain schools are likely to oppose anything that denies them annual games in LA which would occur if the divisions were eliminated.
I don’t know how many votes are required to change the division structure, but if it is 9 (75%) then they Arizona and Mountain schools can block even if the other 8 schools all support it.
LikeLike
@Frug:
When the divisions were created in 2010, the AD’s voted 7-5 to adopt them. I don’t know what the Presidential vote was. (http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5686274)
LikeLike
What ccrider55 and I are referring too is the added difficulty in finishing top 2 in the conference versus winning a division because of things like upsets, injuries, ineligibility, parity and weak teams.
Number of times a team would have lost out on the CCG (not counting ties):
B12:
Close #3 – 1997, 2003, 2007
Cinderella – 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2008
SEC:
Close #3 – 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005
Cinderella – 1993, 2002, 2010
P12:
Close #3 – 2011
Cinderella – 2012
B10:
Close #3 –
Cinderella – 2012
LikeLike
“If, however, the participants are determined based on conference record like they are now, then, in the context of the B1G for example, all it would do would be a reversion to how champions were decided pre-CCG, but instead of determining a champion, you determine the top 2 teams to play the CCG.”
Which completely ignores/invalidates the reason to allow a 13th game. Conference record in large (12+) conferences was deemed too inaccurate, too schedule biased, to be useful in establishing the champion. Now it is good enough to anoint two as the set that is certain to contain that one? Just be honest and admit this “deregulation” is an attempt to have a conference owned invitational bowl game.
LikeLike
“What ccrider55 and I are referring too is the added difficulty in finishing top 2 in the conference versus winning a division because of things like upsets, injuries, ineligibility, parity and weak teams.
Number of times a team would have lost out on the CCG (not counting ties):
B12:
Close #3 – 1997, 2003, 2007
Cinderella – 1996, 1999, 2004, 2005, 2008
SEC:
Close #3 – 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005
Cinderella – 1993, 2002, 2010
P12:
Close #3 – 2011
Cinderella – 2012
B10:
Close #3 –
Cinderella – 2012”
I see your point, and its definitely reasonable. I’m biased because I think the negatives of divisions (small sample size to determine the 1st place team, forced loss of rivalry games, fluke-y results) outweigh the positives. I think eliminating divisions allows for participants to truly be determined to the maximum extent as they always were, with something approaching a round-robin schedule, then then the top 2 teams squaring off. Some of the Cinderella’s you list were genuinely unqualified teams (2012 UCLA, 1996 Texas), versus Cinderella’s that come from nowhere to put together a great season (1995 NWU, 2000 or 2001 ILL (forget which year they went Rose Bowling).
I’m not clear what you meant by a Close #3–is it a team who would have been in a CCG but for finishing 2nd in a division?
LikeLike
“Which completely ignores/invalidates the reason to allow a 13th game. Conference record in large (12+) conferences was deemed too inaccurate, too schedule biased, to be useful in establishing the champion. Now it is good enough to anoint two as the set that is certain to contain that one? Just be honest and admit this “deregulation” is an attempt to have a conference owned invitational bowl game.”
Have I ever disputed that CCG’s at their core are money grabs? The SEC implemented it solely to make the conference more attractive to TV. The B1G gets $24mil/year to stage its CCG before a less than full Lucas Oil Stadium crowd.
Its not an invitational bowl game because teams would have to earn a spot in the game on the field. Deregulation merely eliminates how the game’s participants would be determined. If participants are determined on the basis of record, then its not a conference owned invitational bowl game, which to me implies a more popularity-contest type means of selection.
LikeLike
“Its not an invitational bowl game because teams would have to earn a spot in the game on the field.”
But they “earn” that spot by the same methods deemed too unreliable, and a 13th game was granted in order to resolve. There seems to be a logic disconnect here. And yes, you don’t think ambiguous rankings will be most often resolved (or a system created to resolve) in the traditional power’s favor? There are more “not” traditional power schools. This is where I see the resistance, the self interest of that group to protect their (and others like them) occasional opportunities. Perhaps the ACC is weaker than I thought. Do their lessers need to bow to FSU and Miami as a conference stabilizing move? Does Tobacco Road even care if FB is skewed toward those two?
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I see your point, and its definitely reasonable. I’m biased because I think the negatives of divisions (small sample size to determine the 1st place team, forced loss of rivalry games, fluke-y results) outweigh the positives.”
I was just expanding on the point because it sounded like you thought we meant something other than that based on your response. I’m not saying having more Cinderellas is a sufficient reason to keep divisions, I was just pointing out how many of them have gotten a shot under the old rules and how different the attitude is between the two major sports. For middle tier and lower schools (IN, MN, etc), it’s certainly a reason to consider voting against dropping divisions, which is what I believe ccrider55 was saying.
There is room for plenty of different opinions on how best to determine a champion. I happen to prefer no divisions with as many games as is practical (9 based on the current rules) but no CCG.
I think the negatives of a CCG (unnecessary game, rematches, upsets that spoil national title chances, injuries, etc) trump the positives (money).
If you have to have a CCG, then I think it makes sense to keep divisions in terms of explaining why you play the game. Otherwise, the game seems unnecessary to me. You had all season to figure out which team is better, and decent odds they already played head to head. I’m not sure there is a clear cut business case to do it one way or the other. I’m guessing it varies from conference to conference based on their needs and members.
“Some of the Cinderella’s you list were genuinely unqualified teams (2012 UCLA, 1996 Texas), versus Cinderella’s that come from nowhere to put together a great season (1995 NWU, 2000 or 2001 ILL (forget which year they went Rose Bowling).”
Which is part of the stupidity of a CCG. Some years it’s obvious who is #1. Not all Cinderellas may deserve it, sure, but you all but eliminate them entirely when you drop divisions. That’s a tough pill to swallow for teams that have very little chance of making the top 2.
“I’m not clear what you meant by a Close #3–is it a team who would have been in a CCG but for finishing 2nd in a division?”
Example: Conference X
W1 – 8-0, AP #3
W2 – 7-1, AP #8
W3 – 5-3, AP unranked
E1 – 6-2, AP #11
E2 – 5-3, AP #23
I would call E1 a close #3, in that they were almost as good as the #2 team but miss out on the CCG due to the lack of divisions. To me, that’s a difference case than a true Cinderella and I didn’t want to get accused of inflating my Cinderella numbers.
LikeLike
As is the B1G’s MO, I would anticipate the conference being the last of the power conferences to eliminate divisions. If its done, it likely will be driven by the western conference teams trying to get more games against UM, OSU, and PSU than they currently do. The B1G has a long tradition of intra-conference cooperation and equal division of resources, so I wouldn’t expect the eastern teams to seriously oppose it.
Remember that the B1G has already committed to playing particular conference games through 2019. I’m not familiar with how they changed schedules then but I have to think that if they want to change things it would be after that year, maybe even years after that. Eventually, they will change up but not after they get what they want out of increasing its profile in the eastern area through this last expansion. Certainly, RU and UMD would be relieved a bit to switch out for one year OSU and UM for Purdue and Northwestern.
But what happens if the B1G West teams find out that it’s better that they get to the CCG by winning their division than wanting at least two of UM, OSU and PSU on the schedule? Should Minnesota want to vote for that change if they find out they get better exposure through qualifying to the CCG?
LikeLike
“But they “earn” that spot by the same methods deemed too unreliable, and a 13th game was granted in order to resolve. There seems to be a logic disconnect here. And yes, you don’t think ambiguous rankings will be most often resolved (or a system created to resolve) in the traditional power’s favor? There are more “not” traditional power schools. This is where I see the resistance, the self interest of that group to protect their (and others like them) occasional opportunities. Perhaps the ACC is weaker than I thought. Do their lessers need to bow to FSU and Miami as a conference stabilizing move? Does Tobacco Road even care if FB is skewed toward those two?”
The CCG game was created less to resolve a true champion and more to generate fan/tv interest and money for the conference. I don’t think that the top 2 teams in a conference determined based on conference record is an ambiguous means of determining participants. Obviously, the powers that be would prefer the big name programs playing in them, but as long as the participants are determined on the field, that’s not a concern of mine. For the ACC, they tried to engineer a UM-FSU title game when they expanded back in 2003, and it did not work out for them, as both programs soon went through a dry spell. SInce its all cyclical, its best to go as round-robin as possible and let schools play for a spot in the CCG without regard to whether the division is tougher or weaker.
LikeLike
@Brian:
See below, reposting into the correct thread:
“I was just expanding on the point because it sounded like you thought we meant something other than that based on your response. I’m not saying having more Cinderellas is a sufficient reason to keep divisions, I was just pointing out how many of them have gotten a shot under the old rules and how different the attitude is between the two major sports. For middle tier and lower schools (IN, MN, etc), it’s certainly a reason to consider voting against dropping divisions, which is what I believe ccrider55 was saying.”
Cinderellas have definitely gotten a better shot with divisions. That’s true. And some of the mid-level or worse schools might consider that when debating whether or not to eliminate divisions. On the flip side, to use the B1G as an example, Indiana, RU, and UMD will have, on balance, a much tougher time getting to the conference game than MN, because of the caliber of programs they must play every year. When you have a situation where divisions are uneven, but defined for off-field considerations (geography, simplicity) then it creates uneven schedules. A more round-robin (think B1G circa 1991-2011) with the 2 teams with the best conference record facing off will be more equitable over the long term. Doing away with divisions in this context could be a positive.
“There is room for plenty of different opinions on how best to determine a champion. I happen to prefer no divisions with as many games as is practical (9 based on the current rules) but no CCG.
I think the negatives of a CCG (unnecessary game, rematches, upsets that spoil national title chances, injuries, etc) trump the positives (money).”
We’re actually in agreement here, in that CCG’s are far from the best way to determine a champion. I don’t like it for the same reasons I don’t like the 4 team playoff, namely that it places too much weight on 1 or two games, devaluing a broader body of work. I think if you’re gonna have them, make them as appealing as possible, which to me is the 2 teams with the best conference record. But if they went away tomorrow, I wouldn’t exactly attend a memorial service for them.
“If you have to have a CCG, then I think it makes sense to keep divisions in terms of explaining why you play the game. Otherwise, the game seems unnecessary to me. You had all season to figure out which team is better, and decent odds they already played head to head. I’m not sure there is a clear cut business case to do it one way or the other. I’m guessing it varies from conference to conference based on their needs and members.”
Here’s where we differ, because I view divisions as a less pure way of determining a champion, versus playing as many games as possible, without artificially defined opponents (absent a rivalry). I’ll refer you to what I wrote at the top of this reply.
“Which is part of the stupidity of a CCG. Some years it’s obvious who is #1. Not all Cinderellas may deserve it, sure, but you all but eliminate them entirely when you drop divisions. That’s a tough pill to swallow for teams that have very little chance of making the top 2.”
I don’t think its eliminated entirely, because division-free schedules could in fact generate a more favorable schedule for some teams. Also, Cinderellas going to CCG’s will have to at least have a baseline number of conference victories.
“Example: Conference X
W1 – 8-0, AP #3
W2 – 7-1, AP #8
W3 – 5-3, AP unranked
E1 – 6-2, AP #11
E2 – 5-3, AP #23
I would call E1 a close #3, in that they were almost as good as the #2 team but miss out on the CCG due to the lack of divisions. To me, that’s a difference case than a true Cinderella and I didn’t want to get accused of inflating my Cinderella numbers.”
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. It wasn’t clear if the close #3 referred to the the team in the CCG or the team left out of the CCG. It seems you mean the team in who otherwise without divisions would be out. I would agree that the E1 in that scenario would be a close call,
LikeLike
Scheduling? Did E1 play all, or any, of the others listed? Possible in non division format, impossible with divisions.
LikeLike
Wainscott:
The 13th game exception rule is specifically to decide a champion. That it also was discovered to be of significant monetary value by the SEC is a happy coincidence unrelated to the rule.
“…but as long as the participants are determined on the field, that’s not a concern of mine.”
Which can not happen unless you’re playing RR (or very close to it), which is impossible in the larger conferences. The SEC teams will miss five each year, the B1G will miss four when they move to nine conf games. Scheduling will heavily influence records – who you miss may decide championships. That isn’t my idea of deciding it on the field.
LikeLike
“Its not an invitational bowl game because teams would have to earn a spot in the game on the field.”
But they “earn” that spot by the same methods deemed too unreliable, and a 13th game was granted in order to resolve.
You seem to be stuck in the old way of thinking, i.e., that the NCAA oh-so-generously “grants you” the right to do something, instead of you running your business the way you see fit. Sure, some dumb decisions will be made, e.g., “Legends” and “Leaders”, which the rules allowed but was widely derided. Then the market punished them, and they changed. That’s generally how markets ought to work.
I do think there ought to be a limit on the length of the season, as there is in most sports, amateur or pro. But once you’ve allowed the 13th game in principle, then you ought to let the leagues qualify the participants in whatever wise or dumb way they come up with. If the ACC chooses an unwise system, they harm no one but themselves.
I also think the leagues would say, and they’d be right, that the existing rule has some serious drawbacks that probably weren’t anticipated when it was drafted. People are allowed to learn from experience, aren’t they? Rules do change from time to time.
There seems to be a logic disconnect here. And yes, you don’t think ambiguous rankings will be most often resolved (or a system created to resolve) in the traditional power’s favor?
I doubt it. Look at what the Big Ten did: three of its four kings are in one division, which creates great regular-season match-ups, but reduces the likelihood of a king v. king CCG. And the Big Ten’s rules for breaking ties within a division seem to me totally neutral. The rules don’t favor Ohio State over Rutgers. Obviously, for reasons we all know, Ohio State has far better chances of winning the division, but not because the tie-breaker is slanted their way.
Calling an “invitational bowl game” is just tendentious. They’re going to pick the teams with the two best records, and break ties with something like the system they already have for breaking ties. That’s not an “invitational.”
LikeLike
Transic,
“Remember that the B1G has already committed to playing particular conference games through 2019. I’m not familiar with how they changed schedules then but I have to think that if they want to change things it would be after that year, maybe even years after that. Eventually, they will change up but not after they get what they want out of increasing its profile in the eastern area through this last expansion.”
Theoretically they have a 36 year rotation, with the first 18 years featuring the better games more often (OSU/MI/PSU vs NE/WI/IA). Who knows when they plan to review that if more expansion doesn’t happen. I don’t foresee a time when the B10 won’t want to focus on the east coast. Those are two small football brands in big and growing markets, and would likely shrink back as soon as the big brands stop visiting so often.
“Certainly, RU and UMD would be relieved a bit to switch out for one year OSU and UM for Purdue and Northwestern.”
Not so long as they want to drive ticket sales and TV exposure.
“But what happens if the B1G West teams find out that it’s better that they get to the CCG by winning their division than wanting at least two of UM, OSU and PSU on the schedule? Should Minnesota want to vote for that change if they find out they get better exposure through qualifying to the CCG?”
I think it’ll be hard to match the exposure without playing the eastern kings more often. Look at next year’s night games – 2 to 1 in favor of the east. Maybe the top western schools will trade more titles for less exposure, but I don’t see MN/IL/PU doing that.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“On the flip side, to use the B1G as an example, Indiana, RU, and UMD will have, on balance, a much tougher time getting to the conference game than MN, because of the caliber of programs they must play every year. When you have a situation where divisions are uneven, but defined for off-field considerations (geography, simplicity) then it creates uneven schedules. A more round-robin (think B1G circa 1991-2011) with the 2 teams with the best conference record facing off will be more equitable over the long term. Doing away with divisions in this context could be a positive.”
Even with unbalanced divisions, I think the math favors IN winning the East versus being #1 or #2 overall. To win the East, they must top OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU and UMD. To be top 2, they have to top all but one of those plus all but one from the West. Winning the East is easier.
“I think if you’re gonna have them, make them as appealing as possible, which to me is the 2 teams with the best conference record.”
Whereas I prefer them to represent the winners of two subsets so there’s some logic to the game. I’d also ban rematches if I could.
“I don’t think its eliminated entirely, because division-free schedules could in fact generate a more favorable schedule for some teams.”
Not entirely, no, but topping 6 teams is easier than topping 12 of 13.
“Also, Cinderellas going to CCG’s will have to at least have a baseline number of conference victories.”
Fewer Cinderellas make for better title games to market, sure.
LikeLike
Marc:
“But once you’ve allowed the 13th game in principle…”
It is not allowed except by meeting specific conditions.
Are we back to advocating disregarding the governance of the organization a school/conference freely joined, just because “I want too”? Is the illusion of “free market” that seductive?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Scheduling? Did E1 play all, or any, of the others listed? Possible in non division format, impossible with divisions.”
It was just an example to explain my terminology and how I arrived at my numbers. I just looked at whether the same teams would have been in the title game without divisions (assuming their schedules and results stayed the same) as with divisions. When the lack of divisions would cost a team a shot at the title, I determined whether they were a true Cinderella (distant 3rd best team or worse) or if they just barely missed out on it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You seem to be stuck in the old way of thinking, i.e., that the NCAA oh-so-generously “grants you” the right to do something, instead of you running your business the way you see fit.”
They are part of the NCAA voluntarily and make up the NCAA, so they grant themselves the rights to do certain things and not others. Other things are completely at the discretion of the schools. These are in no way, shape or form purely independent businesses that happen to compete in a completely free market. Acting like they are is foolish.
“I do think there ought to be a limit on the length of the season, as there is in most sports, amateur or pro.”
There is – 12 games. There are exemptions for specific goods (encouraging teams to travel to HI, allowing very large leagues a way to determine a champion). They explicitly didn’t want 13 games across the board.
“If the ACC chooses an unwise system, they harm no one but themselves.”
Except, you know, the players that risk death or permanent disability playing in it. But they don’t really count.
“I also think the leagues would say, and they’d be right, that the existing rule has some serious drawbacks that probably weren’t anticipated when it was drafted.”
Yes, like a bunch of greedy I-A conferences hijacking a rule they knew was meant specifically to help out a D-II conference.
“Calling an “invitational bowl game” is just tendentious. They’re going to pick the teams with the two best records, and break ties with something like the system they already have for breaking ties. That’s not an “invitational.””
Strictly speaking, an invitational is any event only open to those invited, so it is an invitational. Since you aren’t specifying what the rules will be to choose the two teams (the market will decide, I assume), his description could be accurate (top 2 in BCS regardless of conference record, for example – I’ve seen that mentioned as a possible choice). Especially since teams play such different schedules that comparing their schedules is like comparing apples and oranges. I believe he mentally separates that from saying the game is for the winners of each division, which is determined by pure round robin play within the division.
My problem with his definition is that people also count the crossover games now, and that muddies the waters. Also, the divisional champion rules are just as arbitrary as the ones for picking two teams without divisions. If it was purely divisional record that determined the division champs and it was a rule that it had to be that, then I’d agree with him that there is a significant difference between the two methods and thus between the type of title games.
LikeLike
Brian:
I understand. My response was to point out additionally that a division less system reduces the certainty/reliability of standings. Comparing apples and oranges nationally “necessitated” the creation of systems (BCS, etc) that attempt to project results/rankings without actual games. A playoff was the solution. Now we reverse the thinking at the conference level?
LikeLike
Brian:
I agree that cross division games muddy the results. It gives it a feel of a non division setup, but with the assurance that you will have had the chance to face (put a loss) on every possible representative from your division. H to H is usually the first tiebreaker, or is it in division record? Either way you can’t get jumped over by someone you haven’t faced at all.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I agree that cross division games muddy the results. It gives it a feel of a non division setup, but with the assurance that you will have had the chance to face (put a loss) on every possible representative from your division. H to H is usually the first tiebreaker, or is it in division record? Either way you can’t get jumped over by someone you haven’t faced at all.”
True. But you can sweep the division and still not win it because your crossover schedule was much harder. That’s a problem to me.
Take the B10 East this year:
OSU – vs IL, @MN
RU – vs WI, @NE
RU could go 6-0 in the East and still not make the title game (7-1 trumps 6-2).
It’s why I think everyone decides their division winners incorrectly.
1. Division record
2. Head to head (wins weighted by location for 3+ teams – home = 0.75, road = 1.25, neutral = 1)
3. Record versus common opponents
4. Total conference record
5. Total record
6. Highest rated
To answer your question, most conferences go to head to head first right now.
LikeLike
Brian:
“True. But you can sweep the division and still not win it because your crossover schedule was much harder. That’s a problem to me.”
I agree, but I favor conference champs as the top playoff criteria, too. I’m not as concerned about the runners up, and if you “are” the best in your division (swept it) you had to have taken at least two losses cross division to get jumped by a team you beat. Your division’s rep will not likely prevail in the CCG. And if they do, maybe the conference shouldn’t be in the playoff. Or claim SEC like that all four places should be the conference’s. 🙂
LikeLike
“Even with unbalanced divisions, I think the math favors IN winning the East versus being #1 or #2 overall. To win the East, they must top OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, RU and UMD. To be top 2, they have to top all but one of those plus all but one from the West. Winning the East is easier.”
Not necessarily. IU with only Purdue as a locked opponent could get much easier schedules in years, or at the very least, schedules with only 1 king. They would only have to be top 2 in the conference in a 9 game schedule. Forcing them to play 3 kings and a prince every year will in most years be a more difficult schedule than 9 conference games without divisions, even with the fewer number of divisional games. IU would have an easier time in most years with a schedule of UMD, RU, PU, NWU, WI, MN, Iowa, Mich, and IL, than having OSU, MI, PSU, and MSU every year guaranteed.
“Whereas I prefer them to represent the winners of two subsets so there’s some logic to the game. I’d also ban rematches if I could.”
There would be logic to the game with the top 2 teams from the conference, as a more round-robin type schedule would be less arbitrary than divisions at determining the best two teams in the conference to play in the CCG (still arbitrary though, as it would depend on the schedule itself.)
I sympathize with you on the rematches, but that genie is out of the bottle.
“I don’t think its eliminated entirely, because division-free schedules could in fact generate a more favorable schedule for some teams.”
“Not entirely, no, but topping 6 teams is easier than topping 12 of 13.”
Just to be clear, they need to defeat most of all of the 6 division teams, whereas without divisions, they would only have to beat up to (or including) 9 conference foes. They would merely have to be in the top 2 in the standings, without regard for head-to-head competition. Yes, its definitely easier to win a smaller number of games, but then again, as you note in replies to others, divisions are not pure, isolated mini-conferences, but rather, inter-division games do count. All a division-less structure does is deregulate how the opponents on a schedule are determined.
To me, the division system has proven to create more problems, by rewarding weaker teams for merely being the least weak team in a division, or rewarding teams because the on-field division champ is ineligible for a conference title game.
LikeLike
“To me, the division system has proven to create more problems, by rewarding weaker teams for merely being the least weak team in a division, or rewarding teams because the on-field division champ is ineligible for a conference title game.”
1: The set up isn’t designed to place the second best in the CCG. It is to discover the best in conference. Whether the second best, or the top five are in one division is of no consequence to the best team winning the CCG.
2: The post season eligibility, or not, of any particular team is not a function of the rule and is also irrelevant to the rule’s purpose. See answer #1 for why.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I agree, but I favor conference champs as the top playoff criteria, too.”
As do I. I realize all solutions to this issue have problems. I’m willing to live with conference champs with more crossover losses. The overall record will factor into seeding the top 12 for the bowls.
“I’m not as concerned about the runners up, and if you “are” the best in your division (swept it) you had to have taken at least two losses cross division to get jumped by a team you beat. Your division’s rep will not likely prevail in the CCG. And if they do, maybe the conference shouldn’t be in the playoff.”
Which is what would happen – they’d get passed over by the over champs. I’d prefer that to the 7-1 team getting a shot at the title.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Not necessarily.”
When I said “top” I meant they have to finish ahead of them in the standings, not that they had to beat them head to head. Sorry for any confusion.
“IU with only Purdue as a locked opponent could get much easier schedules in years, or at the very least, schedules with only 1 king.”
Ignoring locked rivals, IN should expect to play 3 of the 4 kings every year on average (9 games out of 13 possible opponents times 4 kings = 9 * 4/13 = 36/13 = 2.77). Playing 0 or 1 should be quite rare. Even then, they’d still have to finish ahead of them (easier to do if you beat them).
“Forcing them to play 3 kings and a prince every year will in most years be a more difficult schedule than 9 conference games without divisions, even with the fewer number of divisional games.”
Math:
Kings: 9 games * 4 kings out of 13 teams = 36/13 = 2.77
Princes: 9 * 3 of 13 = 27/13 = 2.08
K: 3 + 3 * 1 of 7 = 3.43 kings
P: 1 + 3 * 2 of 7 = 1.86 princes
No divisions: 2.77 kings + 2.08 princes = 4.85 total
Divisions: 3.43 kings + 1.86 princes = 5.29 total
History shows that they can get a fluke year when 2+ kings are ineligible or bad or get upset, though, making the division an easier thing to win.
“There would be logic to the game with the top 2 teams from the conference,”
Not to me. The 9 games they played should be sufficient to pick the best of the bunch. We only get 12 or 13 to pick the best 4 out of 125+. Surely it’s easier to pick the best 1 of 14 from 9 games.
“Yes, its definitely easier to win a smaller number of games, but then again, as you note in replies to others, divisions are not pure, isolated mini-conferences, but rather, inter-division games do count.”
They don’t have to count. That’s at the discretion of the conferences.
“To me, the division system has proven to create more problems, by rewarding weaker teams for merely being the least weak team in a division, or rewarding teams because the on-field division champ is ineligible for a conference title game.”
Versus the old 11 team B10 days of co-champs and champs getting in by missing a better (higher ranked, anyway) team that had a harder schedule? There were triple co-champs in 2010, 2000 and 1998. And the occasional year with multiple #2 teams (1997 had 3, for example). They didn’t all play each other, so some tiebreaker is going to eliminate one of them and then the other 2 play for the title. I’d rather have 2 in one division be decided by head to head to face the other one.
There were also the years where there was an outright champ that beat #2 along the way (1994, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2009) or even lost but still finished ahead (1999, 2001, 2007) so no CCG is needed. Plus the years with co-champs that played head to head (2004, 2005, 2008) so no CCG is needed.
If the goal is to determine the champ, then any CCG is a bad choice. If you have to have one, divisions have fewer issues to me especially if you are wise enough to use division records to choose the champs.
LikeLike
“History shows that they can get a fluke year when 2+ kings are ineligible or bad or get upset, though, making the division an easier thing to win.”
But that would apply with the same force to a division-less system. Using your math, it will be easier without divisions both in general and also if one or more Kings are bad/ineligible.
The only ease from a division set up is the fewer number of games which enhances the likelihood of a fluke-y occurrences. But the averages would favor the lesser teams without divisions.
“Not to me. The 9 games they played should be sufficient to pick the best of the bunch. We only get 12 or 13 to pick the best 4 out of 125+. Surely it’s easier to pick the best 1 of 14 from 9 games.”
I agree with you regarding the need for CCG’s, but they are here to stay (for the most part).
“They don’t have to count. That’s at the discretion of the conferences.”
They don’t have to, but they do.
“Versus the old 11 team B10 days of co-champs and champs getting in by missing a better (higher ranked, anyway) team that had a harder schedule? There were triple co-champs in 2010, 2000 and 1998. And the occasional year with multiple #2 teams (1997 had 3, for example). They didn’t all play each other, so some tiebreaker is going to eliminate one of them and then the other 2 play for the title. I’d rather have 2 in one division be decided by head to head to face the other one.
There were also the years where there was an outright champ that beat #2 along the way (1994, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2009) or even lost but still finished ahead (1999, 2001, 2007) so no CCG is needed. Plus the years with co-champs that played head to head (2004, 2005, 2008) so no CCG is needed.”
No system is perfect. Teams were and will be screwed under any system. Watch that BTN documentary on the 1973 UM vs OSU to go to the Rose Bowl–far from perfect, indeed. I think a division-less set up decreases the odds of an undeserving Cinderella taking the place of a more deserving team merely because of the accident of division composition. But my division-less set up is by no means perfect.
“If the goal is to determine the champ, then any CCG is a bad choice. If you have to have one, divisions have fewer issues to me especially if you are wise enough to use division records to choose the champs.”
I think determining a conference champion is a secondary justification for a CCG to making money. Conferences managed to crown champs for decades without CCG’s. Making sure the best teams from that season are in the game are a way to maximize making money. A reasonable difference of opinion.
LikeLike
“1: The set up isn’t designed to place the second best in the CCG. It is to discover the best in conference. Whether the second best, or the top five are in one division is of no consequence to the best team winning the CCG.”
Yes it is, based on the team they face in the CCG.
“2: The post season eligibility, or not, of any particular team is not a function of the rule and is also irrelevant to the rule’s purpose. See answer #1 for why.”
What?
LikeLike
“Yes it is, based on the team they face in the CCG.”
No, it’s not. Unless winning the RR division (having already played and eliminated the possible second bests that are in division) means nothing.
Regarding post season in-eligibility in the other division, it doesn’t effect the ability to face the supposed second best in division RR play. It only effects who is CCG loser. And if Cinderella wins, I guess the prince (and those he eliminated) was unworthy.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“But that would apply with the same force to a division-less system. Using your math, it will be easier without divisions both in general and also if one or more Kings are bad/ineligible.”
Only if they insist on counting crossover games equally. The bottom teams could easily push to change that, and that would change the math.
“The only ease from a division set up is the fewer number of games which enhances the likelihood of a fluke-y occurrences.”
And schools like IN understand that a fluke year is their best shot at a title. The odds they actually put together the best team for a year are very small.
“They don’t have to, but they do.”
We’re discussing changing rules. Why not push to change that one instead?
As for the rest, we just plain disagree. I see more problems with no divisions and a CCG than divisions with a CCG. You see the opposite. Neither of us will convince the other.
“I think determining a conference champion is a secondary justification for a CCG to making money.”
Internally, yes. But externally, you need the champion determination to appear to be the driver. And for that, having divisions has better optics.
“Making sure the best teams from that season are in the game are a way to maximize making money.”
Actually, guaranteeing the biggest brands would probably get the most money from TV. Should the B10 just lock in The Game Redux as the CCG and ignore the season since that might maximize the money?
LikeLike
“Only if they insist on counting crossover games equally. The bottom teams could easily push to change that, and that would change the math.”
But if not, then no.
“And schools like IN understand that a fluke year is their best shot at a title. The odds they actually put together the best team for a year are very small.”
Schools don’t hope for a fluke year–they hope to build a good program. And if NWU can do it, IU has no excuse.
“We’re discussing changing rules. Why not push to change that one instead?”
They could, but if they eliminate divisions, its easier. And I prefer to consider less “what if’s” unless its a change that’s rumored as a possibility, as “what if’s” are virtually endless.
“As for the rest, we just plain disagree. I see more problems with no divisions and a CCG than divisions with a CCG. You see the opposite. Neither of us will convince the other.”
Fair enough. Agree to disagree.
“Internally, yes. But externally, you need the champion determination to appear to be the driver. And for that, having divisions has better optics.”
Yes re: determining a champion. No re: having divisions has better optics. Placing the two teams with the best records has the best optics IMO. We’ll agree to disagree on this point, too.
“Actually, guaranteeing the biggest brands would probably get the most money from TV. Should the B10 just lock in The Game Redux as the CCG and ignore the season since that might maximize the money?”
I know you don’t actually mean that, because you’ve had enough smart posts on here to demonstrate you have a grasp of the intricacies of these issues. Ties go to the better brands, but The Game II with 7-5 MI and 8-4 OSU would not generate championship buzz, have any impact on the forthcoming CFB, and generally make the B1G look silly. And would be a ratings dud. On the flip side. 12-0 OSU vs. 11-1 MI, where OSU is #2, and MI is #7, would be a ratings bonanza and generate considerable buzz re: winner being in the CFB playoffs. (Personally, I don’t like rematches any more than you do.)
LikeLike
“Yes it is, based on the team they face in the CCG.”
“No, it’s not. Unless winning the RR division (having already played and eliminated the possible second bests that are in division) means nothing.”
But it would not be a full RR, so no guarantee they would play in a regular season unless its a protected rivalry game. And if it is, then it is. Rematches are not ideal, but preferable to me than having undeserving teams luck into a CCG just because they were in the right division at the right time.
“Regarding post season in-eligibility in the other division, it doesn’t effect the ability to face the supposed second best in division RR play. It only effects who is CCG loser. And if Cinderella wins, I guess the prince (and those he eliminated) was unworthy.”
Yes it does, because but for the first place teams ineligibility, second place would not matter. If Cinderalla wins isn’t the point, because sometimes, Cinderella shouldn’t even have a shot.
LikeLike
“But it would not be a full RR, so no guarantee they would play in a regular season unless…”
I’m not sure I understand. By defination you are playing divisions because full RR in the whole conference is impossible without basically ending OOC. Division is RR, and the exemption for a 13th game is a regular season exemption. (CCG is a reg season game)
LikeLike
“I’m not sure I understand. By defination you are playing divisions because full RR in the whole conference is impossible without basically ending OOC. Division is RR, and the exemption for a 13th game is a regular season exemption. (CCG is a reg season game)”
I couldn’t tell due to the length of the thread if you were referring to a division or division-less set up in your prior comment.
I was trying to say that in a division-less set-up, teams are not guaranteed to play unless its a locked rivalry game because its not a full RR. Specifically, I meant Yes it is of consequence, because the CCG winner might not have actually faced the 2nd best team in the conference in the CCG, as opposed to the 3rd of 4th or 5th best team.
As for divisions, they are arbitrary groupings constituted in specific ways for reasons unrelated to on-field success (and in the few instances where they did correlate to on-field success at creation, it backfired on the division-makers). Relying on artificial sub-groupings just because they exist, and assuming the division winner is one of the 2 best teams in the conference simply because it was the best among an arbitrary sub-conference grouping playing round-robin to me seems less ideal than maximizing games between conference members as per a set schedule rotation. Some years, the CCG would be a rematch, but some years, those rematched teams might very well be the best two teams in a conference. Rematches are hardly ideal, but not the end of the world–and are possible even now based on cross-division schedules.
Divisions were just a tool to comply with the NCAA rules to holding a CCG. Notice that in basketball, where no such rule exists, most conferences did not implement a division set up, but rather use the entire conference schedule as a seeding exercise for the conference tourney. That MBB has more games is of no consequence, as most of the P5 had long since stopped having a true round-robin schedule even before the 2010 expansions, and the true prize of MBB, the double round robin, has been lost to expansion. Also, in CFB, The Pac had it until it expanded to 12, ACC I believe until taking Miami/BC/Va Tech, B1G had it for 1 or 2 years in the 1980’s but otherwise very infrequently had a true RR; B12 didn’t until they went down to 10 members, and that’s really because there are no schools good/valuable enough to merit going back up to 12.
If anything, the set up now isn’t designed to match the 2 beat teams in the conference, but rather the two top teams in the arbitrary divisions, ignoring the potential that the two best teams might be in the same division and/or that the two division winners even now could have also already played that season. I suspect that this is why conferences are seeking to do away with the requirement, to experiment with the conference as one division–like it used to be.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“If anything, the set up now isn’t designed to match the 2 beat teams in the conference, but rather the two top teams in the arbitrary divisions, ignoring the potential that the two best teams might be in the same division and/or that the two division winners even now could have also already played that season.”
They know that one of the following is true:
1. The two best teams are in the same division, in which case they’ve already played and we presumably know which is better. Even if the 7 best teams are in the same division, they have already played.
2. The two best teams are in opposite divisions, in which case they might not have played.
Given that, they chose to force #1 to play the champion of the other divisions, reducing the likelihood of a rematch and giving every team with a claim to be #1 a shot at the top ranked team. It also helps prevent bias from keeping a team out of the CCG.
LikeLike
“and giving every team with a claim to be #1 a shot at the top ranked team.”
That’s an overstatement, because head to head is not the sole means of determining the best team for CCG purposes. A Minny 1-7 (or even 6-2) in conference that upset 7-1, first place OSU, does not have any claim to the CCG..The best team is not solely determined by head to head play, but by a conference body of work.
It also helps prevent bias from keeping a team out of the CCG.”
Any bias would apply in equal force in either format. Bias could only enter in in the form of some lower tiebreaker based on BCS or other similar rankings. Applies the same in division and presumably in division-less, which would have conference record the first criteria. I base that presumption on how most conferences have determined division winners as tie-breakers. There is no reason to assume that tie breakers would change all that much without divisions (other than, of course, eliminating the division-winner aspect)
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“That’s an overstatement, because head to head is not the sole means of determining the best team for CCG purposes.”
But it is the top tiebreaker and most fans believe that a head to head loser has no right to complain. And while it’s mathematically wrong, CFB values head to head in determining the better team more than probably any team sport. Besides, division play assures 5 common opponents while no divisions could lead to many fewer. Comparison against common opponents is one of the other main ways to judge how good teams are.
“Any bias would apply in equal force in either format.”
No, it wouldn’t. Division play provides more quality tiebreakers before getting to rankings. Non-division play has overall record, head to head and common opponents before things get weird.
LikeLike
“But it is the top tiebreaker and most fans believe that a head to head loser has no right to complain. And while it’s mathematically wrong, CFB values head to head in determining the better team more than probably any team sport. Besides, division play assures 5 common opponents while no divisions could lead to many fewer. Comparison against common opponents is one of the other main ways to judge how good teams are.
No, it wouldn’t. Division play provides more quality tiebreakers before getting to rankings. Non-division play has overall record, head to head and common opponents before things get weird.”
Then again, its what conferences did for decades until the rise of divisions. http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/102204aad.html
Its not a stretch to think conferences might revert back to how they used to determine champions, but instead of champions determining the top 2 for the CCG purposes.
LikeLike
“Then again, its what conferences did for decades until the rise of divisions.”
Right up until conferences recognized they were unable to legitimately decide a champ beyond a certain size and a solution was created. Complete RR in divisions with champs playing off.
LikeLike
“Right up until conferences recognized they were unable to legitimately decide a champ beyond a certain size and a solution was created. Complete RR in divisions with champs playing off.”
No. CCG’s were designed, as implemented by the FBS schools, was a means to make money and increase tv exposure. They split into divisions only because NCAA rules required it. Without such rules, I highly doubt divisions, and all the issues they caused and cause within conferences regarding rivalries, scheduling, and so forth, would have been done. MBB does not have divisions, because they were not required to, even though expansion cost all leagues double round robin schedules. (As I detailed in my post above).
LikeLike
Almost all 12 & up conferences originally had divisions. CUSA had 3-red, white and blue. They have gradually abandoned them in order to have more flexible scheduling. SEC only abandoned them with the move to 14 and Alabama winning the west and failing to make the NCAA tourney.
LikeLike
“No. CCG’s were designed, as implemented by the FBS schools, was a means to make money and increase tv exposure.”
So? There is only one reason or motivation possible in taking advantage of a per existing rule, and another reason invalidates the original? They can’t coexist?
The fact a CCG is marketable for power conferences, and may have influenced them moving to 12 doesn’t change the fact of how and why the 12 game limitation exemption was created and exists at all.
LikeLike
“So? There is only one reason or motivation possible in taking advantage of a per existing rule, and another reason invalidates the original? They can’t coexist?
The fact a CCG is marketable for power conferences, and may have influenced them moving to 12 doesn’t change the fact of how and why the 12 game limitation exemption was created and exists at all.”
Bottom Line: The powers that be feel the need to consider doing away with divisions, and are seeking flexibility to do just they if they desire. They would not need to even consider this option if divisions were working that well.
LikeLike
“I was just expanding on the point because it sounded like you thought we meant something other than that based on your response. I’m not saying having more Cinderellas is a sufficient reason to keep divisions, I was just pointing out how many of them have gotten a shot under the old rules and how different the attitude is between the two major sports. For middle tier and lower schools (IN, MN, etc), it’s certainly a reason to consider voting against dropping divisions, which is what I believe ccrider55 was saying.”
Cinderellas have definitely gotten a better shot with divisions. That’s true. And some of the mid-level or worse schools might consider that when debating whether or not to eliminate divisions. On the flip side, to use the B1G as an example, Indiana, RU, and UMD will have, on balance, a much tougher time getting to the conference game than MN, because of the caliber of programs they must play every year. When you have a situation where divisions are uneven, but defined for off-field considerations (geography, simplicity) then it creates uneven schedules. A more round-robin (think B1G circa 1991-2011) with the 2 teams with the best conference record facing off will be more equitable over the long term. Doing away with divisions in this context could be a positive.
“There is room for plenty of different opinions on how best to determine a champion. I happen to prefer no divisions with as many games as is practical (9 based on the current rules) but no CCG.
I think the negatives of a CCG (unnecessary game, rematches, upsets that spoil national title chances, injuries, etc) trump the positives (money).”
We’re actually in agreement here, in that CCG’s are far from the best way to determine a champion. I don’t like it for the same reasons I don’t like the 4 team playoff, namely that it places too much weight on 1 or two games, devaluing a broader body of work. I think if you’re gonna have them, make them as appealing as possible, which to me is the 2 teams with the best conference record. But if they went away tomorrow, I wouldn’t exactly attend a memorial service for them.
“If you have to have a CCG, then I think it makes sense to keep divisions in terms of explaining why you play the game. Otherwise, the game seems unnecessary to me. You had all season to figure out which team is better, and decent odds they already played head to head. I’m not sure there is a clear cut business case to do it one way or the other. I’m guessing it varies from conference to conference based on their needs and members.”
Here’s where we differ, because I view divisions as a less pure way of determining a champion, versus playing as many games as possible, without artificially defined opponents (absent a rivalry). I’ll refer you to what I wrote at the top of this reply.
“Which is part of the stupidity of a CCG. Some years it’s obvious who is #1. Not all Cinderellas may deserve it, sure, but you all but eliminate them entirely when you drop divisions. That’s a tough pill to swallow for teams that have very little chance of making the top 2.”
I don’t think its eliminated entirely, because division-free schedules could in fact generate a more favorable schedule for some teams. Also, Cinderellas going to CCG’s will have to at least have a baseline number of conference victories.
“Example: Conference X
W1 – 8-0, AP #3
W2 – 7-1, AP #8
W3 – 5-3, AP unranked
E1 – 6-2, AP #11
E2 – 5-3, AP #23
I would call E1 a close #3, in that they were almost as good as the #2 team but miss out on the CCG due to the lack of divisions. To me, that’s a difference case than a true Cinderella and I didn’t want to get accused of inflating my Cinderella numbers.”
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification. It wasn’t clear if the close #3 referred to the the team in the CCG or the team left out of the CCG. It seems you mean the team in who otherwise without divisions would be out. I would agree that the E1 in that scenario would be a close call,
LikeLike
“But once you’ve allowed the 13th game in principle…”
It is not allowed except by meeting specific conditions.
Now, but apparently not for long. I’m simply suggesting a reason why the presidents would would see those conditions as outdated—which they apparently do.
Are we back to advocating disregarding the governance of the organization a school/conference freely joined, just because “I want too”?
No member I’m aware of has suggested disregarding governance. Many members seem to believe the structure they have is the wrong one. I am providing what strikes me as a plausible explanation for why that would be the case.
LikeLike
“No member I’m aware of has suggested disregarding governance.”
Maybe not a member, but a supporter seems to have.
“You seem to be stuck in the old way of thinking, i.e., that the NCAA oh-so-generously “grants you” the right to do something, instead of you running your business the way you see fit.”
LikeLike
“Many members seem to believe the structure they have is the wrong one.”
They are so adamant that they continue to make incremental changes within the structure rather than leaving individually, or as a group to form another organization.
LikeLike
“You seem to be stuck in the old way of thinking, i.e., that the NCAA oh-so-generously “grants you” the right to do something, instead of you running your business the way you see fit.”
Exactly what the members now are de-legislating.
They are so adamant that they continue to make incremental changes within the structure rather than leaving individually, or as a group to form another organization.
You are right that they haven’t sucked badly enough to detonate the whole thing, but the changes now under discussion strike me as a secular shift that occurs once a generation, or so, rather than incremental ones.
LikeLike
They are part of the NCAA voluntarily and make up the NCAA, so they grant themselves the rights to do certain things and not others. Other things are completely at the discretion of the schools. These are in no way, shape or form purely independent businesses that happen to compete in a completely free market. Acting like they are is foolish.
Acting like sports are different is foolish. All businesses are regulated in various ways. Sentiments towards or against regulation change over time. The mood is now de-regulatory. I picked on the word “grant”, because it smells of the old thinking that the presidents are now rejecting.
They explicitly didn’t want 13 games across the board.
Yes, at the time. People are allowed to change their minds.
“If the ACC chooses an unwise system, they harm no one but themselves.”
Except, you know, the players that risk death or permanent disability playing in it. But they don’t really count.
If they cared about that, then why has the length of the season continuously expanded throughout our lifetimes? In my early childhood, the length of the regular season was 9 games, and in the Big Ten no team but the conference champion went to a bowl game. Since then, they have expanded the regular season by 33%, allowed all teams with non-losing records to go bowling, licensed many more bowls than existed before, added a CCG in most FBS leagues, and starting this year, added an extra playoff round.
Compared to those changes, this one is a trivial detail, since the ACC is clearly going to play a CCG no matter what method is used to select its participants. And if you tell the Big XII they can’t have one, all they’ll do is poach other conferences to get up to 12 teams. One way or another, the game is eventually going to be played.
“I also think the leagues would say, and they’d be right, that the existing rule has some serious drawbacks that probably weren’t anticipated when it was drafted.”
Yes, like a bunch of greedy I-A conferences hijacking a rule they knew was meant specifically to help out a D-II conference.
I am shocked—shocked!—to hear that there is greed in college sports. If a majority thought it was so terrible, they could have outlawed it. Instead, they are liberalizing it.
“Calling an “invitational bowl game” is just tendentious.
Strictly speaking, an invitational is any event only open to those invited, so it is an invitational.
Well, by that definition the World Series is an “invitational,” which is a term no one would use for such an event.
LikeLike
“Well, by that definition the World Series is an “invitational,” which is a term no one would use for such an event.”
I would. Are the Orix Blue Wave getting in the World Series, even if they go undefeated?
Your “deregulatory” mood seems not to extend much beyond the ACC. B12 might, or might not hold one if all requirements (i.e. 12 teams necessary), but it still wouldn’t pay for expanding to 12. The SEC, B1G, and PAC are not being hurt more than helped by the current rule. Abandoning divisions won’t increase the number of games being played. It simply introduces a level of uncertainty and ambiguity into each season through not knowing where the “goal posts” are.
LikeLike
“Well, by that definition the World Series is an “invitational,” which is a term no one would use for such an event.”
I would. Are the Orix Blue Wave getting in the World Series, even if they go undefeated?
Humpty-Dumpty could make words mean whatever he wanted them to mean, but the rest of us don’t have that privilege. An “invitational” is an event where someone exercises their discretion to “invite” you. It doesn’t apply to an event where you qualify automatically by having met previously established criteria.
Your “deregulatory” mood seems not to extend much beyond the ACC.
When I refer to a “deregulatory” mood, I mean a mood towards having less regulation, which is a view all the major conferences share, and not just on this issue. It means that on a wide range of questions, each league will make its own decision, and there will be less uniformity. Whether that’s good or bad could be debated, but there’s no denying that’s the direction they are going.
Both Bowlsby and Swofford have said publicly that they’ve canvassed many other conferences, and they are seeing no opposition to their proposal. That’s no guarantee: Emmert thought full cost of attendance was going to pass the last time it came up, and it didn’t. But that’s what they’re saying.
Why are the other leagues saying yes? Perhaps they want the option to implement the ACC’s idea in the future. Maybe they’re throwing a bone to the ACC on an issue of no consequence to them, in hopes of getting the ACC’s votes on something else that matters more. Or maybe they are just being intellectually coherent: recognizing philosophically that the model was broken, and the NCAA simply shouldn’t be micromanaging its members to the extent it formerly did.
The SEC, B1G, and PAC are not being hurt more than helped by the current rule.
The ACC’s logic could very well apply to the SEC, as they likewise have an 8-game schedule and locked rivals across divisions, which means some teams meet each other only very rarely. And remember, they’re taking the long view. All of these conferences might expand, and with 16 teams other leagues could have the same problem.
Abandoning divisions won’t increase the number of games being played. It simply introduces a level of uncertainty and ambiguity into each season through not knowing where the “goal posts” are.
How would you not know? There will be a qualification rule established in advance. That’s the way it works in every sport I have ever heard of.
LikeLike
“Why are the other leagues saying yes?”
So…not expressing rejection of an idea that isn’t yet even a formal proposal, during informal talks = support? It’s amazing how many things I disagree with you’d said I actually “supported” by being informal and polite.
“How would you not know? There will be a qualification rule established in advance. That’s the way it works in every sport I have ever heard of.”
Because a BCS lite model won’t be able to tell you what doing X, Y, and Z during the season will be worth at the end. As opposed to a win and you’re in bracket/division elimination model.
“It means that on a wide range of questions, each league will make its own decision, and there will be less uniformity.”
On what other issue (and this one isn’t yet formulated enough to truly know what might be offered officially) is a change/deregulation proposed that would not apply to all P5 conferences, and even to all of D1 if they choose?
Schools have always had the right to not meet the maximum threshold of scholarships, aid, #of coaches, etc. if they so chose. But they all have to not exceed the rules/limitations. What other rules will be waived, left to the discretion of the conferences? The APR regulations? Oops, that’s getting more stringent. Entrance requirements? I don’t foresee the clearing house becoming a turnstile for specific conferences. Stricter imitations on time of, duration, and even type of practice allowed isn’t exactly deregulatory. Probable mandates regarding injury treatment and prevention, as well as mandating type/length of coverage athletes may (probably must) be afforded in P5 are coming from this “deregulation” period.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Acting like sports are different is foolish.”
No, it’s respecting reality. MLB has an anti-trust exemption. The NFL let’s 32 billion dollar businesses work together on almost everything. Same with other leagues and the NCAA. As leagues, they are essentially monopolies. Where is the equivalent in the rest of the business world? Utilities maybe?
“If they cared about that,”
If they didn’t, why did they set the limit at 12 instead of 40? Why is so much effort being put in to reduce concussions, including significant rule changes, and get better medical treatment for the players?
“In my early childhood, the length of the regular season was 9 games,”
No, it wasn’t. The B10 played fewer games than most. Just from the national champs, I can find teams that played 11+ games in every decade since the 1920s.
“And if you tell the Big XII they can’t have one, all they’ll do is poach other conferences to get up to 12 teams.”
Recent history shows otherwise. They have refused to expand just to get that game. They have also talked repeatedly about not playing one even if they could. They even talked about dropping it back when they had 12 teams.
“Well, by that definition the World Series is an “invitational,” which is a term no one would use for such an event.”
No, because the MLB playoffs determine the two teams in the series. The MLB playoffs might be called an invitational though, especially by the Japanese champion. Unlike an open competition where any team can earn their way in.
LikeLike
“Why are the other leagues saying yes?”
So…not expressing rejection of an idea that isn’t yet even a formal proposal, during informal talks = support?
For the purposes of the present discussion, I am assuming that what Swofford and Bowlsby said was true. They are talking to their colleagues; we are not. I did acknowledge the possibility that it could turn out otherwise. My recollection is that when NCAA rules proposals fail, there are clear signs beforehand that it is controversial, via other schools’ public comments. I cannot find that in this case, and two prominent insiders say it has broad support.
“It means that on a wide range of questions, each league will make its own decision, and there will be less uniformity.”
On what other issue. . .is a change/deregulation proposed that would not apply to all P5 conferences, and even to all of D1 if they choose?
Full cost-of-attendance scholarships is an example that has been mentioned. Looser regulations on what can be paid for in recruiting trips. Broader health insurance coverage. Meals for walk-ons (I think that one already passed). The list goes on. I think it is likely that all or most of the P5 will immediately go up to the maximums, whatever they may be. The others might not. Full cost of attendance already failed once, so clearly there are some schools that don’t want to do it.
Schools have always had the right to not meet the maximum threshold of scholarships, aid, #of coaches, etc. if they so chose.
How many FBS teams you can name have chosen voluntarily to have fewer coaches? Occasionally schools are below the scholarship limit because of attrition, or because they can’t find the right athlete and choose to bank it for later. I can’t think of any case where they just said, “We’re going to do 60 rather than 85, because don’t need/can’t afford 85.”
I do realize that these are technically all maximums, and anyone can choose voluntarily to do less. How much of that is going on, aside from the Ivy League?
But they all have to not exceed the rules/limitations. What other rules will be waived, left to the discretion of the conferences? The APR regulations? Oops, that’s getting more stringent. Entrance requirements? I don’t foresee the clearing house becoming a turnstile for specific conferences.
I don’t either. The deregulatory mood is around things not involving academic qualifications and safety.
LikeLike
“Acting like sports are different is foolish.”
No, it’s respecting reality. MLB has an anti-trust exemption. The NFL let’s 32 billion dollar businesses work together on almost everything. Same with other leagues and the NCAA. As leagues, they are essentially monopolies. Where is the equivalent in the rest of the business world? Utilities maybe?
Each NFL team is a franchise. When you join, you have to obey certain rules, whereas in certain other matters you have the freedom to run your business. Many industries regulate themselves (e.g., the securities industry, the real-estate industry).
“If they cared about that…”
If they didn’t, why did they set the limit at 12 instead of 40?
Because they want to ensure that the players actually have time for an education. All the NCAA sports have such limits, even those that are not especially known for significant injuries.
The number of football games played has been steadily increasing, and it appears you do not deny that. So it seems peculiar to object in this case, when we are talking about a game that is already scheduled and is going to be played no matter what. All that would change is the comparatively minor detail of how they choose which two teams are in it.
Why is so much effort being put in to reduce concussions, including significant rule changes, and get better medical treatment for the players?
Obviously, they want to make the sport safe. But safety has apparently NOT been such a concern that it stood in the way extending the season over and over again.
“In my early childhood, the length of the regular season was 9 games,”
No, it wasn’t. The B10 played fewer games than most. Just from the national champs, I can find teams that played 11+ games in every decade since the 1920s.
Sorry…I didn’t clarify that I was referring to the Big Ten. So yeah, in the Big Ten the number of games per year has gone from maximum 10 (and only two could play that many) to maximum 16 (if you play at Hawaii, reach the CCG, and also reach the NCG), with all of the league playing at least 12, generally more than half playing 13, and at least two playing 14 or possibly 15.
“And if you tell the Big XII they can’t have one, all they’ll do is poach other conferences to get up to 12 teams.”
Recent history shows otherwise. They have refused to expand just to get that game. They have also talked repeatedly about not playing one even if they could.
What they’ve said is that they “currently” have no such plans. Remember, the B1G “currently” had no expansion plans; then, they went out and added Maryland and Rutgers. That the Big XII is co-sponsoring the ACC proposal seems meaningful to me.
The MLB playoffs might be called an invitational though, especially by the Japanese champion. Unlike an open competition where any team can earn their way in.
An open is a competition where, no matter who you are, if you meet certain criteria, you’re in. It is clear-cut: you do certain things, and you get to play. No invitation required. An invitational is a competition where someone just decides to invite you. There might be criteria as to who can be invited (e.g., bowl teams have to be bowl-eligible), but meeting those criteria is no assurance of an invitation.
The MLB playoffs aren’t open (since they are limited to MLB franchises). But they aren’t an invitational either (the criteria are clear-cut and don’t require anyone to “invite” you).
LikeLike
Marc:
None of the examples you give grant power to conferences to do business as they see fit.
Swaford and Bowlsby did not say they received support, only that they hadn’t heard resistance. Significant difference.
There are a number of schools who haven’t had the full compliment of coaches, though not in P5 recently. Many schools lose a bundle on FB and watch costs. However, there is coming an increase in regulation regarding “non coach” staff. The biggies now have more personnel than players on the sidelines (I exaggerate…sort of). USC didn’t use all their available scholarships each year during sanctions because it was more important to be positive it’s comparatively increased value was being properly used. It was better to save it for potential future use if unsure. And, again, max limits are the norm. Where is the competitive advantage in being under?
LikeLike
It’s not going to be played anyway, unless qualified for. And maybe not then according to the B12.
“All that would change is the comparatively minor detail of how they choose which two teams are in it.”
Yea, that minor detail that addresses the reasoning/need for an exception to the 12 game limit, and provides the requirements for the acceptable solution. Minor indeed…
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Each NFL team is a franchise. When you join, you have to obey certain rules, whereas in certain other matters you have the freedom to run your business.”
Just like the NCAA.
“Many industries regulate themselves (e.g., the securities industry, the real-estate industry).”
Yes, but they actually compete with each other. Sports teams are much more limited in the ways they are allowed to compete (roster caps, payroll caps, staff size caps, time limitations, season restrictions, etc). That’s why sports are different.
“Because they want to ensure that the players actually have time for an education. All the NCAA sports have such limits, even those that are not especially known for significant injuries.”
So allowing 1 or 2 more games shows they don’t care, but imposing a strict limit in the first place is meaningless? How convenient for you.
“The number of football games played has been steadily increasing, and it appears you do not deny that.”
It has changed a little over a long period of time, sure. Not nearly as much as you say, though. The B10 champ has generally played 11+ games since the mid-60s, and 12+ since the mid-70s. For most schools, the limit now is 13. Hardly a huge change in 40+ years.
“when we are talking about a game that is already scheduled and is going to be played no matter what.”
Which we aren’t, necessarily. The B12 hasn’t played a CCG in years and has no current plans to play one in the future.
“Obviously, they want to make the sport safe. But safety has apparently NOT been such a concern that it stood in the way extending the season over and over again.”
They didn’t have the data on the impact if head injuries back when most of those decisions were made. It’s unfair to act as if they had today’s knowledge 40 years ago.
“Sorry…I didn’t clarify that I was referring to the Big Ten. So yeah, in the Big Ten the number of games per year has gone from maximum 10 (and only two could play that many) to maximum 16 (if you play at Hawaii, reach the CCG, and also reach the NCG), with all of the league playing at least 12, generally more than half playing 13, and at least two playing 14 or possibly 15.”
Again you are stretching the truth. The B10 champ has generally played 11+ games since the mid-60s. The odds of either team playing in the NCG also playing at HI are fairly slim, too (they realistically host at most 2 AQ teams per year, generally not the top brands). Heck, the odds of playing at HI and in a CCG are pretty slim. So really you’re looking at a cap of 2 schools playing 15 games (12 + CCG, semi, NCG) with a handful playing 14 (12 + HI/CCG + bowl) and another 60? playing 13. The rest of the 128 or so I-A teams play only 12.
But those teams aren’t all B10 teams, and other conferences have been playing more games for a long time. That’s making an apples and oranges comparison to favor your position.
Games played in 1946-1980 (35 years)
1. AL 393 = 11.2 per year on average
…
17. UK 370 = 10.6 per year (only 5 bowls, so 365 regular season games)
…
74. MI 352 = 10.0 per year (most in B10)
…
91. IN 343 = 9.8 per year
Even bad teams have been paying 11 games for a long time.
Games played in 1999-2013 (15 years)
1. OU 199 = 13.3 per year on average
…
3. WI 195 = 13.0 per year (most in B10)
…
80. NMSU 180 = 12.0 per year (all regular season games)
…
107. IN 176 = 11.7 games per year
So B10 teams may have added 2-3 games per year, but most others have added only 1.5-2 games over a very long period.
“What they’ve said is that they “currently” have no such plans.”
And they talked about dropping it back when they had 12 teams. They have consistently had a lot of negative opinions about a CCG for several years. Pretending otherwise is foolish.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Really hope this leads to the end of divisions in all 14 team leagues. Doubt it will though.”
So do I, on both counts.
ACC – All they’ve said so far is that they’d like to not do a full round robin, skipping 1 team instead. Given the freedom, they might prefer to eschew divisions, though. I don’t know if they see an upside to having divisions in terms of keeping certain schools together.
B10 – I think they might stick with the divisions, but locking 4-5 games would work better. They made a big deal about getting OSU, MI and PSU to all play at RU and UMD a lot, so they need almost the whole East kept together. Because of all the locked games between eastern kings, I’m not sure if they see a 1 vs 2 CCG as any better than a E1 vs W1 game.
SEC – I have to think they’d drop divisions like a hot potato. They clearly want to preserve historic rivalries while only playing 8 SEC games. Locking multiple rivals (3-4) is clearly the best approach for them, especially since their rivalries don’t split cleanly. Besides, the appeal of 1 vs 2 seems strongest to them.
And just because:
P12 – I think 3 locked pods works best for them in scheduling (NW, CA and SW). A 3-3-3 schedule would give everyone equal CA access without losing any rivalries.
B12 – I’m not convinced they’d add a CCG. They’ve said a lot of negative things about them even back when they played one. Until they lose a playoff spot over it, I think they’ll stay at 12 games.
LikeLike
Brian – I don’t think the SEC would drop the divisions, and I’m not sure even LSU would be in favor of that. The reward for a great season and beating Bama in Tuscaloosa is playing them again a month later in Atlanta? I don’t think so. Rematches aren’t very common in the SEC CG, but they’d be very common with division-less play.
Also, the SEC has 22 years of history with divisional play and ten of the 14 teams are fine with the way things are.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Brian – I don’t think the SEC would drop the divisions,”
Fair enough. You have a better feel for it than me.
“and I’m not sure even LSU would be in favor of that. The reward for a great season and beating Bama in Tuscaloosa is playing them again a month later in Atlanta? I don’t think so. Rematches aren’t very common in the SEC CG, but they’d be very common with division-less play.”
Really? It would mean more balanced schedules for everyone. I know the SEC has a history of not playing all the other schools frequently, but wouldn’t 5 locked schools and 3 games rotating through the other 8 be an improvement? Or even 6 locked and 2 rotating? Everyone could keep all their rivals/neighbors while still seeing everyone else more often.
“Also, the SEC has 22 years of history with divisional play and ten of the 14 teams are fine with the way things are.”
I don’t really think 10 of 14 are fine with things as is, they just prefer the status quo over going to 9 games or dropping the locked rivals.
Besides, the SEC fans have always seemed the most vehement about pitting 1 vs 2 regardless of whether they won a championship. Wouldn’t they have wanted an LSU/AL rematch in 2011 rather than UGA getting blown out? If LSU wins again, AL is out of the national title chase but if AL wins then the rubber match is for the national title.
LikeLike
DOE announces 55 schools currently under investigation for possible violation of federal sexual violence and harassment laws. Notre Dame, Montana and Missouri are apparently done and aren’t on the list. PSU, Ohio St. Michigan, Indiana and Chicago are on the list.
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-list-higher-eductaion-institutions-open-title-i
Its part of an effort to publicize the issue. Recent survey showed 20% of college females get raped and only 12% of those are reported.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is far from in the clear on this issue, even if its not one of the 55 schools under investigation:
http://deadspin.com/5897809/this-is-what-happens-when-you-accuse-a-notre-dame-football-player-of-sexually-assaulting-you
LikeLike
And the DOE IX investigation winners are the B1G (IU, MI, MSU, OSU, PSU) and P12 with 5 schools each. ACC had 3 (NC, VA, FSU), SEC 1 (Vanderbilt) and B12 1 (Ok St).
LikeLike
University athletics spread sheet provided by the 4-letter network: (year was not given on the page but I’m going to assume 2012-13, since this academic year isn’t over yet)
https://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp?appSession=714451675354978&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=asc&CPIorderby=Money_from_ticket_sales
Just the Big 10:
Revenues
Wisconsin – $149,141,405
Michigan – $143,514,125
Ohio State – $139,639,307
Iowa – $107,153,782
Penn State – $104,751,464
Minnesota – $98,286,669
Michigan State – $97,942,726
Nebraska – $86,916,001
Illinois – $79,725,521
Indiana – $76,660,265
Purdue – $72,379,392
Northwestern – $66,413,894
Rutgers – $78,989,475
Maryland – $63,714,470
Expenses
Wisconsin – $146,659,187
Michigan – $131,018,311
Ohio State – $116,026,329
Penn State – $110,737,200
Iowa – $106,969,227
Minnesota – $96,427,632
Michigan State – $93,743,529
Nebraska – $81,666,269
Illinois – $78,667,480
Purdue – $74,628,002
Indiana – $72,597,053
Northwestern – $66,413,894
Rutgers – $78,989,475
Maryland – $63,367,929
LikeLike
Excellent find! This is fascinating stuff!
Wisky has some bills/expenses to pay, wow! But is also second in total revenues. Not the school I would have guessed to have the 2nd highest total revenue on this chart.
When it comes to ticket sales, there is Texas, OSU, and everyone else.
Tennessee gets a surprisingly large university subsidy.
VA, UMD, and RU all get millions from student fees, with FSU a few mil behind it.
LikeLike
Tennessee has said in the past that at least some of the reported subsidy is the result of deferred payments as opposed to true financial support, but the athletic department has gotten into big budget problems recently.
Also, Rutgers leads the nation in university subsidy by a massive margin.
LikeLike
Yes, RU does, but I thought I remember reading that it was a 1 or two year thing, at least for the subsidy of that size. I could be wrong though.
LikeLike
frug,
“Also, Rutgers leads the nation in university subsidy by a massive margin.”
http://espn.go.com/espn/notebook/_/id/10852077/fbs-school-spending-2012-2013-espn-magazine
By amount, yes, but FIU gets 69% of their budget from student fees.
LikeLike
Is Wisconsin in the middle of a capital campaign? Their donations dwarf even the mighty Texas.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10851446/sports-programs-nation-top-public-colleges-thrived-economic-downturn-earning-record-revenues
LikeLike
ACC/B1G 2014-15 basketball challenge games:
http://college-basketball.si.com/2014/05/01/duke-wisconsin-syracuse-michigan-acc-big-ten-challenge-matchups/
You should figure out right away which team is left out
LikeLike
Spoiler: BC left out (which is interesting because I would have thought ESPN would want BC for tv viewers in Boston).
Man, 2 of those match-ups are in the wrong sport (UNL vs FSU, Va Tech vs. PSU).
Are the match-ups still linked to the previous year’s standings (ACC 1 plays B1G 1, etc…) or can ESPN now sidestep that when scheduling the games?
LikeLike
BC finished above VT in the conference but VT had more overall wins. I think BC-RU would be a better match-up. There would more interest on both sides. The question then is who plays Clemson. I would slot in Nebraska, as they both have similar players. However, you’d mess up the home games of PSU and FSU.
Ultimately, I think it’s E-Spin wanting to showcase Buzz Williams that tipped it for VT.
LikeLike
I remember after the ‘Cuse and Pitt additions but before the Maryland and Rutgers moves, that the ACC said that they would determine who was left out of the challenge strictly based on the previous year’s RPI. No idea if that is still the plan though.
LikeLike
Not surprising that they chose to extend the challenge to 3 days, but the fact they are kicking the thing off with the 2 worst games (Nebraska/FSU and Rutgers/Clemson) seems a little strange.
LikeLike
Only reason I can think of is that other conferences (Big East, B12) also have games on Monday nights, and ESPN broadcasts Monday Night Football, whereas the Challenge has less sports programming competition on Tuesday and Wed nights.
LikeLike
http://sports.omaha.com/2014/04/30/recruiting-the-long-dark-march-through-2010-big-ten-recruiting-classes/#.U2Kpwlev_0S
The 2010 recruiting class helps explain the B10’s recent doldrums.
LikeLike
From Joe Schad’s twitter:
“Jeff Long says it’s not most DESERVING teams, but the focus is the BEST four teams that shall get into the bracket”
Is that the right choice? Should they try to pick the 4 best teams or the 4 teams that have achieved the most?
LikeLike
Unquestionably I think it should be most deserving. The wins and losses should directly determine who goes there.
LikeLike
That would be my preference as well. I think a committee has better odds of correctly determining how deserving teams are than how good they actually are. On the other hand, the best team could play an easy schedule and still should make the playoff.
LikeLike
http://intermatwrestle.com/articles/13212
Wrestling recruiting class rankings for 2014.
1. Penn State
2. Oklahoma State
3. Cornell
4. Ohio State
5. Northwestern
6. Nebraska
7. Iowa
8. Illinois
9. Stanford
10. Michigan
11. Oklahoma
12. Minnesota
13. Iowa State
14. Virginia
15. North Carolina
16. Virginia Tech
17. Indiana
18. Bucknell
19. Lehigh
20. Maryland
21. Old Dominion
22. Utah Valley
23. Wisconsin
24. Central Michigan
25. North Carolina State
This is how the SEC feels in February.
LikeLike
Honestly Ohio State should be at #2 on that list. Intermat is giving way too much weight to quantity over quality (outside of Marsteller).
LikeLike
How the Group of 5 will cope with the Power 5:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24547508/in-playoff-era-group-of-five-sees-big-payouts-and-big-expenses
LikeLike
From Steward Mandel’s Mailbag this week, answering a question if the P5 autonomy push will force UND to join a conference, also makes the excellent point that:
The real loser in this is BYU. I was all for its independence experiment four years ago, but I could have never foretold how much the landscape surrounding the Cougars would change. They are probably better off as an independent than they would’ve been had they remained in the now-depleted Mountain West. But despite their 64,000-seat stadium, their semi-recent national title (1984) and their Heisman Trophy (’90), they are not considered of the caliber of programs in the five major conferences. BYU will presumably continue to keep Bob Bowlsby on its friends and family list.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140430/sec-scheduling-philosophy-mailbag/#ixzz30ZIRSw9C
LikeLike
There’s no sugar-coating it – BYU is outside, looking in right now.
However, while they are not part of the Power 5, they aren’t really part of the Group of 5 either. And that’s a good thing. BYU is the only true tweener in the whole scenario. BYU will readily participate in any changes to the landscape, from meals to player stipends to recruiting rules and look to play big boy football – even without the big boy budgets. But BYU’s budget exceeds most other Group of 5 programs.
And, many think that BYU will have difficulties scheduling P5 opponents. However, this has not been the case. BYU has 3-4 games each year over the next several seasons against P5 opponents from the Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, and Big Ten – which is 2 or 3 more per season than most Group of 5 teams are willing or able to play.
And, with scheduling quirks in the PAC 12 and ACC schedules (thank you, Notre Dame), BYU will have plenty of opportunities to play P5 opponents, even in November. In fact, as of right now, BYU has PAC 12 opponents in November in 4 out of the next 8 years (California, Utah, USC, and Stanford). And Notre Dame will likely fall onto BYU’s late-season schedule in many seasons.
BYU will continue to get 3-4 games each season against P5 opponents. Fill in the schedules with 4-5 regional MWC matchups (including rivalries with Utah St. and Hawaii and the budding rivalry with Boise St.) and 3-4 matchups with the AAC, and BYU will survive.
LikeLike
And, many think that BYU will have difficulties scheduling P5 opponents. However, this has not been the case. BYU has 3-4 games each year over the next several seasons against P5 opponents from the Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, and Big Ten – which is 2 or 3 more per season than most Group of 5 teams are willing or able to play.
And, with scheduling quirks in the PAC 12 and ACC schedules (thank you, Notre Dame), BYU will have plenty of opportunities to play P5 opponents, even in November. In fact, as of right now, BYU has PAC 12 opponents in November in 4 out of the next 8 years (California, Utah, USC, and Stanford). And Notre Dame will likely fall onto BYU’s late-season schedule in many seasons.
The problem for BYU teams isn’t getting P5 teams to play them; it’s getting P5 teams to play them at home late in season.
Since going independent 3 years ago, BYU has played a grand total of 6 home games in the second half of the season and they have been against Idaho St. x2, Idaho x2, New Mexico St. and Boise St. That is one decent game in three years.
And while it is true that PAC teams are using BYU to offset scheduling problems caused by ND, all the games in Provo are being played in the first month of the season.
LikeLike
Also, Hawaii cancelled the series with BYU after the MWC added a CCG.
LikeLike
If ESPN was a stand alone company, it would be worth $50.8 Billion.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2014/04/29/the-value-of-espn-surpasses-50-billion/
Too many nuggets to highlight, so read the entire article.
LikeLike
Sounds (and is) large, but by comparison Apple Inc. has triple that – in cash reserves alone.
LikeLike
cc – you’re comparing Apples and TVs. Look at how much more valuable ESPN is than CBS or ABC, as mentioned in the article.
LikeLike
Oh, I understand. I was just pointing out that one of the most valuable broadcasting entities could be bought straight up for cash Apple has sitting on the sidelines.
LikeLike
The story is even better on the advertising side. The U.S. economy has been sluggish the past five years as it recovers from the Great Recession, but ESPN ad revenues are up 63% to a projected $3.9 billion this year, according to Wunderlich. Total ESPN revenue, including ads, affiliate fees as well as ESPN.com, ESPN The Magazine and the international business, is expected to hit $11.2 billion this year.
It has been expensive for ESPN to corner the market on sports programming, particularly with new entrants like Fox Sports 1 and the rebranded NBC Sports Network looking to make a splash on the national stage. ESPN’s sports rights costs jumped from $2.8 billion in 2009 to $4.1 billion last year. But ESPN has locked up many of its deals through 2020, and the only major sports TV packages coming up for bid are Big Ten football and the NBA, which ESPN is expected to back up the brinks truck to secure. Despite the jump in programming costs, ESPN’s profit margins stayed high by keeping the lid on production and other costs. Operating margins hovered around 40% in recent years and Wunderlich expects them to stay there for the next five years at least.
Doesn’t sound like “the bubble” is bursting soon.
LikeLike
All it says to me is that their competitors got into the national (as opposed to regional) sports cable business late in the game. Had Fox, NBC, CBS figured out the direction sports was going in with the cable model, they certainly would have acted much sooner.
Now I wonder with the emergence of potentially disruptive technologies whether it’s now time for them to rethink this and get ahead of E-Spin for once.
LikeLike
Very interesting stuff. How long until some Hedge Fund guy or Carl Ichan reads that and decides to start a proxy war to get Disney to spin off ESPN in order to maximize shareholder value?
(A primer: http://www.investopedia.com/university/mergers/mergers4.asp)
LikeLike
So the Cap One Bowl and Outback Bowl will actually remain on New Years Day, but all other non-playoff bowls are moving off that day.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10872678/fewer-bowl-games-set-new-year-eve-day-accommodate-college-football-playoff
The Gator on Jan 2 isn’t terrible because that’s a Friday, and folks could just take the long weekend. In future years, that’ll be a problem for them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100258/b1gs-new-years-day-bowl-cluster-is-gone
A B10 POV on that.
Now we’ll only have 2 overlapping B10 bowl games every year (Cap1 and Outback), with the Cotton on at the same time. Then the Rose to complete the 3 B10 bowls of the day.
I’m not a big fan of post-1/1 bowl games now, but the bowl season will feel different with a playoff so I’ll wait to see how I feel about them going forward. I’d rather see more December games, personally.
LikeLike
It doesn’t hurt that the Cap One Bowl and the Outback Bowl will feature a B1G and SEC team. Neither would consent to this, and it does decently on TV.
(Note: Outback gets ACC in years B1G goes Orange, but that’s 3 times max between 2014-2026)
LikeLike
One small correction. The Citrus (Capital One) is the one that gets the ACC instead of Big Ten in years the Big Ten is in the Orange.
LikeLike
B10 is sharing the Gator Bowl & Music City Bow with the ACC too.
LikeLike
@Eric- My bad. Thanks for the correction.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/02/northwestern-union-congress-education-and-workforce-committee/8605955/
Great, now Congress is getting involved. Thanks a lot, Northwestern.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100237/uws-alvarez-talks-playoff-procedures
Barry Alvarez talking about how the committee will work.
On the responsibilities for each committee member:
Each of us will have two leagues that we’re responsible to report on. You use your contacts wherever you are — in my case, the people I know who are close to specific teams or leagues — and get information from them. They do the same thing in basketball. It just makes sense. The Big Ten would not be my primary conference. I may be a backup. I know the Big Ten. The ADs that have a league, they watch every game in that league and they could give some helpful information, but they will not be the primary person.
On the criteria for evaluating teams: It’s your win-loss record. Did you win a championship? It’s strength of schedule, it’s common opponents. Those are things that will be considered. We have access to all films — cutup films, coaches’ films — that we can watch on an iPad. We have a multitude of statistics. We took the top four teams over the last 10 or 15 years and looked at the statistics that were most consistent with the champions. That was very valuable.
(That emphasis was mine.)
Interesting to see they’ve looked at various stats to see how well they correlate with winning. Maybe that will overcome some biases and the eye test reliance.
On the different schedule models between major conferences: It’s not my place to decide what they want to do with their scheduling. That’s up to them. We’ve chosen to go to nine [in the Big Ten], strength of schedule is a factor. If you’re not at nine then your nonconference scheduling is important. You take a look at us, we’re playing LSU. I think it will be obvious which schools tried to play up and understand that strength of schedule is important. They do so with nonconference games.
(That emphasis was mine, too.)
It’s great if they’re going to really focus on OOC SOS.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24547684/report-lakers-to-seek-permission-to-talk-to-tom-thibodeau
Frank, what about these rumors that Thibs might go to the Lakers? Just wishful thinking on LA’s part, or is there something to it?
LikeLike
http://beta.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/2014/04/29/comcast-employs-fake-sec-fans-to-fight-sec-network-apologizes
Comcast is fighting against the SECN, apparently. Even in Atlanta.
LikeLike
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2014/4/30/5667690/the-sec-networks-real-challenge
The real challenge to conference networks – TV is less important than smartphones to younger people.
LikeLike
I access BTN and P12N on my phone and iPad, as well as all the digital streams when I’m interested in something not on their TV broadcasts.
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/wisconsin/story/recruiting-ratings-are-useful-tool-but-don-t-tell-whole-story-042914
A pretty fair look at recruiting rankings and what they mean.
LikeLike
Rutgers wrestling hiring Donny Pritzlaff to coaching staff
http://www.scarletknights.com/wrestling/news/release.asp?prID=14868#.U2Qbz_ldXh5
LikeLike
http://www.basketballtravelers.com/game-schedule-board/?e_type=1
Apparently this is a thing that schools actually use to make MBB schedules
Samples
Auburn University is looking to buy a TOP 200 RPI team. Attractive guarantee is available with flexible dates. Please call or email if interested.
ILLINOIS is seeking a BCS OPPONENT on any of the following 3 dates: NOVEMBER 14, NOVEMBER 19, DECEMBER 10. Open to all scenarios including 1-YEAR NEUTRAL GAME, N/N series, H/H series……Please contact me if interested!
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/05/which-annual-non-conference-rivalry-games-most-competitive/
Most competitive annual OOC rivalries.
1. UC/Miami (OH)
2. SMU/TCU
3. UL/UK
4. USC/ND
5. UF/FSU
6. SC/Clemson
7. Ohio/Marshall
8. UGA/GT
9. ISU/IA
10. UNM/NMSU
11. PU/ND
12. CO/CSU
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/05/final-2013-ncaa-strength-of-schedule-rankings-dont-add-up/
True 2013 SOS rankings. Unlike the NCAA numbers, this includes all pre-bowl games. The NCAA conveniently ignore I-AA and transitional teams, inflating the SOS for certain teams.
RANK TEAM WINS LOSSES WIN%
1 Mississippi State 111 57 .661
2 Florida 97 55 .638
3 California 99 57 .635
4 Purdue 98 57 .632
5 Texas A&M 108 63 .632
6 Georgia 105 62 .629
7 USF 96 57 .627
8 Kentucky 95 57 .625
9 Virginia 97 59 .622
10 Arkansas 96 59 .619
Under the NCAA, TN and AU were 1 and 2 (here 13 and 16).
LikeLike
In these “corrected” SoS rankings the B1G had 4 schools in the bottom 50 (WI, NE, MSU, OSU), plus 2 future members. The only other P5 schools in the bottom 50 were Oregon, Vanderbilt, and Miami.
LikeLike
Yes, but barely. The B10 had none in the bottom 40. Also, remember this doesn’t account for team quality, just their records. Playing an 11-0 I-AA counts more than a 11-1 SEC team.
Out of 126: 77. NE, 78. WI, 82. OSU, 85. MSU (#50, 49, 45, 42)
Also: 90. UMD, 90. RU
Plus: 84. Miami, 98. OR, 107. Vandy
Speaking for OSU:
We were supposed to play Vandy, but they bailed at the last minute so we got SDSU instead. Also, Gene Smith is an idiot and scheduled FAMU. Meanwhile, Cal stunk despite being a top 10 team when we scheduled them.
Next year for OSU should be better OOC (Navy, VT, Kent State, UC).
LikeLike
Local Chicago columnist goes there, pitches NIU to the Big 12.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/05/02/wisch-niu-should-push-for-big-12-membership/
LikeLike
They’ll get in when UT/OU leave and the leftovers need warm bodies to regain NCAA conference membership requirements. If before, it will precipitate their leaving.
LikeLike
Big XII fans seem to believe they actually have a chance at luring LSU & Arkansas, not to mention Florida State & Clemson.
I don’t know the specifics of the Big XII and ACC’s television contract but I thought Florida State already studied it and found out they wouldn’t do much better financially in the ACC or at least not enough to leave. I can’t see any scenarios where both LSU and Arkansas would leave the SEC. Arkansas at least make some sense to me, they’d be more competitive in the Big XII. They’d also re-open their ability to recruit Texas but I highly doubt they’d take the massive pay cut when you factor in the likely money they’ll make from the SECN.
LikeLike
You haven’t read that whole discussion. If you read it on ShaggyBevo, that is a theoretically pie in the sky just for fun discussion. IF— you could have one of those two pairs—, which would it be.
LikeLike
No idea about any discussion elsewhere, it’s just absurd that University would willingly leave the SEC for the Big XII, including Arkansas… I don’t see much reason, without a significantly adjusted Big XII TV contract, any ACC school would make the lateral move to the Big XII…
Were at five power conferences till the current Grant-of-Rights ends for the ACC, Big XII; through 2027 or so. Our current P5 conferences will be incredibly stable over that period…
I do believe we’ll eventually get to four power conferences, it might not be when this GOR ends but eventually the power conferences will continue to consolidate.
LikeLike
Actually, I think there are better leftovers and warm bodies than NIU. Heck, I’d wager on New Mexico before NIU.
LikeLike
Sì.
LikeLike
IMHO – NIU is way down the list. If the Big 12 needs anyone, the list starts with BYU, AAC, and MWC teams.
LikeLike
NIU should dial up the AAC before it even considers the Big 12.
While NIU doesn’t deliver Chicago, it does help the AAC to gain some access to the Windy City, especially if the Huskies were willing to play a conference football game or two each season at Soldier Field….and perhaps a couple of basketball games in Chicago, too.
NIU, at about 400 miles from Cincinnati, would actually be closer to the Bearcats than any other current AAC university.
NIU could be a candidate for the AAC, especially if the AAC needed another team east of the Mississippi to balance out a westward expansion.
LikeLike
@Brad Smith – I just don’t see the AAC giving them much of a look. If the AAC looks to expand/replace a team I think they will look at Conference USA schools.
LikeLike
They need nearly decade of success to get a promotion to the C-USA, then close to another decade of success to earn an AAC invite, then maybe they might get a Big XII invitation.
LikeLike
If Northern Illinois has any prospect of being picked by the American in response to some future raid, its not clear that moving to the current CUSA version 3.0 is any particular stepping stone or proving ground. After all, much of the CUSA that was a clear step ahead of where NIU is in the MAC has either already left for the American or will have moved in another couple of months.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=ncf&pollId=4304045
The nation thinks the SEC should go to 9 games. Only the SEC footprint – TX + RI disagree.
LikeLike
Ahh. Fond memories of the nineties (sarcasm). Instead of throw back uni’s did they break out the old bats?
#13 Washington 21
Utah 17
Live Stats Top 9
LikeLike
Gorilla ball lives.
LikeLike
Big Ten vs Big East in the Gavitt Tipoff Games to be announced tomorrow.
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-80100804/
8 games over 4 nights (Tuesday-Friday) at campus sites during the first week of the season. Fox to broadcast Big East site games. ESPN and BTN to televise big ten site games.
Seems regional rivalries could be emphasized.
Will be in addition to Big Ten – ACC challenge.
LikeLike
Great idea, I really like it.
Marquette’s spokesman stated that the game will be in addition to their annual match-up with Wisconsin.
I imagine the same goes for Nebraska-Creighton though the article states that such games could be folded in the series if needed.
Given the Big Ten’s east coast fetish, I imagine we’ll see the big basketball brands like Indiana, MSU, Michigan, OSU playing on the east coast vs St John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, Georgetown, etc, in the first few years. Creighton and Marquette will probably cycle through all the non-instate western teams: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska.
How about Xavier vs OSU?
LikeLike
It is a great idea.
I imagine X vs OSU will be one matchup, but apparently, weight will be given primarily to competitive balance.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140504/big-ten-big-east-dave-gavitt-tipoff/?eref=sihp
Also, expect Michigan vs St Johns at MSG least once.
LikeLike
I’m hoping we get DePaul vs Illinois every once in a while; that will be a big deal around my house.
LikeLike
DePaul- IL would be great.
List of hopeful matchups based on rivalries:
UNL- Creighton (played)
UMD-Georgetown
IU/PU vs Butler
OSU v. Xavier
SHU vs. Rutgers
Penn State vs. Villanova
WI vs. Marquette (played)
Potential matchups f the Big East expands to 12:
ILL/Iowa vs. SLU
OSU vs. Dayton
List of TV matchups:
MSU/Mich vs. Georgetown
Mich vs. St Johns (at MSG)
I’m sure i’m missing some.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“List of hopeful matchups based on rivalries:
UNL- Creighton (played)
UMD-Georgetown
IU/PU vs Butler
OSU v. Xavier
SHU vs. Rutgers
Penn State vs. Villanova
WI vs. Marquette (played)
…
I’m sure i’m missing some.”
I’d look for:
Creighton vs WI/IA
Marquette vs MN/NW
DePaul vs IL
Butler vs OSU (Matta is an alum and former coach there)
Xavier vs IN/PU
LikeLike
For TV purposes, they’d want to match up teams from different states. Probably different regions, so a lot of Midwest vs. East Coast matchups.
Only exceptions would be where the local rivalry promises to be fierce (UMD-G’Town . . Illinois-DePaul if DePaul was ever good).
LikeLike
I’m hoping no Ohio State vs. Xavier. Ohio State has had an unofficial policy of not playing in-state major programs and I think it’s a good one. If you want people around the state cheering for you, then you don’t ever give them a reason to cheer against you if you can help it. The more you play in-state schools, the more the games become rivalries and the harder it is to root for both schools even across sports (if you dislike Ohio State in basketball, odds are you’ll dislike them in football). For that reason, I root for instate schools, but I never want to play them.
LikeLike
Ohio State has terrible OOC attendance and no basketball following outside of Columbus because of this policy. Why not play all the good in state teams – that would be more fun for the fans and probably the players too. It would at the least make OSU relevant in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, etc. That would seem to be well worth a few losses along the way.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Ohio State has terrible OOC attendance and no basketball following outside of Columbus because of this policy.”
Let’s start by supporting those claims with facts. Prove that terrible OOC attendance and break it down by type of opponent (power league versus mid major, etc). Then quantify the basketball following outside Columbus.
When you have some actual numbers, then you might have a point. Until then, why should we think OSU has it wrong from a business perspective?
LikeLike
Brian – if you are interested in those figures I am sure you can find them. OSU is leaving money on the table by playing a boring OCC schedule.
LikeLike
I’m not the one making big claims. Either provide evidence of “terrible OOC attendance” and “no basketball following outside of Columbus” or don’t make the claims.
Terrible OOC attendance (2012-3 numbers):
1. The B10 was tops in the NCAA for average attendance at 12,868.
2. OSU was #8 nationally at 16,511 for 20 games.
3. OSU’s capacity is 18,809.
4. If OSU sold out all 9 B10 home games, average OOC attendance would still be 14,631.
5. That number would be #16 for the best overall average attendance.
How is that terrible?
Or look at last year’s attendance by game:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Ohio_State_Buckeyes_men%27s_basketball_team
The exhibition game drew 14,092. Of the actual games while school was in session, only American and North Florida drew under 15,000. During finals week, Central Connecticut drew 13,360. On the last day of finals, Bryant drew 12,723. The games during break drew 15.3k, 14.4k and 18.5k.
As for no following outside of Columbus, please explain all the local coverage of OSU hoops in cities around the state. Cincinnati is less focused on OSU, but that’s true in all sports. Having UC, Xavier and Dayton close by is part of it.
LikeLike
ESPN’s Mark Schlabach’s way-too-early-post-spring-top 25.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10884991/college-football-post-spring-way-too-early-preseason-top-25
By conference:
SEC (7) #2 Bama, #4 Auburn, #8 Georgia, #10 South Carolina, #13 LSU, #14 A&M, #19 Florida.
B1G (6) #6 Mich St, #7 Ohio St, #15 Wisconsin, #18 Iowa, #24 Nebraska, #25 Michigan
B-12 (4) #3 Oklahoma, #9 Baylor, #21 Texas Tech, #23 K-State
P-12 (4) #5 Oregon, #11 Stanford, #12 UCLA, #20 USC
ACC (3) #1 Florida State, #16 North Carolina, #22 Clemson
Ind (1) #17 Notre Dame
LikeLike
Bold Prediction: Nebraska will go 9-4.
LikeLike
6 SEC in the top 14, 2 B10, 2 Big XII, 3 Pac 12, 1 ACC…
LikeLike
CBSSports post-spring top-25:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24552506/post-spring-top-25-welcome-back-to-the-top-spot-alabama
By conference:
SEC (6) #1 Alabama, #6 Auburn, #8 South Carolina, #9 LSU, #14 Georgia, #22 Texas A&M
B1G (5) #2 Ohio St, #7 Mich St, #15 Wisconsin, #18 Nebraska, #23 Iowa
P-12 (5) #4 Oregon, #10 Stanford, #12 UCLA, #16 USC, #17 Arizona St.
B-12 (4) #5 Oklahoma, #11 Baylor, #13 K-State, #19 Texas
ACC (2) #2 Florida State, #24 Duke
Ind (2) #20 Notre Dame, #25 BYU
American (1) #21 Cincinnati
LikeLike
I haven’t been following the discussions carefully recently (too many exciting PA / Paterno / PSU / Second Mile / NCAA happenings — there’s still much bigger news to come!), but I didn’t find this posted yet during a quick search:
Tom Dienhart @BTNTomDienhart
Had breakfast w/ #B1G commish Jim Delany this morning in NYC. Big things brewing for league out east. Expect more news in next 60 days.
11:43 AM – 5 May 2014
LikeLike
That’s far less likely to be expansion related than some sort of athletic competition designed to generate additional interest on the east coast (or even a B1G tourney at Barclays announcement for like 9 years from now).
LikeLike
This.
I doubt there’ll be much/any official forewarning (let alone two months) about any potential expansion announcement in the future.
LikeLike
Carl,
“I haven’t been following the discussions carefully recently (too many exciting PA / Paterno / PSU / Second Mile / NCAA happenings — there’s still much bigger news to come!),”
And when is this news going to finally come? Haven’t you been saying this for a year or more?
LikeLike
Carl wrote:
“I haven’t been following the discussions carefully recently (too many exciting PA / Paterno / PSU / Second Mile / NCAA happenings — there’s still much bigger news to come!),”
Brian wrote:
“And when is this news going to finally come? Haven’t you been saying this for a year or more?”
Why, yes – yes, I have … But “finally come”? Have you not been paying attention??? (No need to answer.) Lots of stuff has already happened, and, as I said, there will be more, much more. Patience, Grasshopper.
The Pa. Commonwealth Court called the legality of the NCAA / Penn State consent decree into question. (Whoops!)
The Pa. Commonwealth Court also questioned how the Penn State BoT could have fulfilled their fiduciary duties by accepting the consent decree. (Whoa!)
And why the silence from the Governor? He had filed his own lawsuit against the NCAA, as you may remember. Now? Silence.
The duplicity is beginning to unravel publicly, and some people are beginning to feel very uncomfortable.
The NCAA has been trying to negotiate with the Paternos for months. (What are the chances the Paternos have a smoking gun?) The Kane investigation is progressing. The FBI investigation is progressing (not just cars to mothers now; apparently in at least one instance a house was gifted).
Oh, and more lawsuits are in the offing.
Pay attention, Brian! And keep watching. (I know, I know – you “just don’t want to be deeply invested in [this] topic for years.” Okay, fine – but then don’t pretend that you’re surprised that the process takes a while to play out. Likely a long while – keep watching! 🙂
LikeLike
Hadn’t noticed this before:
http://www.centredaily.com/2014/04/09/4126964/penn-state-ordered-into-corman.html
The NCAA forcing Penn St. to spend the $60 million outside the state of Pennsylvania was always the most questionable of the NCAA’s actions in this case.
“The NCAA suffered a blow Wednesday when the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court dismissed the organization’s challenge of a 2013 state law that would keep millions of dollars collected from sanctions against Penn State in the state.
But the bigger concern for the NCAA could be questions the justices raised about the validity of the consent decree, the agreement between the organization and Penn State that levied the sanctions — including a $60 million fine — against the university for the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
The court ruled that the NCAA’s challenge of a lawsuit brought by state Sen. Jake Corman, R-Benner Township, seeking enforcement of the Endowment Act, the state law he sponsored to keep the sanction money in the state, opened the door for an examination of the consent decree.
In its ruling Wednesday, the court forced Penn State to become a party in the lawsuit and said it needs more information about the consent decree before determining whether it was entered into legally.
Corman said he is interested in expanding his lawsuit to pursue questions about the legality of the consent decree.
“I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way the NCAA handed this consent decree on Penn State and the process they went through to do it,” Corman said. “Now that (the court) brought Penn State into the case and that they’re not sure that the whole consent decree is valid or constitutional, that’s an area that wasn’t part of our original lawsuit but clearly an area we want to explore now that the court has opened the possibility to do so.”
Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2014/04/09/4126964/penn-state-ordered-into-corman.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
“In its ruling Wednesday, the court forced Penn State to become a party in the lawsuit and said it needs more information about the consent decree before determining whether it was entered into legally.”
The University’s legal eagles will no doubt fight a reversal of the Consent Decree by speciously arguing that the NCAA could return with even harsher sanctions.
Of course, it would be difficult for the Committee on Infractions to take action considering no NCAA Bylaws were actually violated.
LikeLike
Big Ten reportedly set to add DC to the MBB host city rotation, to be played at the Verizon Center.
http://m.jsonline.com/more/sports/blogs/258022291.html
LikeLike
During the 2014 Big Ten men’s basketball tournament in Indianapolis, a league official told the Journal Sentinel the event likely was heading to the East Coast — perhaps to Washington, D.C. or New Jersey — as early as 2017.
That move is about to be finalized.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is scheduled to hold a news conference at noon Tuesday in the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C.
B10:
2015 – Chicago
2016 – Indy
2017 and beyond – open
Barclay’s is booked in 2015 – 2021 (A10 and ACC)
MSG is booked through 2026 (BE)
Verizon Center is booked in 2016 by the ACC
LikeLike
@ Frank, note who is sitting near the top of the leader board.
B1G 2014 Baseball Standings
1. Indiana 16-2
2. Nebraska 13-5
2. Illinois 13-5
4. Michigan 11-10
5. Minnesota 9-9
6. Iowa 8-9
7. Michigan State 8-10
8. Ohio State 7-10
9. Penn State 5-12
10. Purdue 5-13
11. Northwestern 5-15
LikeLike
Illinois has an outside shot at an at large berth. Big series coming up against Nebraska.
LikeLike
Frank, I think it’s time for a new blog post. What with the news of the Dave Gavitt challenge and the B1G basketball tourney one year in the East Coast, how those reflect on the strategy being deployed by the conference. Back-to-back major news. Oh, and the Dienhart tweet. Why he mentioned 60 days?
LikeLike
Good article on figures for FBS vs. FCS in the article in Frank’s twitter link (see the link within the article on “Should UW football drop down?”
One comment isn’t quite right. Some of the Ivy schools did voluntarily drop down. Harvard, Yale, Penn and probably Princeton and Cornell, could have met the I-A requirements, but they would have had to leave conference mates behind.
LikeLike
In fact, Penn was the last hold out, playing big time CFB games through the late 1950’s.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10892096/pac-12-considering-neutral-site-conference-championship-game
The P12 may move their CCG to a neutral site as soon as this season. Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara (49ers home field) is the most likely spot for 2014 at least.
LikeLike
Update: Looking to move the game there permanently.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140506/pac-12-football-championship-game-site/
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/05/06/pac-12-football-football-title-game-reportedly-could-move-to-levis-stadium/#more-35740
Jon Wilner isn’t for it.
LikeLike
A P12/SEC schedule comparison for 2014.
Average P5 opponents (incl. ND):
P12 – 9.92 (AZ, CO and OrSU only play 9, but USC and UCLA play 11)
SEC – 8.79 (TAMU, MS, MsSU and Vandy only play 8, but UGA plays 10)
Of course, not all P5 opponents are equal.
LikeLike
Why a notation for Boise St and UFC?
I’m pretty sure Texas, UVA, UCal, Neb, Mich, UAz, Utah, and WVU would like credit for playing BYU over the next three years.
LikeLike
I assume the writer was trying to show he wasn’t being biased against the SEC by not counting top non-P5 teams. USC and Utah play Fresno St and Cal plays BYU, but he didn’t note those.
LikeLike
And the SEC plays the full FCS exemption, with one FCS opponent for each SEC school, while only two of the PAC12 South play FCS schools, so its:
PAC12: 9.92 P5, 1.41 Go5, 0.67 FCS
SEC: 8.79 P5, 2.21 Go5, 1.00 FCS
The Big Ten sits in the middle of those two:
Big Ten 2014 OOC: P5 9.21; Go5 2.00; FCS 0.79
… but that will surely go up when they go to 9 games in 2016.
The PAC-12 could make a stronger SOS case, though, if they could convince their PAC-12 North schools to not schedule as many FCS schools. As the Big Ten could in 2016 when they go to 9 conference games.
Big Ten OOC opponents
P5: 17/14 = 1.21
PAC12 (5): Utah, @Oregon, WA St., @Washington, Cal
ACC (4): @Syracuse, VTech, @Pitt, UMiami,
Big12 (3): WVU, Iowa St., TCU,
Ind (3): @ND x2, ND(n)
SEC (2): @Mizzou, LSU(n)
Go5: 28/14 = 2.00
MAC (11): @BGU, BGU, MiamiU, EMU, Kent, Akron, UMass, Ball St., NIU, WMU, CMU,
AAC (6): @USF, USF, UC, UCF(n), Temple, Tulane,
CUSA (4): North Texas, WKU, MTSU, FAU,
MWC (3): Wyoming, SJSU, Fresno St.,
Sunbelt (2): Appy St., Texas St.,
Ind (2): @Navy x2,
FCS: 11/14 = 0.79
Indiana State, JMU, Jax St., Howard, Youngstown, N Iowa, E Illinois, McNeese St., W Illinois x2, S Illinois
LikeLike
New SEC rule is that all SEC teams will have to play at least 9 and some will play 10 so this will get better. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky always play at least 9 already due to their non-conference rivals. Missouri plays at least nine 8 times out of 10, and sometimes they play 10 or even 11. Bama, Auburn, LSU, and Tennessee pretty much always play 9 or 10. Now everyone will always have to play at least 9 by rule.
LikeLike
Andy:
Playing 9 including OOC is what many SEC have already been doing. B12, PAC, and (soon) B1G will be at 10 (sometimes 11). I’m not sure I’d be trumpeting the end of four FCS or non power conference opponent schedules. They really didn’t change anything, except for the really egregious schedules.
LikeLike
I don’t think they are dumping FCS schools. Don’t really think anything will change for any but about 4 schools. And even those play 9 many years.
LikeLike
I think “the end of four FCS or non power conference opponent schedules” refers to the four Go5 and/or FCS opponents that will have to be swapped for P5 opponents by the four SEC schools that don’t schedule P5 schools OOC … so, exactly as you say, only a change for about four SEC schools. The SEC will likely keep on scheduling 14 FCS schools so long as they play an eight game conference schedule, so that’s likely four Go5 schools annually that won’t be getting an SEC contract.
LikeLike
Like I said, changes nothing for Mizzou. This is for Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Arkansas, etc.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100404/latest-rutgers-p-r-blunder-hurts-legrand
Gee, I’m so glad we added Rutgers.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24552521/after-initial-snub-eric-legrand-to-speak-at-rutgers-commencement
And the back-pedaling has begun. They always meant to have 2 speakers including LeGrand, despite calling him to say otherwise.
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/article/20140506/SPORTS08/305060045/big-ten-east
A nice piece about the B10’s move east, including quotes from Delany.
With 11 and then 12 — Nebraska, which joined in 2011 — the Big Ten remained “predominantly a Midwest conference,” Delany says. But as he watched the landscape of college athletics change in recent years as big-name schools scuttled between leagues and six power conferences shrunk to five, Delany says he began rethinking ideas that had previously been shot down.
“There was more risk in staying where we were,” he says.
So, the league didn’t.
…
Over the last year or so, the Big Ten has turned its focus East, emphasizing its two newest members and its expanded footprint along the East coast.
This season, the Big Ten begins its formal partnership with the Pinstripe Bowl, which is played at Yankee Stadium. The league has also added John Hopkins as an affiliate member in lacrosse. On Monday, the conference announced it was teaming up with the Big East for the Gavitt Tipoff, an early-season men’s basketball series that will be played at home sites and give Big Ten schools yet another chance for exposure on the East coast.
The Chicago-based conference is also in the process of opening an office in New York City, on Third Avenue that will house three employees. Delany himself expects to spend perhaps one week per month there, to be close to the action.
And, of course, “part of it’s symbolic,” he says. “To show we’re living here, not just visiting.”
This is an important theme to Delany.
“When we expanded, there was an understanding that none of the other conferences had lived in a second region,” he says. “You have to live here. Boots on the ground.”
That means not only occasional visits or one-off events. It’s office space. Regular-season games. Bowl games. And, potentially, postseason conference tournaments.
…
While the football championship game will likely stay centrally located in the Midwest, Delany says the men’s basketball tournament could be held somewhere along the East coast as often as 1⁄3 of the time.
…
Now that more conferences have expanded geographically and their footprints now include states and cities along the east coast, all of these leagues are hoping for the same thing.
“The competition between conferences for eyeballs and attention is all a positive for college sports fans in the corridor,” Delany says.
Delany points to three types of fans the Big Ten hopes to gain as it expands East: existing sports fans (such as alumni from Big Ten institutions who live on the East coast), fans of Rutgers and Maryland and, ideally, fans of college sports who can now attend more big-time games in their region. Delany says the pull of big brands coming in â— such as the Michigan or Ohio State — is an underrated aspect of all of this.
It helps, too, that the Big Ten already has Penn State, a school with an insanely large alumni base, much of which is scattered throughout the East coast. Delany calls Penn State a “bridge” to the East coast and looks at Rutgers and Maryland the same way.
1/3 of the MBB tourneys in the east? That seems too high to me since only 3/14 of the schools are out east. 1/5 seems a more fair share.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20140505/big-ten-tournament-washington-d-c-verizon-center-2017/
The 2015 Big Ten tournament will be played at Chicago’s United Center and the 2016 event at Indianapolis’ Bankers Life Fieldhouse, at which point those venues will have hosted a combined 19 tourneys. No sites have been set beyond 2017. However, Delany indicated the event will start moving around more frequently much like the ACC’s, which is most commonly played in Greensboro, N.C., but will visit the Verizon Center in 2016 and Brooklyn’s Barclays Center in 2017 and ’18.
“My expectation is you’ll see it moving among and between venues in the Midwest and Northeast,” he said. “You’ve got to figure out a pattern. I expect that over the next 10 years you’re going to see us in both regions of the country.”
LikeLike
Rumor on the internets is that the new Minny stadium could get the football CCG every so often. Would be a smart to throw the western schools/cities a bone, and it doesnt hurt the stadium would be brand new in a major city.
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen/status/463734801459994624
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Rumor on the internets is that the new Minny stadium could get the football CCG every so often. Would be a smart to throw the western schools/cities a bone, and it doesnt hurt the stadium would be brand new in a major city.”
MSP is far from the middle of the footprint. Other than MN fans, almost nobody could drive there. It could make it much harder to sell out. It’s also a big advantage for the West which the B10 seems to not want.
NE gets the baseball tournament. That’s the bone to the West. The B10 wants to expand its presence in the East, but the East isn’t getting the FB CCG much if at all. I could see going to MSP once in a blue moon, just like Detroit. But realistically, Indy is a better location.
LikeLike
Well, realistically, the furthest east the CCG will go will be Detroit, only because of the evident preference for playing the game in domed stadiums (not my particular preference, but that’s the reality that isn’t changing anytime soon).
I think that game will rotate, and because there isn’t a suitable east option, that it could go to Minny every so often. Nobody, not I, or ESPN’s B1G blogger, not anyone else actually thinks the game would played there as often as it might at other locations (Indy), but having it there once every, say, 5 years, would be a little bone thrown to the west. Plus, the facility will be as state of the art, if not more so, than any other stadium in the B1G footprint.
LikeLike
Why is anyone worried about throwing a bone to the West? Why risk selling fewer tickets and thus costing everyone money just to move the game to a well-established part of the footprint? They already get the easier division to play in. How many more advantages do they need?
MSP will host the hockey tournament regularly. Baseball moves around a lot but will have at least 3 straight years out west. The east will get hoops on occasion because the B10 is trying to move into that territory and MBB is big out east.
LikeLike
It makes sense to move the basketball tournament around, even to the conference periphery, to broaden the fan base. As every conference school participates; fans and alumni can still plan well in advance to attend and (likely) see their team play at least one game. Contrast this with football, where fans have as little as a week’s notice.
Before the B1G settled on Indy I remember reading a few articles (no links) about how the B1G felt the SEC benefited greatly from sticking with the same centrally located site for its cg (after 2 years in Birmingham). To foster ticket sales, stability of venue makes sense; I’d be surprised if they stage it anywhere else any time soon.
LikeLike
@John O – I agree. The basketball tournament can be used as a chit to appease the various regional interests throughout the conference, but the football championship should always be centrally located due to the quick turnaround time for fans. The only two locations that really work for football are Indy (closest to the most campuses) and Chicago (closest to the most alums). Since Indy has a dome (which is essentially non-negotiable as the game *must* be played in prime time), that makes the decision pretty easy (and I’m the biggest Chicago booster that you’ll find).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@John O – I agree. The basketball tournament can be used as a chit to appease the various regional interests throughout the conference, but the football championship should always be centrally located due to the quick turnaround time for fans.”
I’m with both of you.
“The only two locations that really work for football are Indy (closest to the most campuses) and Chicago (closest to the most alums). Since Indy has a dome (which is essentially non-negotiable as the game *must* be played in prime time), that makes the decision pretty easy (and I’m the biggest Chicago booster that you’ll find).”
I agree with you here, too. Chicago screwed up but not putting in a retractable roof. But with the CCG always at night, I think indoors is clearly the way to go.
That said, will you please write a new post soon? I know you’re busy, but we’re about to hit 2300 comments on this one and that gets hard to deal with. Surely some bit of news has caught your eye recently. Thanks.
LikeLike
I’d say Detroit is a possibility as well. Realistically, the East will only be won by one of OSU//UM/MSU/PSU, and the first 3 can sell out Detroit by themselves (while PSU would come close to doing so).
And yes, the West gets baseball (probably will be mostly in Omaha from now on) and hockey most of the time (only other place would be MI), so they should be satisfied.
LikeLike
“According to a Big Ten source, there likely will be more announcements made in the next two months about future tourney locations.
By the way, if you’re wondering about football: The Big Ten championship game will remain at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis in 2014 and 2015. Then, the bidding war is on (if it isn’t already). Detroit seems sure to get one of these games at Ford Field eventually. The new Vikings Stadium in Minneapolis, scheduled to open in 2016, is a very good bet to be in the mix.”
http://voices.suntimes.com/sports/big-ten-hoops-tourney-will-be-in-d-c-in-2017/#.U2ox0fldV8E
I’m not saying you guys are wrong about the negatives about having a game in Minny, I’m just saying it could happen every so often, and that its an easy way to throw a bone to the western flank while also having the game in a fancy new stadium.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
By the way, if you’re wondering about football: The Big Ten championship game will remain at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis in 2014 and 2015. Then, the bidding war is on (if it isn’t already). Detroit seems sure to get one of these games at Ford Field eventually. The new Vikings Stadium in Minneapolis, scheduled to open in 2016, is a very good bet to be in the mix.”
To be clear, that’s just one reporter’s opinion, not something he heard from a source.
“I’m not saying you guys are wrong about the negatives about having a game in Minny, I’m just saying it could happen every so often,”
Anything could happen. Chicago seems more likely than MSP to me.
“and that its an easy way to throw a bone to the western flank”
You have yet to really explain why anyone feels a need to throw them a bone. Are they threatening to leave the B10 over having increased access to DC? Only MN and NE really would benefit much from the change in venue, and MN is unlikely to make any given CCG. That means this is basically a bone for NE only, and they already are considered likely to get baseball frequently if not annually. Is the B10 really looking to give NE a huge advantage in a CCG?
LikeLike
“You have yet to really explain why anyone feels a need to throw them a bone.”
Because it easy to give them a CCG every so often when they have a new stadium and makes them feel better about having to travel to title games in MBB to DC and NY area. Also, New Stadium.
“Are they threatening to leave the B10 over having increased access to DC?”
No.
“Only MN and NE really would benefit much from the change in venue, and MN is unlikely to make any given CCG.”
Iowa, too.
“hat means this is basically a bone for NE only,”
No more than Indy is a bone to OSU.
“and they already are considered likely to get baseball frequently if not annually.”
Small potatoes.
“Is the B10 really looking to give NE a huge advantage in a CCG?”
No.
LikeLike
I was going to say, the Twin Cities would be far more convenient for Wisconsin and Iowa than Indy (actually kind of a wash for UNL). Yes, Iowa City and Madison may be roughly equidistant between Indy and the Twin Cities, but northern Iowa is really close to the Twin Cities and northern WI is almost touching the Twin Cities.
However, unlike Detroit, which would be sold out (or close to it) if UM, MSU, OSU, or PSU (really the only schools that have any chance of winning the East) make it there, if the West is won by Northwestern, Illinois, or PU when the title game is held in the Twin Cities, we could see attendance at 50% capacity unless the native Minnesotans turn out in force.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Because it easy to give them a CCG every so often”
It’s easy to give it to anyone every so often. That’s not a reason to do it.
“when they have a new stadium”
Is Indy so outdated that the B10 can make significantly more in MSP?
“and makes them feel better about having to travel to title games in MBB to DC and NY area.”
http://hawkcentral.com/2014/05/06/washington-d-c-to-host-2017-big-ten-mens-basketball-tournament/
They seem to feel just fine about it as is. McCafferey thinks it’s a good thing.
“I think it’s great,” Iowa coach Fran McCaffery said Tuesday. “It gives us a larger presence in the East. It improves our recruiting territory and our fans in that region can see us play. The players will enjoy the experience. It (Verizon Center) is a first-class facility.”
So if they aren’t upset, why would the B10 feel the need to throw them a bone?
” Also, New Stadium.”
That’s a reason for the NFL to give them a super bowl, not for the B10 to move the CCG there.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I was going to say, the Twin Cities would be far more convenient for Wisconsin and Iowa than Indy (actually kind of a wash for UNL).”
That’s not what Brad Smith’s data yesterday showed. Copied below for only the western 4.
Brad Smith says:
May 6, 2014 at 5:02 pm
Just looking at driving distances and times from various B1G cities…..
DIFFERENCE in driving distance and times between Minneapolis and Indianapolis:
Minneapolis, MN: -9.25 hour difference
Lincoln, NE: -3.75 hour difference
Cedar Rapids, IA: -1.75 hour difference
Madison, WI: -1.25 hour difference
“Yes, Iowa City and Madison may be roughly equidistant between Indy and the Twin Cities, but northern Iowa is really close to the Twin Cities”
IA’s population is spread all over the state with the biggest city south of the middle of the state. As you head east, the difference in driving distance shrinks.
From Des Moines, difference = less than 4 hours
From Cedar Rapids (2nd largest metro), difference = less than 2 hours
From Davenport (3rd largest metro), Indy is less than an hour closer
“and northern WI is almost touching the Twin Cities.”
But that isn’t where most of WI lives.
From Milwaukee, Indy is less than an hour closer
From Madison (2nd largest), difference = about an hour
From Chicago (a major location of western alumni):
MSP – 407 miles, 6:35
Indy – 187 miles, 3:05
That’s why I said NE and MN, with the understanding that MN is unlikely to win in any given year.
LikeLike
That “rumor” is a single tweet floated by ESPN blogger.
I give a MSP CCG a zero percent chance. Its on the extreme geographical edge of the conference, and away from the major football powers. There were complaints about Soldier Field being too small, but TCF has 10k less seats. The location is a plus to Minnesota and maybe Nebraska. Wisconsinites and Iowans can drive to Chicago just as easily.
If they are concerned about attendance in Indy, MSP would be an utter disaster.
LikeLike
Greg,
I think he means at the Vikings new stadium, not TCF.
LikeLike
Just looking at driving distances and times from various B1G cities…..
Driving distance and times to INDIANAPOLIS:
Bloomington, IN – 51 miles/1 hour
Lafayette, IN – 63 miles/1.0 hour
Champaign, IL – 119 miles/2.0 hours
Columbus, OH – 189 miles/3.0 hours
Evanston, IL – 199 miles/3.5 hours
E. Lansing, MI – 254 miles/4.0 hours
Ann Arbor, MI – 261 miles/4.25 hours
Madison, WI -327 miles, 5.5 hours
Cedar Rapids, IA – 385 miles/6.0 hours
State College, PA – 510 miles/8.25 hours
Minneapolis, MN – 588 miles, 9.25 hours
College Park, MD – 588 miles/9.25 hours
Lincoln, NE – 660 miles/10.25 hours
New Brunswick, NJ – 685 miles/11 hours
Driving distance and times to MINNEAPOLIS:
Minneapolis, MN – 0 miles/0.0 hours
Cedar Rapids, IA – 275 miles/4.25 hours
Madison, WI -268 miles/4.25 hours
Lincoln, NE – 431 miles/6.5 hours
Evanston, IL – 401 miles/6.5 hours
Champaign, IL – 511 miles/8.0 hours
Lafayette, IN – 529 miles/8.5 hours
E. Lansing, MI – 628 miles/10.0 hours
Ann Arbor, MI – 647 miles/10.25 hours
Bloomington, IN – 632 miles/10.25 hours
Columbus, OH – 762 miles//12.0 hours
State College, PA – 973 miles/15.5 hours
College Park, MD – 1,231 miles/17.5 hours
New Brunswick, NJ – 1,188 miles/18.75 hours
DIFFERENCE in driving distance and times between Minneapolis and Indianapolis:
Minneapolis, MN: -9.25 hour difference
Lincoln, NE: -3.75 hour difference
Cedar Rapids, IA: -1.75 hour difference
Madison, WI: -1.25 hour difference
Evanston, IL: +3 hour difference
Champaign, IL: +6.0 hour difference
E. Lansing, MI: +6.0 hour difference
Ann Arbor, MI: +6.0 hour difference
State College, PA: +7.25 hour difference
Lafayette, IN: +7.5 hour difference
New Brunswick, NJ: +7.75 hour difference
College Park, MD: +8.25 hour difference
Columbus, OHz; +9.0 hour difference
Bloomington, IN: +9.25 hour difference
So, Minneapolis is substantially closer to Minnesota (duh) and Nebraska. It’s also closer to Wisconsin and Iowa, but not as big of a difference than I would have thought (less than 1 hour 45 minute difference). However, local fans from nine of the B1G schools would have to drive an additional 6 to 9 hours to get to Minneapolis.
Half (7/14) of the B1G cities can drive to Indianapolis in less than 4.25 hours.
64% (9/14) can drive to Indianapolis in 6 hours or fewer.
85% (12/14) can drive to Indianapolis in 9.25 hours or fewer.
100% can drive to Indianapolis in 11 hours or fewer.
Also, is playing anywhere but a Domed stadium a non-starter? If not, would New York, Philadelphia, or even Pittsburgh be in the mix with Minneapolis (and Chicago, Detroit…)
LikeLike
“1/3 of the MBB tourneys in the east? That seems too high to me since only 3/14 of the schools are out east. 1/5 seems a more fair share.”
However, as the western 4 states will likely get the hockey and baseball tournaments the majority of the time & the central 4 states will get the football title game all the time and the basketball tournament the majority of the time (as well as hockey and baseball some time), I have no problem with the eastern 3 states being over-represented in the basketball rotation, considering that they’ll never get the football title game & likely never get the hockey tournament.
LikeLike
To be fair… There currently are only 6 B1G hockey teams… and the history, and the true fanbases for said schools are located in the upper midwest… PSU is the geographical outlier for hockey… OSU probably could care less about hockey (just an educated guess).
Regarding baseball… Doesn’t the baseball tourney move around? I thought it was in Columbus last year? Maybe my brain isn’t working right?
Unless I am mistaken… conference tournaments for virtually every sport move to different venues each year… Doesn’t seem to be too big of an issue…
Regarding conference football championship in Minneapolis (at new Vikings stadium)… I believe Greg is correct with his comment regarding attendance… Like Chicago, most of the locals up here are PRO sports fans, with Gopher athletics (and/or other college athletics) being of casual interest to most, with exception for Gopher Hockey (which virtually always sells out Mariucci).
Of course, Indy is not a college town either—just is centrally located… General attendance there has been poor at best too—at least for FB CCG…
I do believe Delany is in fantasy land thinking the pro-sports towns of NYC and/or DC are going to be all-in on attending these tournaments…
LikeLike
The Eastern seaboard is so populated that Delany doesn’t need the natives to be all-in to sell-out the tournaments. He would just need the B10 alums to show up.
LikeLike
This.
Why people don’t understand that just becoming a part of the conversation in the eastern corridor is far bigger than dominating a similar sized Midwest region.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The Eastern seaboard is so populated that Delany doesn’t need the natives to be all-in to sell-out the tournaments. He would just need the B10 alums to show up.”
http://www.ibj.com/the-score-2014-03-05-as-big-ten-tourney-grows-bidding-war-for-event-could-erupt/PARAMS/post/46493
The vast majority of alumni anywhere don’t attend tournaments. Chicago and Indy have a lot more local B10 alumni to pull from than DC, and yet 2013 was the first year the B10 tourney sold out in Chicago. Likewise, Indy has had some struggles depending on how IN was doing that year. Chicago is much bigger than DC with many more B10 alumni.
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“To be fair… There currently are only 6 B1G hockey teams… and the history, and the true fanbases for said schools are located in the upper midwest… PSU is the geographical outlier for hockey… OSU probably could care less about hockey (just an educated guess).”
It’s not that OSU doesn’t care, but the concern is regional (northern OH cares more than southern OH) and balanced by a strong hoops interest. More importantly, OSU fans recognize that MSP and Detroit deserve to host the hockey tournament. Maybe Columbus gets it once every 20 years, but why wouldn’t you play in Hockeytown or the Land of 10,000 Lakes?
“Regarding baseball… Doesn’t the baseball tourney move around?”
It does, but there was talk of moving it to Omaha for a while. They have more fans and better facilities than anyone.
“Unless I am mistaken… conference tournaments for virtually every sport move to different venues each year… Doesn’t seem to be too big of an issue…”
Yep, except for the revenue sports. When money matters and attendance needs to be big, then you look for 1 or 2 good locations central to the footprint generally.
“Of course, Indy is not a college town either—just is centrally located… General attendance there has been poor at best too—at least for FB CCG…”
Only when WI was playing. The first year did OK, but had a lot of unfilled seats. The real problem was year number two when a 3rd place WI team went. Last year did fine.
LikeLike
Richard,
“However, as the western 4 states will likely get the hockey and baseball tournaments the majority of the time & the central 4 states will get the football title game all the time and the basketball tournament the majority of the time (as well as hockey and baseball some time), I have no problem with the eastern 3 states being over-represented in the basketball rotation, considering that they’ll never get the football title game & likely never get the hockey tournament.”
And I’d counter by saying that a central location for hoops more often makes more sense because that’s convenient for the most fan bases and it’s close to the most fans. FB and MBB are the two big revenue sports and thus are different from the other sports. The east will get lacrosse because that makes sense. We’ll see how 2017 goes, but I think they’ll be very reliant on UMD fans to fill the building. PSU and RU aren’t hoops schools, and they’re the only other ones near DC. If it’s a down year for UMD, how will ticket sales go?
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/05/jim_tressel_a_finalist_for_pre.html
Jim Tressel says he’ll never coach again because he has more important things to do.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2014/05/ohio_state_ranks_third_nationa.html
Interesting sidebar about number of total draft picks and 1st rounders by school both all-time and in the past decade.
LikeLike
Interesting list. 11 of top 12 all-time in total picks are consensus top 12 programs. Only FSU isn’t there-they aren’t in all-time top 25. Tennessee is #7. 13 and 14 are UGA and LSU-no surprise.
Also interesting is this with 4 Midwestern schools:
School all-time last decade
Notre Dame #2 #17T
Nebraska #5 #15
Michigan #6 #19T
Penn St. #8 #17T
also
Tennessee #7 #19T
LikeLike
Thankfully for me, OSU was #3 on both lists (#2 for 1st rounders).
LikeLike
PSU and Michigan have really underperformed the last decade. I think Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin are in the right spots. MSU may be in the top 15 when we look back 10 years from now.
Also, given that the NFL is now passing league QB’s and WR’s are at a premium and that’s 2 positions the B1G struggles to produce as of late.
LikeLike
There are 4 kings in the B10 and another 2 Midwestern kings (ND and OU). Wisconsin and Iowa (neither kings or with much in-state talent) have outperformed all of them over the past decade besides OSU and OU. That’s impressive.
What’s just as or more impressive is that, despite being located much farther away from fertile recruiting hotbeds, Wisconsin and Iowa have produced more draft picks over the past decade than one king (Tennessee) and a whole bevy of princes who are adjacent to or sitting on goldmines of football talent (TAMU, UCLA, Auburn, SC, Arkansas. Clemson, UNC, Stanford, Oregon). That is astounding.
LikeLike
There’s zero reason, however, for the B10 to struggle at producing pocket passers. Other than not opening up the wallets as much as the SEC has to get the best assistant coaches.
LikeLike
You’re correct, the B10 should be able to produce good pocket passers. The old fashioned run-first offenses many teams stuck with for so long was part of the problem. On the other hand, MI used to crank them out from that type of offense.
LikeLike
Note that the NFL started in the Midwest and was an almost exclusively Midwestern and Northeastern league (covering, in fact, just a little more than the current footprint of the B10) through much of its history. The last pre-AFL merger season (1965), the NFL had 14 teams, and 11 of the 14 metro areas were completely or partially in the current B10 footprint( NYC, DC, and StL were the metros on the edge, Dallas, SF, and LA were outside).
Also, for several decades, of the 10 traditional powers, full half (ND, UM, OSU, UNL, and OU) were Midwestern (USC, Texas, ‘Bama, Tennessee, and PSU were the others).
From the ’30’s until the ’70’s, the Midwest dominated college football as much as the South does now.
LikeLike
http://www.tsn.ca/toronto/story/?id=451378
TSN is going full-ESPN. Not long until the Ocho, eh?
LikeLike
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2014/changing-channels-americans-view-just-17-channels-despite-record-number-to-choose-from.html
More data on the screw job that is pay TV.
According to Nielsen’s forthcoming Advertising & Audiences Report, the average U.S. TV home now receives 189 TV channels—a record high and significant jump since 2008, when the average home received 129 channels. Despite this increase, however, consumers have consistently tuned in to an average of just 17 channels.
That’s 10 channels you rarely/never watch for every 1 you do, and it used to be just 6.
And some people project pay TV to cost $200/month by 2020.
LikeLike
Should schools think about dropping down to FCS from FBS? Has never happened since Division 1 split up in the late 1970’s.
Schools mentioned: UMass, Wyoming.
http://bloguin.com/crystalballrun/mac/will-any-school-drop-to-fcs-in-evolving-college-football-landscape.html?
LikeLike
Short answer: No.
LikeLike
Map of the Most Desirable college in each state, as determined solely by the number of applications:
http://www.businessinsider.com/desirable-college-state-map-2014-5#!KluZT
(at the bottom of that list is a link to the map of the largest school in each state)
LikeLike
I doubt there are many kids turning down Harvard to go to Northeastern, or even Stanford to go to UCLA. Rather than most desirable college it just shows the school with the most applications. Could be due to low/no application fee, etc. Even UCF over UF and FSU looks unlikely except as an applicant count. For most states including the expanded B1G footprint (except Illinois) the state flagship wins this contest. Northwestern beat out U of Illinois.
LikeLike
NBC locks up the Olympics through 2032.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nbc-extends-olympic-deal-2032-165232522–oly.html
LikeLike
The USOC is rumored to be considering a serious push for both the Summer and Winter games toward the end of that contract.
The US is considered a favorite to get a summer games around 2024/2028 because by then, it’ll have been 28/32 years since Atlanta 1996.
Also, by then, it will have been far enough from SLC 2002 that places like Tahoe/Denver/SLC will again push for, and be in the competition to get, the Winter games in 2026/2030.
(The Summer and Winter games are bid and considered separate, having hosted one does not prejudice getting the other a few years later).
A secondary goal of this post is to make everyone, myself included, feel really old.
LikeLike
Possibly the best bid in New York got knocked out early.
The best bid Chicago got knocked out in the first round for a Brazilian bid that may end up being a disaster.
There’s a lot of anti-US bias. 2024 will be in Europe. They’ve never gone 3 times in a row without Europe. 2028 might be in Africa or Asia.
LikeLike
I was going to agree until I wondered other than S. Africa, where is there a politically stable (and rich enough) place that might be able to put the Olympics on in Africa? As for Asia, China just held it. But I suppose Japan would be possible.
LikeLike
There’s been talk of South Africa mounting a bid.
LikeLike
I miss Vuvuzelas.
LikeLike
Mike:
Ha! Auto disqualification!
I still hear bees droning…
LikeLike
India is going want/warrant an Olympics at some point. Before the near slush-fest that Sochi was, I would have looked at Chile (they have actual snowy mountains) as a possible “first Winter Olympics in the southern hemisphere” candidate.
LikeLike
India has some major administrative problems due to corruption. (Yes, the Indian Olympic Comm. is too corrupt for the IOC) The IOC has threatened to kick India out of the Olympic movement, something that has only happened once before to South Africa due to apartheid. At Sochi, Indians were not allowed to complete under the Indian flag, they had to use the Olympic one. IMHO, it will be a long time before there is a South Asian games.
LikeLike
7 US Cities want the 2024 summer games:
My thoughts:
Dallas: Only if you want athletes to die of heatstroke in summer Texas heat.
LA; Probably the favorite
DC/Balt: Olympics tend not to like multi-city bids. Weather could be an issue.
Boston: A sleeper candidate in my opinion, but would need an olympic stadium closer to downtown. No idea who would build it or what it would be used for post-games (Patriots own Foxborough and the land surrounding it)
Phila: Nice thought, but lacks cache of NYC and Chi, which both got butts kicked in voting.
SF: Has international cache, but would Levi Stadium work as olympic stadium? The city/region least likely to commit public monies for new sporting facilities.
San Diego: Good weather, new SD Chargers stadium could be build big enough to use as Olympic Stadium, but mass transit? traffic? other facilities? Using cruiseships as hotel rooms?
Now, why do I seem bullish on the US getting summer and winter games around that time, considering the good points brought up about developing countries?
Because between South Africa world cup, Brazil world cup and olympics, Sochi madness, and Qatar issues with weather, I think the IOC will dial back on the desire to go to emerging markets until they are more able to handle the costs of building the facilities and infastructure (stadia, 50,000 hotel rooms, buses, subways/trains. highways), have better gov’t that’s not corrupt and able to build large scale projects on time and on budget, and have the popular will of the people to actually hold the games. The IOC also hates when countries build the so-called white elephants that lack use after the games and deteriorate, because they perceive it as a negative that could diminish the desire for other cities to bid on the games.
As for India, from all accounts, the country has Chicago during prohibition-type corruption and an inability to prevent female tourists from getting brutally gang-raped. The country has other, more pressing issues than staging the olympics.
LikeLike
The IOC also hates when countries build the so-called white elephants that lack use after the games and deteriorate, because they perceive it as a negative that could diminish the desire for other cities to bid on the games.
I would be very surprised if the IOC cares what happens to the venues after the games.
As for India… inability to prevent female tourists from getting brutally gang-raped.
That is painting with a very broad brush.
LikeLike
It is, but message board comments don’t really lend themselves for detailed analysis. But the broader concept is that a few horrific stories have created a perception, real or exaggerated, that female tourists are not safe in India.
As for the white elephants, the IOC cares tremendously for 2 reasons: 1) wanting to have a positive legacy for each game, and 2) showing future bidders that there is value in building new structures to have the games. #2 is the critical part, because less cities will bid if they are unwilling to spend billions to have unused structures slowly decay after the games.
LikeLike
As for the white elephants, the IOC cares tremendously for 2 reasons: 1) wanting to have a positive legacy for each game, and 2) showing future bidders that there is value in building new structures to have the games. #2 is the critical part, because less cities will bid if they are unwilling to spend billions to have unused structures slowly decay after the games.
I just don’t think the IOC cares about anything but money. No one bids on the games because they think building the infrastructure is a good investment. How much of Sochi will end up being used? I think it was deadspin that recently ran a story on the (still) unused venues from Athens. As you pointed out there isn’t a shortage of cities lining up to bid on the games.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – “As for
Indiathe IOC, from all accounts, thecountryorganization has Chicago during prohibition-type corruption…”I fixed that quote for you. You can also swap out “the IOC” with “FIFA” and the statement would continue to be true. Whether it’s right or wrong, the IOC has some insane anti-US sentiment (especially considering that NBC’s TV money effectively bankrolls that entire organization) that defies all logic.
LikeLike
Haha. Yes, the IOC and FIFA are both hilariously corrupt. But even with anti-US sentiment, they do try to rotate the games among the continents fairly evenly. By that point, it will time for the US to host again.
Also, I’m sure nothing is written down, but I have to believe that NBC didn’t bid $7billion through 2032 without some sort of understanding that between now and the end of that contract, there will have been at least one olympics in the US, and a second one, if not in the US, then in Canada.
What hurt the US in past bids, in addition to the anti-US sentiment, was the NYC west side stadium getting voted down a month before the 2012 games were awarded, distaste over what the IOC perceived was intense over-commercialization of the Atlanta 1996 games, and distaste over the IOC-SLC bribery scandal (more that it became public than that there were bribes–the IOC loves it some free goodies/cash). But since Atlanta, there’s only been or awarded 1 other game in the US and 2 in North America. Contrast to 1 for Oceania, 4 Asia (Nagano, Beijing, So Korea, Tokyo), 4 in Europe (Sochi, Turin, Athens, London) and 1 in So America (Brazil). it will simply be time for the US by then.
Tahoe 2026! (which held the winter games in 1960- Squaw Valley)
LikeLike
I think these 2024 bidders from the US are crazy. Total waste. 2028 is possible. Summer games NOT held in Europe: 1904, 1932, 1956, 1964, 1968, 1976, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2016, 2020.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/07/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-college-football-playoff/8791503/
Interview with Delany about the playoff.
I like the committee. I like the commitment to bring in the best four teams. I like the procedures they’ve adopted, the weekly poll. I love the makeup of the committee. I think it’s a great committee. It’s got people from the media, from government, from the coaching ranks. It’s a national committee. I think what they do the first two years, first year is really important – in terms of encouraging scheduling. If they walk away from strength of schedule and don’t reward people for playing people and beating people, I think that would be a real threat to what it is we’re trying to accomplish.
I know there’s a lot of debate about eight (conference) games, nine games. They’re going to have to work through that. I’m not a person who thinks everybody’s got to do everything the same way. But I am a person who believes you choose to play people. We choose to play the ACC Challenge (in basketball). We choose to play the SEC in bowl games. We choose to play. I expect that to be acknowledged.
When we set it up, we said the tiebreakers are: Who’s won a conference championship? Who have you played/who have you beaten, strength of schedule? Who have you beaten head-to-head? I think everyone is agreed upon that. If we move forward on the basis that everyone is agreed upon that, then it’s up to the committee to actualize that. We’re not home but we’re getting close. … I would say we’re around third base, on our way home with regard to everything that committee has to do other than seed and select.
…
Q: Eight games vs. nine is a hot topic right now. What was the driving force behind the Big Ten going to nine conference games?
A: For us, it’s a combination of things. One is the Playoff. Another thing is we’re going to get larger (as a conference), we’re going to play each other more. We want to be a conference.
One, it’s really hard to get quality non-conference games. People don’t want to go on the road because everybody is trying to get seven home games. Two, I don’t have anything against FCS, but they have a different number of scholarships for gosh’s sakes. What is that about? They have 20 fewer scholarships. I know they’re looking for a payday; I get that. Appalachian State beat Michigan. But I’m just saying for us, it’s more about binding a conference together and it’s about the difficulty of getting good non-conference opponents.
We want our fans to come to games. We’ve got to give them good games. We also have a network. We also have season-ticket holders. … What I really like is that every athlete in the Big Ten who plays football will play every opponent inside the four-year period. That’s what I like.
…
You start breaking down who you play and who you don’t play. If you don’t play the right people. If you don’t get the right wins. That’s what’s going to happen. That’s why it’s incumbent on the committee to break every team down, every game down.
What I’m thinking is if you have a good league, and we have had good leagues over the years, I’m going to have on average, that ninth game, and then we’re committed to playing a group of five opponent on a comparable band, add that and that gives me 10 games. Then if I’m going to try to get most of my other games from the other five, I’m going to develop a strength of schedule. I want that for our fans. I want that for television. I want that for our players. I want that because that’s the criteria that’s been laid out.
Q: It’s worked in basketball. They’ve made it an emphasis. Teams have been punished for weak non-conference scheduling.
A: If that happens in the world in college football, and it’s actualized in the selection process and it’s clear, that couldn’t be stronger or better message for college football and college football fans. If you don’t do it, I think people will go to seven-game schedules and three FCS opponents. That’s not good for college football.
Q: Immediately after the Big Ten’s East and West divisions were formed, people reacted saying there is a football imbalance – that the East is stacked, West is not. Did you anticipate that? How much of that is a concern?
A: The last time (we split into divisions), we tried to do everything based on competitiveness. We were centralized enough that we could do it. I think when you go all the way out East, you have to make a decision. I think rivalries matter. Travel matters.
My own view is over time – when the SEC first started divisions 22 years ago, the East was dominant. Florida, Tennessee and Georgia. Arkansas, Alabama, LSU were down. The last 10 years, the West has been stronger than the East. I think that maybe the East is coming back. I think Tennessee will get better, and Florida. Georgia will get better. I think the same thing could happen with us.
I know Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State are the historic teams, but I also think Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa are very capable. Illinois. You can’t advance without beating the best of the other (division) anyway. I think there’s something to re-evaluate, we’re pushing the envelope as conferences get larger. But as conferences get larger, they become more regional through divisions.
That’s why the ninth game is important. You’ve got one across, two that rotate. You’re going to be able to do that. If you didn’t play nine, it would be harder. I wouldn’t be shocked someday if we’re playing 10 – as it becomes more and more difficult to schedule non-conference games.
Emphasis mine. That’s the most detail we’ve gotten about parity-based scheduling, and it confirms Richard’s theory. We’ve all got 1 locked crossover for 6 years while the other 2 in out tier rotate and the third game goes through the
Tier 1 = NE, WI, IA / OSU, MI, PSU
Tier 2 = NW, IL, MN / MSU, RU, UMD
Tier 3 = PU / IN
Teams have 1 locked opponent in their own tier, 1 game rotates through the rest of their tier and Tier 3, and the third game rotates through the other tier.
Example:
OSU
Known crossovers
2016 – NE, @WI, NW
2017 – @NE, @IA, IL
2018 – NE, @PU, MN
2019 – @NE, WI, @NW
Predicted
2020 – NE, IA, @IL
2021 – @NE, PU, @MN
NE – 6
WI, IA, NW, IL, MN, PU – 2
The cycle starts over in 2022 with WI or IA replacing NE as the locked team, then the third time around is for 2028-2033.
Total Games:
NE, WI, IA – 10
NW, IL, MN, PU – 6
PU gets IN every year, with 1 game rotating through Tier 1 and the other through Tier 2.
Known
2016 – PSU, @UMD, @IN
2017 – MI, @RU, IN
2018 – OSU, @MSU, @IN
2019 – @PSU, UMD, IN
Projected
2020 – @MI, RU, @IN
2021 – @OSU, MSU, IN
Q: I know some people have come out and said – and the Playoff hasn’t even begun yet – but that they believe it will expand to eight teams either during the initial 12-year contract period or after. What are your thoughts on the size of the Playoff?
A: This is the same conversation we had when we went to the BCS. We were at two. As soon as someone was left out, they wanted four. We haven’t gotten to four yet, now they want to go to eight. That’s always the problem. It’s a slippery slope. Ultimately, it’s about protecting the regular season and having a calendar that works for academics. Maybe some of the same people who say (that it should go to eight) say we’re worried about the athletes. You’ve got to be careful. Too much ice cream isn’t good for anybody. It’s still college sports.
LikeLike
@Brian. Thanks for the link and the c&pastes. In general, Delany gives good interview. And interesting to see some official clue on how parity scheduling is working.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/07/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-question-and-answer/8774193/
Another Delany Q & A. Lots of stuff about the ongoing restructuring of the NCAA.
Q: There are no plans to move the football championship game East, right?
A: I think we’re going to keep it central. It’s too hard. In basketball, you have 14 fan bases. With football, you have two fan bases involved in the championship game. Out of respect and common sense, you don’t want to move it to a place where 100% of the people that are involved are going to have to come from someplace else.
Like MSP, for example?
Q: What would it take for the Big Ten to expand again? What would you need to gain in order to be interested in expanding again?
A: If you’re thinking of building a conference and keeping tradition alive, building fan bases and natural rivalries, movement beyond where we are probably needs to be looked at in a very suspicious kind of way. You dilute yourself the larger you get. … I don’t know what would have to happen. … I think everybody is just trying to take what’s occurred, live it, make it solid and it’s very hard in the environment we’re in over the next five-to-seven years, to see more change.
Conveniently, that’s near when the GoRs start ending.
LikeLike
Very interesting discussion of restructuring. Been hard to tell what some of the P5 were thinking. This is a good explanation of the Big 10 (and apparently SEC also from his comments) thinking is.
LikeLike
Because there haven’t been enough weeks of rumor-mongering and baseless speculation, the NFL may move the draft back another week or two for 2015.
LikeLike
@Brian – Ugh. As a sports wonk, I used to love the NFL Draft when it was all on a Saturday and Sunday in early April. I’d have it on for hours and hours on end and, just as importantly, it wasn’t interfering with any other major sporting events like the NBA Playoffs. Now, the NFL has stretched out the draft over 4 days and they’re going in the wrong direction in terms of a draft date. (If anything, it needs to be earlier.) This year’s draft process has felt unbelievably drawn out – moving even later into May is a horrible idea. Of course, the NFL has no doubt run the numbers and whatever day makes them the most money, they’ll move it there (as is their right).
LikeLike
Yes, their talk of moving it back to Memorial Day weekend is scary. I guess they figure the real money is made on Thursday, so losing some audience members to travel and holiday plans won’t hurt much.
LikeLike
http://coachingsearch.247sports.com/Article/New-rule-College-players-can-receive-compensation-for-camps-28512593
An interesting test for loosening the amateurism rules.
NCAA now set to allow CFB players to be paid for working at summer football camps.
From the article:
“New legislation in college football allows current college football players to receive compensation for working on campus summer football camps.
…
‘No colleges will be allowed to advertise that a star player will be serving as an instructor during a summer camp. For example, if Heisman Trophy winner Jameis Winston were to serve as part of the staff for Jimbo Fisher’s football camp, the Seminoles staff is prohibited from advertising that Winston will be present and/or coaching a group of quarterbacks.”
LOL. Yeah, like no one will get the word out. What constitutes “advertising?” LOL
Anyway, should be interesting to see how this plays out.
LikeLike
BTN’s top 50 B10 draft prospects. How many actually get drafted?
1. Taylor Lewan, OT, Michigan: This draft is loaded with offensive tackles, but Lewan has the skill-set to play left and right tackle, which will only help his stock. I’d be shocked if this guy falls out of the top 10.
2. Darqueze Dennard, CB, Michigan State: The top cover-corner in this year’s draft class, Dennard has outstanding natural instincts and is able to diagnose plays very quickly, which is something that rookie corners often struggle with.
3. Ryan Shazier, OLB, Ohio State: Totaled an eye-popping 316 tackles in three years in Columbus and has a knack for making big-time plays in big-time games.
4. Ra’Shede Hageman, DT, Minnesota: When this guy is playing with a high-motor, there may not be a more intimidating force in this year’s NFL Draft class.
5. Carlos Hyde, RB, Ohio State: Considered by many to be the top back in this year’s draft, Hyde runs with outstanding power and plays with a pure passion for the game.
6. Bradley Roby, CB, Ohio State: One of the top athletes in this class, Roby has an extremely high ceiling and has the chance to be an elite NFL corner if he lands with the right team.
7. Cody Latimer, WR, Indiana: A bit of an unknown commodity playing at a basketball school, this guy has great size and can stretch the field with his play-making ability.
8. Allen Robinson, WR, Penn State: People knock Robinson for his lack of explosiveness, but there isn’t another guy in this draft capable of going up and making tough catches over defenders like he can.
9. Chris Borland, ILB, Wisconsin: He lacks ideal size and measurables, but this guy is a flat-out football player and an ideal teammate.
10. Stanley Jean-Baptiste, CB, Nebraska: Arguably the best athlete in this year’s Big Ten draft class, this guy has the size (6-3) to lock down opposing team’s deep threats.
Totals:
OSU – 10
MSU, WI – 7
IA, NE – 5
PSU – 4
MI, PU – 3
IN, MN – 2
IL, NW – 1
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/05/ohio_state_draft_predictions_f.html
FWIW, this OSU writer expects 4 Buckeyes in the first 3 rounds (all top 12 on BTN’s list) and then 1 more late (#32 on the BTN’s list), with several players going as UFAs. One of those UFAs is #29 on the BTN’s list.
I’ll take that as roughly guessing the B10 will get 30-35 players drafted.
The fan poll mostly agrees, with 70% expecting 5 or 6 Buckeyes to get drafted.
LikeLike
End result:
2 in the 1st
2 in the 2nd
1 in the 5th
1 in the 7th
6 total.
So the fans were realistic.
LikeLike
Round 1:
11. #1
15. #3
24. #2
31. #6
LikeLike
Round 2:
37. #4
57. #5
58. #10
59. #12
61. #8
63. #7
That’s 1-12 except 9 and 11.
Round 3:
65. #15
68. #20
71. #17
77. #9
78. #23
95. #18
Remaining:
11. Jared Abbrederis, WR, Wisconsin: You won’t find a better route runner or a pair of better hands in this year’s draft. Totaling 78 catches for 1,081 yards and 7 touchdowns last season speaks to that.
13. DaQuan Jones, DT, Penn State: A big-body guy who has the size and speed combination to play defensive tackle in a 4-3 or nose tackle in a 3-4 defense.
14. Brock Vereen, S, Minnesota: Prototypical free-range safety with strength and cover skills. Could be a starter one day if he improves his run defense.
16. Max Bullough, ILB, Michigan State: Bullough is a big, tough football-minded star who was the heart and soul of the top defense in college football this past season.
19. Ricardo Allen, CB, Purdue: Allen doesn’t have great size, but he is a flat-out playmaker, returning four of his 13 career interceptions for scores.
21. Denicos Allen, OLB, Michigan State: Allen had one of the most productive four-year college careers of any linebacker in this draft. He lacks ideal size for the position, but he makes up for that with experience.
22. Isaiah Lewis, S, Michigan State: Like Allen, Lewis lacks ideal size but is physical and has an outstanding motor, anchoring the top defense in the nation.
24. John Urschel, G, Penn State: Smartest player not only on this list, but in the entire NFL Draft. This guy will be successful in whatever he does.
25. Jonathan Brown, OLB, Illinois: Brown is a solid athlete with a great work ethic, but at 6-0, 238 pounds, he’s undersized for an NFL linebacker.
LikeLike
Round 4:
112. #13
119. #27
130. #30
131. #14
Remaining:
11. Jared Abbrederis, WR, Wisconsin: You won’t find a better route runner or a pair of better hands in this year’s draft. Totaling 78 catches for 1,081 yards and 7 touchdowns last season speaks to that.
16. Max Bullough, ILB, Michigan State: Bullough is a big, tough football-minded star who was the heart and soul of the top defense in college football this past season.
19. Ricardo Allen, CB, Purdue: Allen doesn’t have great size, but he is a flat-out playmaker, returning four of his 13 career interceptions for scores.
21. Denicos Allen, OLB, Michigan State: Allen had one of the most productive four-year college careers of any linebacker in this draft. He lacks ideal size for the position, but he makes up for that with experience.
22. Isaiah Lewis, S, Michigan State: Like Allen, Lewis lacks ideal size but is physical and has an outstanding motor, anchoring the top defense in the nation.
24. John Urschel, G, Penn State: Smartest player not only on this list, but in the entire NFL Draft. This guy will be successful in whatever he does.
25. Jonathan Brown, OLB, Illinois: Brown is a solid athlete with a great work ethic, but at 6-0, 238 pounds, he’s undersized for an NFL linebacker.
26. Beau Allen, NT, Wisconsin: A nice option as a 3-4, two-down run stuffer, Allen uses his big, beefy frame and pure strength to shed blocks on the interior.
28. Quincy Enunwa, WR, Nebraska: Lost a bit in a deep wide receiver class, Enunwa has exceptional size (6-2, 225 pounds) and can go up and snatch the ball out of the air.
29. Andrew Norwell, OG, Ohio State: An old-school offensive lineman who can mix it up in the trenches. His versatility should help him find a home in the NFL.
31. Ryan Groy, G, Wisconsin: Terrific size with an elite combination of height, strength and football smarts, but showed just average athleticism at the NFL Combine.
32. Corey Linsley, C, Ohio State: Has ideal strength for the center position, which he used to anchor one of the top rushing attacks in the Big Ten.
33. Jacob Pedersen, TE, Wisconsin: He’s good in the short passing game and is very versatile, which means he can be moved around and used in a number of formations.
34. Bennie Fowler, WR, Michigan State: He is an outstanding athlete with a great combination of size and leaping ability – just needs to be more consistent.
35. James Morris, LB, Iowa: He’s not the kind of guy who will blow you away with his athleticism and measurables, but he is a really good football player who has the determination to succeed as a 4-3 Mike linebacker.
LikeLike
Round 5:
147. #19
149. NR
161. #32
175. #24
176. #11
Remaining:
16. Max Bullough, ILB, Michigan State: Bullough is a big, tough football-minded star who was the heart and soul of the top defense in college football this past season.
21. Denicos Allen, OLB, Michigan State: Allen had one of the most productive four-year college careers of any linebacker in this draft. He lacks ideal size for the position, but he makes up for that with experience.
22. Isaiah Lewis, S, Michigan State: Like Allen, Lewis lacks ideal size but is physical and has an outstanding motor, anchoring the top defense in the nation.
25. Jonathan Brown, OLB, Illinois: Brown is a solid athlete with a great work ethic, but at 6-0, 238 pounds, he’s undersized for an NFL linebacker.
26. Beau Allen, NT, Wisconsin: A nice option as a 3-4, two-down run stuffer, Allen uses his big, beefy frame and pure strength to shed blocks on the interior.
28. Quincy Enunwa, WR, Nebraska: Lost a bit in a deep wide receiver class, Enunwa has exceptional size (6-2, 225 pounds) and can go up and snatch the ball out of the air.
29. Andrew Norwell, OG, Ohio State: An old-school offensive lineman who can mix it up in the trenches. His versatility should help him find a home in the NFL.
31. Ryan Groy, G, Wisconsin: Terrific size with an elite combination of height, strength and football smarts, but showed just average athleticism at the NFL Combine.
33. Jacob Pedersen, TE, Wisconsin: He’s good in the short passing game and is very versatile, which means he can be moved around and used in a number of formations.
34. Bennie Fowler, WR, Michigan State: He is an outstanding athlete with a great combination of size and leaping ability – just needs to be more consistent.
35. James Morris, LB, Iowa: He’s not the kind of guy who will blow you away with his athleticism and measurables, but he is a really good football player who has the determination to succeed as a 4-3 Mike linebacker.
LikeLike
Round 6 saw only #28 go. The NFL really seems to disagree with the BTN about MSU defenders.
LikeLike
Round 7:
217. #44
224. #26
241. #41
244. #38
That’s 30 of the 50, or roughly what I expected.
Remaining to become UFAs:
16. Max Bullough, ILB, Michigan State: Bullough is a big, tough football-minded star who was the heart and soul of the top defense in college football this past season.
21. Denicos Allen, OLB, Michigan State: Allen had one of the most productive four-year college careers of any linebacker in this draft. He lacks ideal size for the position, but he makes up for that with experience.
22. Isaiah Lewis, S, Michigan State: Like Allen, Lewis lacks ideal size but is physical and has an outstanding motor, anchoring the top defense in the nation.
25. Jonathan Brown, OLB, Illinois: Brown is a solid athlete with a great work ethic, but at 6-0, 238 pounds, he’s undersized for an NFL linebacker.
29. Andrew Norwell, OG, Ohio State: An old-school offensive lineman who can mix it up in the trenches. His versatility should help him find a home in the NFL.
31. Ryan Groy, G, Wisconsin: Terrific size with an elite combination of height, strength and football smarts, but showed just average athleticism at the NFL Combine.
33. Jacob Pedersen, TE, Wisconsin: He’s good in the short passing game and is very versatile, which means he can be moved around and used in a number of formations.
34. Bennie Fowler, WR, Michigan State: He is an outstanding athlete with a great combination of size and leaping ability – just needs to be more consistent.
35. James Morris, LB, Iowa: He’s not the kind of guy who will blow you away with his athleticism and measurables, but he is a really good football player who has the determination to succeed as a 4-3 Mike linebacker.
36. Kain Colter, ATH, Northwestern: Played quarterback in college, but will have to use his athleticism, playmaking ability and creativity to adapt as a slot receiver in the NFL.
37. Bruce Gaston, DT, Purdue: Gaston has great size (6-3, 316 pounds) and experience as a four-year starter at Purdue. Once he develops into a better pass rusher, he could be a starter in a 4-3 system.
39. Glenn Carson, ILB, Penn State: Smart kid who has the experience and work effort to carve out a solid career in the NFL.
40. Taylor Martinez, ATH, Nebraska: An elite athlete, Martinez will likely find a spot in the league as a wide receiver or defensive back.
42. Ciante Evans, CB, Nebraska: He isn’t the biggest corner at 5-10, 193 pounds, but he looks for contact, recording 11 tackles for loss this past season, which led all Big Ten cornerbacks.
43. Kenny Guiton, QB, Ohio State: He played behind Braxton Miller, but shined whenever he took the field. Guiton has the skills to make an NFL roster, despite being a backup throughout his college career. He’s that good.
45. Fou Fonoti, OT, Michigan State: Explosive college tackle whose development was slowed by a foot injury. He has the size to make it if he can develop his pass protection skills.
46. Connor Boffelli, OG, Iowa: This is a football-minded guy who possesses both the intelligence and versatility to battle for an NFL roster spot.
47. C.J. Barnett, S, Ohio State: He has an advanced understanding of the game, and is physical in run support. This guy has the drive to be successful at the next level.
48. Corey Brown, WR, Ohio State: He’s not the biggest player in the world, but he does a little bit of everything out on the football field.
49. Tyler Hoover, DT, Michigan State: This is a big, physical guy who plays with a chip on his shoulder, but injuries have plagued him throughout his college career.
50. Cody Webster, P, Purdue: One of the finalists for the Ray Guy Award in 2013, Webster has a huge leg and could very well be selected late in this draft.
The MSU defenders all dropped compared to this guys rankings, but we still don’t know what kept Bullough out of the Rose Bowl so maybe that red flag cost him.
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/georgia-state-wants-to-turn-turner-field-into-foot/nfq8R/
Georgia State wants to turn Turner Field into a 30,000 seat football stadium after the Braves leave, as well as building a new baseball stadium for the school.
LikeLike
How far is that from Bobby Dodd?
LikeLike
4 miles, roughly. It’s only 1.5 miles from Georgia State (they currently play in the Georgia Dome, which is halfway between Bobby Dodd and Turner Field).
LikeLike
Seems like a good idea, but having 3 football stadia in a close radius does seem a bit excessive.
LikeLike
having 2 college football teams right next door seems a bit excessive.
But the Georgia Dome is too big and expensive for Georgia State and they really can use the space. Several of their athletic teams play on a 20 acre tract about 10 miles away in a bad neighborhood.
Georgia State has been gradually eating up the southeast side of downtown Atlanta as businesses have been fleeing to the suburbs or Buckhead. Even the Atlanta paper moved to Dunwoody, outside I-285.
LikeLike
Quick 1st round analysis:
1. The SEC is still dominant, but the B10 did much better this year
2013 1st Round:
SEC – 12
ACC – 6
P12 – 5
B12 – 3
Ind – 2
B10 – 1 (#31, the penultimate pick)
BE – 1
CUSA – 1
MAC – 1
2014:
SEC – 11
ACC – 5
B10 – 4 (11, 15, 24, 31)
AAC – 4
P12 – 3
B12 – 2
MAC – 2
Ind – 1
2. Great night for UL and TAMU
Most picks by school:
3 – TAMU, UL
2 – OSU, AU, AL
3. Why Cleveland, why?
Here I was thinking the Browns avoided their usual draft screw up by passing on Manziel, then they trade up to take him later in the round. Like most of their 1st round picks, they’ll probably regret this one soon. At least they didn’t waste #4 on him.
LikeLike
Why Cleveland picked Manziel? Could it be the curse of Brady Quinn? Cleveland also traded up to the #22 pick to get that gem in 2007.
LikeLike
And Weeden was also #22.
LikeLike
Divisional breakdown:
SEC West – 8
East – 3
B10 East – 4
West – 0
LikeLike
Although 3 of those 8 in the SEC West were recruited to play in the Big 12.
LikeLike
By virtue of the trade down with Buffalo alone, Cleveland did really well last night.
LikeLike
I don’t get too wrapped up in the 1st round totals by conference. (although no doubt the SEC has superior talent currently) Totals through 3 or 4 rounds may be a good indicator as well. Interesting note during the draft last night that around 25% of the picks were coming from the state of Florida.
As a Packer fan my entire life there have been way more misses on our first rounders than hits. Not sure why that is. Perhaps GM’s focus more on the measureables in the 1st round as opposed to more film in the later rounds.
LikeLike
I agree, it’s not an important measure in general. But after last year’s dismal B10 draft, it was important to see that 2013 was a fluke. Also, you can look at trends of several years and see that the top picks are coming from certain places. The key is to remember that the goal of CFB isn’t to produce the most or the best NFL players.
LikeLike
Someone pointed out on a different site today that there were no players originating in the Midwest that were drafted in the 1st round. That’s pretty surprising and somewhat discouraging for B1G fans I think long-term.
LikeLike
Got a link?
LikeLike
Kevin:
Has Midwesterner’s DNA mutated dis advantageously?
LikeLike
That’s factual incorrect. Aaron Donald is from Pittsburgh. Kyle Fuller from Baltimore. Anthony Barr born in South Bend. Zach Martin is from Indianapolis. And I stopped checking after 16, so there could be more.
LikeLike
Eric Enron born in Newark, NJ. Jimmy Ward born in Racine, Wisconsin. Relevant depending on how you define “originating”.
LikeLike
Can’t find the link anymore. It wasn’t my study but am glad to hear it wasn’t correct. Would hate to see HS Football continue to erode in the Midwest
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/08/house-education-workforce-committee-northwestern-football-labor-union/8846329/
Stanford’s AD told Congress Stanford might not stay in I-A if that meant having players as employees. He was more emphatic with the media.
One of the five witnesses, Stanford athletics director Bernard Muir, told the committee that if his school’s athletes were allowed to unionize, the school “might opt not to compete at the level we are competing in.” And in an interview with USA TODAY Sports after the hearing, he was unequivocal: “If (Stanford’s athletes) are deemed employees, we will opt for a different model.”
“I just know that from our board of trustees, our president, our provost, the Stanford culture, it just wouldn’t be appropriate to deem student-athletes as employees,” Muir said. “We would deem that inappropriate, so for that purpose we would have to look at other alternatives.”
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure they won’t be alone. And I don’t mean just a few other private schools.
LikeLike
Call him Mr. President: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/05/09/0509-jim-tressel-named-YSU-president.html
LikeLike
He’s probably a good fit there, where his name recognition can help increase fund raising. He also has the managerial skills and temperament to do the job. A better school couldn’t afford to have a non-PhD in charge, but I think it’s OK at that level.
LikeLike
This was announced on Wednesday by NCAA. Sorry if this has already been discussed extensively but I cannot find the sub-thread. Great day to be Irish
http://www.und.com/genrel/050714aab.html
LikeLike
But what happened to the Irish women???
As long as its not UNC bragging about being in the top 10. We know how they get there.
LikeLike
Here are the FBS institutions that ranked in the top 10 this year, in terms of programs honored: 1.Notre Dame 15; 2. (tie) Duke, Stanford 14; 4. (tie) Boston College, Minnesota, Northwestern 12; 7. Penn State 8; 8. Vanderbilt 7; 9. (tie) Connecticut, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio State, Ohio University 6.
Not a bad day to be in the B10, either, with 5 of the top 10.
B10 – 5
ACC – 3
AAC, Ind., MAC, P12, SEC – 1
LikeLike
Bahamas Bowl on Christmas Eve, kickoff at Noon. MAC vs. C-USA.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24554293/bahamas-bowl-will-be-played-christmas-eve
LikeLike
SEC recruiting in the state of Texas.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/10893199/sec-feels-home-texas
LikeLike
Lots of opinion, but remains to be seen on the ground. Arkansas and Missouri got 2 recruits. Arkansas used to get a couple of blue chippers along with a host of other players. Missouri was getting close to half their class from Texas, but have decided to focus on Georgia and Florida. UK got 1/4 of its class from Texas under Hal Mumme. 3 from the lower echelons of Texas recruiting doesn’t say anything. LSU has always done well in East Texas. They got a break last year and flipped a couple of very good players from Texas during the coaching transition.
Alabama has gotten some of the very top players but not in quantity (I think 3 total over the last two years). They are recruiting the top players all over the country with Saban and their success. What they are doing in Texas is repeated in Ohio (and I don’t recall Ohio St. or Cincinnati joining the SEC).
A&M is doing very well, but they have always done well when they are successful.
There may be a change in Texas recruiting in the future, but the numbers don’t show any yet. They actually show a decrease over the last decade among the top players leaving the state for the SEC schools. If there is any trend in Texas, its an increase in Texas recruiting by Pac 12 schools.
Numbers from the article of this “wave:”
School
Texas recruits signed since 2002
Texas recruits signed in 2014 class
Texas A&M 254 15
Missouri 91 2
Arkansas 74 2
LSU 44 6
Vanderbilt 19 2
Miss. State 12 1
Ole Miss 12 1
Alabama 12 1
Tennessee 11 2
Kentucky 9 3
Florida 9 1
Auburn 5 0
Georgia 2 0
South Carolina 1 0
LikeLike
Missouri’s going hard after the Atlanta area lately. They still recruit Dallas and Houston some. Being in the SEC East has moved their focus to Georgia and to a lesser extent Florida.
LikeLike
AT&T may buy Direct TV.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-07/at-t-said-to-hold-talks-with-directv-about-possible-acquisition.html
LikeLike
Quote from the article:
.
Comcast Corp.’s (CMCSA) plan to acquire Time Warner Cable (TWC) Inc. — to create an even bigger provider of both TV and Internet in the U.S. — is accelerating the drive for consolidation in the rest of the industry. Meanwhile, the pool of pay-TV customers is peaking as viewers increasingly watch video online, making fast broadband connections a key offering.
I saw something rumoring this about a month ago. It may be getting more serious.
It may also be partly an effort to derail Comcast/Time Warner, making it harder for the justice department to let it pass anti-trust scrutiny.
LikeLike
There is also a reported revisiting of Dish buying DTV.
I mentioned quite a while back Internet isn’t likely to hurt live sports value. And if it does impinge some, who is being paid to provide that access? Comcast just locked up all methods of distributing the Olympics ’till ’32. And I believe Comcast is the largest internet provider in the U.S.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24555762/overstuffed-bowl-season-a-boon-for-tv-but-is-39-games-too-much
But revenue for bowls has gone up 266 percent since 2007 according to media consultant Dean Jordan.
“If you had 15 bowls, they’d probably all sell out,” Delany said. “There’s a delusional effect. Some bowls are there for TV more. Some bowls are there for [tourism] … to get people’s attention.
“It’s not primarily to sell 60,000 tickets.”
The so-called “studio football” concept is not altogether bad. Think of the bowls — for a moment — as programming, live events, profit centers. There is still money being left on the table.
“Part of the reason is that college football is the most undervalued television property in sports,” Jordan told those FBA executives.
In other words, we can’t get enough, which means the networks can’t get enough. The College Football Playoff alone (six bowls) is worth $500 million-$600 million per year.
Leech reported to those FBA folks a total of $300 million in annual bowl payouts in the latest figures available. There was only $90 million in expenses meaning a $210 million profit to the conferences. The net profit back to conferences ranged from $37 million to $1.5 million, Leech said.
“There is certainly a strategic need for others who televise college football to be in the bowl TV business,” Jordan said. “I believe there would be great interest in pursuing opportunities if they exist.”
The problem/advantage is that, largely, they don’t. ESPN at least owns the rights to 39 of the 40 bowls. When the Cotton Bowl was allowed into the CFP rotation, it effectively ended Fox’s college football presence on the last day of the regular season. The network has no college football postseason properties.
Not good news for the fledgling Fox Sports 1.
If Fox is going to grow its new channel, it would help to grow it’s inventory regarding the nation’s second-most popular sport. That means creating a bidding market for the rights to bowls. For that to happen — sources say — three to five bowls would have to leave ESPN at the end of their contracts and jump to another network (or networks).
Fox COO Larry Jones famously pleaded with those FBA execs at last year’s meeting. It was guerilla marketing at its best.
It also failed, at least for the near term.
Jones probably is aware of the dominance ESPN has created. Per Jordan, a full roster of bowl games produces 250 gross ratings points. Seventy-five of those come post-Christmas through New Year’s Day when those advertisers load up.
“If bowl games were packaged together collectively like a conference they would be the largest single package of games on ESPN,” Jordan said.
That might be the best answer to the are-there-too-many bowls question. A playoff that was supposed to diminish the bowls below it instead has almost caused the postseason explosion.
The average bowl game rating on ESPN is almost double that of regular-season NBA, according to Jordan. Backed with those type of numbers, who says there are too many games?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24555690/unlike-pac-12-big-12-isnt-worried-about-secs-8-games
“Unlike the larger leagues, where the teams don’t play each other 100 percent, you kind of need a playoff at the end of the year because you haven’t had some of your better teams play each other,” Bowlsby said. “In our case, we all play each other and in some ways a conference championship game would be redundant. We think our method for determining our champion is the right one.”
The Big 12 and ACC submitted NCAA legislation that would deregulate conference championship games. Conferences currently must have divisions and a total of 12 teams to stage a championship game.
The proposal would allow conferences flexibility to determine who plays in the championship game. The ACC may decide next week whether it plays eight or nine games. ACC coaches favor eight. The Big Ten is eventually going to nine games.
Bowlsby said the Big 12 has no plans to switch back to a championship game. “Does that mean we’d never consider it? We might at some time,” he said. “Right now, I don’t think our athletics directors or our coaches would favor it. We like our path to the national championship playoff.”
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24556015/college-football-games-pushing-320-on-average-in-2013
Games are up to 3:18 in length on average (3:09 in 2009). TV adds 12 minutes per game. The B10 had the shortest games at 3:14 on average compared to the B12 at 3:25.
As for the Big 12, coordinator of officials Walt Anderson has a simple explanation – the conference’s new deal with Fox added two commercial breaks worth six minutes, or three per half.
The Big 12 has risen from 3:14 in 2009 to 3:25 last year, Anderson said.
The Big Ten had the lowest average despite playing 10 overtime games, tied with American for the most among BCS conferences.
Shaw said the games sped up drastically after 2007, when an average of 3:24 prompted several rule changes, including the 40-second play clock starting as soon as the previous play ended and the game clock restarting when the ball was marked ready for play after out of bounds plays.
The infusion of no-huddle offenses in college football has upped the play count and the scoring margins, which could contribute to the increased length.
LikeLike
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/will-it-be-london-2016-capital-could-be-set-to-relive-2012-as-rio-preparations-slammed-by-olympic-chiefs-9344084.html
Not that the IOC is concerned about Brazil or anything, but they’ve asked London whether they could ready again in 2016 just in case.
LikeLike
http://regressing.deadspin.com/espns-johnny-manziel-obsession-visualized-1573878127/+bubbaprog
Just stop it already, ESPN.
LikeLike
To be fair
http://regressing.deadspin.com/espns-johnny-manziel-obsession-visualized-1573878127/1574034024/+kylenw
LikeLike
It’s not exactly like Deadspin and Regressing have the same size audience as ESPN, nor do they set the sports agenda like ESPN does.
Nobody needs another round of Tim Tebow treatment for a player.
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/johnny-manziel-coverage-recap-cleveland-browns-draft-050814
This explains a lot about the Browns.
While Pettine said the “it” factor led Cleveland to pursue Manziel, Browns owner Jimmy Haslam reportedly said another form of divine intervention inspired him to target the 2012 Heisman winner — none other than a homeless man.
“Here in Cleveland, everywhere I go, people know me,” Haslam said in the report. “And I was out to dinner recently. And a homeless person was out on the street, looked up at me and said, ‘Draft Manziel.’ Just like that.”
Even Al Davis wouldn’t just listen to random homeless guys.
LikeLike
Maybe this explains Cleveland’s Manziel selection:
Team president Alec Scheiner told ESPN.com that, in the time since Manziel was selected through 5 p.m. ET Friday, the team has sold more than 2,300 season tickets. “We know right now that every one of our games is going to be sold out for next season,” Scheiner said.
I do not think Bridgewater would have the same effect. Cleveland is not Buffalo, but they are not Green Bay either in terms of ticket sales. Less discounting and more premium seat sales make the pick a financial win. How it works out on the field is TBD.
LikeLike
Mack,
“Maybe this explains Cleveland’s Manziel selection:
Team president Alec Scheiner told ESPN.com that, in the time since Manziel was selected through 5 p.m. ET Friday, the team has sold more than 2,300 season tickets. “We know right now that every one of our games is going to be sold out for next season,” Scheiner said.
I do not think Bridgewater would have the same effect. Cleveland is not Buffalo, but they are not Green Bay either in terms of ticket sales. Less discounting and more premium seat sales make the pick a financial win. How it works out on the field is TBD.”
Manziel’s hype will sell tickets right up to the time he actually has to play. Then he’ll either prove the Browns right or prove me right. The Browns start off with @Pitt, NO, Baltimore then their only bye week. By then they should be 0-3 and all but out of the playoff race. If he doesn’t unseat Hoyer by midseason, he won’t sell any more tickets. Besides, it appears he won’t have anyone to throw it to anyway.
You know what else sells tickets? Winning. They should give that a try sometime.
LikeLike
And to make things more confounding, in perhaps the deepest WR draft ever the Browns didn’t take one despite Josh Gordon being out for the year due to his drug suspension. They also reached for a LB.
LikeLike
…but they got guaranteed ESPN attention with Johnny Autograph…
LikeLike
I guarantee the Browns will find a way to squander that by losing. It’s the Browns.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Round 2 breakdown:
SEC – 7 (4/3)
B10 – 6 (2/4)
P12 – 6
MWC – 5
ACC – 3
Ind. – 3
B12 – 1
OVC – 1
Round 3:
ACC – 7
B10 – 6
P12 – 5
SEC – 5
B12 – 2
Ind. – 2
AAC – 1
Other – 8
Total so far:
SEC – 23 (1.64/team)
B10 – 16 (1.33)
P12 – 14 (1.17)
ACC – 15 (1.07)
B12 – 5 (0.50)
AAC – 5
Ind. – 6
Other – 16
Top schools:
5 – LSU, ND
4 – OSU, FSU, UL
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/05/big_ten_bounces_back_after_rou.html
Here’s the number of Big Ten players taken in the top three rounds back to 2004:
2014: 16
2013: 7
2012: 14
2011: 12
2010: 13
2009: 15
2008: 13
2007: 16
2006: 15
2005: 14
2004: 18
Thankfully 2013 is proving to be an anomaly. Still, the number needs to rise a little more next year as we expand to 14. UMD has had 1 player drafted so far.
2004-2011 (11 teams): 14.5/year = 1.32/team/year
To match that:
12 teams – 15.8/year
14 teams – 18.5/year
LikeLike
Big 4th round for the ACC:
ACC – 13
P12 – 8
B10 – 4
SEC – 4
B12 – 2
Other – 9
Totals:
ACC – 28 (2.00/team)
SEC – 27 (1.93)
P12 – 22 (1.83)
B10 – 20 (1.67)
B12 – 7 (0.70)
Other – 36
This has been a really bad year for the B12 so far. OU didn’t have anyone drafted until the 4th round and UT still hasn’t had anyone picked. Meanwhile, TAMU and MO have 3 and 2 respectively.
LikeLike
And the SEC storms back in Round 5:
ACC – 3
B10 – 5
B12 – 2
P12 – 5
SEC – 10
Other – 11
Totals:
SEC – 37 (2.64)
P12 – 27 (2.25)
ACC – 31 (2.21)
B10 – 25 (2.08)
B12 – 9 (0.90)
Other – 47
LikeLike
And a terrible Round 6 for the B10 with just 1 pick.
LikeLike
Almost all P5 schools had at least one player drafted by the NFL in the first four rounds, but 11 did not, 5 from the B12. Four P5 schools + Rutgers had no players selected in the draft. Texas and Georgia are the big names on the list.
B1G: None= Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers (future); Rd5= Purdue
B12: None= Texas, Kansas; Rd6= KSU; Rd5= ISU, Baylor (had quite a few picks in late rounds)
ACC: Rd7= Wake Forest
SEC: Rd5= Georgia (#155), Kentucky
All P12 schools, ND, BYU, and Louisville had selections in the early rounds.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2014/5/8/5697792/2014-nfl-draft-first-round-picks-schools-conferences-recruit-ratings
Final numbers:
SEC – 49 (3.50/team)
ACC – 42 (3.00)
P12 – 34 (2.83)
B10 – 30 (2.50)
B12 – 17 (1.70)
MWC -16
AAC – 12
CUSA – 9
MAC – 8
SB – 4
Ind. – 9
Not a great year for the B10, but not terrible.
B10 schools:
OSU – 6
WI – 5
IA, MI, NE, PSU – 3
IN, MN, PU – 2
MSU – 1
IL, NW – 0
Also:
UMD – 1
RU – 0
Top schools:
9 – LSU
8 – AL, ND
7 – FSU
6 – OSU, Stanford
Despite what someone said earlier, high schools in IN and PA each produced a 1st round pick (so did MD).
Top states overall:
FL – 44
CA – 37
TX – 25
GA – 17
OH – 11
…
IL – 6
PA – 6
MD – 5
MN – 4
NJ – 4
WI – 3
MI – 2
IN – 1
IA – 1
NE – 1
B10 footprint – 44 (same as FL alone)
Other notes:
UT had 0 draft picks for the first time since 1938 (sorry, bullet).
Speaking of which, why did Jackson Jeffcoat (Hendricks award winner as top DE) slide? He was projected as a 4th rounder roughly.
LikeLike
Cowboys said he was a “tweener.” I guess he didn’t fit into the size mold of a DE or OLB. He signed as a free agent with Seattle. ESPN thought Fera (formerly with PSU-transferred with probation) would be the top kicker in the draft. Haven’t seen him sign anywhere. A half dozen Texas players signed as free agents. There’s a site that has the free agents if you are curious about someone:
http://www.nepatriotsdraft.com/2014-nfl-undrafted-free-agents
Garret Gilbert, the freshman QB in the 2009 BCS title game who finished up with SMU did get picked in the 6th round by the Rams.
LikeLike
2009 for Texas was a washout. Really very few of the 2nd rated national recruiting class contributed for Texas, let alone were NFL caliber. Mack said they started looking at stars and weren’t doing their homework. Really, they seemed to get complacent after winning the title in 2005. Almost all the contributors of the 2008 and 2009 teams were recruited before winning the title.
What’s impressive about Saban is how he has avoided complacency with their incredible run of success.
LikeLike
Bucky overachieves in development again.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2014/5/10/5704632/2015-nfl-mock-draft-jameis-winston-marcus-mariota
Just to get a head start, here’s a 2015 mock draft.
1. Jacksonville Jaguars: Randy Gregory, DE, Nebraska
2. Oakland Raiders: Jameis Winston, QB, Florida State
3. Tennessee Titans: Marcus Mariota, QB, Oregon
4. Cleveland Browns (via Buffalo Bills): Andrus Peat, OT, Stanford
5. New York Jets: Shilique Calhoun, DE/OLB, Michigan State
6. Minnesota Vikings: Tre Jackson, G, Florida State
7. Washington Redskins: Ifo Ekpre-Olomu, CB, Oregon
8. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Bryce Petty, QB, Baylor
9. Miami Dolphins: Vic Beasley, OLB, Clemson
10. Cleveland Browns: Dorial Green-Beckham, WR, Missouri
11. St. Louis Rams: Devin Funches, TE, Michigan
12. New York Giants: Todd Gurley, RB, Georgia
13. Detroit Lions: Ronald Darby, CB, Florida State
14. Dallas Cowboys: Mario Edwards, DE, Florida State
15. San Diego Chargers: Michael Bennett, DT, Ohio State
16. Pittsburgh Steelers: P.J. Williams, CB, Florida State
17. Kansas City Chiefs: Amari Cooper, WR, Alabama
18. Houston Texans: Brett Hundley, QB, UCLA
19. Cincinnati Bengals: Cedric Reed, DE, Texas
20. Baltimore Ravens: Cedric Ogbuehi, OT, Texas A&M
21. Atlanta Falcons: Melvin Gordon, RB, Wisconsin
22. Arizona Cardinals: Markus Golden, DE/OLB, Missouri
23. Chicago Bears: Landon Collins, S, Alabama
24. Carolina Panthers: Cameron Erving, OT, Florida State
25. New Orleans Saints: Noah Spence, DE/OLB, Ohio State
26. Indianapolis Colts: Brandon Scherff, OT, Iowa
27. Philadelphia Eagles: Josh Shaw, CB, Southern California
28. Green Bay Packers: Doran Grant, CB, Ohio State
29. New England Patriots: Mike Davis, RB, South Carolina
30. San Francisco 49ers: Arie Kouandjio, G, Alabama
31. Denver Broncos: Ramik Wilson, MLB, Georgia
32. Seattle Seahawks: Tyler Johnstone, OT, Oregon
FSU – 6
OSU – 3
IA, MI, MSU, NE, WI – 1
SEC – 9
B10 – 8
ACC – 7
P12 – 6
B12 – 2
#1 pick from the B10 for the first time in a while.
LikeLike
A couple of observations…
a.) Oakland took Derek Carr this year. IMHO Carr will be a better pro than Mr. INfamous Jameis. (the way I see it… if Jameis doesn’t do some growin’ up, he’ll fall by the way-side).
b.) Marcus Mariota in first round (wow!), #3 pick (double wow!)—seems awfully high for a system QB. Ditto that for Bryce Petty at #8.
c.) #6—Has an offensive guard ever went that high? Seems awfully rich for a guard.
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“a.) Oakland took Derek Carr this year. IMHO Carr will be a better pro than Mr. INfamous Jameis. (the way I see it… if Jameis doesn’t do some growin’ up, he’ll fall by the way-side).”
Winston is really highly rated and may be seen as their future franchise QB. I think most expect Carr to be a career backup. I agree about his immaturity, but the NFL has been drooling over his athletic ability and skills.
“b.) Marcus Mariota in first round (wow!), #3 pick (double wow!)—seems awfully high for a system QB. Ditto that for Bryce Petty at #8.”
Mariota is 6’4″ and 210 pounds. He’s thrown for 6300 yards and 63 TDs with 10 INTs (31/4 last year) and a 65.8% completion rate in 2 seasons. He was higher-rated than Winston last year. From all reports, the NFL is drooling over him, too.
Likewise, Petty is 6’3″ and 230 pounds. He threw for 4200 yards and 32 TDs with 3 INTs last year.
Compared to the smaller QBs many spreads use, these guys fit the NFL mold.
“c.) #6—Has an offensive guard ever went that high? Seems awfully rich for a guard.”
No, that’s just crazy talk.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140508/inside-read-marcus-mariota-myles-jack/
Also, see this SI article about Mariota.
You want a sure thing? Well, the safest draft-eligible pick will be some 3,000 miles away on Thursday night. Oregon quarterback Marcus Mariota decided to stay in Eugene for his redshirt junior season. Instead of sitting in the green room, he’s taking piano and golf classes and playing dodgeball at the local Boys & Girls Club.
How sure of a thing is Mariota? The Houston Texans may have made him the first pick if he were available, according to an NFL official familiar with the team’s thinking. That doesn’t faze Mariota, who followed the path of Andrew Luck to stay in school for a fourth year over potentially being the No. 1 pick.
“I’ve got no regrets whatsoever,” Mariota said.
NFL scouts are intrigued by the 6-foot-4, 216-pound Mariota and one said “there’s an excitement about him” as a prospect. While questions will persist about his accuracy and translation from Oregon’s spread offense, there’s a lot of optimism. “He’s really mobile and a heck of an athlete,” an NFL scout said. “He can make all the throws and is a good leader.”
Said another NFL scout of Mariota: “I’d take him over [Johnny] Manziel. He’s more accurate. He’s bigger and I think he’s faster, not as elusive, but more durable. A lot of upside there.”
LikeLike
Good numbers for Mariota and Petty–no doubt–just seems to me that many of these QBs that are products of system offenses, which both Oregon and Baylor run, don’t often translate that well to the NFL.
Guess we’ll see what happens come this fall, and next spring…
LikeLike
There was a ton of hype around Manziel, and he is both short and undisciplined. Many thought he should go in the top 1-10 picks. Mariota and Winston have done more and shown more mature games.
LikeLike
Apparently the Super Bowl will be a rematch this year? Rams wi be picking 11? Jets in the top 5? Some reaches with this draft order.
Way too high for DGB after getting booted from Mizzou. A number of teams will have him off their draft board due to character concerns. There was an article over the weekend to that effect.
Unlikely running backs will go in the first round next year, too. Not a priority position right now in the NFL that can’t be filled with lower round picks or UDFA’s or FA’s in general.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Apparently the Super Bowl will be a rematch this year? Rams wi be picking 11? Jets in the top 5? Some reaches with this draft order.”
He said in the piece that he used the Vegas odds for the 2014-5 season’s Super Bowl.
LikeLike
Still a ridiculous marker to use. And still a silly exercise for the author to mock 2015 yet.
LikeLike
Yes, him guessing how the teams will finish in 2014-5 makes much more sense.
And of course it’s silly. ALL mock drafts are silly. The experts generally only get about 20% of the first round correct on their final one.
LikeLike
But we’re not talking about all mock drafts, only ones done a year ahead of time. Mocks the week of the draft are not nearly as silly.
LikeLike
http://www.intermatwrestle.com/articles/13228
Current, future and former B10 wrestlers defeated an international all-star team (there were also non-B10 wrestlers, but the US won even if you ignore them). That’s how good B10 wrestling is.
LikeLike
http://www.intermatwrestle.com/articles/13224
Interesting discussion of what the current HS weight classes are and what they should be.
Personally, I think they need fewer weight classes but should have two (or even 3) people at each of the middle weights (the ones that more boys fit). I also think they should eliminate the heaviest weight class. It’s too heavy for most schools to fill with a fit athlete. A 215 or 220 cap seems fine to me. The bigger guys are playing football anyway.
LikeLike
The opposite is true. The 275 (now 285) limit discourages the top big guys from wrestling, even though many college FB coaches know it helps and encourage them to. I’ve coached (HS wrestling) two future NFL OL and one was “encouraged” to quit basketball (even though varsity as a soph) and wrestle to prepare for college FB in a P5 conference. Lose the wt limit and remove the excuse to not participate.
LikeLike
If they do keep it, then they need more weight classes on the top end. Someone who is 285 shouldn’t be wrestling someone 60 pounds lighter. The problem is for smaller schools which really struggle to fill the extreme weight classes.
Maybe they should have fewer classes for small schools and add more for bigger schools. Let the smallest schools only have 8 weight classes, 11 for the middle sized ones and 14 for the biggest schools (just an example – those numbers are all flexible). When they have schools of all sizes competing, only count the 8 classes the small schools have.
LikeLike
I agree with perhaps fewer wt classes for HS under maybe 500. But I also recall a school of around 100 that for over a decade could match most any large school (although the JV did have some open weights). It’s more a matter of coaching, community, and emphasis.
As for limiting Hwt, ppfffttttt. Most heavies are just 190-220lbrs not cutting, and usually a better athlete than the 300lb blob. It wasn’t a safety issue unless you put a fat shoulda been 160 on the mat against a large athletic hwt. Without The unlimited class we’d never have had the greatest throw of all time. 260 tosses 420 in the ’72 Olympics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n79wBw_LJ9Y
Can’t happen today.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I agree with perhaps fewer wt classes for HS under maybe 500.”
Yes, that’s roughly D-III in OH (70 males per class). Those are the ones where less than 10% field a full team but roughly 80% field 8+ weight classes (average was 9.85). Holding them to 8-10 weight classes seems reasonable instead of all 14.
“But I also recall a school of around 100 that for over a decade could match most any large school (although the JV did have some open weights). It’s more a matter of coaching, community, and emphasis.”
Yes, but it’s not really fair to have a team that can win by just fielding more weight classes. The point is to win on the mat against equal weight wrestlers, not facing someone several classes smaller who is asked to fill a hole.
“As for limiting Hwt, ppfffttttt. Most heavies are just 190-220lbrs not cutting,”
Then they should wrestle at 182, 195 or 220, not 285. That’s why I think a lower weight cap is a good thing. Heck, most colleges don’t field good athletes at 285, let alone high schools. Wrestling isn’t supposed to be a fat guy sport.
“and usually a better athlete than the 300lb blob. It wasn’t a safety issue unless you put a fat shoulda been 160 on the mat against a large athletic hwt.”
I’m not that worried about safety, but more about fairness. The point of wrestling is to beat someone your own size.
LikeLike
“The point is to win on the mat against equal weight wrestlers, not facing someone several classes smaller who is asked to fill a hole.”
HS can’t wrestle more than one wt above what you weighed in at. Should we punish the team with kids at proper weights because the opponents haven’t gotten down to proper weight class?
As to wrestling equal weight, that is the limit downward. Many teams move their studs up to strengthen the team. Now that is limited to only one wt. Point is that wrestling up is a choice, not a rule mandate.
“Heck, most colleges don’t field good athletes at 285, let alone high schools.”
Huh? Most college hwts are very good athletes. Most were FB and track in HS. If they aren’t good enough a 197lb second teamer will stop cutting and become the new hwt.
“Wrestling isn’t supposed to be a fat guy sport.”
And if we could get the NFL wanna be’s out for a couple months the 300+lb blob will become a 260-275lb kid with more muscle mass. That just happens/happened with hard work, and they return to FB weight quickly after season with better body fat ratio (They’re healthier). But they don’t come out if a wt limit speared to be contrary to their FB target weight.
“The point of wrestling is to beat someone your own size.”
No. The point is to win in the class that you are entered in. And until the Hwt. weight limit was imposed everyone in the world was included in the pool of potential wrestling competitors. Bobby Weaver (Lehigh AA) wrestled 105 internationally after going 118 (which has now moved up to 125) in college. Howard Harris (OrSU) pinned his way through the NCAA’s Unlimited wt. while weighing 195. Lou Banach (Iowa), Olympian at 211lbs,
had two 350-400+lbrs in his half his senior year ’83 championship. (Tab Thacker won in ’84 at 400ish and was the last wrestler grandfathered into the hybrid UNL/275 wt).
I’d like to see basketball limit the height of players to 6′ 8″ or less. Less facetiously I’d not object to wt limits for FB for both health and safety concerns, but that ain’t happening. Encouraging fattys to participate in a tough sport that will drive weight off and build muscle would be a good thing. And it wouldn’t be discriminating (barring from being able to compete) against a group strictly because of size.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“HS can’t wrestle more than one wt above what you weighed in at.”
Which means you can weigh 196 and wrestle a 285 pounder. Yeah, that’s fair.
“Should we punish the team with kids at proper weights because the opponents haven’t gotten down to proper weight class?”
I don’t consider it punishment to make them wrestle the right size opponent.
“Point is that wrestling up is a choice, not a rule mandate.”
The coach’s choice, sure.
“Huh? Most college hwts are very good athletes. Most were FB and track in HS. If they aren’t good enough a 197lb second teamer will stop cutting and become the new hwt.”
It’s all relative. I don’t consider people that think leaning on each other is wrestling to be good athletes. No other weight class has nearly as many statues. The giant weight range allows this to happen.
“And if we could get the NFL wanna be’s out for a couple months the 300+lb blob will become a 260-275lb kid with more muscle mass.”
1. They have to want to wrestle. Lots of kids have zero interest in it.
2. They need to be convinced that specializing isn’t a better strategy for their future.
3. Lots of CFB coaches advocate hoops over wrestling depending on the position. Generally hoops helps OL and TE more while wrestling is better for DL.
4. Losing that much weight is bad for their CFB future. Remember, FB recruiting ends during wrestling season so a borderline guy risks being passed over for being too light if he wrestles.
5. There just aren’t that many HS boys that should be 285 pounds.
6. We could admit that not everyone is built to wrestle and stick to healthy kids under 220.
“But they don’t come out if a wt limit speared to be contrary to their FB target weight.”
So what? How does HS wrestling suffer by not having superheavyweights in HS?
“No. The point is to win in the class that you are entered in.”
If that was true, they’d let you wrestle in as many weights as you want and not care how undersized you might be. Wrestling has weight classes for a reason, and only 1 of them has a range of more than about 5% of body weight.
“Less facetiously I’d not object to wt limits for FB for both health and safety concerns, but that ain’t happening.”
Body fat % is more likely than weight since it more directly impacts their health. I’d be fine with a mandatory aerobic fitness test to be eligible (some non-coach must sign off that the kid can run a mile in X minutes). Make it part of the mandatory physical that a doctor signs off on.
LikeLike
“Which means you can weigh 196 and wrestle a 285 pounder. Yeah, that’s fair.”
1: HS has a 220 wt
2: Most 195-220 athletes are better athletes, and better conditioned. 285 can be a disadvantage.
“It’s all relative. I don’t consider people that think leaning on each other is wrestling to be good athletes. No other weight class has nearly as many statues. The giant weight range allows this to happen.”
There are statues at all wts, though admittedly more at 285. But why hasn’t the change from Unlimited to 285 changed that? It’s been 30 years since 150-200 lb difference wasn’t uncommon. I coached with a guy who moved up from 177 to Unl. for a D1 dual to hold a 340lb NCAA AA to a regular decision and win the dual. He was better able to wrestle faster and avoid getting planted than the other choice, a 270 liber.
1: true, but don’t impede the borderline cases with false reasoning.
2: some do, some don’t. Same with coaches.
3: not my experience. I knew several D1 coaches that required the OL to take PE wrestling to improve footwork, balance, and hand fighting.
4: false. Just false. No Hwt FB/wrestler is losing muscle mass. They gain muscle even as some wt comes off. That wt returns on a stronger frame as soon as wrestling ends. Decades ago an Iowa study showed HS FB/wrestlers who cut less than 5% were 8% heavier the next year. Those cutting 8-10% returned 13% heavier, and with comparatively lower body fat %. And if a coach/recruiter doesn’t understand the improved physique benefit…well I don’t think he’s doing himself any favors. We’ve had many FB coaches ask about FB/wrestlers as they know more of their internal makeup is revealed in the mat room than on a field. And they come to see the athleticism, strength, and discipline during competition.
5: it isn’t whether HS kids should be 285, it is that many are (and more). Between the two local HS’s I’m currently living near there are at least 12 kids at or over that, 8 of who are 300+. None are wrestling. They eat all winter and go lay on the bench press bench and push a few weights a couple days a week, and say they can’t do otherwise because they’ll never make the NFL. Even though 2 of the last 3 NFL players from here were Hwt/OL who got down to 250-260 as seniors for state, and yet were 295-300 when fall camp opened freshman year of college.
6: why discriminate against the large? We don’t limit FB or BB. My argument is that we will create a better, lighter, healthier big guy as a byproduct of not putting up an arbitrary barrier that discourages participation before it begins. Biggest coaching success I’ve had wasn’t state champs, etc. It was the kid who was 5′ 10″, 280 as a fr and up to 340 after sophomore year. During Jr year he started losing wt (realized NFL wasn’t likely) and became athletic. Senior year he made 167, and I saw him 12 years later – not over 175! I think we helped him have a different, better life. But we might not have ever had the chance had there been a Hwt 275 limit when he was in HS.
““No. The point is to win in the class that you are entered in.”
If that was true, they’d let you wrestle in as many weights as you want and not care how undersized you might be.”
There was a time when you could enter multiple weights. That got banned in order to spread the trophies around. Robin Reed never lost to anyone of any size, ever. Wiki: “During practice for the Olympics in Paris, Reed bet he could pin Harry Steel, the U. S. heavyweight champion and eventual gold medal winner in that weight class. He not only pinned Steel, but he did it five times in fifteen minutes.[citation needed]
At the Olympics, he entered the 134.5 pound weight class (the second lowest) and pinned every single one of his opponents, including fellow Oregon State teammate Chester Newton in the finals. The United States team ended up getting gold in 3 other weight categories, including heavyweight, so it is widely believed that if the rules had permitted it, Robin could have won the gold medal in every weight class.”
More recently, Dave Schultz was allowed to enter the Cali. State championships although missing the qualifiers – because he was representing the US taking 2nd at Tbilisi (tougher than Olympics at the time) – but up two weights from his normal wt of 167. He pinned all but his finals opponent (WBMD) at 189.
“Wrestling has weight classes for a reason, and only 1 of them has a range of more than about 5% of body weight.”
Two of them do, the lightest and the heaviest. And if you subtract skeletal weight, the % of the remaining difference at the lighter weights is dramatically greater.
“Body fat % is more likely than weight since it more directly impacts their health. I’d be fine with a mandatory aerobic fitness test to be eligible (some non-coach must sign off that the kid can run a mile in X minutes). Make it part of the mandatory physical that a doctor signs off on.”
No argument here. Plus, it likely would drive kids to wrestling to learn the secrets of defeating the body fat tests…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“1: HS has a 220 wt”
Correct. And 195. So if you weigh 196, you should be in the 220 class but could wrestle up at 285.
“2: Most 195-220 athletes are better athletes, and better conditioned. 285 can be a disadvantage.”
Sure it can. That still doesn’t mean they should be wrestling each other.
“But why hasn’t the change from Unlimited to 285 changed that?”
Because they don’t call stalling, so a statue can just overpower a more athletic guy defensively and just needs one good head snap to win?
And remember, I’m only talking about HS here. I don’t care as much about college weight classes, although I really think they should add another one below 285, like the 235 class the NCWA uses.
“3: not my experience. I knew several D1 coaches that required the OL to take PE wrestling to improve footwork, balance, and hand fighting.”
Whereas I have seen multiple coaches quoted as saying they really like to see them play hoops to develop quick feet for pass blocking.
“4: false. Just false.”
That’s not what I’ve heard coaches say. They may be misguided, but a prospective OL may suddenly be viewed as a slow TE prospect only if they get too light.
“No Hwt FB/wrestler is losing muscle mass.”
I never claimed they did.
“5: it isn’t whether HS kids should be 285, it is that many are (and more). Between the two local HS’s I’m currently living near there are at least 12 kids at or over that, 8 of who are 300+. None are wrestling.”
So maybe those 12 kids don’t get to wrestle. They aren’t now, either, so no loss.
“6: why discriminate against the large?”
Because relatively few schools can field them. It’s the same reason there’s a smallest weight class. Why discriminate against the small? Besides, the large are generally boring to watch and wrestling has enough trouble drawing fans as it is.
“We don’t limit FB or BB.”
Those aren’t weight class sports. Wrestling is. I should also point out that international freestyle is capped as well for schoolboys (14-15), cadets (16-17), juniors (18-20) and seniors (20+) at 85kg, 100kg, 120kg and 120kg respectively (187 lbs, 221, 265, 265).
“My argument is that we will create a better, lighter, healthier big guy as a byproduct of not putting up an arbitrary barrier that discourages participation before it begins.”
I can do the same thing with P90X. They don’t have to wrestle to get in better shape.
“Biggest coaching success I’ve had wasn’t state champs, etc. It was the kid who was 5′ 10″, 280 as a fr and up to 340 after sophomore year. During Jr year he started losing wt (realized NFL wasn’t likely) and became athletic. Senior year he made 167, and I saw him 12 years later – not over 175! I think we helped him have a different, better life. But we might not have ever had the chance had there been a Hwt 275 limit when he was in HS.”
He could still practice, he just couldn’t compete until he got down to the cap.
“Two of them do, the lightest and the heaviest.”
Lightest = 106-112.9
112.9/106 = 1.065, so a 6.5% spread
Heaviest = 220-285
285/220 = 1.30, so a 30% spread
Next = 195-219.9
219.9/195 = 1.13, so a 13% spread
Clearly one of these classes is not like the others. It’s why they should put in a lower cap or add a 250 class.
LikeLike
We disagree on much here. Wt can be managed, lost, gained, manipulated. Strategy changes with it. The weights are far to close together. I use to drop over a full wt class the day of weighin and be back up before match time. For a one day tournament I’d be two wts up by the end of the day. I had a far greater advantage over a competitor who didn’t drop much than a fat guy had over a less fat guy. It’s the athletic body inside the wrestler that matters far more than its weight. That said, I agree a 240 or so weight would be great if it would allow the return of unlimited class. But I still bet it’s the 240 wrestler moving up that beats the fat 350+ more often than he loses.
LikeLike
I agree there are too many weight classes. I assume that was part of a push to let more people compete, plus recognizing there are a lot of boys all in a small weight range. Maybe it’s supposed to help them not have to cut too much weight, too.
They could go by ~10% each time and be OK, I think:
110, 120, 132, 145, 160, 176, 195, 215, 240, unlimited
But no wrestling up.
LikeLike
So eliminate the heaviest weight class in favor of adding sumo wrestling instead?
LikeLike
But Brian would object because of the huge weight differences allowed. This, in spite of the evidence arguably the greatest Yokozuna of all time was an athletic 280 and often was out weighed by 150-200lbs.
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/japan-sumo-grand-champion-chiyonofuji-dominated-the-11981977.html
LikeLike
Again, I’m only talking about changes for HS wrestling. If an adult wants to wrestle someone twice his or her size, more power to them.
LikeLike
And HS limits you to moving up only one wt class.
I understand the concern about the apparent risk of a light hwt facing a big hwt, but fifty years in wrestling has shown me immature, overmatched kids are at far greater risk, even when they have size advantage. And injury much more likely in the mid and lower weights. Big guys that are actually quick are rare. And usually mature and understand their risk of losing is mostly if they were DQ’d for injuring the opponent.
LikeLike
I told you before, it’s not really a safety concern to me. It’s the fundamental unfairness of asking a HS kid to wrestle someone up to 89 pounds (45% of their weight) heavier than them. Besides, as you just pointed out there really aren’t many good large heavyweights so the sport loses very little by getting rid of them plus a bunch of relatively fat statues.
Nobody should be allowed to wrestle up at heavyweight as long as the class is that broad.
LikeLike
I don’t have a problem setting a minimum for hwt. Like 200 or 215. But where’s the concern for the small school who may have a couple athletic 185-195, but none bigger?
As to the lack of athletic big guys, they are developed through time (if you get the time). And they are currently spending that time trying to get to 300 or more. There are a few who still come out. Those that weren’t huge before HS. Stephen Neal (World Hwt. Champ, and Super Bowl OL with NE) didn’t cross 200 until after HS, and never played a down of college FB. But that’s the exception. The rule is FB dominates the immature HS mindset and telling a large fr or soph that getting in better shape will help him is droened out by the thousand college and NFL behemoths on TV every week. We simply are often excluding the best big athletes strictly because of size.
tOSU’s best HS recruit just last weekend wrestled the World Hwt champion at 97kg. Was he at more or less of an advantage because the Hwt champ was 97kg, rather than facing a 120kg wrestler that couldn’t beat the lighter hwt? I think you overestimate the advantage of size and discount it’s disadvantages.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I don’t have a problem setting a minimum for hwt. Like 200 or 215. But where’s the concern for the small school who may have a couple athletic 185-195, but none bigger?”
I have no concern for them. They shouldn’t be trying to fill 14 weight classes to begin with.
“tOSU’s best HS recruit just last weekend wrestled the World Hwt champion at 97kg. Was he at more or less of an advantage because the Hwt champ was 97kg, rather than facing a 120kg wrestler that couldn’t beat the lighter hwt?”
Anecdotes don’t make good stats. There are hundreds or thousands of wrestlers that size in HS and you pick one or two to mention. How do the rest tend to do?
“I think you overestimate the advantage of size and discount it’s disadvantages.”
Not as much as I greatly prefer matches where it isn’t a matter of overcoming size with something else, but of two people the same size wrestling (which is what wrestling was designed to be). Otherwise each school would just field their top 10 wrestlers instead of having weight classes.
LikeLike
“…I greatly prefer matches where it isn’t a matter of overcoming size with something else, but of two people the same size wrestling (which is what wrestling was designed to be)”
This is where we disagree. Wrestling is a battle to decide the best. Wt classes are a recent artificial construct, overlaying and expanding participation. Turkey has a week long oil wrestling festival with matchups decided by height. Mongolian folk wrestling festivals have no wt classes. Milo was the Olympic champion, not the champ of a particular weight. Socrates described it as physical chess, meaning cunning, planing, deception, etc was as important as the physique involved.
The Russians were able to delay, and then get the Hwt limit raised for a decade or so when it was first instituted, because the greatest modern wrestler, Alexander Karelin, could never have made 264, and was barely able to make 286. And he was 6′ 3″. If another like him comes along but is 6′ 8″…?
LikeLike
To be honest I find large parts of this discussion more than a little bit humorous. At the time I wreslted our school had two varsity teams (plus a JV team). The second varsity would primarily wrestled the weaker teams in our league and a few lower profile tournaments (usually hosted by smaller schools).
I wrestled first team varsity for three years. One of those was at 185 & the last two were at 189 (the weight class changes occurred after my sophmore year). During my junior year I wrestled a number of matches at HWT on the 2nd varsity, mostly for the hell of it. I won every match at that weight.
As size increases differences in weight become far less important. A 106lb wrestler is at a serious physical disadvantage against a 132lb. Conversely a 195 pounder is at far less likely to be overmatches by a guy at 220. The majority of HWTs are not cutting to make weight. The majority of them are in the 240-250lb range, although that’s creeping up over time.
As for the claim that there are ‘hundreds of thousands of wrestlers in HS at that (Snyder) size’, well that’s just patently false. There are roughly 270,000 HS wrestlers total.
The original linked story is flawed in a number of ways. Using the numbers from only two years (from right before the change & this past season) just shows two snapshots in time. It doesn’t show trends. Similarly his numbers don’t show how many schools are only down a single wrestler compared to those that are fielding 10, 9 or 8. If the data is being skewed by a disproportionate number of schools fielding extremely small teams, then eliminating a weight class will do nothing to help them be more competitive (which was one of his core premises). If your goal is to increase competitiveness then find a better way to handle forfeit points rather than punishing kids by taking away slots.
As much as people want to pretend otherwise, wrestling is ultimately an individual competition rather than a team sport.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“This is where we disagree.”
Fair enough. I’ll agree to disagree with you on this.
“Wrestling is a battle to decide the best.”
No, that’s what fighting is for to me.
“Wt classes are a recent artificial construct,”
They’ve been around since 1904 in the Olympics and World Championships (freestyle and Greco-Roman).
I thought we were talking about the sport, but then you bring up oil wrestling in Turkey.
“The Russians were able to delay, and then get the Hwt limit raised for a decade or so when it was first instituted, because the greatest modern wrestler, Alexander Karelin, could never have made 264, and was barely able to make 286. And he was 6′ 3″. If another like him comes along but is 6′ 8″…?”
For the umpteenth time, I’m only talking about changing the weight classes in high school. I doubt Karelin could barely make 286 at age 16.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“As size increases differences in weight become far less important.”
Yes, but 285 versus 196 is still a very relevant difference. I’m not concerned about the 25 pound sort of differences amongst heavyweights.
“As for the claim that there are ‘hundreds of thousands of wrestlers in HS at that (Snyder) size’, well that’s just patently false. There are roughly 270,000 HS wrestlers total.”
You misread that. I said, “[t]here are hundreds or thousands of wrestlers that size in HS,” not hundreds of thousands. My point is that picking the absolute best wrestler in HS is probably not a representative example of what is happening.
“As much as people want to pretend otherwise, wrestling is ultimately an individual competition rather than a team sport.”
It should be, and it still is in the Olympics, but schools have insisted on adding the team component. Just like tennis and golf and swimming.
LikeLike
“My point is that picking the absolute best wrestler in HS is probably not a representative example of what is happening.”
Understandable, if the comparison was to a regional open or HS nationals. But this was vs the reigning world Hwt champ, who also demonstrates that the weight difference is of less consequence as he is a 97kg who moved up to win that title last year.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Understandable, if the comparison was to a regional open or HS nationals. But this was vs the reigning world Hwt champ, who also demonstrates that the weight difference is of less consequence as he is a 97kg who moved up to win that title last year.”
I’d go the other way and say it’s a bad example because how many other HS wrestlers that size would avoid getting pinned in a minute or less in that match, let alone being competitive? What one uniquely talented high schooler can do is not a reason to establish policy. Just because a LeBron James could jump straight to the NBA isn’t a reason to allow that overall. Just because an Adrian Peterson might have been able to go to the NFL after HS or maybe 1 year in college is no reason to make that the rule overall. You do what’s best for the sport overall and the extraordinary athletes just have to deal with it.
LikeLike
Yea. ‘Cause young HSers are so data driven…
30 years ago: come on out. It’ll help your FB, balance, strength, endurance. Sure, gain all the weight you can (if you can).
Today: come on out. It’ll help your FB, balance stre… The weight limit? It won’t be a prob… But you actually get bigger, just with lower % body f… You’ll gain it back in a month or t… Well, if you change your mind…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Yea. ‘Cause young HSers are so data driven…”
No, but some of their “advisers” will listen to reason. They aren’t against wrestling per se, but many think it’ll hurt little Johnny’s football chances. Convince parents and football coaches that wrestling is good for the players, and more would come out.
I think the bigger problem is convincing a fat kid to want to work hard enough to be a wrestler. It’s much easier to play football and lift.
LikeLike
The point is an American of Karelin like stature would, when entering HS , be beefing up for FB and decline to drop weight (even though it would be temporary). We are discouraging our best large athletes from entering the sport. Thirty years ago most of the OL and DL that weren’t playing round ball would at least come out. Their numbers would diminish as their ranking sorted it self out. Now we’re lucky to get an overweight 195 or 220 pounder, and try to grow him into a true hwt by the time he’s a jr or sr.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“The point is an American of Karelin like stature would, when entering HS , be beefing up for FB and decline to drop weight (even though it would be temporary). We are discouraging our best large athletes from entering the sport.”
Yes, we are. Because football offers a potential career and certainly better odds of a full scholarship. The same thing happens to a lot of smaller athletes, too. They play hoops or just lift over winter to get ready for CFB.
“Thirty years ago most of the OL and DL that weren’t playing round ball would at least come out.”
Whoa. Maybe in Iowa and other wrestling hotbeds. Nowhere else ever got that sort of turnout from boys of any size. Besides, you have a lot more OL and DL than you do spots for them to wrestle anyway.
“Now we’re lucky to get an overweight 195 or 220 pounder, and try to grow him into a true hwt by the time he’s a jr or sr.”
As coaches learn to hype the potential path to MMA, you might see the numbers rise. But wrestling is a niche sport with limited scholarships available (few college teams and limited ‘ships per team). It’s a better decision to chase a football scholarship.
If a wrestling coach can convince players it’s better for their future to wrestle, then they might come out. But that’s a tough sell because they probably don’t have the data to back it up.
Data:
270,000 HS wrestlers -> 8400 in college -> 1200 scholarships
1,134,000 football players -> 68,000 in college -> 33,600 scholarships
Clearly football is the easier path to a scholarship.
What they need to show:
That HS wrestlers get football scholarships at the same or better rate than non-wrestlers, at least for the heavier weight classes.
It may be true, but they need the data to back it up.
LikeLike
…Put response in proper place…
Brian: Yea. ‘Cause young HSers are so data driven…
30 years ago: come on out. It’ll help your FB, balance, strength, endurance. Sure, gain all the weight you can (if you can).
Today: come on out. It’ll help your FB, balance stre… The weight limit? It won’t be a prob… But you actually get bigger, just with lower % body f… You’ll gain it back in a month or t… Well, if you change your mind…
LikeLike
Nebraska columnist happy to be in the Big Ten, less thrilled about the conference’s eastward focus.
http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20140510%2FHUSKERS%2F140519777%2F1001#.U29gax1xPLI.twitter
Specifically mentions scheduling as an issue, one that a division-less setup would largely rectify.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Nebraska columnist happy to be in the Big Ten, less thrilled about the conference’s eastward focus.”
I think you’re painting with broad strokes there.
What is the Big Ten, in Delany’s mind?
Is it Midwest? Or is it East Coast?
Is it a basketball league? How much does football matter?
…
I don’t think this necessarily signals a major shift. I think the basketball tournament will be in the Midwest more often than east. I don’t see the football championship going over in an East Coast market.
He’s said repeatedly the B10 is both, and needed to become both for demographic reasons.
As for hoops versus football, that’s just silly. Everyone knows FB is the gravy train. The difference is now NJ and MD might provide a lot of money so NE isn’t as special as it felt before.
“Specifically mentions scheduling as an issue, one that a division-less setup would largely rectify.”
…
But with 14 schools, two regions and a commissioner who loves his hoops, what does that mean for Nebraska football?
I had this conversation in the office last week with Sam McKewon. We agreed that the Gavitt series was another example of the Big Ten getting creative with basketball. This is big stuff, but par for the course for Big Ten hoops, which prides itself as a national leader, a league that will play anybody, anywhere, on aircraft carriers if necessary.
Big Ten football is more about the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten played three bowl games against SEC opponents, all in the same region and all at about the same time. It’s playing nine league games, which is great, but the power matchups are hard to find.
Nebraska was brought into the Big Ten for a reason. Presumably, to bolster football on BTN. But Nebraska doesn’t play Ohio State until 2016 or Michigan until 2018.
He’s misleading and/or wrong about the schedule.
NE got MI and PSU every year when they joined, plus OSU the first 2 years to help maximize their value. The schedules in 2013 and 2014 were less exciting no matter what, plus going to 14 with 8 games in 2014-5 forces them to play people less often. Comparing everything to 2011 is unfair. It’s true, expanding to 14 hurt their schedule, but it did for everybody. That’s literally the price we pay for that NJ and MD TV money. The issue is the expansion to 14, not really where those teams are.
It’s luck that PU and IL happen to be the worst 2 teams in the B10 right now, and thus he cherry-picked them to complain about. He doesn’t mention IN (historically the worst) or the newbies that NE will rarely play in the new alignment.
He also ignores/forgets about parity-based scheduling, which will boost NE’s games against OSU, MI and PSU.
Once the B10 goes to 9 games in 2016:
OSU/MI/PSU – 30 times in 18 years (1.67 per year, each 0.56 of the time)
MSU/RU/UMD/IN – 24 times in 18 years (1.33 per year, each 0.33 of the time)
IA/WI/MN/NW – each annually
PU/IL – each annually
9 games, no divisions (assumes 4 locked games):
WI/IA/MN/PSU – each annually
OSU/MI/MSU/NW/IL/PU/IN/RU/UMD – each 0.56 of the time
Change without divisions:
PSU – 0.44 more each year
MSU/RU/UMD/IN – 0.22 more
OSU/MI/WI/IA/MN – same
NW/PU/IL – 0.44 less
NE gets no more OSU or MI games by dropping divisions. They’d play PU and IL less, but at the cost of playing IN, RU and UMD more. They lose a lot of IL access by dropping games against NW and IL significantly. I’d say they get a net improvement, but not as drastic as you make it sound.
LikeLike
Why assume any locked games except for rivalry and/or trophy games? Why would UNL have more than just Iowa locked? It would allow for maximum flexibility in having every school getting either Michigan, OSU, or PSU (or two of those) annually.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Why assume any locked games except for rivalry and/or trophy games?”
We’ve discussed this multiple times around here.
Because the B10 has stated that they want the eastern kings playing in NJ and DC. In addition to keeping rivalries, that sets a minimum number of locked games necessary to satisfy their scheduling requirements.
Need at least 4:
OSU – MI, PSU, RU, UMD
MI – OSU, MSU, RU, UMD
RU – UMD, PSU, OSU, MI
UMD – RU, PSU, OSU, MI
Need at least 3:
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD
NE – WI, IA, MN
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – NE, WI, IA
PSU fans want NE, NE fans seem to want PSU, and it would provide another big game for TV while improving the balance of the schedules between kings. They could lock a different number for each team, but that’s not how the B10 typically works. Thus, 4 locked games.
“Why would UNL have more than just Iowa locked?”
Geography, TV, fan demand, demand from the other western schools, etc
LikeLike
The eastern games were a justification for the eastern division. Not really applicable without divisions. Division less setup could still result in a King playing in NJ and a King playing on MD every year. There are 4 kings, after all.
LikeLike
I thought you had a decent proposal in the comments under FTT’s last post:
“My personal preference:
NE – WI, IA, PSU
WI – NE, IA, MN
IA – NE, WI, MN
MN – WI, IA, MI
IL – NW, OSU, PU
NW – IL, MSU, RU
IN – PU, MSU, OSU
PU – IN, IL, UMD
OSU – MI, IL, IN
MI – OSU, MSU, MN
MSU – MI, NW, IN
PSU – UMD, RU, NE
UMD – PSU, RU, PU
RU – PSU, UMD, NW”
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“The eastern games were a justification for the eastern division.”
Not really. Delany has said that the size of the conference made it necessary to split into divisions to assure that neighboring schools could play.
The attempt to grow the B10 in the DC and NYC markets necessitates the eastern kings playing there annually according to the B10.
“Not really applicable without divisions. Division less setup could still result in a King playing in NJ and a King playing on MD every year. There are 4 kings, after all.”
NE doesn’t have nearly the same number of fans in the east as the other kings. The 4 kings aren’t completely interchangeable. Without divisions and the eastern kings playing in NJ and DC all the time, the RU and UMD additions will never reach their full financial value. Since that’s almost the only value they have, the B10 isn’t going to sacrifice that.
LikeLike
In a world where the B10 isn’t trying to grow their presence on the east coast, that might make sense. But this isn’t such a world, at least not now. In 20 years, maybe things change.
My preferred plan has literally zero chance of being implemented in the next 50 years.
LikeLike
My personal thought on how it could work would be like this:
1. 3 locked opponents each (note: While you could get away with 2 for a few teams, scheduling is more difficult if you do that).
2. Rotate with the other 10 opponents playing everyone 60% of the time
Locked opponents
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Michigan State)
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, (Nebraska)
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, (Maryland)
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Indiana: Michigan State,Purdue, Northwestern
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)
The put in the ones I thought were necessary/made sense and was left with one game needed still for Michigan State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. Since Maryland and Rutgers were already matched, I had to match those two with Nebraska and Michigan State.There is certainly room for movement though (on another board it was suggested to lock Michigan State-Northwestern instead of Northwestern-Indiana).
LikeLike
I don’t think the conference views Ohio State and Michigan playing in the east coast every year as 100% necessary. They want them there frequently for sure and since their set-up puts them there every year now it’s hyped up, but I don’t think it’s to the level that it’s an absolute must (in contrast, I think Ohio State vs. Penn State is viewed as a must by the conference). If the overall set-up became easier without both Ohio State and Michigan visiting both each year, then I think they’ll go with that.
It’s certainly possible I’m wrong, but if I am, I think locking in one of Ohio State or Michigan for each of Rutgers/Maryland would suffice. In that case, you would have to go to 4 locked teams, leaving you playing the other 9 teams 56% of the time. BruceMcF over on the csnbbs boards posted this as a possible alternative.
Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Maryland
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Rutgers
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Michigan
If they try to balance tradition with a bit more east coast exposure I think that does it. Maryland/Rutgers both get 2 of the kings every year and average more than 3 a year.
LikeLike
Both UM and OSU don’t have to play RU and UMD in the same season in irder to grow on the east coast. Those schools were put in divisions that are primarily geographic in membership. Scheduling without divisions could still result in either MI or OSU playing RU, and the other playing UMD. That would be in addition to at least one of them playing PSU annually, if not both. And in some years, either RU or UMD or both would get UM and OSU and PSU. Don’t put too much emphasis on growing in markets at the expense of the national broadcast partners who will want the best games with the biggest brands. The projected bump in B1G per school revenues will be both from BTN and from whichever national network partner pays most. They’ll want more big names playing big names than big names playing sacrificial lambs.
Delanys objectives can be similarly achieved without divisions as they can with them. He’s just required as of now to have 2 divisions in order to have the CCG, and the conference’s prior attempt at creatings divisions failed hilariously.
LikeLike
@Wainscott ~ yes, I started out with four for the Western schools, and after a second round of tinkering after that was up to only OSU, TSUN, Maryland & Rutgers at three each. I figured the key thing is that the eastern newbies host one familiar brand name power each year, so slated TSUN alongside PSU for Maryland and OSU alongside PSU for Rutgers. Then, so long as they are offset on the Home/Away cycle, that gives that one big name brand school visiting each each coast school each year … PSU/OSU for Rutgers, PSU/TSUN for Maryland.
With 8 conference games and 14, you have a maximum of three locked rivals, since 3 plus ten schools played two-on, two-off is needed to cover the league. But with the 9 conference games, that’s five fixed games in a four year cycle and the other eight teams played two years on, two years off, which lets you have three, four or five locked games. I’m not fussed whether its three or four, but I think there may be some opportunities to do some political log-rolling with four to make sure that its seen as superior to divisions by almost all conference schools.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Both UM and OSU don’t have to play RU and UMD in the same season in irder to grow on the east coast.”
The B10 disagrees with you. Since they are the ones with the high priced consultants, I’ll take their opinion over yours.
“Don’t put too much emphasis on growing in markets at the expense of the national broadcast partners who will want the best games with the biggest brands.”
Too late. Besides, they still get a lot of brand/brand games because of the other locked games.
LikeLike
“The B10 disagrees with you. Since they are the ones with the high priced consultants, I’ll take their opinion over yours.”
The B1G doesn’t agree or disagree with me. Its the context that matters. Using divisional assignments as proof of anything more than divisional assignments is fatally flawed. All it indicates is that if the conference has two divisions, eastern teams will be grouped together, and western teams grouped together. It has no bearing on what the B1G would do without divisions.
“Too late. Besides, they still get a lot of brand/brand games because of the other locked games.”
Sure, they get plenty, but the national TV beast always want more, and it will eventually get what it wants.
LikeLike
Delany is such a visionary that he courted PSU to the B1G while he was the OVC commish.
LikeLike
You can ignore Shatel. He is horrible.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10909425/ncaa-rules-committee-wants-stricter-block-charge-calls
Block/charge changes may be coming to MBB.
The most significant change would require defenders to be set in legal guarding position before an offensive player jumps to draw a charge. If the defender moves in any direction, other than vertically to block a shot, it would be called a block.
Other potential changes include expanding the restricted area in front of the basket, calling fouls for defenders who push a leg or knee into the rear end of a player of an opponent and calling a foul on the offensive player if he gained position by pushing back. Those changes would only be used on an experimental basis.
1. I hate the restricted area. Charging should still be charging no matter where on the floor it happens.
2. They also better be fair about not calling a foul for jumping straight up on D but calling the charge instead for forcing the contact.
3. They need to implement the pushing fouls both ways or not at all. A defender shouldn’t be allowed to move you out of the post, but the post shouldn’t be able to just push backwards either (especially on a spinning move for a shot).
LikeLike
Charging officiating definitely needs some work. I saw a lot of “charges” called in the NCAA tourney that were pretty ridiculous. The contact was created by the defender and there was nothing the offensive player could do. Or it was pretty incidental. Several were in key situations.
LikeLike
A preview of the upcoming ACC meeting.
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/70203/critical-decisions-loom-for-acc-at-meetings
“There also is very little traction for changing the division format or championship game setup — even though the ACC petitioned the NCAA to be granted the flexibility to determine its title game participants.
In interviews ESPN.com conducted with all 14 athletic directors leading up to the meetings, none were in favor of rearranging divisions. Nine were opposed to getting rid of divisions entirely, four remain undecided and one had no preference. Clemson athletic director Dan Radakovich, in the undecided camp, wants an answer on league scheduling before moving forward to the division and championship game discussion.”
LikeLike
“Only two athletic directors are in favor of the top two teams in the league playing in the title game, while five remain undecided on the format.”
So nine of fourteen opposed, and two supporting, from the conference promoting a CCG requirement change? That’s overwhelming…something.
LikeLike
The Miami AD talked about the balance, but a lot of their scheduling issues are because of the silly divisions. There has been north/south balance.
2 northern schools have 3 titles and 7 ccg appearances.
3 southern schools have 5 titles and 9 ccg appearances.
2 Carolina privates have 1 title and 2 ccg appearances.
LikeLike
“Without divisions, teams could rotate through a cycle that would allow student-athletes to play every conference team at least once in their careers. But it could also mean getting rid of permanent crossover rivalries like Miami-Florida State, North Carolina-NC State and Duke-Wake Forest. And it could also mean chaos when it comes to determining who will play in the championship game“
LikeLike
The paragraph before:
“Getting rid of divisions altogether would relieve some of the headaches that go along with the current eight-game scheduling model, which features only one rotating crossover opponent. That has drawn criticism from both coaches and athletic directors who do not want to go as long as eight years between games against conference opponents.”
There’s no reason why eliminating divisions would entail eliminating certain rivalry games.The ACC can have zero divisions while still protecting whichever rivalry games it wants.
Also, it could mean chaos, or it could not mean chaos. It would depend entirely on how the two CCG teams are determined.
There are drawbacks to every single method of selecting CCG participants.
LikeLike
True. But nine to two, with three undecided within the ACC? As I mentioned weeks (or was it months?) ago, there are schools in every conference that benefit from divisions. They out number those who would from division less. And divisions remove most chaos as to CCG participation. The “momentum” for change seems not as strong as proponents have indicated.
LikeLike
They decided to stay at 8 with 1 P5 game required. Given FSU/UF, GT/UGA, Clemson/SC and the 5 Notre Dame games, its not much of a change.
LikeLike
I agree–its basically what the SEC did,
One article I saw said its undetermined if BYU/Army/Navy will count as P5. I think BYU should,
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10922297/acc-votes-keep-eight-game-conference-schedule
The vote ended 8-6 in favor of staying at eight games. All the league needs is a simple majority to make its decisions.
LikeLike
Seems a few coaches win on this decision. Maybe playing more ACC games won’t help with SOS. Can’t imagine the 8 game schedule will help with the turnstile. It seems pretty obvious to me that the leagues that increased the number of conf games did so because TV was willing to pay for it during contract negotiation. For the most part the out of conference games are joke. Bielema was a big fan of 8 when at Wisconsin because it inflated his record and with a favorable conference schedule he could win 10-11 or 12 games. It’s weak and most fans realized this with his subpar bowl record.
The SEC can get away with it because they mix the OOC throughout the season and they become less noticeable from a media standpoint.
Really hope the committee puts emphasis on schedule but with 2 conferences sticking with 8 league games it may be difficult as the leagues nominate candidates.
LikeLike
“…it may be difficult as the leagues nominate candidates.”
Huh? The season nominates the candidates the committe will evaluate.
Here’s praying for a B1G/B12/PAC sweep of the semi’s, and a B1G/PAC Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
@Crider – I am talking about the leagues nominate the committee members or candidates for the committee. I think they will likely be puppets for the leagues interests.
LikeLike
It’s an ACC/SEC world and we just live in it.
/sarcasm
LikeLike
Kevin:
The committe has been set for quite a while, and some recusal will be required.
LikeLike
Ccrider – The committee has been picked for awhile and all nominated by conference commissioners. Sure, they recuse themselves in certain circumstances but by no means will that affect how they politic for selection criteria. The B1G, Pac 12 and maybe the Big 12 will be pushing strength of schedule. The SEC/ACC will push rankings or some other factor.
It will be obvious if SOS is ignored if we will see 2 SEC teams in the playoff frequently. Will a 2 loss SEC team be taken over a 1 loss PAC 12 or B1G school that plays 9 conf games and 1 BCS opponent vs. an 8 game schedule. No doubt the SEC conf schedule is tough but will the committee reward schools that schedule 10 BCS level games including conference vs. 9. I am hoping they reward 10 as that will influence better scheduling and ultimately better games for fans. It’s worked for college basketball in recent years and schools are toughening their schedules.
LikeLike
If they reward SOS in general, and not just in terms of P5 / non P5, that would put even more pressure on the ACC to drop the FCS games entirely and move to a schedule to 10 P5 or 9 P5 and two stronger Go5 schools … even more than the SEC, since the SEC champion is going to be in the CFP regardless, while the ACC risks missing out on the CFP entirely.
LikeLike
An update:
LikeLike
AT&T/DTV getting close.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/12/report-att-directv-deal-close/9010471/
I wonder how such consolidation effects current carriage agreements?
LikeLike
Wilner suggests it may help a P12N/DTV agreement …eventually.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/05/14/pac-12-networks-directv-inches-closer-to-reality-thanks-to-att/
LikeLike
And that merger would practically guarantee that the SECN would be on Direct TV, since AT&T was the first provider to agree to broadcast it.
LikeLike
As long as the agreement doesn’t exempt the DTV acquisition from AT&T obligations. And even if it does, when Charlie retires in 2015 new leadership might have differing priorities.
LikeLike
Oops. I mean Michael retiring.
LikeLike
SECN will get on DTV in 2015 anyway. The Disney contract comes up in December 2014.
LikeLike
Several sources suggest the deal, while not done, is imminent.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dealbook/2014/05/17/att-said-near-a-deal-for-directv/
And
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA4G06F20140517?irpc=932
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/05/12/wide-ranging-issues-are-set-to-be-covered.html
A preview of the B10 ADs meetings. Lots of stuff about the NCAA changes coming, plus this:
Football scheduling was added to the agenda,” Smith said. “We need to talk about the difficulty of nonconference scheduling. It’s becoming much more difficult because we only have so much inventory and all of us are trying to beef up our nonconference (schedules).
“It’s driving up guarantees (the payments made to visiting opponents), and it makes it more difficult for smaller stadiums to be in that market. We need to think about how do we help our colleagues with smaller stadiums beef up their nonconference schedules when they don’t have large capacities?”
The big boys already do revenue sharing to help the little guys, and that’s more than enough to pay all the guarantees for the season (NW makes $3M from it and doesn’t spend anything near that on buying games). How much more charity do they need?
LikeLike
I don’t think Smith is referring to NWU, as NWU tries and succeeds in scheduling similar academic institutions and a MAC school. NWU future schedule includes games against Stanford, Duke, UND, Rice, and Army. Only the last two are known weak opponents outside the P5. Recent opponents have been BC, Syracuse, and Cal. NWU will because of its academics and under the radar ability to have fans travel/local alumni turnout for away games, will always be able to schedule the other academic kings of the P5.
I think Smith may have been referring to the IU, PU, and Minny crowd.
LikeLike
http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/todd-milewski/report-football-ticket-revenue-sharing-cost-badgers-more-than-in/article_33e46c58-3f36-11e3-bc46-0019bb2963f4.html
Net football revenue sharing for 2012:
OSU, MI, PSU, NE, IA = -$961,828.86
WI = -$957,854.22
MSU = -$862,933.66
IN = $1,722,143.29
IL = $1,312,175.70
NW = $1,271,654.13
MN = $1,266,143.74
PU = $1,057,815.29
A big deal was made this year because OSU is spending a little over $2M on 3 home games ($850k+ each for UC and Kent State, plus $350k for VT although that will be mirrored back next year by VT).
IN could buy two decent home games with their money. The others could buy 1 really good game, or 2 crappy ones, or 1 decent one and part of another, or maybe a I-AA and a decent I-A. And realize, those schools generally buy fewer games anyway.
The 7 donors all could basically buy a decent to good game with what they are giving away.
LikeLike
Well, at least you corrected yourself on the $3M. In any case, NU seems able to line up academic peers for HaH’s (and Stanford has been good while Duke and Vandy are on the upswing; Vandy chickened out, though).
It’s schools like IU & PU that seems to have problems beefing up their schedule. Also, the Illini are guaranteed to have a crap schedule if they insist on 7 home games.
LikeLike
“The 7 donors all could basically buy a decent to good game with what they are giving away.”
Are you suggesting it isn’t in the donors interest to support the conference?
Maybe those 7 could buy that decent to good game with the increased ticket price a good game could command?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Are you suggesting it isn’t in the donors interest to support the conference?”
No, but they already support it in multiple ways. At some point those 5 have to support themselves. Would IN, PU, IL, MN and NW potentially get a $45M/year payout without the other 7 schools? Or even the $25M+ they get now up to the $30M+ projected until the end of the TV deal? That’s support from the other 7 as well as the gate revenue sharing. How much does that add up to per year? And still the little guys want more?
“Maybe those 7 could buy that decent to good game with the increased ticket price a good game could command?”
By BoT rule, OSU can only have 2 games that are premium priced. It would take a great OOC game to be one of those, not just a good one. So you are really saying OSU should raise prices on about 6 games. Since OSU already has the highest face value ticket prices in the country, I’m not sure that’s feasible.
Maybe the little guys could get more of their fans to show up and buy tickets. I know, it’s a crazy way to help finance your team.
LikeLike
“No, but they already support it in multiple ways. At some point those 5 have to support themselves. Would IN, PU, IL, MN and NW potentially get a $45M/year payout without the other 7 schools?”
Would the other seven schools get $45 mil a year without the entire state of Illinois, Minneapolis, Indianapolis?
“Or even the $25M+ they get now up to the $30M+ projected until the end of the TV deal?”
Would the other 7 get that much without the entire state of Illinois, Minneapolis, Indianapolis?
“That’s support from the other 7 as well as the gate revenue sharing. How much does that add up to per year? And still the little guys want more?”
The Big Ten was the first conference to do revenue sharing, and they’ve been doing it for almost 100 years. Its part of the conference’s DNA to spread the wealth around. Ask the SWC or the Big 8 how its working out with only 1 or 2 schools at the top. Ask the B12 how having Lord Texas imposing its will has worked out for the conference. Ask the Big Ten whether its is better off now or back in the Big 2, Little 8 days.
Gate revenue sharing has declined from what it was, but as college history has borne out, conferences sharing revenue equally are more stable that conferences with unequal revenue distribution. Like many athletic associations, a conference is only as strong as its weakest school.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Would the other seven schools get $45 mil a year without the entire state of Illinois, Minneapolis, Indianapolis?”
1. Who says they’d lose all of those people?
2. They’d have a lot fewer mouths to feed, so they’d do pretty well.
“The Big Ten was the first conference to do revenue sharing, and they’ve been doing it for almost 100 years. Its part of the conference’s DNA to spread the wealth around.”
Thanks for the history lesson, but it’s entirely irrelevant. I didn’t say they shouldn’t share revenue, I said they shouldn’t add yet another form of charity. The little guys are all being given millions of dollars in handouts each year already.
“Ask the B12 how having Lord Texas imposing its will has worked out for the conference.”
Despite what NE fans say, most B12 members seem pretty happy as is.
“Ask the Big Ten whether its is better off now or back in the Big 2, Little 8 days.”
You mean back when they were also revenue sharing?
“Gate revenue sharing has declined from what it was,”
Declined from when, exactly? Ticket prices have skyrocketed and stadiums have expanded, making the total gate receipts a much larger amount. A smaller piece of a bigger pie can still be more pie.
“but as college history has borne out, conferences sharing revenue equally are more stable that conferences with unequal revenue distribution.
Too bad that’s not what we’re discussing here. If it were, that might be relevant.
“Like many athletic associations, a conference is only as strong as its weakest school.”
The SEC is much stronger than Vandy or MS State, the ACC is stronger than WF, etc.
LikeLike
“1. Who says they’d lose all of those people?”
Who says they’d keep ’em?
“2. They’d have a lot fewer mouths to feed, so they’d do pretty well.”
Would they? That’s an unfounded assumption.
“The Big Ten was the first conference to do revenue sharing, and they’ve been doing it for almost 100 years. Its part of the conference’s DNA to spread the wealth around.”
“Thanks for the history lesson,”
You’re welcome
“but it’s entirely irrelevant.”
Oh, but it is.
“I didn’t say they shouldn’t share revenue, I said they shouldn’t add yet another form of charity.”
Clearly, the B1G AD’s and Presidents don’t consider it “charity” as much as good business sense.
“The little guys are all being given millions of dollars in handouts each year already.”
So? Is this news to the bigger programs?
“Despite what NE fans say, most B12 members seem pretty happy as is.”
Or is it they didn’t have anywhere else to go? Considering 25% of the original B12 left the conference, that’s not a sign of stability. Nor is adding TCU and WVU. “Seeming” happy and being resigned to B12 membership are not the same thing.
“You mean back when they were also revenue sharing?”
Sharing the revenue brought in primarily by OSU and UM?
“Declined from when, exactly?”
The early 1990’s, and further back. I think it was you who posted the article under FTT’s last post. Could have been someone else and you commented on it.
“Ticket prices have skyrocketed and stadiums have expanded,”
They have?!? Tell me more!
“making the total gate receipts a much larger amount.”
True.
“A smaller piece of a bigger pie can still be more pie.”
It could also be less, depending on the size of the pie.
“Too bad that’s not what we’re discussing here. If it were, that might be relevant.”
Sure its relevant. You’re upset the B1G seems to share monies equally and continues to find new ways to help the little schools. Its how the conference has operated for close to a century. Its just a small expansion of how money is shared.
“The SEC is much stronger than Vandy or MS State, the ACC is stronger than WF, etc.”
Its akin to the old saying “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”. A small close-knit association needs all members to do well for the group as a whole to do well. Otherwise, the imbalance will actually weaken the whole. Stated another way, the Big Ten is greater than the sum of its parts.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Who says they’d keep ‘em?”
Nobody. You’re the one who made the assertion, so you need the evidence.
“Would they? That’s an unfounded assumption.”
The big 7 draw more fans and are in more demand on TV. Their football games are worth more to networks. More king/king and less peasant/peasant in the inventory isn’t going to hurt the value per team.
“Oh, but it is.”
No, it isn’t.
“Clearly, the B1G AD’s and Presidents don’t consider it “charity” as much as good business sense.”
They haven’t said they’d do it, so maybe they don’t think it makes sense. And even if they do think it makes sense, that doesn’t mean they don’t also consider it charity. Charity can make good sense (like getting to write off donations on your taxes).
“Or is it they didn’t have anywhere else to go?”
I said seem happy. Until they say or do something to show otherwise, that’s accurate.
“Considering 25% of the original B12 left the conference, that’s not a sign of stability. Nor is adding TCU and WVU.”
I said nothing about stability, but the GoR makes them pretty darn stable at the moment.
“The early 1990′s, and further back. I think it was you who posted the article under FTT’s last post. Could have been someone else and you commented on it.”
If you’re making a claim, try backing it up with something. Otherwise it’s pure speculation.
“Sure its relevant.”
No, it still isn’t.
“You’re upset the B1G seems to share monies equally”
No, I’m not. You should really learn to read someday.
“and continues to find new ways to help the little schools.”
No, I dislike this particular concept of trying to help them. They don’t need to buy games if their ticket sales are that bad. They can have 6 home games every year and play all home and home series and spend nothing. Giving them money to buy a home game when they don’t sell tickets well makes no sense to me.
“Its akin to the old saying “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.”.”
Except it’s true for a chain because the force goes through each link when it’s under load. That’s not how a conference works. Schools can have complementary strengths or even be pure deadweight and the whole conference doesn’t crumble.
“A small close-knit association needs all members to do well for the group as a whole to do well.”
No, that’s just 1 model. The Pac-10 did fine with unequal revenue sharing for a long time. They didn’t all fall to WSU’s level. The Big 8 did fine with some elite programs and some terrible ones.
LikeLike
“Nobody. You’re the one who made the assertion, so you need the evidence.”
Wrong. Your original post assumed that the leftover 9 B1G schools would make $45mil without any evidence. I merely challenged your assumption.
“The big 7 draw more fans and are in more demand on TV. Their football games are worth more to networks. More king/king and less peasant/peasant in the inventory isn’t going to hurt the value per team.”
That’s quite the assumption. I presume you have evidence to back this up?
Oh, you don’t.
“No, it isn’t.”
Sure it is. That you cannot understand that isn’t my problem.
“They haven’t said they’d do it, so maybe they don’t think it makes sense. And even if they do think it makes sense, that doesn’t mean they don’t also consider it charity. Charity can make good sense (like getting to write off donations on your taxes).”
Charity can and does make good sense.
“I said seem happy.” Until they say or do something to show otherwise, that’s accurate.”
Its an accurate statement of your opinion, sure. “Seeming” in this context is a matter of impression. I don’t think B12 member schools seem all that happy.
“I said nothing about stability, but the GoR makes them pretty darn stable at the moment.”
Or so we presume.
“If you’re making a claim, try backing it up with something. Otherwise it’s pure speculation.”
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football/
In case you need a refresher: Brian says:
February 12, 2014 at 4:06 pm
“Honestly did not know that the B1G shares all gate revenue equally among its member schools.”
They don’t. 35%, with a ceiling of $1M and a floor of $300k per game. It essentially means the kings pay $1M per year to spread to the small schools. The princes pay almost as much. The smallest schools make $1.7M.
The same concept applies to MBB.
“No, it still isn’t.”
Yes it is. Your inability to comprehend it isn’t my problem.
“No, I’m not.”
Sure seems like you are.
“You should really learn to read someday.”
Will you teach me?
“No, I dislike this particular concept of trying to help them.”
Simple, declarative statement of opinion. Good. Let’s see why.
“They don’t need to buy games if their ticket sales are that bad.”
Unless they still make money from home games. From, say, TV rights. Or if having the home game helps all other conference teams by providing content to TV partners/BTN. Or by helping the local communities in which the universities are located. Or, in the case of IU, PU, Minn, and IL, having just built/renovated stadiums and need to give to the taxpayers who helped fund them (in the case of Minny) maximum use of those facilities. Its explained in the ESPN article you posted below: “It’s hard for us to move off campus and take a game away from our stadium, that’s my biggest issue,” Minnesota AD Norwood Teague said. “That was built for a purpose, and $150 million of that stadium was paid for by taxpayer dollars. You’ve got to serve the people.”
Also, Gene Smith is talking about helping them in the context of helping the conference get a better strength of schedule overall, or to use Smith’s words, “beef up their non conference schedules.”
“They can have 6 home games every year and play all home and home series and spend nothing.”
Sure, they could. But that would be stupid, as home games come with TV rights, among other benefits, and AD’s made it clear that 7 home games make the budgets. (Also mentioned in your ESPN article below)
“Giving them money to buy a home game when they don’t sell tickets well makes no sense to me.”
Gene Smith need not worry about you taking his job, then.
“Except it’s true for a chain because the force goes through each link when it’s under load. That’s not how a conference works. Schools can have complementary strengths or even be pure deadweight and the whole conference doesn’t crumble.”
So THATS what a chain is.
“The Pac-10 did fine with unequal revenue sharing for a long time.”
So well, in fact, that the conference now has equal revenue sharing. http://www.oregonlive.com/pac-12/index.ssf/2011/11/sporting-news-pac-12-tv-deal.html. It wasn’t broke, but they fixed it anyways. Also: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/04/sports/la-sp-pac-12-tv-20110505
“They didn’t all fall to WSU’s level.”
Apparently, proverbs go right over your head.
“The Big 8 did fine with some elite programs and some terrible ones.”
Yeah, dissolution of the conference was the endgame preferred by all Big 8 members.
LikeLike
“Your original post assumed that the leftover 9 B1G schools would make $45mil without any evidence.”
No, it didn’t. You assumed that my comment said that because you like to fight strawmen.
“The big 7 draw more fans and are in more demand on TV. Their football games are worth more to networks. More king/king and less peasant/peasant in the inventory isn’t going to hurt the value per team.”
“That’s quite the assumption. I presume you have evidence to back this up?”
1. TV ratings verify part 1. The big 7 draw higher rankings.
2. Network people have been quoted as saying most of a TV deal is paid for the big games and brands. This is made evident by the game selections networks make. This can be seen in practice in leagues that didn’t share revenue equally. Schools like USC made significantly more than schools like WSU because they were more in demand.
“Its explained in the ESPN article you posted below: “It’s hard for us to move off campus and take a game away from our stadium, that’s my biggest issue,” Minnesota AD Norwood Teague said. “That was built for a purpose, and $150 million of that stadium was paid for by taxpayer dollars. You’ve got to serve the people.””
The context was explaining why they wouldn’t play neutral site games.
Also, Gene Smith is talking about helping them in the context of helping the conference get a better strength of schedule overall, or to use Smith’s words, “beef up their non conference schedules.”
“Sure, they could. But that would be stupid, as home games come with TV rights, among other benefits, and AD’s made it clear that 7 home games make the budgets. (Also mentioned in your ESPN article below)”
For the big schools, yes. NW has chosen to do it twice in recent memory. IN did it in 2009, 2012 and is doing it in 2014. This isn’t some new concept I’m proposing. And if the 7 games actually made their budget, they wouldn’t be asking for yet more financial help to buy games. They want help because home games don’t make that much profit for them.
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football/
Gross ticket receipts for 2012 B10 home games (OOC will draw the same or less):
School Opponent (2012) Gross Gate Revenue
Illinois
Penn State 1,239,870.00
Indiana 1,351,546.00
Minnesota 1,286,005.00
Purdue 1,053,991.00
Indiana
Michigan State 817,390.00
Ohio State 1,188,651.00
Iowa 712,799.00
Wisconsin 753,733.00
Iowa
Minnesota 3,306,404.05
Penn State 3,333,027.33
Purdue 3,267,309.05
Nebraska 3,429,696.70
Michigan
Illinois 6,114,639.00
Michigan State 6,439,892.00
Northwestern 6,123,488.00
Iowa 6,098,204.00
Michigan State
Ohio State 3,016,024.00
Iowa 2,863,822.00
Nebraska 2,847,254.00
Northwestern 2,584,747.00
Minnesota
Northwestern 1,452,376.00
Purdue 1,256,655.00
Michigan 1,512,784.00
Michigan State 1,244,821.00
Nebraska
Wisconsin 4,230,191.00
Michigan 4,228,842.00
Penn State 4,162,836.00
Minnesota 4,191,356.00
Northwestern
Indiana 898,091.00
Nebraska 1,967,828.00
Iowa 1,611,743.00
Illinois 1,058,618.00
Ohio State
Nebraska 5,785,318.00
Purdue 5,686,968.00
Illinois 5,707,009.00
Michigan 5,780,516.00
Penn State
Northwestern 4,464,312.00
Ohio State 5,547,385.00
Indiana 4,152,165.00
Wisconsin 4,334,862.00
Purdue
Michigan 1,634,200.00
Wisconsin 1,507,017.00
Penn State 1,195,128.00
Indiana 1,321,812.00
Wisconsin
Illinois 2,750,878.00
Minnesota 2,860,039.00
Michigan State 2,854,838.00
Ohio State 2,805,513.00
The payout to buy a game is essentially the same as what some of those schools pull in as gross revenue. That’s why helping them buy games doesn’t make much sense.
“So well,”
Just admit I was right. It’s easier than trying to spin it. They did fine with unequal revenue sharing. Now they’re doing fine with equal revenue sharing.
“Apparently, proverbs go right over your head.”
When you try to use them as evidence, yes.
“Yeah, dissolution of the conference was the endgame preferred by all Big 8 members.”
Unfortunately that was completely unrelated to the revenue sharing model. The Big 8 had demographic issues that needed fixing, so they added UT and friends. The Big 8 didn’t dissolve, the B12 did. And there were a lot more issues than unequal revenue sharing that contributed to that. NE gained from the unequal sharing and yet they left. CO left because they’ve wanted to be in the P10 for years.
LikeLike
“Your original post assumed that the leftover 9 B1G schools would make $45mil without any evidence.”
The statement I was commenting on: “Would IN, PU, IL, MN and NW potentially get a $45M/year payout without the other 7 schools? Or even the $25M+ they get now up to the $30M+ projected until the end of the TV deal? , and I asked why you assume the other B1G schools would make similar amounts. Its still an open question, and I suspect it will be because you have no clue and no evidence.
“No, it didn’t. You assumed that my comment said that because you like to fight straw men.”
You’re reference to strawmen is the only strawman here.
“1. TV ratings verify part 1. The big 7 draw higher rankings.”
TV ratings demonstrate they would make $45mil/year? No.
“2. Network people have been quoted as saying most of a TV deal is paid for the big games and brands.”
Does that mean a smaller association will still yield the same amount per school? Are the 5 teams you mentioned literally of no value to the B1G that the other 9 would still make the same without them? This is the question. Feel free to answer it or throw around the word strawman. I suspect you’ll choose the latter.
“This is made evident by the game selections networks make.”
Other things are evident from game selection The monetary value of teams to a league are not.
“This can be seen in practice in leagues that didn’t share revenue equally.”
Surely you will reference a league with unequal revenue sharing.
“Schools like USC made significantly more than schools like WSU because they were more in demand.”
Guess not.
“Its explained in the ESPN article you posted below: “It’s hard for us to move off campus and take a game away from our stadium, that’s my biggest issue,” Minnesota AD Norwood Teague said. “That was built for a purpose, and $150 million of that stadium was paid for by taxpayer dollars. You’ve got to serve the people.””
“The context was explaining why they wouldn’t play neutral site games.”
And why 7 home games are critical.
“For the big schools, yes. NW has chosen to do it twice in recent memory.mIN did it in 2009, 2012 and is doing it in 2014. This isn’t some new concept I’m proposing.”
Yes, teams will buy home games against weak opponents. This is common knowledge.
“And if the 7 games actually made their budget,”
Which, according to AD’s and conference commissioners, it does.
“they wouldn’t be asking for yet more financial help to buy games.”
Sure they would, if it takes more money to get quality opponents as all conferences try to beef up non-conference schedules, driving up demand for specific teams beyond the means of the lesser programs, which then intern can weaken the whole conference’s SoS, and by extension, the conference, leading to exclusion from the CFB playoff.
“They want help because home games don’t make that much profit for them.”
And the richer teams want to help because its a close-knit athletic association, and because it also helps them with a stronger SoS. Win-win.
“The payout to buy a game is essentially the same as what some of those schools pull in as gross revenue. That’s why helping them buy games doesn’t make much sense.”
The payout is not the sole source of money. TV and media rights are controlled by the home team. Its a critical reason why home games are important.
“Just admit I was right.”
But you’re incredibly wrong, so I’m not sure why I’d admit you’re right. The Pac 12 was not working as well with unequal revenue sharing, for otherwise, it would still have unequal revenue sharing.
“It’s easier than trying to spin it.”
If you think truth is spin, I can’t help you.
“They did fine with unequal revenue sharing.”
Not really, hence they went to equal revenue sharing.
“Now they’re doing fine with equal revenue sharing.”
Yes they are. Better than before.
“When you try to use them as evidence, yes.”
At least you admit it.
“The Big 8 had demographic issues that needed fixing, so they added UT and friends.”
The Big 8 didn’t add anyone. It dissolved. The former Big 8 members joined with 4 Texas schools to form the Big 12. The Big 12 is a separate and distinct entity that does not consider it a successor to the Big 8, does not count Big 8 records as Big 12 records, and is no longer in existence.
“The Big 8 didn’t dissolve,”
Yes it did.
“the B12 did.”
It did???
“And there were a lot more issues than unequal revenue sharing that contributed to that. NE gained from the unequal sharing and yet they left.”
NE didn’t gain was much as others, which was a big factor. Unequal revenue sharing leads to destruction. Successful and durable conferences share revenue equally.
“CO left because they’ve wanted to be in the P10 for years.”
And because it was getting hosed in the B12. It would not have left without a pressing to. Same for aTm, who had eyes on the SEC in the early 1990’s. Mizzou has almost doubled its potential payout, and it likely would not have left but for instability borne of inequality.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I asked why you assume the other B1G schools would make similar amounts. Its still an open question, and I suspect it will be because you have no clue and no evidence.”
The TV money is largely for FB, and the big 7 draw better ratings. Why would TV pay less to show more OSU and MI and less IN and IL? The total pie would obviously be smaller, but the slices? I don’t know how the B10 arrived at their projected $45M number, so there’s no way to argue specific numbers. There are important variables (would they be a league of 7 or add others/move elsewhere, who would they add, etc). The B12 lost TAMU, CO, NE and MO and yet got a raise when they signed a new deal. That bodes well for what losing schools like IN would do to the TV deal.
“TV ratings demonstrate they would make $45mil/year? No.”
You really should learn to read.
I said:
The big 7 draw more fans and are in more demand on TV. Their football games are worth more to networks. More king/king and less peasant/peasant in the inventory isn’t going to hurt the value per team.
You asked for evidence.
So, part 1 = “The big 7 draw more fans and are in more demand on TV.”
Thus, the ratings prove it.
Part 2 = “Their football games are worth more to networks.”
Thus, quotes from TV executives saying so prove it.
Part 3 is inferred from part 2. If brand games are worth more, then losing non-brand games won’t hurt the average.
“Does that mean a smaller association will still yield the same amount per school?”
They could make more, less or the same theoretically. Only a TV network could tell you for sure. But remember, the B12 was told that losing CO cost them nothing.
“Are the 5 teams you mentioned literally of no value to the B1G that the other 9 would still make the same without them?”
Net financial value? They may literally not be worth a penny, especially in football.
“Yes, teams will buy home games against weak opponents. This is common knowledge.”
Those were years B10 schools chose to have only 6 home games.
“NE didn’t gain was much as others, which was a big factor.”
NE was the #2 beneficiary of it according to B12 fans.
“Unequal revenue sharing leads to destruction.”
Not necessarily. The P10 didn’t get destroyed.
“Successful and durable conferences share revenue equally.”
Correlation isn’t causation.
“It would not have left without a pressing to.”
Their pressing need was to get back to all their alumni in CA.
“Same for aTm, who had eyes on the SEC in the early 1990′s.”
TAMU had zero pressing need to leave. They just got sick of UT.
“Mizzou has almost doubled its potential payout, and it likely would not have left but for instability borne of inequality.”
An upgrade is an upgrade. Nobody is staying in CUSA due to equal revenue sharing if a P5 offer comes their way.
LikeLike
“The TV money is largely for FB, and the big 7 draw better ratings. Why would TV pay less to show more OSU and MI and less IN and IL? The total pie would obviously be smaller, but the slices? I don’t know how the B10 arrived at their projected $45M number, so there’s no way to argue specific numbers. There are important variables (would they be a league of 7 or add others/move elsewhere, who would they add, etc). The B12 lost TAMU, CO, NE and MO and yet got a raise when they signed a new deal. That bodes well for what losing schools like IN would do to the TV deal.”
So, you don’t have proof and were speaking off the cuff. And you like making analogies devoid of context. The B12 revenue per school increased due to the additional media rights granted to TV partners. It was the additional content that led to the increase, which was $5mil per school, and which after the increase is still less than the SEC, B1G, and P12.
How does the B12 generating more money by giving more content somehow bode well for losing major media markets and content? Oh, it doesn’t.
Also, part of the $45 mil is BTN money, which is generated by carriage fees in major markets. Like Chicago, STL, as well as Indy, MTC, and Milwaukee. BTN getting the best rate in Illinois without any Illinois schools? In STL? Milwaukee? Indianapolis? MTC?
“You really should learn to read.”
Can you teach me?
“Thus, the ratings prove it.”
Ratings don’t prove they would maintain value per team.
“Thus, quotes from TV executives saying so prove it.”
But you didn’t supply quotes or any actual proof of the central issue here that axing 5 schools would allow the other 9 to maintain $45 mil/year.
“Part 3 is inferred from part 2. If brand games are worth more, then losing non-brand games won’t hurt the average.”
Inferences aren’t proof. And were talking losing schools in and/or near major media markets (Chi, STL, MIL, Minny, Indy). You need more than half-baked logic.
“They could make more, less or the same theoretically. Only a TV network could tell you for sure. But remember, the B12 was told that losing CO cost them nothing.”
No, the B12 was told that their rights fees wouldn’t be lowered, because neither ESPn or Fox wanted the conference to die. http://newsok.com/tv-money-held-big-12-together/article/3468892
“Net financial value? They may literally not be worth a penny, especially in football.”
You are entitled to believe what you want to. Now, find someone credible who thinks that NWU has literally no worth in football to the B1G, or any proof whatsoever. Or Illinois. Considering the blockbuster ratings NWU-OSU got on ABC last season, I know that you’re flat wrong, and clueless on these matters.
“Those were years B10 schools chose to have only 6 home games.”
Chose or had no other option? Did those schools say “hey, we only want 6 home games this year,” or did they have issues with scheduling? The reason is key, considering you have a handful of outliers and are trying to base your statements off of them.
“NE was the #2 beneficiary of it according to B12 fans.”
So you mean they were upset someone else made more? And what B12 fans are these? UNL was always #2? From 1996 through 2011? It didn’t fluctuate based on bowl appearances, number of national tv games?
“Not necessarily. The P10 didn’t get destroyed.”
And also stopped unequal revenue sharing.
“Correlation isn’t causation.”
Unequal distribution of money does lead to destruction, ultimately. Unless its rectified.
“Their pressing need was to get back to all their alumni in CA.”
So pressing, it passed up joining the Pac in the 1990s.
“TAMU had zero pressing need to leave. They just got sick of UT.”
So? This isn’t about need. Its about greed.
“An upgrade is an upgrade. Nobody is staying in CUSA due to equal revenue sharing if a P5 offer comes their way.”
Nice strawman. The power conferences have all moved close to, or in practice, to equal revenue sharing. What lesser conferences due is meaningless, because the money is much less. Schools want to maximize money, and to make sure nobody is making more than them.
LikeLike
At least 2 of the 5 (NW and Purdue) are dead weight. IL and IN have the states covered. The SEC is not even interested in a king like FSU since U Florida extracts all the TV value the SEC can get from having a presence in that large state.
I agree there are a lot of OSU fans in Chicago that will attend NW games when OSU plays there; same for Michigan. Both of these schools also have a lot of fans who will watch the games against any conference opponent. To show NW has independent value you need to quote how well NW does when playing IN, Purdue, Minny, or any Go5 OOC game.
There is a win-win solution to increase ticket sharing revenue, but it will never happen. When the 9 game schedule is implemented if 5 games per year are always scheduled at the big stadium schools and the cap is raised for this concession a lot more revenue will be produced for the pool. The extra game would give the donor schools more money even as they gave more to the receiving schools. The extra revenue sharing would be worth more financially than another home game to IN, Purdue, MN, IL, or NW. However, they would never accept losing 1/2 a home game per year.
LikeLike
“To show NW has independent value you need to quote how well NW does when playing IN, Purdue, Minny, or any Go5 OOC game.”
Fair enough. What metric do you prefer- regular season conference game, regular season OOC game, or bowl game?
LikeLike
By way of examples: (taken from: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/)
NWU vs. Wisconsin last year got a 2.4, 330pm on ABC.
It was Wisconsin’s second highest rated game last season, after Wisco vs. OSU (4.0).
NWU vs. OSU last year got a 4.4.
It was OSU’s second highest rated regular season game after OSU vs. Mich (duh) (3rd highest if you count the CCG).
In 2012: (http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/)
NWU vs. Neb got a 2.6, which was in line with most other Neb games (2.8 for Neb vs. Iowa; 2.2 for Neb vs. PSU; 2.7 for Neb vs. MSU; 1.2 for Neb vs. Mich; 3.1 Neb vs. OSU).
As for games vs. MN, in 2013, NWU vs. Minny got a 0.6. The only comparable was Minny vs. PSU, which got a 1.0, Other MN games were much better rated than its NWU game, though vs common opponents, the NWU game was better rated (1.2 for Wisc vs Minn vs. 2.4 for NWU vs. Wisc).
In 2012, NWU vs. Iowa got a 0.6; MN vs. Iowa got a 0.4.
Also: for Bowls:
http://www.nusports.com/genrel/010510aab.html
My Takeaway:
NWU, while a second-tier program (or whatever the level is below Prince), is a surprisingly decent opponent for the big programs. Certainly better than “dead weight”. When it plays a weaker opponent, the ratings will be in line with those of a second tier program playing other second tier program. The value is most definitely more than $0.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“NWU, while a second-tier program (or whatever the level is below Prince), is a surprisingly decent opponent for the big programs. Certainly better than “dead weight”. When it plays a weaker opponent, the ratings will be in line with those of a second tier program playing other second tier program. The value is most definitely more than $0.”
Remember, you have to show that these schools are each worth more to the B10 than the per team distribution in the B10 (over $25M last year). If one was worth $24M, then they cost the other teams money. Nobody said any of these schools had a value of $0, we said they had no net financial value to the other schools.
For you to be right, those 5 schools would have to be above average financial value to the B10. So which of the big 7 are you claiming are worth less to the B10 financially than PU?
LikeLike
“Remember, you have to show that these schools are each worth more to the B10 than the per team distribution in the B10 (over $25M last year)” “Nobody said any of these schools had a value of $0, we said they had no net financial value to the other schools.” “For you to be right, those 5 schools would have to be above average financial value to the B10. So which of the big 7 are you claiming are worth less to the B10 financially than PU?”
1) This comment was made in the context of a different question, namely whether or not NWU is “dead weight”, not in our debate about your assumption that the smaller 5 leaving would still give the Leftover 9 the same annual payout.
2) TV ratings, which I used, are a means to show undefined but obvious value to the conference. It does not, nor cannot, supply monetary value. Its a mistake you originally relied on when trying to prove that the Leftover 9 would have the same value without the small 5.
3) When did I discuss the relative monetary value of any two programs?
LikeLike
With Rutgers and Maryland added next year there is likely to be slightly less net ticket sharing revenue next year for IN, IL, NW, MN, and Purdue. With a 14 way split of the pool the donor schools will get less of their money back, so there will be an increase to net contributions. When the B1G goes to 9 conference games the donor’s contributions to the pool will increase again due to the extra B1G home game every other year.
As far as the cost of buy games, schools that do not sell many tickets or have small stadiums can always schedule home & home series against P5 opponents rather than buying another home game. Even considering TV inventory, for the lower level B1G schools, a good OOC game every two years is probably worth more than a MAC game every year.
LikeLike
How Athletic Departments (And The Media) Fudge The Cost Of Scholarships
http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-athletic-departments-and-the-media-fudge-the-cost-1570827027/all
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/70254/take-two-acc-title-game-format
A point/counterpoint look at changing the ACC title game.
“Jane, you ignorant slut.”
LikeLike
A look at how football is changing, even in Texas.
LikeLike
I don’t remember organized tackle football before 7th grade when I was growing up. I’m sure it existed some places, but it wasn’t nearly as common as now. Organized flag football is just fine.
And when kids are playing tackle football with their friends, 2 on 2 or 3 on 3, you usually don’t have the size differences you can have in organized football. Kids have more sense than adults when it comes to games.
LikeLike
Kids playing basketball was more dangerous than unsupervised tackle football (because we would play basketball on the ice).
LikeLike
Organized youth football starts in the 2nd grade and has existed at least as long as I’ve been alive (early 70’s).
There are weight limits at both the upper and lower ranges. The lower weight limits can be waived with a doctor’s permission. The upper weight limits are also different depending upon position. That is to keep the 170lb 10 y/o from playing RB and plowing over everyone.
LikeLike
My elementary years were in the 60s.
LikeLike
Forgot to mention this was in Ohio.
LikeLike
I grew up in the country, and my high school at that time didn’t even have a football team. At my elementary school, you’d get paddled if you played football during recess.
Then we moved to somewhere less rural, but there was barely organized flag football. We did start tackle in 7th grade, but I remember the coach spending a lot of time teaching fundamentals like head up tackling.
Maybe they need to add a transition period where players are coached on tackle football but games are all flag.
LikeLike
College FB players brains show difference from non players.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0DT24720140513?irpc=932
LikeLike
But they didn’t show causation here. Perhaps having a smaller hippocampus also correlates with being better at football, and thus why you see it in college players. They also said the longer you played, the smaller it was. But again, that only show correlation, not causation.
They showed that the athletes had a 17-26% smaller hippocampus than non-athletes, but didn’t quote a number for those diagnosed with concussions versus those who weren’t (they did say they were smaller, but not by how much). They also used a small sample size (25 in each group) which can cause problems.
I’m not saying football isn’t the root cause of this, but this study doesn’t prove it.
LikeLike
That sounds kind of what Marshall is doing in the article.
LikeLike
Reading what has been posted in the ACC, for a long time my thought has been that what they’ll more likely do if they get CCG rules changed is to simply end the forced round robin in division and go to a 5-1-2 schedule (5 divisional games, 1 locked crossover, 2 rotating crossovers). That could create issues with the CCG, but it also would mean you’d play the non-locked teams 2 out of 6 years instead of 2 out of 12, which is a big deal.
I personally think it’s a bad idea to continue with the divisions, but I don’t think anyone wants to be the one responsible for the risk of ending them.
LikeLike
9 of 14 ACC ADs are for divisions, 2 against, and 3 undecided. Where is the drive for no divisions coming from when the majority of the conference suggesting change supports them?
LikeLike
The ACC moves its MBB tourney to Tues-Sat, leaving the B1G as the big dog on Sunday afternoon with its CBS-aired finale.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/acc/2014/05/13/acc-mens-basketball-tournament-tuesday-to-saturday/9035709/
LikeLike
Instead, the title game will tip off at roughly 8:30 p.m. on Saturday night on ESPN, the slot traditionally held by the old Big East. The semifinals will also be in prime time at 7 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. on Friday night.
“I think it’s a win-win all the way around,” Swofford said. “Certainly having the prime-time slot is something that I think will enhance what we believe has consistently been for many years the best conference basketball tournament in the country.”
Getting the prime time slots may be worth it. Personally, I don’t like having the B10 final late Sunday afternoon. I’d prefer it ended in plenty of time for the committee to factor it into their seeding.
LikeLike
I recall an interview with Craig Littlepage when he was the head of the selection committee a few years back. He said by the B1G title game’s tipoff, all the work is done, with two variants depending on the winner of the game (if necessary).
Now, I have no idea whether playing the last game helps or hurts the B1G, but its something the conference has favored since they first started having the MBB tourney, that last bit of special exposure on a national broadcast network.
LikeLike
ESPN wants back in on the EPL, but recognizes it would have to be a partnership with another network (FS! or NBCSN) because it lacks outlets to air all EPL games.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Closing-Bell/2014/05/13/EPL.aspx
LikeLike
SEC beer sales may soon be a reality:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24561266/lsu-ad-there-may-come-a-day-for-sec-beer-sales-
LikeLike
Many schools sell beer with no issues. If anything, it reduces drinking since it tends to be expensive in the stadium.
LikeLike
I believe less than half FBS schools sell beer at home football games.
LikeLike
Probably true and all around poor decision that reduces revenue and drives fans to drink in the parking lot, often to excess, rather than have 2 or 3 in the stadium.
LikeLike
But not selling also eliminates the chance that the school sells booze to a minor, and removes other liability concerns. Its not a clear-cut choice that schools have to make, as there are good points on both sides.
LikeLike
I’m confused that you list selling beer to minors as an issue. This one is so simple – request to see an ID. All pro sports sell beer, and there doesn’t appear to be any issue with minors buying beer. Colleges have a weird culture where it’s fine to park in the grass for hours drinking large amounts of alcohol, but recommend selling beer in the stadium and people freak out. If you actually want to reduce consumption, just sell beer at the game, then it isn’t special and there is no need to drink in a parking lot.
LikeLike
The concentration of minors, combined with fake ID’s, makes it a liability and insurance issue for colleges. Those costs would erode some of the profits from alcohol sales. Not to mention the bad publicity if a 19 year old with a fake ID gets hurt or dies at a stadium from doing something stupid. Colleges don’t want to have to deal with that.
LikeLike
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/07/10/good-question-how-many-colleges-sell-beer-at-sports-stadiums/
This is from 2012, so mostly up to date:
According to CBSSports.com, out of the 120 Division-I football programs, just 21 sell beer to all fans of legal age. Of those 21, just 11 of them are on-campus, university-owned stadiums (the other 10 are situations like the Metrodome where the college is a tenant in another building).
In the Big Ten, none of the schools sell in the general fan sections. According to the University of Minnesota, four Big Ten schools sell only in the suites: Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Purdue.
LikeLike
I guess I’ve been to most of the stadiums that sell beer and didn’t realize it was special. Also very common at college basketball games in the area.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/osu-replaces-iowa-as-decades-top-nfl-feeder-20140512
B10 draftees from 2010-2014:
Here are the updated totals of NFL draft picks in the 2010s, with first-rounders in parentheses:
Ohio State 23 (3)
Iowa 22 (3)
Wisconsin 21 (4)
Nebraska 19 (2)
Penn State 19 (1)
Illinois 16 (3)
Michigan 13 (2)
Michigan State 13 (1)
Rutgers 11 (2)
Indiana 7 (1)
Purdue 7 (1)
Maryland 6 (0)
Northwestern 5 (0)
Minnesota 4 (0)
Now let’s look at the SEC in the same 5-year period:
Alabama 37 (13)
LSU 33 (6)
Georgia 28 (3)
Florida 27 (7)
South Carolina 19 (3)
Tennessee 16 (4)
Arkansas 16 (0)
Texas A&M 14 (6)
Auburn 12 (4)
Mississippi State 12 (2)
Missouri 11 (4)
Vanderbilt 9 (0)
Kentucky 8 (0)
Mississippi 7 (0)
LikeLike
Auburn (and even A&M, UTenn, SC, and Ole Miss) underproduce compared to their recruiting rankings, while Wisconsin and Iowa way overproduce. However, UM underproduces as well.
No surprise that the oversigning kings do best.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100813/b1g-announces-homecoming-kick-times
B10 homecoming game times announced.
Here’s the full list:
Sept. 27
Wyoming at Michigan State, noon ET
Northwestern at Penn State, noon ET
Iowa at Purdue, noon ET
Illinois at Nebraska, 9 p.m. ET, Big Ten Network
Oct. 11
Indiana at Iowa, noon ET
Oct. 18
Iowa at Maryland, noon ET
Purdue at Minnesota, noon ET
Michigan State at Indiana, 3:30 p.m. ET
Rutgers at Ohio State, 3:30 p.m. ET
Nebraska at Northwestern, 7:30 p.m. ET, Big Ten Network
Oct. 25
Minnesota at Illinois, noon ET
Maryland at Wisconsin, noon ET
Nov. 1
Wisconsin at Rutgers, noon ET
Indiana at Michigan, 3:30 p.m. ET
IN and IA are the opponent twice each. MSU isn’t playing a B10 game for homecoming. 2 night games, both involving NE.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100785/spartans-sun-devils-add-future-series
MSU and ASU schedule a home and home in 2018-9.
I suggest MSU brings B10 officials to Arizona.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1402223.html
50 top draft prospects for 2015.
LikeLike
CFB Playoff guaranteed to be at 4 teams for the next 12 years:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/13/college-football-playoff-bill-hancock-four-teams-expand/9051481/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100856/big-ten-ad-meetings-day-1-wrap
An interesting note from the B10 ADs meetings:
Joyner said there has been some talk about Big Ten teams scheduling other league opponents in non-league games, something former Michigan athletic director Bill Martin brought up years ago. “That’s a unique concept we could talk about more,” Joyner said. “That’s a possibility.”
As a buy game for the big boys? That would be an interesting way to keep more of the money in conference.
As a home and home? Doesn’t make much sense except to preserve a rivalry. That’s 10 B10 games with 5 on the road meaning you need to buy 2 more home games if you’re a big school. I’d generally prefer to see OSU playing a major OOC foe instead.
LikeLike
I wonder if the LBJ game would sell out Soldier Field. Plenty of UM alums and UM alums in Chicagoland, and parts of MI are actually quite close.
Or Wrigley (need less people; can charge higher prices, and many fans of both schools may go just for the novelty of it; especially since both the Tigers and Twins hardly ever visit Wrigley).
They could potentially make a neutral-site LBJ game in to a money-maker.
Other possibilities are UNL-PSU at Yankee Stadium or some other king-king/king-prince matchup in FL.
LikeLike
ACC also pondering this move:
LikeLike
The full article: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10930219/some-acc-teams-consider-fulfilling-future-nonconference-obligations-playing-other-acc-teams
LikeLike
Some interesting notes:
“It just makes sense for us, in years that we’re not playing Notre Dame, to consider scheduling one of those teams as a nonconference game. It would be great from the perspective of student-athlete experience and welfare, minimizing travel, and to have games in closer geographic proximity for our fans.”
…
Miami athletic director Blake James, a proponent of a nine-game league schedule, said scheduling conference teams in nonconference slots is not ideal. But circumstances may end up dictating whether that happens.
“It’s going to be more challenging to find nonconference games,” James said. “A conference like the SEC doesn’t want to play us. Florida has Florida State, so we’re not going to have an opportunity to play them.”
…
Playing another league opponent in a nonconference game is allowable under ACC by-laws. Any decision regarding nonconference games between ACC schools would be up to the individual institutions, ACC commissioner John Swofford said.
Any nonconference games between ACC schools also would satisfy the league’s requirement of playing at least one nonconference team from a power five league starting in 2017.
…
Other sports, such as baseball, already play nonconference games against conference opponents.
Why not count the games as conference games? That way fans are less confused. Sure some teams will end up with more conference games than others, but you can always use winning percentage to sort the standings. The B10 has done that before, as has the SEC IIRC.
LikeLike
Because they need it to count as an OOC game to protect the p5 OOC opponent edict and remain at only 9 total p5 games (for some).
LikeLike
Except they don’t. They could restate their rule to be 9 P5 games as a minimum and then it wouldn’t matter what #9 was.
LikeLike
Then they lose the pretense that they have strengthened their schedule as compared to B12/PAC/B1G(soon). Like the SEC, they have labeled remaining the same as “strengthened” when in fact only a few will be effected, in either conference, by the announced “change.”
LikeLike
Or when a “non-conference” loss ends up somehow creating an odd-looking CCG.
LikeLike
It would depend on what number tiebreaker winning percentage would be.
Wouldn’t the winning percentage always be skewed toward the team with less losses? An 8-1 team would have a worse winning percentage than an 8-0 team, despite the equal number of wins.
LikeLike
And a better one than a 7-1 team. If you win more than you lose, then more games is generally better for your W% because you are more likely to get an extra W than an extra L.
LikeLike
OR, they should try the Steve Spurrier proposal to only count intra-division games to determine the division winner. As has been recently seen in the SEC, the inter-division schedule can have a huge impact on the division race (see also LSU-Florida locked cross-division game). That makes WAY more sense than playing “non-conference” games against conference opponents. The divisions would play a round-robin schedule, the best method to determine the best team.
The other 3 or 4 ACC games would help with TV inventory and get more consistent matchups without damaging the conference championship game.
LikeLike
duffman wrote a post way up the thread about college baseball. This spring I haven’t done a good job of providing college baseball updates, but here it is.
Indiana is in great shape to host a regional. The Hoosiers have a #5 RPI and are ranked in all five major polls/rankings with a high of #8 (Collegiate Baseball) and a low of #18 (USAT & NCBWA) Nebraksa is ranked three polls with a high of #25 (Perfect Game) and a low of #28 (NCBWA), but the Huskers only have a #39 RPI. Both of the B1G schools are also doing well at the turnstile with Nebraska coming in at #18 with an average of 3,038 fans per game, and Indiana is #28 with an average of 2,569. Frank’s Illini will have a tough time making the NCAAs with an RPI of #54.
Other non-sunbelt teams that are doing well include Virginia and Oregon State, who are ranked either #1 or #2 in every poll. Washington is ranked at #11 in every poll. Liberty (VA) is ranked in every poll, as is Louisville. Stony Brook (NY), Creighton, and Kansas are all ranked in one poll.
The SEC has seven teams ranked in every poll is may get 10 or 11 teams in the tournament. Again, the SEC also dominates attendance with LSU leading the way at an average of 10,819 per game.
Here’s the top ten in average attendance.
1. LSU 10,819
2. Arkansas 8,234
3. Miss State 8,127
4. Ole Miss 7,823
5. South Carolina 7,527
6. Texas 5,612
7. Florida State 5,191
8. Clemson 4,426
9. A&M 4,398
10. UL-Lafayette 3,772
My Tigers are ranked as high as #8 and as low as #15. With an RPI of #20, LSU still has some work to do in order to host a regional.
LikeLike
LSU sure had a good day yesterday: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10929481/lsu-tigers-no-hit-northwestern-state-demons-27-0-6-innings
LikeLike
Wainscott – we’re still mad about missing that PAT.
LikeLike
LOL.
LikeLike
School A:
29-5-1 in 35 home games (first scheduled/played home game 2/14)
7-9 in 16 away games
1-0 in 1 neutral game
School B:
10-6 in 16 home games (first scheduled home game 3/22–first played home game 3/29)
12-10 in 22 away games
4-4 in 8 neutral games
Since 2000:
School A:
3 regular season conference titles
5 conference tournament titles
School B:
5 regular season conference titles
3 conference tournament titles
Historically:
School A:
15 reg season conf titles
10 conf tourn titles
School B:
22 reg season conf titles
9 conf tourn titles
School A:
6 national titles (2 since 2000)
School B:
3 national titles (last won 1964)
On paper—would seem that both teams are pretty competitive year in/year out.
In reality, one school really has little chance of being highly competitive on the national scene, while the other has been nationally competitive.
One school is a representative of the Southeastern Conference.
One school is a representative of the Big Ten Conference.
In the current times, comparing northern school baseball to southern school baseball is like comparing northern school hockey to southern school hockey… Attendance numbers reflect the same…
The current competitive imbalance is crazy…
LikeLike
mnfanstc – I wasn’t comparing anybody, just stating the facts. Two teams in the B1G are doing well and the B1G should be a two bid league which is good for the B1G. Some other non-sunbelt teams are doing very well this season. The SEC is very deep and has great fan support.
I do take issue with your last comment though. College baseball has never been more competitively balanced. There are more teams putting more money into their programs than ever. With a 64 team bracket and the 4 team regional and best of 3 super regional format, more teams have a chance to go deep in the NCAAs than at any other time. If your have three good starters, that will get you a long way.
Now if you stated that there was a geographic imbalance, you’d be correct. But as I stated, earlier some non-sunbelt teams are doing very well. Oregon State and Virginia top all the polls. I understand that Virginia and Oregon have mild winters compared to Minnesota, but Corvallis and Charlottesville ain’t exactly Tucson and Coral Gables either.
A few years ago, Minnesota played in a regional and accounted very well for themselves. I can’t remember if they won a game, but I do recall the Gophers playing hard and giving a great effort.
LikeLike
Alan,
Didn’t mean to come across negatively—I know you weren’t comparing anyone.
Actually, the U of M has put some money into baseball—brand new Siebert Field. Quite a bit of help from Hall of Famers Paul Molitor and Dave Winfield, among other former U players and the current AD (who has stated his desire for Minnesota baseball to be competitive on the national stage) for putting some emphasis back in the sport.
You are correct that it is more of a geographic imbalance–that’s really how I meant to play it. Is frustrating when you know the battle is uphill, even before the start. Problem is, in this situation there is no easy remedy to “even the field” per se—short of moving the season start time, and/or split season (fall/spring). It’s hard to play baseball with snow on the ground, or when it’s 40 and raining. The same disadvantage exists for some of the other spring sports (track & field, golf, softball) as well. A lot of the early season is spent away from the local campus.
We can be competitive… As examples, Gopher women’s golf just competed in NCAA regionals, the Gopher men’s golf just won the B1G championship, the Gopher women’s softball won the B1G tourney championship and is hosting the Minneapolis regional as 16 seed. Gophers softball is 41-9—they only played 12 home games. It will be interesting to see how these all end up on the national stage…The effort to play away, and the travel expense/wear certainly has to make it more difficult…
Best of luck to your Tigers… Go Gophers!
LikeLike
Maybe we should move the hockey season to the summer so the northern schools wouldn’t have an advantage. There’s rarely ice on the ground in Huntsville. Don’t you think we should level the playing field for UA-H?
LikeLike
His asking to move baseball season to warmer weather (not starting more than a month before MLB even does) is not ridiculous. Valentine’s Day isn’t baseball weather in most of the country. If even the pros wouldn’t play in it, why should college players be asked to do it? Likewise, why should half the baseball teams be asked to start every season with a month or more of road games. It digs a hole for them that is very hard to get out of. It’s one reason I think the northern schools should all drop baseball and just make it a purely regional sport. That will let the south and west have even better teams (there must be a few northern players they would want) and not waste a bunch of money that could be better spent elsewhere. It would also make title IX a lesser issue up north as some male scholarships are deleted.
Moving hockey to the summer makes no sense. Especially since NCAA hockey is an indoor sport, so that weather is not a factor.
LikeLike
Rutgers boots former Minny QB following assault arrest:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24560428/rutgers-dismisses-qb-philip-nelson-following-assault-charge
LikeLike
Because Muema needs to play a sport where he can sustain even more blows to the head?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10925928/adam-muema-san-diego-state-aztecs-quits-football-try-boxing-ultimate-fighting
LikeLike
The 10-second rule disaster may spur the creation of a CFB Competition Committee:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24562128/cfbs-10-second-rule-disaster-could-yield-competition-committee
LikeLike
Braves to build a nice, generic stadium (that kinda looks like Target Field) in the suburbs:
http://homeofthebraves.com/renderings
Though, the renderings are misleading, as they depict fans at the game, as opposed to sitting in traffic.
LikeLike
The O’Bannon case has potential to upend college sports tv rights.
http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/337326
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10932118/pac-12-football-championship-game-moving-neutral-site-bay-area
The P12 votes to move the CCG to Levi’s Stadium.
LikeLike
Game to alternate between Friday night and Saturday. Friday night this year:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/05/15/pac-12-title-game-headed-to-new-49ers-stadium/9126967/
LikeLike
As part of the conference’s previously outlined television agreement with FOX and ESPN, the game will alternate being played on Friday night and Saturday. FOX will broadcast the game this season on Dec. 5, ESPN will show it on a Saturday next year and FOX will televise the game on a Friday night again in 2016.
FOX is really screwing them over with those Friday nights. They kickoff during rush hour so the east coast can watch, meaning fans have to take a day off work (half a day if they live in SF or nearby).
Attendance has been good at two of the three Pac-12 title games, with nearby Stanford being the exception — partly due to rain, a rematch of the game between Stanford and UCLA played six days prior in Los Angeles and a 5 p.m. Friday kickoff that gridlocked traffic on the San Francisco Peninsula.
“A lot of events conspired against us,” Scott said in a conference call with reporters.
Marathe, the 49ers president, said he is not concerned about traffic for the Friday night games, though the Santa Clara site has not been tested with a big crowd yet.
What could possibly go wrong with rush hour traffic when you add another 50,000 people?
In previous years, Scott noted the challenges of staging the championship game at a host school when the site — not to mention the teams — often isn’t known until a week before the game.
He also had acknowledged concern from some school presidents about the travel demands that fans would face if teams in the far-flung conference — which stretches from Washington to Arizona — would have to travel to Santa Clara, which is about 15 miles from the Stanford campus and just across the bay from Berkeley. But having a neutral location also has big benefits, Scott said, notably giving the conference time to plan logistics and sell tickets locally.
I think neutral site is the right call, and Santa Clara is pretty good choice. If LA ever gets a new NFL stadium, maybe they alternate between the two of them.
LikeLike
Seattle, Phoenix, and Denver object.
LikeLike
SF and LA are bigger cities with more alumni from all the schools than those cities. Also, they are more central to the footprint so travel is more fair and the crowd is more likely to be split near-equally.
LikeLike
Phoenix proper is bigger than SF. It’s right behind, and growing faster, as a metro area (rank 11 vs 12). Seattle is 15th, Denver 21st and supposedly growing faster than the others.
As to “fair” travel, once you’re on a plane distance is pretty much irrelevant. However, weather delays caused by slightly undersized runways at SFO, and regional weather, make that airport one I avoid as much as possible. I know it’s only anecdotal, but the only weather delays I’ve experienced at Phoenix or Seattle were because of weather delays originating at SFO.
As to LA, I prefer not to have to chew the air in order to breathe it.
LikeLike
Vegas (once a suitable stadium is built), baby. Vegas (once a suitable stadium is built).
That there is no Pac team in Nevada is of no consequence, as its convenient to all programs, and is an unquestioned travel destination for students, fans, and alumni.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“As to “fair” travel, once you’re on a plane distance is pretty much irrelevant.”
You’re ignoring all the people that drive, including the diversity of P12 alumni in each community.
Santa Clara is easily drivable from all of CA from LA to the OR border (4 schools – 2 in each division). That area includes 2 major metro areas with a diverse set of P12 alumni.
Of the nice major stadiums out there, no other one is drivable for so many people. It’s also about as central as it gets to their footprint.
Seattle is drivable from Canada to parts of OR (4 schools – all N division)
Phoenix is drivable from LA, Vegas and NM (4 schools – all in S division)
Denver is drivable from CO and lightly inhabited neighboring areas (1 school – in S division)
“However, weather delays caused by slightly undersized runways at SFO, and regional weather, make that airport one I avoid as much as possible.”
There are also Oakland and San Jose airports right there.
“I know it’s only anecdotal, but the only weather delays I’ve experienced at Phoenix or Seattle were because of weather delays originating at SFO.”
My one trip through Phoenix involved a lengthy fog delay. Enough that we almost got diverted.
“As to LA, I prefer not to have to chew the air in order to breathe it.”
It builds character.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Vegas (once a suitable stadium is built), baby. Vegas (once a suitable stadium is built).”
If that stadium ever gets built, then LV would be a very viable choice as a neutral site. That’s a huge if, though, with only a crappy UNLV team to play in it and the NFL is afraid of Vegas.
LikeLike
“Santa Clara is easily drivable from all of CA from LA to the OR border (4 schools – 2 in each division). That area includes 2 major metro areas with a diverse set of P12 alumni.”
Not disagreeing about Santa Clara. Adding the SW corner of the conference to a “rotation” without the other corners being included eliminates the “central” part of the calculation. And they already have the Rose Bowl.
“It builds character.”
A larger character building venture than Love Canal…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Not disagreeing about Santa Clara.”
OK.
“Adding the SW corner of the conference to a “rotation” without the other corners being included eliminates the “central” part of the calculation. And they already have the Rose Bowl.”
LA is the major city in their footprint, home of two of their biggest brands, home to the most P12 alumni, and reasonably near the center. Plus, everyone wants to recruit there. But I added them only if they build a new stadium. The other cities you mentioned are all nice choices if they wanted an occasional rotation, but too peripheral to the footprint to be regular sites. Besides, Denver is an open air stadium and I’m not sure they want to take the snow risk.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100927/big-ten-football-fares-well-in-apr
APR scores are out.
Northwestern football scored 991, the second-highest total behind Duke’s 992 among the six major conferences.
Wisconsin football placed second in the Big Ten at 989, followed by Nebraska (980), Michigan (975), Indiana and Ohio State (972), Iowa (969), Minnesota and Michigan State (962), Purdue (961), Illinois (957) and Penn State (954).
Rutgers, which joins the Big Ten for competition next fall, scored 980 in football; Maryland scored 950.
The Big 12, by comparison, was led by Kansas State at 968.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/14/ncaa-academic-progress-rate-postseason-bans/9082853/
Some programs that scored below the 930 benchmark face APR penalties in addition to or in lieu of the postseason ban. Oklahoma State’s football program is one of 42 teams facing Level One penalties, which are practice restrictions. An Oklahoma State spokesman said the Cowboys will lose two hours of practice time per week in season. The Cowboys also must limit their practices to a five-day window each week. Oklahoma State football posted a multi-year APR of 929.41.
…
The person also said Oklahoma State originally was going to get a four-hour per week penalty, but appealed and got it reduced to two hours week penalty.
…
Other than Oklahoma State, Texas A&M men’s basketball (912) was the only football or men’s basketball team from a “Power Five” conference to fall short of the 930 standard.
…
According to the NCAA, there are a variety of reasons teams could be below 930 and remain eligible for the postseason, including if they:
* Averaged a 940 over the past two years (this is the last year this “escape” will be available). This is how Oklahoma State football and Texas A&M basketball each avoided a postseason ban.
* Qualified for the more flexible transition to the 930 benchmark (this is for limited-resource institutions)
* Faced their second consecutive year of postseason ineligibility and averaged a 950 over the past two years
I’m curious how much difference losing 2 hours really makes. FYI, OkSU had a 943.54 average for the past 2 years to just escape that bowl ban.
LikeLike
Boise State, Clemson, Duke, Northwestern and Rutgers are the only FBS programs to finish in the top 10% each of the past four years.
Now that is an eclectic mix.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10932250/college-apr-scores-show-difference-haves-nots
The good news is that across the board, college teams are doing better in the classroom — overall APR is up two points from a year ago, including a five-point rise for men’s basketball and a two-point jump for football.
Still, 36 teams failed to reach the 930 APR threshold and will face a postseason ban.
That sounds bad, and it is. But the real devil, as it usually is, is in the details.
It is the “Have Nots” that are suffering the most, the ones that can’t afford new sneakers for their basketball teams or serviceable locker rooms for their football teams, let alone full-time academic support staffs.
Of those 36 teams, 18 come from the historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs).
More specifically, according to the NCAA data, 27 percent of all HBCU squads failed to meet the needed 930 compared to just 6 percent across the rest of Division I athletics.
LikeLike
A lot of HBCUs would benefit tremendously from dropping football. They lose money they can’t afford on it, plus it sucks up a lot of resources that could be spent elsewhere.
LikeLike
Some of them have pretty abysmal graduation rates for their regular students. They can bomb APR and still have a better graduation rate for their athletes.
LikeLike
Mizzou tops in the SEC, would have ranked 3rd in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100916/delany-no-buyers-remorse-with-rutgers
Delany may be happy, but I think he’s still in the minority.
Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis hasn’t heard much negative reaction from Spartans fans about Rutgers, but he has heard some questions.
I could point out a few web sites to him if really hasn’t heard the criticism from Spartan fans.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24562259/players-off-month-of-july-under-new-ncaa-governance-
There is talk of making July a dead period for football. No team activities whatsoever.
There’s buzz among a few AD at this week’s ACC meetings that new rules would make July an official ‘dead period’ for current athletes. In theory, this would eliminate any team activities, late-July starts to training camp or even conference media day appearances during that month.
I ran this by Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson, who said there’s a conceptual push to “shut things down” for part of the summer to free up athletes for chance to, say, study abroad.
“I think the idea would prohibit (team activities) and shut it down — but this is all still premature,” Benson said.
An FBS head coach said his staff during July is allowed to work with players for two hours of film work per week in classrooms. That would be gone.
LikeLike
Wonder how that would affect S&C activities in the summer or if kids would be allowed to lift on their own. If that is eliminated it is hard to see many true freshmen competing in their first years.
What affect could this have on injuries for kids that get out of shape and begin Fall Camp.
LikeLike
Michigan State AD: Regular football series with Notre Dame likely over
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140514/SPORTS0202/305140091#ixzz31jTbjx7N
LikeLike
Very sad. Those schools really enjoy their rivalry.
LikeLike
Its the fault of the ADs. They comment is they both like the series. If they really did they could make it happen.
LikeLike
ND likes the series, but they have too many higher priorities to keep it annual.
5 ACC + USC + Stanford + Navy = 8 (essentially their conference schedule)
Then they have series with UT and BYU among other name brands, plus they need some buy games against lesser foes.
I’d expect them to play roughly 1 B10 team per year in the future (sometimes 2, sometimes 0).
LikeLike
Fun fact: UND has no Big Ten school on its schedule in 2015. I believe its the first time thats happened since 1915.
B1G schools on UND’s future schedule: NWU, Purdue, MSU.
LikeLike
Agreed. I went twice in East Lancing, once in South Bend and the atmosphere was always electric, better even than the lone SC/ND game I attended.
LikeLike
The impressive part of the rivalry is that the schools and fans seem to love it, but its not a hatred-based rivalry.
LikeLike
That’s bad for the fans of both schools, but it’s probably a good thing for MSU’s reputation overall. Beating another midwestern king doesn’t help their image as much as beating a major school from another part of the country due to the national anti-midwest football bent. I think it’s also good for the B10 to play ND less often in general.
LikeLike
You are certainly getting your wish on the last part as ND for years has played Purdue, MSU and Michigan and now all 3 are done as annual games and Michigan and Michigan State may be completely gone in a few years. Can’t see how this benefits the Big 10 as any ND game is significant attention, prime TV spots and a full stadium. Plus, beating ND is always good for your football rep even if ND is bad since most fans assume they are good every year.
LikeLike
The upside is that they can play a more diverse set of national teams that get more respect than ND does. Midwestern football isn’t held in high regard right now, and beating ND doesn’t carry the same value it used to carry.
LikeLike
It still gets you publicity.
LikeLike
So does playing other kings. And most of the country gives more respect to wins over non-midwestern teams than over midwestern teams, so it can help them nationally. In addition, I don’t think playing games on NBC is as valuable as playing on ABC or even FOX due to the cross-promotion during other CFB games and shows.
LikeLike
The real question is who can Sparty to replace the Irish. As a prince level team in a marginal recruiting state, I doubt that they can get an annual nationally broadcast game against a King. More power to them if they can.
LikeLike
Maybe not kings all the time, but the next 4 non-ND HaH’s that MSU has lined up are against Oregon, ASU, Miami, and Boise.
ASU and Boise may not be ND, but MSU gets to visit more parts of the country and more fertile recruiting grounds than northern IN (which they don’t have to visit to recruit) this way.
LikeLike
Significant loss for Michigan State, ND probably ok with this due to ACC agreement and ability to easily schedule almost any school. MSU is basically trading a yearly game with ND for Rutgers or Maryland. MSU’s season ticket package takes a big hit.
LikeLike
On the other hand, this frees up space on the schedule for MSU to play more national brands. They have teams like OR and Miami coming up, and they can do more of that without ND on the schedule. Especially once the B10 goes to 9 games. It’s often better to play a variety of big names than just the same one over and over.
LikeLike
MSU just scheduled a home and home with Arizona State for 2018 & 2019.
LikeLike
Apparently, Chicago sportswriters have pushed to get NIU into a power conference before:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-08-09/sports/9308090184_1_niu-dreams-bottom-line
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100938/big-ten-ad-meetings-day-2-wrap
More from the AD meetings:
* Iowa was not offered a night game this season and will not appear in prime time for the second straight year, but athletic director Gary Barta doesn’t think it suggests the school has second-class status in the league. “At the end of the day, we’d love to have one or two night games a year,” Barta said. “We don’t have one this year. That’s not going to affect the way we go into the season. We’re going to be excited and play the games.”
…
* It wouldn’t be a Big Ten meeting if the expansion question didn’t come up. But Hollis doesn’t think the league is looking to increase beyond 14 members. “We’re going to 22,” he joked. “We’re settled at the number that we have. Expansion is always done for strategic reasons. Sometimes it’s reactionary to what’s being done on the national landscape, but it was extremely important to the Big Ten to ensure that Eastern corridor was protected as other conferences had rubbed into some of our traditional markets. The new Big Ten logo is not a B-1-6. It’s actually a B-one-G.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10923780/ben-howland-not-interested-oregon-state-beavers-job
Since people were discussing this earlier:
Ben Howland said no to OrSU.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/05/college-football-teams-fewest-true-road-games-2014/
Teams with the fewest true road games this season.
It’s worth noting that some conferences are more apt to play at home than others. Here’s the breakdown: ACC-one team, Big 12-one team, Big Ten-two teams, Pac-12-zero teams, SEC-seven teams, Independents-two teams, American Athletic-one team, Conference USA-one team, MAC-zero teams, Mountain West-zero teams, Sun Belt-zero teams.
Remember, neutral sites don’t count. That’s why so many SEC teams appear.
LikeLike
So. Cal running back Ty Isaac, a 5-star recruit and Illinois native, is looking to transfer closer to home:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24562491/usc-rb-ty-isaac-to-transfer-closer-to-home
Schools mentioned: UND, ILL, NWU.
LikeLike
Gary Bettman does something…smart?
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/05/14/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/League-Notes.aspx
“In Seattle, Chris Daniels cited sources yesterday as saying that NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly “made a personal visit to Seattle last week and met with its top two elected officials.” Bettman and Daly “flew to Seattle last week and met privately” with King County Exec Dow Constantine and Seattle Mayor Ed Murray. King County Dir of Communications Frank Abe described the meeting between Bettman and Constantine as a “meet and greet” and said “nothing was really brewing right now.” But Daniels noted it is “unclear why Bettman and Daly made the personal appearance in Seattle, as opposed to discussing matters over the phone”
Accepting that the NHL will expand by 2 teams to 32 (for 4 equal divisions/conferences of 8 teams), Seattle is an obvious choice (assuming the new arena gets built).
LikeLike
Here’s hoping for a format of 4 separate conferences, which can’t come soon enough for this Blackhawks fan. The fewer 9/9:30 pm Central game times, the better – particularly for playoff games, as separate conferences should preclude geographically fixed Stanley Cup semifinals pairings.
I doubt it will never happen but I’d love it if the Hawks would go entire seasons w/o any visits to the Pacific time zone. Skipping one of the three other conferences and instead playing 16 extra games inside one’s division every year very much appeals to me.
LikeLike
I was actually looking up the divisions, and if the NHL expands to 32 with a US team (Seattle) and a Canadian team (Quebec City- new arena to be completed soon), there would be 8 Canadian teams. An all-Canada conference would allow for some interesting US divisions/conferences:
East: Bos, Buf, NYR, NYI, NJD, PHI, Pit, Was
Middle: CAR, MIA, TB, COL, DET, NAS, STL, CHI
West: LAK, ANA, SEA, SJ, PHX, MINN, DEN, DAL
Canada: MTL, QC, TOR, WIN, VAN, CAL, EDM, OTT
Food for thought (odds of this ever happening: Virtually nil.)
Also, the plan is interesting–I haven’t decided if it is “good” interesting or “bad” interesting. Thoughts?
LikeLike
I don’t like an all-Canada division. It kills a lot of rivalries and gives a lot of west coast games to eastern teams in Canada. Canadian fans won’t like that any more than American fans do.
With the importance of TV, I’d focus on the time zones.
W – EDM, CAL, VAN, SEA, SJ, LA, ANA, PHX
MW – COL, DAL, WIN, MIN, STL, CHI, NAS, CAR
E – DET, COL, BUF, PIT, PHI, WAS, TB, FL
NE – MTL, OTT, QUE, TOR, BOS, NYR, NYI, NJ
LikeLike
Tv and NHLPA preferences work together to dictate that time zones and geography will be the drivers of post expansion conference alignment. Assuming Seattle and QC are the expansion cities, the Western grouping is obvious. The Central would consist of the 6 CST teams + MST Col + one EST team unless the Jets want to be conference-mates with the 4 eastern Canadian teams, which would open the way for Detroit and Columbus to again be assigned to the Central just as they were in the 4 conference plan the NHL wanted and the union nixed 2 years ago.
With or without Winnipeg (and thus minus Detroit and/or Columbus probably), I dk how the eastern teams would be aligned. Do the FL teams need Boston and/or Detroit to be aligned with the Canadian teams? Why aren’t they now aligned with the NY area teams? Can Boston and Montreal be separated? Pittsburgh and Philadelphia? Which teams draw best in Raleigh? I dk.
LikeLike
Nick Saban would prefer 9 conference games and all 12 games against P5 schools:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10932712/nick-saban-alabama-crimson-tide-favors-more-challenging-schedules
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/LostLettermen/status/466973943103225858
Not sure where this list is from. A twit-pic showing list of top sport sites visited in April 2014. Espin first, Bleacher Report/Turner surprisingly at #3.
LikeLike
Do they get to count each page of a slide show as a unique? Since that’s all they seem to do, that would quickly inflate their numbers.
LikeLike
If only your comment could have been in slideshow format, Frank’s kids wouldn’t have to worry about the public universities in Illinois.
LikeLike
@FtT. Would you be willing to consider guest-writers? I bet a number of us would be willing to do a quick 1500 words on a relevant topic.
LikeLike
Saw an interesting graphic posted on another board from ESPN. It had the top 10 NFL picks since 2009:
SEC 19
Big 12 15
Pac 12 7
ACC 7
Big 10 0
LikeLike
I think there is another reason besides bad recruiting and bad coaching hires etc.. I saw a graphic on ESPN the other day analyzing first round picks and a significant amount were WR’s and DB’s emphasizing the “passing league” notion of the NFL. I think there is a pretty good correlation between when the NFL moved further towards a passing league and the B1G’s decline in 1st round picks or Top 10 picks.
The B1G historically has been a running league. While that has changed somewhat the schools that involve more spread are mostly not your power teams. OSU may begin to deliver better picks but they have only been running the Urban spread for a couple of years.
The positions that are hot in the NFL are typically not well recruited by schools in the B1G.
Also the QB play in the Big Ten has been by and large terrible in recent years. Hackenburg is likely a future first rounder but other than him and maybe Conner Cook I don’t see NFL talent at that position around the league.
LikeLike
http://www.kltv.com/story/25518762/31-year-old-sophomore-at-e-texas-high-school-arrested
Had to share this one. Funny that a 31 year old could (and would) pass herself off as a 10th grader.
Reminds me of Ron “McKelvey,” a California JC player who got a scholarship from John Mackovic at Texas and no one discovered that was a fake name and he was 30 years old and had used up his eligibility about 7 years earlier, until the day before the Sugar Bowl game vs. Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
Frank:
Can we get a new post, or at least a new post simply as an open thread?
LikeLike
http://goldenrankings.com/
Excerpts from a column Andrew Brandt wrote in SI (the magazine) about the NFL starting a D-league. Go to the newsstand and check it out.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/05/12/People-and-Pop-Culture/Luntz.aspx
Frank Luntz explains the nature of fans in the major cities.
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/des-moines-to-host-the-b1g-tournament-20140514
About the MBB tourney:
“When the Chicago and Indianapolis contracts are up, there has been discussion about opening it up and making sure it’s competitive,” Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta said. “If Des Moines bids, great.”
Barta said Des Moines specifically was not discussed as a potential host. Questions about Omaha, which hosts the second and third rounds of NCAA competition next spring, also were fielded by reporters.
“Love it. Terrific,” Nebraska Athletics Director Shawn Eichorst said about Omaha hosting the Big Ten tournament. “We already host some good things in Omaha. I don’t see why we wouldn’t. If the opportunity presented itself, I’d imagine we’d try to put our best foot forward and put something out there.”
Next year’s Big Ten Tournament is held in Chicago, while the 2016 tournament heads back to Indianapolis. Washington D.C. will host the tournament in 2017.
“I think in the next 10 years it’s about 20 percent in the East and 80 percent in the Midwest,” Barta said.
I’m not sure Omaha and Des Moines are great choices based on their distance from most of the fans and being smaller cities. MSP, KC or St. Louis out west make more sense to me.
20% in the east is once every 5 years, which matches the 3 of 14 teams in the east pretty well.
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/article/20140513/SPORTS07/305130191/big-ten-michigan-state-mark-hollis
Something else about the tournament:
Athletic directors also are discussing the format of the basketball tournaments with two new members. Another day will be added — the men’s tournament will continue to end on Selection Sunday — and all 14 schools will participate, but Eichorst said the full format is not yet ready to be announced.
Current plan:
Th – 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, 8/9
F – quarters
Sa – semis
Su – final
New plan?:
W – 3/14, 4/13 (winners get a day off to favor #3 and #4 over #5-12)
Th – 5/12, 6/11, 7/10, 8/9
F – quarters
Sa – semis
Su – final
Or will they go 3 games each on W and Th?
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/05/big_ten_unlikely_to_move_footb.html#incart_river
About the CCG:
“When you have 14 fan bases (for a basketball tournament) it’s easier to move events then when you have two fan bases,” Delany said Wednesday during the league’s spring meetings just outside Chicago. “I think central is the presumption, a central location (within the conference’s footprint) would be the presumption.”
…
“We established that game in Indianapolis at the outset, we thought it was really important, we had a new television partner, a new championship, we wanted to stabalize that game,” Delany said. “We selected Indianpolis, they’ve done a fabulous job. … They’re a tremendous operator of events. We’ve had three (title games) there, and three different experiences, really.
…
Delany said an announcement on where the Big Ten’s future college football championship games are played should come at some point in June after the presidents get together for a meeting.
There seems to be no guarantee that the game will stay in Indianapolis every year, but it does appear unlikely that a city outside the midwest — or the central location of the Big Ten’s footprint (which now reaches from Nebraska to New York) — would host the event.
Tier 1 choice – Indy
Tier 2 – Chicago (outdoors), Detroit (less central), MSP (much less central)
I think having one location has proven to be good for a CCG. Indy isn’t perfect, but it’s the best choice for the B10.
Also some alumni stats:
“If you look at who we are now, we’re a conference that is in two regions with almost 6 million living alums, (but) 15 to 20 percent of those alums live in the new territories (out east),” Delany said. “It is a different region of the country and we haven’t been there before. When we did this, I said the challenge will be living in two regions. All the major conferences are doing it, no one has done it before that will take a conserted effort to make friends, and build relationships and that’s what we’re in the process of doing.
“The other part, though, is that 80 percent of our fan base and our alums are in this region (in the midwest). You’ll see a rotation and a respect for both regions, and I don’t expect that we’re going to be here exclusively, certainly not there exclusively, but I think you’ll see a representation that we live in two regions.”
These stats show why the CCG isn’t going to the east often if ever.
LikeLike
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2014/05/mark_hollis_wants_to_protect_h.html
The truth comes out.
Alabama athletics director Bill Battle said in a statement, “Michigan State graciously granted our request to cancel the games previously scheduled for the 2016 and 2017 seasons. We made the request due to the uncertainty of the conference football schedule in those years. We are very appreciative of Michigan State’s willingness to grant that request.”
That “uncertainty,” however, turned out to be a moot point. The SEC elected to stay with a model of eight conference games.
Hollis confirmed an earlier MLive.com report that the reason the Spartans agreed to let Alabama out of the contracted home-and-home series was because the Crimson Tide wanted to change its return trip to East Lansing (in 2017) to a neutral site location.
“I’m fighting to protect home and home,” Hollis said at the Big Ten meetings. “There were two contracts (with Alabama), and I didn’t want to play at a neutral site, so that was the end of that deal.”
In other words, Alabama wanted Michigan State to play in Tuscaloosa in 2016 without playing the return game in East Lansing.
***
“The guarantees (for buy games) in football have gone from a half a million dollars to $1.5 million in a very short period of time, that schools are asking to come and play, so that window of expense has really escalated,” Hollis said. “For some schools, that becomes a number that’s higher than they’ll net from the game on the home team side.
“So that’s where you have to get into the decision, do you play six (home games) and then get into a neutral site where you might be able to leverage a financial return? But you have to compound that with, what are you taking away from the campus environment?”
***
MSU’s stance on night games.
Hollis also said he likes night games at Spartan Stadium, but only to a point.
“I think night games at Spartan Stadium have extremely high value but you do understand Grand Rapids and Detroit … or Chicago … are where a lot of your fan base comes from,” he said. “But maybe that keeps them overnight and makes them part of campus for another day. But you do worry about that for the number of night games.”
The Spartans open the season with a night game on Friday, Aug. 29, against Jacksonville (Ala.) State. The time has not been set, but Hollis confirmed it will be a night game, a recent trend Michigan State has started on opening weeks.
“I think the first one is out of the equation because that is done for the good of the state of Michigan,” Hollis said. “But if you play two traditional night games I think that has some value. One is probably optimal for Spartan Stadium and if you get beyond that it becomes a challenge. I’m not so concerned about the ones on the road because you’re going there and you’re there for the night, for the fan.
“But the home games you want to look at, one is great, two is good, three becomes probably a challenge you don’t really want to face.”
LikeLike
Not surprised. Typical SEC.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24563694/an-essay-on-byu-sec-acc-put-the-cougars-in-their-own-silo-in-playoff-era
The ACC and SEC deciding BYU doesn’t count as a P5 opponent may really hurt BYU. That means all 5 power conferences will have at least 9 games committed to P5 opponents by 2016. BYU is good enough to be a threat, so how many P5 teams will want to play them? BYU can’t get the Go5’s playoff spot, so they need to be top 10 or so according to the committee in order to make a major bowl. How will BYU get the SOS to do that?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101000/b1g-approves-8-member-officiating-crews
B10 also going to 8 referees.
The Big 12 first implemented eight-person officiating crews last season and will do again in 2014. The SEC will use similar crews this season, and the ACC also approved the increase this week.
The NCAA football rules committee has allowed each FBS conference to increase their crews if they want. The last increase, from six to seven members, took place in 1983.
“We’re looking for improved officiating — that’s the No. 1 reason,” Big Ten coordinator of football officials Bill Carollo told ESPN.com. “We feel the eighth man can help that. It helps with quality, more accuracy and there’s probably a few plays we’re missing because of some blind spots, some gaps on the field with coverage.”
The Big Ten has experimented with eight-man crews in spring practices and spring games the past two seasons. Carollo said the popularity of fast-paced spread offenses make it harder for officials to see everything on the field, especially with only one member behind the line of scrimmage.
“We’re missing the backside run plays, the backside rollup blocks, chops, holding, et cetera,” Carollo said. “There’s no one there, so we go right to the point of attack or right in front of the point of attack. With one referee in the backfield, he’s several yards off to the side of the quarterback, so he’s trying to watch the quarterback and he’s got line play. The only guy that can help him there is the umpire, so it gives us better coverage.”
Carollo doesn’t want or expect to see a spike in penalties from the extra official. Big Ten officials are under the national average in penalties called per game, and while Carollo admits non-calls might be the league’s Achilles’ heel, he wants to improve the overall accuracy.
The Big 12 had 52 penalties called by eighth officials in 2013, and 50 of them were later graded as the right decisions.
“We’ll probably see an uptick slightly from 12 or 13 penalties to maybe one additional one,” Carollo said. “But the more important question is, ‘Of the additional flags, are they quality fouls, or are you just throwing it to have one flag for the game?’ That isn’t the case. The accuracy is very, very high.”
Emphasis mine.
Who’s shocked the B10 doesn’t call holding as much as other leagues?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100967/b1g-must-strike-east-midwest-balance
More about the B10’s east/west balance.
“The challenge will be living in two regions,” Delany said Wednesday after the league’s athletic directors met. “All the major conferences are doing it. Nobody has done it before. That will require a real concerted effort to build, make friends, become relevant and build relationships. That’s what we’re in the process of doing.
“But the other side of it is that 80 percent of our historic fan base and our alums aren’t in this region.”
In some ways, that’s the real challenge for Delany and the Big Ten: building the brand in a new, competitive region, without forgetting where you came from and what made you who you are.
“I want to get a better sense of what our landscape is going to look like in the conference with the Eastern push,” Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis said. “It’s an extremely important component for the conference. It’s important for Michigan State because of the donors we have there. But you don’t want to leave the Midwest in the wake of an Eastern push.
“Our conference is founded in the Midwest, and it’s important we continue to understand those roots. While excited to have this new frontier, our foundation is in Chicago and Indianapolis and Detroit and other areas. I just want to make sure we protect our homeland while flanking out to a very important East Coast.”
Hollis is absolutely right. While time, money and some events should be devoted to the new territory, the Big Ten can’t alienate its base, a large chunk of which remains miffed about the new additions. But the Big Ten’s latest expansion always was less about the specific schools than their locations.
If the ACC hadn’t added Pitt and Syracuse — infringing on the eastern edge of the Big Ten’s current footprint, because of Penn State — there might not have been a need to get bigger than 12. But the Big Ten felt it needed to protect Penn State and enhance its footprint, especially with a new TV contract on the horizon.
“That’s the new Big Ten,” Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez said. “We all have to accept it, our fans have to accept it. We want to welcome our two new members in Rutgers and Maryland, and we want a presence in the East. We want to take advantage.”
It’s Delany’s job to capitalize on those advantages, while not turning his back on the region that defines the league.
“You’re going to see a rotation [of events] and a respect for both regions,” Delany said. “You’re going to see a representation in both regions with our competitions, our championships, our television network and our alumni base.”
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/16/big-ten-conference-highest-revenue-college-sports/9190139/
Big Ten’s latest numbers from their recent tax records
The 12-school Big Ten reported $318.4 million in total revenue for a fiscal year that ended June 30, 2013. That is just ahead of the $314.5 million reported by the 14-team SEC for a fiscal year that ended Aug. 31, 2013.
.
.
.
The Big Ten Network generated an after-tax profit of $13.4 million for the conference in fiscal 2013, up about $2.4 million from fiscal 2012.
LikeLike
http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2014/05/17/big-ten-remains-no-1-revenue/9207957/
A school-by-school breakdown
Of the $318 million, nearly $298 million was distributed the 12 schools – about an $11 million increase from the previous year.
What each conference school received:
Michigan $25,968,264
Ohio State $25,924,264
Michigan State $25,915,264
Indiana $25,904,264
Minnesota $25,884,264
Illinois $25,881,264
Wisconsin $25,879,264
Purdue $25,867,264
Iowa $25,865,264
Northwestern $25,861,264
Penn State $23,614,134
Nebraska $15,411,595
LikeLike
Transic,
“Of the $318 million, nearly $298 million was distributed the 12 schools – about an $11 million increase from the previous year.
…
Nebraska $15,411,595”
The other 11 averaged $27.7M, so NE paid $12.3M towards BTN value.
NE got roughly $14.4M the previous year while the rest of the B10 got $25.7M, so they also paid $12.3M.
They have to pay in for 6 years, which projects to $73.8M total for their buy-in (give or take a few million).
That gives us a rough idea of what value the B10 places on the BTN.
LikeLike
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140516/conference-championship-games-rule-origin/
A thorough review of the history of the CCG rule.
… The reasoning and research behind the requirements should be examined to determine whether they still apply today.
…
Before Dick Yoder ran the borough of West Chester, Pa., for two terms, he ran the athletic department at West Chester University. West Chester is a founding member of the Pennsylvania State Athletics Conference (PSAC), an NCAA Division II league that began as a conglomerate of small state schools — mostly teachers colleges — in the Keystone State. In 1986, the league had a problem. It had 14 members that were split into east and west divisions for decades. For a while, the schools played their schedules and the sportswriters of Pennsylvania determined a league champion. In other years, PSAC staged a championship game between the division champs at the end of the regular season.
…
Eberle asked Yoder, a member of the NCAA’s Division II council, to draft legislation that would allow the league to stage a championship game that would be exempt from the regular-season limit. This would eliminate the wasted date, and it would also provide a special atmosphere for two teams in an era when the PSAC champ couldn’t always crack the eight-team Division II playoff.
Yoder wrote a draft of the rule that required 14 schools — to match the PSAC’s membership — split into two divisions, playing a round-robin schedule within their divisions. After learning from friends with more NCAA legislative experience that he had worded the legislation incorrectly, he rewrote it. But while Yoder was rewriting, some friends from the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association (CIAA) — a 12-member league of historically black schools then spread throughout North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland — asked him if their league could co-sponsor the legislation. They liked the idea, and they also used divisions. So, Yoder revised his legislation to require 12 teams and not 14. That was it. There was no research. No debate.
…
The proposal went up for a vote at the NCAA convention in January 1987. At the time, all members in every division voted on such rules. Once enacted, they affected all three divisions. … On page three of that issue of The NCAA News, under the headline “Summary of all actions on legislation at 81st convention,” this was written about the championship game rule: “No. 125 — Approved by all divisions.” Steve Murray, the current PSAC commissioner, surmises the abstentions for that particular vote numbered in the hundreds. Just as Yoder said, hardly anyone cared.
…
Vanderbilt athletic director Roy Kramer knew about the rule when it was passed. “It passed without a great deal of discussion as I recall,” Kramer said this week. “Because nobody at that time had more than 10 teams in a conference at the I-A level.” The rule became particularly useful when Kramer was named the commissioner of the SEC in 1990. Because the region was so football-crazy, Kramer and his advisors thought a conference title game could provide a financial windfall for the league. The SEC was considering expansion anyway. The deal between Notre Dame and NBC in ’90 awoken leagues to the possibility that the College Football Association might not survive long-term, and football independents such as Penn State, Florida State and Miami were seeking conference homes. The possibility of several million additional dollars from a championship game only added incentive for the SEC to grow. “It was a part of a discussion,” Kramer said. “Was it the absolute driving force? I don’t think it was. Now, if you’d asked me three years later, I’d say it probably was because it was very successful.”
At the conference’s spring meeting in May 1990, SEC presidents authorized Kramer to pursue expansion targets. The first to join was Arkansas, which left behind the troubled Southwest Conference. At that point, after discussions with South Carolina, Florida State, Miami, Texas, Texas A&M and possibly others, SEC leaders weren’t sure how many more schools they would take. But they intended to arrive at an even number. “Very shortly we’ll have to decide on the number, whether it be 12 or 14 or 16,” Kramer told The Associated Press after the Arkansas move was officially announced on Aug. 1, 1990.
What would have happened if Yoder had left the number in his legislation at 14 instead of doing a solid for his friends in the CIAA? “It would have changed everything,” Yoder said this week.
Would Kramer have pushed to add two more members after South Carolina joined? “I doubt it at that time,” Kramer said. “It’s hard to say whether we would have done it or not. I can’t say what the mindset would have been. But I do know we were well aware of [the championship game concept] at the time.”
LikeLike
What is the third language spoken, broken down by state.
http://gizmodo.com/the-most-common-languages-spoken-in-the-u-s-state-by-1575719698
LikeLike
A lot of this isn’t surprising if you know your US ethnic geography, but French is the 3rd most spoken language in the Carolinas and WV? Vietnamese in NE? Russian in OR?
LikeLike
I’d be interested in seeing some raw number, not just rankings. Some of it makes sense, but some doesn’t. Polish in Illinois: yes, given the number Poles that live in Chicago. Dakota in South Dakota: yes, d’uh. But French Creole in Florida? Hmm… so there are 12 families that speak French Creole and that’s the third most spoken language in Florida?
the gap between second and third is probably interesting.
the source is also probably interesting as is locale. Is the German being spread by the Amish. They have been migrating west now for decades in search of cheaper acreage. I bet the German speakers are mainly rural, but the Poles for example are mainly city-folks.
Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
French Creole is absolutely the third most commonly spoken language in Florida. There is a huge Haitian population in the state, along with much smaller but still substantial populations of immigrants from other French Creole-speaking islands.
LikeLike
WV and Nebraska don’t have a lot of outside immigration. So something like French or Vietnamese could be 3rd as there wouldn’t be a lot of competition.
I was surprised Chinese wasn’t 3rd in Texas. Not surprised Vietnamese was high, but that Chinese wasn’t higher.
LikeLike
@Richard – Catholic Social Services brings significant amounts of Vietnamese immigrants and refugees to Nebraska. Most have some connection to the old South Vietnamese government.
LikeLike
Ah, that explains it.
It’s always interesting which charities bring who to where.
Ones in Minnesota brought the Hmong and Somalis there. Some charity brought the Bosnians to StL (which is kind of a good thing for StL as the place really doesn’t attract immigrants).
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2014/05/16/nick-saban-acc-recruiting-early-signing-period-sec-alabama-crimson-tide-football/9160375/
The ACC and SEC (aka Nick Saban) disagree about when an early signing period should happen.
ACC commissioner John Swofford announced Thursday from the league’s spring meetings in Florida that he and the league’s football coaches are in favor of an early signing period to begin Aug. 1 each year.
But one of the most prominent coaches in college football – and annually one of the sports best recruiters – doesn’t agree with the idea.
Alabama coach Nick Saban said Thursday night during an appearance in Tennessee that the proposal would not sit well with most high school coaches because so much improvement is made by football players during their senior seasons.
“I don’t think that in football, because football’s a developmental sport, that a lot of high school coaches would be real pleased if we had a signing date before the senior season,” Saban said. “What we’ve always supported in the SEC is having an early signing date right at the end of the season; maybe Dec. 1.”
LikeLike
Saban is full of BS. Many, many players commit during their junior year. Ethical coaches (i.e. not Les Miles) honor those commitments. So “development” in not a reason to not have an early signing period before their senior year. Maybe it causes coaches to make more mistakes, but if they honor their commitments, they are already making those mistakes.
December 1 is horrible. Its right during the football season. And during a key part of the season. Logistically its a mess.
LikeLike
“The ACC and SEC (aka Nick Saban) disagree about when an early signing period should happen.”
“…when…should happen”?
I’d rather they answer why/if an early signing period needs to happen at all.
LikeLike
The argument is that the players have committed long before and it takes the pressure and distraction from the recruiters off of them. There are early signing periods in other sports.
I don’t know that a December early signing period, just two months early, really does much. And its a disruption to the college football season and some of the HS playoffs.
LikeLike
Yeah, I understand. I just don’t think the system is broken. If it ain’t broke…
“The argument is that the players have committed long before …”
And a significant number change their mind/de-commit. Weren’t we just working on easing transfer rules? Now we’re going to sign/bind 16-18 year olds even earlier? To the school, not the recruiting coach? Seems more of a misdirection/distraction. I wonder what we aren’t noticing while this is being floated.
LikeLike
Well coaches don’t want to have to kiss their feet for 6 more months. But at the same time, the kids are getting distracted from what they should be focusing on.
With e-mail, tweets and texts, the flood of contact is getting pretty ridiculous. Technology has changed things. Instead of occasional visits and US Postal service, its continuous. That’s not good for anyone. So technology is breaking the system. Its why schools are now hiring full-time recruiters who don’t do any coaching (another real negative long run to have that disconnect).
What would be better would be to slow down the early recruiting. The early signing period is a way to cut down the impact on many of that early recruiting. Now people are making offers to junior high kids. They ought to be able to figure out how to stop that, but they aren’t going to stop recruiting of juniors (and sophomores).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Yeah, I understand. I just don’t think the system is broken. If it ain’t broke…”
As a high school player that committed months ago, I might very well think the system is broken as I get daily texts and non-stop calls from other coaches and recruiting reporters. Being able to put an end to the craziness before your senior year starts could be very helpful to your studies, too.
“And a significant number change their mind/de-commit. Weren’t we just working on easing transfer rules? Now we’re going to sign/bind 16-18 year olds even earlier? To the school, not the recruiting coach? Seems more of a misdirection/distraction. I wonder what we aren’t noticing while this is being floated.”
They don’t have to sign early. They are perfectly welcome to wait until February as always. The early signing period is no different than students that apply for early action. I wouldn’t be totally surprised if the NCAA would allow them to re-open their recruiting before the regular signing day (probably an official form to sign to rescind your early commitment). The point of an early date is to give the players more control of the process and not have people waste time recruiting committed players.
LikeLike
“Well coaches don’t want to have to kiss their feet for 6 more months.”
Well coaches want to have to kiss their feet for 6 fewer months.
Let’s ban athletic scholarships. Nothing to sign a NLOI for, so no recruiting deadline. I know, no chance.
“Its why schools are now hiring full-time recruiters who don’t do any coaching…”
Set a limit for how many employees/volunteers/etc may be involved in any capacity in each program. Let the schools decide how to divide the labor/responsibilities among a maximum number. The invention of new positions has proliferated, and simply is a way for the schools that can afford it to circumvent coaching limitations.
LikeLike
“They don’t have to sign early. They are perfectly welcome to wait until February as always. The early signing period is no different than students that apply for early action.”
And when they’re told its now, or the scholarship is offered to another?
” I wouldn’t be totally surprised if the NCAA would allow them to re-open their recruiting before the regular signing day (probably an official form to sign to rescind your early commitment).”
So it’s not a deadline at all? Or only for the school to tie up a scholarship, but still risk losing the kid, “legitimately”?
“The point of an early date is to give the players more control of the process and not have people waste time recruiting committed players.”
The ACC is proposing handicapping their coaches? Making them dependent on evaluations/projections of soph and jr’s? The only thing this does is move everything earlier. It doesn’t alter the process. It just allows it to intrude earlier into a high schooler’s life.
LikeLike
@cc
They just allowed full-time recruiters. It doesn’t have to be a coach anymore. They’re moving the other way than you suggest. But if you can cut some of it out, you don’t get a vast, uncontrollable bureaucracy of recruiters.
LikeLike
“And when they’re told its now, or the scholarship is offered to another?”
They already do that sort of thing. Just that its a verbal commitment.
“The only thing this does is move everything earlier. It doesn’t alter the process. It just allows it to intrude earlier into a high schooler’s life.”
It already has moved earlier. This will reduce the intrusion.
LikeLike
“It already has moved earlier. This will reduce the intrusion.”
How? The verbal will be demanded 6 months earlier. Allow 7th grade signings and recruitment will commence before that. How does this change anything but the start/finish time of the process?
I assume the ability to speak would be the limit as to the youngest recruiting age. Although I could see a recruiter projecting an athletic couples genes being expressed next generation and waiting outside the delivery room in hopes of inking the kids footprint while giving the parents future financial surety regarding financing college. 🙂
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“And when they’re told its now, or the scholarship is offered to another?”
1. Then they have to make a choice.
2. Players are already told that by coaches now.
“So it’s not a deadline at all?”
Sure it is. No player can sign before that date. But it’s not the only deadline. Realize, these deadlines only open the window when a player can sign and no player has to sign at all.
“Or only for the school to tie up a scholarship, but still risk losing the kid, “legitimately”?”
It signals when no other coach may contact the player, so the school he signed with can stop recruiting him and focus on others instead. Could the player still change his mind? Sure. Would the rules contain a way for him to get out of his LOI? They don’t in hoops, but football often has different rules than hoops. I just said it wouldn’t surprise me if they gave them an out, at least at first until they see how things go for a few years.
“The ACC is proposing handicapping their coaches?”
No, they are proposing not having to fight over their already committed recruits to the bitter end while also chasing other players. They are also proposing to make life easier for the players.
“Making them dependent on evaluations/projections of soph and jr’s?”
They already are. Players are getting “offers” before high school now.
“The only thing this does is move everything earlier. It doesn’t alter the process. It just allows it to intrude earlier into a high schooler’s life.”
Factually incorrect. A player still can’t be contacted until a certain date (basically 9/1 of their junior year). It also means recruiting wouldn’t intrude later into their life when they are focused on graduating.
Here’s a good story talking about how it works in hoops:
http://www.usatodayhss.com/news/article/basketball-early-sgning-period-begins-okafor-jones
And here’s a FAQ about it in hoops:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/basketball/mens/story/_/id/8622877/men-basketball-early-signing-period-frequently-asked-questions
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“How? The verbal will be demanded 6 months earlier.”
That’s not what’s happened in hoops.
“Allow 7th grade signings and recruitment will commence before that. How does this change anything but the start/finish time of the process?”
Nobody is asking to start sooner, just to allow players to end it sooner if they want.
“I assume the ability to speak would be the limit as to the youngest recruiting age.”
A player can’t be contacted before their junior year.
LikeLike
A player can’t commit early now.
We’re talking about changing rules.
LikeLike
“A player can’t be contacted before their junior year.”
Where are these stories of 7th and 8th graders getting offers coming from? Didn’t coach K make, and honor one?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“A player can’t commit early now.
We’re talking about changing rules.”
Yes, we are. But that rule exists in other sports. Nobody wants to start recruiting even earlier. Coaches want rules to restrict them because they know they won’t hold themselves back.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Where are these stories of 7th and 8th graders getting offers coming from?”
The devil’s in the details. Players can contact the coaches whenever they want, and coaches can make public statements. They may even be allowed to talk to parents. No such offers are actually valid, however. Written offers can’t even be given out until much later.
“Didn’t coach K make, and honor one?”
That’s hoops. I don’t know.
LikeLike
Kiffin offered a 7th or 8th grader.
I understand what you’re saying. Nothing is real until a NLOI is signed. This may help the have not’s, if it happens. I follow wrestling fairly closely and the majority of signees do so early now. In that sport it is easier to identify the top recruits. It’s harder in FB to project. Change in wt training, position changes, teams changing needs, offense, defense, special teams, etc and sheer number needed make it more likely late developers and hidden gems will be more available to the have nots if/when the biggies have committed a significant number of scholarships before the senior year can be evaluated. In that it might be a good thing. But I certainly don’t want early signers being released just because a coaching change happened, or they changed their mind (when girlfriend chose elsewhere).
LikeLike
@Brian: in general, thanks for the links and the c&ps. You have a good eye for interesting articles.
LikeLike
Thanks and you’re welcome.
LikeLike
B1G baseball: two triple plays in one game.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/watch-penn-state-turn-two-triple-plays-in-one-game-051814
LikeLike
Even more B10 – they still lost.
LikeLike
LOL. I read an earlier article about the two triple-plays, but didn’t read where PSU lost. LOL. You’re right. Very B1G in a way.
LikeLike
http://www.groupon.com/deals/university-of-michigan-alumni-association-1
MI is selling alumni association memberships on Groupon. Nowhere does it say you have to be an actual alumnus to buy one. Only 4 have sold so far.
Any comments/explanations from Wolverines?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10936422/acc-experiment-30-second-shot-clock-exhibition-games
The ACC is going to experiment with a 30 second shot clock this year in exhibition games.
LikeLike
AT&T announces purchase of DirecTV for $48 billion.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/18/att-buys-directv/9247795/
LikeLike
This is bad for every consumer.
LikeLike
Also contingent on DTV retaining NFL Sunday Ticket:
LikeLike
Hat tip: Ozone.net
Interesting article on NFL players who graduated vs. those who did not.
NFL has less than 50 percent college graduates; NFL players with college degrees earn 20 to 30 percent more than their non-graduate counterparts while playing and that the grads’ careers last about 50 percent longer.
“One theory is that players who show the intelligence, concentration, and mental discipline to complete a degree show these qualities on the field more,” the NFLPA’s website postulates. “Doing well in school from an early age also helps players develop the concentration they will need to memorize plays and avoid eligibility problems in high school and college.”
http://www.southbendtribune.com/sports/college/notredame/football/lamenting-the-pursuit-of-an-unfinished-dream-at-notre-dame/article_dcf46630-de1a-11e3-bde3-0017a43b2370.html
LikeLike
BTN strikes deal with Cablevision and TWC in NJ. Terms were not disclosed.
http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/index.ssf/2014/05/big_ten_network_strikes_deals_with_time_warner_cablevision_for_local_distribution.html
LikeLike
SEC schedule rotation announced:
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/251196/future-sec-football-schedule-rotation-announced.aspx
10 years between Alabama visits UF. 13 years will pass between MizzAndy visits to Bryant-Denny.
LikeLike
College Baseball Update (5/19).
Here’s Perfect Game’s Kendall Roger’s breakdown.
http://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9896
“Illinois: The Fighting Illini are very much still in the mix for an at-large bid, but could’ve made their situation much better Saturday afternoon with a win over Nebraska. Instead, the Illini dropped a 7-4 contest in thrilling fashion (Pat Kelly walk-off homer for Nebraska) and in 10 innings. Illinois now has an RPI of 52 with a 5-4 mark vs. RPI Top 50. Illinois has some work to do in the conference tournament to make the Big Ten a three-bid league.”
LikeLike
Article analyzing the impact of the non-power designation given to BYU by the SEC and ACC.
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/24567307/mountain-west-latest-to-evaluate-whether-to-schedule-byu
LikeLike
It was defensible based on the information available to them at the time, but the decision to turn down the Big XII (twice) back in 2011 couldn’t have worked out much worse for BYU.
LikeLike
Agree 100%. Was reasonable at the time, but circumstances have made it untenable for BYU to remain an independent. The real question is would the MWC take BYU back? Despite hurt feelings, it would seem like a good idea for the conference. They would potentially need a #14. Maybe a lesser Texas school (UTSA)?
LikeLike
I think circumstances now fully warrant BYU accepting a Big 12 offer under most circumstances (with only the no Sunday rule being non-negotiable). BYU is still far better off as an independent than in the Mountain West though. Whether they recognized as a full power conference member or not, they are still regarded stronger than the Group of 5 and they cannot go back to that association, not with Utah in the PAC-12.
LikeLike
“I think circumstances now fully warrant BYU accepting a Big 12 offer under most circumstances”
Assuming the offer is still on the table, which I’m not convinced it is, now that the B12 has a measure of stability (at least until the GoR approaches expiration in 2027). Plus, BYU would be a travel issue for some programs (as the article mentions)–and the conference already has a travel problem on its hands with WVU.
“they are still regarded stronger than the Group of 5 ”
But 2 of the P5 conferences have already determined this is not the case, as scheduling BYU will not count as a power OOC opponent. The article I linked to quoted an AD in either the SEC or ACC who since this decision was made, has halted plans to schedule BYU in a future series.
“not with Utah in the PAC-12”
Utah won the lottery. BYU will not want to accept that fact, but its still true.
LikeLike
I agree that a Big 12 offer is probably off the table (just think they have to take it if it’s not). I don’t see any real value in joining the Mountain West though. I don’t care who evaluates what, BYU is still going to be able to get home and homes against plenty of Group of 5 teams. Beyond that, they will get games against Notre Dame, and probably a yearly home and home vs. the PAC-12 (with the final game being on the road).
I think the ACC/SEC policies on BYU were driven mostly on the desire not to have to make judgement calls on all independents. Notre Dame is the universal exception, but if BYU is recognized as a power conference team, it means Boise State might become an independent and then you must make a call on them too. If that’s the case, then while BYU might not be the first home and home on the schedule, they can still be the 2nd as they are still highly regarded. Yes that absolutely still limits opportunities, but not so much as I think that BYU can’t develop a decent home schedule every year (admittedly too many early home games and not enough late ones, but that’s still better than being in the Mountain West for them).
Remember, Wisconsin just recently moved around games to play them in November (in Wisconsin I think, but still home and home).
LikeLike
But Wisconsin-BYU was agreed to several years ago. The telling sign will be if they can get the same teams to play now that the P5 is actually established and new scheduling parameters for conferences are in full force.
If BYU’s schedule turns into having 6 games against MWC teams, its not that far from rejoining the conference for football.
Looking at their future schedules: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/byu-cougars.php
2014: 4 MWC teams
2015: 5 MWC teams
2016: 2 MWC teams (only 7 games schedules yet, number likely to rise)
2017: 5 MWC teams (only 8 games scheduled so far)
BYU has a de facto scheduling agreement with the MWC as it is. If P5 schools start looking only to other P5 schools or local lesser conference opponents (MAC schools for the B1G; AAC/Sun Belt/C-USA for the SEC/ACC/B12; MWC for P12), BYU will need the opponents to have a fuill 12 game schedule that the MWC would provide, especially later in the season.
BYU wants to be a national program, but it takes more than desire (and an ESPN tv deal) to make that reality.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Agree 100%. Was reasonable at the time, but circumstances have made it untenable for BYU to remain an independent.”
Except for this, maybe.
Troubled in part with the Mountain West’s TV visibility, BYU announced the ESPN deal in 2010 to go independent. The cable giant reportedly pays BYU between $800,00-$1.3 million per home game. On the high end, that’s as much as the school was earning per season in the Mountain West.
Realistically, BYU was never going to make the playoff anyway.
LikeLike
Well, it was reasonable based on getting similar amount per game while being able to, in theory, play a more national schedule, which is what the Church leaders wanted.
Yes, the odds of BYU making the playoff, whether as an independent or in the MWC are very, very slim.
LikeLike
I was disagreeing with your claim it was untenable for them to stay independent. They’d have to give up a lot of money and national exposure to rejoin the MWC, and nobody else wants them.
LikeLike
Ah, gotcha.
I do think they will have enough issues with scheduling going forward that, in about 5 years, the school won’t be able to sustain independence, partly because the increased national exposure won’t materialize when they end up playing 6-7 MWC teams a year even as an independent,
And since there isn’t a P5 conference looking to expand, they only option will be the MWC. Since the other BYU teams are in the WCC, the issue will be if the MWC even wants BYU as a football-only member, or if they want all BYU teams to rejoin the MWC, or if they even want BYU at all.
As for the money, since ESPN has MWC and BYU rights, something could be worked out where BYU wouldn’t lose money off its current deal if it rejoins the conference. The MWC doesn’t share revenue evenly, so that wouldn’t be an issue, and networks have shown willingness to help schools/conferences save face (B12 post loss of Mizzou and CU).
LikeLike
The thing is though even if BYU ever got to the point it was playing 6/7 Mountain West schools a year anyway, it would still be better to be an independent.
1. They arrange their home games to be nationally televised. Even those games are on ESPN 2 on a Friday, they beat the exposure they’d be getting with CBS who has the Mountain West contract (and don’t forget, broadcast/rebroadcast rights for BYUtv (or whatever it’s called) is something they value a lot).
2. Regardless of whether BYU is thought of as a power 5 conference school or not, it is thought of a stronger than the Group of 5 and independence helps maintain that distinction.
3. There is more money for them as an independent (this is the smaller point of the 3 to BYU though).
All of those facts are true even under the worst case scenarios for the school (which I don’t think will happen).
LikeLike
I’m not convinced there ever was an offer. I am sure there was discussions just for due diligence, but I doubt BYU turned down the Big 12. Once Utah made it to PAC 12, BYU would have taken any power conference invite.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure there was never an offer. There were discussions. There was a lot of scuttlebutt that BYU was not very flexible and the Big 12 and Fox, in particular, got tired of talking to them.
LikeLike
Once Utah made it to PAC 12, BYU would have taken any power conference invite.
They would have taken a PAC invite or a Big XII under the current circumstances, but the Big XII wasn’t clearly a better choice back in 2010.
For one, it would have meant a substantial reduction in TV exposure (3 national TV broadcast vs. 9 or 10 as an independent).
Even worse, there was no guarantee the Big XII was even going to be around for more than 3 years. Had the Cougars joined and the Big XII then collapsed, there was no way for BYU to know if ESPN and/or the WCC would take them back which would have left BYU in the nightmare position of having to go crawling back the MWC.
Now of course, with the new TV deal and long term GOR these problems have been solved (at least for the short and medium term), but no one could have expected that back in 2010.
LikeLike
A school official from one of the 28 members in the ACC and SEC told CBSSports.com last week that he had stopped work on a series with BYU because of the scheduling philosophy.
I think we all saw this coming.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/apnewsbreak-ex-players-nfl-illegally-161358484–nfl.html
How deep are the NFL’s pockets? This one, if they lose could hit them very hard.
“A group of retired NFL players says in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the league, thirsty for profits, illegally supplied them with risky narcotics and other painkillers that numbed their injuries for games and led to medical complications down the road.
….
The drug lawsuit names eight players, including three members of the NFL champion 1985 Chicago Bears: Hall of Fame defensive end Richard Dent, offensive lineman Keith Van Horne, and quarterback Jim McMahon. Lawyers seek class-action status, and they say in the filing that more than 500 other former players have signed on to the lawsuit.”
LikeLike
Those are big claims, but I wonder how much proof they have. Do they have evidence of the NFL giving them these drugs? Can they prove the medical complications came from these drugs and not from the hundreds of other abuses their bodies suffered, including illegal drug use and nasty hits in practice and games? Do they have proof (witnesses?) they weren’t told about their injuries?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10958412/jameis-winston-playing-baseball-florida-state-seminoles-not-testifying-roommates-chris-casher-ronald-darby-face-disciplinary-hearing
Conveniently Winston missed a student disciplinary hearing he was supposed to attend. Combined with Jimbo Fisher already saying he won’t be suspended in the fall, FSU is really handling this case well.
Jansen also said that Winston likely would have been required to testify if called upon by the school, and that he has no reason to believe there would be any more issues that would prolong Winston’s involvement in the school’s investigation, either as a witness or suspect.
Remember, Winston still has never answered questions about the incident since he also didn’t talk to the police.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10767521/a-primer-new-college-football-playoff
ESPN is doing a week of coverage of the upcoming playoff.
This is the CFP 101 just to remind people of the basics.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10921258/college-football-enters-new-era-2014-season-four-team-playoff#thecontenders
These are the 16 playoff contenders according to them.
SEC – AL, AU, UGA, LSU, SC, TAMU
P12 – OR, Stanford, UCLA
B10 – MSU, OSU, WI
B12 – Baylor, OU
ACC – Clemson, FSU
LikeLike
espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10921258/college-football-enters-new-era-2014-season-four-team-playoff#thetalent
Today they narrowed it down to 8.
How have these teams differentiated themselves? They possess a unique talent that will separate them from the rest.
P12 – OR, Stanford, UCLA
SEC – AL, AU
B12 – OU
B10 – MSU
ACC – FSU
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10935532/2014-preseason-football-power-index-ratings
ESPN’s attempt to scientifically determine a preseason ranking for everyone.
1. Florida State 2 16.9 1 13.6 1 1.7 1 32.2
2. Oregon 1 17.9 10 9.8 25 0.8 2 28.5
3. Auburn 3 15.0 19 8.1 8 1.2 3 24.3
4. Alabama 10 10.9 3 11.8 5 1.4 4 24.1
5. UCLA 6 12.0 12 9.6 16 1.0 5 22.6
6. Ohio State 5 12.8 21 7.9 28 0.7 6 21.5
7. Oklahoma 19 7.9 4 11.7 38 0.6 7 20.3
8. Stanford 16 8.5 8 10.0 4 1.5 8 20.0
9. South Carolina 8 11.3 18 8.4 66 0.1 9 19.8
10. Texas A&M 7 11.9 24 7.2 46 0.5 10 19.6
11. Baylor 4 13.5 29 6.3 88 -0.2 11 19.6
12. Georgia 15 8.5 7 10.1 18 0.9 12 19.5
13. USC 12 9.7 17 8.6 12 1.1 13 19.4
14. LSU 20 7.4 14 9.4 6 1.3 14 18.2
15. Clemson 25 6.6 6 10.4 40 0.6 15 17.6
16. Arizona State 9 10.9 34 5.5 15 1.1 16 17.5
17. Mississippi State 22 7.1 9 9.8 49 0.5 17 17.4
18. Michigan 23 7.0 16 8.9 56 0.4 18 16.3
19. North Carolina 17 8.4 27 6.4 32 0.7 19 15.6
20. Ole Miss 34 5.2 11 9.7 44 0.5 20 15.4
21. Oklahoma State 35 4.9 15 9.1 11 1.1 21 15.1
22. Florida 64 1.1 2 12.2 2 1.7 22 15.0
23. Wisconsin 18 8.4 40 4.7 29 0.7 23 13.8
24. Michigan State 48 3.3 20 8.1 23 0.9 24 12.3
25. Texas 38 4.6 22 7.9 94 -0.3 25 12.2
See the article to get headers for each column. They are ranked by the last column, the total score. They clearly expect FSU to be much better than anyone else, with OR a clear second.
The article has a link to another article where they explain their methodology.
LikeLike
ESPN is also doing a series about the B10 and money.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101073/b1g-numbers-revenues-and-expenses
Part 1: Revenues and Expenses
“I think it was about 2000, our budget was right around $25 million and today it’s $94 million,” Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis said. “And it’s real easy to take a quick look on where the allocation of those funds have gone, and so much of it — there is the coaching salary component that kind of stands out. But there’s a much larger chunk that has gone to escalation of scholarships and services provided.
“When I was a basketball manager … I know how those student-athletes were treated, and I know how student-athletes today have opportunities from travel, where they stay, how they travel, where they eat, what they eat, how often they eat, what medical services, psychological services, strength and training. We’ve really become a specialized industry where we have people on our staff that provide the smallest component of service to a student-athlete. It used to be a coach and a trainer kind of handled everything. Well now there’s somebody to teach you how to cook, there’s somebody on some campuses that do the cooking, that show you how to shop. It’s incredible, the opportunities that student-athletes have on those campuses, provided that they take it. That comes with a very high cost.”
…
B1G BUCKS
A look at the profit figures from 2007-08 until 2012-13 for 13 of the 14 Big Ten schools. Northwestern, a private school, did not report figures.
School Total Profit Average Profit
Michigan $90,243,483 $15,040,580.50
Penn St. $52,918,867 $8,819,811.17
Ohio St. $52,533,144 $8,755,524
Iowa $31,789,258 $5,298,209.67
Indiana $24,034,454 $4,005,742.33
Nebraska $18,202,291 $3,033,715.17
Purdue $17,792,141 $2,965,356.83
Illinois $16,792,323 $2,798,720.50
Wisconsin $12,727,545 $2,121,257.50
Mich. St. $11,821,079 $1,970,179.83
Minnesota $6,841,924 $1,140,320.67
Maryland $3,208,826 $534,804.33
Rutgers $423,319 $70,553.17
It’s funny how the players forget to mention all those little perks when complaining about how poorly they’re treated.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101140/b1g-numbers-the-price-of-home-games
Part 2: The Price of Home Games
While Big Ten schools make millions from football games in their campus stadiums, they also are paying large guarantees for opponents to show up and play. According to recent analysis from “Outside the Lines,” Big Ten teams paid nearly $42 million to visiting teams in all sports during the 2012-13 season (this includes Rutgers and Maryland, but not Northwestern, a private institution that doesn’t report figures). The Big Ten, with its big football stadiums and broad-based athletic programs, paid more to opponents than any other conference. It’s not a surprise considering many Big Ten teams make more than $3 million per football home game.
In 2012-13, Ohio State led the nation in money paid to opponents ($7,999,881), followed by Minnesota ($4,799,383) and Wisconsin ($3,987,864). Two other Big Ten teams — Michigan State ($3,650,864) and Indiana ($3,375,562) — finished in the top 10, and 10 schools finished in the top 25.
Ohio State has spent more on visiting teams in each of the past six years, averaging $7.4 million per year. Its total spent since 2007-08 ($44,418,002) is more than double that of the next Big Ten school, Indiana ($21,576,798). The simple explanation for the disparity: Ohio State is the league’s largest athletic program with 36 varsity sports, and with a massive, often sold-out football stadium, it spends because it can.
“We’ll net north of about $7 million off of each [home football] game,” Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com. “That’s why we can afford to pay that guarantee. If you’re over 100,000 seats — you look at Michigan, us, Penn State, Tennessee — you have to look at their average ticket price, which is typically north of $75. Then, you’re probably looking at $5-7 million that those stadiums are netting individually.
“So when you take out a $1-million, $1.2-million, $1.3-million guarantee, you can handle it.”
…
BENEVOLENT HOSTS
Average money spent on visiting teams from 2007-13 for Big Ten teams. Ohio State has led the country in this category for the six years surveyed. (Northwestern, a private school, did not release figures.)
School Total spent Avg. spent
Ohio St. $44,418,002 $7,403,000.33
Indiana $21,576,798 $3,596,133
Mich. St. $19,433,512 $3,238,918.67
Wisconsin $17,780,763 $2,963,460.50
Nebraska $16,211,942 $2,701,990.33
Purdue $14,035,818 $2,339,303
Minnesota $13,688,697 $2,281,449.50
Michigan $13,061,806 $2,176,697.67
Iowa $13,003,184 $2,167,197.33
Rutgers $12,882,690 $2,147,115
Penn St. $12,438,126 $2,073,021
Maryland $10,975,543 $1,829,257.17
Illinois $9,596,742 $1,599,457
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/05/big_ten_network_could_be_a_game_changer_for_rutgers_politi.html
BTN has big plans for the PSU/RU game.
Also, there’s this tidbit:
“We have over four million subscribers in California. We have over two million subscribers in Texas and Florida.”
LikeLike
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/unsold-bowl-tickets-costs-b1g-nearly-45-million-20140516
Unsold bowl tickets really hurt the B10 last year ($4.5M), but the new bowl deals will help.
Big Ten officials opted for a different economic model with their new bowl arrangement, which kicks in this season. They agreed to accept lower payouts for lower ticket guarantees. Only a traditional Rose Bowl — which is operated jointly by the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Tournament of Roses Parade — is exempt from the changes.
While the numbers are not finalized, Big Ten officials say, the agreements are more reflective of the schools’ annual sales.
“Let’s not have an artificially high payout that is based on artificially high ticket purchases by the schools when we’ve demonstrated for several years we’re not at that number,” Traviolia said. “We introduced that concept to our new partners. We do believe we have a ticket number more reflective of what our past and hopefully future attendance will be in terms of number of tickets our teams sell.”
…
The bowls agreed to those changes.
“We’re paying less money in a guarantee, but there will be years where they’ll make more money,” Outback Bowl President Jim McVay said. “There’s a shared revenue deal where the schools are going to keep all the money over a certain threshold.
…
There also are changes to ticket locations. Often schools were saddled with upper deck or end zone seats, while tickets sold through the bowl had much better sightlines. Fans quickly caught on and bought tickets through the bowl. They supported their team, but they also cost the university money.
“In some cases we felt like we were getting the worst seats in the house,” Traviolia said. “So we tried to improve those, and we did in many cases. So along with reduction in number of tickets, we attempted to improve the quality of them and their location.”
The new lineup with more diverse locations is also supposed to help drive fan interest.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24567978/mountain-west-will-use-selection-committee-poll-to-determine-home-field-for-conference-title-game
The MWC will use the CFP committee’s poll to determine home field for their CCG. If nobody is ranked in it, they’ll use the BCS computers. This is designed to help them get the Go5 spot in the big bowls.
LikeLike
http://thebiglead.com/2014/05/19/lou-holtz-says-hes-retiring-from-espn-network-says-thats-news-to-them/
Lou Holtz is retiring after this year, supposedly.
LikeLike
Is he taking Mark May with him?
LikeLike
Unfortunately not.
LikeLike
No Justice! No Peace!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10960593/2014-nba-draft-cleveland-cavaliers-land-no-1-overall-pick
It’s a dynasty!
The Cavs won the NBA draft lottery yet again (3rd time in 4 years).
Someone needs to tell them that the idea is to win a championship, not the draft lottery.
Top 5:
1. Cleveland Cavaliers
2. Milwaukee Bucks
3. Philadelphia 76ers
4. Orlando Magic
5. Utah Jazz
Maybe Chicago can draft a knee for Derrick Rose.
LikeLike
http://www.startribune.com/local/259968691.html
Super Bowl LII will be in Minneapolis in 2018.
LikeLike