I don’t exactly have a perfect record of predictions on this blog (as evidenced by the regular stream of friendly visitors from TexAgs that still remind me of what I wrote about Texas A&M and SEC expansion a few years ago), but one big picture issue that I understood from day one (meaning literally right when it was announced in 2006) was that the Big Ten Network would be a massive game changer for the conference and college sports overall. What others saw as vanity project destined to fail compared to the SEC’s then-traditional TV deal with ESPN, with the harshest criticism coming from Big Ten country itself, I looked at as the platform to turn the Big Ten into the New York Yankees of college sports financially. Many sports fans look at the BTN as shooting fish in a barrel money-wise now, but a lot of them have collective amnesia about how much criticism the network took in its first year of existence (including Tom Izzo publicly calling it a “PR nightmare”) and beyond when the SEC signed what was a then-large guaranteed deal with ESPN in 2008. Even when the Big Ten initially announced that it was looking to expand in 2009, many commentators didn’t bother taking into account how much the BTN would drive the process. If it wasn’t clear with the addition of Nebraska (which, despite its small market, could effectively have the BTN charge whatever it wanted to games and Husker fans would pay up), it was blatantly obvious with the expansion with Rutgers (New York/New Jersey market) and Maryland (Washington, DC/Baltimore market).
So, I can imagine how satisfied Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the rest of the conference officials must feel with the BTN on the precipice of capturing the great white whale of college sports: the New York City market. According to the Star-Ledger, BTN has entered into deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision for basic cable carriage of the channel in the NYC area (with discussions with Comcast moving along well). That means every the BTN (and by, extension, every Big Ten school) is going to receive a significant chunk of change from each Time Warner Cable and Cablevision basic subscriber covered under the deal. (Awful Announcing had a back-of-the-napkin calculation of at least $48 million per year for the Big Ten just from this single carriage deal, although that likely overstates the immediate impact since it doesn’t take into account Fox’s 51% ownership interest in the network and various expenses. Still, this market represents tens of millions of dollars per year for the Big Ten solely based on the BTN.) The skeptics of whether Rutgers would pay off for the Big Ten (myself included) are about to eat crow. This was the financial end game for the Big Ten when the expansion process began nearly 5 years ago: the addition of a massive market the size of either Texas or New York for the BTN. The Texas Longhorns weren’t willing partners on the former, so the Big Ten moved onto the latter.
Frankly, the fact that the BTN was able to negotiate a deal this quickly (several months before football season starts) in any part of the New York DMA was surprising (and bodes very well for the Washington and Baltimore markets where Maryland has a stronger sports presence compared to Rutgers in the New York area). Cable and satellite industry consolidation (the ongoing regulatory approval process of the Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable and AT&T’s newly announced deal to acquire DirecTV) is likely in the backdrop, while BTN co-owner Fox has the ability to leverage its cross-ownership of YES (and there isn’t much more powerful programming in the NYC market than Yankees games).
Now, no one should be naive enough to believe that this cable TV money train will run into perpetuity. Cord cutting is on the rise and that will likely continue to accelerate among non-sports fans that can get their programming fixes from online sources such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu. However, sports are still the killer app when it comes to live TV, which is why NBC/Comcast signed yet another expensive long-term extension of its Olympics rights that will last until I’m close to retirement age in 2032. Meanwhile, the Big Ten itself is gearing up to go to market with its first tier sports rights (with the new contract starting for the 2016 2017 football season) and will almost assuredly sign what will be the largest TV deal in college sports history without even including BTN money in the equation.*
(* For what it’s worth and this is strictly my semi-educated guess, but I believe that the Big Ten will end up with a split of rights between ESPN and Fox similar to how the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals are structured. It makes sense from the exposure and financial perspectives, while ESPN and Fox have clearly shown a willingness to partner with each other on large deals. The latest example of this is the recently-announced MLS/US Soccer deal with ESPN and Fox splitting the rights.)
With the Midwest having a lower proportion of the US population each year**, the East Coast has become a critical focus for the Big Ten out of necessity. The recent announcements of the Big Ten/Big East basketball challenge and the awarding of the Big Ten Tournament to the Verizon Center in Washington, DC in 2017 are important pieces to the league’s Eastern strategy, but the BTN carriage is definitely the clinching factor in all of the B1G plans.
(** Note that this different than the gross misnomer of the Midwest “losing population” that is often perpetuated in the national media, which simply isn’t true. What’s occurring is that the Midwest’s growth is much slower than other regions of the country. Granted, the legacy populations of places like Illinois, Ohio and Michigan are still extremely large to the point where it would still take many years, if not decades, for smaller faster growing states to catch up to them.)
(Image from CBS Chicago)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
#1?
LikeLike
We forgive you Frank.
LikeLike
Finally!!! oh and Go Eagles!
LikeLike
Hawkeyes #2.
LikeLike
I called for Maryland to pursue the Big Ten back in 2010…and perhaps in his mind at the time, Delany also was pursuing Maryland. (BTW, the Terps baseball team has qualified for the ACC tournament for the first time since 2005 and almost certainly will receive an NCAA berth.)
LikeLike
Franklin
LikeLike
Red Team Upstream. And a “buy very low” opportunity as well.
By the way, you’re very welcome. I would have to thank Maryland the most since, without them, this would have remained a theoretical conversation.
It’s now a good time to cue up Mr. Gene Corrigan, from back in 2012:
I hope he’s enjoying his retirement
LikeLike
Not to mention Mike Tranghese’s “Is Minnesota and Rutgers going to get a big rating on Long Island?”
LikeLike
I believe the Minn/RU comment was from Tagliabue, who had been hired by the Big East as a consultant.
LikeLike
I am a huge skeptic of online content ever at this point making real money. To do a bit of millennial bashing they are not moving to Netflix they are moving to piratebay so while it might hurt long term the only moves the leagues/conferences have is to either ignore them and/or prosecute them. The WWE Network is a failure so far with not even half of the projected subscriber numbers and if they cant get a million fans for the network when they are giving away the PPV at 50 plus dollar discounts I don’t know how anyone else is going to hit the numbers they need. Netflix barely makes margins and the Disney deal has not even started yet which will increase their costs significantly. Amazon Digital does not make money. ITunes for Apple is a low margin business despite them getting 30 percent.
LikeLike
To do a bit of millennial bashing they are not moving to Netflix they are moving to piratebay so while it might hurt long term the only moves the leagues/conferences have is to either ignore them and/or prosecute them
I felt the same way about music. Then everyone started using iTunes.
LikeLike
There’s definitely a strong corollary between what happened in music compared to what’s occurring with cable TV. The music industry’s profits in the pre-Internet days were driven by bundling just like basic cable: you’d have to buy an entire album of songs for $15 in order to get the one single that you wanted. I was in college when Napster was created and everyone with what was considered to be a broadband connection back then used it. Who wouldn’t want (a) free music and (b) only the songs that you actually wanted? The rise of iTunes, though, really curbed the emphasis on “free” for my generation. Sure, there are plenty of people on Pirate Bay and other sites simply because they refuse to pay for anything, but once there was a legal option to buy music in a manner where we didn’t feel like we were getting screwed (paying $.99 for the song that you really wanted instead of $15), most people fell back into the world of legitimate commerce.
So, we can see cord cutters feeling the same way about cable channels: they just want to buy the single (specific networks and/or shows) as opposed to the entire album (all these channels that they don’t watch). That certainly makes sense if you’re not a sports fan – I’d freely admit that sports are the only reason why I keep my satellite description.
Of course, sporting events aren’t really like singles on a music album (whereas standard scripted TV shows that drive Netflix and Amazon Prime are very comparable to them). Instead, they’re more like music concerts where each is a unique experience. Note that over the past decade, the top musicians no longer tour to drive album sales. Instead, they now put out an album to drive tour ticket sales because that’s where they make the vast majority of their income in the current environment. A concert can’t be passed around on iTunes legally or Pirate Bay illegally in the way that a recorded single can, so that’s where the entire music industry has shifted its focus. (I’ll have to find it, but the Wall Street Journal just had an article a week or two ago examining how album sales have plummeted, but concert revenue is skyrocketing.) What the experience in the music industry means for sports going forward is the trillion dollar question (and probably suited for an entire series of blog posts on its own).
LikeLike
Piratebay and other pirate sites are still about 85 percent of the music downloads. You sound about the same age as I am and as we started to make money some of us did move over to ITunes then spotifiy and the like but it seems (and the data supports) that those younger then never bought an album in the first place never went the legit route.
On the concert front its the large headliner concerts and large festive type concerts that are all of the profits. If you are not Lady Gaga level or higher you really are not making money going on tour. The kind of exception here is EDM DJs but even here its the top tier cats that can get a residency deal.
LikeLike
“If you are not Lady Gaga level or higher you really are not making money going on tour.”
That is not true in the least. Yes, Lady Gaga (and those like her) might be the only one getting rich from tours. But I personally know several small and medium-sized bands that make a living wage (and some that do even better) through full-time touring.
The most interesting part of the digital music boom (both in its legal and illegal forms) is the creation of a musical “middle class.” It used to be that you either made a lot of money (and went mainstream, like Nirvana), or you made essentially no money (and stayed underground, like The Melvins, who were a huge influence on Nirvana). Then came the digital revolution, and indie bands could carve out their own tiny piece of the pie through the notoriety that online buzz could generate.
I know that’s not necessarily the most relevant point to the broader conversation here, but it is true. However, there is another point I’d like to quibble with that is more germane:
“those younger then never bought an album in the first place never went the legit route.”
Many in the digital music community have discussed how teens are incredibly open and receptive to the idea of paying for streaming music services – or at the very least, using legal streaming services. Youtube is the biggest music streaming service used by teens and young adults, which is an entirely legal means of listening to music that provides revenue for artists.
The main contention of younger millennials has nothing to do with wanting to own music without paying for it. People who were coming of age when Napster dawned were, as Frank said, getting shafted continually. But they were also people that valued actual ownership of music. Initially that manifested itself as wanting to own music that existed only in the digital sphere. Eventually, it just served the purpose of devaluing recorded music.
The consequence of the digitization of media is that it eventually caused people to view recorded music as something that you don’t need to “own.” As such, some kids might not want to pay $.99 to own one song, but they don’t bat an eyelash at spending $10 a month to have every song they’d ever want to listen to at their fingertips without having to go through the trouble of searching for torrents, waiting for downloads, transferring media, etc. It’s no different in many of their minds than the monthly fee to play on XBox Live.
Just ask guys like Dave Allen (formerly of the punk band Gang of Four, these days a leader in the world of digital music/technology). They’ll tell you that streaming is indeed the future, and it is something “the kids” are into.
And again, the second point is very relevant to the conversation at hand. Streaming services (whether related to music, like Spotify, or the WWE Network) might not be THE dominant form of media consumption in the next three years, but they will sometime very soon. The WWE is allowing its app to be a loss leader for the moment, because they know their fans will eventually get on board…especially when there are 10-year-olds now who weren’t “introduced” to the idea of streaming media. They were born into it.
LikeLike
One thing I find interesting is that they aren’t nearly as interested in audio quality as we were. They tend to be more interested in portability and convenience.
That probably does have some relevance to sports TV and attendance.
LikeLike
One thing I find interesting is that they aren’t nearly as interested in audio quality as we were. They tend to be more interested in portability and convenience.
@bullet – I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not, but check out what Neal Young is doing.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/tech/mobile/neil-young-pono-kickstarter/index.html
LikeLike
“One thing I find interesting is that they aren’t nearly as interested in audio quality as we were. They tend to be more interested in portability and convenience.”
Some aren’t, some are There’s also the explosion of vinyl’s popularity over the last few years, driven at least in part by people under 25. Nothing convenient and portable about vinyl LPs. It’s more of a recognition that different mediums serve different purposes. Listening to an album on a turntable is an entirely different experience than streaming an album on your phone.
“That probably does have some relevance to sports TV and attendance.”
Not necessarily. One reason why audio quality isn’t as much of a concern for many (particularly when discussing music’s portability), is because when you’re on the run or streaming on your phone, you’re usually (though not always) listening to music passively. It’s on in the background while you’re doing something else. That’s what makes listening to music on a turntable different. It’s not as passive (or passive at all), because you’re forced to interact with the music…even if just to put it on and flip it.
Similarly, if you’re streaming sports on a mobile device, it wouldn’t be a passive experience at all. As such, I’d say that most folks would very much care about quality, because they’d be actively trying to get the best possible experience given the circumstances.
LikeLike
@Sean
One of the things every is trying to do is improve WiFi and phone service in their stadiums. So the desire to be able to do all those things while at the stadium-or to choose not to go to the stadium because you want to do those things, is relevant.
LikeLike
@bullet
I’m not debating that. I was saying “kids” accepting lower quality audio via streaming services isn’t relevant to the conversation. Of course the desire for portability and convenience is relevant. Convenience is what almost the entire debate about streaming services and media consumption is about these days.
LikeLike
Sean:
And bullet is saying the investment is being made to improve the quality of the convenience. Why force an either/or decision if it can be avoided? Provide both, in the stadium.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
Again, I’m not debating that point at all in the least.
I was only saying that his example of a willingness to accept lower quality music via streaming isn’t a helpful analogy here, because the experience of consuming media passively (which you do with music) is different than consuming media actively (which you do with sports). That’s it.
LikeLike
Well, actually I’d venture that sports channels are a LOT like singles on a music albums. Music concerts are single events where the cost incurred to the host by me buying a ticket is that there are fewer tickets left to sell since capacity is constrained at some amount.
Live sports events in terms of ticket sales are like live concerts, but sports channels really aren’t, since the marginal cost of selling a sports channel subscription is zero or, more accurately, something really low (there’s probably a bit over account management and data transmission expense, but it’s trivial).
In a lot of ways, i’d expect the long-term impact of unbundling to be similar to what happened to music: profits for the rights holders go down by a bunch, but it’s still substantially profitable. That’s actually one of the really big risks for the B1G and the Pac-12, that before long their self-owned cable rights won’t be nearly as valuable as they once were.
LikeLike
“That’s actually one of the really big risks for the B1G and the Pac-12, that before long their self-owned cable rights won’t be nearly as valuable as they once were.”
It isn’t any bigger than being completely dependent on an independent profit driven media entities. I’d argue that, if wholly owned and having completed most startup/infrastructure cost, the conference’s see value in their networks beyond the dollars attributed to singular event broadcasts. ESPN/Fox/nbc/etc would have a hard time justifying the recruiting and promotion of entire conferences general student populations to their shareholders. The B1G/PAC primary shareholders are the COP/C. They may/do have a different perspective as to the value of certain investments.
LikeLike
DeLoss Dodds made the comment that the SEC schools would be making a bunch of money on their network, but they would only be 1/14th of the content.
For Texas, certainly, the LHN money is merely a bonus. Its really about having 24 hour a day school advertising.
LikeLike
I disagree that 1/14 is a direct correlation to the value. The attractiveness needs to be of a critical mass. The within conference competitions (and OOC) games add more value/attractiveness to every member participating in a network, including UT. The SEC network will be worth much more than the added together value of 14 individual deals. And even the kings won’t be missing out on much (if any), while gaining the value of a strengthened and united conference.
I agree UT shares the attitude of the non monetary value of the conference/school network. Which is why I keep pointing out that only the B1G and PAC actually have conference owned networks. The others are financial arrangements with strictly profit driven media companies, who actually own the networks and purchase broadcast rights. They are just like previous deals, with the addition of a channel (ESPN8, 9, 12, etc) to broadcast on. IF (and I don’t expect it to happen) live sports broadcasts were to drop in monetary value to where they were just above break even, which ownership group would likely look for another avenue for profit and which will feel the network is still fulfilling its mission?
LikeLike
The Pac 12 is kind of doing both by having the two team subsidiary networks which mostly get coverage in their own areas, but not outside.
LikeLike
Yes and no. You get the national and the regional. You don’t get the out of region channel over TV, but have access to everything that’s televised through streaming. It’s rarely a problem with FB as unless there is multiple broadcast overlaps games not on Fox/ESPN are on the national/regional mirror. Plus a lot of events not on the P12N are streamed on the PAC12.com. I actually prefer those as they borrow the radio broadcast from the home site instead of inserting their own broadcasters who may have little/no knowledge or association with either, let alone both of the schools, like the local broadcaster usually has from years of seeing/following the conference as it effects the teams he covers.
LikeLike
DeLoss has bad math skills … the most valuable content is live games, and many of the live games present two conference schools at the same time, so it likely adds up to something more like 1/10th of the content per school … over a broader coverage footprint.
LikeLike
Is the concept of keeping your margins low in order to keep competitors out of your space beyond you?
LikeLike
That is the problem they don’t have margins. With out the DVD business Netflix is another money loser.
LikeLike
Well, I can say from anecdotal experience that you’re wrong – most twenty-somethings I know are subscribed to Netflix and if people do pirate things, it’s largely because there’s no easy way to get access to some content (largely because content creators either overvalue their properties or they’re pushing out a “competitor” to Netflix). Have you ever tried to pirate live television? It’s difficult and terrible at best.
Besides, comparing the WWE to actual sports is laughable. They are utterly incomparable in both scope and appeal. The only hindrance to online distribution would be the Standard Oil-esque tactics of Comcast and other ISPs to either extort or dissuade competition to their existing services, but Net Neutrality is another topic for another time.
LikeLike
How are content creators overvaluing their content when Netflix is overpaying like crazy for content. Take House of Cards as an example where their offer was over 25 percent more then anyone else was offering and for less rights in return. Or the new Disney deal where they are paying more then 50 percent more then anyone else was offering.
Why is the WWE comparison laughable? Except for football and NCAA Mens tournament it draws similar or bigger numbers then the other sports leagues. Yeah its scripted so what they are all entertainment. The WWE Network was offering more value then any of the sports leagues can offer at this point too with PPVs especially WrestleMania included in the 10 dollars a month. The NFL cant do that because the SB is on free TV and so are most of its games.
LikeLike
Go Blue!
LikeLike
This begs the question as to whether schools like UVa and UConn become stronger candidates (because the East Coast strategy is thriving) or weaker candidates (because they may no longer be needed).
LikeLike
If UVa wanted to join the Big Ten, it would become member #15 with no trouble whatsoever. The question is who to get at #16? It won’t be Connecticut as long as it’s not AAU, and UNC probably wouldn’t be swayed by the Cavs changing conferences. (Duke might, as it could re-brand itself as the Northwestern of the east, but would the B1G feel likewise? I’m skeptical.)
LikeLike
More like NW needs to rebrand itself the Duke or Stanford of the Midwest. Duke simply has more balance as an ADept than NW in terms of NCAA titles & per sport – they also have a well-grounded status in men’s hoops – a so-called blue blood. Their academics, across the board, measure up to NW & even surpass them in most publications.. For now, they simply have more upside than NW.
LikeLike
Except NW is already a member of a Big Three conference, so they don’t have a scenario where they are marketing themselves to a conference.
LikeLike
vp19,
“If UVa wanted to join the Big Ten, it would become member #15 with no trouble whatsoever. The question is who to get at #16?”
I disagree, but only in the sense that your question is exactly the trouble that could keep UVA out. The B10 would be happy to have them, but unless/until rules change they need a partner. That list is essentially UNC and Duke, I think. Maybe GT or KU.
“It won’t be Connecticut as long as it’s not AAU, and UNC probably wouldn’t be swayed by the Cavs changing conferences.”
The only potential to get UNC would be if the B10’s payout predictions come true and the ACC can’t get much from (or instead of) an ACCN. If the B10 is making $10M more per school than the ACC annually, they have to think about it.
LikeLike
This begs the question as to whether schools like UVa and UConn become stronger candidates (because the East Coast strategy is thriving) or weaker candidates (because they may no longer be needed).
UConn becomes a weaker candidate. If BTN has basic carriage in NYC, then adding UConn won’t earn them any more money, aside from the relatively small Connecticut market. UVa becomes a stronger candidate, because if a 98-pound weakling like Rutgers gets basic carriage in its home market, surely UVa would.
By the way, Virginia is the second most populous state contiguous to the Big Ten footprint. New York is #1, but there is no school that delivers the whole state. If Rutgers was good enough to get basic carriage in NYC, then the Big Ten has gotten pretty much all that they wanted out of the transaction.
If UVa joined the B1G, then the next most populous state contiguous to the Big Ten footprint would be North Carolina. I think I see a pattern here. If that happened, then Georgia would be next, and if that happened Florida would be next (again, that’s going by population in each case).
LikeLike
bikemore,
“This begs the question as to whether schools like UVa and UConn become stronger candidates (because the East Coast strategy is thriving) or weaker candidates (because they may no longer be needed).”
UVA – No change. They bring academics and a sizable state.
UConn – Weaker, if that’s even possible. Their only hope was to be seen as needed to get into NYC. If BTN has already managed that (and I remain unconvinced on that point), then UConn is worthless.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, there really are no details as to what basic carriage means in this instance, particularly on the amount charged per subscriber. Without that information, we have no way of knowing what additional income UConn would likely bring.
LikeLike
You’ll eat your words.
LikeLike
I think if it’s proven that BTN can give substantial numbers from Md/RU then I think the focus should shift to the West again. At the very least, to smooth over hurt feelings in the old footprint about the fear of moving away from Big Ten traditions.
OU/KU, anyone?
LikeLike
Transic,
“I think if it’s proven that BTN can give substantial numbers from Md/RU then I think the focus should shift to the West again.”
Nobody in the west except UT solves any of the problems the B10 was trying to address by expansion. Besides, the last thing the B10 needs to do is stretch farther east to west. I’m not saying you say no to UT if they ask to join, but who else in the west is worth actively chasing? Now that we’re stuck with RU and UMD, the B10 is committed to the east. Going west just adds problems.
“At the very least, to smooth over hurt feelings in the old footprint about the fear of moving away from Big Ten traditions.”
We’re upset about not playing each other enough, so the answer is to expand even more? We’re upset about moving into a second region, so the answer is to add a third region?
“OU/KU, anyone?”
As a sports fan, sure. As a B10 president, hell no. VA (8.3M) has a lot more people than OK (3.9M) and KS (2.9M) combined. KU’s academics are borderline for the B10 and OU is well below that. KU would add yet another horrible football team, too. I’m not convinced OU football and KU hoops make up for that to the COP/C.
Besides, how did OkSU and KSU get dropped and what happened to UT? The B10 would much rather have UT than OU or KU.
LikeLike
You cant’ get Texas without adding Oklahoma. I doubt you get Oklahoma without adding Kansas.
You add Oklahoma and the B1G has a significant opportunity to add Texas, since without Oklahoma the B12 essentially collapses.
So … you add Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and you’ve got a helluva western wing to the B1G, bracketing the SEC in the west.
Add those 3, and you can still finish off the northern end of the NE Corridor, plus two ACC schools to boot, sitting pretty at a 20 school B1G, busted up into pods of 5.
LikeLike
XOVERX,
“You cant’ get Texas without adding Oklahoma. I doubt you get Oklahoma without adding Kansas.
You add Oklahoma and the B1G has a significant opportunity to add Texas, since without Oklahoma the B12 essentially collapses.”
I doubt the COP/C will accept OU. KU is borderline and probably doesn’t add enough to be worth expansion, but they could be a solid #16 sort of school.
I’m also not convinces that UT wants to come north. I think they’d prefer to take TT, OU and KU west to the P12 if they had to leave the B12.
“So … you add Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and you’ve got a helluva western wing to the B1G, bracketing the SEC in the west.
Add those 3, and you can still finish off the northern end of the NE Corridor, plus two ACC schools to boot, sitting pretty at a 20 school B1G, busted up into pods of 5.”
Who says we want 20 schools? How is that a conference, especially in football? Even with pods and no locked rivals, you’d play most schools once every 3 years. Pods of 5 are also really hard to do without needing locked rivals.
LikeLike
When did Kansas relocate to Stillwater?
LikeLike
The B10 failed to land their 2 big white whales: The top-tier brand of ND & the massive population of TX, so they got the next best things: the top-tier brand of the Huskers & the massive population of the East Coast.
LikeLike
And far fewer ego problems than Notre Dame and Texas present. At least Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers don’t believe they’re bigger than the game — all better fit the Big Ten philosophy.
LikeLike
Agreed. Same reasoning when I suggested the P12 may have been a winner by not landing the Longhorns (unless it was as an equal, with no exceptions).
LikeLike
On the other hand, you’re glossing over the down sides.
1. Both ND and UT are more valuable brands than NE.
2. ND and UT have a lot more fans than NE, RU and UMD. According to Nate Silver, ND and UT are #4 and #5 in terms of fans while NE is #18. They almost each have as many as the other 3 combined.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
3. If we added UT, would we have stopped at 12 with NE still available? Also add ND (13) and then RU for maximal NYC penetration? Either way, we’d be getting even bigger payouts.
4. We wouldn’t have diluted the football brand as much.
LikeLike
This is crazy talk. Who cares about “egos” if those egos are Texas and Notre Dame?
I mean, seriously.
You add Texas and ND, you’ve massively sweetened the pot for every school in the entire B1G.
And when that big Texas and Notre Dame ego comes calling, you politely remind each school that they can vote any way they want, laughing as you remind yourself each has only 1 vote.
LikeLike
You care about egos when you’re talking about potentially disrupting the harmony that the B10 has internally. You care about egos if you’re a smaller brand and realize that makes 6 football kings plus several princes, or enough to start passing rules that favor the bigger brands more.
LikeLike
Agreed, if you take the growth from 11 to 14 and consider it as one big expansion then the complementary aspects of the schools (athletics, academics, demographics) do make things look better. Unfortunately we needed 3 schools to do it instead of 1 (UT).
LikeLike
Realistically, Texas wasn’t ever going to come just by itself, however. Then again, realistically, Texas wasn’t ever going to come, period.
LikeLike
Agreed.
Without knowing which other 2 might have come, it’s hard to analyze them anyway.
LikeLike
Nice deconstruction there ccrider55 and brian. And who knows — maybe the B1G could care less about a school like Texas, there’s some kind of probability associated with that view.
Then again, circumstances change over time. Delany’s view of Mizz has certainly changed over time.
ccrider55 is right — Texas and its herd will always be able to find a nice, comfy home if the need ever arises, that’s for sure.
As for a league of 20, there’s been plenty of smoke out of the B1G for a league of 20, from Gee to, I think, even Delany.
Onward through the fog.
LikeLike
Both of your comments are correct up to this point in time. But I think it’s entirely possible to force Texas into the B1G if Delany ever decides to become Machiavellian enough to do so.
Right now Texas is tickled to death with its LHN receiving nationwide carriage over DISH, with the DirecTV carriage imminent (by then end of 2014). Therefore, Texas will do everything in its power to keep the B12 glued together.
Some of the glue is pretty strong because the B12 has the biggest “per school” payout from all forms of TV revenues (contract, bowls, television Tier 3) than any other conference. OTOH, the B12 has only 2 football anchors — Texas and Oklahoma — now that Nebraska, A&M, Mizz, and CU are gone. If Oklahoma ever becomes unhappy, and migrates out of the B12, then the B12 is not a viable football league for Texas, LHN or not.
So what might make Oklahoma unhappy?
First, f the B1G really does command $45M per school beginning in 2017, increasing thereafter over the life of the new TV contract, that kind of money would dwarf what OU might expect from the B12. The B12 estimates $40M-$45M per school around 2025, but nowhere near that in 2017.
Second, the B12 better find a way to draw the attention of TV viewers outside of the tiny B12 footprint, or the networks might not be so generous when the B12 TV contract nears the window for renegotiation. The SEC, for example, is beginning to own the TV ratings in the City of Houston, and I think the poor ratings are a direct result of uninteresting matchups offered by the B12.
Let’s look at the B12.
First, being continuous with the B1G, there is a huge number of Kansas folks with a natural affinity for the B1G. If the money disparity is significant between the B12 and B1G after 2017, and only growing thereafter, and if the B12 TV ratings remain deficient, then the B1G may be able to interest Kansas.
If the B1G interests Kansas, then Oklahoma will undoubtedly be interested as well. Nobody wants to stay in a league that continually experiences defections.
If the B1G is then willing to offer a non-AAU Oklahoma (a big ‘if”, true), then OU might well follow Kansas into the B1G. The B12 could survive a Kansas defection. The B12 cannot survive an Oklahoma defection. The glue cannot hold.
As goes OU, so goes the B12. And Texas as well.
There are influential boosters (and fans) of both UT and OU that want the schools to stay together. When the B12 is faced with its final calamity — the migration of KU and OU — then Texas will have no choice but to make a move.
That means either the B1G, the PAC, the ACC, or the SEC. I put my money on Texas following OU into the B1G.
The B1G would be very attractive to Texas, under these circumstances: Like-minded land grant flagship universities. The CIC. Potential academic association with the Ivy League academically. And most importantly of all: The huge metropolitan cities of the northern tier into the NE Corridor, including NYC, in which Texas can obtain vast new exposure and markets (to sell its t-shirts, trinkets, and junk). Plus, the B1G is an excellent athletic conference, too.
There are some who say Texas could no longer recruit if it joined the B1G, but this seems hysterical to me. Texas can’t recruit in a league with Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Kansas? Balderdash. Pure silliness.
I don’t know — maybe Delany doesn’t want to be responsible for the demise of an entire conference? But the opportunity to force Texas may well arise, depending on what kind of money the BTN commands during the up-coming negotiations.
LikeLike
The PAC presidents and chancellors said no to OU, and you expect the B1G to invite them? They would only get to the PAC (with OkSU and ToTo, too) as a requirement of UT. Kansas had a place before Utah joined with CU during the UT/PAC16 almost at the start of the decade. UT, if it ever needs to go somewhere else, will go where it can take as much of its herd as it can.
LikeLike
XOVERX,
“Both of your comments are correct up to this point in time.”
Well, we were discussing the past so that’s all that really matters.
“But I think it’s entirely possible to force Texas into the B1G if Delany ever decides to become Machiavellian enough to do so.”
Nobody outside of TX can force UT to go anywhere.
Right now Texas is tickled to death with its LHN receiving nationwide carriage over DISH, with the DirecTV carriage imminent (by then end of 2014). Therefore, Texas will do everything in its power to keep the B12 glued together.
“If Oklahoma ever becomes unhappy, and migrates out of the B12, then the B12 is not a viable football league for Texas, LHN or not.
So what might make Oklahoma unhappy?”
UT leaving. They’re okay with anything else.
“First, being continuous with the B1G, there is a huge number of Kansas folks with a natural affinity for the B1G. If the money disparity is significant between the B12 and B1G after 2017, and only growing thereafter, and if the B12 TV ratings remain deficient, then the B1G may be able to interest Kansas.”
But why would KU interest the B10? Do they add more than $45M to the conference each year? Their academics are borderline for the B10, so that’s no help. KS isn’t a large or rapidly growing state.
“If the B1G interests Kansas, then Oklahoma will undoubtedly be interested as well. Nobody wants to stay in a league that continually experiences defections.
If the B1G is then willing to offer a non-AAU Oklahoma (a big ‘if”, true), then OU might well follow Kansas into the B1G.”
The B10 told OU no once already.
“I don’t know — maybe Delany doesn’t want to be responsible for the demise of an entire conference?”
He doesn’t. He’s said so before.
LikeLike
Frank,
“(with the new contract starting for the 2016 football season”
The current deal goes through the 2016 football season. The new deal will start the following year.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – Yes, you’re right. I’ve corrected this in the post.
LikeLike
I’ve thought of this possibility recently, as far-fetched as it is. What if the 8 AAU institutions from the PAC decided to merge with the B1G, along with the 2 schools from the B12 that Frank said should be targeted (OK, KS) for a 24-team megaconference? Obviously, this kind of move is laden with considerable risk, size being just one of many. However, perhaps by 10-15 years, it may become a necessity rather than a choice, assuming that the ACC and SEC have gained so much in power as to make it difficult for the B10/PAC to compete on a consistent basis as separate entities. The 8 PAC schools could be their own division, with the schools from the B1G West forming a central division, along with OK, KS. Purdue would move to the eastern division, no longer needing to have their games w/ IU protected. Olympic sports would have to be regionalized, maybe along divisional lines. I doubt you could make an economic case for flying a women’s volleyball team across 3,000 miles one week and then another 1,000 miles the next week. So better to be safe and regionalize them. Basketball would be a doozy, since you’re going to rely on them to carry more of the financial burden after football season is over. But, by then, recruiting might become irreversibly national, when schools are competing for every young body to play sports for them. Also, what replaces the P5 would be able to take March Madness into their production, so as to not share as much with the NCAA.
Just brainstorming here.
LikeLike
OU leaving OrSt. behind, UDub leaving WSU behind, and UA leaving ASU behind.
Hmm. Nope, not happening.
I also don’t see the ACC “gaining so much power”.
The next shoe to drop is the dissolution of the B12. That will happen far before the Pac breaks apart. Actually, a ton of improbable stuff are more likely to happen than the Pac breaking apart.
LikeLike
Transic,
“I’ve thought of this possibility recently, as far-fetched as it is. What if the 8 AAU institutions from the PAC decided to merge with the B1G, along with the 2 schools from the B12 that Frank said should be targeted (OK, KS) for a 24-team megaconference?”
Why would the P12 want to drop 4 schools and add 2 in the plains instead, let alone 14 in the midwest and east? They have a big TV deal as is.
Also, why would the B10 want to merge with them? They are the current kings of TV money and conference payouts.
“Obviously, this kind of move is laden with considerable risk, size being just one of many. However, perhaps by 10-15 years, it may become a necessity rather than a choice, assuming that the ACC and SEC have gained so much in power as to make it difficult for the B10/PAC to compete on a consistent basis as separate entities.”
Why would you make that assumption? The B10 is about to take a temporary but commanding lead in total payouts once the new TV deal is signed. Everyone else is locked into their current deals through the 2023 season or longer (2023 – P12, SEC, 2024 – B12, 2026 – ACC).
“The 8 PAC schools could be their own division, with the schools from the B1G West forming a central division, along with OK, KS. Purdue would move to the eastern division, no longer needing to have their games w/ IU protected.”
East = PSU, OSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN, RU, UMD
Central = OU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, KU
West = USC, UCLA, UW, OR, Cal, Stanford, AZ, CO
That really kills the B10, with 5 of the old 10 in each division. Assuming 7 division games with 2 crossovers, teams like IL would only see OSU or MI once every 8 years. Most of the new schools would have locked rivalries that would be their 10th game (USC, Stanford, UW, OR, AZ, CO, OU, KU), so I don’t see 10 conference games. Maybe the B10 teams could play each other OOC, but it would still stink.
“Basketball would be a doozy, since you’re going to rely on them to carry more of the financial burden after football season is over. But, by then, recruiting might become irreversibly national, when schools are competing for every young body to play sports for them.”
Hoops recruiting is already national. The good players go all over the country now.
***
Wouldn’t just merging with the B10 make more sense? Each conference becomes a division instead without crossover games (except as OOC), allowing those with a locked rival to stay at 10 home and home games.
The CCG could go back and forth but would have to be indoors in the midwest.
LikeLike
What if the 8 AAU institutions from the PAC decided to merge with the B1G, along with the 2 schools from the B12 that Frank said should be targeted (OK, KS) for a 24-team megaconference? Obviously, this kind of move is laden with considerable risk, size being just one of many. However, perhaps by 10-15 years, it may become a necessity rather than a choice, assuming that the ACC and SEC have gained so much in power as to make it difficult for the B10/PAC to compete on a consistent basis as separate entities.
It’s hard to see what series of events would make the ACC so powerful that it would provoke that kind of response. But even if the ACC becomes a juggernaut, a B1G-P12 merger would be dilutive to the B1G, since the P12’s TV deal is worse, and will probably always be.
LikeLike
It’s hard to see what series of events would make the ACC so powerful that it would provoke that kind of response.
How about That Media Company From Bristol Connecticut? They’re all in on protecting the ACC and push the narrative when they run out of SEC bullets.
LikeLike
They’ve had that interest for a long time now, yet the ACC is still where it is.
Methinks you really overestimate ESPN’s influence.
LikeLike
Espn can push them all that they want. It comes down to fans. The ACC, except for a few brands, lacks them in both alumni and t-shirt fans. The SEC has a ton of t-shirt fans in a region without for the most part pro sports. Plus the majority of SEC schools are the flagship university for their respective states which attract t-shirt fans even in down times. Same goes for the BIG who also have a ton of alumni on top of being the states flagship institutions. The ACC lacks large enrollments and flagship status.
The ACC becoming such a power to threaten the PAC and BIG is borderline ridiculous.
LikeLike
Especially since, aside from Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech and to a lesser extent Georgia Tech and Miami, its members possess no real, sustained football culture. SU and Pitt have wonderful histories in the sport, but neither has kept it going for a long period of time since the ’60s (for the Orange) and ’70s (for the Panthers).
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Frank,
1. Thank you for the new post. The old one was taking forever to load. I’m guessing 2714 comments is a record. here’s hoping we don’t approach that again.
2. The new TV deal starts in 2017, not 2016.
3. Am I the only one that thinks this announcement isn’t very clear about exactly what the BTN just got?
http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball/index.ssf/2014/05/big_ten_network_strikes_deals_with_time_warner_cablevision_for_local_distribution.html
Mark Silverman, president of the Big Ten Network, confirmed Monday that the network had reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market.
“In the market” is vague. It could just mean NJ.
“Broadly distribute” doesn’t necessarily mean expanded basic, especially in . We certainly don’t know what rate they got.
I’m glad the negotiations went so quickly and painlessly, and I hope the rest do as well, but I’d prefer to wait for more details to leak before jumping for joy.
4. As for the future deal, you may be right. I’m sure the B10 wishes FOX had a few more years of successful CFB broadcasting under their belt, though. The real question is where the B10 wants to put the additional inventory, on the BTN or on someone else’s network. I know we don’t want to lose ESPN, and I’m not sure there’s much room for FOX. FOX only showed 17 regular season games last year with 50 on FS1.
http://www.lsufootball.net/archives/tvschedule-2013.htm
By my count, this is how the B10 got on TV last year (home games only):
ABC – 8
ESPN – 9
ESPN2 – 9
mirror – 13
ESPNU – 3
BTN – 46
Total – 88
old deal – 12 teams with about 84 games (~36 OOC, 48 B10 games)
2017 – 14 teams with roughly 98 games (~35 OOC, 63 B10 games)
How many of those 42 games on the ESPN family, or of the 14 new ones, are you expecting the B10 to move to FOX/FS1?
Maybe the B10 tries to match the SEC/CBS deal with a B10/FOX game of the week? Or will ESPN pay even more to have the same number of games but better choices with the BTN getting more games? Does the B10 want to risk losing ABC Saturday night games to play on FOX?
5. As for the population migration, all things are cyclical. Global warming may start to drive some people out of the west and south due to droughts and extreme heat. As more midwestern states become right to work states, the odds of a new industry moving in improves.
LikeLike
re: point number 3: I think everyone sees the lack of clarity and specifics. In the previous thread, the first link to an article about the new deal with Cablevision and TW mentioned that no details were provided on the payout.
But, remember, we are in a world where perception often matters more than reality. Now it is “yay, BTN and B1G got lots of $$.” That drives the brand, drives the “buzz,” and drives the next deal.
If it turns out in a year or two that someone gets the details and Awful Announcing overshot the estimate by 400%, oh well. That will be history and no one will care. I note that exactly the same thing has happened with the PAC-12 deal. It was reported as “wowowowowowwowow” but lately some of the PAC-12 ADs have come forth with the “real” facts about the $$ (to wit, not what it was presented as).
Plus, as with many things, once your foot is in the door, you might leverage a better deal the next “re-up.” So, maybe the BTN is not getting 80 per subscriber; maybe only 40 cents. That is still 30 cents more than the estimated BTN payout for “out-of-footprint” subscribers.
As said, the “buzz” around the NYC/NJ deal might help “snooker/stampede” a few more cents-per-subscriber from the cable providers in DC/Maryland.
And the “buzz” from that helps “snooker/stampede” a few more million from ESpin/Fox/whomever with the upcoming 1st/2nd Tier rights negotiations.
In short, vagueness has its value. I think “jumping for joy” is warranted (but only, like, one or two jumps; beyond that it would be silly 🙂 )
LikeLike
“How many of those 42 games on the ESPN family, or of the 14 new ones, are you expecting the B10 to move to FOX/FS1?”
I dunno if that many games will migrate from ESPN to Fox. Starting in 2017, with 7 games a week, there could be enough content to spread it around (3/4 for ABC/ESPN,1/2 for Fox/FS1, 1/2 for BTN).
“Maybe the B10 tries to match the SEC/CBS deal with a B10/FOX game of the week?”
Fox MLB games might make that difficult in September/October. Could also cost the more plum 330 ABC/ESPN mirror slot.
“Or will ESPN pay even more to have the same number of games but better choices with the BTN getting more games?”
This is the real question: if ESPN/ABC has an exclusive negotiation period before the present deal expires, do they overpay in order to prevent Fox from getting any additional B1G games? I could very easily see ESPN doing that.
“Does the B10 want to risk losing ABC Saturday night games to play on FOX?”
If the rights are split in the next deal, I would expect schedules to be done such that Fox would have the B1G network primetime game on weeks that ABC has another conference on in primetime. I would be stunned if Delany would do anything to jeopardize that ABC primetime slot. But as it is, the B1G averages 6-8 ABC primetime games a year, so that leaves 4-6 games that Fox could potentially bid on, including some of the new November games. FS1 could also get a lesser Saturday night primetime game some weeks, as ESPN and ESPN2 on Saturday nights are SEC games.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“I dunno if that many games will migrate from ESPN to Fox. Starting in 2017, with 7 games a week, there could be enough content to spread it around (3/4 for ABC/ESPN,1/2 for Fox/FS1, 1/2 for BTN).”
I don’t see the BTN carrying fewer games than they do now. They averaged over 3 per week last season.
“This is the real question: if ESPN/ABC has an exclusive negotiation period before the present deal expires, do they overpay in order to prevent Fox from getting any additional B1G games? I could very easily see ESPN doing that.”
Do they have slots to carry these extra games?
LikeLike
ESPN could put them on the LHN. It only has one game (or more, if they buy them) per year.
Just kidding. But it does demonstrate that ESPN has a way to create shelf space for additional inventory. Question is, is it worth the cost for just a few additional games not going elsewhere?
LikeLike
“I don’t see the BTN carrying fewer games than they do now. They averaged over 3 per week last season.”
I could see it happen if it wouldnt cost any carriage fees/simulcasts an ESPN production (Like NFLN simulcasting CBS for TNF).
“Do they have slots to carry these extra games?”
I assume so, especially with the SECN coming online. Would also depend on contracts with other conferences (Moving ACC games to ESPNU, etc…).
LikeLike
“Broadly distribute” doesn’t necessarily mean expanded basic,
They didn’t get expanded basic on Omaha. It is available to anyone with digital cable, but expanded basic analog customers, which there are still a fair number of are shut out here on Cox.
LikeLike
COX in Omaha actually has two packages (starter and economy) that don’t include BTN, FS1, NBCSN or ESPN. The tier that does include them “Essential” is $29 more a month than economy.
LikeLike
Correct, both plans are essentially the equivalent of expanded basic. Starter cuts out the sports channels.
LikeLike
I’m using expanded basic as shorthand for whatever they call the lowest tier that has ESPN. That’s always the goal for BTN in the footprint.
LikeLike
And they didn’t get that in Omaha of all places…
LikeLike
So this is incorrect?
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Cox_Cable_Adding_Big_Ten_Network_To_Lower_Tier_127743133.html?device=phone
LikeLike
No it is correct, but that article doesn’t say it is on the equivalent of expanded basic cable either.
LikeLike
If you have analog expanded basic in Omaha you won’t get BTN.
LikeLike
Even my 90 yr old mom has switched to digital. I don’t think the analog “demographic” is one coveted by many…
LikeLike
If only there was a viable media package that could be a proper replacement for the E-Spin channels…
LikeLike
Well, if they have as much power as you think they do, then you’d _want_ to partner with ESPN.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10961521/pac-12-presidents-ask-major-conferences-back-ncaa-reforms
The P12 presidents sent everyone a 10-point plan for reforming the NCAA.
LikeLike
All very, very reasonable.
LikeLike
I’d enjoy seeing freshman eligibility go away, especially in hoops with the NBA’s one and done rule. Make everyone redshirt their freshman year, then they get 4 years of eligibility. No more 6th years, no matter what. If you have to sit out a year (for your second transfer, for example), you lose that year.
I also like to see them pushing the APR even higher. I’d prefer they push the eligibility limits higher, though. These are college athletes, and academic success should be required.
LikeLike
This would cause the creation of numerous Branden Jennings clones. High School -> Europe.
Not sure the NCAA would be happy about that.
LikeLike
Going to Europe did not actually help Brandon Jennings’ draft stock.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1567507-will-aquille-carr-taking-brandon-jennings-path-to-nba-help-or-hurt-draft-stock
“You might recall Brandon Jennings going this route, choosing to play in Italy for a year as opposed to playing in college.
While abroad, Jennings played 17 minutes a night and averaged 5.5 points and 2.2 assists per game. And remember, Jennings was also the consensus No. 1- ranked point guard recruit coming out of high school.
* * *
With a tough setting for scouts to evaluate in and a small sample size to study, Jennings’ stock took a hit before he was ever able to boost it.
The 2009 NBA draft saw guards James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Stephen Curry and DeMar DeRozan all get taken ahead of Jennings, who ended up going No. 10 overall, much later than he was projected to go the summer before.”
LikeLike
Why would the NCAA care. The point is to discourage the one and done, rent a player thing that does very little for, and arguably damages the collegiate brand and loyalty.
LikeLike
Unless the new model damages the NCAA bball brand (by making sure that virtually none of the top bball talent are ever there) more than the current one-and-done model.
LikeLike
I prefer supporting actual school oriented (students) teams, not mercenaries wearing their uniforms.
LikeLike
OK, but do most NCAA bball fans?
Not what they say but what they do. It’d be interesting to see how NCAA bball revenues were back when HS’ers went straight to the NBA compared to the one-and-done era.
LikeLike
Update on the reception: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/05/22/Colleges/NCAA.aspx
LikeLike
g’morning.
LikeLike
(* For what it’s worth and this is strictly my semi-educated guess, but I believe that the Big Ten will end up with a split of rights between ESPN and Fox similar to how the Pac-12 and Big 12 deals are structured. It makes sense from the exposure and financial perspectives, while ESPN and Fox have clearly shown a willingness to partner with each other on large deals. The latest example of this is the recently-announced MLS/US Soccer deal with ESPN and Fox splitting the rights.)
@Frank –
This is probably the most likely outcome, but let me throw something else out there.
From reading Matt Sarz’s posts I’ve got the impression that Fox and ESPN have more content than time slots to air it, especially over the air. My guess is that Comcast’s bid will center around nation wide games on NBC (bid with more exposure instead of over paying) and NBCSN. Therefore, I would not be surprised at all to see ESPN partner with CBS to put Big Ten games OTA nation wide similar to the SEC’s CBS/ESPN split, to be competitive with the exposure Comcast is offering. The (formerly) ABC regional/reverse mirror B1G games would become ESPN exclusives. I also wouldn’t be surprised to see CBSSN get some B1G games that used to air on ESPNU in that scenario. At some point, CBS has to invest in CBSSN with more than just Mountain West games.
LikeLike
If anything, the EPL has proved that people will find NBCSN and watch it if there is anything worthwhile on. So for people to say that B1G games would be lost on that channel may not be as true now as when it was still called Versus.
The issue is how NBC gets around the ND issue. If the Domers have a night game, for example, do they use the afternoon for a B1G game?
Btw, I just learned that I can now watch CBSSN in HD. I’m currently with Verizon FiOS.
LikeLike
The Domers will have exactly 1 night game they own the TV rights to each year. Not exactly an insurmountable issue.
LikeLike
@Transic – NBC only has 7 ND games to work around. That is if they don’t move a game or two to NBCSN. There could easily be a B1G noon and/or prime time game around a 330 ND game.
LikeLike
I’m glad the ACC stuck with 8 conference games. When the NCAA approves their bill co-sponsored by the Big 12, they’ll be able to eliminate divisions & determine how to fill their championship game. I think a plan for 3 annual rivals in conference & 5 games vs the remaining 10 teams (every other year) will be approved. Here’s how I would set the 3 ACC matchups & how I’d fulfill the 1 game requirement vs BCS.
I think every team needs 10 BCS games on their schedule: 5 home, 5 away + FBS @ home & FCS @ home. There’s only a handful of FCS teams in midwest so B1G can play MACtion.
Key:
ACC team = (season finale match), ACC rival 1, 2, 3
+9 = out of conference game vs BCS or American
+10 out of conference game vs BCS or American
BC = (Pitt), Cuse, Wake
+9 = UConn annually
+10 = NWern & ND every other year
Pitt = (BC), Cuse, Lville
+9 = Penn State annually
+10 = West Va & ND every other year
Cuse = (Miami), BC, Pitt
+9 = Rutgers & NWern every other year
+10 = UConn, Temple, ND 2x each every 6 years
Miami = (Cuse), FSU, Va Tech
+9 BCS = Florida annually
+10 BCS = Central Florida, South Florida, ND 2x each every 6 years
Virginia = (Va Tech), UNC, Lville
+9 = Maryland annually
+10 = East Carolina, Tenn, ND 2x each every 6 years
Va Tech = (Virginia), Miami, Lville
+9 = Rutgers, Kentucky, Cincy 2x each every 6 years
+10 = East Carolina, Tenn, ND 2x each every 6 years
UNC = (NCST), Duke, Virginia
+9 = Sakerlina or Tenn every other year
+10 = East Carolina, Georgia, ND 2x each every 6 years
NCST = (UNC), Wake, Clemson
+9 = Sakerlina or Tenn every other year
+10 = East Carolina, Georgia, ND 2x each every 6 years
Duke = (Wake), UNC, Ga Tech
+9 = Vandy annually
+10 = East Carolina, Navy or Army, ND 2x each every 6 years
Wake = (Duke), NCST, BC
+9 = Vandy annually
+10 = East Carolina, Navy or Army, ND 2x each every 6 years
Louisville = (Kentucky), VPI, UVA, Pitt
+10 = Cincy, Indiana, ND 2x each every 6 years
Clemson = (Sakerlina), FSU, Ga Tech, NCST
+10 = Georgia, Auburn, ND 2x each every 6 years
Ga Tech = (Georgia), Clemson, FSU, Duke
+10 = Auburn, Tenn, ND 2x each every 6 years
FSU = (Florida), Miami, Clemson, Ga Tech
+10 = Auburn, Bama, ND 2x each every 6 years
Duke & Wake need to schedule easier because they’re small private schools that need wins. East Carolina has a 50k seat stadium so would be a good home&home for the NC & VA schools. I almost have every SEC east school playing 2 out of conference games vs ACC.
LikeLike
A few points about this:
1) I don’t see the point in artificially locking a season-ending match-up that has no historical pedigree. By all means Georgia/Georgia Tech, but why Miami/Syracuse? For those schools that lack a traditional Rivalry Weekend opponent, I think it’s better to rotate than to try to invent a rivalry and hope it sticks.
2) For similar reasons, I don’t see any reason to lock intra-conference games if there is no particular tradition between the two teams named (e.g., BC/Wake).
3) For the non-conference games, you seem to be assuming match-ups that the opponents might not want, e.g., Syracuse playing Northewestern and Rutgers every other year.
4) You have an uneven schedule for ND (i.e., Pitt and BC would play them more often). I’m pretty sure that’s not what the league wants.
LikeLike
Currently, these are the season-ending rivalry games for the ACC:
FSU-Florida
Georgia Tech-Georgia
Clemson-South Carolina
Wake Forest-Duke*
NC State-UNC*
Va. Tech-Virginia
Louisville-Kentucky (now at the end of the year)
Syracuse-Boston College**
Miami-Pittsburgh***
*These teams are in opposite divisions, but the NCSU-UNC game is this state’s biggest college football game of the year, so the ACC is going to try this setup for 2014. (I hope it continues.) Alternatively, the season-enders would be Wake-NCSU and UNC-Duke.
**SU-BC is the final game for both schools this year, as it was last year. It makes sense. Historically, they are two of each other’s most-played opponents.
***Miami-Pitt is the year-ender due to simple process of elimination. If Pitt ever works out a way to finish the season against Penn State or West Virginia instead, Miami will be left having to finish the season against an FIU, FAU, or, at best, an AAC team.
LikeLike
I just hope they do SOMETHING. I’d love for the ACC to eliminate divisions, but at least they should do one thing that would make some sense:
Make Louisville and Va. Tech permanent crossovers and UVA permanent with BC. VT & BC is not a rivalry. Louisville and VT at least have the common thread of having pretty good football teams.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, Scout has done a breakdown of football talent per state. As known by many on here, the gap between the Southeast and rest of the country is beyond noticeable. Ohio remains a shining example of how to keep up for the Midwest & Missouri’s numbers are interesting. But the SEC brand now has a solid foothold in the Show Me State. I especially paid attention to per capita numbers, in part because folks often overstate California’s NFL production, which has some obvious truth – great players do come from here. But man, the southern states are impressive, even the more populated states: Fl & Ga have high per capita numbers. Tx (Southwest) not only comes the closest to matching Ca’s overall population, but more than doubles the Golden State in per capita numbers . Cali hs talent in per capita output. Ca has a lot of mouths to feed, esp the Pac12. But so does Tx & some of the bigger Southeast states.
This is merely one publication & it does raise questions. I didn’t break down the numbers yet. I’m assuming Scout is going by high school & not college. What I gather from this info is further validation for the SEC’s continuous success, why the ACC has upside & these numbers have been similar for much longer than we often note – I’d say since at least the 70s.
The overall numbers underscore the importance of adding Rutgers (overall output – though slightly above average per capita numbers) & Md (Md & DC per capita numbers, esp DC). They also demonstrate the importance of program building and culture: Oregon and Wisconsin lack in-state talent, but clearly demonstrate national reputations via recruiting, finances and fan passion. So in theory, a Wisconsin or Oregon caliber program with Rutger’s in-state talent could translate into even greater success.
I really think this gap can close, though time & patience would be required. Other regions need to figure out a way to maintain year round prep football cultures – something Ohio evidently does well and continues to improve as far as a Midwestern example is concerned. But expenses are obviously an issue for colder states in terms of infrastructure – culture as well & probably more important.
http://www.scout.com/story/1404139-draft-stats?s=143
PS I’m sure Brian, my favorite, has insight here. In this case needed interpretation as Ohio is his neck of the woods. I’ve always admired Ohio’s prep football culture – it’s similarly the way we do prep hockey here in Minnesota as our state continues to lead the US in NHL products. I know Minny does prep hockey year-round & the vast majority of essential facilities are indoors.
LikeLike
Good series of posts. I did the math a few years ago (which sucks that its stuck on a dead hard drive) states produce roughly there population numbers of AQ talent with some notable exceptions. NY is basically a small state and MA might as well be Vermont. You have the big per cap states like Hawaii (but only about a dozen players a year), MS, AL and LA but they are all midsize to small states. But, Florida is just crazy because its per cap number is insane despite having a huge population. What is even crazier is if you look at participation numbers for the 3 big states it becomes an even more impressive what Florida does. Texas has the most HS football players by a fairly large margin with CA second and Florida 3rd but its only about 60 percent Texas number.
Oh, and the next 2 to 3 classes are better then anything I have seen in the state in at least a decade.
I have no idea on how this is accomplished either. Prep coaching in Florida is subpar, we have kind of bad infrastructure, there really is only a couple of super private schools, and its not a religion to go to a game on Friday night.
LikeLike
From the ’30’s to the ’70’s, the Midwest (and North in general) was as dominant in college football as the Southeast (and South in general) is now. It just wasn’t as apparent as Southeastern/Southern dominance is now because the 5 Midwestern kings were split between 2 conferences and an independent in ND (while PSU, the other northern king, and Pitt, which you could consider a king earlier in that period, were also independent) while one conference (the SEC) has the majority of the kings in the South/Southeast (‘Bama, LSU, UF, UGa, and probably Tenn.) currently.
From 1936-1977, At least 1 Midwestern team was named national champion by either the AP or UPI 25 years (out of 42). From 1940-1957, A Midwestern team won either the AP or UPI national title 14 out of 18 years.
Then for a time in the ’80’s & in to the ’90’s, before the SEC was seen as the best conference in college football, the B10 was able to flex its financial muscle (and may have been helped by the lingering memory of segregation in the South). As an MGo blog showed, for a period of time, the B10 got more top talent from outside its footprint than any other conference did. Now, the SEC has assumed that position, and the B10 just doesn’t draw as much top talent from the South, net, as it did before.
LikeLike
Richard, I think that dominance may of had more to do with segregation than hs football talent per state & region.. When Minnesota dominated, a good number of their players came from the South. Half of the 6 NFL HOFers who wore a Gopher’s jersey played high school ball in North Carolina – born there as well. My point is more about prep football & the built in advantage that the Southeast, especially, has when recruiting. The gap is widening – this region is really in a zone of its own.
The BIG lost most Rose Bowls in the 70s, 9 of 10 (a lot of close losses) & that’s when the 10 year war started – I believe – when the BIG especially became a two team conference for a while.
Granted, the BIG has the least amount of bowl experience amongst the power conferences – whatever bowl ban for so many years – decades really.
LikeLike
^ Some crap grammar above.
Clarifications:
Ga, Fl and Tx have better per capita numbers than California. Tx is closer to Ca in population, but still doubles Ca in per capita output.
LikeLike
Frank,
You nailed the apocalyptic Rust Belt decline argument, though without the stats. No need for any of us to post them. Population growth will inevitably slow in other regions as well. We can argue that the Midwest and Northeast are ahead of other regions in terms of re-populating city centers & recovering from de-industrialization. These processes take decades to play out.
I posted the Scout stats (high school talent per state) because these numbers have more to do, my opinion, with passionate prep football cultures & fan passion than population growth. I do think the Southeast has embraced football at the prep level for much longer than given credit for. Culture is always an interesting and understated factor in life, sports being one example. Minnesota loves their hockey, Illinois = basketball, Ohio = football, etc – all three are among national leaders in terms of college and professional pipelines – each sport.
There really hasn’t been a decline in BIG football as overstated repeatedly on message boards. I mean for much of my younger life (70s & 80s), the BIG lost most Rose Bowls, which reversed only in the 90s, one decade. The last 15 years translates into “business as usual” for my lifetime. Bottom line, the southeast de-segregated its colleges, conferences like the SEC spent decades realigning and building its football product, the SWC – Big 12 merger happened (is still likely to change) & a conference like the SEC, for example, inevitably created compatible program-fan cultures that maximize their region’s prep football output – talent. The bowl culture has always been Sun Belt oriented. Pro football still rules the Midwest and Northeast. It is what it is. At the end of the day, I like the underdog status of the BIG in football, other cold-weather based programs as well – minus ND.
LikeLike
What is also not discussed in these population arguments is what percentage of the growth is from Hispanics. The south has a much larger growth rate for Hispanic population compared to the BIG states. That population tends to be less affluent and less likely to go to college.
So yes population is growing faster in the south than in the north but in reference to college athletics, unless that population is contributing financially to that system, it doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – There’s some truth to this, although there are definitely long-term demographic issues that the Rust Belt states have to face and can’t deny anymore. Yes, there is a lot of growth in the South from immigration, but we also can’t underestimate the very high net migration rates from the Midwest and Northeast to places like Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia. A large number of those state-to-state migrants are affluent people that are fueling the growth in the major Sun Belt metros (i.e. Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc.) and that’s going to have a big impact on colleges in those areas. One can foresee how much tougher it will be to get into UT-Austin, Texas A&M, UGA, UNC and the University of Florida (and by extension, their other in-state brothers) in 10 or 20 years based on the much larger quality pools of students that they’ll be working with.
So, the reality is that the Big Ten will lose ground relative to all of the other power conferences if it just focused on its home Midwest region (and even the move toward the East Coast is going into an area that’s also slower growth compared to the Sun Belt). The Big Ten schools, by necessity, have to take a more national approach on virtually every measure – attracting fans, recruiting students (whether it’s based on athletics or academics), engaging alums, getting TV viewers – compared to its other power school counterparts.
LikeLike
Its already much, much more difficult to get into Texas, Texas A&M and Georgia than it was 20 years ago (I presume the same is true for UNC and UF). Its real common for alumni not to be able to get their kids in.
As for the Hispanics, they are spreading from the Southwest into rural areas everywhere, whether it be South Georgia or central Kentucky or Iowa.
LikeLike
It’s more difficult to get into every school. Admission rates have plummeted over the past few decades.
LikeLike
I would add another issue its not that the South is growing its that the Atlantic South is growing plus Texas. Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana and even Tennessee have rates of growth that are not much different from Wisconsin, NJ, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.
LikeLike
Btw, as known by most at this point: Mpls got the SB. I think this means we will see a BIG CCG down the road, albeit not common. But Western BIG powers like Neb and Wisky will certainly lobby for a BIG CCG in Mpls. At least 6 BIG schools are within 8 hours drive of Mpls: Ill, NW, Neb, Wisky, Iowa and Purdue. So this venue does remain the most viable candidate for the Western BIG – CCGs. On the other hand, MSP International Airport is pretty damn efficient and easy to fly to
Unfortunately the Internet is loaded with naysayers on the lack of entertainment value Minneapolis and St. Paul (MSP) offers, as well as continued thoughts that this SB or potential BIG CCG is being played outdoors:
No on both accounts.
Moreover, unlike say Dallas or Met Life Stadium, the new Vikings Stadium is served by an ultra convenient, reliable transit line that also serves MSP International Airport, dt Saint Paul, the U of Mn campus, the Mall of America and the rest of dt Minneapolis. There will be no nightmare transportation logistics, or out of the way public transportation deserts with this SB or potential BIG CCG’s. The Vikings Stadium is a mere 8 blocks, two light rail stops from Minneapolis’ entertainment-hotel district. The LRT line will offer several hotel options.
Entertainment options, give me a break. If you lived here you’d know this city has actually become annoyingly faster with an excess of entertainment options & louder neighborhoods. By 2018, more such entertainment options, further increased density, the compact-conveneinet sort, will be more available in MSP.
Bear in mind, from this view, the stadium is actually within 10 min walking distance to Mpls’ better known entrainment districts (Warehouse and Nicollet Mall), while a new district will be right in the middle of this picture, just outside the stadium itself. The light rail line runs right past the front entrance of the stadium & is only 20 min, at most, from the airport, another 10 min to the Mall of America, which will be further expanded by the SB:
LikeLike
@gfunk – Minneapolis is a great town and arguably has the strongest growth prospects of any of the major Midwestern metros. However, I’m a firm believer that the Big Ten Championship Game should stay in one permanent centralized location and Indianapolis has both the geography and venue to suit the league’s needs. (Chicago has the geography and large cross-section of multiple fan bases, but not the venue AKA “must have a dome because that’s non-negotiable for a prime time game in December”.) The basketball tournament can be used as a chit to placate the league’s regional fiefdoms, but the Big Ten should learn from the ACC’s experience of attempting to appease its geographic outliers in Florida with its football championship game: it’s a bad idea. The ACC now sells out its game in Charlotte regardless of who’s playing (even Florida State), the SEC should always be in Atlanta, and the Big Ten should always be in Indy as long as Chicago doesn’t have a domed option.
LikeLike
Agreed.
We went through this in depth on the last post. MSP is only significantly closer to MN and NE than Indy, really. It’s a little better for WI and IA. Everyone else is closer to Indy. As hard as the B10 has worked to sell out the CCG so far, moving it to a far corner of the footprint seems an odd choice. Maybe I’d see an argument for it in NYC if they had a dome, but MSP is already solidly B10 territory. As for throwing the West a bone, MSP will often have the hockey tournament and NE may get the baseball tournament more often. The MBB tourney can also rotate through MSP and other cities.
LikeLike
I’m torn on your thoughts here. I have a feeling either Neb or Wisky will dominate the western half of the BIG CCG – Iowa could shake things up as well. NW doesn’t seem to travel well – period. If and when the Illini become a consistent BIG power, Mpls is less than 7 hours drive from Chicago Land & they’re still in works for a high speed rail corridor between MSP & Chicago. Most of these fan bases will get to Mpls in worthy numbers – that’s easily half your attendance right there. I don’t think OSU, MSU or Mi fans will flake out on a CCG in Mpls. But the true eastern BIG teams will have difficulty getting to MSP – even the mighty PSU alum base.
I just have a feeling this venue will be truly world class and one of a few that offers so much compact density, entertainment and accessible, cheap & convenient public transportation.
I agree, Chicago would be the best choice, period, if they had a domed venue.
I’m fine with Indy. But I’ve heard some complaints from Neb fans about the travel. They should worry more about their coach.
One thing is for certain, if there is possible BIG expansion and it happens (<– stress here) to include some Big12 members, which I believe more likely than an ACC poaching – Indy can't always be the site.
LikeLike
I think that the Twin Cities are a great place to visit, but for a CCG in the Twin Cities to get close to selling out, one of UNL/Minny/Iowa/Wisconsin would have to win the West, which, while likely, isn’t a sure thing. For Indy to have lots of empty seats, the matchup would have to be PSU/RU/UMD vs. Minny. That’s far less likely. BTW, I think that Detroit would fill up if any one of UM/MSU/OSU/PSU wins the East (which is almost assured).
That said, while I’m not a great fan of the idea, the B10 very well could have the CCG in Detroit and Minny in back-to-back years every once in a while.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10921258/college-football-enters-new-era-2014-season-four-team-playoff
Part 3 of ESPN’s look at the CFP (I linked the others on the last post, but they are at the bottom of this article anyway).
Narrowing the list from 8 to 4 based on strategy.
AL, AU, FSU, OR
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10921258/college-football-enters-new-era-2014-season-four-team-playoff
Part 4, narrowing the list to 2 based on the coaches – AL, FSU.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10921258/college-football-enters-new-era-2014-season-four-team-playoff
Part 5, picking a winner based on the star – FSU
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10957438/no-clear-answers-how-teams-schedule-college-football-playoff
How to schedule in the CFP era.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101195/b1g-numbers-building-the-brand
Part 3 in ESPN’s look at the financial numbers of the B10 – Building the Brand.
MAIZE LIKE GOLD
Revenue earned through licensing, sponsorships, advertising and royalties for the last seven years and the 2012-13 figures, with the national ranking in parentheses. (Northwestern, a private school, did not release figures.)
School Last 7 years total 2012-13 total (nat. ranking)
Michigan $109,393,917 $22,473,192 (2)
Nebraska $64,168,059 $11,895,378 (5)
Ohio St. $60,351,928 $12,714,758 (4)
Minnesota $48,538,746 $9,546,232 (12)
Iowa $42,126,663 $8,266,864 (17)
Maryland $36,861,535 $6,262,955 (26)
Indiana $33,254,545 $7,170,666 (20)
Purdue $32,601,583 $5,756,946 (28)
Penn St. $32,212,846 $5,086,773 (33)
Mich. St. $31,438,207 $7,077,049 (22)
Illinois $27,179,056 $4,826,982 (36)
Wisconsin $21,422,157 $4,289,089 (43)
Rutgers $9,942,929 $2,046,662 (66)
LikeLike
Go Gophers! Pride On Ice…
LikeLike
With the success that they’ve had, I think Bucky could boost those revenues dramatically if they replaced that logo straight out of the ’70’s.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101264/b1g-numbers-changes-in-recruiting
Part 4, about the changes in recruiting and the rising expense.
School 2008 2013 Difference Difference By Percentage
Penn State $935,563 $1,694,982 $759,419 81.2%
Nebraska $1,083,385 $1,794,747 $711,362 65.7%
Ohio State $1,137,016 $1,738,633 $601,617 52.9%
Michigan $1,333,040 $1,987,719 $654,679 49.1%
Indiana $924,838 $1,356,996 $432,158 46.7%
Northwestern $693,879 $945,740 $251,861 36.3%
Illinois $1,263,219 $1,654,915 $391,696 31%
Iowa $977,795 $1,275,114 $297,319 30.4%
Michigan State $1,067,088 $1,351,444 $284,356 26.6%
Wisconsin $754,972 $934,893 $179,921 23.8%
Rutgers $697,539 $858,692 $161,153 23.1%
Minnesota $1,212,843 $1,431,217 $218,374 18%
Purdue $1,110,998 $1,141,492 $30,494 2.7%
Maryland $856,074 $777,678 $-78,396 -9.2%
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
LikeLike
Feeling sorry for Ohio St baseball team. They’ve played four games this year vs Nebraska where the Huskers won on their final at bat, the last three walk offs. At the Big Ten tournament today, Nebraska scores four in the ninth to win 7-6.
LikeLike
Bad loss for Illinois to Michigan State in the Big Ten tournament today. If they go 0-2 this week it will hurt their case for an at-large bid.
LikeLike
Rutgers crushed USF in the AAC Tournament today 10-0. Won 11 of last 12!
LikeLike
It is possible that the 2015 Big Ten conference will feature 5 teams that made the NCAA tournament the previous year…
LikeLike
Illinois probably needs to win a couple in the losers bracket, and they’ll be in.
LikeLike
Illinois picked up a victory today over Ohio State. Next up for them will be a rematch with Michigan State in an elimination game. If the Illini can win that one they will finish no worse than 2-2 in the tournament. That would basically be like treading water for them, which still means they have a decent shot at an at-large bid. What they could really use to boost the resume is a victory over Indiana or Nebraska at some point and at least three wins for the tourny.
LikeLike
If Illinois can get by Michigan St they’ll get that chance against Indiana.
LikeLike
Here’s a nice article about B1G baseball.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/baseball-no-longer-afterthought-big-195337260-ncaabb.html
LikeLike
They talk about the B10 committing more , but there are also these key points:
It was just two years ago that Anderson floated the idea of the Big Ten breaking away from the traditional NCAA season and going to a summer schedule. His coaching brethren dismissed the notion.
Purdue coach Doug Schreiber prompted serious discussion, though, with a proposal that Northern teams be allowed to play as many as 14 games in the fall that would count in the following spring’s RPI.
The rationale, for both Anderson and Schreiber, was that long winters in Big Ten country make it extremely difficult to gain access to the NCAA tournament because conference teams must play nearly all February and March games on the road.
Those concerns were addressed last year when the NCAA began using a new formula for the RPI, which measures the relative strength of teams and conferences and helps determine at-large bids for the national tournament. There now is greater weight placed on road wins.
Traviolia said coaches agreed to put Schreiber’s proposal on hold to see how the new RPI formula affects the conference. The Big Ten on Wednesday ranked 10th out of 32 conferences in RPI. Indiana (fourth in team RPI), Nebraska (27) and Illinois (50) all are in line for NCAA tournament berths.
Last year the Big Ten was sixth in RPI, with five teams among the top 65. Before that, the conference hadn’t ranked higher than No. 11 since at least 2002.
”I think you’ll see a renewed effort to have Schreiber’s idea of counting fall games reconsidered,” Traviolia said.
…
While geography and climate will prevent the Big Ten from matching the top-to-bottom strength of the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12, the conference is showing it no longer is content with being an easy out.
Emphasis mine, obviously. It’s amazing how much a simple change to level the playing field helped things. As the new RPI helps the B10 get more tournament teams, that in turn will help the B10 get better players and be more competitive.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/
The top pick is worth about $30 million.
LikeLike
So at roughly $16MM, the Pistons wasted about $30MM because Tom Gores was too stupid and/or proud to amnesty Ben Gordon for $25MM.
Hooray for Sunk Cost Fallacies!
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-college-quarterbacks-are-worth/
Estimated value for college QBs.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24569104/notre-dame-paid-charlie-weis-more-than-brian-kelly-in-2012
Just a reminder how smart ND was to extend Charlie Weis’s contract because he barely lost to USC that one time. ND is paying him through 12/2015, and he made more from ND than Brian Kelly did in 2012.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24569144/sun-belt-not-looking-for-new-member-at-this-time
Uh oh, UMass. The Sun Belt says it is sticking with 11 members for now.
LikeLike
If they don’t want to go to 12, then what was the point of adding New Mexico State and Idaho as #10 and #11 when they’re so far from everyone else and so very bad, even by SBC standards?
LikeLike
They’re waiting on U Conn…
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
“If they don’t want to go to 12, then what was the point of adding New Mexico State and Idaho as #10 and #11 when they’re so far from everyone else and so very bad, even by SBC standards?”
You have to read the fine print. The SB is looking for a 12th all-sports member while UMass is looking for a spot for their FB team only (A10 for the rest). Not having a home for FB, UMass has to decide whether to drop FB back down, be a FB independent, or join the SB in all sports.
LikeLike
Brian, that is true. A twelfth full member would make more sense. Given their extreme distance and, to put it mildly, lack of upside, I still do not understand how NMSU and Idaho serve the Sun Belt can serve the Sun Belt unless they are part of a group of 12 teams for a CCG.
Going back to early 2013, the Sun Belt was scheduled to be at 8 football members for the fall of 2014. So, they added Ga. Southern and App State as full members, and soon thereafter they invited NMSU and Idaho for football only. That would have set them up for 12 in fall 2014. The problem is that they knew another round of dominoes was going to fall their way.
The soon-to-be-renamed AAC stood was set for 11 members for fall 2015. They were bound to take a C-USA member, as they had many times before. They took Tulsa. C-USA would, in turn, take a Sun Belt member. Sure enough, they took Western Kentucky, which set up the SBC for 11, not 12. Everyone who paid any atttention knew that was coming. So, again, why have NMSU and Idaho?
LikeLike
I will guess that Eastern Kentucky ends up being the twelfth school. James Madison University in Virginia appears uninterested in joining the Sun Belt. They will either stay in the Colonial/FCS or holdout for C-USA or the MAC. Liberty has been a willing suitor for quite some time, but if the SBC wanted them, they’d already be in by now.
That was probably more than most of you care to know about the Sun Belt, but I thought I would throw it out there anyway.
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10964005/2014-nba-draft-cleveland-cavaliers-gm-david-griffin-already-fielding-calls-no-1-pick
Completely off topic, but I know Frank is an NBA guy. The Cavs have been getting calls about trading their #1 pick in the draft. In a league that is all about stars, what sort of trade could someone offer that makes any sense for Cleveland (Kevin Love and #13 in exchange for #1?)? Especially since Cleveland is hoping to lure LeBron back this summer.
LikeLike
@Brian – This is a tough one. I don’t see luring LeBron back being realistic – it’s a story that I’m sure the media would love to push for the next couple of months (“The Prodigal Son Returns!”), but he’s at the point of his career where he simply isn’t going to deal with *any* growing pains with new teammates at all. Anything less than a team that would be ready to win a ring immediately is off the board. So, the only way LeBron leaves the Heat is if the team has a cast that’s unequivocally better than his Heat teammates and I’m just not seeing that with the Cavs. That consists basically of the Bulls (assuming that Derrick Rose is healthy again) and Rockets as teams that conceivably have the ability to clear enough cap room and still have enough top tier pieces left to be as good or better than the current Heat with LeBron added in.
If I’m running the Cavs, I’m keeping that #1 pick unless I get a legit top 10 superstar (and I love Kevin Love, but I’m not sure if he’s quite at that level). Those rookie contracts have disproportionate value under the current NBA collective bargaining agreement, so teams are VERY reluctant to trade draft picks in general (much less the #1 pick). Joel Embiid, Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker all look like potential superstars, so the Cavs are likely better off keeping that pick and maintaining salary cap flexibility unless someone offers a truly crazy superstar trade.
LikeLike
Indeed. The rookie contracts are worth so much.
So while I would trade the #1 pick for Love and something, the only other players I’d trade for would be at that level or higher (James/Durant/Curry/Griffin/Paul/Harden).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“This is a tough one. I don’t see luring LeBron back being realistic – it’s a story that I’m sure the media would love to push for the next couple of months (“The Prodigal Son Returns!”), but he’s at the point of his career where he simply isn’t going to deal with *any* growing pains with new teammates at all. Anything less than a team that would be ready to win a ring immediately is off the board. So, the only way LeBron leaves the Heat is if the team has a cast that’s unequivocally better than his Heat teammates and I’m just not seeing that with the Cavs. That consists basically of the Bulls (assuming that Derrick Rose is healthy again) and Rockets as teams that conceivably have the ability to clear enough cap room and still have enough top tier pieces left to be as good or better than the current Heat with LeBron added in.”
As I’ve heard it explained, the theory is that Wade might look to retire, making LeBron more likely to look elsewhere. As for the Cavs, I suppose the idea is that he’d like to stop being hated in his hometown plus he’d love to bring them their first championship in a major sport in over 50 years. He’d be a god in Cleveland if he did that, especially if they beat the Bulls along the way.
I don’t follow the NBA closely, but combining James with Kyrie Irving, this year’s #1, Anthony Bennett (if he becomes anything), Varejao and whoever else they have has to be a contender. The Bulls will always be one Derrick Rose knee away from contending (seriously, he’s played 49 games in 3 seasons).
“If I’m running the Cavs, I’m keeping that #1 pick unless I get a legit top 10 superstar (and I love Kevin Love, but I’m not sure if he’s quite at that level).”
But he’d give them an elite power forward so LeBron can play the 3.
Personally, I’m with you. I’m doubtful LeBron would come this summer, so they need another young star to try to attract James in 4 more years.
“Those rookie contracts have disproportionate value under the current NBA collective bargaining agreement, so teams are VERY reluctant to trade draft picks in general (much less the #1 pick). Joel Embiid, Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker all look like potential superstars, so the Cavs are likely better off keeping that pick and maintaining salary cap flexibility unless someone offers a truly crazy superstar trade.”
I’d avoid Embiid. The NBA is a small guy’s league any more, plus big guys with back problems scare me. Wiggins has a higher ceiling supposedly, but Parker is better right now. I expect the Cavs to somehow get none of the 3.
LikeLike
I believe LeBron’s hometown is Akron.
LikeLike
Not sure why Lebron did not just say that he was leaving Cleveland, but that he hoped to return someday to finish his career and retire as a Cavalier. That would have gone a long way towards minimizing the impact of leaving Cleveland, without really impacting his present. If Michael Jordan could retire a Wizard, etc., James could play one season at ANY AGE for Cleveland and sell tickets, ending as a hero with or without a Cavalier championship.
LikeLike
Well, when he left, 25 year-old LeBron might not even have considered ever going back to Cleveland.
He certainly didn’t anticipate the fallout.
I’ve said it before, but research shows that humans aren’t generally fully mentally & emotionally mature until around 30.
LikeLike
Except that the divorce between LeBron and Dan Gilbert was beyond bitter.
LikeLike
The Big Ten should probably hold the baseball conference tournament in Omaha as often as it can.
Attendance for day 1 at TD Ameritrade – 10,424
Overall tournament record – 12,219
LikeLike
Note that 3 Big 10 teams, Washington, Oregon and Kentucky are in the sweet 16 in softball. It belies the claim that northern schools can’t compete in baseball. They simply don’t.
LikeLike
No, it just shows that baseball and softball aren’t the same.
LikeLike
I should also note that this is the first time ever the B10 has gotten 3 teams into the round of 16 in softball.
LikeLike
Is there as much off-season development and play in softball as there is in baseball in the warm-weather states? If not, you’re comparing apples to oranges.
LikeLike
They’ve always rotated it a lot, but I’ve been an advocate for moving it to Omaha permanently. They have the most avid college baseball fans.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“Attendance for day 1 at TD Ameritrade – 10,424
Overall tournament record – 12,219”
According to the B10’s official baseball twitter account:
Day 2 – 11,759 (new single day record)
Running total = 22,159 (new tournament record with 5+ of 13+ games left)
Of the 7 games already played, 6 were 1 run games.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Boise State president penned a letter slamming the proposed power grab by the P5 conferences.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/05/21/3195511/boise-state-president-bob-kustra.html?sp=/99/104/
LikeLike
Its awfully rich to hear BSU president complain about the behavior of a group that BSU has been fighting to join for 20 years. Maybe Kustra should put his money where his mouth is and drop to Division 3.
LikeLike
I would expect nothing else by Kustra. The “level playing field” NCAA model (spending limits on everything but facilities and coaches) made his school famous. Taking away those limits will harm Boise’s ability to stay there.
LikeLike
Essentially, Kustra is going all in on being a moral black hole. At least he’s being honest I guess…
LikeLike
“Taking away those limits…”
The limits are raised, not eliminated.
“…will harm Boise’s ability to stay there.”
True. Unless there is a Phil Knight like Boise St alum who chooses to try to level the field.
Although, they have been the poster child for doing more with less for a decent stretch. Once you have the kids on the field it is all about performance.
LikeLike
Brian Kelly less then thrilled with the whole UND-ACC football scheduling arrangement:
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/brian-kelly-notre-dame-s-acc-ties-puts-football-in-tough-schedule-spot-052114.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is joining the club of schools remorseful over the changes in affiliations. Western Big Ten schools will miss Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. ACC schools in separate divisions will miss the games against teams they used to play regularly. Nebraska fans miss playing Oklahoma, and vice versa. The rich, albeit relatively brief, tradition of Big East basketball has been broken up into three separate conferences (Big East, AAC, and ACC, with one each also in the B1G and Big 12). Everyone outside of Texas shakes their head over the loss if UT-A&M.
As an independent which, unlike BYU, can command a home and home with the lkkes of Texas and Oklahoma, Notre Dame still has as much scheduling flexibilty as any team in the country.
LikeLike
“As an independent which, unlike BYU, can command a home and home with the lkkes of Texas and Oklahoma, Notre Dame still has as much scheduling flexibilty as any team in the country.”
In theory, UND has scheduling flexibility. In practice, UND has 5 ACC games + Navy (an opponent UND will never drop) + USC + Stanford as annual opponents. UND basically has a locked 8 game slate, leaving it with as much flexibility as any ACC/SEC school with 8 set games annually.
LikeLike
So in practice, they have five games committed. Their own self-imposed “rivalry” games are just that, self-imposed.
LikeLike
So in practice, they have 8 games committed. Self-imposed commitments are still commitments.
LikeLike
Self-imposed commitments are still commitments.
By your definition, there are no independents, since every team has 12 committed games.
LikeLike
Conference imposed requirements are NOT the same as commitments made by the schools. There are/have been occasions when teams don’t play the full number of allotted games for various reasons, including by choice.
LikeLike
“By your definition, there are no independents, since every team has 12 committed games.”
1) No, because committed games does not equal independent from any conference affiliation.
2) I’m only talking about Notre Dame. They have annual scheduled games against specific opponents that are commitments that are on par to its ACC scheduling agreement commitments.
its games against Navy, USC, and Stanford are annual commitments that neither side will end. Hence, those dates are booked. There are 5 ACC games it must play starting in 2015, so those dates are booked. Hence, there are 4 games free to schedule with other schools.
Likewise, I don’t consider Ga Tech as having only 8 committed games, since it also has an annual game with UGA. Same idea applies to UND with Navy, USC, and Stanford.
If you want to talk theoretical, no school has any commitments, since any school can leave a conference and become an independent. But that’s insane in practice.
LikeLike
There’s a pretty big difference between “you’d have to leave the conference” and “could be ended by mutual agreement between two schools”.
Notre Dame-Stanford has been annual only since 1997. Either school could end it easily, without the kind of structural change implied by leaving a conference. The USC and Navy games, although they’ve bee going on longer, are the same type of agreement, existing only due to the mutual agreement of two parties.
Notre Dame clearly needs a conference for its Olympic sports, and no major conference is going to give it a better deal than it is getting from the ACC, so it’s stuck. It has to play the 5 games. The Navy, Stanford, and USC deals are just conveniences that could be abandoned at any time without the same kind of large-scale disruption as switching conferences.
GA/GATech is a bit different, because both are state schools, so they probably do not have complete freedom to end that game, even imagining that they wanted to.
LikeLike
Iowa/ISU didn’t play for how many years?
LikeLike
“Iowa/ISU didn’t play for how many years?”
Didn’t play 1935-1976. Statehouse saber rattling got it going again.
LikeLike
The bottom line is that UND has 8 commitments on its schedule, 5 from the ACC and three annual commitments-3 annual commitments all longer lasting than any ACC commitment. That the nature of the commitment is different does not change the realities of the situation, that UND has only 4 free slots to rotate among any number of opponents. Commitments, be they self-imposed or by nature of a conference arrangement, are still commitments.
And in the case of UND, it arguably would be easier for them (as opposed to other schools) to pick up and leave the ACC since it doesn’t have the same attachment. UND did up and leave the Big East rather easily.
LikeLike
“Commitments, be they self-imposed or by nature of a conference arrangement, are still commitments.”
Yes, but one commitment it to all the members of a conference and the others are individual OOC.
“And in the case of UND, it arguably would be easier for them (as opposed to other schools) to pick up and leave the ACC…”
Apparently ND has a need for a conference greater than that for the arrangements with some former long standing opponents. Is USC a need greater than a conference? I don’t know. I’m not a Domer.
LikeLike
Also, in UND’s case, its not as if it kept its part of the bargain with the Big Ease for scheduling football games with BE schools. And it also has only 4 ACC games this year because it couldn’t get out of previously schedule games. So, for UND, conference arrangements have similar security as its annual opponents.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has way more games (all-time and consecutively) with Purdue than Stanford, and yet it was able quite easily to cease playing Purdue annually after joining the ACC.
So I do think there is a fairly substantial difference between pairwise scheduling agreements (even if long-standing) and the collective commitment of conference members to each other. Both are breakable, but the disruption of leaving or joining a conference is practically an order of magnitude greater than just altering a series with one opponent.
LikeLike
However, ND wanted to drop PU while they didn’t want to drop Stanford.
I mean, fine, if you dislike the word “commitment”, then call them “games that a school can’t or won’t drop”. These days, ND has 8 of those.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Notre Dame has way more games (all-time and consecutively) with Purdue than Stanford, and yet it was able quite easily to cease playing Purdue annually after joining the ACC.
So I do think there is a fairly substantial difference between pairwise scheduling agreements (even if long-standing) and the collective commitment of conference members to each other. Both are breakable, but the disruption of leaving or joining a conference is practically an order of magnitude greater than just altering a series with one opponent.”
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24571210/kelly-on-irish-scheduling-outside-of-acc-youre-really-limited
“Therefore it’s put us in a very difficult situation scheduling and unfortunately, it’s taken some of those schools like a Michigan or Michigan State off our schedule … [Navy, Stanford and USC] are not coming off and those are etched in stone. So now, add your ACC schools with those three schools and you’re really limited to where you can go.”
Yeah, I can’t imagine why people describe those games as a commitment.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is essentially a semi-independent in terms of football scheduling. Between the five ACC games, USC, Stanford and Navy, they have a de facto 8-game conference schedule now.
Couple that with their desire to have six home games, one neutral site game and one game on the West Coast annually, the scheduling flexibility ND has is essentially the same as any other major conference program.
The four “non-conference” games ND needs to schedule each season likely entails two home games, one away game and the neutral site contest. That essentially limits Notre Dame to two home-and-home contest outside of the eight games it has with the ACC programs, USC, Stanford and Navy.
The ND 2016 schedule is illustrative of just that. It includes at Texas (part of a home-and-home series) and homes games with Michigan State (also a home-and-home) and Nevada. The neutral site game is with Army in San Antonio.
LikeLike
Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the negotiations that led to Notre Dame’s ACC deal. It’s well known that some ACC schools wanted ND as either a full member or not at all. ND would surely have preferred to keep its traditional schedule. But the ACC felt it needed to bolster its line-up, and ND needed to get out of the cratering Big East, and this was the compromise.
I don’t see where the Irish had a realistic choice. They had to get out of the Big East, and the ACC wasn’t going to accept them without a substantial football commitment. It’s a bit odd to have Brian Kelly grousing publicly about something that now cannot be changed until at least the mid-2020s.
Notre Dame is essentially a semi-independent in terms of football scheduling. Between the five ACC games, USC, Stanford and Navy, they have a de facto 8-game conference schedule now.
It was like that before. Notre Dame had USC, Stanford, Navy, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, and Pitt as practically annual games. There was another cluster of very frequent, but not quite annual, opponents, such as BC, BYU, Army, Air Force. A number of other ACC teams were frequent guest stars on ND’s schedule: before the deal, they were playing 2-3 ACC teams a year.
LikeLike
That’s the thing that gets me about the Domers! They brag about being independent but, yet, you can count on 6/7 specific programs to appear on their schedule. The soap opera between them and Michigan. Their supposed allegiance to Navy. Their affinity with Pitt and BC. Just how “independent” has their independence really been?
I won’t even mention their mistreatment of several former Big East teams when they were in an association with them…oh, wait
LikeLike
In the 60s and 70s, their schedule regularly included 7 to 9 schools between Chicago and Boston. At that time, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan St., Navy and Pitt were pretty much every year. There were usually one or two other Big 10 schools + a few eastern schools like Army. And, of course, USC was every year.
LikeLike
That’s the thing that gets me about the Domers! They brag about being independent but, yet, you can count on 6/7 specific programs to appear on their schedule.
What upsets you about that? I think all independents have recurring opponents. Independence means that the team isn’t in a league, so each game (or series) is a separate agreement. The fact that certain teams appear repeatedly isn’t a bug; it’s a feature.
The soap opera between them and Michigan.
What soap opera? It’s mostly in the heads of Michigan fans, who have invented nefarious motives that, as far as I can tell, don’t exist.
Their supposed allegiance to Navy.
What’s “supposed” about it?
Their affinity with Pitt and BC.
Exactly what is wrong with playing like-minded opponents regularly?
Just how “independent” has their independence really been?
What’s independent about it, is that each pair of opponents is a separate agreement, without reference to anyone else. Compare this to life in the Big Ten, where the league office tells you what your schedule will be for 8-9 games out of the 12.
No one is telling Notre Dame to schedule USC every year. Both schools happen to find it useful, so it continues. In contrast, Michigan couldn’t just decide to replace Indiana with New Mexico State.
LikeLike
The Domers know that as long there are programs willing to play along to their games that they can just get away with anything. They’re not the only ones (Alabama does this same kind of crap, wanting “neutral” games OOC).
1. Created divisions within the old Big East (BC and SU, specifically, played to ND’s tune, which created pressure on RU and UConn to do the same [RU refused, UConn agreed])
2. Created the illusion among certain B1G fans that they’d eventually join (one of my few bugaboos I’ve had with the Big Ten, specifically Mich State and Purdue) when any reasonable person knows they won’t
They’ve recently pulled the crap by moving the Wake Forest game to next year.
I guess, in a way, I’m not as mad at them as I am with their enablers.
LikeLike
The Domers know that as long there are programs willing to play along to their games that they can just get away with anything. They’re not the only ones (Alabama does this same kind of crap, wanting “neutral” games OOC).
What exactly do they “get away with”, and what “crap” are you referring to? They make scheduling deals with willing partners who know exactly what they are getting. Teams want to schedule Notre Dame and Alabama, for entirely predictable reasons. It’s not their fault they’re popular.
1. Created divisions within the old Big East (BC and SU, specifically, played to ND’s tune, which created pressure on RU and UConn to do the same [RU refused, UConn agreed])
The Big East created those “divisions” all by themselves.
2. Created the illusion among certain B1G fans that they’d eventually join (one of my few bugaboos I’ve had with the Big Ten, specifically Mich State and Purdue) when any reasonable person knows they won’t.
So, Notre Dame is at fault for what delusional fans believe?
They’ve recently pulled the crap by moving the Wake Forest game to next year.
It amounts to the same thing. Instead of playing five ACC games both years, they’re playing four this year and six in 2015.
LikeLike
One of the “crap” things ND did was refusing to play at the campus stadium of one of the schools (Rutgers) from the conference you have an affiliation with, while at the same time you are playing at the much smaller campus stadiums of Boston College and Wake Forest.
LikeLike
Phil –
From what I understand, Rutgers’ on-campus facility, which was new at the time, was still a joke compared to the Meadowlands where ND had previously played Rutgers. UConn’s stadium is a joke compared to Foxboro, and Connecticut is approximately half Pats fans. They wanted them at home for selfish reason, and ND wanted to play in a place where they could be seen and actually make a good bit more $$$. If Rutgers and UConn want to blame someone, they should look to themselves.
My assumption is that the CSC would be willing to cut a break to the Jesuits at BC, and that Charlotte was not a financial viable option for WFU. That’s my best explanation there. I can see the NDPTB being less mercenary to fellow privates as opposed to state schools.
cutter –
My guess is when Dr. White said he would play three Big East schools he was thinking Pitt, BC, and a combination of WVA, Rutgers, and maybe Miami. I don’t think there was ever any intention of scheduling the like of U of L or Cincy (I don’t think South Florida was intended either, but stuff happens).
Kevin White was considered at the time to be the most pro-B1G person in the administration. Mostly because he was rather iconoclastic in monetizing the football team and was considered a kind of lazy scheduler. The general consensus of the student body was that he would happily sell out tradition for a couple mil and to make his own job easier.
Llloyd Carr never mentioned anything about a gentleman’s agreement until all of the ADs who made that deal were gone, IIRC. I’m not saying he’s lying, but I think he’s mistaken or misinterpreting it for his own benefit.
It’s been my experience that when veteran admins ignore professional courtesy, it’s on purpose and for a reason.
LikeLike
“From what I understand, Rutgers’ on-campus facility, which was new at the time, was still a joke compared to the Meadowlands where ND had previously played Rutgers.”
Actually, Notre Dame has never played Rutgers at the Meadowlands.
Your attempt at rationalizing a need for a Rutgers-ND game to be at Met-Life because of stadium size falls apart when one realizes that MetLife is as far from Rutgers as Gillette is from BC, yet ND plays on campus at BC in their on-campus (10,000 seats smaller than RU) stadium.
Also, your “there never was any intention of scheduling the likes of” is belied by the press from when the “agreement was announced:
//Notre Dame, Big East agree to series of football games
By Mathew Keller
FOR THE TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Notre Dame and the Big East have agreed to a series of games starting in 2009.
The Irish, a member of the Big East in all sports except football, will play three Big East teams each football season on a home-and-home basis. All eight conference teams will face the Irish. //
ND made no attempt to accommodate Big East teams that didn’t bend over for them.
LikeLike
I must have been thinking of Navy. My bad.
ND did play @Rutgers in 2000. Must not have worked out for ND financially. Like I said previously, I think the CSC gives the BC SJ a break.
My point is that Rutgers and UCONN were frankly looking a gift horse in the mouth. If they did not want the NDAD’s charity, they should not feel bad about ND walking away.
I didn;t see that article, but I did see an article from the Charleston daily mail talking about a home, away, neutral site (Meadowlands) from that time, and it noted that discussions with RU, UCONN, CINCY, and USF were ongoing. I don’t know if the deals were ever really released, but I don’t remember anyone getting worked up about it on the internet like they do about the ACC deal. If ND was going to have to play on campus with a school without dorms, I think there would have been some consternation.
LikeLike
My point is that Rutgers and UCONN were frankly looking a gift horse in the mouth. If they did not want the NDAD’s charity, they should not feel bad about ND walking away.
That’s complete crap and you know it.
ND didn’t agree to play those games as a favor to the Big East; they agreed to do it in exchange for the conference continuing to host the Irish’s non-FB sports.
Don’t get me wrong, from a business perspective it made sense to make the deal and even more sense to break it after it became clear the Big East wasn’t willing to actually sanction ND for non-compliance, but try and rationalize what really happened; ND lied and screwed over the Big East football schools in the process.
LikeLike
I don’t know if the deals were ever really released, but I don’t remember anyone getting worked up about it on the internet like they do about the ACC deal. If ND was going to have to play on campus with a school without dorms, I think there would have been some consternation.
Nope. Nothing unusual. Just Domers being Domers.
LikeLike
School without dorms?
And yeah, not arrogant at all.
LikeLike
Sorry, frug, but it was always described as a favor. ND was not going to get tossed when half the league was non-football at the DI level, and the football teams were in no position to threaten, what with ND almost going to the B1G a few years before. No one outside CUSA or possibly Nova were potential invites for the BE at the time.
LikeLike
the football teams were in no position to threaten, what with ND almost going to the B1G a few years before.
No one outside CUSA or possibly Nova were potential invites for the BE at the time.
Why would the Big East FB schools possibly need to replace ND? Without the promised 3 FB games a year the Irish didn’t bring anything of value to conference anyways.
LikeLike
I think the Domer fan should be looking for what is coming out of ACC land in the next few years. Already there’s been an article appearing in SouthernPigskin.com calling for ND to join in full.
http://www.southernpigskin.com/acc/time-for-notre-dame-to-get-on-board/
The main argument, according to the piece, is that there was once vehement opposition on the part of ND to participating in bowls until the 1970s and then that opposition wilted away over time. So, the argument goes, they’ll eventually get used to watching ND football with a full ACC schedule.
LikeLike
@Transic – That writer either has (a) no clue about Domers whatsoever or (b) engaged in wishful thinking/justifications/rationalizations of an ACC fan in the same way that he criticized Big Ten people for doing the same.
LikeLike
Should Notre Dame Be a Full-Time ACC Member?
http://www.faniq.com/blog/Notre-Dame-Football-Should-the-Irish-Join-the-ACC-as-a-FullTime-Football-Member-Blog-76568
LikeLike
I, and most ND folk I know, are more concerned with the NDS surface change, and the subsequent turf sale, than the opinions of the average ACC blogger. Actually, the surface fracas is taking up way more headspace than the loss of the MSU series, but I think that’s more to do with trying to see which way the winds of change are blowing under the Dome than anything else. That and the loss of the games with Sparty are obviously casualties of the 9 game conference schedule and the need for 7 home games for both sides (actually 6&1 for ND, but I digress).
The articles are amusing, I suppose. JonWitte is not the first to tell us how ‘great’ conference championships are…but it is rather funny to hear it in re the ACC given their CCG attendance woes. Mr. Shoor’s history leaves out that the original anti-bowl crowd was not the fans/alumni but the administration who was trying very hard after the 1925 Rose Bowl championship not to appear to be a football factory. When the AP poll went after the bowls in ’68, Bowls became in the eyes of the NDPTB to be a necessary evil to win a National Championship.
He is right that Tom Dienhart’s BTN article reeked of sour grapes. They should have been embarrassed to run it.
LikeLike
Marc-
I think the difference between what you describe and what I point out is that Notre Dame didn’t have any long-term agreements with any conference to play X amount of football games with their teams. If I recall correctly, the deal between ND and the ACC extends into the late-2020s.
I know that former ND AD Kevin White talked about playing three Big East teams per year at one time, but looking at past schedules, that never actually took place. In the end, of course, when the BE began disintegrating, Notre Dame opted to join the ACC with the agreement that the ND football team would play five games a year with teams from the conference.
IRT to the Michigan-Notre Dame scheduling situation, that’s been pretty well documented in John Kryk’s “Natural Enemies: Major College Football’s Oldest, Fiercest Rivalry–Michigan vs. Notre Dame”.
When UM and ND made the decision to play one another back in 1970 (the first game would be played in South Bend in 1978), Michigan made it pretty clear they wanted to have it as the season opener or barring that, UM wanted to make sure that each team had at least one game in hand before playing one another.
That was working out fairly well until Holtz took over at ND. The Irish began scheduling tune up games before what was supposed to be the mutual season opener for both teams. Michigan then did two things–move games in front of the annual matchup with ND (which wasn’t a 100% successful in the early 1990s) and have another sit down with ND to clear matters up (and if Schembechler was still AD at the time, he said he would have cancelled the series right then).
That meeting between the two athletic directors at the time had the programs opening the season with one another in 1998 and 1999. ND won the 1998 contest pretty convincingly in 1998 in South Bend, but then opted to play in one of the kickoff classics in 1999 immediately prior to the Michigan game that was going to be played in Ann Arbor. If you might recall, Lloyd Carr stated publicly that Notre Dame had broken a “gentleman’s agreement” prior to that 1999 UM-ND contest, but he didn’t elaborate on any details.
In 2006, I attended a fantasy football event at Michigan that was part of a cancer research fund raiser and asked Carr about the “gentleman’s agreement” comment. He said that it was based on the events I described above, i.e., the meeting that had taken place between the two ADs in 1993. Carr was in complete agreement that college football teams improve the most between their first and second games, so he knew that ND was stealing a march on him. Did ND do anything illegal? No, they had every right to schedule that kickoff classic game. But Carr opted at that point that Michigan would never again try to schedule Notre Dame as their season opener.
The other things that Michigan fans cite about Notre Dame was the timing and the method of cancellation of the series a couple of years ago. ND joined the ACC ten days prior to cancelling the UM series outright. While I realize it was a short window for ND, Irish AD Jack Swarbrick didn’t exactly extend Michigan any professional courtesy by giving UM AD David Brandon a phone call, etc.prior to handing him a letter right before the 2012 UM-ND game in South Bend ending the series.. In fact, Brandon didn’t even realize that the 2012 game would be considered one of the three required by the agreement to cancel the series until he was headed back to Ann Arbor.
I think what tickles UM fans and alums like myself about Kelly’s lament about not being able to play Michigan State or Michigan (especially since he also called UM-ND a “great regional rivalry” at one time as a defense for cancelling the series) is that there’s a certain element of backtracking and irony about it.
The other thing about this is that if Swarbrick had approached Brandon about this differently, the UM-ND games could have continued in some form. It may not have been the annual contest that it had been since 1978 (although there were a couple of two year breaks in it so ND could play Ohio State and Nebraska home-and-home), but they could have set up something whereby the two teams would play one another perhaps four times over a ten-year period or two times or an eight-year span. But given the way Swarbrick handled this a couple years ago, I don’t think that’s going to happen as long as Brandon is AD. Something tells me that he was “in the know” when Michigan played the “Chicken Dance” on the public address system at UM Stadium after beating ND last year in Ann Arbor 41-30.
LikeLike
I do vaguely recall the controversy over whether there was an agreement that the two schools would be each other’s first opponents of the season. But by the time ND joined the ACC, that was long since over with.
Despite being a Michigan fan, I understand the bind ND was in. They had to get out of the cratering Big East. There were factions in the ACC that did not want anything to do with a partial member, whereas I’m sure ND would have preferred to retain its traditional independence. The five-game commitment was a compromise, and Swarbrick had 10 days to figure out what to do.
As I gather, the provision that either side could cancel without penalty on three games’ notice was a unique feature of their deal with Michigan. Ironically, it was Michigan that had, at one time, requested this. (Most football scheduling deals have financial penalties to cancel, given that you cannot ordinarily find an opponent of ND’s or Michigan’s caliber on just three years’ notice.)
Brandon has made clear that he didn’t appreciate the way Swarbrick handed him a letter on the sideline, just before kickoff. But the fact is, a friendly phone call a few days earlier would have made no substantive difference. The issue, assuming there is one, is of form, not substance.
Some Michigan fans have also complained that Notre Dame had the first home game when the modern series resumed in 1978, and they are now also getting the last home game. To me, that seems like random timing. I don’t think Swarbrick plotted with evil intent to join the ACC at the precise moment that would give him an extra home game.
Michigan has had trouble finding marquee non-conference opponents who will agree to a home & home. So far, they’ve lined up Utah, Arkansas, Virginia Tech, and UCLA, none of which have Notre Dame’s cachet. The bet here is that if Swarbrick wants to patch things up, Brandon will listen.
But their next deal won’t be cancellable on three years’ notice without a buyout. I also think Notre Dame would need to visit Michigan in even-numbered years, i.e., the years that Michigan has both OSU and MSU on the road.
LikeLike
Marc-
I agree with you that any question about the two schools opening up the season with one another was answered in 1999. When I talked to Carr, he clearly felt that Notre Dame had undercut Michigan that year by scheduling what was essentially a warm up game. Bear in mind that this was the second year of the BCS, and the first season had an undefeated Tennessee play a one loss Florida State (FSU lost the second game of the season to NC State). With the post-season stakes now changed, winning the non-conference games became even more important.
I have every sympathy for Notre Dame’s situation given the BIg East’s collapse. They went for the best available circumstances given what had transpired by joining the ACC. I don’t believe they had just ten days to figure out what they were going to do with their schedule though–this deal wasn’t made overnight.
I agree with you that a phone call may not have made a substantive difference, but giving a head’s up would have been a very basic professional courtesy. The presentation of the letter in the manner Swarbrick did it pretty much precluded any opportunity for the two schools to modify the series in such a way that both schools could play one another in the near future. Given Kelly’s comments about how he and Swarbrick include Michigan in their discussions about non-ACC/traditional opponents in the years to come, it now seems a rather short-sighted way for Notre Dame to go about the matter.
As a Michgian fans and alum, I really don’t care if UM has the last game or not. I do realize that perturbs some of the fanbase, but why cry over spilt milk? The best answer to that is beat them in South Bend next September.
Keep in mind that the Arkansas and Utah games were schedule prior to the breakup with Notre Dame. MIchigan asked for the two year break from the ND series a few years ago to play the Razorbacks because their AD Jeff Long as ties to Ann Arbor. The games with Utah came about due to the short-lived Big Ten/Pac 12 scheduling alliance. I do agree with you that VIrginia Tech and UCLA are replacements for the hole in the schedule with ND. I’d expand on that by saying that Brigham Young in 2015 and Florida (neutral site) in 2017 are also replacements for the Irish falling off the schedule. The latter two are clearly not home-and-home arrangements, but they’re perhaps the best UM could do given the time frame. It’ll be interesting to see what Michigan has line up post 2023 when the home-and-home with UCLA is completed.
I don’t know if Brandon would be willing to patch things up with Swarbrick. I’m going to see him at a charity event in a few weeks and I was planning to ask him what happened, etc. We’ll see what he says.
I imagine that Brandon would have been perfectly happy with the series continuing. I know he wasn’t happy with the BIg Ten Conference shortly after the first expansion by putting Nebraska and Ohio State on the same home/away schedule rotation as Notre Dame. The irony of all this was that given the second Big Ten expansion and the shakeup of the conference schedule, the ND series’ timing would have fit perfectly with the four/five home/road game conference split that starts in 2016. UM would have had PSU and ND at home/on the road opposite of OSU and MSU.
As you know, the two Under the Lights games were wildly successful beyond the final score. There were record crowds, lots of hype, special halftime shows, the un-retiring of Harmon’s jersey, etc.–all the things Brandon wants to bring to Michigan football. Michigan will play Penn State at night this year–we’ll see if he’s able to recreate that atmosphere in Ann Arbor for that game.
LikeLike
Some more details on the budding ACC-SEC scheduling arrangement:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24569881/informal-acc-sec-scheduling-pact-taking-shape
LikeLike
Maryland, in the ACC baseball tournament for the first time since 2005 (and, as the sixth seed, not needing to play a win-or-go-home qualifying game), probably assured itself an NCAA tourney bid today with a 7-6 victory over Virginia, ranked third nationally. (The Terps and Cavs didn’t face each other during the regular season.) Maryland plays Florida State tomorrow and North Carolina Saturday, with a chance to qualify for Sunday’s championship game against the winner of the other pool (Miami, Duke, Clemson. Georgia Tech).
LikeLike
Update on UMass:
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=10445
Also in that article, a claim that the AAC would like Army as a #13, and that the AAC would love BYU if it needed a home.
LikeLike
I don’t see the AAC luring BYU from the ranks of independence. The Big XII might, but not the American, with its mediocre set of schools. BYU is doing fine as a football independent, and for their olympic sports the West Coast Conference is a much better home (geographically) than the American.
Army’s problem is that it has struggled to field a competitive football program. It needs a very carefully massaged schedule to have a shot at a respectable record. I think even Navy, which is traditionally the stronger of the two, may struggle in the AAC.
LikeLike
I dont see BYU to the AAC either, unless they really have no other option.
I see why AAC would want Army (name brand of a different sort), but I also agree that Army would probably not want to more elevated schedule the AAC would mean. Army’s schedules nowadays are very weak,and they still cant win.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24569993/american-athletic-conference-considers-division-alignment
The AAC will look at divisional alignment next week.
The American plans to go to six-team divisions in 2015 when Navy joins as a football-only member. The plan is to stage a conference championship game at a host school.
For now, the American is settled at eight conference games. It’s looking at either a 5-3 scheduling model (five division opponents, three cross-division opponents) or a 5-2-1 model (five division, two cross-division, one permanent cross-division). Having a permanent opponent would likely be needed if UCF and USF are in opposite divisions.
…
Aresco said both scheduling models break down by east-west geography for divisions. The conference’s teams in 2015 are: UCF, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Houston, Memphis, South Florida, SMU, Temple, East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa and Navy. That’s seven schools in the Eastern time zone.
…
If the NCAA allows championship games without divisions, “we would at least look at that,” Aresco said. “You could have the issue of a rematch and not be an ideal scenario. If the NCAA changes don’t happen, we’re going to move ahead with our plan for divisions.”
My suggestion:
E – UCF, USF, UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy
W – SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UC
Play a 5-3 schedule. It gives them pairs of “rivals” in each division as well as giving every school FL or TX access in division. It makes sense geographically, too.
LikeLike
“My suggestion:
E – UCF, USF, UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy
W – SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UC”
I wouldn’t be shocked if they switched UCF/USF with Cincy in order to give each school a guaranteed Florida opponent annually. Still doable with geographic-based divisions. Much harder to do with the Texas schools and have geographic divisions.
LikeLike
They don’t all need FL access annually. The West gets a guaranteed game in TX every year, the East gets a game in FL.
They could swap Navy and UC since Navy’s fan base is more national, but that’s a lot of travel for them.
LikeLike
“They don’t all need FL access annually. The West gets a guaranteed game in TX every year, the East gets a game in FL.”
I understand the logic, I just wouldn’t be shocked if the Florida schools are split. Could be from a desire to get every school a Florida opponent (and some guaranteed big market Texas/Florida games for TV) and allowing Cincy to be in the east (less travel on balance).
“They could swap Navy and UC since Navy’s fan base is more national, but that’s a lot of travel for them.”
Way too much travel for Navy in that scenario
LikeLike
Unless they also split the TX schools, one division would really get the short end of the stick by splitting the FL schools. Besides, that would also force them to lock rivalries rather than play a 5-3 schedule.
Scheduling:
The keys to my divisions:
1. No rivalries are split, meaning no locked crossover games are needed.
2. There are natural pairs of schools that will allow for zippering in the crossover schedule.
E – UCF, USF, UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy
W – SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis, UC
Each team in the West plays one each of UCF/USF, UConn/Temple and ECU/Navy.
Each team in the East plays one each of UH/SMU, Tulsa/Tulane and UC/Memphis.
Everyone plays a team from every region of the conference every year. Everyone is guaranteed a game in TX or in FL annually, plus a game biannually in the other.
Splitting the FL schools makes that much uglier.
LikeLike
“Unless they also split the TX schools, one division would really get the short end of the stick by splitting the FL schools”
That’s the geography and the conference composition.
Your proposal is very reasonable. I just wouldnt be shocked if they split the Florida schools as I outlined.
LikeLike
Maurice Clarett spoke at an OSU alumni club meeting in Phoenix.
jbook™ @jbook37 19h
Clarett said ESPN 1st approached him about doing a bash Ohio State film before he did the 30 for 30. He told them to get lost.
It’s stuff like this that drives OSU fans to hate ESPN.
LikeLike
Brian,
It is just my opinion, but I believe that E*PN has a tendency to be negative towards ALL things Big Ten… I recall the recent Frozen Four– even with Minnesota’s great hockey history, seemed that all things were BC, or the upstart “David” in Union College.
That is just one example that most recently comes to my mind—but, generally seems that B1G teams are an afterthought—unless it is something negative to report.
Of course, with LHN, SEC network, and ties to ACC, seems logical that they would push their closer ties first—but, does get very old… Sucks that I automatically donate to their bottom line even though I don’t spend a lot of time viewing their programming… (unless it’s Minnesota being broadcast on their channel(s))… This is a good example of where I would be willing to pay “a la carte”—pay for what I actually watch…
LikeLike
It is just my opinion, but I believe that E*PN has a tendency to be negative towards ALL things Big Ten
@mnfanstc – SEC, ACC, PAC12, Big 12, and G5 fans all say that ESPN does same thing to them. ESPN’s job isn’t to be a cheer leader for anyone, it is to drive ratings. Union being in the final wasn’t going to do that, so they had to do whatever they could to get casual NCAA hockey fans (like me) to watch. Getting Maurice Clarett to bash OSU would have given ESPN enough content for all of their shows they might not have to mention Tebow for a few weeks.
LikeLike
They want to drive ratings for schools that they are partners with that increase the value of ESPN. It can’t be more obvious.
LikeLike
@Kevin – Isn’t the Big Ten one of ESPN’s partners? They just aren’t throwing a billion+ dollars (over 10 years) at the Big Ten for charity.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/ohio-state-football/2014/05/35961/braxton-miller-couldnt-start-sec-or-pac-12#
There’s also stuff like this, where one of their talking heads says Braxton Miller couldn’t start for any Pac-12 team nor a good SEC team. I’m not saying Miller is the greatest QB ever, but he is the 2-time defending B10 player of the year and about to become a 4 year starter. And by ESPN’s own made up QB stat (QBR) he outperformed many of those QBs Cunningham said he couldn’t replace (Miller was 13th nationally, and remember he missed some cupcake games due to injury).
LikeLike
This is why I dislike “Embrace the Debate” ESPN. We all know that Cunningham’s claim isn’t true, but he sure got Buckeyes talking. Hopefully Ed doesn’t take anymore notes from Skip Bayless.
LikeLike
I’m a bit surprised.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/sports/soccer/donovan-cut-from-us-world-cup-team.html?_r=0&referrer=
LikeLike
Klinsmann doesn’t like him.
Still, to anyone following the national team closely, Donovan’s exclusion did not come as a great surprise, whether one agreed or disagreed with the decision.
Klinsmann had openly questioned whether Donovan’s desire, commitment and skill had ebbed to the point that less-experienced forwards like Chris Wondolowski and Aron Johannsson deserved instead to be named to the World Cup team along with Jozy Altidore and Clint Dempsey.
…
He had also come to view Donovan as a forward, no longer as an attacking midfielder, a role in which Donovan was often menacing as he splayed the middle of a defense or raced down the flank.
…
Donovan did not endear himself to Klinsmann by taking a self-imposed four-month sabbatical from soccer in December 2012. He returned and played superbly in the 2013 Gold Cup last summer, but he was relegated to reserve duty last month for a friendly against Mexico. At the time, Klinsmann said that Donovan lacked speed and insistence in training, hampered by a balky knee. He also appeared heavier than in the past.
Donovan did not have an auspicious start to the current M.L.S. season. Klinsmann also appeared concerned that Donovan lacked motivation and was too willing to accept a lesser role on the national team. As Ridge Mahoney of Soccer America has pointed out, Klinsmann, a native of Germany, has also questioned Donovan’s toughness, especially after his inconsequential stints in the Bundesliga.
Still, Donovan’s presence has always brought reassurance to the national team, not to mention five goals by him in the World Cup.
His absence could add more vulnerability to a fragile team that has historically struggled to score in the tournament. No United States forward has delivered a goal in the World Cup since 2002.
Recently, goalkeeper Tim Howard predicted that Donovan would be a key to the United States’ chances in a difficult World Cup group with Ghana, Portugal and Germany.
“If Landon is on the field, he’s our top one or two players,” Howard told reporters.
Smart move dropping the only player many Americans have ever heard of. What we really need is a coach who can develop an offense.
LikeLike
Hard for national team coaches to develop anything. They only get players for several weeks out of a year.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/95261/by-the-numbers-nonconference-scheduling
A look at OOC scheduling versus Power 5 teams for the ACC.
In fact, going back five years to the 2009 season, the numbers are pretty bleak.
The 11 current ACC members who have been a part of the conference since 2009 have played a total of 73 regular-season, nonconference games against Power 5 teams. Their combined record is a dismal 22-51 (.301).
Here’s how bad it actually is:
• Three of those 22 wins actually came against Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville when those programs were not part of the ACC.
• Seven more wins came against Vandy, Kansas, Rutgers and Indiana — hardly traditional powers despite their conference affiliations.
• No ACC team has a winning record in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 teams during that span. The team that has performed the best during that stretch is North Carolina, which is 3-3.
…
The number of games played by ACC teams against nonconference Power 5 opponents in the regular season since 2009:
Team No. of Games
Clemson 10
Wake Forest 10
Georgia Tech 9
Boston College 8
Florida State 7
Virginia 7
Miami 6
North Carolina 6
Duke 4
NC State 3
Virginia Tech 3
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/10967581/chicago-cubs-owner-tom-ricketts-opts-return-original-wrigley-field-renovation-plan
How much can the Cubs improve Wrigley? Greedy people won’t compromise, so it’s headed to court.
LikeLike
@Brian – I’m not even a Cubs fan (White Sox all the way), but I support Tom Ricketts 100% on this. The fact that the Cubs haven’t been able to break ground on renovations that should have started several years ago because of a combination of Chicago aldermanic cronyism, rooftop owners that are profiting off of a product that isn’t theirs, and local NIMBYs that complain about traffic after willingly buying million dollar homes a couple of blocks away from a 40,000-seat ballpark that has been there for the past 100 years is absolutely ridiculous. I hope that the Cubs steamroll all of them. They should be able to do with they want with their property that draws 3 million people into the city every year for games (plus spurring the bar and nightlife economy in the Wrigleyvile neighborhood), particularly when they’re actually paying for it themselves (as opposed to other teams that have held their home cities hostage for public financing).
LikeLike
I’m with you. The greedy people I was referring to were those other people who profit from the Cubs. Of course it wouldn’t be such a problem if Ricketts hadn’t sign a contract with them that’s good into the 2020s.
LikeLike
The Bears, Blackhawks, Bulls, and White Sox all, directly or indirectly, received public assistance for new stadiums because they knew who to had to be paid off and how to do it with out getting caught. But the Cubs are as inept at politics (remember Joe Ricketts’ anti-Obama ad in 2012?) as they are on the field. They want to spend their own money improving their own property? Don’t they know by now that nothing gets done in Chicago unless there is something in it for those with clout? I wonder what Mike Royko would have to say about all of this.
LikeLike
rooftop owners that are profiting off of a product that isn’t theirs,
I’ll give you the others, but Ricketts signed a deal with the rooftop owners, so it’s hard to fault them for fighting.
LikeLike
The country lives vicariously through those rooftop fans. When I visualize Wriggly Field I see them in the background.
LikeLike
Also, on the topic of the aldermen, it is worth remembering that Rickett’s dad made created problems for the entire Rickett’s clan in Chicago with his attempt to sabotage the Democratic National Convention in 2012. He was even warned in advance that it would make Tom’s attempts to purchase the Cubs and renovate Wrigley more difficult.
LikeLike
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/22/nfl-likely-to-add-two-more-teams-to-playoffs-for-2015-season/?cmpid=sem_fkfn
Since the NFL playoffs are too restrictive, they want to add 2 more teams by 2015. That would make 14 of 32 teams making the playoff, with a 7-9 team being quite possible to make it.
LikeLike
Mimicing the NBA.
LikeLike
One reason is to make up for the revenue they can’t get by expanding to 18 games since the NFLPA won’t agree.
LikeLike
14/32 would be a similar percentage as 12/28, which it was from 1990-1995.
LikeLike
Which was stupid, too.
LikeLike
Then again, expanding the playoffs has another consideration: the playoff share for players is a fraction of the weekly salary, which is paid only during the 17 week regular season. Increasing the size of the playoffs is pure profit for the owners, and they keep much more of the pie. See: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24396663/agents-take-a-guide-to-nfl-postseason-pay
To increase the size of the playoffs,which requires player approval, I don’t see why the players wouldn’t hold out for a bigger playoff share per player, something approaching regular season game checks..
LikeLike
The way I remember the recent NFL-NFLPA agreement is that any additional revenue generated by an increase in the number of post-season games is ‘shared revenue’ and thus will get factored into salary cap calculations.
Regarding the 18 game schedule, I remember reading an article (no link) suggesting that, as a compromise, the union might permit the NFL to add a 17th game for every team to be played either in LA or London, giving both cities a full 8 game ‘home’ slate. This would allow the NFL to build (and thus control) a stadium in LA and test if a London team is financially viable. Not going to happen but an interesting idea nonetheless.
LikeLike
Shared revenue though just affects profit sharing. The playoff share is separate.
LikeLike
No, it isn’t. See http://www.sebusinessjournal.com/2012/10/02/nfl-salary-cap/ or http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf
LikeLike
The playoff share is the reduced salary received per playoff game. That would not change, regardless of the increased revenue generated by the additional post-season games. They are, indeed, separate.
LikeLike
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/05/22/3440404/50-us-senators-demand-change-to-redskins-name-in-letter-to-nfl/
The senate really thinks Daniel Snyder should rename his team.
Fifty United States Senators have called for a change to change the name of the Washington Redskins in a letter to National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell released Thursday. The letter, first reported by the New York Times, cites the NBA’s swift action against the racism of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and asks Goodell and the NFL to take similar action against a name Native American activists call a “dictionary-defined slur.”
…
“Today, we urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports. It’s time for the NFL to endorse a name change for the Washington, D.C. football team,” the letter states.
“Now is the time for the NFL to act,” it continues. “What message does it send to punish slurs against African Americans while endorsing slurs against Native Americans?”
Only five Democrats — Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor — did not sign the letter. Kaine and Warner’s absences are notable, as both represent the state in which the team is based.
The 50 signatures mean that a majority of the U.S. Senate has now spoken out against the name. Arizona Sen. John McCain (R) did not sign the letter, which the Times said was not circulated among Republicans, but challenged its continued use in the wake of the Sterling ban. “If they think it’s that offensive and terrible, I would certainly — probably — I’m not the owner and he has the rights of an owner. But frankly I would probably change the name,” McCain said during an appearance on The Dan Patrick Show earlier this month. “Myself I’m not offended. You’re not offended. But there are Native Americans who are.”
This is the third letter from Senate and congressional leaders to the NFL in the last year. Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Betty McCollum (D-MN), co-chairs of the Congressional Native American Caucus, and eight other members of Congress sent a letter demanding a change to the NFL in May 2013. Cole and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the former chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, sent a similar letter to the league in February. President Obama is on record saying he would consider changing the team’s name, and other congressional leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have called on the team to drop the name.
The Oneida Indian Nation of New York, which has led a public campaign against the name since the beginning of the 2013 NFL season and National Congress of American Indians, which has opposed the name for more than 50 years, “applauded” the letter in a statement.
“The name of Washington’s NFL team is widely recognized as a racial slur,” NCAI executive director Jackie Plata said in the statement. “The NFL is a global brand, but if it wants to contribute to the positive image of the United States across the world, rather than callously promoting discrimination against Native Americans, then it must stop promoting this slur and finally change the name.”
“The R-word is a dictionary defined racial slur, which likely explains why avowed segregationist George Preston Marshall decided to use the term as the team’s name,” Oneida representative Ray Halbritter said. “Continuing an infamous segregationist’s legacy by promoting such a slur is not an honor, as Mr. Snyder and Mr. Goodell claim. It is a malicious insult. That is why leaders in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the White House, and at all levels of government across the country are uniting in opposition to this offensive and hurtful name.”
If that many Native Americans are against it, then Snyder really should rethink his position. I understand not wanting to lose brand value, but there are limits.
LikeLike
Its really not much different than if it were the Washington N words.
A lot of this political correctness runs amuk like Marquette changing their name from the Warriors. But Redskins is clearly offensive and a slur.
The NFL would do the same thing in a heartbeat if they had a Donald Sterling. But they won’t do anything about a formal league sanctioned slur against American Indians.
LikeLike
Agreed. I continue to hold out hope that eventually Snyder will decide to keep the logo and colors and change the name to something a little less offensive (Washington Warriors?) as a compromise.
LikeLike
They won’t do anything about it because they own the trademark and the vast majority of people are ambivalent about it, including most Native Americans.
LikeLike
Pigskins would be a perfect new name.
LikeLike
How about the Washington Pork?
Since the team’s offensive line was known as the Hogs in the 80s, this would be a nice nod to tradition as well.
LikeLike
Pigskins would require very little change. “Hail to the Pigskins” works. ‘Skins nickname works. Same colors, just swap out the Indian for a football. Heck, can even modify the Arrow logo to be a really long and narrow football if you get creative.
Another great suggestion I once heard was to keep the name and change the logo to a potato.
LikeLike
I never thought of the name being offensive although I am sure some do. If you research the history of the organization the team was the Boston Braves and then upon their move to Washington they changed to Redskins to honor a coach who was a relatiive of the Sioux tribe.
I would imagine Synder would like to ride it out as public outcry seems to be cyclical and not constant. This may go away for a decade or more etc…
There is too much political correctness and its a shame that many High Schools can no longer be the “Indians” etc…. Is Cleveland or Atlanta at risk too? Schools and teams pick mascots as sense of pride and to honor. I don’t know of any to suggest differently. Some of the animal mascots are somewhat goofy. Golden Gopher, WTF?
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I never thought of the name being offensive although I am sure some do.”
It’s literally defined as offensive by dictionaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
“Redskin” is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,[1] the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as “usually offensive”,[2] “disparaging”,[3][4] “insulting”,[5] “taboo” [6] and is avoided in public usage with the exception of its continued use as a name for sports teams.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“If you research the history of the organization the team was the Boston Braves and then upon their move to Washington they changed to Redskins to honor a coach who was a relatiive of the Sioux tribe.”
Umm, that’s not what I’ve read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins
The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team’s name to the Boston Redskins. The Redskins relocated to Washington, D.C. in 1937.
I’m not discounting the coach part of your story, but the team was still in Boston and had to change their name since they left the Boston Braves’ (baseball) home field for the Red Sox’s home field. Also, there is dispute over whether that coach was actually part Sioux or just claimed that.
And remember, this is the same franchise that had to be forced to integrate by the federal government. They were the last NFL team to integrate, and it only happened because their stadium was owned by the federal government. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt.
“There is too much political correctness and its a shame that many High Schools can no longer be the “Indians” etc…. ”
Says the non-Native American. If white southerners had their way, some of the team names in the south would be interesting, too. That doesn’t make it right.
“Is Cleveland or Atlanta at risk too?”
Indians and Braves are seen as more neutral terms. Chief Wahoo should go. The Braves don’t use a face or human mascot. They could feel free to drop the tomahawk chop, but that’s more from its annoyance factor.
“Schools and teams pick mascots as sense of pride and to honor.”
That’s great. It doesn’t make their choices appropriate.
“Some of the animal mascots are somewhat goofy. Golden Gopher, WTF?”
Goofy and racist are not even remotely similar.
LikeLike
“Redskin” is a racial descriptor of disputed origin for Native Americans. Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,
People need to get a grip on this stuff. I am part Menominee and am the least bit offended. I also went to graduate school at Marquette and had to suffer through the Warrior name change and for a brief time the “Gold”.
In a recent 2014 poll nearly 80% believe Synder should not change the name of his team. I believe he isn’t changing the name unless the NFL and the other owners compensate him for the potential loss in brand value.
LikeLike
But do you consider yourself “Native American?” I’m about 1/6th Native American but don’t consider myself “Native American.” I’m not personally offended. But its an offensive term and many are offended.
There’s a big difference between Redskin and Indian as there is between “Chink” and Chinese or the “N word” and Black. It clearly crosses the line.
LikeLike
As for the poll, American Indians just don’t have as good a lobby. In one of my kid’s elementary history book in the western era, they went on and on about discrimination against Chinese railroad workers, Hispanic cowboys and Black farmers but only mentioned briefly the extermination campaign against the Indians. Buffalo were wiped out by “loss of habitat” instead of the reality that they were almost hunted to extinction in a deliberate policy designed to starve the plains Indians onto the reservation. There was as much on discrimination as there was on the rest of the history. Yet the Indians didn’t get much attention.
They’re 1% of the population so they get ignored by the 80%.
LikeLike
“…but only mentioned briefly the extermination campaign against the Indians.”
The most egregious assault, among many, was the intentional shipping of measles and TB infected blankets to trading posts. True biological warfare.
LikeLike
Kevin,
“Although by some accounts not originally having negative intent,”
While great that it wasn’t pejorative 200 years ago, that’s irrelevant to today’s world. The word was a pejorative term before the team was named that.
“I am part Menominee and am the least bit offended.”
So if I can find one person that doesn’t object to any ethnic slur, I can name a team that and be OK?
“In a recent 2014 poll nearly 80% believe Synder should not change the name of his team.”
A poll of whom? Redskin fans? White people? The fly diet argument is silly. Being popular doesn’t make something right.
LikeLike
“The most egregious assault, among many, was the intentional shipping of measles and TB infected blankets to trading posts. True biological warfare.”
—Except that it never happened.
LikeLike
“Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst’s name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman’s Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac’s forces during the summer of 1763:
… Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort — an early example of biological warfare — which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic.”
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html
“The above paraphrased quote from William Trent’s Journal has been taken as the major evidence for using smallpox blankets…but…the full quote by Trent is subject to a different interpretation.
“[May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as [at] Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of.”
Yes, there is not a lot of documentation, but there is knowledge and it is a stretch to think an unofficial use would have occurred off and on, and that only a few exposures would have devastating effect.
LikeLike
“Yes, there is not a lot of documentation, but there is knowledge and it is a stretch to think an unofficial use would have occurred off and on, and that only a few exposures would have devastating effect.”
—-By ‘not a lot’ you mean that you just quoted the sum total of said documentation.
Not only is there is doubt as to whether Amherst’s suggestions was ever carried out but there is also some as to whether Captain Ecuyer’s goal was to infect Fort Pitt’s besiegers with smallpox. The presentation of the blankets & the handkerchief as gifts to help persuade the Indians to lift the siege. It is possible that was the ‘desired effect’ referred to by Ecuyer as it was prefaced with “out of our regard for them”. His true intent is certainly open for debate but the bottom line is that we don’t know for certain. Whether it was intentional or not it’s unlikely that it was successful as the Indians in the delegation did not contract the disease (they were in contact with the Fort more than a month later).
Of course the quoted events took place during Pontiac’s War in which both sides were particularly brutal. The Indians fighting on the French side regularly massacred entire communities men, women & children. They also carried out their own form of biological warfare by fouling wells with animal carcasses.
Note that the incident at Fort Pitt was carried out by the British prior to the formation of the United States. A few years later the British were accused of various attempts to infect American troops & civilians with Smallpox during the Revolutionary War. While those claims are completely undocumented, it suggests that deliberate infection with Smallpox wasn’t a specific horror intended to eliminate native peoples.
The claims regarding Indian trading posts (remember your initial claim specifically mentioned trading posts) did not occur until roughly seven decades later. Those claims coriginate with Ward Churchill who made them while serving as a Professor at the University of Colorado. Churchill was later fired from his position for falsifying his research. His claims have been completely discredited.
Now given that in 1801 President Jefferson ordered that Smallpox vaccinations be provided to Indians, and those efforts continued for more than 30 years; how likely is it that the US Army was trying to exterminate Indians via Smallpox while at the same time they providing them with vaccinations for the disease?
Lord Amherst was certainly an asshole when it came to Indians but that has little bearing on the later policies of the United States.
LikeLike
…it isn’t a stretch…
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“—-By ‘not a lot’ you mean that you just quoted the sum total of said documentation. ”
Just out of curiosity, how much documentation would you expect for a biological warfare attack before electricity?
LikeLike
“See Ann F. Ramenofsky, Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1987):
Among Class I agents, Variola major holds a unique position. Although the virus is most frequently transmitted through droplet infection, it can survive for a number of years outside human hosts in a dried state (Downie 1967; Upham 1986). As a consequence, Variola major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets (Dixon 1962). In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945). [p. 148]”
It’s not like this is a completely new concept. It was a new application.
“See also Robert L. O’Connell, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989):
Marking a milestone of sorts, certain colonists during the French and Indian Wars resorted to trading smallpox-contaminated blankets to local tribes with immediate and devastating results. While infected carcasses had long been catapulted into besieged cities, this seems to be the first time a known weakness in the immunity structure of an adversary population was deliberately exploited with a weapons response. [p. 171]
LikeLike
The intentional transmission of smallpox to indians by the US Army has been hotly debated by historians,and there does not appear to be sufficient proof of the event.
Smallpox outbreaks could have just as easily been benign, like in 1837, which many consider to be innocent transmission from a sick ship crew.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090302163142/http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20050212022243/http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm
LikeLike
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I don’t check the board regularly these days as conference realignment is at a low ebb.
“Just out of curiosity, how much documentation would you expect for a biological warfare attack before electricity”
— Electricity has nothing to do with it. Militaries are obsessive record keepers. Likewise commisioned officers has a tendency to be journal keepers and just about everyone wrote Mary Sue or Mama back home.
We also have detailed reports from the Department of the Interior Office of Indian Affairs (as well as it’s predecessor Council of Indian Affairs) & the Canadian government’s Department of Indian Affairs.
The era is very well documented. The advent of electricity just means that, in a thousand years records from the 1800’s will likely be more plentiful than from the early 21st.
As great as the Internet is, it has also greatly broadened the ability of bad information to propagate & persist among groups who lack either the inclination or the ability to properly research topics.
That brings us to ccrirder who has done a quick Google search, stumbled across an activist web site then cut & pasted without ever actually checking the primary sources. The original source is a paper written by Peter d’Errico in 2001 about Lord Amherst.
The Ramenofsky quote? Her citation (Stearn and Stearn 1945) is a book called “Effect of Smallpox on the Destiny of the Amerindian”. It also happens to be one of the sources that Ward Churchill intentionally misquoted which subsequently led to his dismissal for misconduct.
I own a copy.
Guess what? Nowhere in the book does it claim that the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to native Americans ‘to contron the Indian problem’. It does however detail the many occasions of accidental contact from both sides. Commonly when an outpost on the frontier was hit with smallpox they tried to warn Indians away because once infected Indians had a tendency to become riotiously angry and go on the war path in revenge.
Interestingly there are a couple of incidents that are worth mentioning. In 1812 the Chinook has decided to run white settlers off of their land. They planned an attack on Fort Astoria & stopped trading. Word of the upcoming hostilities leaked out. A fur trader by the name of James McDougal called a number of Chinook leaders together for a negotiation. He made a speech in which he told them that he was the Smallpox Chief, he kept it within a small glass bottle and if he removed the cork it would escape and kill them all. He went on to state that such measures were only for his enemies, not his friends. The Chinook pleaded with him to keep the bottle sealed, McDougal agreed and trade resumed. Obviously McDougal was making an empty threat, but smallpox was so terrifying that it was an effective one.
Similarly in 1870 during the construction of the Pacific Railroad, individuals intent on inciting Indians to attack the workers started spreading rumors among the Indians that there was a plan to exterminate them with smallpox via clothing items that would be sent to them.
Once smallpox began decimating them, many tribes came to believe that it was an intentional attack brought upon them by the white man. That’s human nature. How many plagues in Europe were blamed on Jews, Gypsies or other outsiders? The preponder of evidence however doesn’t support the claim. The US went to great efforts to prevent the spread of smallpox among native peoples. It did not intentionally try to infect them if for no other reason than it was counter productive. The US wanted to expand smoothly & without trouble. Pissed off Indians with nothing to lose didn’t help to achieve that goal.
I know it’s tempting to do a bit of superficial digging & start to believe you know a little bit about a topic. However looking at quotes that are 2 or 3 times removed from their source without ever checking the original context is not useful research.
LikeLike
However, there was a policy to exterminate the buffalo as a cynical strategy to bring the Plains Indians to heel by starving them in to submission.
LikeLike
Here’s a good college baseball analysis of the conference tournaments, national seeds, and host sites for the tournament.
http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9939
LikeLike
College baseball update through Friday’s games.
http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9944
LikeLike
Maryland beat Florida State Friday, and combined with UVa’s win over UNC last night, the Terps have qualified for Sunday’s ACC title game (though they will face UNC today in a game that now means more for the struggling Tar Heels. Maryland — which hasn’t won an ACC title since 1971 — will meet either Georgia Tech or Duke for the conference championship.
LikeLike
College baseball update through Saturday’s games.
http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9948
LikeLike
They have your LSU Tigers trending up to a national seed.
What’s with the low non-conference SOS this year for LSU? Seems like they usually schedule pretty aggressively in other sports.
Do they play a bunch of small local schools yearly, or is this year just unrepresentative of the usual non-con schedule?
LikeLike
LSU’s OOC SOS is never really that good because my Tigers need all the home games they can get to pay off their $50 million stadium. Before SEC play begins, LSU usually schedules some northern teams either in a three game series, or multiple teams for a round robin to give them a chance to play more games and play in front of several thousand fans. For mid-week games, LSU usually plays in-state teams and teams from East Texas or Mississippi. The Tigers had the misfortune is playing a bunch of teams that are usually decent that had bad seasons this year, like Tulane. When VA Tech and Purdue were scheduled, they were coming off great seasons, but the Hokies and the Boilermakers sucked this season. Also, LSU scheduled two games against UNO this season as they were opening up a new ballpark, but UNO still hasn’t recovered from Katrina. Also, the Tigers inexplicably scheduled four SWAC schools that all sucked. Only two OOC opponents will make the tournament.
Next season, LSU will play in the Minute Maid Classic in Houston that should help it OOC and road RPI. I understand that Houston and Rice usually participate in this tournament.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska is scheduled to be in the Minute Maid Classic next year too.
LikeLike
LSU threw their 17th shutout of the season to win the SEC tournament over the regular season champion Florida Gators 2-0.
LikeLike
Big 12 tax returns are out.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/13/bob-bowlsby-salary-big-12-conference-revenue-finances/9020973/
“Buoyed by a new television contract that Bowlsby helped negotiate with Fox and ESPN, the 10-team conference reported that its annual revenue increased by about $57.6 million to $217.1 million during a fiscal year that ended June 30, 2013.
…
The conference’s huge overall revenue jump is almost entirely attributable to an increase in television rights fees from the new agreement that took effect with the start of the 2012-13 school year. For the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2012, the Big 12 reported total TV revenue of nearly $79 million. The new return placed that figure at $132.3 million.
As a result, the eight schools that remained with the Big 12 following the departures of Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC saw their payouts from the conference increase by about $6.5 million each in 2012-13, to between $20.5 million and $21.4 million. The conference’s two new schools each received less than half as much – TCU got $9.8 million and West Virginia $8.8 million, the return showed.
Big 12 chief financial officer Steve Pace said TCU’s and West Virginia’s distributions will gradually increase until they become full shares in the 2015-16 fiscal year.”
LikeLike
$100m less than the B1G and SEC, after the SEC’s renegotiation and before the B1G’s renegotiation. That’s a big gap that’s only going to grow.
LikeLike
317/12=26.4 Big 10
314/14=22.4 SEC
217/10=21.7 Big 12
Not very big on a school by school basis. And the Big 12 should be ahead of the SEC next year as they are dividing the same playoff/Sugar Bowl money 10 ways instead of 14. And the Big 10 number includes their Tier 3 figures. Just Texas and Oklahoma Tier 3 bump the Big 12 number up about 18 million. Kansas earns a substantial amount as well and the others earn some.
LikeLike
Now, compare that to the reported B1G projections in 2017, after it gets a chance to renegotiate. $45m/ year per school. SEC is projected at, what, $35,/year per school once the SECN gets up and running? B12 schools can’t be thrilled to be making significantly less than Vandy, Purdue, NWU, and Miss State starting in the next few years.
LikeLike
B12 schools can’t be thrilled to be making significantly less than Vandy, Purdue, NWU, and Miss State starting in the next few years.
They might make less than the B1G and SEC, but after including Tier 3 rights and the Sugar Bowl payout, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas should be making amounts comparable to the PAC (especially after factoring in travel costs since the Big XII is more compact) and substantially ahead of the ACC, which should be enough to keep them satisfied.
LikeLike
B12 schools can’t be thrilled to be making significantly less than Vandy, Purdue, NWU, and Miss State starting in the next few years
Texas has the LHN money to keep pace. Everyone else may not be thrilled, but there isn’t much they can do. For various reasons, anyone with options is stuck in the Big 12 until Texas decides to leave.
LikeLike
“Just Texas and Oklahoma Tier 3 bump the Big 12 number up about 18 million.”
No. It bumps Texas and Oklahoma’s numbers, not the B12.
LikeLike
Well then pull the comparable amount out of the Big 10 if you are going to compare them. You could pull out the BTN, which would drop the Big 10 down to around 19 million. Of course, that wouldn’t exactly be apples to apples either as BTN includes more than the Big 12 Tier 3.
LikeLike
No. Distribute those incomes throughout the conference and then it’s conference income. Otherwise it’s personalized deals for particular schools. To compare otherwise exposes the reason UT isn’t a good fit for the B1G. They look at themselves and conference members as pseudo independents business competitors, and give just enough to keep them afloat and around. To claim equal revenue sharing for the B12 while raking in ESPN anti super conference money (which is what % of the conference distributed media money), and then to use the LHN to blister B12 numbers is just disingenuous.
The argument will be moot when the new B1G media deal happens, and the BTN continues to expand carriage in the eastern corridor.
LikeLike
I don’t see how you think comparing Tier I, II and III to Tier I and II makes any sense. It doesn’t.
LikeLike
I agree, but you miss the point. B12 conference distributions don’t include the Sooner net, LHN, or whatever else is involved outside those. How the middle/bottom of a conference fares is more instructive about a conference than how kings, who would be fine in any setup, are doing. My point is that UT/OU could have leveraged far more than the added together tier 3 contracts in a conference network. Would UT be getting 11M? That’s silly, super conference vaccination (bribe) money. But they’d be a getting significant amount. The B12 would then be able to legitimately be the (temporary) leader in conference distributions. And the conference (not just OU/UT) would have a chance at staying in the B1G/SEC neighborhood.
LikeLike
And I guess I should have included the PAC, judging by year one of the new contract and the “not so successfully distributed” P12N (lacks DTV…for now).
LikeLike
bullet,
“317/12=26.4 Big 10
314/14=22.4 SEC
217/10=21.7 Big 12
Not very big on a school by school basis.”
I agree with your underlying point that the correct comparison is on a per team basis. That said, it’s always weird to hear $4.7M described as not very big.
Normalized:
B12 = 1.00
SEC = 1.03 – 3% more (not very big, I agree)
B10 = 1.22 – 22% more (that seems kind of big to me)
“And the Big 12 should be ahead of the SEC next year as they are dividing the same playoff/Sugar Bowl money 10 ways instead of 14.”
But the SEC also has the Orange Bowl deal and the B12 doesn’t.
“And the Big 10 number includes their Tier 3 figures. Just Texas and Oklahoma Tier 3 bump the Big 12 number up about 18 million. Kansas earns a substantial amount as well and the others earn some.”
Tier 3 is a gray term. B10 schools still get large additional payments for radio, advertising, etc outside of the BTN deal. OSU is making $11M per year for radio and such from IMG, for example.
LikeLike
The point is that the Big 10 is 4.7 million ahead but includes more. When you add in the Big 12 Tier 3 media deals (LHN, OU deal with Fox Sports SW, 5 others deals with Fox Sports SW, KU’s deal, ISU’s deal and WVU’s deal), that 4.7 gets a lot smaller and you are more comparing apples to apples. The Big 12 schools also get additional Tier 3 outside of their media Tier 3. Texas gets $9.4 million from IMG on top of the $15 million average from ESPN (although IMG gets a cut of the ESPN deal).
Texas earned about 11 million on LHN last year and OU’s deal is 7 million, so that alone narrows the gap from 4.7 to 2.9 million. The amount of the rest of the media deals hasn’t been publically announced or, in WVU’s case, isn’t separated from the other miscellaneous Tier 3, but probably is a little more than the combined UT and OU deals. If you assume another 18 million, that narrows that gap to only 1.1 million.
LikeLike
But at the same time the B10 is building the value of an asset (BTN) that they seem to value at roughly $75M per school based on what NE is paying in. Factor that in, too. The point is, you really can’t do apple to apples comparisons because of the way accounting and contracts vary.
What is wrong is to say that the gap between the listed B10 payout and the listed B12 payout isn’t very big. You can argue for why the listed values aren’t the best comparison (as you have here), but you can’t start by saying a 22% difference isn’t very big. That undermines anything else you proceed to say.
LikeLike
“…B10 is building the value of an asset (BTN) that they seem to value at roughly $75M per school based on what NE is paying in. ”
$75M x 12 = $900M
And that’s for 50% of the total value.
What’s the value with the eastern corridor included?
LikeLike
Just because Nebraska paid that doesn’t mean its really worth it. What would it sell for in an open market?
If you take out the BTN, the Big 12 makes more. If you add the comparable Tier III revenues to the Big 12 numbers, its close and either the Big 10 is a little ahead or the Big 12 schools are a little ahead.
What doesn’t make any sense is to say the Big 10 is 22% ahead, but we are going to count revenues for the Big 10 but ignore those same revenues for the Big 12. Texas Tech is apparently making $3 million on its TV deal with Fox Sports SW. That put them at $25 million which is pretty similar to the $25.7 million that actually got distributed to continuing Big 10 members last year.
Even the conferences that say they share everything don’t necessarily. In 2011-12, the ACC distributions ranged from $15.7 to $18.6 million and they supposedly share EVERYTHING equally. So its pretty relevant to include the TV Tier 3 from the Big 12 schools.
LikeLike
“Just because Nebraska paid that doesn’t mean its really worth it.”
Same for the LHN.
And UNL went to the open market and chose to go B1G and pay that amount.
“Texas Tech is apparently making $3 million on its TV deal with Fox Sports SW. That put them at $25 million which is pretty similar to the $25.7 million that actually got distributed to continuing Big 10 members last year.”
So…we should expect to hear rumors of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, exploring B12 options?
“So its pretty relevant to include the TV Tier 3 from the Big 12 schools.”
But not as conference income. The numbers you’re adding have very little or nothing to do with the conference.
LikeLike
Just because Nebraska paid that doesn’t mean its really worth it. What would it sell for in an open market?
On the other hand, they had access to more data than we do, and had more on the line if they got it wrong. I would put the burden of proof squarely on the “not worth it” crowd.
LikeLike
The Pac12 trumps all comers:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/23/pac-12-conference-tax-return-revenue-record/9497233/
LikeLike
Wonder what their distribution is per school. Could be generating a fair amount of revenue from PAC 12 Network but not making money and not paying rights fees since they have complete ownership. I could see them one day selling a significant interest to a TV partner. Could be a windfall for their conference membership.
LikeLike
Completely nearsighted temporary gain, for a bunch of schools who just got a big raise, at the cost of future income and control? Not likely…
Kevin Weiberg said that the single thing they would change if starting the BTN again would have been to keep 100% ownership. But, as it was the first of its kind, risk reduction won the day.
LikeLike
That makes sense. They have revenue from Pac 10 network, but also a lot of expenses.
Their distribution were last among the P5 in 2011-12 ($11.1 million) and their expected distributions according to Wilner (never heard final-should be in that tax return USA Today got) was $18 million which was also last.
LikeLike
PAC Distribution $19.8M for 11 members; $10.8M for Utah (at end of post), so average of $19.1M. With the full revenue of the PAC networks, the PAC should continue to lead in revenue, making this a meaningless apples and oranges comparison since the PAC also has the full expenses of the network that the other conferences do not.
LikeLike
Why would full revenue and full cost not balance with aprox 50% revenue and 50% cost? ESPN and Fox aren’t donating. The PAC full ownership means no middleman profit need be accounted for seems the only difference. Should be able to generate similar distributions with significantly fewer subscribers, once startup costs are finished.
LikeLike
Or generate significantly less.
With 100% you take all the risks. Its not all upside.
LikeLike
Yes, from a strictly immediate cash standpoint. But I thought we agreed that a conference owned network served the conference needs/objectives in ways that don’t provide immediate cash returns.
Until these networks are actually losing money (production costs greater than carriage fees + advertising, no content purchase required) 100% > 50%. The production costs for fox may be slightly different than for a conference, but if that was close to eating up the profit I don’t think fox would have exercised the option to increase ownership and the extension of the partnership.
LikeLike
The intangible benefits of the 100% owned pac 12 network vs. the half owned Big 10 network vs. the half equity non-owned SEC Network vs. the 0% ownership Longhorn network are pretty much the same.
The only issue is the Pac 12 is taking more risk in order to potentially get more returns. But you get more returns because you are taking the risk that you don’t make any money.
Now you lose some control. With the SEC Network and Longhorn Network, ESPN is determining the rate and is basing it on making the most money, not on the most coverage.
LikeLike
“But you get more returns because you are taking the risk that you don’t make any money.”
Agreed. But (a) that risk has been shown to be minimal and (b) Weiberg, who was involved in starting the BTN says they wish they had accepted that risk. Risk avoidance was understandable for the first effort. That risk now is quantifiable, and not high.
“The intangible benefits of the 100% owned pac 12 network vs. the half owned Big 10 network vs. the half equity non-owned SEC Network vs. the 0% ownership Longhorn network are pretty much the same.”
Agree, as long as sports rights remain valuable monetarily (which then makes 100% ownership less risky, and more profitable).
Disagree if those rights become less monetarily valuable. With co-owned or completely external commercial media ownership the decision to continue/renew the agreement creating the network, when it approaches expiration, will primarily be a monetary one. The intangible benefits to the conference and it’s schools won’t influence most Fox/Disney shareholders, but will presidents/chancellors.
LikeLike
Then again, the B1G deal with Fox to run the BTN expires in 2032. The conference would assume full ownership and control at that point unless an extension is agreed to.
LikeLike
“The conference would assume full ownership and control at that point unless an extension is agreed to.”
They could. That’s why I’ve suggested the BTN and P12N are the only true conference networks (owned, as opposed to dedicated to). Fox seems to believe there is enough long term benefit to extend. For the cost of operations their profit could be kept in house.
LikeLike
With split ownership the BTN has its own corporate structure. Based on reported revenues and distributions of the B1G it appears only the profit turned over to the B1G by the BTN is counted as conference revenue (no production expenses). With the PAC network fully owned all of its revenue and production expenses are reported as part of the conference. Therefore, although the PAC reports higher revenue, due to higher expenses it has less profit (distributions) than the B1G.
LikeLike
What is the timeline for the Pac 12 to pay off all of the start up costs of the P12N?
LikeLike
What is the timeline for Fox/B1G to pay off all of the start up costs of the BTN?
The report noted “The conference reported paying $17.6 million to a general contractor and $13.7 million in what it described as “installation” costs.”
Are those P12N expenditures, something else, or a combination? Will they be recurring, and if so, for how long? Where is Fox/B1G in the same process? I’m sure some bean counter knows, but he isn’t sharing.
LikeLike
Wilner on P12 revenue:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/05/27/pac-12-conference-record-revenue-per-school-splits-scotts-compensation-and-more/
“The conference reported $334M in total revenue, and it distributed $228M to the schools.
And what of the remaining $106M?
That chunk, which is nearly equal to the league’s total revenue in FY11, was used for what we’ll call conference expenses.”
Somewhere in there are the P12N numbers.
LikeLike
“What is the timeline for Fox/B1G to pay off all of the start up costs of the BTN?”
I believe they’re already paid off. That’s why the B10 gets profit-sharing of the BTN now.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10974117/men-basketball-dayton-run-elite-eight-worth-73-million-city
A little hoops success goes a long way, apparently.
Dayton’s surprise run to the Elite Eight of this past season’s NCAA tournament was worth nearly $73 million to the city.
A report issued by Dayton’s city commissioners this month concluded that the Flyers garnered the equivalent of $36.7 million for Dayton during the play of their four games, $34.5 million from replays and television clips, and $726,321 in value from social media posts. The team’s Twitter handle, @daytonflyers, received more than 90 million impressions from the start of the tournament on March 18 to when the team was knocked out by overall top seed Florida on March 29.
…
The team’s run did cost the city of Dayton something. To control the celebrations, the city paid more than $57,000 in overtime to police officers, according to the Dayton Daily News.
..
Schools that have had Final Four runs have concluded that making it just one more game than Dayton did is worth much more. George Mason said its run in 2006 was worth $677 million to the school, and Wichita State’s trip to the Final Four in 2013 was said to be worth $555 million.
Butler’s trips to the title game were said to be worth $639 million in 2010 and $512 million in 2011.
When people question why schools spend money on sports, this is part of the answer.
LikeLike
Seems like small schools should spend it mostly on basketball.
Butler would not gain much potential upside from doubling its football budget.
LikeLike
Virtually no upside from spending on non-revenue sports either, of course.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand. Where is this 1.1+ billion Butler supposedly gained? They could have endowed their entire athletic dept.
LikeLike
Publicity value mostly, I assume. How much would Butler have to pay to get as much media attention as their hoops team got them for free?
LikeLike
These studies are huge lies – for the school there may be some more applicants, but assuming most universities are going to accept x number of students, more applicants just helps to increase your US News rating but doesn’t result in any more money. Maybe get a few more donations, but are there really that many alumni for school like Dayton that will all of a sudden sent in $1000 due to winning a game or two? For the city of Dayton to get $34.5M, you would need a massive influx of new residents or visitors paying taxes that certainly has not happened due to a fall ball games.
LikeLike
Most universities are willing to accept more students. Maybe most of the AAU schools have target enrollments, but other schools are still willing to grow.
LikeLike
Mark,
“These studies are huge lies – for the school there may be some more applicants, but assuming most universities are going to accept x number of students, more applicants just helps to increase your US News rating but doesn’t result in any more money.”
Wow. That’s a lot of wrong packed in one sentence.
1. Bad assumption. Many schools would be happy to grow.
2. More applicants means you can be more selective and improve your average student. That leads to better graduates, which leads to more donations, etc.
3. More applicants also means more out of state applicants, so they can make much more money per student (state schools, at least).
4. More awareness of your school means better jobs for your graduates, which leads to more donations, etc (especially for small private schools).
5. Improving the student body helps to draw better faculty which in turn draws more research money, again helping the bottom line.
6. If it’s so useless, why do schools pay to advertise? If advertising has value, why are you calling it a lie? If you have some evidence to back it up, feel free to show it.
LikeLike
Most schools are happy to grow? Really? Where do they get the extra classrooms, faculty, etc? Are these schools a certain size due to the number of applicants, but then due to winning a basketball game or two are overwhelmed by applicants so they decide to grow from 1000 students in the freshman class to 2,000? I don’t buy it at all. School have a goal enrollment, and just because more kids apply doesn’t mean more are getting in.
The rest of your argument is just silly – its a few wins in March. More research money?? Better faculty?? Better students?? Do good students choice Dayton over Stanford since Dayton won the basketball game??
Ask even the average sports fan who comprised the Elite 8 or even Final Four today and I wager that fewer than 10% get all the team rights and maybe 25% know who won the national title. Make it the population as a whole and 1 person out of 5,000 might know. It really just doesn’t matter and you’d have to an idiot to make your college choice based on who won a basketball game.
LikeLike
The world Is full of idiots. Many go to college trying to improve that. Some succeed.
LikeLike
Look up the Flutie effect. Boston College had a big positive impact. Baylor repeated it with RG3.
Johnny Manziel helped contribute to A&M having a record fundraising year-$740 million. The previous record was set by Wisconsin with $595 million in 2005.
LikeLike
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/mar/23/butler-banks-basketball-success-growth/?print=1
Plenty of privates that are not elite brand-names actually are having trouble getting enough kids to apply to meet their enrollment figures without reducing the quality of their student body (to the point where they have to take in kids who they doubt will graduate). That includes a surprising number of reputable liberal arts colleges, in fact.
LikeLike
Mark:
It seems that you are under the impression that all colleges operate at their maximum enrollment capacity, and while that is definitely the case for the elite privates and the better state flagships, that isn’t true for a lot of the colleges in this country. There will be a shake-out coming very soon in higher education; simply put, this country has too many colleges right now and not enough demand for all of them.
For instance, here are the colleges still looking for kids to apply (http://www.nacacnet.org/research/research-data/College-Openings/Pages/College-Openings-Results.aspx), and this is after the traditional May 1 acceptance date.
Baylor, Gonzaga, St. Joe’s, St. John’s, Seton Hall, and Marquette are still taking students, as well as reputable small schools like Knox, the New School in NYC, Wheaton College, Ohio Wesleyan, and New College of Florida. UF, Oregon, Iowa, WSU, UA, and ASU still taking applicants as well.
LikeLike
Does ASU ever stop taking applications? Aren’t they trying to pass University of Phoenix? 🙂
LikeLike
Clearly, ASU is one of the schools that could benefit most from doing well in sports.
Win the Rose Bowl and make the Final Four & passing UoP would be more than a dream.
LikeLike
Actually for freshman the only P5 schools still taking applicants are PAC schools outside CA (all except WA and CO). These 6 schools may be trolling for out of state CA students to balance the budget or may have state mandated late closing dates. Three other P5 schools (Baylor, IA, FL) are only open for transfers.
LikeLike
However, none of Butler, Dayton, George Mason, or Wichita are in a P5 conference. I still don’t see evidence that for most small privates and less-prestigious publics, spending on sports that can increase their visibility is not worthwhile.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24570992/most-cfb-coaches-want-early-signing-periodwill-they-get-it-
The coaches really want an early signing period.
LikeLike
Additional P12 information shows that the new network greatly increased costs. Bottom line, 4th in distributions.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/23/pac-12-conference-tax-return-revenue-record/9497233/
Still, distributions to member schools grew substantially in what was the conference’s first year of nearly equal revenue sharing. Each of the 11 schools other than Utah received about $19.8 million (Utah received $10.2 million, although fellow conference newcomer Colorado received a full share). For Arizona, Oregon State and Washington State, that meant a near-doubling of their money from the conference in one year. For Oregon and Stanford, it meant increases of more than $4 million.
LikeLike
“Bottom line, 4th in distributions.”
Seems reasonable. They are all purchasing their share of 100% equity in the P12N (and the oft forgotten PAC-12 Enterprises), much as UNL is for it’s share of 50% equity in the BTN. They could have distributed it all, and then required payments be made.
LikeLike
They got about 11 million last year. So that $19 million average was better than the $18 million they were projecting.
LikeLike
So their history of non-conference network TV money:
2010-11 $ 59.5 million
2011-12 $ 85.6 million
2012-13 $170.8 million
LikeLike
Ahh, the legacy of Gene Hansen…
I believe the ’11-’12 bump was a result of increase number of games post UU/CU entry, and the CCG, added to the old contract.
LikeLike
As someone said on another board. Everybody’s getting paid (In the P5).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10973311/the-college-football-playoff-bring-new-set-problems
The playoff isn’t perfect.
LikeLike
An interesting juxtaposition with the former player suits against the NFL.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/classy-seahawks-sign-draft-pick-before-having-to-cut-him-due-to-heart-condition-234534881.html
LikeLike
Oops…not just a cosmetic problem.
http://college-football.si.com/2014/05/20/allen-high-school-football-stadium-not-safe/
LikeLike
Ouch. $60 Million in tax money. If Texas wasn’t the one always howling the loudest about “communist government regulators”, it wouldn’t be nearly as poetic. Glad they found the issue before anyone got hurt.
LikeLike
I imagine it would come out of the contractor’s insurance. It will just take a while.
LikeLike
http://onlineathens.com/sports/college-sports/2014-05-22/georgia-readies-ncaa-changes-when-dealing-athletes
Georgia estimates the snacks, transportation and post-eligibility scholarships changes will cost $1.28 million per year.
Some interesting stuff on what they currently do for athletes along with some discussion of facilities.
LikeLike
“Georgia athletic director Greg McGarity doesn’t see drastic changes for how athletes (which now include walk-ons) eat under the rules that take effect Aug. 1.”
I must have slept through this change.
LikeLike
This is to feed the “starving” athletes. Unlimited snacks. Not much of an impact on UGA because:
“The intent of the rule is to supplement meals. We’re very fortunate at Georgia. Going into this we had the best of all worlds. We have unlimited dining. You can walk in any dining hall any time it’s open, go in and eat whatever you want to. We are not on a swipe system where if you get 15 meals during the week you get 15 swipes. That’s the way the majority of schools are. It helps them probably more than us.”
LikeLike
I mean no longer differentiating walkons and scholarship in this. I’m not against it, but it blurs the distinction. There may be starving band members, or physics majors, who are also not scholarship athletes. Obviously they expanded (eliminated?) the number limitation of what teams may offer regarding food to team members regardless of scholarship limitations. I just didn’t remember that being thoroughly discussed.
LikeLike
The scholarship/walk-on I don’t remember being discussed either.
I’m not sure what schools do on the training table. Do walk-ons eat there? Only preferred walk-ons?
LikeLike
It sounds like they may be opening the outfield bleachers at TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha this afternoon..
LikeLike
19,965 in attendance.
LikeLike
It is amazing what people will watch in flyover country. Put this tournament in a city with MLB and you maybe get 500 people, most with a direct association to the players.
LikeLike
Believe it or not, them flyover folks did not show up to watch corn grow…
I mean, why is it hard to believe that people would be interested in a college baseball game between two top 25 teams (one local) playing for their conference championship in a relatively new, pro-caliber ballpark?
Is that any more astounding to you than college basketball arenas that routinely draw 20,000, even for token opponents?
LikeLike
Omaha is a great baseball town. There’s a reason they have hosted the CWS for 60 years. All those great crowds for CWS are largely made up of Omaha’s citizenry. Very few CWS participants will bring thousands of fans. Throw the Huskers in there and you have turnstile gold.
Omaha should be the B1G baseball tournament host forever.
LikeLike
Arch Stanton,
“I mean, why is it hard to believe that people would be interested in a college baseball game between two top 25 teams (one local) playing for their conference championship in a relatively new, pro-caliber ballpark?”
1. It’s baseball.
2. It’s college baseball at that.
I’d rather watch the corn grow.
“Is that any more astounding to you than college basketball arenas that routinely draw 20,000, even for token opponents?”
Yes. There’s no accounting for taste.
LikeLike
Alan,
You are right on regarding the fact that Omaha should be the permanent location for the B1G conference tourney… The attendance numbers reveal that. During one of the games, they interviewed the commish (Delany), apparently the tourney goes back to Target Field in Minneapolis next year—I just don’t see any way that the attendance numbers will even be close, even if the Gophers would be having a good year. I believe that Delany mentioned something about “re-evaluating” where the future tourneys would be, with an eye on attendance numbers. Makes good $en$e, doesn’t it?
The simple fact is… in a major market with professional sports teams, the natives are generally “luke-warm” to college athletics–that is one reason why TCF Bank was not built for 100K people… Generally, unless it’s Final Four basketball, a high end D-1A Football Game (even that has exceptions–see B1G championship attendance), or maybe the Frozen Four in Minneapolis or St Paul, the latter example being the probable one exception to the rule due to the local market’s diehard hockey fans from high school to the pros.
The long-time major pro-sports markets are that… New York City, Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis, St Louis, Boston, Seattle, Philadelphia… Big time college athletics can and do survive in these markets… but will likely never rule these markets…
… LSU spent $50 million for a college baseball stadium? Holy Moly! I would agree that lots of home games, with big attendance, would be a requirement…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“You are right on regarding the fact that Omaha should be the permanent location for the B1G conference tourney… The attendance numbers reveal that. During one of the games, they interviewed the commish (Delany), apparently the tourney goes back to Target Field in Minneapolis next year—I just don’t see any way that the attendance numbers will even be close, even if the Gophers would be having a good year. I believe that Delany mentioned something about “re-evaluating” where the future tourneys would be, with an eye on attendance numbers. Makes good $en$e, doesn’t it?”
I think the B10 will come around on this. Traditionally the site has rotated, but no other host city has ever come close to the attendance numbers Omaha put up. They got many more people for the title game than the old tournament total attendance record. Once they finish up their contracted visits to other cities, Omaha seems like a natural spot. Maybe they rotate it to the east coast some, too, at least to see how it does. But the old footprint has had many years to prove they could draw fans and the evidence is clear on that.
LikeLike
There were a few reports this weekend that Creighton (and its conference) get right of first refusal to use TDAP for their conference tournament. I believe next year the Big East will have their conference tournament in Omaha.
LikeLike
I don’t watch much basketball until post season. I don’t see the point to before then. But I don’t denigrate those who choose to. And these are watching a conference championship.
LikeLike
Here’s the 16 regionals hosts for the NCAA baseball tournament. The seeds and the rest of the teams will be announced tomorrow.
AAC – Louisville
ACC (3)- Florida State, Miami, Virginia
Big 10 – Indiana
Big 12 (2) – Oklahoma State, TCU
Pac-12 – Oregon State
SEC (5) – Florida, LSU, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Big West – Cal Poly
Sunbelt – UL-Lafayette
CUSA – Rice
LikeLike
I’m not convinced Vandy deserved one over Houston.
LikeLike
loki – I think the committee didn’t want 4 regionals within a 250 miles stretch along I-10. Houston was probably more deserving than its conference mate Louisville.
LikeLike
Nah, just more SEC bias. 😉
LikeLike
In the baseball America poll, Washington was #8, Houston #16. Rice was 17, Vanderbilt 19. The other 14 hosts were in the top 15.
LikeLike
So you’re saying someone is in the Dawg house?
LikeLike
Auto bids
Team Conference Record Berth Last NCAA appearance
Houston American Athletic 44-15 Won AAC tourney 2008 (College Station Regional)
Binghamton America East 25-25 Won Am-East tourney 2013 (Raleigh Regional)
George Mason Atlantic 10 34-20 Won Atlantic 10 tourney 2009 (Greenville Regional)
Georgia Tech Atlantic Coast 36-25 Won ACC tourney 2013 (Nashville Regional)
Kennesaw State Atlantic Sun 37-21 Won A-Sun tourney First appearance
Xavier Big East 29-27 Won Big East tourney 2009 (Houston Regional)
Campbell Big South 40-19 Won Big South tourney 1990 (Palo Alto Regional)
Indiana Big Ten 42-13 Won Big Ten tourney 2013 (College World Series)
Cal Poly Big West 45-10 Won Big West regular season 2013 (Los Angeles Regional)
College of Charleston Colonial Athletic 41-17 Won CAA tourney 2012 (Gainesville Regional)
Rice Conference USA 41-18 Won C-USA tourney 2013 (Raleigh Super Regional)
Youngstown State Horizon League 16-36 Won Horizon tourney 2004 (Austin Regional)
Columbia Ivy League 29-18 Won Ivy League tourney 2013 (Fullerton Regional)
Siena Metro Atlantic 25-31 Won MAAC tourney 1999 (Winston-Salem Regional)
Kent State Mid-American 36-21 Won MAC tourney 2012 (College World Series)
Bethune-Cookman MEAC 26-31 Won MEAC tourney 2012 (Gainesville Regional)
Dallas Baptist Missouri Valley 40-19 Won MVC tourney 2012 (Waco Regional)
San Diego State Mountain West 42-19 Won MWC tourney 2013 (Los Angeles Regional)
Bryant Northeast 42-14 Won NEC tourney 2013 (Manhattan Regional)
Jacksonville State Ohio Valley 36-25 Won OVC tourney 2010 (Clemson Regional)
Oregon State Pac-12 41-11 Won Pac-12 regular season 2013 (College World Series)
Bucknell Patriot League 30-19 Won Patriot tourney 2010 (Columbia Regional)
Louisiana State Southeastern 44-13 Won SEC tourney 2013 (College World Series)
SE Louisiana Southland 37-23 Won Southland tourney 1994 (Baton Rouge Regional)
Georgia Southern Southern 39-21 Won SoCon tourney 2011 (Columbia Regional)
North Dakota St. Summit 25-24 Won Summit tourney 1956 (Stillwater Regional)
Louisiana-Lafayette Sun Belt 53-7 Won Sun Belt tourney 2013 (Baton Rouge Regional)
Jackson State SWAC 31-23 Won SWAC tourney 2013 (Baton Rouge Regional)
Sacramento State Western Athletic 39-22 Won WAC tourney First appearance
Pepperdine West Coast 39-16 Won WCC tourney 2012 (Palo Alto Regional)
LikeLike
Two first ever apearences, and a first since ’56, three since the ’90s, and the rest since Y2K.
LikeLike
Is it just me, or did the west get hosed?
LikeLike
The west always claims to get hosed. But the auto-bids are not negotiable.
LikeLike
SDSU and UNLV have a good argument. They are #3 seeds going to Louisville and Oxford, while the #3 seed in Corvallis is Kansas. Pac 12 and Big West just had too many teams for the western regionals.
Rice regional is interesting. Rice opens up with Columbia. Texas and Texas A&M are in the other half and make a decent academic pair to go the two Ivy/Ivy caliber schools.
LikeLike
“SDSU and UNLV have a good argument. They are #3 seeds going to Louisville and Oxford, while the #3 seed in Corvallis is Kansas.”
??
My bracket shows Kansas to Louisville regional, UNLV and Irvine in Corvallis and SDSU in LaLa land.
LikeLike
I was looking at the one Alan linked.
LikeLike
bullet – I posted a prediction of the bracket (7:58am) and later the actual bracket (10:59am).
LikeLike
College Baseball bracketology. Actual brackets released today at 11am CDT.
http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9953
LikeLike
http://www.ncaa.com/news/baseball/article/2014-05-26/oregon-state-leads-field-64-2014-division-i-baseball-tournament
The article has a link to the bracket.
The national top eight seeds are Oregon State (42-12), Florida (40-21), Virginia (44-13), Indiana (42-13), Florida State (43-15), La.-Lafayette (53-7), TCU (42-15) and LSU (44-14-1). The top eight seed for Indiana marks a first for a Big Ten institution.
Emphasis mine.
NE is a 2 seed in the OkSU regional. Apparently IL just missed the cut.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, all 3 B10 teams got knocked out of the super regionals in softball (2 were swept), losing to the #1, #2 and #8 seeds. 2 others lost in the regionals (both in the final game).
LikeLike
Here’s the bracket.
http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/baseball/d1
LikeLike
http://www.realclear.com/news/2014/05/26/redskins_to_senators_teams_name_is_respectful_7138.html?rc_fk
No surprise, the Redskins think their name is “respectful.”
The letter references research that “the term Redskins originated as a Native American expression of solidarity.” It notes that the team’s logo was designed by Native American leaders and cites surveys that Native Americans and Americans as a whole support the name.
…
The senators noted that tribal organizations representing more than 2 million Native Americans across the U.S. have said they want the Redskins name dropped.
LikeLike
I’ve yet to hear anyone use the term “redskin” in a derogatory way to describe any American Indians.
LikeLike
Never watched any old westerns?
LikeLike
I’m exactly an uber-PC person, but ultimately, it’s not my place to tell a Native American whether he or she should be offended one way or another by a phrase. The fact that some Native Americans might be not be bothered by the term doesn’t mean that others may very well be legitimately offended (just as some African-Americans being comfortable using the N-word doesn’t suddenly make that unoffensive).
LikeLike
I’m not for or against the usage. I think our society is much to focused on PC issues personally.
Ultimately I feel it falls on the individual’s to decide what they let offend them and what they don’t.
The people out there that decide to use derogatory terms to describe others says a whole lot more about them than those they attempt to demean. If someone wants to prove to the world they are an ass-hat then they have the right to do so.
I’m not an old movie watcher, but I did serve in a military unit with two American Indians. I would have figured to have heard something there, but never did. I’ve heard many “descriptions” of women, those choosing alternative lifestyles, and African American’s. I’ve just never known the term “redskin” to be considered a derogatory term. Maybe I’ve lived a more sheltered life than I originally believed.
LikeLike
I agree that it is way too focused on PC issues. But the NFL gets lots of public subsidies, so its fair game if it keeps doing something that is no longer acceptable.
LikeLike
Bullet,
That point is very much spot on. The NFL has gotten billions in tax-funded stadium dollars. Some answering to the public is warranted, whether the public is in unison over a subject like changing the Redskin name or not.
LikeLike
I’m a bit baffled that with all the uproar over the Redskins name, there is very little discussion about the Cleveland Indians at the very least discontinuing the use of that hideous, cartoon red-faced, toothy emblem. Pictures sometimes are more powerful than words, andI would think that picture is at least as offensive as the word “Redskin,” if not far more so.
LikeLike
Complaints about Chief Wahoo are out there. IIRC, the Indians are quietly phasing him out. Among fans, there is an entire “de-chiefing” movement among Cleveland fans where they take the Wahoo logo off of their apparel.
LikeLike
I find myself completely at odds internally about the use of Native American imagery.
For instance, I never recalled thinking about the depiction of race when I watched Disney’s Peter Pan as a kid. However, when I sat down to watch it for the first time in years with my own children recently, I was taken aback at the blatant stereotypes of Native Americans, including the song, “What Makes the Red Man Red?” (referring to how Indians got red skin from blushing after women kissed them). Could you imagine if a children’s movie included a song, “What Makes the Black Man Black?” in today’s world? For better or worse, Disney didn’t perform a George Lucas-type editing job on its Blu-Ray release, so the entire original scene is still there for the world to see in its entirety. (In contrast, Disney has done everything that it could to erase “The Song of the South” from history.) I also completely understand why there are people that are offended by the Redskins name.
Yet, my favorite jersey is the red home Blackhawks sweater and I still have Chief Illiniwek logo paraphernalia in my house. In my mind, I probably consider those to be more “honorable” images compared to the Peter Pan depictions or Chief Wahoo, but is it really my place to judge this? Would we do the same type of parsing of logos if they were depicting any other race?
LikeLike
In general, people seem to have fewer complaints about the logos than the cartoon caricatures and mascots. The NCAA takes it farther, but I think “Redskins” and Chief Wahoo are really the only 2 things drawing ire from people in major pro sports for this. People don’t complain about more neutral names (Braves, etc) or reasonably accurate logos.
LikeLike
Arkansas vs Mizzou moved to the day after Thanksgiving, kicking off at 230 EST on CBS.
http://www.arkansasrazorbacks.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=6100&ATCLID=209508168
LikeLike
Agree or disagree, this reporter is creating hope, perhaps “false” for UConn faithful & an increasingly growing movement for folks in this state, as well as Alum.
http://foxct.com/2014/05/24/the-stan-simpson-show-uconn-to-the-big-10/
If you go the upper right of this link, Mr. Simpson has also spent time discussion this in greater detail on his radio show.
LikeLike
Things I’ll agree with:
1. The guest says it’s speculation.
2. He says RU has been an embarrassment from day 1.
3. He mentions AAU status as being important to UConn’s president and how attractive the B10 would be to UConn because of that.
Other things he said:
1. He claims it might happen in the next 6 weeks, but definitely before another whole academic year passes.
2. He claims UConn’s football program is in a good place and attractive.
3. He makes no mention of who could possibly be #16.
4. He never mentions the importance of AAU status to the B10 and how large a barrier to admission lacking it could be.
5. He says UConn’s SNY contracts are attractive to the B10. But SNY is driven by their Mets and Jets coverage, and some/most of the UConn stuff would have to move to the BTN anyway. How many of the SNY people would insist on getting BTN? What sort of ratings does UConn content draw for SNY compared to their other programming?
LikeLike
I think his timetable is ridiculously optimistic (6 weeks?), but I think that the end result is right.
LikeLike
If you remove a timetable, of course UConn becomes a more realistic target. They may join the AAU in the future. If so, that would be a major change in their attractiveness for the B10. They also might grow their FB program like Boise and become more attractive. But until we see how the BTN does in NJ and NYC with Rutgers on board, nobody is going to rush to add another eastern school just for NYC access. Especially one that lacks AAU status and a large, on campus football stadium.
If UConn joins the AAU, then things might get interesting. UVA wouldn’t have to bring UNC or Duke or GT for the B10 to get to 16.
Based on the current CCG rules, I’d expect to see these divisions if it happened soon:
E – UConn, RU, UMD, UVA, PSU, OSU, MI, MSU
W – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL, PU, IN
That continues the current policy of putting the eastern kings in the new markets as much as possible. If it happens after 10+ years, things might be different. Geography won’t have changed, but there wouldn’t be as much need to build up NYC and DC as markets. Unless they switch to competitive balance again, E/W makes the most sense in terms of travel. It just sucks of OSU, MI and MSU since they basically get kicked out of the old B10. Even with a 7+2 schedule, you’d only see old rivals once every 4 years.
LikeLike
I’d say the realistic scenario for UConn joining the Big Ten is:
1) Get into the AAU. Not merely be headed that way, but actually get in.
2) Become a strong mid-major in football, comparable to what Louisville and Boise State have achieved in recent years.
3) Expand their football stadium and prove they can fill it, not merely for the occasional trophy game, but for most games.
4) Hope that there is strong mutual interest with at least one other school, because odd numbers are awkward.
LikeLike
“3) Expand their football stadium and prove they can fill it, not merely for the occasional trophy game, but for most games.”
And that’s assuming the B1G doesn’t have an opinion on the stadium being an hour from campus in Hartford.
LikeLike
Agree or disagree, this reporter is creating hope, perhaps “false” for UConn faithful & an increasingly growing movement for folks in this state, as well as Alum.
I’d say a very false hope. Connecticut is a small media market. UConn plays football in a tiny stadium by Big Ten standards, and they have a weak football program. Every time a current Big Ten team plays the Huskies, it would be a less valuable game than what’s on the schedule today.
The three most populous states contiguous to the Big Ten footprint are New York (3rd in population), Virginia (12th) and Missouri (18th). Connecticut, which is non-contiguous, is 29th. No single school “delivers” New York,” which leaves Virginia as the obvious target, and once they are added, North Carolina (10th). If they get that far, next would be Georgia (9th) and Florida (4th).
The population of Virginia is close to 2 1/2 times that of Connecticut. It is also growing faster. Now, you might think UVA and UNC are unlikely to join the Big Ten, but the league can afford to wait and see. UConn isn’t going anywhere.
UConn does have a premier basketball program, but basketball brings in far less revenue than football. UConn is not an AAU school, nor are they especially close to that status, and whether or not you care about that, the Big Ten presidents sure do.
The Big Ten had 10 schools for decades, and eleven for 21 years. They are playing a long game. They won’t budge unless something truly compelling comes along. Maryland was a no-brainer (19th in population, and adjacent to Virginia), and because even numbers were required, they took the next best school available, which was Rutgers.
UConn offers nothing like that.
LikeLike
I’ll give these reporters some credit – at least they did it on tv, showed their faces, more specifically the white dude as opposed to pure Internet alias speculation. This one definitely made its way to the BIG offices.
Moreover, plenty of UConn fans don’t trust this guy.
LikeLike
So I’ll say more “false” hope than not. But, I’ve clearly stated my support for UConn in large part because I’m especially basketball biased.
LikeLike
UConn is next in line to join the ACC. As for the Big Ten, their top choices remain ACC schools and would take UConn only if it was insistent on more expansion of some sort and was willing to accept less than the more preferred ACC schools.
As for which G5 schools are most likely to join a any of the five power conferences, UConn is still behind BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and maybe even Memphis. All of those may offer more for the Big 12, which is the most likely power league to expand since it is the smallest one.
One of the big selling points for UConn, as UConn supporters will argue, is that it aids in access to New York and Boston, not to mention the decent market of Hartford. The problem for UConn getting into the Big 12, (again, the most likely league to expand), saying nothing of the enormous distance from everyone in the league, is that market size/access would have a much more limited impact on improving Big 12 TV dollars than it would for leagues with a TV network (or, in the case of the ACC, the prospect of getting one). Even optimistically, if the Big 12 was able to get better ratings in New York, Boston, or Hartford by adding UConn, that still does not help them get the lucrative cable carriage for a Big 12 TV Network because none exists and none will anytime for the next decade-plus. Instead, UConn would have to improve the value of the Big 12’s Fox and ESPN contracts more so than Cincy, BYU, and UCF would. It is very doubtful that wouod happen.
Since the Big Ten has nearly (or already has) reached an agreement with New York area cable.providers, it is probably satisfied with east coast expansion for the foreseeable future. Maybe the Big Ten has some buyer’s remorse on Rutgers, but at best, it is because it believes it could have gotten similar cable deals with UConn INSTEAD of Rutgers, not in addition to them. But the incentive for adding a non-AAU in a basically overlapping market that the league already has achieved cable coverage for just is not there. The best hope for UConn is for John Swofford to twist Notre Dame’s arm into joining for football full time and UConn joining as #16. Since that won’t happen, they just need to make the most of the place where they are.
LikeLike
UConn is next in line to join the ACC
According to the Louisville AD, UConn’s name was written in ink on the ACC invite before UL made their pitch.
As for which G5 schools are most likely to join a any of the five power conferences, UConn is still behind BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and maybe even Memphis. All of those may offer more for the Big 12, which is the most likely power league to expand since it is the smallest one.
The Big 12 GOR doesn’t expire until June 30, 2025. I don’t see any power conference realignment announcements until 2024 at the earliest. For the next ten years, the only way I see UConn getting into a power conference:
1) Notre Dame discovers its one loss teams can’t get into the playoff without a conference title and becomes a full member of the ACC with UConn added as #16. Highly unlikely, but possible.
2) The ACC needs UConn for additional content to re-work their ESPN contract to improve their deal for the ACC Network. ESPN agrees because they feel UConn (combined with Duke, Syracuse, UNC, ND) is needed for carriage in NYC.
LikeLike
I don’t think so Michael & their fans prefer the BIG, by overwhelming numbers. But who knows. Losing UConn to the ACC will be a regret for the BIG, long-term. The BIG, only 2 NCs, both sexes, past 20 years in hoops, will rarely ever win it if based on current history & UConn to the ACC.
There’s a bit of understated BIG pedigree at UConn right now: president taught at NW for many years, AD is a Michigan alum, new football coach is an Iowa alum. It’s a flagship school with a high ceiling for academics that continues to improve. These sort of connections matter more than we think & AAU & football can sometimes be overstated, along with the fact that the alum, fans, and administrators prefer the BIG as well. UConn is understandably bitter about previous ACC rejections – a conference most their supporters felt was guaranteed in previous expansions.
LikeLike
Then again, it was reported that BC was and is very against UConn joining the ACC in order to be the only New England school in the conference. Between BC and some of the football powers (FSU, Clemson) resenting adding a weak sister program, would UConn have the votes for admission? If 3/4 is needed to approve, would that be 11/14 teams? If so, and BC, FSU, and Clemson vote no, only one other school would need to vote no to block UConn. (I assume UND does not have a vote as a partial member).
LikeLike
UConn is next in line to join the ACC.
It’s probably more accurate to say that the line is empty. The ACC won’t expand unless it loses schools to other leagues, and with a GOR in place, that’s at least a decade away, assuming it happens at all.
As for the Big Ten, their top choices remain ACC schools and would take UConn only if it was insistent on more expansion of some sort. . . .
There is no reason for the Big Ten to expand for expansion’s own sake. There needs to be something very compelling about it.
As for which G5 schools are most likely to join a any of the five power conferences, UConn is still behind BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, and maybe even Memphis. All of those may offer more for the Big 12, which is the most likely power league to expand since it is the smallest one.
Frank did a good, smart analysis. And yeah, UConn is almost certainly behind BYU, Cincy, and the two Florida schools (UCF/USF), at least for the Big XII’s purposes.
Since the Big Ten has nearly (or already has) reached an agreement with New York area cable providers, it is probably satisfied with east coast expansion for the foreseeable future.
That’s factor that probably dooms UConn. If the Big Ten is already on local cable, then what do they gain by adding another team from the same market?
Maybe the Big Ten has some buyer’s remorse on Rutgers. . . .
I am reasonably sure that if they had a do-over, they’d still pick Rutgers.
LikeLike
@Wainscott –
Then again, it was reported that BC was and is very against UConn joining the ACC in order to be the only New England school in the conference.
If the Louisville AD is correct, then I think BC either didn’t have a problem or got out voted.
Between BC and some of the football powers (FSU, Clemson) resenting adding a weak sister program, would UConn have the votes for admission?
I’m not sure they would have a problem. Assuming ND plays their current partial schedule and the round robin requirement goes away, you can break the conference into three groups of five protected rivals:
North: BC, Uconn, Pitt, Syr, UL
Carolina: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, Clem
South: FSU, Miami, GT, UVA, VT
If the ACC scheduled nine games (2 pods would have 9 conf games, 1 would have 8 + ND) for each team they could play each team in the conference at least once every three years.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I’m not sure they would have a problem. Assuming ND plays their current partial schedule and the round robin requirement goes away, you can break the conference into three groups of five protected rivals:
North: BC, Uconn, Pitt, Syr, UL
Carolina: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, Clem
South: FSU, Miami, GT, UVA, VT”
While that’s convenient, Clemson would throw a fit. UVA, UNC, FSU and GT would be upset, too. The ACC doesn’t break up neatly into 3 equal and geographic groups if you protect rivalries.
A better approach:
North: BC, UConn, Pitt, Syr, UL
Middle: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVA
South: VT, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
With UVA/VT also locked (do it the final week when others play the SEC, perhaps).
Or try 4 groups:
North: BC, UConn, Pitt, Syr
Middle: UL, UVA, VT
NC: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake
South: Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
With UVA/UNC also locked.
Or even better, lock a different number of teams for each school. UNC may need 4, but not everyone does.
LikeLike
The BIG, only 2 NCs, both sexes, past 20 years in hoops, will rarely ever win it if based on current history & UConn to the ACC.
If that matters so much, why did the ACC pass on UConn? The Big Ten in 2014 earned more tournament credits than any other league, so it’s not as if their failure to win titles is hurting them at the cash register.
LikeLike
“If the Louisville AD is correct, then I think BC either didn’t have a problem or got out voted.”
Or had not actually been voted on before UL made its pitch. Or that ACC schools were receptive to Louisville because they knew several schools were opposed to UConn. Remember, at that time, in addition to BC, there were reports that FSU and Clemson were less than thrilled at the prospect of UConn football in the ACC, where UL had a better football program and had just won a national title in basketball.
LikeLike
@Brian –
While that’s convenient, Clemson would throw a fit. UVA, UNC, FSU and GT would be upset, too. The ACC doesn’t break up neatly into 3 equal and geographic groups if you protect rivalries.
I will admit I’m not an ACC expert. I did the best I could, but that was more of an example to show that with three groups of five the ACC could make a nine game schedule work with 15 teams + ND where each member plays every other member at least once every three years. I had thought about your breakdown with VT/UVA locked but I was too lazy to find out what its impact was on the overall rotation.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I will admit I’m not an ACC expert. I did the best I could, but that was more of an example to show that with three groups of five the ACC could make a nine game schedule work with 15 teams + ND where each member plays every other member at least once every three years.”
I understand. I just wanted to show that ACC members would have issues with it. Once you get into all the rivalries people want, it’s hard to make good groups of 5.
“I had thought about your breakdown with VT/UVA locked but I was too lazy to find out what its impact was on the overall rotation.”
North: BC, UConn, Pitt, Syr, UL
Middle: UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVA
South: VT, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
With UVA/VT also locked (do it the final week when others play the SEC, perhaps).
Yes, those extra locked games make everything difficult. That’s part of my point. There is no really neat solution for the ACC.
LikeLike
Mike,
1) Notre Dame discovers its one loss teams can’t get into the playoff without a conference title and becomes a full member of the ACC with UConn added as #16. Highly unlikely, but possible.
I would love to see the reaction of BC and Cuse if they knew that ND joining in full is predicated on them accepting UConn into the ranks.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepard,
The ACC has Tobacco Road, which means 7 modern era NCs on the men’s side alone between Duke and UNC. Btw, UConn is the only school that matches Duke’s NC totals in the modern era. Duke-UNC is also the best rivalry in CB. The ACC was infighting with many of the former Big East additions after VT and Miami (Pitt, Syracuse). FSU & Clemson, esp, wanted football power. Lville once shared conference membership with FSU (I believe Metro) & the Cardinals were seen as a better cultural fit, equal basketball power to UConn, well close enough, rising football power – plus a new market outside the greater Atlantic Coast.
When I read UConn boards, posters claim that Tobacco Road was supportive of UConn to the ACC, but it was in fact BC, more than any other school, that opposed their membership.
Attendance aside, the BIG is considerably behind the ACC in men’s basketball since 1985. We’ve lost most challenges to them, their NBA production has at least quadrupled us & they have more than twice as many modern era NCs. Carolina and Duke also hand pick Midwest blue chips with plenty of success.
Moreover, the ACC got Lville and Syracuse, so combined they have 4 NCAA titles. The ACC lost Md, which is the only non-Carolina team to win a NC under ACC membership. 4-1 = +3.
Even if the BIG were to add UConn, it would still be behind the ACC in men’s NCAA titles – but the gap would significantly close and UConn is a AtCC killer in hoops, both sexes.
I will continue to say one thing: the ACC is only getting stronger, esp in football. If ND, esp, pulls a full membership move – it’s truly absurd to think the ACC will ever lose a member in my lifetime. Only the Big12 may dissolve at this point.
LikeLike
@gfunk: The trouble is, you’re using the wrong measuring stick. Conference expansion is about making money, full stop. Winning national championships is very poorly correlated with revenue.
Look at football, which is the revenue driver. In the BCS era, the Big Ten had fewer title game appearances and fewer titles than any other P5 league. If championships mattered, the Big Ten would have had the lowest revenues. In fact, it had the most.
Basketball is similar: despite not winning a title recently, the Big Ten accumulated more tournament credits this year than any other league.
If you’re going to make a case for UConn, you need to make it with money, not by counting the number of titles.
LikeLike
Rutgers has had a collection of really dumb PR moves in the last year or so. Unreal.
Notwithstanding that, RU seems to have made major inroads in delivering the NY market in ways that UConn could never touch. RU football games get very good ratings in NYC, not UConn. When Rutgers had its big year in 2007 (I think), the Empire State Building was lit up in scarlet for the Louisville game. Nothing like that has ever happened for UConn.
In addition, the population of NJ is more than double that of Connecticut. RU just delivers much much more for the BTN than UConn could hope to.
All of this ignores the fact that RU is in the AAU and UConn is not. There is no way that UConn was or is a viable candidate for the B1G, even with their basketball title.
LikeLike
Agree on the comparisons wrt RU vs UConn, except never say never when it comes to the Huskies. They still would need a #16 to make it work IF they become a serious candidate.
There is still the matter of RU being one of the most disrespected programs on college sports. Much of that is due to historical performance but much more of that is borne out of the perceptions generated by graduates of private schools in the NY-area sports media, which get picked up elsewhere in the country. The PR gaffs don’t help at all, either.
LikeLike
I do not agree that RU has been one of the most disrespected programs in college sports. I would say generally more of a non-entity. An occasional big win or big season, but never close to enough or not often. Reaching the final four in bball in 1976 does not quite resolve years of lousy basketball. Having respectability and no more during the last ten years in football also does not do the trick. RU did win bowl games for something like 6 years in a raw, a few years ago. They were not top bowls, but 6 years in a row was the most in the country.
The real problem has been the absolute joke that the athletic department has been for the past couple of years. The idiot basketball coach, followed by the firing of a very good AD who was set up as a fall guy, followed by the hiring of a complete jerk from Louisville as the new AD, has left quite an impression of total chaos. A well deserved impression. Is there any AD in any major conference who has earned less respect than the RU AD? I doubt it.
Despite all of the recent craziness, the school and its location offer a lot to the B1G, which UConn does not. RU was AAU without the medical school (because years ago politicians felt that they could get more in their own pockets if the med school and RU were split). Now RU has the medical school back, so there are even more research dollars and a “stronger position” in the AAU. There are lots of research dollars and the opportunity for academic collaboration with other B1G schools in many areas.
NJ is the home of more than enough football and basketball players to consistently have a top 20 team or much better. In the B1G, only Ohio produces significantly more football players. Pennsylvania is just ahead of NJ. But that is it. Will RU ever get to keep a majority of them? Not with this football coach and AD, but maybe in the future.
Again, this year the top ranked (by far) football recruit in the B!G was Peppers to UMichigan, from NJ. A 7″ bball player picked by some as the top recruit in the country went from NJ to Kentuckh.
A couple of years ago, Don Bosco Prep, from North Jersey, was ranked number 1 in the country in HS football. They put four players in the US Army All Star Game. No high school has ever done that. One 5 star came to RU and is entering his junior year. A second 4 star was committed, but had an issue with Don Bosco about posting on the internet, and Don Bosco expelled him (after football season). He moved to Colorado, finished high school there (I think) and plays for U Colorado now. The last two four stars both had RU as their second choice and went elsewhere.
The potential is there. It will take a top coach and recruiter and may never happen. Who knows.
On the other hand, if the best football players in Connecticut stayed home every year, maybe they would be competitive once in a while.
LikeLike
“Is there any AD in any major conference who has earned less respect than the RU AD? I doubt it.”
Not saying you’re wrong, but give it some time. There are probably others in the running that aren’t at a school that just joined the B1G.
LikeLike
The NCAA men’s final four for golf is set.
#1 Stanford v. #4 OK State
#3 LSU v. #2 Alabama
LikeLike
Capital One Bowl will be on NYD at 1pm on ABC. Same time as the Cotton Bowl, which will be on ESPN.
LikeLike
Glad we keep that there. I’m guessing the Outback will start a little earlier.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10976033/college-football-playoff-system-redefine-how-bowls-selected
Using the 2013 BCS standings, a look at how the CFP committee would change the big 6 bowls compared to the BCS.
Even though the rankings are identical, there are huge differences in which teams play where based on whether it’s the first, second or third year of the playoff.
The 2013 final BCS standings:
1. Florida State
2. Auburn
3. Alabama
4. Michigan State
5. Stanford
6. Baylor
7. Ohio State
8. Missouri
9. South Carolina
10. Oregon
11. Oklahoma
12. Clemson
13. Oklahoma State
14. Arizona State
15. UCF
If the above rankings were the Selection Committee’s rankings after this season, this is how the New Year’s Six bowls would look for the bowl rotation in each of the next three seasons of the College Football Playoff:
Year 1 (after 2014 regular season)
SEMIFINALS
Sugar Bowl: 1. Florida State versus 4. Michigan State
Rose Bowl: 2. Auburn versus 3. Alabama
The No. 1 seed would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage from a crowd perspective and will be placed in the semifinal bowl closest to its campus, if possible. So FSU goes to New Orleans instead of Pasadena.
NON-PLAYOFF NEW YEAR’S SIX BOWLS
Orange: 12. Clemson (ACC) versus 7. Ohio State (Big Ten/SEC/ND)
Cotton, Fiesta and Peach: 5. Stanford, 6. Baylor, 8. Missouri, 9. South Carolina, 10. Oregon, 15. UCF (Group of 5).
The selection committee would have to pair the at-large teams in the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach and create the best and most compelling matchups. The highest-ranked available teams make the cut along with the highest-rated champion from the Group of 5 conferences (AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC and Sun Belt). My guess:
Fiesta: Stanford versus Missouri
Cotton: Baylor versus Oregon
Peach: South Carolina versus UCF
You could easily swap Oregon and Stanford or Missouri and Baylor. Neither decision would be right (or wrong), but this is one example of how tough it will be for the selection committee when making these matchups.
What stands out in this model: Where’s Oklahoma? The Sooners were ranked No. 11 in the final poll and just missed the cut (no longer will bowls be able to skip higher-ranked teams to pick a lower-ranked team that will travel better). So OU, which had the most impressive bowl win in 2013 against Alabama, would not have even had the opportunity to play in one of the CFB Playoff major bowls if the system had been in place. Even though Clemson ranked lower than OU, the Tigers get a bid to the Orange Bowl because of their tie-in to the ACC. Clemson was the highest-ranked available ACC team.
Year 2 (after 2015 regular season)
SEMIFINALS
Orange: 1. Florida State versus 4. Michigan State
Cotton: 2. Auburn versus 3. Alabama
The No. 1 seed would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage from a crowd perspective and will be placed in the semifinal bowl closest to its campus, if possible. So FSU goes to Miami instead of Arlington, Texas.
NON-PLAYOFF NEW YEAR’S SIX BOWLS
Rose: 5. Stanford (Pac-12) versus 7. Ohio State (Big Ten)
Sugar: 6. Baylor (Big 12) versus 8. Missouri (SEC)
Fiesta and Peach: 9. South Carolina, 10. Oregon, 11. Oklahoma, 15. UCF (Group of 5) The selection committee would have to pair the at-large teams in the Fiesta and Peach. My guess:
Peach: South Carolina versus UCF
Fiesta: Oklahoma versus Oregon
Like Year 1, the matchups are pretty obvious based on geography.
What stands out in this model: This year, No. 12 Clemson gets left out. The Rose (Pac-12 versus Big Ten) and Sugar (Big 12 versus SEC) are contracted to take the highest-ranked teams from their respective conferences. That leaves only three at-large teams, compared with five in Year 1.
Year 3 (after 2016 regular season)
SEMIFINALS
Peach: 1. Florida State versus 4. Michigan State
Fiesta: 2. Auburn versus 3. Alabama
The No. 1 seed would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage from a crowd perspective and will be placed in the semifinal bowl closest to its campus, if possible. So FSU goes to Atlanta instead of Glendale, Arizona.
NON-PLAYOFF NEW YEAR’S SIX BOWLS
Rose: 5. Stanford (Pac-12) versus 7. Ohio State (Big Ten)
Sugar: 6. Baylor (Big 12) versus 8. Missouri (SEC)
Orange: 12. Clemson (ACC) versus 9. South Carolina (SEC/Big Ten/ND)
Cotton: 10. Oregon (at large) versus 15. UCF (Group of 5)
The selection committee doesn’t have much to do — other than putting out its Top 25 final rankings. That’s because the Rose (Pac-12 versus Big Ten), Sugar (SEC versus Big 12) and Orange (ACC versus highest-ranked available SEC, Big Ten or Notre Dame) bowls are all determined by conference affiliation. That means there will be only one at-large team and it faces the Group of 5 champion.
What stands out in this model: Based on contractual agreements, the Orange gets stuck with a Clemson-South Carolina rematch. Also, with three of the four non-playoff bowls aligned with their specific conferences, that leaves only one at-large team. So every third year of the playoff, the highest-ranked at-large team will always play the Group of 5 champion (unless it’s in the national semifinals) at the Cotton Bowl.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8633324/acc-orange-bowl-finalize-12-year-agreement
He isn’t totally correct. There is a rule to prevent rematches for the ACC team in the Orange Bowl.
The ACC representative will play the highest available ranked team from Notre Dame, the SEC or the Big Ten. However, if the ACC’s highest-ranked opponent would create a regular-season rematch, the Orange Bowl has the flexibility to avoid that rematch by taking the next highest-ranked team from Notre Dame, the SEC or Big Ten. The team that was “skipped” over would be placed in an access bowl as long as it meets the minimum ranking requirement.
So in 2016, the Orange would be #12 Clemson vs #16 LSU instead. And because SC was #9, they’d bump #10 Oregon out of the at-large slot. Or has that rule changed?
LikeLike
Nice analysis. What I really hate there is seeing Alabama vs. Auburn. Based on the way they have described things, that’s how it would have been, but I’m hoping they are willing to tweak things enough to avoid rematches, especially conference ones. The argument could be that Michigan State won their conference and Alabama didn’t as official justification (not even bad justification), but don’t give us a conference rematch unless unavoidable.
LikeLike
Agreed. I tend to think the committee will adjust their rankings to avoid things like that. They can make a valid argument either way, so why not choose the way that makes more money for everyone? They wouldn’t swap #4 and #5 for convenience, but shifting #3 and #4 seems plausible.
LikeLike
I emailed Brett McMurphy about it and he sent me this response:
It is not definite about the no-rematch rule. They hope to avoid rematches, but there still may be some. Actually, no one knows for certain how it will be interpreted – and if they said no rematch, they wouldn’t skip South Carolina, they would simply send them to a different bowl and move someone else from the “pool” of teams in its place, if possible. Not sure if that makes sense
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/05/27/will-muschamp-florida-fcs-opponents-nick-saban-strength-of-schedule/
UF may stop playing I-AA teams. Probably a good thing since they lost to one last year.
LikeLike
I really wish they would have done that years ago. There’s nothing worse that having the last home game of the season be noon game against an FCS school, which is what happens every other year at UF now.
LikeLike
That’s one reason I hate September conference games. One of their purposes is to open that hole in the schedule in November. I’d much rather see all the OOC games up front (I understand year-end rivalry games, I’m talking normal OOC games).
LikeLike
That’s the coach. The AD said he wasn’t going to stop it.
LikeLike
The problem to me is not the presence of one FCS team on a home schedule. It’s the combination of FCS team plus two or three G5 teams, especially weak ones who cannot command return games. NC State here in town is notorious for this. They are playing Presbyterian, an FCS school with a tiny enrollment which has never made the FCS playoffs; Old Dominion, a school in only its fifth or sixth year of having a team and so new to FBS that it will just now be bowl eligible this year; Georgia Southern, a school brand new to FBS and bowl ineligible this yeaf; and at USF. Change Ga. Southern and Old Dominion to a Big Ten team and an SEC team, even if they are lower tier B1G/SEC teams, and it’s not a bad schedule at all. No one would care that Presbyterian is on the schedule.
If two or three of the four non conference games are against strong opponents, it makes little difference to most fans mandatory one or two cupcakes are FCS, MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA, or otherwise.
LikeLike
“…to most fans mandatory one or two cupcakes…”
Mandatory cupcakes? What the…?
LikeLike
Yes, mandatory cupcakes. That’s the college football world we live in. Teams insist on seven home games a year and the only way to make that happen is to schedule teams who cannot command a return game, i.e., cupcakes. Everyone has them. Alabama, Ohio State, Florida State, Florida, you name it.
LikeLike
No. Presbyterian is a cupcake. Being unable to require a H&H is not the defination of cupcake. There are plenty of Go5, and a fair number of lower P5 teams that will play one off’s. And the desire/need for a 7th home game being very desirable economically does not make it mandatory. Mandatory would be being required to do something regardless of the financial consequence.
LikeLike
Very well. Rather than mandatory, perhaps I should say obligatory. And my point remains that most fans are not going to be much more excited about paying for tickets, concessions, perhaps hotel room, parking, and other expenses to see their favorite P5 team play Georgia Southern/ Old Dominion/ Eastern Michigan / San Jose State than they are to see them play Presbyterian. A cupcake is a cupcake, whether it is FCS or a weak football school that happens to play in an FBS conference. Seriously, I just do not buy the idea that Ohio State fans cannot stand the idea of playing Youngstown State yet get jacked up for playing Buffalo. FCS, FBS… they’re both total cupcakes to Power Five schools, especially to traditional powerhouse programs. I think that fans would be perfectly accepting if only one game a year like that was played, whether it was an FCS school or one of the weaker G5 schools. Again, everyone has at least one of those types of games a year because of the desire for seven home games.But the rest of the non conference schedule ought to be Power Five schools or at least upper tier G5 schools.
Florida State’s schedule this particular year is a great example of what more schools ought to be doing, inclusing FSU in years past and future. The Noles play Florida and Notre Dame at home and Oklahoma State in Arlington, TX. That’s three peer programs, each of which have outperformed FSU at least once in just the past three or four years. Those are good games. The fourth game is some FCS school. It wouldn’t make a lick of difference if that game was against Florida International or some MAC school. It is still an excellent non conference schedule. Last year, on the other hand, was pathetic. At Florida and home vs. Nevada, Idaho, and Bethune Cookman. If Bethune Cookman had been replaced by FIU, would that somehow have made last year’s schedule better than this yyear’s? No. It would still be three very weak opponents compared with one strong one (well, UF is traditionally strong, anyway), and this year’s would still be four strong opponents compared with only one weak one.
LikeLike
Obviously not literally mandatory, but not realistically avoidable in the current revenue model. The plan for most Big Ten teams, in most years, will be nine conference games, one end of a home & home, and two paycheck games with opponents who don’t get a return visit.
I hesitate to call those paycheck games “cupcakes,” because plenty of teams have lost those games, or come damned close to doing so. Michigan needed a goal-line stand on the final play to beat Akron last year, and I hardly need to remind anyone of Appalachian State.
LikeLike
This is basically rumor, but a local sports talk radio host claimed that IN has been offered 3-for 1 deals by some southern teams and has refused. He was amazed they’d say no to such a gracious offer to actually get to host a game.
LikeLike
I dunno whether that’s a good idea for IU, but their future schedules right now leave much to be desired:
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/indiana-hoosiers.php
P5 teams on future schedules: Mizzou (2014), Wake.
Non-P5 schools: UConn, UMass, FIU, BGSU, Indiana State, North Texas, Western Kentucky,
LikeLike
IN will be lucky to win 6 games in any of those seasons. They don’t need road games at AL added to their list. Besides, it makes no financial sense to accept a 3-for-1 unless they would get a huge check as part of it.
LikeLike
I can see some G5 schools (especially those with small stadiums) going for a 3-for-1, but why would IU (with a 50K stadium) do it (unless, yes, they’re getting more than $1.5M each for both buy games as well as the HaH)? They’d have better luck trying to get a program that has financial difficulties (CU? CU?) to sign up for that. Heck, if we’re talking about one of the kings, they’d have better luck getting BYU to for a 2-for-1 since BYU does plenty of those to bring kings in to Provo.
God those programs in the south are arrogant.
LikeLike
3 for 1? Has anyone done that before? I wouldn’t, unless the second of the four were at home, and with reasonable buyouts for the remaining two. And probably not then.
LikeLike
Nebraska signed two for one agreements with Fresno St, So Miss, and Wyoming. There’s no reason that Indiana should have to sign a three for one.
LikeLike
What if the 3-for-1 would be with Texas A&M, Georgia, LSU or Florida, in states where there are a good number of potential recruits? You get three visits to show off to adolescent boys what your program can do for them. Maybe use the first one to promise some of them that their parents would get to see them play on their next visit. If it’s against those program then I would think about it.
The money would be the big hang-up, though, that would scuttle this type of deal.
LikeLike
3 games to get your ass kicked?
LikeLike
Hey! Maybe the first two times. 😉
LikeLike
What if the 3-for-1 would be with Texas A&M, Georgia, LSU or Florida, in states where there are a good number of potential recruits? You get three visits to show off to adolescent boys what your program can do for them. Maybe use the first one to promise some of them that their parents would get to see them play on their next visit. If it’s against those program then I would think about it.
I doubt whether there is enough of a recruiting bump to make up for the proposal’s disadvantages. Coaches can’t tell 16-17 year-olds that they will definitely be playing in a particular future game. The only assurance is that they’ll get a chance to compete with others recruited for the same position.
If it matters to the family to be able to see the kid play, he’s far more likely to stay much closer to home than play at a perennial Big Ten cellar-dweller, where maybe the family would see him locally once or twice in four years.
LikeLike
I think they will be staying put, Andy:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24574521/sec-slots-st-louis-tampa-as-future-league-tourney-hosts
LikeLike
I’m a little surprised they are deserting Atlanta for Nashville, but Atlanta does get the CCG so maybe they prefer to spread the money around a little more.
LikeLike
I wonder if there has been some recent “drama” at the tourney (not with UK fans) that one would associate with the terms “Hawks game”, “Freaknik” and “Hot-lanta”; maybe that explains the move to Nashville, where that element may feel the need to restrain themselves.
LikeLike
Freaknik died years ago and that element hasn’t reappeared in any meaningful way. I haven’t heard any local coverage to indicate any problems at the tournament over the years other than the tornado that one year.
LikeLike
Since the SEC will not allow UK to host the MBB tourney, what is the closest non-college affiliated major arena to UK? Nashville (SEC country) and Indianapolis (B1G) are both about a 3 hour drive from UK, so Nashville makes a lot of sense for the SEC (Cincinnati’s arena is closer, but 40 years old, smaller, and in a B1G state). So 9 years in the next 11 it will be much closer to UK, St. Louis is about the same as Atlanta in 2018. So it is only in 2022 when the UK fans will need to make a long road trip.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/opponents-barred-from-speaking-as-cobb-county-approves-1582556255/all
Typical Cobb County. And the opponents weren’t even allowed to speak at the meeting.
The Braves have been masters at brokering no dissent:
• When Atlanta balked at replacing the nearly 20-year-old Turner Field, team executives approached Cobb County—secretly, because as the team president said, if people knew about it, they would have said no.
• The funding was secured through some creative taxation, specifically chosen to avoid requiring a public referendum; Cobb County residents were never allowed to vote on giving $397 million to a baseball team.
• The actual vote on the operating agreement was only announced after 6 p.m. on the Friday before Memorial Day—concerned parties had just a long weekend to examine the details of a massive deal.
And the deal still contains questions and landmines. Cobb County has committed just $14 million to transportation improvements that are likely to cost at least 10 times that. The bond measures, released for the first time on Friday night, reveal that the Braves do not actually guarantee the $400 million in private development around the stadium that they had touted, rendering one of the project’s biggest selling points imaginary long before ground is even broken.
This is going to cost Cobb County taxpayers well more than $400 million. But will the new ballpark provide an economic benefit in return? Well, there’s a first time for everything.
As for that $14M in transportation costs:
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/11/27/6311/cobb-county-approves-preliminary-braves-agreement-now-just-has-to-figure-out-how-the-money-actually-works/
I wondered last week whether all the needed transportation improvements could be paid for with the $14 million that Cobb has committed to the project, and the Peach Pundit is wondering too, only with actual numbers:
[begin quote from another blog]
Other transportation options are being explored to facilitate efficient traffic flow, including the utilization of the Cobb Community Transit bus system and the development of a trolley line connecting Cumberland-area businesses. Cobb County officials also plan sidewalk improvements around the site and have potential plans for a bus transit and pedestrian-only bridge connecting I-285 to the Galleria area.
Cobb County officials also are planning to build a bridge that will span I-285, connecting the Cobb Galleria office park to the stadium. Tim Lee gushed over this “Cheesecake Factory” bridge in a recent story. He stated it would have a shuttle that ran across it all the way to the Cumberland Mall/Galleria area. The bridge at 17th street in Atlanta cost approximately 40 million. That bridge was much easier to build than this one, as the interstate runs significantly below grade at the crossing point. The highway in this instance is well above grade, and the bridge will have to be much longer and built much higher. The grade cannot be very great or the shuttle, in whatever form it takes, will not be able to climb the bridge. This points to a bridge cost of conservatively 3 times the 17th street bridge, probably closer to 4. It is safe to say that this bridge, though specifically stated as being part of the the overall costs in the MOU, has not been budgeted.
The first paragraph discusses things that GDOT is already doing or planning to do, so there’s no cost there to Cobb taxpayers outside of what they already pay in state taxes. The second and third paragraphs refer to “options,” “plans,” and “potential plans.” Is $14M enough to cover building pedestrian bridges and trolleys, in addition to the more likely items like sidewalks and CCT buses? My guess is no.
[end quote]
Three to four times the cost of the 17th Street bridge would mean $120-160 million, which is a hell of an unfunded mandate — and that’s just one item on the Braves’ wish list. The Pundit says it’s “likely the state DOT will have to catch some of the total left over when the irrational exuberance fades”; if that’s going to require a state vote, then things could get interesting, given the murmurings of opposition to the deal in the legislature.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/nobody-wants-to-host-the-2022-olympics-1582151092/+sarah-hedgecock
Nobody wants to host the 2022 Winter Olympics.
Munich and St. Moritz both voted against a bid in public referndums.
Of the 6 finalists:
Krakow and Stockholm have withdrawn their bids
Lviv, Ukraine seems highly unlikely due to current events
Oslo’s bid is falling apart as public opposition is rising and the junior member in the government coalition has voted not to fund any Olympics, meaning the left and right would have to form a coalition to support it.
That leaves Almaty Khazakstan and Beijing, two cities where public opinion doesn’t matter. Beijing just had the summer Olympics, obviously, plus only the indoor events could be held in Beijing. The outdoor snow events would be held in Zhangjiakou (roughly 50+ miles away).
LikeLike
Borat should be the official mascot of a Khazak olympic bid.
LikeLike
The other aspect which hurts is, as the winter olympics have grown in size, the smaller host cities of the past are simply unable to host the games anymore, what with the increase need for hotel rooms, infrastructure, and the like. Places like Lake Placid, Innsbruck, Albertville, and the like just cannot support the modern winter olympic games. Even Lake Tahoe would have to spend billions building venues and related infrastructure for a potential future bid.
LikeLike
What is the general perception from B1G schools/fans about an early signing period? If it’s a good thing for the B1G what date would be best? I would think Mid or Late August would be a good time as long as they allow official visits in May or June.
Weather is always an issue for B1G schools so getting official visits in the warmer months is probably a good thing but on the flip side you can’t showcase the gameday experience. Always thought OV’s in December or January is an uphill battle but the Florida kids that pick a Northern school on a winter visit will certainly know what they are getting themselves into and maybe less likely to get homesick or transfer.
LikeLike
I’m not sure there is any consensus. Personally, I think having a week in August would be good assuming they allow official visits the summer after your junior year. The whole point for me is to provide kids a way to get recruiting over with before their senior season starts if they want to do so. It’s no different than letting regular students apply for early decision.
LikeLike
Agreed. It’s been a couple of decades or more since I applied for school but I remember getting it over with in early Fall and just waiting for acceptances. Most of my classmates knew where they wanted to go and were just waiting for the official acceptance letters.
LikeLike
I think multiple signing dates will lighten or significantly reduce all this glamorization of the February signing day. Which I think would be a good thing as some of these kids are just playing with the schools. Less TV coverage for NSD the better in my opinion.
LikeLike
I am opposed to it. As it is, the LOI is one-sided: the school has various ways to back out of it, but the student does not. Most other students are not making a college choice until much later, and indeed, couldn’t even if they wanted to.
I’ve seen one suggestion I could stand behind: an early revocable LOI. An athlete who wanted to end his recruitment could sign one of these, and while it was in effect, he couldn’t take visits, and no coach from any other program could speak to him. If he changed his mind, or there were subsequent events (e.g., the coach getting fired), he could formally revoke the document and re-open his recruitment. If all goes well, the athlete would sign the familiar irrevocable LOI in February.
The beauty of this, is that it doesn’t force kids into irrevocable decisions so much earlier than all of their non-athletic classmates. It also gives them an out if the coach leaves at the end of the season, or for any of the other reasons that athletes decommit in the current system. (Yes, yes, I know that in the current rules, the departure of the coach is legally irrelevant, but I think you’d find very few Big Ten football players who said it didn’t matter who the coach was.)
LikeLike
“Most other students are not making a college choice until much later, and indeed, couldn’t even if they wanted to.”
Precisely. Most regular students are receiving an offer (acceptance) and have until enrollment to decide (sign). This early period is primarily for the coaches and teams benefit.
“I’ve seen one suggestion I could stand behind: an early revocable LOI.”
Which is like a verbal. Most teams curtail recruiting a player who has given a public verbal. Stops wasting resources better spent elsewhere, unless a de-commit becomes public or a person close to the kid (HS coach, parent) suggests contact would be welcome.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Most regular students are receiving an offer (acceptance) and have until enrollment to decide (sign).”
But many schools give the option of early decision, and the student is then committed if they get accepted. An early signing period is no different. If non-athletes can make a decision on where to go in August, why can’t a football player?
LikeLike
But many schools give the option of early decision, and the student is then committed if they get accepted. An early signing period is no different. If non-athletes can make a decision on where to go in August, why can’t a football player?
I think the typical early decision application date is in December, not August.
LikeLike
Brian:
“But many schools give the option of early decision, and the student is then committed if they get accepted.”
Who, how, where has this happened? I’ve heard of needing to commit/sign to recieve an academic scholarship or risk it going elsewhere (sound familiar?). But it in no way restricts them from continuing to explore other opportunities, or other schools from recruiting them.
LikeLike
It is the NLOI observing member schools only that are restricted by the signing. Ivy League isn’t a member and can “legally” recruit signed athletes, if they choose to.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think the typical early decision application date is in December, not August.”
The final date is often 11/1, but the window opens much earlier.
For example:
http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/deadlines/
The window opens on 8/15 and ends on 11/1.
Some schools have much earlier deadlines.
Signing periods are also windows, but everyone quotes the first date. The early signing period in hoops is a week long, for example. Football could be 1 day or 2 months.
Remember that football players undergo a recruiting pressure much different from regular students. Also, they are playing football in the fall so they don’t really have spare time to do much research on schools then anyway.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Who, how, where has this happened?”
You’ve never heard of early decision?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_decision
Early decision is a common early admission policy used in college admissions in the United States for admitting freshmen to undergraduate programs. It is used to indicate to the University or College that the candidate considers that institution to be his or her top choice. …
… Early decision differs from early action in that it constitutes a binding commitment to enroll; that is, if offered admission under an early decision program, and the financial aid offered by the school, if requested, is acceptable, the candidate must withdraw all other applications to other institutions and enroll at that institution.
LikeLike
http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/early-and-regular-decision
Here’s Penn’s explanation of their program:
Early Decision Plan
For applicants who have decided that the University of Pennsylvania is their first choice and who agree to matriculate if accepted, we encourage application under our Early Decision agreement. Children and grandchildren of alumni will receive the most consideration for their affiliation with the University during Early Decision.
Early Decision applications are binding and represent a serious commitment to Penn. In signing the Early Decision agreement, a student agrees to withdraw applications from all other schools if admitted to Penn. Further, Early Decision applications supersede any non-binding Early Action applications. A student may apply Early Decision to only one institution.
LikeLike
Brian:
“…a student agrees to withdraw applications from all other schools…”
Again, is there anything other than the that school withdrawing offer/admission as a consequence of looking elsewhere? If a student chose to look elsewhere, in spite of that agreement, is there anything preventing the other schools from offering/admitting the prospective student, as is the case with NLOI’s (except for the Ivy’s)?
LikeLike
Ccrider:
See my response below. It’s seen as unethical by some and some schools do share their list of ED admits, though whether there are repercussions is murky. For the sake of relationships, many of the top high schools play along.
LikeLike
“Precisely. Most regular students are receiving an offer (acceptance) and have until enrollment to decide (sign). This early period is primarily for the coaches and teams benefit.”
Wow. ccrider evidently went to college before both the early-decision era and the now-standard May 1 enrollment-decision deadline.
When was this? The ’60’s? So how did it work back then? After schools mailed out acceptances, they just waited until the fall to see how many kids would show up?
LikeLike
It’s called statistics. You know, with past data you can project enrolement based on % of those accepted who actually arrive. Most do go where they originally plan to, but some have life interruptions or changing opportunities/needs.
I missed the law being passed that requires attendance if you signed up. The only one I was concerned with was conscription (draft lottery #120). Has it returned and been expanded to cover college admission/attendance?
LikeLike
OK, it isn’t a legally binding decision (but you need to send the school some money to hold your place). However, are you arguing that athletes should be treated more like regular students? Because regular students can drop-out or transfer whenever, so long as they find another school to take them. If an oboe player doesn’t like the orchestra he joined, he can leave and join another university who takes him, and if that university gives him a scholarship to play oboe for their orchestra, there are no restrictions on that.
LikeLike
Richard:
“However, are you arguing that athletes should be treated more like regular students?”
I’m saying until an irrevocable NLOI’s is signed that is exactly what they are. The idea schools are going to accept, let alone promote, an agreement that binds them but not the recruit is illogical…not in the schools interest.
LikeLike
The idea schools are going to accept, let alone promote, an agreement that binds them but not the recruit is illogical…not in the schools interest.
The revocable LOI does benefit the schools, in comparison to the current system, in which “commits” are verbal, unregulated, and don’t actually “commit” anything.
Today, Johnny Jones can commit to Clemson, but other coaches can still call / text / email / visit him. If Johnny signed a revocable LOI, it would be an NCAA violation for other teams to communicate with him in any way. So this provides a considerably higher measure of security that a “commit” really stays committed until the February date, when the revocable LOI would be replaced by the familiar irrevocable one.
Of course, once a player signed a revocable LOI, the coach would be free to talk about him publicly, as opposed to the current rules, where kids can talk about where they’re (supposedly) committed, but coaches cannot.
I am guessing that a pretty low percentage of the revocable LOIs would actually get revoked, fewer than the number of athletes that “decommit” today. For one thing, I think the act of signing something would make the commitment more serious. Beyond that, if the kid can’t talk to other teams, and other teams can’t talk to him, he’s far less likely to stray unless something goes seriously wrong at the school he committed to (coach fired, etc.).
I do realize that coaches would naturally push for early commitments to be irrevocable. Why should they give 17-year-olds a chance to change their minds? But that doesn’t mean we have to support that idea.
LikeLike
Unless an early signing is a binding, irrevocable NLOI like the current one it isn’t a signing in the normal sense. It is a written “verbal”. It ain’t happening/changing unless it’s binding. I suggested that kind of agreement with a girlfriend, me being able to see others if I chose to, but she couldn’t. Guess how that went…
LikeLike
I certainly agree with you that the coaches would surely prefer that the system remain heavily loaded in their own favor. That doesn’t mean we have to support them.
LikeLike
I’m not arguing what we should or shouldn’t support. I’m saying that the schools (coaches) aren’t suggesting a change that weakens their hand and increases their vulnerability, without the ability to respond, to the whims of kids not hardly HS seniors (or underhanded “influence” of other schools “boosters”). If AD’s/coaches are proposing/supporting a change it is to increase their certainty and security. It’s not to benevolently help the kids they are recruiting.
LikeLike
If AD’s/coaches are proposing/supporting a change it is to increase their certainty and security. It’s not to benevolently help the kids they are recruiting.
I certainly agree with you that the coaches will naturally prefer the system that gives them the strongest hand. However, I do think you have misjudged the benefits of a revocable LOI. Obviously, it’s not as strong as the irrevocable kind, but it certainly helps them.
For one thing, they would know that their commits literally cannot talk to, or even be approached by, coaches at other schools, unless the athlete formally revokes his LOI. In the current system of unregulated commitments, there is no such assurance. The other benefit is that they’d be able to talk about their commits openly; today, that’s a violation.
Obviously, given their druthers, this is not the system the coaches would choose, if they could have an early signing date that gives them even more control. But it does give them quite a bit of extra security, while giving a 17-year-old some wiggle room to change his mind if, for instance, the coach gets fired at the end of the season.
LikeLike
“Obviously, it’s not as strong as the irrevocable kind, but it certainly helps…”
No more than a verbal. If it’s revocable it is NOT a binding commitment! It provides no certainty. If kids can change their mind there is incentive to continue to pursue, whether “allowed” or not. Just create a master “do not call list” that kids can opt into or not. Why should they have to commit in order to curtail the recruiting? Can’t a kid/family decide they have all the information they need but would like some quiet time to dispassionately evaluate, and then decide? Probably work as well as the do not call lists have been in other areas…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“No more than a verbal.”
No. You are just flat out wrong about that. We’ve explained it to you multiple times, so you’re just choosing to ignore the glaring difference between the two situations.
LikeLike
Brian:
I’m discounting anecdotal similarities. Are we really to believe a non binding on the athlete, but binding on the schools agreement is what the schools are proposing? It’s not. What’s being proposed is like the other sports where there is an early binding signing period. The rest is just that some think, and others (me) disagree, that they should be allowed to sign, but not really, and yet limit what schools may do. By defination of the agreement being non binding on the athlete they would remain eligible to go anywhere. But, again, this is not the proposal.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Are we really to believe a non binding on the athlete, but binding on the schools agreement is what the schools are proposing?”
I don’t believe anybody has claimed that it is. Marc said it had been mentioned by someone.
Then we had this side discussion about a revocable LOI versus a verbal commitment versus an irrevocable LOI. In that side conversation, you have stubbornly maintained that there is no real difference between a verbal and a RLOI despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Now you’re trying to change the topic back to the main discussion while acting as if that was what we were discussing in this thread.
LikeLike
Sorry if I am not being clear. My point is that a revocable LOI a one way contract. It is indicating a future intention to sign a binding agreement (like a verbal), but with no consequences to one of the party’s if they don’t follow through.
If you want to curtail recruiting that could be accomplished by an opt in/out on a master list of all eligible athletes (an interactive do not call list). It need not be associated with any level of commitment to any school – a recruit controlled dead period. Should/would the schools go for having to dedicate a scholarship, that could wind up not accepted, with no guarantee in return, to enable that dead period?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Sorry if I am not being clear. My point is that a revocable LOI a one way contract. It is indicating a future intention to sign a binding agreement (like a verbal), but with no consequences to one of the party’s if they don’t follow through.”
But unlike a verbal, it invokes a change in a recruit’s status according to the rules. All other schools would be forbidden from contacting him. Right now, teams regularly recruit players verbally committed elsewhere.
“If you want to curtail recruiting that could be accomplished by an opt in/out on a master list of all eligible athletes (an interactive do not call list). It need not be associated with any level of commitment to any school – a recruit controlled dead period.”
Find me a player that doesn’t know where he wants to go (that will accept him) and also doesn’t want to be recruited. The players that don’t want to be recruited feel that way because they know where they want to go and know that school will take them.
“Should/would the schools go for having to dedicate a scholarship, that could wind up not accepted, with no guarantee in return, to enable that dead period?”
Why not? It still will almost eliminate players getting flipped, meaning coaches can stop babysitting committed players and spend more time recruiting others to fill out the class.
LikeLike
Brian:
I understand what is suggested but disagree as to the advantage/disadvantage conclusion you’ve reached. And I agree about what would or wouldn’t be allowed IF such a rule existed. I just don’t see schools/coaches eliminating recruitment of players who haven’t yet signed binding contracts with another member of the NLOI observing group. And they would be the ones to write and pass such rules. We do have no contact periods. Expanding/manipulating them would be an easier lift, but still not as easy as applying the existing early signing rules of other sports to FB.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I just don’t see schools/coaches eliminating recruitment of players who haven’t yet signed binding contracts with another member of the NLOI observing group. And they would be the ones to write and pass such rules.”
What coaches want doesn’t always win. ADs and president overrule them frequently. If this is viewed as a player welfare issue, the top level people may make the decision despite what coaches think. Especially since they have another revenue sport to look at that already has a similar rule. My guess is they are more likely to make it binding, and I’m fine with that. I don’t see a problem with allowing someone to make an informed decision earlier.
“We do have no contact periods. Expanding/manipulating them would be an easier lift, but still not as easy as applying the existing early signing rules of other sports to FB.”
Those periods don’t help when some players want to be recruited and others don’t.
LikeLike
“Those periods don’t help when some players want to be recruited and others don’t.”
Hence the suggestion for a individual opt in/out “do not call” list.
LikeLike
The revokable one sounds better. I’m leery of forcing kids into an earlier choice, especially before they even started their senior year. Technically it might not be forcing, but if most are signing on early, your spot can well be gone if you want to wait a bit to decide and most are signing in August.
LikeLike
I’d certainly support a revocable early signing. It gives most of the real benefits (no unwanted contact from other coaches) for the student. The coaches would have to keep recruiting them until the LOI is signed, though, which may be an unwanted hassle for both sides.
Ideally, they’d have a choice of an irrevocable one (no recruiting by their own coaches, either) or a revocable one (their coaches can and would keep recruiting them).
LikeLike
What the heck is a revocable “signing”? It’s no different than giving a verbal in that it depends on honoring a non binding agreement, which “revocable” implies/means the opposite. You want to hand power to 16/17 yr olds just make a master list and rule saying schools may only recruit kids who have opted in (or not opted out), perhaps by individual school. Or a master site and list that is the only place initial contact may be made. Kid can choose to ignore or respond, but no other contact allowed without invitation. And any contact can be terminated by clicking the “end” or “terminate” box on the site.
Boy, that seems like something coaches/recruiters would love…(sarcasm)
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“What the heck is a revocable “signing”?”
Exactly what it says. It’s a binding legal document that can be undone, like most legal documents. A RLOI would stop all recruiting contact from anyone other than the school a player signed with, which is why both players and coaches would like it.
“It’s no different than giving a verbal in that it depends on honoring a non binding agreement, which “revocable” implies/means the opposite.”
Verbals are not recognized by the NCAA, so they carry no weight. A RLOI would be official with the NCAA and thus rules would apply.
LikeLike
Here is a link to the University of Pennsylvania early decision site. If you are accepted to U of P early decision and are accepted, it is binding. If a student is admitted to any other school’s early admission, they must notify Penn and withdraw their application to Penn.
http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/apply/freshman-admission/early-and-regular-decision
It says:
Early Decision Plan
For applicants who have decided that the University of Pennsylvania is their first choice and who agree to matriculate if accepted, we encourage application under our Early Decision agreement. Children and grandchildren of alumni will receive the most consideration for their affiliation with the University during Early Decision.
Early Decision applications are binding and represent a serious commitment to Penn. In signing the Early Decision agreement, a student agrees to withdraw applications from all other schools if admitted to Penn. Further, Early Decision applications supersede any non-binding Early Action applications. A student may apply Early Decision to only one institution. Accordingly, if a student applies Early Decision to the University of Pennsylvania and to another school, the Early Decision application to Penn will be withdrawn.
Early Decision candidates who are denied admission in December may not reapply for Regular Decision in the same academic year.
Regular Decision Plan
If any Regular Decision applicant to the University of Pennsylvania is accepted by another school under a College Board-approved, binding Early Decision plan, the applicant must inform the Office of Admissions and withdraw the Penn application
LikeLike
Other than being denied admission to UPenn, is there any other “binding” consequence, like the NLOI program that governs all participating members (pretty much everyone but the Ivy’s)?
LikeLike
Not legally binding, but there may or may not be consequences. The rumor is that the top privates share their ED lists, so a kid could see an offer pulled (or other schools not consider him/her) based on a judgement that reneging on an ED agreement is a character flaw (ED is kind of like a handshake promise). Foreign schools don’t participate in this, so there is some sort of loophole there. Also, different schools may or may not have arrangements with each other. However, reneging on an ED acceptance for non-financial-aid-related reasons is seen to be pretty serious in the admissions world.
LikeLike
I did quite a bit of research on “Early Decision” when my son was going through his college search a couple of years ago. Many institutions do share their early decision lists, and won’t accept a student if he’s been ED’d at another institution. It’s not as strictly regulated as an athletic LOI, but it’s pretty serious.
LikeLike
And many/most honor kids verbal for the most part. Why wast the time, effort and resources trying to change a mind you couldn’t win when he supposedly was undecided? All I’m saying is there is no national association regulating early entry like the NCAA/NLOI. There may be cooperation and respect, but there is to some extent with athletic verbals, too.
LikeLike
And many/most honor kids verbal for the most part. Why wast the time, effort and resources trying to change a mind you couldn’t win when he supposedly was undecided? All I’m saying is there is no national association regulating early entry like the NCAA/NLOI. There may be cooperation and respect, but there is to some extent with athletic verbals, too.
You have obviously done zero research on “Early Decision”. Among the schools participating in that process, it is pretty much an absolute bar on changing your mind, unless the first school releases you.
As far as I can tell, no one “cooperates” or “respects” a verbal commitment, which legally does not even exist. Now, I agree with you that, pragmatically, coaches might not waste a lot of time trying to change the mind of a kid who claims to be solidly committed. But that’s merely pragmatism. It is pretty well documented that supposedly “committed” athletes continue to receive significant attention and offers from other schools.
LikeLike
“You have obviously done zero research on “Early Decision”.
True. I can’t see how you can legally be restrained from exploring options. And I also know kids who have applied early to multiple schools.
“Among the schools participating in that process,…”
Is there a name of the organization that oversees and governs the process? NCAEE (national collegiate association of early enrollers)?
“…it is pretty much an absolute bar on changing your mind, unless the first school releases you.”
Two things. First: “Pretty much” doesn’t suggest “absolute”, at least to me. But since I don’t know the extent or the enforcement power of the unnamed organization governing the competition for early enrollers that may be a reasonable discription (like NLOI governs in the NCAA, except for the non participating Ivy schools).
Second: if a release is sought, how often is it granted (how does it compare to getting out of a signed NLOI)? Will it prevent an early enroller from deciding their councillor was right and Harvard was an option they should explore rather than the local Enormous State U: every time? only under hardship? sometimes? rarely? never?
LikeLike
“Is there a name of the organization that oversees and governs the process? NCAEE (national collegiate association of early enrollers)?”
Actually, there is some organization. I can’t remember the name, but it’s like the organization for college adcoms (or private adcoms) or something like that, and someone who use to work in admissions at Smith said her college participated in the list sharing back in the day.
“Second: if a release is sought, how often is it granted (how does it compare to getting out of a signed NLOI)?”
They tend to be handed out fairly easily if a kid doesn’t act like a total ass. Usually, not enough financial aid to attend, or didn’t get in to the school of the university they wanted, or . . . something is a good enough of an excuse.
However, the stakes also aren’t as high. At the elite universities, there are far more qualified applicants who would do well at that school than there are slots. If an admit with a 1550 (M+V) SAT and 4.0 GPA rejects Penn, Penn will . . . admit another kid with a 1550 SAT and 4.0 GPA instead.
If a 5-star recruit rejects you, plucking another 5-star recruit from the “reject” pile isn’t an option.
LikeLike
From my experience, most Nebraska fans love the idea. There is usually one player a year that commits in the summer and then later in the year gets the offer from their dream school and de-commits. This completely ignores the de-commits from other schools Nebraska gets late in the game, but that seems to be how it is.
I don’t like the early signing period. It helps coaches at the expense of players. For example:
1) Most of the dates thrown around are before coaching changes are made. There are comparatively few coaching changes after the February date. It isn’t in an athletes best interest to make it more common where a player can sign with a school where the coach/staff who recruited them could be gone a few weeks later*. This happens with basketball today, and I don’t think anyone would describe it as ideal.
*Yes, I know coaches can get fired/leave/retire after a year. That isn’t ideal either, but an early date will actually make this problem worse, not better. A vast majority of signees now get at least a season with their chosen coaches.
2) Coaches will abuse it. Imagine an under the radar player who’s recruitment blows up once their senior film is evaluated. At the early signing date (because no one had the chance to look at their film yet) they only have an offer from a MAC school. The coach tells the player, either sign or lose the scholarship to someone else. With out any other options they have to sign.
LikeLike
Mike,
“It helps coaches at the expense of players.”
It also helps players. They are essentially being stalked by up to 100 coaches and recruiting reporters. They get calls and texts all day and well into the night every single day. They get pulled out of classes to meet with coaches. If they know where they want to go, why should they have to put up with that for 6 more months?
“1) Most of the dates thrown around are before coaching changes are made.”
That’s unavoidable since signing day is in early February. Any early signing period would have to be before the season ends to make any sense. I agree it’s an issue, though.
“2) Coaches will abuse it.”
I think this is overblown. Coaches don’t have nearly the leverage people claim. The 2* guys are mostly recruited during and after their senior year as coaches wait to see how they do. This early signing wouldn’t impact them at all. 3* and above players have options. The real purpose is for the better players to be able to finish recruiting earlier. Right now, over half of the MAC has 0 or 1 player verbally committed, for example. Meanwhile, every SEC team has at least 2 and all but Vandy have 6 or more. Half have at least 10, and UK has the only 2* player in the whole conference.
LikeLike
@Brian –
It also helps players. They are essentially being stalked by up to 100 coaches and recruiting reporters. They get calls and texts all day and well into the night every single day. They get pulled out of classes to meet with coaches. If they know where they want to go, why should they have to put up with that for 6 more months?
An early signing period will help with that problem, but is it the most effective way? I just can’t accept that the best thing for an athlete is to limit their already limited rights even further. Just throwing out an idea here, but maybe instead of a NLI they could sign a “quiet period” document that would limit the ability of (all/some) coaches to contact players in line with quiet period rules. They could opt in or out for time periods similar to the Do Not Call registry. That way they still have the unlimited flexibility to explore their options if they get second thoughts, coaching change, or academic issue.
I think this is overblown. Coaches don’t have nearly the leverage people claim.
I think coaches use high pressure tactics frequently because frankly they work on 17 year old kids. Any deadline will be used to ramp up the pressure. Overblown or not, is the addition of an early signing period a net benefit for the athlete or school?
I don’t follow basketball recruiting much at all, but how prevalent are recruits asking to get out of their NLI in basketball. It seems like a lot, but I don’t follow it close enough to know for sure.
LikeLike
Mike,
“An early signing period will help with that problem, but is it the most effective way?”
Yes, it probably is. That doesn’t mean it’s the best way, but it may be the only available option realistically.
“I just can’t accept that the best thing for an athlete is to limit their already limited rights even further.”
How does allowing them more choice reduce their rights? They don’t have to sign early. Plenty of hoops players don’t sign early, for example.
“Just throwing out an idea here, but maybe instead of a NLI they could sign a “quiet period” document that would limit the ability of (all/some) coaches to contact players in line with quiet period rules. They could opt in or out for time periods similar to the Do Not Call registry. That way they still have the unlimited flexibility to explore their options if they get second thoughts, coaching change, or academic issue.”
That’s just Marc’s revocable NLI, isn’t it? To me, that’s a separate (but related) issue from whether or not they can sign early.
“I think coaches use high pressure tactics frequently because frankly they work on 17 year old kids.”
A 17 year old’s signature is meaningless unless a parent also signs it. Besides, these kids have options. Offend them by applying too much pressure and they’ll sign elsewhere.
“Overblown or not, is the addition of an early signing period a net benefit for the athlete or school?”
The athlete in some cases, the school in others. I’d say it favors the athletes more than the schools overall, but other will disagree.
“I don’t follow basketball recruiting much at all, but how prevalent are recruits asking to get out of their NLI in basketball. It seems like a lot, but I don’t follow it close enough to know for sure.”
They transfer a lot, but I don’t hear about asking out of their LOI all that often. Probably at coaching changes would be the most common time.
LikeLike
@Brian
How does allowing them more choice reduce their rights? They don’t have to sign early. Plenty of hoops players don’t sign early, for example.
If they sign they can’t reconsider no matter what happens in the interim. They lose their right to reconsider from the early signing day until the February date. No matter how sure a 17 year old is on the early date a lot can happen (coaching change, etc.) to change that.
That’s just Marc’s revocable NLI, isn’t it? To me, that’s a separate (but related) issue from whether or not they can sign early.
I didn’t see his post before I made mine, but they are very similar. I like the revocable part of his proposal, but it does nothing for an athlete who isn’t ready to sign and wants space. If an athlete wants to wait until after their season (big game, vacation, midterms, holiday, etc) to be hounded by recruiters I think they should have the option to do so.
They transfer a lot, but I don’t hear about asking out of their LOI all that often. Probably at coaching changes would be the most common time.
I noticed it happened a couple of times with Tennessee’s and [redacted]’s basketball coaching changes. I imagine it will be very common in football if there is an early date before most coaching changes are made.
LikeLike
Mike,
“If they sign they can’t reconsider no matter what happens in the interim.”
Which is no different than now.
“They lose their right to reconsider from the early signing day until the February date.”
No, they choose to waive that right and a parent would have to agree.
“I noticed it happened a couple of times with Tennessee’s and [redacted]‘s basketball coaching changes. I imagine it will be very common in football if there is an early date before most coaching changes are made.”
The early date in hoops is in mid-November with the regular signing day in mid-April. That would be like making it early September for FB.
LikeLike
““If they sign they can’t reconsider no matter what happens in the interim.”
Which is no different than now.”
Except that coaching changes rarely happen after Feb while a bunch do at season-end.
LikeLike
Basketball faces the same issue and they haven’t had tremendous problems with it. Most schools agree to let the kids out of their LOIs if the coach changes.
LikeLike
OT – ACC new logo
Included in their news page is a link to a pdf about the new logo. Under “Brand Conversations” (pg. 9) is quite a doozy:
Click to access acc_brand_book.pdf
From To
Southern Atlantic Coast
Regional National
Tobacco Road 15 Unique Members
Basketball’s Greatest Rivalries Basketball’s Greatest Conference
An Average Football Conference A Top Ranked Power 5 Conference
Competitive in a Range of Sports Unmatched in Sporting Depth/Success
Strong Academic Schools Nation’s Top Academic/Athletic Conference
Tradition as it Honors the Past Tradition as it Elevates the Future
The first three lines (the ones I bolded) really says it all in what the ACC had to do in order to keep their place within the power group. This has to stick in the craw of those in Guildford who long for the 9-team days centered around one particular southern state. Still, how do does “Atlantic Coast” jive with “National” I have no idea.
LikeLike
I can’t do columns here (but I think people can figure it out, anyways). Let me do it this way:
From
Southern
Regional
Tobacco Road
Basketball’s Greatest Rivalries
An Average Football Conference
Competitive in a Range of Sports
Strong Academic Schools
Tradition as it Honors the Past
To
Atlantic Coast
National
15 Unique Members
Basketball’s Greatest Conference
A Top Ranked Power 5 Conference
Unmatched in Sporting Depth/Success
Nation’s Top Academic/Athletic Conference
Tradition as it Elevates the Future
LikeLike
All you ever wanted to know about the new ACC logo, and more:
Click to access acc_brand_standards.pdf
My personal favorite is Page 15: Identity Misusage, 9 wrong ways to use the ACC logo.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101566/secs-hilarious-attempt-to-stop-franklin
The SEC is complaining because other schools are following the rules but their internal rules prevent them from following suit. Funnily, they didn’t feel nearly as strongly about oversigning in which they were the ones getting an advantage.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/11001328/president-barack-obama-calls-more-research-youth-concussions
Youth concussion research is getting a boost.
Among the financial commitments is a $30 million joint research effort by the NCAA and the Department of Defense and an NFL commitment of $25 million over the next three years to promote youth sports safety.
The president said additional research needs to also be combined with a broader recognition of the need to take the matter seriously.
“We have to change a culture that says, ‘suck it up,'” he said.
LikeLike
http://www.jconline.com/story/news/college/2014/05/29/purdue-white-house-sports-summit/9720717/
Here’s some of that research from Purdue.
After five years of studying the brains of teenage football players, Eric Nauman and others with the Purdue University Neurotrauma Group have discovered that more than half of those who never sustain a concussion suffer lingering cognitive disability because of repeated subconcussive blows to the head.
Using helmet sensors and computers, researchers have shown that high school players received up to 1,800 hits to the head each season — some with as much force as 250 Gs. In comparison, a hard sneeze is about 7 to 10 Gs; a headbutt is about 80 Gs.
…
Nauman and others at Purdue have developed a new helmet and liner technology that reduces the impact to the brain by 50 percent. Helmet technology has not advanced sufficiently over the past 40 years to prevent brain injuries, Nauman said. Helmets were originally designed to prevent skull fractures.
“It does a good job at that, but the helmets were never designed to significantly protect the brain itself,” he said.
…
Nauman said he thinks the summit will create a demand for new technologies. The real question, he said, is just finding a good way to implement things. Hosting the summit at the White House will perhaps get the ball rolling faster, he said.
“People are starting to see there’s synergy here,” he said. “The helmet technology combined with the sensors and other avenues really represent the new markets for keeping kids safe.”
LikeLike
In light of the discussion of recruiting fun, here is an article about the Iowa assistant coach/recruiting coordinator who left the program a month ago to open a Culver’s.
https://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/11000162/iowa-coach-leaves-football-open-culvers
But for Johnson, the demands placed on recruiters today is no laughing matter.
Sure, coaches have walked away in the past due to time demands and the strain it can put on a family. That certainly played a role in Johnson’s decision, but one of the biggest reasons he’s walking away is because he feels the recruiting game has changed so much over the past decade.
“It all ties together,” Johnson said. “You can never get away from it. If you are at dinner and the phone rings, you have to get it. Vacation is the same way. When you are on vacation, you are worried you are missing an opportunity with a prospect. This all takes away from the family. Weekends are nonexistent because of visits. It is just nonstop 365 days of year, and I needed to get off of that train and get a healthy balance in my life.
“Our profession has gone so much off the deep end with everything that’s going on with recruiting, and it’s not even funny anymore. There are a lot of other coaches all over the country that feel the same exact way and don’t like the direction things are going. There’s so much BS out there. We want you to be a part of ‘our can of swag’ or whatever. It got to the point where I just couldn’t be a part of it anymore.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/11003237/former-microsoft-executive-steve-ballmer-submits-winning-bid-buy-clippers-according-sources
Steve Ballmer to buy the Clippers for $2B.
ESPN.com’s Darren Rovell reported earlier Thursday that Ballmer’s $2 billion bid was the highest submitted, topping those from groups led by music mogul David Geffen ($1.6 billion) and L.A. investors Tony Ressler and Steve Karsh ($1.2 billion).
…
Ballmer told The Wall Street Journal earlier this month that, should he obtain the Clippers, he would not attempt to move the franchise from Los Angeles, saying that would be “value destructive.”
So don’t get your hopes up, Seattle.
LikeLike
@Brian – I’d be hearing over the last couple of weeks that a lot of the media peanut gallery was really low-balling how much people were going to be willing to pay for the Clippers. NBA franchises are particularly hot with their strong international growth prospects compared to the other US leagues. Bill Simmons, who’s hit or miss with his writing these days, actually pretty much nailed the sky-high valuation of the Clippers and other major market NBA teams in a piece that he wrote just *before* the Sterling scandal came to fruition:
http://grantland.com/features/the-worlds-most-exclusive-club/
Think about it: Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle that bought the entire freaking island of Lanai in Hawaii, can’t get himself an NBA team despite several attempts to do so. The money involved here is astronomical.
And yes, there’s no chance whatsoever of the Clippers moving. Note that their local TV rights are due to come up for bid in 2015, so they’re going to get a *massive* deal with the hyper-competitive LA market with tons of cable households to leverage.
LikeLike
I still think $2B is overpaying, but Ballmer can afford it and he doesn’t need it to be a great investment. He won’t lose money overall and that’s all that really matters to him, probably.
The next highest bid was considerably lower ($1.6B), which makes me think Ballmer overpaid by at least $300M.
LikeLike
The $2 billion valuation is insane. That’s the same amount that the Dodgers sold for 2 years ago and they are far more valuable than the Clippers.
LikeLike
Plus the LAD deal included land and parking lots and stuff. I realize baseball is dying and hoops isn’t, but the LAC will always be the little brother in LA.
Well, Ballmer knows more than I do about major business deals, so I’ll guess he sees a decent ROI here. Maybe he’s just a big enough fan that he doesn’t really care what it cost. After all, he is worth $16B.
LikeLike
I agree it isn’t happening, but what if Balmer wants to own the arena/surrounding area also? Getting out of Staples wouldn’t be too costly. He’s not going to, but what if a guy with many, many billions really doesn’t care about maximizing his dollars (he did just spend near half a $B more than the next bid) and did want to locate the team elsewhere? He’s not going to be able to take the money with him…and he’s unlikely to run out of it before the end by not maximizing every investment. Seattle? Naww…
LikeLike
Ballmer is certainly a smart businessman, but when you combined the with massive valuation with the facts that he is making this purchase without any partners and is, apparently, paying for the whole thing in cash (see below), this just looks more and more like a vanity purchase to me.
http://www.tmz.com/2014/05/30/steve-ballmer-clippers-2-billion-deal-all-cash-offer-shelly-sterling/
LikeLike
The New York Times had an interesting article about the supposedly insane prices paid for sports franchises over the years. The buyers practically always have the last laugh.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
The NBA board of governors has to approve moving a team to a new city. They aren’t going to approve moving the LAC out of LA.
LikeLike
Brian:
I know. But he might find a sympathetic/appreciative hearing from 29 other owners that Balmer just basically increased each teams worth by at least half a $B overnight. 2B?…for the Clippers? What’s Boston, Chicago, the Nicks, etc worth today?
LikeLike
The thing is that if Ballmer wanted to move any team to Seattle come hell or high water, he could have spent a whole lot less to buy the Bucks or Kings. That $2 billion price tag inherently includes the LA market specifically. It’s all about TV money just as it is in college sports. Even being second fiddle in LA will translate into over $100 million per year in TV money when the Clippers get a new contract in the next two years. Remember that LA RSNs include all of the LA market (massive by itself) *and* San Diego plus reaching into Las Vegas. The households involved are greater than even the NYC market (and faster growing).
LikeLike
Balmer bid above what Kohls accepted. He was denied because of the requirement the Bucks remained put.
LikeLike
To be clear, he has said he isn’t moving them. And he now has less association to Seattle than a year or two ago. I was just suggesting a guy his age with 18B after this deal could afford to do things just because he wanted to. Griffey Jr. took a lot less than he could have gotten elsewhere to go to Cincinnati (home) when he left the Mariners.
LikeLike
Wasn’t there a weekend where the kings were going to Seattle, and a miraculous bid suddenly kept them in Sacramento?
Balmer tried with both teams.
LikeLike
So if the other NBA owners nixed a move from _Sacramento_ to Seattle, they’ll approve a move of the Clippers to Seattle? Because of . . . appreciation?!?!
Uh, no.
LikeLike
No. I’ve said repeatedly I don’t think he’d try (and having just been shot down with Sacramento he knows the Clips would be even less likely), but my point was that to someone who $2B is less than 10% of his bankroll might make decisions not based solely on maximizing income from a particular purchase.
LikeLike
This was his reaction when he found out he got the Clippers:
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24575829/alabama-desperate-for-12th-game-in-2015-will-take-anybody
AL needs a game in 2015. But this says it all to me:
Bill Battle has tried everything.
He’s called dozens of teams.
He’s deployed help from ESPN and SEC. He’s inquired about teams switching dates to come to Tuscaloosa.
After all that, he still has one vacancy on Alabama’s 2015 schedule.
“Right now we’d take anybody,” Battle said.
…
Sounds like the Tide would even take a home-and-home at this point, but Battle said he’s not sure that’s feasible because “everybody’s scheduled for ’15.”
Gee, maybe that’s why it’s harder to find someone? They already have 1 FCS team, so that’s out. I’m sure they’ll find a scrub team willing to sell them a game. Heaven forbid they agree to travel somewhere.
LikeLike
IMO, this is the #1 stupidest thing about college football. The elite teams just don’t travel very much and get to develop non-conference schedules that heavily favor home games. And, it doesn’t matter if the games are against FCS, Sun Belt, or Big Ten or PAC 12 teams, they still count the same on the win-loss record.
Do you ever see the New York Yankees host the Albuquerque Isotopes and get to count that win for the season record? Of course not. Dumb.
So, Alabama freaks out when they can’t get anyone to come play on their turf. I bet there are no fewer than 80 FBS teams that would easily adjust their 2015 schedule if it they were hosting Alabama, rather than wearing visiting colors.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24576231/sc-president-says-if-reform-fails-next-step-give-up-amateurism
There you have it, folks! The threat has been made.
“I think we’re holding the fort,” Pastides said. “If we allow this reform to fail, the obvious next step would be to give up amateurism.”
LikeLike
Once the Big 5 break away, then they can start kicking the less desirable off the island in a few years and head to the NFL/MLB/NBA model of one organization divided into regional pods. 65 schools will turn into 32-40 schools in one conference/division and the money will be further consolidated.
Just change the conferences to East, Midwest, South and West and it is done. Good bye Wake, BC, Syracuse, TCU, Texas Tech, Pitt, Wash State, Ore State, Purdue, NW, Minnesota, Iowa State, Miss State, Vandy, Louisville, West Virginia, Kansas State, Rutgers, Ok State, Ga Tech etc. These schools can rejoin the group that’s getting left behind in this go around. ESPN will love it and pay big!
Midwest: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Michigan should make the Big 10 folks happy.
East: North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Penn State, South Carolina, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia
South: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma
West: UCLA, USC, Arizona, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah and 1 more and then you’re done!
40 Teams, 12 games = 9 Division games with 3 crossovers maximized for TV plus 8 teams in the playoffs. Massive cash, massive interest, gets rid of the moocher schools.
LikeLike
Mark:
Who, in a power conference, has ever been left behind except for a conference implosion (SWC)?
LikeLike
Well, until recently the conferences were competing against each other, but in the future I think they will begin to work together more and start consolidating. Also, schools like Cincinnati, East Carolina, Houston, BYU, Hawaii, Boise State feel like they are being left out now.
I just put together my guess at 40 schools, if you think Minnesota would be picked instead of Iowa, or whatever, I’m sure that will be worked out by ESPN/Fox. Schools have been turning on each other for a long time, so once ESPN offers the Top 40 $50 million a year to leave Purdue and NW out, they will do it as fast as possible.
LikeLike
“Schools have been turning on each other for a long time”
Except for the reality that no major conference has actually kicked out any members (besides the BE and Temple). Maybe you meant “schools have been turning on each other for a long time in the overheated fantasies in my head rather than in the reality that other people inhabit”?
LikeLike
…once ESPN offers the Top 40 $50 million a year to leave Purdue and NW out, they will do it as fast as possible.
ESPN is offering that with Purdue and NW in. If you remove those schools, there is simply less inventory, and therefore less for ESPN to pay for. You need to lay off the sauce. By eliminating opponents, and therefore games, the product is worth less, not more.
LikeLike
Your list of the supposedly “less desirable” schools is incoherent. One could give numerous examples, but the obvious ones are the sister schools located in the same state as those you’re keeping (Kansas/KState, Oregon/Oregon State, Wash./Wash. State, Okie/Okie State, Miss/Miss. St., Texas/TT, Iowa/Iowa St.). The state legislatures won’t let those schools get kicked to the curb, even assuming their “big sisters” wanted to, which they don’t.
But the incoherence doesn’t end there. Is this supposed to be a football-centric list, or a basketball-centric list? If it’s football, then why are you kicking out good football teams like West Virginia and Kansas State? If it’s basketball, why are you kicking out Syracuse and Louisville, which are blue-bloods in that sport.
ESPN will love it and pay big!
ESPN loves inventory, and you’ve just cut the inventory roughly in half. Brilliant!!
LikeLike
State Legislature have very little control of these things, and the dominate school in the state will benefit by getting rid of the other school. You don’t need more than 1 school in most states, so the Wal Mart fans will just all start rooting for the school that is still included.
The list just picks the most valuable school in each state. Louisville and Syracuse, if excluded for the prime group, will tank in basketball overnight as the players will just go somewhere else. Any school can be great with the right players – Florida had a very weak basketball tradition but hired the right coach and now they have multiple national titles. Just takes coaches and players.
In terms of inventory for ESPN, they have too much right now (see the need for conference networks and all the games on just ESPN 3) and 40 teams will give MASSIVE inventory every week, that’s 20 games most weeks and there are only so many prime slots anyway. Instead of 15 games at noon you just have 5 and it works out fine.
LikeLike
This will NEVER happen. Not in the next hundred years anyway. Right now with the Big 5 conferences, virtually every state in the country that has big time football has at least one team in the game. (Poor Connecticut is one exception). This means that Congress has no particular need to get involved, other than the normal tendency of politicians to interfere and create problems. Cut down to 32 or 40 schools and there will be at least 20 states where the football fans are up in arms. These are states which lose big time football, or where the number two school in the state is kicked out.
There would be political chaos.
What makes you think that the conferences would agree? The B1G and the SEC both feel that they are on the top of the pile, each with their own special qualities. I am sure that the PAC12 feels pretty much the same way. From the Big12, why would Texas do this. They like their power and LHN.
This also ignores offending all of those eyeballs who are supposed to generate hundreds of millions of dollars by watching “big time” football.
Why would ESPN love this? The could lose millions of viewers?
LikeLike
Agree it will never happen, but P5 football is only in 36 states now, and Mark has 30 states in his 39 selections, so there will be no Senate revolt because of reduced states P5 football is in, but there might be based on secondary schools being dropped. He said goodbye to MA, NY, NJ, MN, and WV and left KS in limbo (not on the list of schools in or out).
LikeLike
My mistake, KS was listed; P5 football is only in 35 states now, so a reduction of 5 with the list provided, but if reduced to 40, I expect some of those 5 would make the cut while it is unlikely that CA would keep 4 schools with its tepid interest in college sports.
LikeLike
First, it is many more than five states involved.
What a couple of you guys might view as secondary schools are not very secondary to the people who live there. Frank’s previous column was on Illinois wanting a third B1G school. Why? There are two already. Isn’t that more than enough? Oh, that is right, this plan drops NW, so there will be one P5 school in Illinois. They will be very happy
Do you think that the Congressional delegation from Georgia will be pleased with the loss of GaTech football? Mark Sheppard listed seven other states where a P5 football team will be eliminated. Florida would lose two programs, USF, and USF. Kentucky loses Louisville. Vandy may have serious support in the Tennessee delegation. Is Purdue meaningless in Indiana? Would Texas give up any P5 schools? How about Iowa State? There are surely others, but I am not willing to spend the time. That is 15 more states who are losing P5 programs.
Dropping BC means that there is no P5 football in any of the six New England states, etc. I do not know how popular BC football is in Vermont, New Hampshire, RI, or Maine, but it is the only game in town.
The bottom line is that a reduction to 40 schools, means that 25 schools in a lot of states just got badly hurts, perhaps to the extend of tens of millions of dollars per year school.
Even if it is “only” 20 or so states which lose P5 schools, do you really think that if even 5 or 10 Congressional delegations made a big stink, that would not be fatal? Who exactly in Congress would stand up and say that this is a good idea and defend the football schools? That is not how Congress works. No one will defend this plan. There is nothing in it for a US Senator to say that it is a good idea for a bunch of other states to get screwed regarding P5 football, since his state is OK.
As far as P5 football in 36 states now, how many states have “big time” football, but no P5 schools. Connecticut, Wyoming, Hawaii and Idaho (Boise). Are there any others?
Four of the P5 missing states are in New England, and none of those even four have football teams. What about the Dakotas, and Montana? That is seven states and with the four listed with “big time football, eleven of the missing 14. Again I will not spend the time finding the last three.
As just one example of the type of problems that this crazy plan could create, look what happened in the first ACC expansion. Duke, NC and another school were against it. One more voted and no Miami or BC. Syracuse was supposed to be the third school, but the Virginia legislature order UVa to demand VaTech or kill the deal. So VaTech was in. Do you think that one member of Va legislature was against this, even if they hated VaTech?
Politics does not work that way.
How many schools have even been kicked out of the B1G? Any, ever? How about the PAC12? For that matter, how many times have school ever been asked to leave any of these five conferences?
Why did the B1G just expand? For eyeballs to expand their network. TV networks do not alienate viewers;
Everything about this proposal is irrational.
LikeLike
MA and NY schools are private, politicians in these states will not fight for those schools. WV can cry but has no national political power without Senator Byrd. NJ will not fight for Rutgers, the gov wants to be president (so more important fights to fight) and they have all the NY and Philly pro sports to care about. Maybe Minnesota would care, but someone gets left out, I just guessed Minnesota. Or you can put Minnesota as the 40th school in the west.
LikeLike
Mark, to be blunt – are you serious or are you doing this to be a troll. New Jersey’s Congressional delegation would not fight for Rutgers? That is insane. Frist there are tens of millions of dollars at stake – per year. Second there several hundred thousand alumni of RU in this state – and their families. There is not one politician in NJ who does not depend on RU alums for money and votes.
I am also very familiar with Florida. Do you think that they would let USF in Tampa and UCF in Orlando just get screwed?
As far a West Virginia, they have two US Senators just like every other state.
Anyway, this is my last response to you. Your position is so nonsensical that I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take it for granted that you are not serious and only want to stir up trouble.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Once the Big 5 break away, then they can start kicking the less desirable off the island in a few years and head to the NFL/MLB/NBA model of one organization divided into regional pods. 65 schools will turn into 32-40 schools in one conference/division and the money will be further consolidated.”
Except they won’t, because they are 5 separate business that compete as well as cooperate. As long as they have separate TV deals, they all need strong conferences. That’s hard to do if you kick out a bunch of teams. They also have non-athletic concerns that change their thinking. And most conferences see other value in schools than just what 1 or 2 sports teams accomplish.
“Just change the conferences to East, Midwest, South and West and it is done. Good bye Wake, BC, Syracuse, TCU, Texas Tech, Pitt, Wash State, Ore State, Purdue, NW, Minnesota, Iowa State, Miss State, Vandy, Louisville, West Virginia, Kansas State, Rutgers, Ok State, Ga Tech etc. These schools can rejoin the group that’s getting left behind in this go around. ESPN will love it and pay big!”
That’s a lot of TV audience to sacrifice, plus a lot of quality academic institutions. The B10 isn’t going to drop multiple top notch schools to make more sports money. Especially since CFB is likely to lose a lot of fans when the top brands start going 6-6 regularly instead of 11-1.
“Midwest: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Michigan should make the Big 10 folks happy.”
I’d rather play Purdue, MN and NW than MO, KU and ND. The B10 would definitely prefer the academics the old way. The access to Chicago and MSP are also valuable.
LikeLike
I don’t think that many fans will be lost, they will just change who they root for. Most people don’t go to college, and many of those who do go to schools without big time sports. That leaves plenty of fans for the remaining schools to capture.
Academic quality is just a way to exclude schools, Louisville just joined the elite club and few would call them an elite school. I’ve never heard anyone brag about the scholars at WV, Kan St, Texas Tech, Miss State, etc. My opinion is that elite schools don’t participate in sports at the highest level, as it is not possible to recruit a football team full of scholars. You might get 1 scholar like the QB had a while ago, but not 85 scholars. A truly elite school won’t admit the lesser students that a big time football team requires (IMO).
I realise you liked the 1960s Big Ten the best, and that’s great. When OSU can get $50m or $100m by dropping some of the schools they will.
LikeLike
Mark,
“I don’t think that many fans will be lost, they will just change who they root for.”
Lots of fans aren’t bandwagon fans. They aren’t going to root for former foes if their school gets dropped.
“Most people don’t go to college, and many of those who do go to schools without big time sports. That leaves plenty of fans for the remaining schools to capture.”
And most of those people are NFL fans, not CFB fans. CFB fan demographics skew older, richer and more educated. In other words, alumni make up a large chunk.
“Academic quality is just a way to exclude schools,”
So? You are who you hang around with, and the academics matter to several conferences.
“My opinion is that elite schools don’t participate in sports at the highest level, as it is not possible to recruit a football team full of scholars.”
Explain Duke’s national titles. Explain ND’s and MI’s football history. Explain Stanford’s recent BCS bowl runs. Explain all the other elite teams at great schools.
“When OSU can get $50m or $100m by dropping some of the schools they will.”
No, they won’t. The B10 has been sharing revenue equally for decades. OSU and MI could have pushed for unequal sharing if they were greedy, but they never have.
You seem to forget that ADs don’t run the schools, presidents do. The money in academics is much bigger than the money in sports. The B10 schools would much rather associate with each other than some of the other AQ schools, and no bribe from ESPN will change that. They still have all the other sports plus the school to think about.
LikeLike
The B10 use to have equal football ticket revenue sharing. Michigan pushed the current you keep what you sell plus get equal shares of a small pool (relative to 50% of MI gate). OSU supported this change. That was a big money grab before the TV money got so large. To date there has not been a push by any B1G school for unequal sharing of TV money.
LikeLike
Mack,
“The B10 use to have equal football ticket revenue sharing. Michigan pushed the current you keep what you sell plus get equal shares of a small pool (relative to 50% of MI gate). OSU supported this change.”
http://thegazette.com/2013/10/25/sharing-gate-revenue-unique-vital-to-b1g-football/
Lots of schools supported it because it made for more consistent cash flows for everybody. It’s not like OSU and MI alone can get a rule change passed.
Roots for the sharing plan were set in the 1930s, when visiting football teams earned half the home receipts. In the early 1990s, after several stadiums were renovated and added seating, the schools’ financial officers opted for even allocation.
“In the old model, if you happened to be traveling to Ohio State or traveling to Michigan or traveling to Penn State all in the same year, and they got 50 percent, they’d get a windfall,” Traviolia said. “But if you’re going to three stadiums that don’t seat 100,000 people, it will be much less.
“Throwing it all in one pool and spreading it out kind of smooths it over. So from a revenue standpoint it doesn’t matter who you played in one year. All that money is going to the same pool.”
And I wouldn’t call 35% (capped at $1M per game, floor of $300k) a small pool. It was over $36M in 2012, meaning schools lost up to $962k or gained up to $1.7M.
Big Ten officials collected more than $36.4 million through gate sharing for the 2012 season and each school received $3.038 million, according to documents obtained by The Gazette through the Freedom of Information Act. Seven schools, including Iowa, lost money on the share. Iowa, Penn State, Ohio State, Nebraska and Michigan contributed $4 million and lost the maximum of $961,828.86. Wisconsin and Michigan State lost more than $860,000. Indiana, which contributed only $300,000 in three of its four games, picked up an extra $1.722 million as one of five schools benefiting from share.
LikeLike
Brian:
If all MI wanted to do was smooth out the distribution they could have kept the 50% split, but just put it in the pool. What they did was reduce the split, cap it, and put in a minimum. This resulted in poorer schools contributing a higher percentage of ticket revenue to the pool. It was a money grab where the amount that MI, OSU, MSU, WI, IA, and PSU have to give to IN, Purdue, and Northwestern was greatly reduced. Both MI and OSU football ticket revenue exceeded $40M in 2012; IN revenue was $4.4M. MI puts $4M in the pool vs. $13M at the old percentage, IN is getting less than half of what it would if 50% of ticket revenue went into the pool.
All conferences have reduced or eliminated ticket revenue sharing, so even with the reduction, IN et. al. are getting more in the B1G than they would in any other conference.
LikeLike
“All conferences have reduced or eliminated ticket revenue sharing, so even with…”
What other conference has, or has ever had ticket revenue sharing?
LikeLike
Mack,
“If all MI wanted to do was smooth out the distribution they could have kept the 50% split, but just put it in the pool. What they did was reduce the split, cap it, and put in a minimum.”
MI didn’t do anything. The B10 did that. It took at least 6 schools and more likely 8 to pass those changes. The vote was probably unanimous, too. And it was primarily the smaller schools that wanted to even out the cash flow. Boom or bust cycles based on their road schedule were bad for them, while the big boys wouldn’t suffer as much.
“This resulted in poorer schools contributing a higher percentage of ticket revenue to the pool.”
Proof? They had to contribute 35% instead of 50%, but with a minimum of $300k per game.
“Both MI and OSU football ticket revenue exceeded $40M in 2012; IN revenue was $4.4M.”
The rule was changed in the early 90s, so what does 2012 revenue have to do with it? Also, this rule always only applied to B10 games but you’re reporting total ticket revenue for all home games.
“All conferences have reduced or eliminated ticket revenue sharing,”
If by that you mean they never did it, then I agree.
LikeLike
Also, OSU expanded to hold 91,470 (it was 85k-86k during most of the 80s) in 1991 and ticket prices were about $20 back then (1995 – $25, 1986 – $17). That’s face value, with students getting a discount ($9 per game) and faculty/staff also getting a discount. That means a home game was worth roughly $1.5M. It took a long time before the $1M ceiling ever came into play (game would have to be worth $2.9M for the ceiling to matter).
That’s the environment when the rule was changed.
LikeLike
Football gate sharing (not always 50/50) was standard practice to compensate visiting teams up until the 1970’s. The SWC, B8, and P10 had 50/50 gate sharing; not sure if this ended in SWC before the conference imploded, but in the B8 it ended with the formation of the B12.
The P10 had 50/50 revenue sharing for season ending rivalry games up until 2011, but for other conference games a lower cut was used with a minimum of $125K and maximum of $200K. With no inflation adjustment, this turned into a flat fee of $200K to the visiting team except for the odd WSU game. Not sure if this also ended in 2011. Washington got the 50/50 gate sharing ended as a condition to support equal TV revenue sharing when the P12 was formed, so in this case WSU supported ending its $800K windfall from WA ever other year while USC was opposed to giving up the 55% share to the team(s) on TV.
http://www.cougcenter.com/2010/7/18/1575234/pac-12-revenue-sharing-on-the
The groundbreaking contract to end revenue sharing was signed in 1969 by Michigan and Notre Dame for games starting in 1978. Michigan insisted on the no gate sharing clause:
“Eventually Notre Dame’s leaders, athletic director Ed “Moose” Krause and Rev. Edmund Joyce, asked Canham about a game. Canham said he would agree to a series under one condition: Each school could keep 100 percent of the ticket revenue when it hosted the game. That was unprecedented in college sports. It also seemed like a preposterous demand, since Michigan had the biggest stadium in the country — almost twice as large as Notre Dame’s. But Canham was the kind of man who made preposterous things happen. … he said Notre Dame could use its Michigan contract as a template for all its other contracts — meaning Notre Dame could demand a much larger cut of ticket revenue from other opponents than it had been getting. Notre Dame agreed to the deal. A rivalry was born … Also, an industry standard for contracts was set. Canham started promising visiting teams $100,000 in expenses, instead of a big cut of the ticket revenue. Have you heard of all those deals where Lemon Cupcake Tech gets a flat fee to visit a big school, instead of 50 percent of ticket revenue? Many of those contracts have their roots in the first Michigan-Notre Dame contract.”
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130904/michigan-notre-dame-rivalry/#ixzz33QE5wTbI
LikeLike
Mack,
“Football gate sharing (not always 50/50) was standard practice to compensate visiting teams up until the 1970′s. The SWC, B8, and P10 had 50/50 gate sharing;”
Gate sharing was standard for OOC games, sure. Please provide links for the 50/50 splits elsewhere.
“not sure if this ended in SWC before the conference imploded,”
They stopped gate sharing after AR left.
LikeLike
Didn’t Stanford’s Pres say if professionalism was allowed Stanford would look elsewhere?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Oh, yes, Stanford’s president said that, just as Jim Delany said that the Big Ten would consider Division III if college sports moved away from amateurism. With respect to this issue, they are liars.
LikeLike
Frank:
How would adopting the D3 model preclude massive TV contracts and gate receipts? Especially if a number of conferences do it together?
The COP/C don’t want to become a pro minor league. There have been several mentions about the mission of the schools regaining primacy. I can’t recall which presidents specifically said that, but it jumped out at me when I read it.
LikeLike
How would adopting the D3 model preclude massive TV contracts and gate receipts? Especially if a number of conferences do it together?
All of the power conferences would have to agree simultaneously to stop awarding scholarships based on athletic ability. If some do and some don’t, then clearly the ones that do would have a massive competitive advantage.
Perhaps this wouldn’t matter, at first, but it would catch up to them. Attendance eventually suffers if you’re perpetually non-competitive. (After eight years of mediocrity, Michigan no longer has a waiting list for season tickets, and I believe last year was the first season in decades that some games didn’t sell out.)
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – In my mind, it’s all a matter of semantics. Top level college football and basketball are already, for all practical purposes, pro minor leagues. It just happens that colleges have been able to get away with having pro minor leagues without actually having to pay players up to this point. College administrators aren’t ever going to state that, but that’s the reality. While it’s very true that the brand names that colleges have established are extremeley valuable in and of themselves (where you could argue that Ohio State could conceivably still draw a certain level of fans as a D-III school), they are still making billions in football and basketball because they are getting top level talent out of high school (unlike baseball and hockey). It’s that combination – the brand equity that the schools have built up plus the talent – that’s powerful and valuable in the marketplace. Just as people would be remiss to say that a minor league football league would be as popular as college football simply because they would have a higher talent level (not true), it would also be remiss for college sports fans to say that the popularity of college sports (specifically football and basketball) wouldn’t take a massive hit if the best talent went elsewhere.
LikeLike
I have more faith in the attractiveness of college athletics. If I’m going to follow pro football it will be the NFL, not their southeastern farm clubs.
If two or three (B1G, PAC, B12) were joined (they would stampede) by the Go5 and FCS, who would the remaining play, and for what?
LikeLike
Frank:
“Top level college football and basketball are already, for all practical purposes, pro minor leagues.”
In the same way schools serve as minor leagues for big accounting firms, major pharmaceutical company’s, oil industry, computer research and development, aerospace industry, etc.
My point is that a true college sports system will remain more valuable over time to one that slips into being a pro minor league. The playing field might become a bit more level if USC, OSU, UT etc no longer had an 85 to 63 scholarship advantage over UNI and Sac St, but is that really the difference? The powers will remain the powers.
LikeLike
“Top level college football and basketball are already, for all practical purposes, pro minor leagues.”
In the same way schools serve as minor leagues for big accounting firms, major pharmaceutical company’s, oil industry, computer research and development, aerospace industry, etc.
Not really. In most subjects taught in college, students learn elements of a profession without actually practicing that profession. An accounting student learns principles of accounting, but doesn’t actually audit anyone or prepare the financial statements of a real company, or any of the other things professional accountants do.
College football and basketball players do almost exactly what their pro counterparts do. They even get paid for it, in the form of a free education and various stipends.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Not really. In most subjects taught in college, students learn elements of a profession without actually practicing that profession.”
At least in engineering, most schools now are using projects that mimic real job experiences. Often these are topics suggested by industry, may actually be used in the real world afterwards, and may well be taught by former practicing engineers.
As for learning the basics, that’s because high school can’t provide that while athletes learned their basics years ago. They are farther up the learning curve because what they do is simpler and can be started earlier.
“An accounting student learns principles of accounting, but doesn’t actually audit anyone or prepare the financial statements of a real company, or any of the other things professional accountants do.”
That’s because only CPAs can do much of the actual accounting work, and that requires job experience as well as passing a test. Undergrads don’t perform surgery, either.
“College football and basketball players do almost exactly what their pro counterparts do.”
In a lesser sense, maybe. The play simpler schemes, have different rules, play less time per game and fewer games per season, and they have more of an off season. They also have to be successful in school. The competition is immensely different, too. All level of sports do almost exactly the same things. Why not compare pee wee football to the NFL?
Where are college athletes learning about selecting an agent, negotiating a contract, getting endorsements, handling money, etc? They learn much of the on the field basics and that’s about it. Veterans will tell you there is a lot more to lasting in the NFL than that.
LikeLike
“I have more faith in the attractiveness of college athletics.”
OK. I don’t.
*shrug*
LikeLike
At least in engineering, most schools now are using projects that mimic real job experiences.
But that’s exactly the point. They “mimic” the real job; they don’t do the job. College football players play football. They don’t merely pretend or simulate it.
LikeLike
They are simulating, or auditioning for NFL FB. They aren’t playing it.
LikeLike
Pee wee players play football, too. Does having a lemonade stand now count as being a CEO?
LikeLike
“Does having a lemonade stand now count as being a CEO?”
Were you asking me?
Not at the level you’re implying. But it may represent an early interest and the initiative to work/learn about business at an elementary level.
LikeLike
No, I was asking Marc.
LikeLike
They are simulating, or auditioning for NFL FB.
In the same way that minor-league baseball players are auditioning for major-league jobs.
Pee wee players play football, too. Does having a lemonade stand now count as being a CEO?
Pee wee football players aren’t auditioning for the NFL. If they are auditioning for anything, it would be high school; and high school is an audition for college; and college is an audition for the NFL.
Companies don’t find their future CEOs by scouting successful lemonade stands. NFL teams do scout their future players by watching college football.
LikeLike
And every major business sector scoures colleges to find the be most likely top employees.
LikeLike
In business programs you may do consulting with a small business. I did that back in my time in college back in the dark ages. And its often part of the program in accounting and engineering to take a semester off to do internships.
LikeLike
This to be me suggests the lawsuits worries are serious. They need to get reforms through to placate the players/former players or the Olympic model is the only thing left.
LikeLike
There’s no doubt that they are worried about the lawsuits. They have an enormous war chest set aside to fight, and despite that, many of the preliminary rulings have been going against them.
But fundamentally, I am not sure that piecemeal reform will succeed. The basis of the lawsuits is that the schools have illegally restrained trade by colluding to limit the amount of aid that athletes can receive.
If that legal argument eventually prevails (and I am not predicting whether it will), then raising the limit doesn’t change the analysis. It’s still a limit on individual schools’ ability to compete by offering whatever the market will bear — something they can do for other kinds of students, but not athletes.
LikeLike
Title IX is the huge elephant in the back of the room. There is a serious limit on what any school, except may a handful of the richest, can do for all athletes.
There are two revenue sport and maybe women’s bball can almost carry itself in some places.
On the football team, do you pay the star linebacker more than the third string guard? Does the third string guard make more than the men’s first team All American lacrosse player, or the top flight women’s track star?
Does anyone really believe that the colleges can carve out special treatment for football and men’s bball, just because they pay the bills? Good luck with the litigation.
By the way, if anyone cares, Title IX was never intended to cover sports, only educational opportunities. The courts changed this dramatically.
This does not matter now, since with Title IX, the second string woman’s soccer player will demand the same thing that the star quarterback receives.
If there is a way around this, it will have to involve something like letting active players license their own images, or receive a part of the revenue from any shirts sold with their names on the equipment. Where that goes, I have no clue.
LikeLike
http://theadvocate.com/sports/9309244-128/rabalais-frequently-asked-questions-about
How much is the network going to be worth to each school?
It’s hard to count that high.
Based on the rate within SEC states alone, if you multiply $1.30 times 12 months times the estimated 30 million subscribers in that footprint, you get $468 million. That would be $33.4 million per school — per year. And that’s without counting advertising revenue or subscribers from non-SEC states. Factor that in, and the SEC Network could easily be worth $500 million per year or $35.7 million per school once full distribution is achieved.
Currently, each SEC school gets about $20 million per year in TV revenue, so it’s easy to see what a huge impact the network will have on SEC bottom lines. LSU Athletic Director Joe Alleva has said he hopes revenue from the SEC Network will reduce or at least postpone the need for raising ticket prices.
Alan, as our man in Baton Rouge, if you see this guy you should remind him that ESPN is going to take a share of the pie. The SEC is going to make money on the SECN, but ESPN isn’t a charity.
LikeLike
Mike – I’ve known Scott Rabalais since college. Prior to being the LSU beat writer for the Morning Advocate, he was the sports editor for LSU’s Daily Reveille newspaper. He’s never been one to exaggerate and he has impeccable sources. While his math may be a little fuzzy on process, I’m pretty sure he ran the numbers by somebody in the know who told him he was close. As he pointed out, he didn’t figure in subscriptions outside the SEC footprint or advertising. Nobody has seen the SECN contract, so we don’t know the profit sharing arrangement. I’ve heard from Board of Supervisors members that its close to 50/50. If advertising numbers equal carriage rates and the ESPN and the SEC split the money, he’s close. Numbers north of $30 million have been thrown around by board members as well. I guess we’ll find out if Scott is right in a few years.
LikeLike
@Alan –
I’ve known Scott Rabalais since college
I figured you knew him. Maybe if you see him you can quiz him a bit.
Nobody has seen the SECN contract, so we don’t know the profit sharing arrangement. I’ve heard from Board of Supervisors members that its close to 50/50.
If I were a betting man, I would bet the SECN’s contract will look a lot like the LHN. Flat fee plus profit sharing (Texas gets 70% after ESPN makes 300 million dollars) after a certain level. .
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byz6Uzwv3AiuM2I3NjAzNGItOGFiMS00ZWZlLTkxYTAtZTMzMjhiMDJmYzY0/edit?hl=en_US
(Revenue distribution is on page 17)
Anyway, Good luck to your Tigers this weekend. I hope to see them in Omaha in a couple of weeks.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11005968/aac-executives-finalize-two-6-team-divisions
The AAC has set divisions for 2015:
East = UC, UConn, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF
West = SMU, UH, Tulsa, Tulane, Memphis and Navy
This was one of the 2 options I predicted last week (my preference was to swap Navy and UC). I was worried about the travel for Navy with this alignment, but they had their reasons:
“Texas is our No. 1 state for players,” Navy coach Ken Niumatalolo told the Advocate.com. “So we’d prefer to play at either Houston or SMU every year. No plan is perfect, and we’ll be happy wherever they put us.”
As for UC:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/ucathleticsblog/2014/05/30/uc-football-to-play-in-new-aac-east-in-2015/9763603/
“They basically put all the big boys in one division,” UC coach Tuberville said. “That’s fine, but you’ve got the two Florida teams and East Carolina and us on the same side, that’s going to be a pretty good dogfight every year.”
[mentions UC, ECU, UCF and USF]
“It doesn’t make any difference, because the best team is going to to win the conference anyway,” Tuberville said. “It’s just going to be hard for a team in the East to go undefeated in the league.”
UC athletic director Mike Bohn said the school is on board with the change, noting that the proposal was approved unanimously by league chief executives.
“We are excited,” Bohn said via text message. “Our division represents a tremendous competitive lineup that will be appealing to our fan base, student-athletes and coaches.”
If Navy and UC are happy, then this works well for everybody.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24576881/american-announces-2015-divisional-alignment
More on Navy’s position.
The most notable development in the announcement is that Navy has been placed in the West — despite lying geographically further east than any school in the conference other than Temple and UConn. But because of recruiting interests in Texas and surrounding states, that’s the way Navy likes it.
“We preferred to be in the West and actually were very insistent that be the case,” Naval Academy athletic director Chet Gladchuk said, per the Capital Gazette. “We are very grateful to the commissioner and member schools for accommodating our wishes … We had no interest in being geographically parochial. We are a national program and playing in the West Division fits that identity.”
That leaves UC as the only potential school with an issue but they were going to travel a lot no matter what (nearest team is Memphis, over 450 miles away).
LikeLike
From what I’ve seen, the Bearcat fans are trilled to be in the east and were not wanting the west. They might have liked Memphis in division, but getting the northeast and Florida presence seemed bigger.
LikeLike
Yes, I think they preferred FL access to TX access, especially with all the former OH residents down there.
LikeLike
Yeah, I had a feeling that Cincy prefers the East. That’s where all there recruiting ties are (especially Florida).
LikeLike
Precisely … I expect that UC was one of the schools pressing the case for UCF’s admission, to get a trip to the I-4 corridor every year, and being in the East maintains that. It was very politic of Navy to say they insisted on being in the West when it so clearly resolves the 7 East / 5 West problem by moving the FB-only school out of region, but if could also be largely true that they were the Eastern school that most wanted to play in the Western division ~ Navy gets players from Texas in particular, and playing in the West should put them in Texas every year, with likely a second game not all that far from Texas (as they reckon distances down there) with Tulsa or Tulane.
LikeLike
They also play the 3 privates instead of state and regional state schools.
LikeLike
Besides TX (offset by FL), they also hit the talent-rich areas of Nawlins and Memphis rather than rural eastern NC, Philly, and inland CT (and they can recruit the East Coast quite easily from MD, so no need for Navy to visit any 3 of those places).
LikeLike
Navy does recruit nationally. As for Tubby’s “big boys” comment, why do I get the feeling that that quote will end up on a bulletin board somewhere the next time Cincy plays UH or SMU or Tulane (or even Tulsa or Memphis or Navy”)?
LikeLike
http://college-football.si.com/2014/05/30/mike-slive-sec-spring-meetings-autonomy/
Mike Slive said that if the Power 5 don’t get legislative autonomy in August, the next move is to press for a fourth division. I’m guessing that includes a reasonable voting requirement (SEC wants a majority of 3 of the 5 conferences and 60% overall, others have suggested a supermajority of 2/3 for everything).
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/77353118/wisconsin-badgers-running-back-melvin-gordon-most-explosive-in-college-football#!SxyvM
A nice article about Melvin Gordon, including this little jab at the B10:
By contrast, Gordon was held under five yards per carry in only three of 13 games. In fact, he averaged more yards per rush attempt than Wisconsin averaged per pass attempt, which sounds like the most Big Ten thing ever,
LikeLike
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/30/5055663/big-12-to-distribute-record-income.html
Big 12 payouts at 23 million for 8 schools, 14 for newcomers. I think this is before the individual Tier 3 deals.
Bowlsby projects 40 million per school in coming years.
“Our distribution revenue in the coming years will climb to $40 million per school,” Bowlsby said at the conclusion of Big 12 meetings Friday in Irving, Tex.
LikeLike
SEC distributions $20.9 per school. B12 $23 for the legacy members.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11007094/sec-distributes-record-2928-million-revenue
The Southeastern Conference will distribute a record $292.8 million of revenue among its 14 institutions, commissioner Mike Slive announced Friday. Distribution calculation was based on the revenue-sharing plan for the 2013-14 fiscal year, which ends Aug. 31.
The SEC saw an increase of more than $3 million from last year’s distribution amount of $289.4 million, which was also a record high for the conference. The conference made $309.6 million in total revenue.
Each member school will receive $20.9 million in revenue distribution from the league office.
Also announcing a record revenue share on Friday was the Big 12 Conference, which reported a $220.1 million revenue distribution. The eight remaining charter members of the Big 12 each collected $1 million more than they did last year — totaling $23 million apiece — while second-year members TCU and West Virginia received two-thirds of the full share, or $14 million each.
LikeLike
http://www.chron.com/sports/article/Big-12-schools-share-record-220M-revenue-5516655.php
The league that only a few years ago had an uncertain future will share just more than $220 million with its schools for the 2013-14 academic year.
Big 12 Commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Friday at the end of the league’s spring meetings that Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech will get about $23 million each. Second-year league members TCU and West Virginia, who will become fully vested Big 12 members in two years, get about $14 million each.
LikeLike
In ten years their TV contract is up. They are staying competitive with the P5, but can they keep up financially with the Network conferences? Obviously Texas will, but can OU and KU?
LikeLike
You left out the seven others.
OU,and probably KU will be fine.
LikeLike
You left out the seven others.
Well, lets say one of those seven doesn’t like it. What exactly are they going to do? OU and KU are desirable if they can cast aside their little brothers.
OU,and probably KU will be fine
I am sure they will, but if the other four conferences are seeing big returns from their networks, the Big 12 could become the middle class of FBS. That won’t be the most enviable position to be in.
LikeLike
Well I’d wonder about what all seven could do together (maybe not much). But since you said “their” and “they” referring to conference contracts and staying competitive, I assumed you were referring to the whole conference ramifications. As to UT and OU, while they’ll be ok will they be satisfied if the “network” conferences start making anything like the numbers you linked to earlier off the conference network alone? I don’t see ESPN doubling (or more) their LHN payouts.
LikeLike
But since you said “their” and “they” referring to conference contracts and staying competitive, I assumed you were referring to the whole conference ramifications.
My mistake for being unclear.
As to UT and OU, while they’ll be ok will they be satisfied if the “network” conferences start making anything like the numbers you linked to earlier off the conference network alone? I don’t see ESPN doubling (or more) their LHN payouts
Texas gets 70% after ESPN makes 300 million so they should have a good idea of what they’ll be getting from the LHN. I think there is a pretty good chance that the LHN payout will keep pace with BTN or SECN payouts. If you assume 6% yearly growth in all current (not just TV) Big 12 distributions their distribution amount approaches 40 million* in about ten years, or what the Big Ten expects from just their media money in 2017. By the time the Big 12 TV contract is up, The Big Ten, SEC, and PAC will have all redone** their deals. There is a very good chance there will be a very large financial gap between the Big Ten/SEC/PAC/Texas and the rest. Will we see the same cracks from OU and KU that we saw from another nameless school in 2011?
*Doesn’t include CFP money, but for arguments sake lets just assume all P5 schools get the same share while acknowledging the Big 12 divides its share by less teams.
**http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3163/a-comparison-conference-television-deals
LikeLike
I agree – the only schools from the Big 12 that will make the eventual cut will be Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma. The rest don’t bring the necessary value.
LikeLike
Nope.
If the B12 were to break up…the same four as before to the PAC.
LikeLike
West Virginia has an outside shot. Texas Tech as well if Texas hasn’t solved the Tech problem.
LikeLike
OU is making something like $7 million a year for their Tier III rights which will keep them competitive with the PAC and ahead of the ACC. I don’t know the exact details on the KU deal, but they are also getting quite a bit as part of a digital deal with I think ESPN.
LikeLike
Frug:
Not that I actually believe it will be that much, or how soon the big bucks come, but 7M doesn’t compare favorably to the possible 30+M/school (from the SECN alone) the interview Mark linked suggested, and that Allan says is from a pretty reputable journalist.
LikeLike
None of the Big XII schools are going to make what the SEC or Big 10 will make, but as long as they stay competitive with the PAC I don’t think they will mind all that much.
LikeLike
@frug – What do you think will happen if they don’t stay competitive with the PAC?
LikeLike
@Mike
Then things could get interesting when we get closer to the expiration of the GOR.
LikeLike
The biggest Tier I & II contract right now is the Pac 12 at an average of $21 million. $30 million per school for Tier III from the network is absurd. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I, too find that number hard to believe, at least in the near term. However, that brings in what has always been my point about conferences actually owning the network as opposed to simply selling broadcast rights. How much does ESPN, Fox, NBC, etc make off those broadcasts? Do they (over time) 10% what they are paying for rights? 100%? Somewhere between, or above? Add that to the current payments (over the term of the contract) and you get an approximate value for conference networks with enough valuable inventory.
LikeLike
WV is also getting about the same as KS; oSu is getting a little less, but has Boone Pickens to make up the shortfall. The other 5 (Baylor, TT, TCU, ISU and KSU) have no where to go.
LikeLike
http://www.southernpigskin.com/sec/history-strengthens-secs-signing-day-stance/
Why the SEC doesn’t want an early signing period.
In essence, it’s because they benefit from poaching players late in the recruiting cycle.
This issue is a long way from being rectified, but should an early signing period be instituted, history shows that it would likely have a negative effect on the SEC.
But there was also some relevant data:
Of the 750 players to be ranked among the top 250 prospects in the nation over the past three seasons, according to 247Sports’ 247Composite rankings, 59 signed with a different school than the one to which they were committed on Thanksgiving.
…
SEC………….. +8
Big Ten………… 0
ACC/ND.…….. -1
American…….. -2
Pac-12………… -2
Big 12………… -4
…
One caveat with this analysis is that, even with an early signing period, not all recruits who are committed on Thanksgiving weekend will choose to sign during that time. Many of these recent prospects who flipped late in the process were likely already wavering in November and would have chosen not to lock themselves in to one school.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/05/30/ncaa-reform-transfer-issue/9741115/
One major fight over autonomy will be what all it covers. A major concern for the G5 is the transfer policy.
Last week, when Pac-12 presidents outlined their plan for reform in a letter to the other 53 presidents of power conference schools, one of the 10 bullet points was to “liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.”
What that liberalization encompasses, however, was left vague — perhaps intentionally. Even the power conference schools themselves aren’t sure how far to take it.
But the proverbial line in the sand could be drawn if the Power 5 want to loosen the rules so much that athletes wouldn’t have to sit out a year if they transfer.
Schools in the American or Mountain West see the possibility of de facto free agency as a major threat, where an Alabama or Texas could theoretically try to fill a hole on their roster by simply poaching a player who excelled in a less prestigious conference.
…
The relatively recent spike in college basketball transfers — more than 400 players have changed schools each of the last two years — is one reason why the power conferences want to get their arms around the issue to some extent.
“Autonomy is not about competition and competitiveness. It’s about student-athlete welfare,” SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said. “To the extent that the transfer rule relates to student-athlete welfare, we feel it ought to be in the area of autonomy.”
Aresco, however, said he sees it as an issue of shared governance among all 32 D-I conferences. He also questioned how transfer regulations that only applied to those five conferences would work when players in a variety of sports would likely continue to transfer between the two levels.
“It has to do with competitive balance and competitive integrity and other issues that aren’t financial in nature,” Aresco said.
LikeLike
So much for the argument that Redskins was chosen to honor the coach.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/harry-reids-office-is-laughing-at-the-sad-redskinsprid-1583394139?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
Meanwhile, the #RedskinsPride push by the team isn’t getting the results they wanted so far.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh mentioned that you don’t hear as much about the Indians as you do the Redskins. Apparently, it helps to not have tone deaf ownership.
LikeLike
It also helps that Indians is a neutral term. Chief Wahoo draws lots of complaints, though.
LikeLike
In the context, it would have been better to not pick a hashtag that rhymes with Genocide.
LikeLike
So if you were on the playoff committee, how would you evaluate teams?
What emphasis would you place on SOS and how would you measure it? How much weight would a conference championship carry with you? What impact would the timing of games in the season have (early vs late losses, byes or cupcakes before big games, etc)? Are there certain things you would automatically punish (I-AA games, 8 home games, no true road OOC game, no CCG, etc) or reward (going undefeated, road OOC game, 11+ Power 5 games, conference winners, etc)? What information would you use to help you rank the teams (F/+ or other advanced stats, AP poll, computer polls, NCAA stats, etc)? How would you compare teams from different conferences? How much weight would you place on the eye test?
LikeLike
If they wear an “N” on their helmet and wear the color purple, they’re automatically in.
LikeLike
What emphasis would you place on SOS and how would you measure it?
I’d emphasize it quite heavily, with the caveats below. (Is the method of measuring it very controversial? That’s a serious question: I haven’t checked.)
How much weight would a conference championship carry with you?
Close to zero. Of course, conference champs are often excellent teams, but a few years ago UCLA could have won the Pac-12 with a 7-6 record (luckily, they didn’t). Wisconsin won the Big Ten a couple of years ago with a mediocre record, because two better football teams (Penn State and Ohio State) were ineligible. Such teams would get no attention from me.
The only exception I’d make, is that if two teams are statistically similar, and one of them won its conference championship, then I’d prefer the champion. For instance, I would have preferred Oklahoma State to Alabama, in the year that the BCS featured an LSU/Alabama re-match.
(Of course, if there’d been a 4-team playoff that year, there’s no question in my mind that Alabama deserved to be one of the four; but similar reasoning applies if you’re seeding the teams, or weighing two candidates for the #4 slot.)
What impact would the timing of games in the season have (early vs late losses, byes or cupcakes before big games, etc)?
I certainly think you have to weigh late losses more heavily, and I think most ranking systems do so, whether human or computer. Is there solid evidence that teams get a meaningful advantage by scheduling cupcakes before big games? Quite frequently, teams underperform in those games (because they’re looking ahead). I wouldn’t consider the timing of bye weeks, because too often those are not under the team’s control.
Are there certain things you would automatically punish (I-AA games, 8 home games, no true road OOC game, no CCG, etc) or reward (going undefeated, road OOC game, 11+ Power 5 games, conference winners, etc)?
“Punish” and “reward” are not the right words. There are plenty of good, statistically sound computer rating systems that take these things into account, properly. A solid I-AA opponent can be tougher than a terrible FBS opponent (like Memphis or New Mexico State). A strong mid-major (like Cincinnati or Boise State) can be a tougher opponent than a lower P5 like Wake Forest or Indiana. It’s pretty well established that the home field advantage is worth about 3 points, so you can take that into account statistically without specifically “rewarding” or “punishing” anyone.
What information would you use to help you rank the teams (F/+ or other advanced stats, AP poll, computer polls, NCAA stats, etc)? How would you compare teams from different conferences? How much weight would you place on the eye test?
I think the committee should have announced which computer/advanced stats it was relying on (hopefully they’d have chosen the reputable ones, not the garbage polls the BCS used), but I think that ship has sailed.
But yeah, the eye test does matter. I think it would be very difficult to exclude an undefeated P5 team, even if 100% of the computers rated it 5th or lower; and likewise, I think it would be difficult to choose a 3-loss team, even if the computers somehow put it in the top four (due to a monster schedule and a few close road losses to elite opponents).
I hate the AP poll, because it’s heavily tilted towards pre-season expectations, but it’s hard for your choices to be considered credible if a team in, say, the AP top two doesn’t make the playoff; or if a computer choice does make the playoff, but AP has it ranked 18th.
LikeLike
Mark Shepherd said, “For instance, I would have preferred Oklahoma State to Alabama, in the year that the BCS featured an LSU/Alabama re-match.”
Alan from Baton Rouge said, “Me too.”
LikeLike
And pretty much most of the rest of us.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’d emphasize it quite heavily, with the caveats below. (Is the method of measuring it very controversial? That’s a serious question: I haven’t checked.)”
There is a lot of discussion about it, yes. The NCAA uses opponents’ W%. Some people like RPI. Some like to use computer rankings to minimize subjectivity. Some people just count P5, G5 and I-AA games. Some people weight all games equally. Some people don’t weight games equally depending on who they play (ignoring I-AAs, for example), when they play (after a bye/cupcake versus after another tough game and/or September versus November) or where they play (road games > neutral site > home).
In summary, there is no consensus for how to measure SOS. Especially when some people play in a CCG while others don’t. Do you punish a team for losing that game when other teams didn’t even have to play it?
“The only exception I’d make, is that if two teams are statistically similar, and one of them won its conference championship, then I’d prefer the champion.”
So it’s basically a tiebreaker for you. That’s a fairly common opinion. I assume the extra game would help their SOS, though.
“I certainly think you have to weigh late losses more heavily, and I think most ranking systems do so, whether human or computer. ”
So how do you factor in a CCG loss? No B12 team or independent can lose one, nor does a divisional runner up run that risk.
“Is there solid evidence that teams get a meaningful advantage by scheduling cupcakes before big games? Quite frequently, teams underperform in those games (because they’re looking ahead).”
Based on the frequency with which SEC teams do it, I’d guess there is. Certainly it can help your preparation for the following game if you can steal some time in the cupcake week to start getting ready for the tougher game. You can also afford to rest players so they are healthier.
“I wouldn’t consider the timing of bye weeks, because too often those are not under the team’s control.”
OK.
“Punish” and “reward” are not the right words. There are plenty of good, statistically sound computer rating systems that take these things into account, properly.”
Properly is in the eye of the beholder, no?
“A solid I-AA opponent can be tougher than a terrible FBS opponent (like Memphis or New Mexico State). A strong mid-major (like Cincinnati or Boise State) can be a tougher opponent than a lower P5 like Wake Forest or Indiana. It’s pretty well established that the home field advantage is worth about 3 points, so you can take that into account statistically without specifically “rewarding” or “punishing” anyone.”
That’s one approach. Other people have different views. That’s why I asked. I’m not trying to tell anyone that their approach is correct or incorrect.
LikeLike
Is the method of measuring it very controversial? That’s a serious question: I haven’t checked.)
There is a lot of discussion about it, yes. The NCAA uses opponents’ W%. Some people like RPI. Some like to use computer rankings to minimize subjectivity. Some people just count P5, G5 and I-AA games. Some people weight all games equally. Some people don’t weight games equally depending on who they play (ignoring I-AAs, for example), when they play (after a bye/cupcake versus after another tough game and/or September versus November) or where they play (road games > neutral site > home).
Thanks for the refresher. As I recall, most serious statisticians consider RPI a very weak measure. I think most of the computers use some combination of your opponents’ records and your opponents’ opponents’ records. It is certainly possible to improve on RPI.
I think if you do that, there’s no need to insert extra rules to reward/punish schedules that are hard/easy. It all comes out in the wash. Play an extra P5 team, and your SOS goes up. Play an FBS team, and your SOS goes down. I am pretty sure most of the computer rankings, even the bad ones, take into account whether the game was home/away/neutral. Any that don’t need to be kicked out of the room.
I searched, and could not find any example of a college football computer ranking that takes by bye weeks or “near-byes” (cupcakes before big games) into account. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I couldn’t find it.
I also couldn’t find any solid statistical analysis of the benefit gained by scheduling a bye or near-bye before a big game. It has been studied extensively in the NFL, and apparently there’s about a 2-point edge, assuming your opponent played the week before. (The NFL studies don’t consider the cupcake effect, as there are fewer lopsided games at the pro level.)
Of course, there are other possibilities to consider. How much do you benefit when your previous game was on a Thursday or Friday night? How much do you benefit when it’s your second game of the year, but the opponent’s first? How much does it hurt to play two road games in a row? What if the first of those two is a night game 2,000 miles away?
My sense is that I wouldn’t consider bye-week timing in a computer model, but I’d consider it a very weak tie-breaker in extremely close cases. It would probably go into the hopper with other situations no computer can consider (e.g., you lose the one game that a key player was out with the flu).
In summary, there is no consensus for how to measure SOS. Especially when some people play in a CCG while others don’t. Do you punish a team for losing that game when other teams didn’t even have to play it?
My feeling about the CCG is that you can’t punish independents and conferences with fewer than 12 teams, since they couldn’t play that game even if they wanted to. But for leagues that do play it, I don’t see how it can be ignored. It’s like any other scheduling decision.
Consider Texas A&M, which has scheduled these non-conference juggernauts in 2014: Lamar, Rice, SMU, and Louisiana–Monroe. In contrast, LSU has a neutral-site game against Wisconsin. So LSU has given itself one extra serious game that it could lose, and the Aggies have not. A CCG is just like that: an extra serious game that you could lose. Win it, and your ranking goes up; lose it, and your ranking goes down.
LikeLike
I’d say a CCG is worth at least the toughest reg season game. It isn’t scheduled, but earned against another that also has earned it. And it’s played on a week (or less, PAC on Friday sometimes) notice, at a non home location. Losing it shouldn’t be worse than losing the toughest scheduled game.
LikeLike
Theoretically, assuming nobody is excluded for bad behavior.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Thanks for the refresher. As I recall, most serious statisticians consider RPI a very weak measure.”
Yes, especially because it is easy to game the system. It’s been a major problem in hoops and baseball. I don’t think there are enough games to really mess with it in football. But the larger talent disparity in football makes it harder to use well.
“I think if you do that, there’s no need to insert extra rules to reward/punish schedules that are hard/easy. It all comes out in the wash. Play an extra P5 team, and your SOS goes up. Play an FBS team, and your SOS goes down.”
To be clear, some of these things I mentioned are for people who aren’t calculating SOS but judging it mentally.
http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?orderby=wpct%20desc&type=1&year=13
As it turns out, one of the best ranking systems is to use the Vegas lines. Ask them who is better, and few if any computer models regularly beat them.
“I am pretty sure most of the computer rankings, even the bad ones, take into account whether the game was home/away/neutral. Any that don’t need to be kicked out of the room.”
Most but not all. Colley didn’t for the BCS, for example.
“I searched, and could not find any example of a college football computer ranking that takes by bye weeks or “near-byes” (cupcakes before big games) into account. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but I couldn’t find it.”
I’m not surprised. The polls generally try to minimize how many factors they have to consider.
“I also couldn’t find any solid statistical analysis of the benefit gained by scheduling a bye or near-bye before a big game. It has been studied extensively in the NFL, and apparently there’s about a 2-point edge, assuming your opponent played the week before.”
http://espn.go.com/fantasy/football/story/_/id/9748736/qbs-home-d-sts-road-show-most-improvement-coming-bye-weeks
At casual glance, NFL teams benefit from a week off: In the past five seasons combined (2008-12), teams are 85-72-3 (.541 winning percentage) in their first games following their bye week, the group never posting a losing record in any of those individual years.
http://www.boydsbets.com/college-football-bye-week-system/
CFB teams coming off a bye beat the spread 51.5% of the time (52.6% at home). The larger the spread, the better the home team does (18+ pts -> covering over 57% of the time).
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703673604575550133637891028
CFB results show a minor effect (except in the B10, where a bye kills you), but that includes bad teams. What’s relevant for the playoff is how good teams do after a bye.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1763456-alabama-football-how-nick-saban-makes-the-most-of-the-bye-week
Nick Saban is 7-3 after a bye (or in a bowl) at AL, but all 3 losses came to teams that also had extra time to prepare and were all highly ranked.
LikeLike
CFB teams coming off a bye beat the spread 51.5% of the time (52.6% at home). The larger the spread, the better the home team does (18+ pts -> covering over 57% of the time).
If 1.5% is the extent of the advantage, then two teams would need to be awfully close for that to be the deciding factor in the decision to put one in the playoff over the other.
LikeLike
As I said, that’s for all teams. The only relevant numbers are for the really good teams.
LikeLike
Play an extra P5 team, and your SOS goes up. Play an FBS team, and your SOS goes down.
Sorry…I meant: play an FCS team, and your SOS goes down.
LikeLike
“So if you were on the playoff committee, how would you evaluate teams?”
To answer my own question, I think you first have to decide who should make the playoff. Are you picking the 4 best teams in your opinion or the 4 most accomplished teams? I believe the rules say they are supposed to pick the 4 best, but it’s hard to leave out a team you think is deserving (an undefeated team, for example).
Only thinking about the top 4, I’d start by making a list of all 10+ win teams (I don’t see how a 9-3 team could deserve a shot). Then I’d whittle that down to conference champs, divisional champs and divisional runners up plus independents (I’m including all co-champs in the term champs and co-runners up as runners up). That would be my pool of teams to consider.
Tier 1 (Automatic picks) – any undefeated Power 5 team (incl. ND)
Tier 2 – 0-1 loss G5 teams and 1-2 loss P5 teams (an extra loss in a CCG is OK)
Tier 3 – the rest of my pool (only getting in if the prior two groups don’t provide 4 teams)
Narrowing it down to 4 and seeding them will be based on the details.
“What emphasis would you place on SOS and how would you measure it?”
It’s very important, especially OOC SOS. A I-AA would win not count as a win to me and a loss would be an automatic elimination. I’d strongly factor in the location of OOC games, including whether a neutral site was really neutral. I’d also consider the intentions behind scheduling certain games (normally they’re good but this was a fluke year, etc). The timing of games matters to me as well. Playing a November OOC cupcake right before your rivalry game would devalue a win in that game unless both teams did it. A bye week would also reduce the value of a win, just to be consistent, but not as much as a cupcake.
“How much weight would a conference championship carry with you?”
It’s worth an extra half of a win to me. Conference teams are the hardest ones to beat.
“What impact would the timing of games in the season have (early vs late losses, byes or cupcakes before big games, etc)?”
Early versus late losses don’t matter to me much. I value the whole season equally. I will consider if the L came in a tough part of the schedule or any easy part, though. A CCG loss wouldn’t count as a full loss to me, since not everyone has to face that game.
“Are there certain things you would automatically punish (I-AA games, 8 home games, no true road OOC game, no CCG, etc) or reward (going undefeated, road OOC game, 11+ Power 5 games, conference winners, etc)?”
Yes, I would reward 9 conference games, fewer non-P5 games, going undefeated and winning a conference in terms of how I evaluate their SOS. Likewise, playing a I-AA would hurt you in my eyes. For conference games: 9+CCG > 9 round robin > 8+CCG > 9 > 8.
“What information would you use to help you rank the teams (F/+ or other advanced stats, AP poll, computer polls, NCAA stats, etc)?”
I’d use as much info as possible. The advanced stats have a place, but they aren’t perfect. Computer polls can be helpful if you pick a diverse set with public formulas (I’d prefer someone made one that you could tweak the weighting of different things and see what changes, but I’m not aware of any such poll). The AP poll tells you what others think about the teams which can be a useful sanity check.
“How would you compare teams from different conferences?”
There are so few common opponents that this is hard anymore. I’d rely on OOC results and objective measures a lot.
“How much weight would you place on the eye test?”
With the video they have access to, I’d trust it quite a bit. You need to see multiple games for each team to really get a good picture of them, and TV doesn’t provide the best angles for comparing teams (plus the commentators can bias you).
LikeLike
I’d pick the two best teams, the two most accomplished teams, and if that leaves another spot the third best team, if it leaves another two spots, also the third most accomplished team.
LikeLike
When they talk about “common sense,” that means following the herd and picking the most hyped team. If you pick the most accomplished team, then you reduce the biases. You have the bias of what is an “accomplishment,” but the eyeball test is nothing but hype. And its also not reality on the field. There are some teams that just know how to win, just as there are players, like Joe Montana. In baseball, titles seemed to follow Pete Rose, Joe Morgan and Reggie Jackson around.
If you pick a 1 loss team over an unbeaten team with a similar schedule or a 1 loss team over another 1 loss team with a better schedule, you are just ignoring scoreboards in favor of what you think is important.
Texas in 1968 was #1 in Sagarin, but they had a loss and a tie in their first two games. If you used the eyeball test you might say they deserved a sport, but you had unbeaten teams, so it would be ridiculous to put them ahead of those teams.
LikeLike
“…you are just ignoring scoreboards in favor of what you think is important.”
…or…
…you are just ignoring scoreboards in favor of who you think is important.
LikeLike
If you want to maintain the excitement and importance of the college football regular season, you absolutely favor accomplishment over “the 4 best.” With the 4 best model, you conceivably have scenarios where three or four CFP participants come from the same conference. This substantially devalues the regular season games, head-to-head matchups, and the conference standings and has the potential to render the conference championship meaningless. That would be horrible for the college football regular season.
The “accomplishment” criteria should focus on win-loss record, SOS, conference championships, and head-to-head matchups. The 2013 season give us some good scenarios in which to apply the accomplishment criteria. See information further below.
If I were on the selection committee, I easily give the #1 seed to Florida St. Even though they have no top-10 wins, they are the only undefeated team – with wins overs #12 Clemson and #24 Duke – and the ACC conference champion.
Also, Auburn’s resume looks better than the rest of the field: 3-1 against the top-25 and 2-0 against the top-10 and the SEC championship. They get the CFP’s second seed.
You can pretty easily eliminate Fresno St., Louisville and Northern Illinois. Fresno St. won the Mountain West championship, but did not play ANY top-40 opponents. None. Neither Louisville nor Northern Illinois won their conference championships. Louisville went 0-1 against top-25 and Northern Illinois had no top-25 opponents.
You cannot ignore PAC 12 champion Stanford. Although they have 2 losses, they also have two top-25 wins, four top-40 wins, and they are the PAC 12 champion. But the losses to #25 USC and to unranked Utah really hurt. In fact, those two losses are enough to knock Stanford below both Michigan St. and Baylor, such that Stanford is bumped off the board.
I don’t see enough from Central Florida or Ohio St. to stay on the short list. Ohio St.’s best win is #19 Wisconsin and Central Florida’s best win is #18 Louisville. Those games just don’t move the needle as much as Michigan St.’s (head-to-head) win over #7 Ohio St. and its Big Ten championship or Baylor’s wins over #11 Oklahoma and #30 Texas and Big 12 championship. So, UCF and tOSU are gone.
The remaining contenders are Michigan St. (12-1, Big Ten Champ), Baylor (11-1, Big 12 Champ), Alabama (11-1, only loss to #2 Auburn), and Missouri (11-2, SEC runner-up). So, this is where it gets interesting.
Michigan St. only had one top 25 game, a win over #7 Ohio St. They went 4-1 against the top-40, with wins over #29 Iowa, #36 Minnesota, and #38 Nebraska. The black eye is the road loss to #33 Notre Dame.
Baylor has no top-10 wins, but good games over #11 Oklahoma and #30 Texas. The loss at #13 Oklahoma St. could get in the way.
You absolutely cannot ignore one-loss Alabama, who has two top-25 wins and who’s only loss was on a last minute score, on the road, to the eventual SEC champion and #2 seed.
Missouri looks strong, with two top-25 wins and close losses to #9 South Carolina (in overtime) and #2 Auburn in the SEC championship.
Tough call. From this exercise, I think it points to the fact that the selection committee is going to be greatly criticized, however they decide.
Here, I go with Michigan St. as the number 3 seed and Alabama as the 4 seed. Michigan St. has a top-10 win over another contender, 4-1 record against the top-40, and the Big Ten championship. The fact that Alabama doesn’t even win it’s division is a strong argument against them, but the fact that Alabama’s only loss on the season is to #2 seed Auburn helps them sneak in.
Baylor would have been helped by one more top-25 win (argument for conference championship game?) to offset the loss to Oklahoma St. Missouri’s two losses are one too many to overcome.
So, the 2013 CFP could have looked like this:
Orange Bowl: Florida St. v. Alabama
Fiesta Bowl: Auburn v. Michigan St.
That would have been awesome!
Florida St.
Record: 13-0
vs. top-10: no games
vs. top-25: 2-0
vs. 26-40: 1-0
vs. #41+: 10-0
Key wins: #12 Clemson, #24 Duke, #26 Miami
Key Loss: undefeated!
Championship: ACC Champ
Auburn
Record: 12-1
vs. top-10: 2-0
vs. top-25: 3-1
vs. 26-40: no games
vs 41+: 9-0
Key wins: finalists #3 Alabama and #8 Missouri in Conf. Champ, #22 Georgia
Key Loss: at #16 LSU
Championship: SEC Champ
Michigan St.
Record: 12-1
vs. top-10: 1-0
vs. top-25: 1-0
vs. 26-40: 3-1
vs. 41+: 8-0
Key wins: finalist #7 Ohio St. in Conf. Champ, at #29 Iowa, #36 Minnesota, at #38 Nebraska
Key Loss: at #33 Notre Dame
Championship: Big Ten Champ
Baylor
Record: 11-1
vs. top-10: no games
vs. top-25: 1-1
vs. 26-40: 1-0
vs. 41+: 9-0
Key wins: #11 Oklahoma, #30 Texas
Key Loss: at #13 Oklahoma St.
Championship: Big 12 Champ
Central Florida
Record: 11-1
vs. top-10: 0-1
vs. top-25: 1-1
vs. 26-40: 1-0
vs. 41+: 9-0
Key wins: #18 Louisville, #27 Cincinnati
Key Loss: #9 South Carolina
Championship: AAC Champ
Fresno St.
Record: 11-1
vs. top-10: no games
vs. top-25: no games
vs. 26-40: no games
s. 41+: 11-1
Key wins: none
Key Loss: at NR San Jose St.
Championship: Mountain West Champ
Alabama
Record: 11-1
vs. top-10: 0-1
vs. top-25: 2-1
vs. 26-40: 1-0
vs. 41+: 8-0
Key wins: at #21 Texas A&M, #16 LSU, #39 Virginia Tech
Key Loss: at #2 Auburn
Championship: None
Ohio St.
Record: 12-1
vs. top-10: 0-1
vs. top-25: 1-1
vs. 26-40: 2-0
vs. 41+: 9-0
Key wins: #19 Wisconsin, #29 Iowa
Key Loss: #4 Michigan St. in Conf. Champ
Championship: Big Ten runner-up
Stanford
Record: 11-2
vs. top-10: 1-0
vs. top-25: 2-1
vs. 26-40: 2-0
vs 41+: 7-1
Key wins: #10 Oregon, #14 Arizona St. in Conf. Champ., #33 Notre Dame, #40 Washington
Key Loss: at NR Utah, at #25 USC
Championship: PAC 12 Champ
Missouri
Record: 11-2
vs. top-10: 0-2
vs. top-25: 2-2
vs. 26-40: 1-0
s. 41+: 8-0
Key wins: #21 Texas A&M, at #22 Georgia, at #28 Vanderbilt
Key Loss: #9 South Carolina (OT) and #2 Auburn in Conf. Champ
Championship: SEC runner-up
Louisville
Record: 11-1
vs. top-10: no games
vs. top-25: 0-1
vs. 26-40: 1-0
s. 41+: 10-0
Key wins: #27 Cincinnati
Key Loss: #15 Central Florida
Championship: None
Northern Illinois
Record: 12-1
vs. top-10: no games
vs. top-25: no games
vs. 26-40: 2-1
s. 41+: 10-0
Key wins: at #29 Iowa, #37 Ball St.
Key Loss: #32 Bowling Green in Conf. Champ
Championship: MAC runner-up
By the way, after doing this exercise, the value of the 8-team CFP just made too much sense. Baylor, Stanford, and Central Florida would all make the CFP as conference champions. Then, you would basically compare Alabama, Ohio St., and Missouri to select the final two at large participants. Sure, there would still be tough calls and criticism, but four more teams get into the CFP and we get 4 games from December 21 to December 23 like this:
Central Florida at Florida St., in Tallahassee
Ohio St. at Auburn, in Auburn
Stanford at Michigan St., in East Lansing
Baylor at Alabama, in Tuscaloosa
!!
LikeLike
Here’s a recap of the baseball regionals opening rounds.
http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9988
Of note: In a matchup more likely to occur in a final four, Kansas beat Kentucky 10-6 setting up another FF matchup between Kansas and Louisville. The Longhorns defeated the Aggies 8-1. Loki’s Owls defeated George Mason 7-2, setting up a JFK game against Texas. (“Why does Rice play Texas ? . . . ) Duff and shroom’s Hoosiers continue to roll with a 10-2 pounding of Youngstown State. Vincent’s Terps beat Old Dominion 4-3.
Oh, and my Tigers had to rally, as they were down 4-2 in the 8th, to beat SE Louisiana 8-4. LSU is now 26-1 all-time in NCAA opening round games. LSU plays Houston tonight with our Ace, Aaron Nola on the mound. He’s 10-1 with a 1.49 ERA and will be a top ten pick in the MLB draft. Houston is the best #2 seed in the tournament and they held their ace as well, but anytime Nola is pitching, I like the Tigers’ chances.
Three national seeds got beat.
#5 Florida State lost by a touchdown to Georgia Southern. After football team beat the Gators last season, I doubt any Eagles team will be welcome in the state of Florida again. The Seminoles now face Alabama in a loser’s bracket game today. The Tide dropped a 1-0 decision to Kennesaw State.
The College of Charleston nipped the #2 Florida Gators by a score of 3-2. Today, Florida plays a win or go home game against North Carolina.
Louisiana-Lafayette (under no circumstances are the Cajuns ever to be called Louisiana) got shutout by Jackson State 1-0. The Cajuns now face Tony Gwynn’s Aztecs in an elimination game.
LikeLike
Oregon St survived a close one with NDSU, TCU outlasted Siena in extra innings, and Texas beat up on A&M. All around great games yesterday.
LikeLike
Gwynn Sr. is currently with the team – in bobble head form.
LikeLike
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/aztecs-rally-around-bobblehead-of-absent-gwynn/
LikeLike
With lots of games left today:
#1 seeds advanced – IN, UL
#1 seeds eliminated – 2 (FSU, UF)
#2 seeds eliminated – 3 (IN State, ASU, Dallas Baptist)
#3 seeds eliminated – 6
#4 seeds eliminated – 4
LikeLike
The SEC is distributing $309.6 million.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268748/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=56q2a6MB
LikeLike
The schools are still receiving Tier 3 money as well.
LikeLike
“The schools are still receiving Tier 3 money as well.”
So do the other P5.
LikeLike
Greg – I should have written Tier 3 TV money. Its my understanding that the ACC, B1G, and Pac-12 all have their Tier 3 TV money rolled up with their Tier 2 rights. Only the Big 12 and the SEC have Tier 3 TV rights. Next year, only the Big 12 will have Tier 3 TV rights.
LikeLike
B10 tier 3 contracts (sans TV) right now seem competitive with SEC and B12 tier 3 contracts (including TV).
The tier 3 bag is an inconsistent grouping of various media and advertising rights. If you are going to point out that SEC/B12 have tier 3 TV rights, you need to point out that the tier 3 TV rights don’t amount to all that much other than a couple outliers like Texas and Oklahoma.
OSU is getting $11M a year (radio, signage, coaches shows), Florida $10M (TV, radio, signage, coaches shows), Iowa $7M (radio, signage, coaches shows). WVU brand new contract at $7 (TV, radio, signage, coaches shows). Kansas $8 (TV, radio, signage, web)
Overall, the TV rights seem to be worth $1 to $2M. OU and UT excepted, maybe a couple others.
LikeLike
Alan,
We’ve had the discussion numerous times here, but as greg notes every piece of information that is out there such as this article about Florida’s 2008 IMG/Sun Sports Network deal*
points to those 3rd tier television rights not being worth a heck of a lot. Greg’s $1-2 million is probably spot on**. And to a large extent that makes sense. I doubt TigerVision’s PPV model was netting much more than $1 million for LSU versus Northwestern State.
*http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/07/14/daily4.html
**Since the last round of school deals the value has undoubtedly risen just like conference packages, but putting exact numbers on LHN or Oklahoma’s FSN deal are difficult without knowing what was squired from IMG or Learfield.
LikeLike
“Its my understanding that the ACC, B1G, and Pac-12 all have their Tier 3 TV money rolled up with their Tier 2 rights.”
While fans wish Tiers to be for some particular type of rights, what they refer to is contractual order of priority in picking games for broadcast, so saying the Big Ten has “Tier 3 TV money rolled up with their Tier 2 rights” doesn’t mean anything. The Big Ten has two tiers, the ABC/ESPN contract and (substantial) residual rights allocated to the BTN. The Big12 and SEC have two tiers for primary broadcast network and cable rights, so their residual TV rights form a third tier.
If a conference had a broadcast network package for a game of the week, a primary cable package for a game of the week picking next, and a second cable package for two games, then their residual TV rights would be “Tier 4”. Its just that it would normally make more sense in the business of cable for a single narrowcaster to pick up three games per week and then sublicense the rights to one or two if they didn’t wish to carry them, as ESPN has done with CBS Sports Network for the American Athletic cable rights.
But under the next contract, it is entirely possible for ABC/ESPN and Fox/FS1 to pick up the contract. In that case, there would have to be a designated rotation for picking broadcast games, which would then, intrinsically, create two Tiers of rights. The question is whether either ABC/ESPN or Fox/FS1 would pay to have priority in the games that fall to cable, or whether they would have a designated rotation. In the first case, the Big Ten would have four tiers, blowing the minds of everyone who has become used to “Tier 3 rights” as meaning something in general as opposed to meaning something in the context of a particular set of contracts … and in the second case the Big Ten would have three tiers, confirming the “Tier 3 rights” confusion in the minds of another generation of fans who try to follow the media side of big time football.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11007094/sec-distributes-record-2928-million-revenue
Not quite. That was their total revenue but “only” $292.8M is going to the schools.
LikeLike
Add in $16.8 million to the bowl schools and you come up with the $309.6 million
LikeLike
That money isn’t distributed by the SEC, just like local media packages.
The $16.8 million of contracted revenue retained by institutions that participated in bowl games last season and the $1 million divided among all of the league’s schools by the NCAA for academic enhancement aren’t included in the $292.8 million that will be distributed. Neither is revenue gained by schools from local media packages.
LikeLike
It still makes sense to include it in the figure. The Big Ten has a different bowl revenue sharing formula, but bowl revenue is reported in the conference distributions. Same for the Pac-12 and Big XII.
LikeLike
I’m just saying it’s inaccurate to say the SEC distributed that money. You could say SEC schools split $309.6M in revenue and be accurate.
LikeLike
If you want to get technical sure it is revenue being given to certain schools from outside parties. But if it is being distributed per the deals the SEC has worked out with bowls and per the SEC bowl revenue sharing formula for an apples to apples comparison with say the BIg Ten; that is for all intents and purposes conference revenue being distributed.
LikeLike
There’s a reason why the media are reporting a distribution of $20.9M per school ($20.9M * 14 = $292.8M). The extra bowl money is kept by those who appeared in bowls, not split equally. When you say the SEC distributed $309.6M with us knowing they do equal revenue sharing, it makes it sounds like everyone got $22.1M when they didn’t.
LikeLike
http://www.bleachernation.com/2014/05/30/tribune-ceo-confirms-wgn-america-plans-to-drop-sports-including-chicago-cubs/
Major news for Cubs fans outside of Chicago. WGN America is dropping all Chicago sports from their lineup. No more beaming every Cubs game into homes across the country. TBS pulled it off years ago when they dropped the Braves. Will WGNA do as well?
LikeLike
Does the Heisman curse carry over to baseball? Alabama eliminates FSU.
LikeLike
Nebraska avoids elimination with an 8-6 win over Binghamton.
Kentucky end Kent State’s season with a 4-2 win.
LikeLike
Washington eliminates GA Tech 8-0.
Youngstown State eliminates Indiana State 5-2.
LikeLike
SEC Nation, a two-hour pre-game show like College Game Day announced its host: Joe Tessitore, Paul Finebaum, Tim Tebow, and LSU’s own Marcus Spears.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/05/sec-networks-sept-sites/
LikeLike
Here’s a roundup of Saturday’s regional action.
http://perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=9989
Not a good for the state of Florida. National seeds Florida & Florida State are eliminated, going 0-2 as hosts. Miami also lost, but is still in the tournament.
TCU needed 22 innings to dispatch Sam Houston State 3-2.
#1 national seed Oregon State lost a winners’ bracket game to the Anteaters of UC-Irvine 14-2.
National seeds eliminated are #2 Florida and #5 Florida State.
National seeds in the losers’ bracket (need to win 3 games to advance) are #1 Oregon State and #6 Louisiana-Lafayette. Other regional hosts in the losers’ bracket are Rice, Cal Poly, Miami, and South Carolina.
Future B1G team Maryland beat South Carolina 4-3 and is in the driver’s seat of the Columbia regional, as is #4 national seed Indiana, who beat Stanford 4-2. Nebraska avoided elimination by scoring 3 runs in the 9th to defeat Binghamton 8-6.
The SEC, with an NCAA record 10 bids, may have lost its highest national seed and regular season champ in Florida, but its other national seed and tourney champ, my LSU Tigers, are doing just fine with a 5-1 victory over the best #2 seed in the tournament, Houston. Vandy, Ole Miss, and Miss State are all undefeated. A&M, South Carolina, Alabama, and Kentucky are all still alive but in the losers’ bracket.
Unlikely undefeated include #4 seed College of Charleston in the Gainesville regional, and #3 seeds UC-Irvine (Corvallis), Kennesaw [GA] State (Tallahassee), and Pepperdine (San Luis Obispo).
LikeLike
Not a good for the state of Florida. National seeds Florida & Florida State are eliminated, going 0-2 as hosts. Miami also lost, but is still in the tournament.
Unbelievable.
LikeLike
Nebraska was just eliminated by Fullerton State 4-3.
LikeLike
The only higher seeded team to lose today so far.
LikeLike
UF and FSU are the fourth and fifth national seeds to go 0-2 in their regional since the field expanded in 1999.
LikeLike
I simply find it stunning how often FSU makes the CWS, yet no NC. Same goes for other ACC members. See especially FSU, UNC & Clemson.
Miami, not in the ACC at the time, is the only current member to win NCs in the past 15 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_World_Series
LikeLike
37 straight NCAA tourneys (2nd to Miami’s 42 straight), 52 overall. 21 CWS appearances. 3 2nd place finishes. A lot of schools would love to match those numbers. Maybe their coach just isn’t great in that double elimination format, since he’s taken them there the past 35 years.
LikeLike
Sure, those are great resumes. But those ACC schools listed: FSU, Clemson & UNC stick out, since most schools with similar appearances have at least 1 NC, esp FSU’s 20+ appearances. Compare FSU with say Miami, USC, Tx, ASU, AZ, LSU.
You would think the ACC, which has really been a deep league with other teams adding CWS appearances (GT, Va) past decade, would produce NCs.
N. Colorado is the only other school with double-digit CWS appearances, yet no title. OkSt is similar to FSU in CWS appearances, but they do have 1 NC.
LikeLike
Sure you’d expect more, but stuff happens sometimes. There can only be so many elite programs at one time, and right now the SEC is dominating the southern landscape. I wouldn’t be surprised if the extra money the SEC earns compared to the ACC is helping them out in baseball. You also see some small schools specializing in baseball and competing in the south.
OSU should have won a football title under John Cooper, but he kept finding ways to blow it. OSU should have more hoops titles with all of our final fours, but we don’t.
Bobby Bowden should have won more titles, but he couldn’t find a clutch kicker for a long time.
LikeLike
According to my math, the ACC has 49 CWS appearances and only one CWS championship. Wake Forest won it all in 1955.
I didn’t count the 36 CWS appearances by BC, Florida State, Notre Dame, Syracuse, or Miami before they joined the ACC.
Miami has won it all 4 times in their pre-ACC era. The Hurricanes were also runners-up twice. Florida State came in second three time, once as an ACC member. GA Tech came in second once. North Carolina came in second twice.
LikeLike
Alan,
I did that math once & posted it to some ACC board – there was nothing but depressing responses, but folks seemed honest, esp FSU fans who’ve come to expect this dry spell. WF has the only actually ACC title (1955), that’s more than a decade before the BIG’s last title (OSU in 66).
I can’t believe my alma mater is 3 for 5 in CWS appearances – Minnesota – that’s more NCs than UNC, Va, FSU, UNC and GT combined. But I aint a fool – those programs have been much better the past 30 + years. The BIG, in general – Mi-Minny especially – had nice results when they actually made it to the CWS these days. Hat tip to IU last year – that relieved some who never thought BIG baseball would be relevant again. They could get there again, but the road will be tough.
For ACC baseball, I can somewhat relate as BIG M’s Basketball has sent a lot of teams to the FF or NCG the past 20 years with only 1 title.
I agree with Brian, the baseball format can be a little tricky for coaching – but all teams must adapt & you do get second chances in the baseball format – it’s certainly not one and done.
I think if indoor baseball stadiums, thus a practice facility, were far more affordable – we might see better results for northern baseball – but that’s just one of several issues.
LikeLike
gfunk – I suggested a while back that the B1G buy the now-vacant Dodger Town in Vero Beach and send all the B1G teams down there to train in January, take classes online, play early regular season games in Florida, and come back to the home campuses in mid-March. I’d bet that would help with recruiting and the B1G snowbirds might even buy some tickets.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“I suggested a while back that the B1G buy the now-vacant Dodger Town in Vero Beach and send all the B1G teams down there to train in January, take classes online, play early regular season games in Florida, and come back to the home campuses in mid-March.”
And you think that would be legal under the NCAA? You can’t have athlete-only dorms any more, but an athlete-only campus is OK? Besides, I don’t know that B10 schools offer enough online-only courses to make that work academically. In addition, it doesn’t change the fact that they are starting the season with months of road games.
“I’d bet that would help with recruiting and the B1G snowbirds might even buy some tickets.”
If they didn’t watch it when they lived in the midwest, why would they watch it now? They can go see MLB pre-season games instead.
LikeLike
Not a bad idea Alan – I once thought of something similar, but only if the BIG had member institutions in the same state – a UT or some never going to happen Fl school addition. In other words, BIG schools could share facilities & actually be on an accredited campus that is also a CIC member.
I’m with Brian, hard to believe : ). I’m not sure baseball is popular enough in the northern states outside of MLB. I keep hearing MLB is making money, but I think it’s been diminishing from a playing perspective for a while now & so many great baseball players come from systems outside college & increasingly other countries, though some great MLB players have collegiate roots. I use to really love baseball, but I only get the old excitement back if I go to a game in-person – Target Field is a special place from mid-May to late September. It’s an awful tv sport, esp mid-Summer – hello parks and recreation – time to be outside. I think it’s amazing SEC & ACC schools attend in higher numbers, but if I was living down there, I’d never go – esp with nice weather outside – give me a fishing rod any day of the week.
Northern teams need more indoor venues, but they are costly. If they could add a few in the footprint then hosting Sun Belt teams via early season tournaments is possible. Such venues would have to surface in the truly colder Northern states that really can’t start a home schedule until early April. Minnesota had awful weather until early May, which was unusual – but they really can’t stretch their legs on a upper level until just before, mid April anyways.
If there were say 3-4 regional indoor venues from the Dakotas to the Northeast – venues that several teams & conferences could share for early season tournaments then we may see possible improvement in the long-term: Chicago, Minneapolis, Jersey or one of the LI NYC boroughs, Colorado. But again, costs are a major concern, cultural passion for college baseball as well. Those are big obstacles.
LikeLike
I’m not counting on it by any means — heck, they’ll be fortunate to escape Charlottesville — but wouldn’t it be delicious if the ACC College World Series drought was broken by Maryland?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/84757/playoff-could-be-favorable-to-big-12
The B12 believes the playoff will favor them with their round robin and no CCG.
LikeLike
It very well might. The East Coast Athletic Conference (that Pennsylvania conference that had the CCG game for decades) eventually did away with it after instances where it lost out on having multiple teams chosen for the D-II playoffs.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-athletics/2014/06/36176/womens-rowing-captures-ncaa-national-title
A repeat for the B10. It’s not football, but I’ll take it.
LikeLike
So yeah, nice dig Brian. It looks like the BIG will finish with 5 NCAA titles for the year, about average for the conference, past decade. OSU was so strong today in rowing. They had less odds to win it all compared with schools like Cal, Brown and Va – due to less crews in the final rounds – but they pulled it off.
*** BIG NCAA titles for the school year ***
PSU: Wrestling, Fencing, W. Volleyball
Michigan: M. Gymnastics
OSU: Rowing
*** Runners up ***
Minnesota: M & W Hockey, Wrestling
Neb: W. Bowling
Wi: W. Volleyball
*** Other notes ***
Incoming Md won the W. Lacrosse title & made the last four of F. Hockey, W. Basketball, M. Lax & CG M. Hockey – nice year for Md.
Md, IU & Neb are still alive in baseball. IU & Md have a great shot at reaching the next round.
LikeLike
I could be missing data here, please chime in – anyone.
LikeLike
I assume you’re only talking team titles, since several people have won individual titles.
For example:
Wrestling: 125 Delgado (IL), 133 Ramos (IA), 141 Stieber (OSU), 149 Tsirtsis (NW), 165 Taylor (PSU), 184 Ruth (PSU), and we lost 3 other championship matches (that’s out of 10 classes total)
In M. Gymnastics, we won 3 of the 6 individual events plus the all-around individual title.
LikeLike
In fact I am. Individual titles are little too much for me to add into research : ). But of course they matter.
LikeLike
Incoming Md won the W. Lacrosse title & made the last four of F. Hockey, W. Basketball, M. Lax & CG M. Hockey – nice year for Md.
You forgot the finals of men’s soccer, where Maryland was beaten by Notre Dame — the same school that KO’d the Terps in the semis of women’s basketball (hell, no one was going to beat the Evil Empire of Storrs this year, alas) and men’s lacrosse (Maryland has now gone 39 years without winning it all). Anyway, now Maryland fans hate the Irish as much as MSU, Michigan or Purdue.
LikeLike
Fox Sports 1 is changing up its CFB shows/admitting defeat at the hands of ESPN:
“Interestingly, Fox Sports 1 is clearly considering pushing gaming as an element of its coverage and that play has potential — as well as some downside”
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20140601/media-circus-world-cup-espn-soccer-fox-sports-1/#ixzz33Rmec4Ri
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2014-college-football-tv-schedule-fox-sports-052914
And here is the FOX family’s CFB game schedule for the fall. A little over 100 games, or just over 7 per week on average, and it includes FSN, FCS and FOX Sports Oklahoma PPV.
LikeLike
Paying College Athletes: A Movement Grows
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/06/01/paying-college-athletes-a-movement-grows-a-512114.html#.U4wtSVrji71
As the issues reached a boiling point this year, Sack has been happy to see change finally coming in college sports. While he supports players unionizing as means of earning a larger voice, he offers what he considers a better solution: revert back to the pre-1973 scholarship procedure. Besides giving college athletes a guaranteed four-year scholarship — provided they are students in good standing — Sack suggests offering insurance coverage.
That’s part of the College Athlete Protection Act, proposed legislation being pushed by Sack and the Drake Group for Academic Integrity in Collegiate Sport. The act also would restructure the NCAA while shifting the focus of athletics back to education.
Sack said the money for increased insurance coverage for athletes at all levels can be derived from a Division I-A college football national championship, shifting revenue away from the BCS model.
“So there would be remedial education for the athletes, an academic trust fund for the athletes,” Sack said. “If you don’t graduate and want to come back and get a degree, an academic trust fund that would help the athletes who really do so much for the universities, in terms of entertaining the public and all the other things. … They would be able to come back and get a graduate degree.
“We’re hoping for compensation for the athletes, but an educational and medical compensation. Not negotiated contracts that would be about the financial benefits and so forth.”
He should have been asked for his opinion on oversigning.
LikeLike
Some of this was discussed here:
LikeLike
Other than GCU, are there any other NCAA schools that generate “profit”?
LikeLike
Whether the schools ultimately show a profit is distinct from whether the schools profit from a specific venture, such as a sport or selling a jersey that some current student-athlete is making uber-popular relative to other years. The difference in revenue is attributed to the fact that Player X puts on the jersey or fills the stadium.
LikeLike
“The difference in revenue is attributed to the fact that Player X puts on the jersey or fills the stadium.”
And Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. collect most of that excess revenue which then contributes to their profit. I read the Chargers were making 11¢ per LT jersey about a decade ago (can’t swear to the accuracy), and I recall a couple articles last year that figured kids might see $100-200 total over four years. Jersey sales are promotional tools for the schools. They provide continuing advertising long after the kid is gone, and often forgotten, but they still rep the school.
LikeLike
If it is so marginal, they do not need to do it.
Also, you are naive to rely on what you are told regarding profit/loss–especially when it comes from anything related to the NCAA.
LikeLike
They don’t need it, and the NCAA has given it up along with licensing video games. What they can’t do is allow individuals to market themselves-become professional.
I’m pretty sure school presidents are more concerned with the cost/benefit of the nonprofit status of their universities than they are about the few percent of the schools budget the athletic departments represent. This isn’t NCAA at its base. It’s how a university functions, and the NCAA (and athletic departments) won’t be allowed to really cost the schools big, and for a long time, by screwing up that nonprofit status.
LikeLike
The non-profit status of the whole university is not at risk.
LikeLike
CCRider, what are you even arguing about? The issue the Confidential addressed was whether something additional, academically, could be done for student-athletes, particularly those at risk. Good grief.
LikeLike
“Looking forward, there would need to be rules regarding the limits, to prevent schools from stockpiling 10 at-risk kids per year in the hopes that a few would make it to eligible sophomores.”
This?
LikeLike
Also, I’m not the one who conflates high revenue with profit, which seems to be a focus for many. Do you have a problem with Harvard not sharing more of its high revenue with it’s student population?
LikeLike
I am not conflating anything. It was a proposal to address academics.
Harvard need not share any revenue at all. But they can make sure that their student population is educated. Which I am sure that they do. If Alabama wants to pay Nick Saban $55M, they can find a few K’s to educate the students and allow those student-athletes additional time to complete degrees.
Further addressing your straw man argument… do you seriously think that a university fielding Division 1 sports cannot incur the expense/effort to address academics of at-risk students? For the most part, I was advocating longer tails for degree completion and additional classes. Teaching is a commodity in high supply at a University. If they do not have the resources to accomplish that, they have no business being in sports.
Moreover, you confuse reported profits with actual profits. Are you suggesting that Alabama football is not a profitable enterprise? Football is big because it IS profitable. We know football supports other athletic programs. That may mean that athletic departments as a whole are not profitable… but that is an issue for athletic departments to deal with. Regardless, have fun being gullible about accounting methods too. As if most pro teams truly operate at a loss…
Not sure why you resent giving a crap about student-athletes getting a meaningful education from an educational institution.
LikeLike
Some of those don’t belong in a 4 year university.
LikeLike
Alabama football is not an independent enterprise. It does help Alabama generate lots of revenue. If I misconstrued your above comments regarding where jersey revenue and athlete compensation, I apologize.
I’ve no problem with more help for kids we already accept into school, but fail to progress. I don’t think its a good idea to admit more academically challenged kids than we do already, certainly not with an athletic incentive pushing it.
LikeLike
I am not talking about admitting more… I am talking about educating that ones that are already being allowed in. There are current student-athletes that have subpar academic skills and are getting pushed through. There is no excuse for Universities teaching Calculus, and often teaching students to become math teachers, to be able to get a subpar student-athlete basic math skills.
That is all. No payment of money. Just a meaningful degree–even if it takes 5 or 6 years.
Did you read the article?
LikeLike
At the major programs the athletes get massive amounts of help. If they don’t succeed, its because they never should have been admitted or don’t care. Your proposal doesn’t help the ones who can’t do it and coddles the ones who won’t.
At Georgia, all the student-athletes have
A coordinator with their coaches
A counselor who advises them on courses and how to study
Tutors for every subject
Note takers in class if they want them
Mandatory study halls
Attendance checks
And probably some other stuff I’ve forgotten about or don’t know.
LikeLike
As for taking easier lines of study, the kids have a responsibility to choose their courses. There certainly are likely a number of coaches who encourage that, but the “kids” are 18 and up. Sam Acho had a 4.0 in the Business Honors program at Texas, which is an elite program taking about 50 of the top business students each year. Other Texas players were in Plan II which is the liberal arts honors program. Noone gets forced to take easy courses.
LikeLike
Ugh. The issue is not whether the colleges can figure out how to “get someone through” the classes… but whether they could devote a few more years to allow kids to thrive in those classes. Provide a bridge to the regular college curriculum, rather just help within same.
LikeLike
They are college students playing football, not football players who are incidentally trying to stay eligible and eventually graduate. A extra year(like the fifth year for redshirts), perhaps as sixth for those granted hardship could be extended. If they left early to go pro, or dropped/flunked out, that’s on them.
LikeLike
If they don’t take advantage of the time they have (which is generally 5 years in football), I don’t see why they should continue to get free education for 6 or 7 years or a lifetime. Now if an individual college wants to do that, that’s fine. And they can do that now. Texas has been doing that-Tom Kite just finished the last of his degree. Kevin Durant is working on his. But that doesn’t have to be part of the standard package. And I don’t think it is that big a sales point for 18 year olds.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
“Ugh. The issue is not whether the colleges can figure out how to “get someone through” the classes… but whether they could devote a few more years to allow kids to thrive in those classes. Provide a bridge to the regular college curriculum, rather just help within same. ”
Devoting a few more years is just another way of figuring out how to get someone through the classes. College should take 4-5 years for a full time student. If you need 8, you shouldn’t be there.
1. You assume all these guys care about an education.
2. You assume they want to thrive in college enough to do the work without football as an incentive.
3. You assume they’re willing to put in the work a remedial student needs to do to get a college degree.
4. Remedial classes in basic subjects have been taught for at least 50 years. If that’s not enough of a bridge, you shouldn’t be in college.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“They are college students playing football, not football players who are incidentally trying to stay eligible and eventually graduate. A extra year(like the fifth year for redshirts), perhaps as sixth for those granted hardship could be extended. If they left early to go pro, or dropped/flunked out, that’s on them.”
The NCAA requires you to make a certain amount of progress towards your degree every year to stay eligible. If they needed 6 years to graduate, they couldn’t play.
If this is your big concern, go back to freshmen ineligibility and give them a year to acclimate to college. If they aren’t ready to make progress towards a degree by then, they should be gone before they ever play a down.
LikeLike
I really wanted a brand new basketball arena for the Illini if for the only tangential benefit of leaving behind a circular domed facility for baseball –the current Assembly Hall could have been hollowed out leaving only a minimum amount of seats along 1/8 of its current circumfrerence, and the bottom floors was filled in (to support a field turf platform) and occupied by training facilities,( e.g. batting cages
LikeLike
NCAA Baseball update
Advanced to Super Regionals
Virginia
Maryland
TCU
Louisville
Vanderbilt
Pepperdine
Oklahoma St
Today’s games (winner advances)
Indiana vs Stanford
LSU vs Houston
Miami vs Texas Tech
Oregon St vs UC Irvine
Texas vs Texas A&M (Thank you D1 baseball committee!)
Louisiana-Lafayette vs Mississippi St.
Ole Miss vs Washington
Alabama vs Kennesaw St.
Behind a day due to rain
UNC vs Long Beach St, winner vs College of Charleston (rematch tomorrow if COC loses)
LikeLike
Long Beach tops UNC 12-5 and will play COC tonight.
LikeLike
Miami and Kennesaw State won the early games.
LikeLike
I missed that Miami and Tech were delayed last night. They are playing again now.
LikeLike
With 5 games still to go:
Advanced to the Super Regionals:
#1 seeds – OkSU, UL, Vandy, TCU, MS, UVA
#2 seeds – TT, UMD
#3 seeds – Pepperdine, Kennesaw St
#4 seeds – College of Charleston
Remaining:
#1 ULL vs #2 MS St (4-3 ULL in 9th)
#2 UT vs #3 TAMU (4-1 UT in the 8th)
#1 IN vs #3 Stanford (3-2 IN in the 4th)
#1 LSU vs #2 UH (8-2 UH in 3rd) – sorry Alan
#1 OrSU vs #3 UC Irvine (11pm)
LikeLike
ULL and UT won.
LikeLike
So did UC-I (over the national #1 seed), UH and Stanford (on a walk-off HR).
I know that all national seeds get to host a super regional if they advance, but there are some strange geographic pairings this year. I prefer following geography more for this sort of thing.
OkSU/UC-I
UT/UH
UL/Kennesaw St
Vandy/Stanford
TT/College of Charleston
7. TCU/Pepperdine
6. ULL/MS
3. UVA/UMD
It could be:
7. TCU/TT
UT/UH
OkSU/Stanford
Pepperdine/UC-I
6. ULL/MS
Kennesaw St/College of Charleston
UL/Vandy
3. UVA/UMD
LikeLike
Thanks, Brian. It should have come to a game #7. LSU was leading Houston 4-0 after 7 innings in game #6, but gave up four runs in the 8th and lost in the 11th. My Tigers started a freshman in game #7 who threw only 11 pitches but loaded the bases (BB, HBP, BB), and got yanked. His two replacements didn’t do any better and gave up 7 runs in the 3rd. It’s only the second time that LSU has hosted a 4-team regional and not won. This was the first time an LSU team has started a regional with two wins and didn’t win it. So to say this was an historical collapse for my Tigers would be accurate.
For a lot of people down here the sky is falling, but outside of Aaron Nola and Alex Bregman, this was a very average LSU team that got hot at the end of the season. In March, I was worried they would even make the NCAAs. I’m happy they made the tournament and I’m glad I got a chance to see Nola pitch one last time. Without a Super Regional this week, I can move my son to The Citadel without distraction.
LikeLike
DePaul & NWU agree to a 5 year series in MBB:
http://www.nusports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/060214aaa.html
LikeLike
Will Wisconsin ever bring back baseball?
http://www.buckys5thquarter.com/2011/6/20/2232722/badger-bits-will-wisconsin-ever-bring-back-baseball
LikeLike
Also: http://www.msn.foxsports.com/wisconsin/story/pain-of-losing-baseball-still-resonates-at-wisconsin-052813
LikeLike
Mr SEC on who will control the P5
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/big-ten-pac-12-partnering-autonomy-front-will-dominate-future-decisions/
The Big Ten and Pac-12 will likely push for changes — many academically-driven — that might not be viewed as positives by the schools of the SEC and Big 12. The ACC has for years tried to present itself as an academic heavyweight. Schools like Virginia, Duke and Georgia Tech have world class reputations. North Carolina did as well… pre-scandals. But the ACC is also home to schools like Florida State, Clemson and Virginia Tech. Those are good schools, but like those in the SEC, they’re viewed as football-first playgrounds. Do you believe those schools would hold the same views on guaranteed scholarships or tighter academic requirements as Duke or Georgia Tech?
There’s also the ACC’s part-time member, Notre Dame, to consider. Will Irish brass fall in line with their sorta/kinda new league home or will they exert their independence as they have for decades and vote on issues however they damn well please?
It might seem far-fetched to wonder about the future of a group that hasn’t even been officially formed yet, but we can see some storms brewing on the horizon for an autonomous Power Five or a separate Division IV. When those 65 schools are given the power to create their own rules — or they take that power by forming their own division within the NCAA — political alliances will develop. Whose shared interests will take precedence? And if a 60 percent majority becomes the new threshold for rule/regulation approval, which groups will hold the 60 percent of votes necessary for victory on the biggest issues?
If each league’s schools vote in solidarity — and the league commissioners would push them to do so — the Big Ten/Pac-12 bloc would boast 26 votes while the SEC/Big 12 alliance would boast 24 (if we’re correct in assuming those two would see eye-to-eye most often). That leaves the ACC and its 15 votes as the deciders, as former President Bush might say. Fifteen ACC votes plus 24 SEC/Big 12 votes equals 39 which is exactly 60 percent of 65 votes.
LikeLike
I don’t think UT, and by extension OU, would have much objection to increased academic emphasis.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t think Florida, Georgia, or Vanderbilt would either unless solidarity is more important.
LikeLike
It will be interesting to watch. If there are competing votes between schools within the ACC and Big 12, it could be a harbinger of things to come. Fact is, there is probably more consolidation on the horizon and not just due to sports. Seeing who lines up with who and whether there is consensus with conferences could provide hints at future realignment.
LikeLike
The Big 12 is much more likely to stand side by side with the Pac 12 and Big 10 on academic issues. Mr. SEC is always best when sticking with SEC issues.
What happened with the playoff was Slive and Delaney got together and figured out what they could agree on and then told the rest.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11005374/10-things-look-forward-2014-college-football-season
3 lists of 10 ways to make CFB better in 2014. I quoted a few I agree with and/or are relevant to recent discussions here.
Gene Wojciechowski
2. “Survivor”: College Football Playoff-Style
You want real transparency? The kind that rivals a reality show? The kind that would cause former BCS number crunchers Brad Edwards and Jerry Palm to faint with happiness? Then I have eight words for you: College Football Playoff selection committee war room cam. With boom mikes (OK, 11 words). Have you seen the CFP website? It says, “We want to create an arrangement that allows for maximum disclosure while also allowing the committee to deliberate among themselves…” What could be more maximum than letting us see and hear the process? Congress has public hearings; why can’t the College Football Playoff selection committee? The first CFP ranking is Oct. 28, the last is Dec. 7. Imagine the committee intrigue, the drama and the debate as the season wears on. Pull back the curtain. Turn on the mikes. Let us see how the playoff sausage is made.
3. A man’s got to know his limitations
Leonardo da Vinci didn’t paint an alternate version of “Mona Lisa” with a frown. Vermeer didn’t paint “Girl With a Diamond Earring.” Grant Wood’s “American Gothic” doesn’t feature the farmer holding a saxophone. Some things you don’t mess with, like certain football unis. Alternate jersey and helmet logos are fine. Sometimes they’re even better than the primary outfits. But under no circumstances — the penalty being the offender has to do the Oklahoma drill, against actual OU players — should the following programs ever change their helmet logos: Oklahoma, USC, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, SMU, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Texas, TCU, Fresno State, Colorado and Notre Dame.
4. College football fixed from within
I’m all for player rights, the full cost of attendance allowances, and medical coverage that extends beyond your playing days. I’m all for exposing NCAA policies and rules that are counterintuitive, anti-player or just plain dumb. I’m for anything that sends the NCAA rules manual to Weight Watchers. But I’m not pro-union when it comes to players doing the Norma Rae thing. College football needs to unionize like Dabo Swinney needs more caffeine and another orange/purple golf shirt. A football scholarship is no small thing, especially at a place such as Northwestern, birthplace of the Kain Colter-led union movement. Is playing football at Northwestern work? Of course. Is it a job in the traditional sense? Sure, if your job provides a world-class education, a training table, medical and conditioning services, elite-level coaching, an academic center, a Northwestern network of alums, bowl experiences, and the opportunity to earn (on average, according to a recent Forbes article on college grads with bachelor’s degrees) 74 percent more than a high school graduate over the course of your working career. You know what I’d really like to see: Colter make a run at the NCAA presidency one day.
…
9. Shake down the thunder
Remove the egos, the history of bruised feelings and the insistence by lots of Notre Dame alums that the Irish remain football independents, and you’re left with one result: ND belongs in the Big Ten. If Notre Dame is going to take the conference plunge (and it keeps dipping its toes deeper into the ACC pool), then it should be in a league that makes the most football and geographical sense. And that league is the Big Ten. I’ve got nothing against the ACC, but who are we kidding? Nobody is counting the days until that 2015 Wake Forest-ND game. Nobody is getting goose bumps for that 2016 NC State game. If ever a program and a conference needed to kiss and make up, it’s Notre Dame and the Big Ten.
10. Four words
Texas vs. Texas A&M: Revive the rivalry. Now.
Ivan Maisel
3. The play-clock rule amended
Nick Saban had a point. Before college football adopted the 40-second play clock in 2008, the umpire stood over the ball for a short period of time before he “wound up” the 25-second play clock. Up-tempo offenses succeed in part by preventing the defense from substituting. This is what’s best for the game? The intent of the 40-second clock, to speed up the time of the game, sped up the game itself. I’d rather watch an offense and defense match strategy than watch which team has the most organized sideline. Amend the rule to allow the umpire to stand over the ball for 10 seconds until both teams have had a chance to sub. Let an up-tempo team win because it wears out the defense once the ball is snapped, not before it’s snapped.
…
5. A sensible (early) signing date
Enough already — pass a rule allowing an early signing date and move on. None of the issues raised by coaches are insurmountable. The issues that I have heard or read about are either logistical in nature or merely the discomfort raised by a new, unfamiliar rule. None is more important than the result of an early signing date, which would make the lives of the recruits and their families, not to mention the recruiters and their families, a lot more livable.
6. No more games against FCS opposition
It is difficult not to be sympathetic to the well-being of FCS schools that need paycheck games from the FBS in order to pay the bills. But as college football embarks on a new championship path, schedule strength is more important than ever. And fans don’t enjoy paying top dollar to see games that are neither interesting nor competitive. If the power conferences don’t use their upcoming autonomy to end those games, let’s hope the College Football Playoff committee makes the schools that play those games pay a price.
…
Mark Schlabach
1. The selection committee makes some brave decisions
Chaos has always been good for college football, and here’s hoping that the 13-member College football Playoff committee will have to choose from among several undefeated or one-loss teams to fill the four-team College Football Playoff and other major bowls. The committee is striving for as much objectivity and transparency as possible, but there are still a lot of unknowns surrounding the process. I want to see guys like former Nebraska coach Tom Osborne and Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez sweat over some really tough choices, and then keep a straight face when they say their allegiances (current or past) didn’t have anything to do with it. I also want to see if the committee is willing to select a one-loss team at the expense of an undefeated team with a soft schedule (such as Baylor or Wisconsin).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24579178/dimes-posts-win-totals-for-2014
Over/under win totals for some/most of the major CFB teams in 2014.
Highest:
Alabama +/- 10.5
Ohio State +/- 10.5
Oregon +/- 10.5
Auburn +/- 9.5
Baylor +/- 9.5
Clemson +/- 9.5
Georgia +/- 9.5
Michigan State +/- 9.5
Missouri +/- 9.5
Notre Dame +/- 9.5
South Carolina +/- 9.5
Stanford +/- 9.5
UCLA +/- 9.5
Wisconsin +/- 9.5
B10 East:
Ohio State +/- 10.5
Michigan State +/- 9.5
Penn State +/- 8.5
Maryland +/- 7.5
Michigan +/- 7.5
Indiana +/- 5.5
Rutgers +/- 4.5
B10 West:
Wisconsin +/- 9.5
Nebraska +/- 7.5
So we now live in a world in which bookmakers expect Duke to win more football games than Florida, Michigan, Nebraska and Texas A&M. Oh, and before you ask, I don’t know for sure why the defending champs aren’t listed, but I’d bet it has something to do with Jameis Winston.
Likely waiting to find out if there will be some kind of suspension before coming up with a total.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2014/05/31/sec-network-espn-comcast-direct-tv/9812745/
A look at the SECN and some issues it brings up.
Meanwhile, the roughly 70% of TV viewers inside the SEC’s 11-state footprint who do not care much about college sports are on the verge of seeing their bills rise again, because of the SEC Network.
…
The SEC Network has a built-in advantage over the Pac-12 and Big Ten networks because it is owned by ESPN. Typically, regional sports networks have “third-tier programming,” which means it selects games after national outlets such as CBS and ESPN.
The SEC Network, being owned by ESPN, was able to schedule a marquee game, Texas A&M vs. South Carolina, for the first week of the season.
…
DISH Network, which has 14 million subscribers, has signed up to carry the SEC Network, along with AT&T U-verse and Google Fiber. It remains to be seen how much the SEC is valued by the biggest players in sports television, DirecTV (20 million subscribers) and Comcast (22.6 million). It could get sticky.
“A lot of the households would assign a very low value to an SEC regional sports network,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College and a noted sports economist. “There is a real structural question of how important it is for a cable distributor to carry this, particularly in light of the fact the bottom 70%-80% of income earners have had their wages stagnate over the last decade and cable bills keep going up and up and up.
“At some point, you hit a ceiling and you can’t keep doing it.”
…
John Demming, a Comcast spokesman, would not comment on price other than to say Comcast was in negotiations with the SEC Network. “We’re very optimistic we are going to have an agreement,” Demming said.
Dan York, chief content officer for DirecTV, would not comment on the exact cost of carrying the SEC Network.
“We would certainly wish to carry the SEC Network sooner than later. Timing will depend on at what point do we feel we are getting a fair value proposition from Disney/ESPN to make it available,” York said.
…
Parts of the negotiation between DirecTV and the SEC Network have become contentious because, as York said, the SEC Network wants to claim all of Texas as being in the “inner market” because of Texas A&M. York said it is an “absurd consumer proposition” that football fans in Austin should be considered in the “inner market” when Austin is the home of the University of Texas.
David Preschlack, head of affiliate sales for ESPN and Disney media networks, said the SEC Network is not a regional sports network but a brand strong enough to sell outside the South. Asked if that meant DirecTV, Comcast and DISH would be able to charge an “inner market” price around the country to all of their subscribers, Preschlack would not comment.
The SEC Network will not be available on pay-per-view or on a sports tier but will be sold as part of a provider’s wide package of programming. Preschlack said, “The economics of the pay-per-view model just don’t support the business we’re looking to get into, which is the same for any other programming ESPN owns.”
…
Could the SEC Network be one more line in the sand on rising cable, satellite and telecom TV bills?
“I think we’ve been in a bubble and there has been a lot of over-bidding, and these little fracases we’re seeing are harbingers of sustained battles that will be happening,” Zimbalist said.
“I got a call the other day from a staff person in Congress, and the House is going to look into this stuff. As reluctant as the U.S. Congress is to regulate in this day and age, it seems like this situation is inviting some regulation. It’s not good for the consumers. These sports leagues have a lot of market power.”
LikeLike
The only reason the SECN was created because ESPN was pissed that the BIG developed their own network 7 years earlier to keep their own money.
But, unlike BTN which, owns the majority the network at 51% to Fox 49%,
ESPN controls SECN. Plus, the BIG can have full ownership in a few years.
Dish made a deal because they offer nothing.
Comcast and Direct TV don’t consider the SEC a international or national brand for that matter like the BIG and the Pac12.
Now with the BIG in the largest tv markets on the eastern seaboard, the new broadcast contracts will blow the roof off the barn.
ESPN will shit if they lose the BIG all together. But, I think they do.
BTN with additional tiers. Along with FOX Sports 1 & 2.
Expansion will push between 16 and 20 teams.
So anyone who things the SEC and it’s ESPN owned network has the advantage is dreaming.
LikeLike
djbuck,
“But, unlike BTN which, owns the majority the network at 51% to Fox 49%,”
Not anymore. FOX exercised an option a couple of years ago to switch to owning 51%. The B10 still has content control, though.
“Plus, the BIG can have full ownership in a few years.”
In 2032 I think. That’s a ways off.
“Comcast and Direct TV don’t consider the SEC a international or national brand for that matter like the BIG and the Pac12.”
SEC football is the biggest national brand going in CFB right now.
“ESPN will shit if they lose the BIG all together. But, I think they do.”
I don’t think they will lose the B10. ESPN is still important to the B10 and nobody else has space to take all the B10 inventory. Frank may be right that ESPN and FOX split the deal this next time, though.
“Expansion will push between 16 and 20 teams.”
When and why? By the time the GoRs start to expire (2024, IIRC), the B10 will be making over $50M per school annually, supposedly. Which schools will want to join that the B10 desires enough to further dilute the camaraderie of the current members? UT? UVA and UNC? ND?
LikeLike
IU gives up a 4-3 lead in the 9th. Stanford win 5-4. Only future BIG member Md remains in the CWS.
LikeLike
Correction, only “Md remains with a chance for a CWS bid”.
LikeLike
Super Regional schedule
UC Irvine (38-23) at Oklahoma State (48-16)
• 9:30 p.m. (ESPNU), 10 p.m. (ESPNU), 9 p.m. (ESPNU)
Houston (48-16) at Texas (41-19)
• 4 p.m. (ESPN2), 2 p.m. (ESPN), 2 p.m. (ESPN)
Kennesaw State (40-22) at Louisville (48-15)
• 6:30 p.m. (ESPNU), 7 p.m. (ESPNU), 6 p.m. (ESPN2)
Stanford (34-24) at Vanderbilt (44-18)
• 1 p.m. (ESPN2), 3 p.m. (ESPN2), 3 p.m. (ESPN2)
SATURDAY-MONDAY
College of Charleston (44-17) at Texas Tech (43-19)
• 1 p.m. (ESPNU), 3 p.m. (ESPNU), *1 p.m. (ESPN2)
Pepperdine (42-16) at No. 7 TCU (45-15)
• 4 p.m. (ESPNU), 6 p.m. (ESPNU), *7 p.m. (ESPNU)
Ole Miss (44-18) at No. 6 La.-Lafayette (57-8)
• 8 p.m. (ESPN2), 9 p.m. (ESPN2), *7 p.m. (ESPN2)
Maryland (39-21) at No. 3 Virginia (47-13)
• Noon (ESPN2), Noon (ESPN2), *4 p.m. (ESPN2)
http://www.baseballamerica.com/college/super-regionals-schedule/
LikeLike
Four national seeds eliminated. Didn’t think there was a chance LSU, Indiana, or Oregon St wouldn’t make it out of their regional
LikeLike
Kennesaw St.’s coach won national titles there in NAIA and Division II in the 90s. This is their first NCAA tourney and they won the regional.
LikeLike
I would not have guessed that the SEC would be down to only Ole Miss and Vanderbilt by the Super Regional round.
LikeLike
It took a walk off home run by Stanford to keep the PAC12 from being shut out of the Super Regionals.
LikeLike
But same % of entrants still in as the SEC. 🙂
LikeLike
They lead in 2nd place regional teams with 7-Mississippi St., Arkansas, Kentucky, Texas A&M, Alabama, LSU and South Carolina.
LikeLike
Isn’t it five of eight out?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/11025298/10-ways-ncaa-improve-college-football-recruiting
How to improve recruiting.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jerry-palm/24579545/breaking-down-the-schedules-sec
Jerry Palm is not impressed by the SEC’s OOC slate this year.
Just like every other year though, the league will have to wait until the postseason to prove itself, because when it comes to the regular season, non-conference schedule, no league is wimpier than the SEC.
When it comes to scheduling, the SEC is a recluse. Good luck getting them to leave the house. Even if they do, they’re definitely not leaving the subdivision. SEC teams are playing a whopping 78.5% of their non-conference games at home. No other league is even close to that. The Big Ten is second at 70.9%.
Even the league’s three “neutral” site games aren’t all that neutral. All three games are in the league footprint against teams from out of region. Six of the nine road games are in the South as well, which includes three of the four in-state, SEC-ACC rivalry games. Only three non-conference games will be on the road outside of the region (Auburn at Kansas State, Tennessee at Oklahoma and Missouri at Toledo). Again, no other league is nearly as reclusive.
And, finally, every single team will play one game against an FCS opponent. Only the ACC can say the same. Must be a Southern thing.
With all that said, this scheduling strategy makes sense. We don’t know how the CFP poobahs are going to measure strength of schedule — we’ll never know — but no matter how they do it, the fact that the league’s non-conference record figures to be very good will help. That’s because all those non-conference wins carry over to the conference games. For example, it’ll be better for South Carolina to play 4-8 Kentucky instead of 1-11 Kentucky. Every non-conference win helps.
So, the league will put up another gaudy non-conference record and thump their chest about their superiority, but the real proof will have to wait for the postseason.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/06/02/college-football-playoff-officiating-selection-regionalization-process/9881185/
The playoff may lead to nationalized officiating.
LikeLike
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2014-06-02/why-mike-slives-division-iv-will-never-happen
Why Slive’s D-IV won’t happen.
LikeLike
This is an interesting take to add to the Sporting News story. Mr. Sec is sometimes worthwhile:
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/big-ten-pac-12-partnering-autonomy-front-will-dominate-future-decisions/
LikeLike
http://nypost.com/2014/06/03/cheap-way-to-see-rangers-fly-to-los-angeles/
Not that NYR fans are excited for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, but it’s cheaper for Rangers fans to fly to LA and buy scalped tickets there than to buy them in NYC for the games in MSG.
LikeLike
A semi related note… I’ve noticed more and more people from major markets (NY, LA, CHI, etc) traveling out of market for major concert tours because it is much cheaper and the experience better (i.e. better seats) to pay for flights, hotel, meals, and tickets in smaller markets than just paying for scalped tickets at home.
LikeLike
Atlanta sports teams get a lot of fans from other major markets coming here to watch their team since demand is relatively low among Atlanta fans. The Red Sox had over 10,000 fans for a recent series at the Ted. The Heat and Lakers fans and such always takeover Hawks crowds. Even the Falcons get a lot of Giants fans and the like.
LikeLike
What do you think is causing the Atlanta phenomenon?
Transplants?
Bandwagon fans?
Its cheaper to travel and stay in Atlanta for the weekend compared to getting tickets off of stub hub and staying home
Its just fun to go to away games
LikeLike
Lots of transplants, a history of bad teams, not having any pro teams until the 60s so there isn’t the generational loyalty some northern families have, the airport makes travel easy, and college sports are huge.
LikeLike
NCAA & BCS TEAM titles per P5 conferences:
Pac12 = 9
M’s. Cross County, W’s. Soccer, M & W’s Tennis, M. Swimming, M & W’s Water Polo, M & W’s Indoor Track (Pac12 swept 3 sports)
** ACC = 5
W’s. Lax, M’s. Lax, Football, M’s. Soccer, W’s. Golf (It was in fact an ACC team that finally broke the SEC BCS streak)
** BIG = 5
W’s. Volleyball, M’s. Gymnastics, Wrestling, W’s Rowing, & Combined Fencing (BIG had at least 5 runners up – 3 by Minnesota alone & 2 in sports where a BIG team won the NC anyways: Wrestling, W. Volleyball)
** SEC = 4
M’s. Golf, W’s. Gymnastics, W’s. Swimming, & Softball (either Bama or Fl.)
** Big 12 = 2
W. Gymnastics (OU & Fl were co-NCs) & Rifle
*********** Special notes **********
UConn won 3 NCs this year (M & W’s Basketball, Field Hockey). If Louisville wins the Baseball NC, the AAC would pass the Big12 and perhaps tie the SEC.
The BIG has a very outside shot at winning anymore NCs for the school year – Track and Field
The SEC has a really good chance of winning thus tying the BIG and ACC at 5 NCAA Team titles: Track and Field (their best remaining sport) & maybe Baseball.
The Big12 has 4 teams in the Baseball Super Regionals and KU is the defending NCs in W’s. Track & Field (though not currently ranked in the Top 25). No matter what, the Big12 cannot reach more than 4 NCAA titles.
The ACC still has 2 teams left in Baseball & FSU is a power in M & W’s Track and Field.
Stanford is the lone representative for the Pac12 in Baseball. The Pac12 hasn’t won any Track and Field titles in over a decade, both sexes.
No conference, often the case, will match the Pac12’s team title count for the year.
I could be missing some facts here & again, only calculated NCAA Team Titles.
LikeLike
Track and Field: USTFCCCA (say that three times fast…) final ranking based on NCAA entrants has Oregon, Florida, and aTm men ranked 1, 2, 3, but tightly. The women are Texas, aTm, and Oregon, with UT stretching the lead.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11027430/nick-saban-new-contract-approved-alabama-crimson-tide-compensation-committee
Nick Saban will now make $55.2M over the next 8 years, getting a roughly $1M per season raise over his new deal he signed in 2013 plus 2 more years.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfrecruiting/on-the-trail/post/_/id/55503/early-signing-period-faq
An early signing period FAQ.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/story/_/id/11032021/bo-pelini-nebraska-cornhuskers-suggests-ending-national-signing-day
Bo Pelini has 3 suggestions:
1. Eliminate national signing day. Let a player sign as soon as he gets an offer.
2. Make all offers binding on the school. If you offer a freshman, he can hold the school to it 4 years later by signing it when he was offered.
3. Release players from their LOI if there is a coaching change and they want to leave.
LikeLike
Actually, their current LOI rule probably would never pass a court challenge. Not when LSU’s Les Miles can tell a guy after he has already moved into the dorm in August that he doesn’t have a scholarship. You don’t have a contract if its only binding on one side. But, of course, the athlete’s eligibility would be gone by the time it could be litigated.
LikeLike
How did Miles get away with it? Had a letter been promised, but not signed?
From the NLOI site:
“What is the National Letter of Intent (NLI)?
The NLI is a binding agreement between a prospective student-athlete and an NLI member institution
A prospective student-athlete agrees to attend the institution full-time for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).
The institution agrees to provide athletics financial aid for one academic year (two semesters or three quarters).”
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/11/les-miles-defends-greyshirting/
Former LSU commit Elliot Porter was excited about playing for the Tigers and head coach Les Miles. That was, of course, until Porter was recently summoned into Miles’ office and told he was no longer going to receive a scholarship to play football.
At least not right away.
Miles informed the offensive lineman from Waggaman, LA, that he was chosen to be grayshirted, a process where he would be delayed from receiving his football scholarship until, most likely, next year.
“He just told me that they didn’t have room for me. I moved out of my dorm today and I am now back home trying to figure everything out. It’s been a rough 24 hours,” said Porter after learning his future.
LikeLike
Don’t know. This article says “Elliott Porter made his side of the story public yesterday, which is a rarity because most guys that are cut like he was don’t go public with the intimate details because they are still trying to find a place to land. This is why you rarely hear a player come out publicly about being cut. ”
There’s a commenter saying the same thing happened to their son (not necessarily at LSU).
Some versions of the story say Les Miles sent someone else to talk to Porter and didn’t tell him himself.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2010/08/04/elliott-porter-speaks/
There was another story saying Miles still can’t count (his well known end of game time clock gaffs).
There’s just really no excuse for doing it in August, let alone after he has moved in. You shouldn’t be counting on people flunking out during summer school to make your 85 scholarship count.
LikeLike
mike, cc, & bullet – the back story on this matter is that Elliot Porter and his parents always knew greyshirting could be a possibility for him. Miles told him he would get a scholarship in January and could used his TOPS scholarship for the fall semester. TOPS is a scholarship program in Louisiana that covers tuition and required fees. Porter would only have to come up with books, room and board for one semester. His family is not destitute. Kentucky offered Porter a scholarship the day all of this happened. The next day LSU QB signee Zack Lee signed with the Dodgers for something like $6mm. The spot opened up for Porter, but he had already signed a LOI with Kentucky.
Porter was miserable at Kentucky and after a semester he asked Miles if he could come back to LSU. Miles accepted him back to the team, he’s on scholarship, was the starting center last season and will be the starter for his upcoming senior year.
Was this a mess? Yes. Did the Porters know what was going on along the way? Yes. Are there any hard feeling between the Porters and Miles? Apparently not. The only one that still has a beef with this incident appears to be bullet, as he brings it up every few months.
LikeLike
Just for the record, He left LSU for Kentucky. Transferred back to LSU and should be their starting center.
http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=204879595
LikeLike
Alan – didn’t see your response before I posted.
LikeLike
Alan:
Thanks. Actually sounds like things were (or as close as you can get with a HS kid) clear to the parties involved. Glad it worked out.
But I’m still confused as to if a NLI had actually been signed (or verbally promised). And if it was, does the school fulfill its end by giving it at the conclusion of the first term/semester of that year? The piece I posted above didn’t specify which three terms (quarters), or two semesters (of a trimester schedule).
LikeLike
Alan,
That’s the first I have ever seen anyone say that. What you are saying contradicts ALL the media reports. He didn’t think it was a possibility in his interview if you read the article I linked. And he was told this after he moved in.
Are you sure this isn’t just Les Miles bs justifying his actions?
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge,
“Was this a mess? Yes. Did the Porters know what was going on along the way? Yes. Are there any hard feeling between the Porters and Miles? Apparently not. The only one that still has a beef with this incident appears to be bullet, as he brings it up every few months.”
I don’t think that’s fair to bullet. A lot of people still hold this against LSU. The media brings it up not infrequently, and a lot of people against oversigning mention it.
LikeLike
Alan,
Based on every media report out there and what Porter said at the time, its one of the sleaziest coaching moves in recent years. And that type of behavior is very relevant to the issues that are being discussed with regard to student-athlete welfare. There’s a lot of unacceptable abuse of the student-athletes under NCAA rules.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I seem to recall a mention (perhaps here?) of the scholarship coming available just after he signed at Kentucky.
We all know of kids being told they were likely to get a scholarship, but a grey shirt is a possibility if things broke a certain way on signing day. Signing day is the start of the signing period, not the end. It does sound like Miles was fairly sure a scholarship would come available, and at worst he’d grey shirt (one term, during a year he’d likely be red shirting anyway.
Back to my question, if anyone knows. We know the possible consequences to a kid not honoring a NLI. What is the consequence of a school doing that? Loss of future scholarships? Financial penalty? Other?
LikeLike
@CC –
If I had to guess, when he was told he wouldn’t have a scholarship the NLI was voided. That’s why he was able to sign with Kentucky so quickly.
http://www.nationalletter.org/nliProvisions/financialAid.html
In order for this NLI to be valid, my parent/legal guardian and I must sign the NLI and I must also sign the offer of athletics aid (see institutional policy for parent/legal guardian signature) prior to submission to the institution named in this document, and any other stated conditions must also be met. If the conditions stated on the financial aid offer are not met, this NLI shall be declared null and void.
[emphasis mine]
LikeLike
Other ways to void an NLI. I don’t know of any consequences for the school if they knowingly sign offers they can’t commit to.
http://www.nationalletter.org/nliProvisions/nullAndVoid.html
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101792/does-early-signing-day-make-sense-for-b1g
General feelings of the B10 coaches about it.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball
They’re running an interesting poll:
Should the power conferences break away from the NCAA?
I’m curious to see how it turns out.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24580392/ucfs-oleary-sec-sounds-like-the-south-during-the-civil-war
George O’Leary compares the SEC to the antebellum South based on Slive’s threat to form D-IV.
“They sound like the South during the Civil War,” O’Leary said. “If they don’t get their way, they’re going to secede and start their own country … I think college football is in real trouble.”
There was also this important point:
Florida president Bernie Machen may not have made a lot of friends in the “Group of Five” conferences when he argued for a Division 4 in the event of more failed reforms, but he’s not wrong when he points out the unfairness of the SEC being sued for not providing full cost of attendance scholarships when it was prevented from offering them by schools who (mostly) aren’t being sued.
LikeLike
And how long has the SEC been in favor of it? The last 2 years while O’Bannon was pending? Crocodile tears.
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2014/06/alabama_adds_western_kentucky.html
AL has finally replaced MSU for 2016. They’ll face the mighty WKU Hilltoppers instead, and pay $1.3M for the privilege.
AL is still searching for a 2015 opponent. Reportedly ODU turned down an offer
This with Saban saying he thinks power 5 schools should only play each other.
“You ever try to schedule a game? Do you know what goes into that? And it’s very difficult to do home and home with quality teams. And there’s only certain teams, to be honest with you, you almost have to buy games to get people to play you. …
Except you had MSU on board, then claimed schedule uncertainty as an excuse to drop them when they wouldn’t agree to switch to a “neutral” site like Dallas. Heck, I bet MSU might still play those home and home games if AL asked.
LikeLike
If I were MSU, I’d do a A-H-A if they’d play in East Lansing the 3rd week of November at night.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-football/2014/06/36250/momentum-plays-morning-coffee-with-frank-beamer
A nice interview with Frank Beamer.
LikeLike
Match-ups for the women’s B1G/ACC basketball challenge released
http://www.bigten.org/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/060414aab.html
LikeLike
Just for comparison’s sake, here are the match-ups for both men and women this year:
Click to access 2014_accbig_matchups.pdf
Click to access 2014_waccb1g_matchups.pdf
LikeLike
Terp women facing Notre Dame…not in South Bend, but in Fort Wayne, which has never struck me as major Irish country.
LikeLike
The $$$ for those MACrifice games are slated to go way up. UMass may well be kicking themselves for not joining in full, unless they think they can get those numbers on their own.
http://www.yardbarker.com/all_sports/articles/million_dollars_baby_cost_of_big_ten_opponents_keeps_rising/16595095
LikeLike
interesting article.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-x7QJIbuy1j6_uZ7gVeel_g&siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-WvN48QHRsCmidFDnTdwy6g
Revenues and expenses for the Division I public schools. Including 2013 data.
LikeLike
Only 7 schools out of 230 with $0 in subsidies – OSU, NE, PSU, PU, UT, OU, LSU
LikeLike
Don’t bring the cow to Tucson….the bell would be all that’s left if you leave it unattended.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24581196/arizona-mississippi-state-schedule-home-and-home-series
LikeLike
You can breathe easy now. The football championship game is staying in Indy until 2021.
http://www.bigten.org/genrel/060514aae.html
LikeLike
Also this:
The Big Ten Men’s Basketball Tournament will rotate between Chicago and Indianapolis, with the United Center hosting the event in 2019 and 2021 and Bankers Life Fieldhouse serving as the tournament’s home in 2020 and 2022. Bankers Life Fieldhouse will also host the Big Ten Women’s Basketball Tournament from 2017 through 2022.
That leaves the 2018 men’s tournament still looking for a site.
LikeLike
@Brian – As I posted on Twitter, Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune is reporting is that the Big Ten is looking at Madison Square Garden for 2018.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-madison-square-garden-20140605,0,5509628.story
LikeLike
ESPN.com was reporting that the site should be announced later this month, but didn’t mention where.
Staging its tournament at “The World’s Most Famous Arena,” in the nation’s financial and media capital, would be a huge coup for the league – and a way to welcome in Rutgers, located less than 40 miles from midtown Manhattan.
Madison Square Garden has a long-term deal to host the Big East tournament, so one of the leagues – likely the Big Ten – would have to be flexible in its dates.
Delany is said to be bullish about Madison Square Garden, but he’ll need to convince Big Ten presidents and chancellors to green-light the expensive proposition. He’ll stress the branding opportunities that New York, site of a new Big Ten office, would give his league.
How would that work? It’s not like there’s an off week they can use. The regular season schedule is pretty packed already.
On top of scheduling issues, it would be expensive for the B10? Screw that. It’s not like we need the NYC media ripping us for slow play and boring basketball any more than they already do anyway.
LikeLike
@Brian – I don’t think the dates can really change – the Big Ten is locked in to being the very last game before the NCAA Tournament Selection Show (which makes the game meaningless for the participants in terms of seeding, but it’s great for ratings and revenue, so take a guess which wins out). If MSG happens (and I’ll be skeptical until I see it that they’ve officially announced that they have a contract, as you can recall similar rumblings about the ACC taking MSG earlier this year), then I think the Big East moves into the United Center in Chicago for that year.
LikeLike
Does the BE want to be in Chicago? Because they have the deal with MSG set.
LikeLike
@Brian – That’s what makes me skeptical because, yes, the Big East is locked in with MSG for the foreseeable future. I don’t think that the old line Big East schools *want* to have the tournament in Chicago, although we have to remember that half of the Big East now consists of Midwestern teams (so they’re probably not going to complain in the way that Georgetown and Villanova likely would). Also, if MSG makes it worth the Big East’s while, then who knows (just as the A-10 struck a deal with the ACC and the Barclays Center). This one feels a little more concrete than the ACC-to-MSG rumors because Delany did mention that there would be an announcement that would “make it clear” that the Big Ten was committed to the East Coast by the end of June. The basketball tournament taking over MSG would certainly qualify as a big deal (even though I often personally find the intense focus on how special MSG is specifically is a bit overblown by the media).
LikeLike
I’ve heard someone suggesting that they would team up with the Big East. Basically have games going all day long. Say Wed. the B1G is playing in the morning and the Big East in the afternoon etc. and would rotate through the week. The B1G semifinals would be played on Saturday afternoon and the Big East final would be Saturday night. The B1G final would be Sunday afternoon etc…
LikeLike
Kevin,
“I’ve heard someone suggesting that they would team up with the Big East. Basically have games going all day long. Say Wed. the B1G is playing in the morning and the Big East in the afternoon etc. and would rotate through the week. The B1G semifinals would be played on Saturday afternoon and the Big East final would be Saturday night. The B1G final would be Sunday afternoon etc…”
I don’t see how that works. The B10 plays 4 games a day on Thursday and Friday right now. With expansion, we need two more first round games and will be starting on Wednesday. A rough guess is 3 games Wednesday (3/14, 4/13, 5/12) and 3 on Thursday (6/11, 7/10, 8/9) with all 4 quarterfinals on Friday.
I could see the semis and finals working out, but how can the BE also play all their games on those weekdays? Three games needs an 8 hour time block in case of OT, plus you need to change the logos and such. Are we talking 8am, 10:30am, 1pm, 4:30pm, 7pm, 9:30pm as game times? What about if you need 7 games in one day?
LikeLike
It would be really messy and require a lot of creativity, but there is a way where, on paper, two tournaments could be held at one venue simultaneously. Games would have to go from about 10 AM to midnight on Wednesday and Thursday.
Here’s my idea:
Tuesday: Big East #7 vs. #10; BE #8 vs. #9; B1G #11 vs. #14; B1G #12 vs. #13; 4 games total.
Wednesday: BE #1 vs. 8/9; B1G #5 vs. #12/13; B1G # 6 vs. #11/14; B1G #7 vs. #10; B1G #8 vs. #9. Five games total.
Thursday: BE #2 vs. #7/10; BE #3 vs. #6; BE #4 vs. #5; B1G #1 vs. 8/9; B1G #2 vs. #7/10. Five games.
Friday: BE #2/7/10 vs. #3/6; BE #1/8/9 vs. #4/5; B1G #3 vs. #6/11/14; B1G #4 vs. #5/12/13. Four games.
Saturday: Big East Final; Big Ten Semifinals. Three games.
Sunday: Big Ten Final.
Had that been done this year, it would have played out like this; I’ll call Maryland “#13” and Rutgers “#14” with both sustaining losses, just to simplify things:
Tuesday: #10 DePaul over #7 Georgetown; #8 Seton Hall over #9 Butler; #11 Northwestern over “#14 Rutgers”; #12 Purdue over “#13 Maryland.”
Wednesday: #8 Seton Hall over #1 Villanova; #5 Ohio State over #12 Purdue; #11 Northwestern over #6 Iowa; #7 Minnesota over #10 Penn State; #9 Illinois over #8 Indiana.
Thursday: #2 Creighton over #10 DePaul; #3 Xavier over #6 Marquette; #4 Providence over #5 St. John’s; #1 Michigan over #9 Illinois; #2 Wisconsin over #7 Minnesota.
Friday: #2 Creighton over #3 Xavier; #4 Providence over #8 Seton Hall; #3 Michigan State over #11 Northwestern; #5 Ohio State over #4 Nebraska.
Saturday: #4 Providence over #2 Creighton; #1 Michigan over #2 Ohio State; #3 Michigan State over #2 Wisconsin.
Sunday: #3 Michigan State over #1 Michigan.
Basically, two days would have to have five games. Each conference would have to extend their tournament by a day. Some teams would have to skip days.
LikeLike
Electronic signage would be easy to change out but not sure about the flooring. NCAA tournament ticketing would work with some buying session passes etc.. or just game tickets.
LikeLike
It’d be tough. Maybe they’d play the early round games someplace else.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101896/b1g-keeping-most-big-events-in-midwest
“I’d be shocked if we didn’t have very deep engagement in both regions,” he said. “With the number of institutions, fan bases, cities, I’d expect there to be a rotation.”
There won’t be a rotation for the football championship game, at least in the immediate future. Delany still considers the game a new event that needs to be developed, and the league never seriously considered moving the game from Indianapolis in the next cycle.
There was no formal bidding process like there was in 2011, when groups from both Indianapolis and Chicago presented to the Big Ten athletic directors and coaches.
“We’re not at the stage of experimentation with respect to indoor quality, the centrality of it; it’s a new event,” Delany said. “We’ve been cautious in trying to grow it, trying to understand it. We always thought it will be central. By the time we’ll finish up [the agreement], it will be 11 years there.
“After 11 years we’ll figure out how successful it’s been, how much it’s grown, whether that kind of alternative venue makes sense. But at this point, we’re building it, stabilizing it, creating a great brand around it, making it as accessible as possible.”
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-sports/2014/06/36303/big-ten-football-championship-game-to-remain-in-indianapolis-through-2021
For what it’s worth, OSU fans seem to prefer Indy being the host (read the comments).
LikeLike
@Brian – Yes, as I’ve said before, Indy is the only place that really makes sense for the football championship other than Chicago geographically, and Indy’s venue is superior simply because it has a roof. No surprise here at all.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/101873/b1g-must-push-for-earlier-official-visits
What the B10 should really push for is earlier official visits.
LikeLike
I think May and/or June should be sufficient. Don’t think you’d want it to be much earlier in a kids Junior year.
LikeLike
Spring and/or summer is about right. The key is to have nice weather up north.
There’s a spring evaluation period, so many people say that’s when visits should be allowed.
LikeLike
I think ND would have liked a June 1 early signing date.
http://www.csnchicago.com/notre-dame/blue-chip-qb-blake-barnett-decommits-notre-dame
LikeLike
http://noahveltman.com/nflplayers/
The growth of NFL players over time (it’s animated).
1920: 5’8″ 170 – 6’1″ 210 for most players
1970: 5’11” 190 – 6’5″ 260
2014: 5’10” 190 – 6’4″ 260 + a second group 6’3″ 300 – 6’6″ 320
LikeLike
I recall an article saying in 1980 there was one 300+ NFL lineman. By 1990 it was about two dozen and now the under 300 OL is that rare, and DT’s are mostly huge, too.
LikeLike
The 1969 national champion Texas Longhorns had a 200 lb starting center and 206 and 195 lb starting guards. In 1980 Refrigerator Perry was a freak of nature instead of just a little larger than most others.
LikeLike
Someone who had a friend who was an NFL assistant said the coach said it was a totally different game just since 1990 with the violence of the collisions.
Between the increase in size and the increase in speed, its become a harder game on the body. The old-timers played through a lot of stuff that would sideline today’s players (sometimes apparently they weren’t told), but they didn’t get 300 pounders who could do a 4.5 40 running into their knees and head.
LikeLike
Indiana’s Kyle Schwarber is the first position player selected in the MLB Draft with the Cubs’ 4th pick in the 1st round.
LikeLike
LSU’s pitcher went #7.
LikeLike
IN also had a player taken in the 2nd round, the only B10 players taken so far.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11038494/kentucky-wildcats-sign-john-calipari-seven-year-deal
Coach Calipari gets a 7 year, $52.5M contract from UK.
LikeLike
That’s why BYU coach Bronco Mendenhall went on the offensive Thursday, telling the American-Statesman that he’d love to join the Big 12. Although, two Big 12 sources said that idea is practically a nonstarter.
“We would love to be in the Big 12,” Mendenhall said. “I would love to be a member of that conference. I think that would make a lot of sense. In fact, if that was your headline, that would be great.”
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/college-football/byus-mendenhall-we-would-love-to-be-in-the-big-12/ngFdn/?icmp=statesman_internallink_textlink_apr2013_statesmanstubtomystatesman_launch#56202357.3703420.735389
Frustration may be building up from within some at BYU.
LikeLike
Frustration may be building up from within some at BYU.
I don’t think there’s going to be anything they can do about it for a long, long time. Apparently the Big XII is very comfortable at 10 schools. In a heartbeat, they could add BYU + one or three AAC schools of their choice. The fact that it hasn’t happened is all one needs to know about the current realignment landscape.
LikeLike
The only obvious expansion drivers for the B12:
1. They fall behind in money and need a bigger footprint.
2. The playoff shows they need a CCG and they can’t get the minimum dropped below 12.
3. WV leaves over travel issues.
4. They finally decide to do a B12N.
5. Another school leaves.
Most of those are unlikely.
LikeLike
Where is WV going to go?
LikeLike
That’s why I said it was unlikely. Perhaps the ACC loses more schools (to B10 or SEC) and chases WV to fill a hole.
LikeLike
http://www.app.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2014/06/06/rutgers-maryland-find-big-ten-move-easier-partner/10055023/
Article on how UMD and RU have started developing a closer relationship in their transition to the Big Ten
LikeLike
Major conference realignment typically happens in pairs:
That’s true, especially recently, but not for the B10. The B10 hasn’t expanded by 2+ schools at the same time since 1899 when IN and IA were added (1900 for football). OSU, MI (the second time), MSU, PSU and NE were all added 1 at a time.
And don’t forget, we also add JHU for 2014.
Hermann, who has been part of nine conferences as a player, coach and administrator, said the cooperation between Rutgers and Maryland is characteristic of the Big Ten model.
“The Big Ten, of all the leagues I’ve been in, is by far the most collaborative league I’ve ever been around.” she said. “You have more information-sharing across more constituencies that any other league in the nation.”
LikeLike
They didn’t have much in the way of athletic relations for many years, aside from a longtime OOC rivalry in women’s basketball, where both were among the strongest programs in the East. But they rarely met in football or men’s basketball over the past few decades, and occasionally graced each other’s schedules in men’s soccer, field hockey and men’s and women’s lacrosse.
LikeLike
This one’s for Frank:
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Hah! He’s right! You can see it if you look closely.
LikeLike
Wow! That is super obvious. My God.
LikeLike
It appears to be getting ready for Robonnukah.
LikeLike
It’s the off-season.
LikeLike
Minnesota literally got wiped out after a much less significant scandal. The McCants’ interview should really seal UNC’s fate at this point. It’s just a shame, I don’t see the NC being stripped, which is really just the beginning. UNC should get pound badly for this culture of cheating & enabling.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11036924/former-north-carolina-basketball-star-rashad-mccants-says-took-sham-classes
LikeLike
They should be tar heeled and feathered but good!
LikeLike
The big change here is Williams being implicated. One reason the NCAA hasn’t hammered UNC yet is that they claimed not to have sufficient proof of involvement from the coaches, AD, etc. Without that, it’s “just” an academic issue and not within their purview. As more things come out, maybe UNC will voluntarily punish themselves. The NCAA may never have enough evidence to convict them.
LikeLike
NCAA never did anything after the OTL show when a half dozen Auburn players said they got paid.
LikeLike
And he didn’t implicate Williams. He said he should have known because he saw his grades, but that doesn’t implicate him. Still no fingerprints.
LikeLike
He said Williams told him “we’re going to be able to change a class from, you know, your summer session class and swap it out with the class that you failed, just so the GPA could reflect that you are in good standing.”
McCants ended up in four AFAM classes in the following semester, earning straight A’s. He said he didn’t know what Williams was getting at with the summer school class replacement reference, and he never talked with Williams about it again. The transcripts show he had received one A in an AFAM class in the summer of 2004.
“I remained eligible to finish out and win the championship, his first championship, and everything was peaches and cream,” McCants said.
He said he is sure Williams and the athletic department as a whole knew “100 percent” about the paper-class system.
“I mean, you have to know about the education of your players and … who’s eligible, who’s not and … who goes to this class and missing that class. We had to run sprints for missing classes if we got caught, so you know, they were very aware of what was going on.”
LikeLike
That first paragraph wasn’t in the article I read about it. I hadn’t read your link.
LikeLike
Because they had no evidence, just hearsay. That’s the problem.
LikeLike
Other than the players saying it on a TV show.
LikeLike
UNC men’s basketball: Too big to fail?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11036372/phil-steele-2014-college-football-preseason-all-america-team
Phil Steele’s preseason AA teams are out.
1st team:
SEC – 10
ACC – 9
P12 – 7
B10 – 3 (WI RB Melvin Gordon, OSU DL Michael Bennett, MSU DL Shilique Calhoun)
B12 – 1
All 4 teams:
ACC – 27
SEC – 26
B10 – 21
P12 – 19
B12 – 13
Other – 14
B10 breakdown:
1st (3) – 2 DL, 1 RB
2nd (5) – 2 DL, 1 RB, 1 OT, 1 PR
3rd (9) – 2 WR, 1 QB, 1 DL, 1 LB, 1 CB, 1 S, 1 PR, 1 LS
4th (4) – 1 RB, 1 TE, 1 OT, 1 AP
OSU – 4
MSU – 4
IA – 3
MI – 2
NE – 2
WI – 2
IN – 1
IL – 1
NW – 1
UMD – 1
MN – 0
PSU – 0
PU – 0
RU – 0
LikeLike
Swofford made $2.2mil last year. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/06/06/acc-federal-tax-return-john-swofford/10083067/
Methinks he’s worth every other penny.
LikeLike
“Every other…” nice!
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11041875/new-york-city-likely-host-2015-nfl-draft-according-sources
The NFL draft probably won’t be in NYC next year. Chicago and LA are the top choices.
It’ll also move back into late April most likely.
LikeLike
Holding the NFL draft in Los Angeles would be like MLB having held its draft in Washington between 1972 and 2004 (barring a sudden franchise shift over the next eight months).
BTW, Frank, speaking of Washington, former Illini star Tanner Roark is dominating San Diego once again. You may recall he shut out the Padres at Nationals Park in late April; well, tonight through seven innings, he’s firing blanks again, allowing but one hit, while striking out 10. (And last Sunday, Roark pitched effectively vs. Texas, only to be outdueled by Yu Darvish.)
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11044060/acc-distributed-record-2917-million-total-revenue-2013-14-fiscal-year
The ACC gives out $20.8M per full member, just behind the SEC ($20.9M).
LikeLike
Odd phrasing, “…the league disclosed to ESPN.com on Friday.” The other conferences have press releases.
If they distributed 1.2 less last year, that means they distributed an average of $19.6 million. FSU only got $18.3 million. Also if they distributed $291.7 and the full members got $20.8, that only leaves 0.5 for Notre Dame. That doesn’t make any sense.
The year before, they distributed different amounts, ranging from $15.7 to $18.6, with an average of $16.9.
I suspect there is some stretched truth there. That seems to happen when anonymous sources from Swofford’s ACC give info.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Also if they distributed $291.7 and the full members got $20.8, that only leaves 0.5 for Notre Dame. That doesn’t make any sense.”
How much should ND get for hoops and non-revenue sports? The FB deal hadn’t started yet.
“The year before, they distributed different amounts, ranging from $15.7 to $18.6, with an average of $16.9.
I suspect there is some stretched truth there. That seems to happen when anonymous sources from Swofford’s ACC give info.”
Maybe other reporters will provide different numbers.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/71107/average-of-20-8m-to-each-in-acc
The total ACC payout is reported as $297.1M, not $291.7M
LikeLike
2 ESPN columns are reporting different numbers!
LikeLike
Math doesn’t add up, some lousy accounting.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11030510/athletic-directors-look-increased-stake-governance-college-athletics
ADs will have a lot more power in the new and improved NCAA.
In April, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors endorsed a restructuring model that would give athletic directors a permanent spot on the future board. That spot would go to the chair of a group tentatively being called the “Council,” which would be charged with handling day-to-day policy and legislative issues.
Although the board still would include mostly university presidents — right now, it is made up entirely of presidents and chancellors — it would focus primarily on oversight and big-picture strategies. The Council would have final say on decisions regarding shared-governance rules among the conferences. And here’s the kicker: the 38-member Council would be at least 60 percent athletic directors.
“There’s been a general agreement that athletic directors need more of a central role in NCAA governance,” said Wake Forest president Nathan Hatch, chair of the Division I Board of Directors. “That’s not been a debated matter. Athletic directors are the professionals on our campus.”
…
There’s strong agreement among presidents, conference commissioners, faculty representatives and NCAA administrators that athletic directors are the most qualified group to manage operations and possibly drive change. They are, as many say, the practitioners of the system. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany calls ADs “the CEOs running day-to-day operations.”
…
Even if ADs don’t have expertise in a certain area, their leadership could create more efficient and effective methods to get things done, a chief criticism of the current NCAA governance model.
“The system has suffered,” Delany said, “for the lack of practitioner input.”
Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke thinks there are too many standing committees. If there’s no pressing need for a particular committee to exist, Burke said, get rid of it. Burke prefers “issue-specific groups where you can pick the people who really understand what’s going on.”
It’s a better approach, ADs say, than assembling groups rich with diversity but lacking in expertise.
“If we’re going to change time demands for student-athletes, my view is we get most experienced coaches in the right sports,” Ohio State AD Gene Smith said. “You put them in a room and say, ‘You’ve got eight months to come up with a plan.’ They’re experts in the field. They’ve been doing it for a long time. You don’t put together a committee with two faculty reps, two [senior woman administrators], two ADs, two coaches, two people from the East Coast, two people from the West Coast.
“That’s what we’ve done before, which is why we’re where we are today.”
LikeLike
http://www.socceramerica.com/article/58528/mexico-and-sounders-top-us-crowd-charts.html
The most popular soccer team in the US this year – the Mexican national team. The clear #2 – the Seattle Sounders.
LikeLike
http://fittish.deadspin.com/running-coach-fired-for-running-boston-marathon-1585122341
It’s not just the NCAA that’s crazy. An NAIA school fired their winning T&F/CC coach for running the Boston marathon (he finished 196th). Being a Catholic school, they were closed that Monday so he didn’t miss anything but it was an official work day for staff. He wasn’t told he couldn’t go and he did give advanced notice. He also let a French athlete return home for his grandfather’s funeral and didn’t force him to return quickly enough for the AD.
LikeLike
FTT: Would love to hear your insight on ‘autonomy” and the potential Division 4, with the P5 splitting from the rest of Div I football.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/05/27/pac-12-conference-record-revenue-per-school-splits-scotts-compensation-and-more/
A detailed breakdown of the P12’s revenue, expenses and school payouts.
* But the more important takeaway from the 990s is this:
The Pac-12’s FY13 revenue (334M) nearly doubled its revenue from FY12 (175M) and tripled its revenue from FY11 (111M).
…
*** TOTAL REVENUES
Here’s a breakdown for FY13:
Television and media rights: $252.7 million
Bowl games: $41.6 million
NCAA championships (i.e., March Madness): $26.3 million
Advertising: $9 million
Total: $329.8 million
Grand total (including investments): $333,992,599
Please note:
Scott is on record saying the Networks made a slight profit in 2012-13, but we don’t know the details.
The Pac12Nets reported $81 million in income for FY13, per the schedule R portion of the 990s, but the expenses — not only annual operating but start-up costs — are not available.
And we don’t know how much of the $81M came in the form of up-front payouts from the partners (Comcast, TWC, etc.) and how much represents expected ongoing revenue.
Nor do we know specifics of sub fees, sub revenue, ad revenue, etc.
What we do know … or presume to know, based on previous reporting … is that the ESPN/FOX portion is approximately $185,000,000.
(The $3 billion deal averages $250 million per year, but there’s an escalator clause: The payouts are substantially less in Year 1 than Year 12.)
…
*** SCHOOL PAYOUTS
Here are the distributions for each school (Utah doesn’t receive a full share until FY15):
Stanford $19,887,061
Colorado $19,875,261
Cal $19,838,937
UCLA $19,838,644
USC $19,833,558
Arizona State $19,829,045
Arizona $19,826,564
Washington $19,817,015
Oregon State $19,795,550
Washington State $19,772,595
Oregon $19,766,485
Utah $10,161,634
Total distributions: $228,242,350
Notes:
…
* Yes, the Pac-12 decided to share TV revenue equally when it expanded and split into divisions. But the conference distributions are unequal because of 1) differing bowl payouts and NCAA tournament shares and 2) varying amounts withheld by the conference due to Tier 3 buybacks.
…
*** ON THE EXPENSE SIDE …
The conference reported $334M in total revenue, and it distributed $228M to the schools.
And what of the remaining $106M?
That chunk, which is nearly equal to the league’s total revenue in FY11, was used for what we’ll call conference expenses.
The long list includes the cost of running the Networks, office space (in San Francisco and Walnut Creek), standard conference operations, and salaries.
(In addition to Scott, at least 10 “key employees” earned more than $350,000 in 2012, including bonuses. It could be more: The league only listed 10.
(I don’t have at-the-ready comps for the SEC and B1G, but that seems like a fairly big number.)
LikeLike
CWS update:
Super regionals (best of 3):
UC-Irvine up 1-0 over OkSU
UT up 1-0 over UH
UL up 1-0 over Kennesaw St.
Vandy up 1-0 over Stanford
Those teams play game 2 today, plus the other 4 series start:
UMD vs UVA
College of Charleston vs TT
Pepperdine vs TCU
MS vs ULL
LikeLike
UMD and TT won the early games.
LikeLike
Terps are a win away from Omaha. As a former Cornhusker used to tell a guy from Naperville in a Philadelphia broadcast booth, “Hard to believe, Harry, I find that hard to believe.”
LikeLike
UT swept UH to advance to the CWS. Stanford is about to tie their series with Vandy.
LikeLike
Old home week. Texas got to the CWS playing Texas A&M, Rice, Texas A&M, Texas A&M, then Houston twice. Good chance they get Texas Tech or TCU in the CWS.
LikeLike
Seems like all those schools should form a conference.
LikeLike
This time around, try to beat the PAC for the Arizona schools and maybe BYU. Not getting ASU/UA was probably a significant nail in the SWC’s eventual coffin.
LikeLike
The SWC coffin nail was not getting LSU and Ole Miss when the conference formed (invited but declined, and this was when the Southern Conference was a mess, and 15+ years before the SEC split off). If they had gotten those two maybe OU and oSu (early SWC members) would have stuck around. It became a Texas club with Rice, TCU, and Baylor.
LikeLike
Stanford had a 4-1 lead after 7, blew it in the next 2 innings, then scored in the bottom of the ninth to prevail. Game 3 tomorrow for these two.
LikeLike
TCU won the last of the afternoon games.
LikeLike
NCAA has a ranking of the top 30 with a total of 46 teams receiving votes. Only 3 of the top 10 are still alive and only 5 made the final 16. The final 16 included 5 top 10, 4 2nd 10, 2 21-30, 2 31-46, 3 not receiving votes.
Still alive:
#1 ULL leads 1-0 over #17 Ole Miss
#3 UVA tied 1-1 with Maryland (also receiving votes-31 to 46)
#8 UL in CWS beating Kennesaw St. (not in the top 46)
#13 Vanderbilt 1-1 with Stanford (not in top 46)
#16 TCU leads 1-0 over #24 Pepperdine
#20 Texas in CWS beating #9 Houston
#23 Texas Tech leads 1-0 over College of Charleston (also receiving votes-31 to 46)
UC-Irvine-no votes-in CWS beating #7 Oklahoma St.
LikeLike
Favorites winning today.
#3 UVA won
#8 UL already in
#13 Vanderbilt won
#20 Texas already in
#23 Texas Tech won
UC-Irvine already in
ULL/Ole Miss and
TCU/Pepperdine’s 2nd games not complete.
LikeLike
UL, Vanderbilt, Texas, Texas Tech, UC-Irvine in. Other 3 spots decided tomorrow as Ole Miss and Pepperdine evened their series.
So far 1 AAC, 1 SEC, 2 Big 12, 1 Big West in. 1 SEC, 2 ACC, 1 Big 12, 1 Sun Belt, 1 West Coast still alive.
Non P5 are doing pretty decent in baseball this year.
LikeLike
On another board someone said no one in the CWS other than Texas will have been there more than 3 times. That’s pretty amazing considering that baseball has had its kings much like football.
LikeLike
In honor of the 13th consecutive horse to try and fail to complete the Triple Crown after winning the first 2 races, do yourself a favor and go back and watch the video of Secretariat winning all 3 races, especially the Belmont. He was the greatest horse ever (still holds the records in all 3 Triple Crown races 41 years later) and that is the best run any horse ever had, winning by 31 lengths. He won the KY Derby running each 1/4 mile faster than the previous one. He won the Preakness by starting last and then blowing past the others on the first turn and just holding the lead the rest of the way.
LikeLike
“A tremendous machine”
LikeLike
FiveThirtyEight had a fascinating piece on the speed of race horses. Some of the takeaways:
The average Kentucky Derby finish time has been static since 1949, and no winner has deviated from the average by more than 3 seconds. This supports the inference that it is simply not possible for a thoroughbred horse to travel faster, at least not with the breeding and training techniques now in use.
No one is sure why there is such a limit. Part of the reason could be that the comparatively small population of thoroughbreds are bred only with each other, and most of them are descended from just one 18th-century horse, so there is not much diversity in the gene pool. In contrast, humans still continue to set new records in events like the 100-meter dash, so if there is a limit to human speed, we have not reached it.
But by sheer random chance, you’d expect some horse eventually to be better than Secretariat. The fact that he’d still hold the record in all three races, over 40 years later, is remarkable.
LikeLike
Secretariat was a remarkable horse. Bob Beamon’s long jump record in 1968 lasted for just 49 days short of 23 years. Mike Powell’s is just over a month from lasting even long. There are some phenomenal athletes and phenomenal performances.
But with horses, I would guess that its training methods that have been static. Training people to run has advanced dramatically since 1949 and with it times. If horse race times haven’t improved, I would put the blame on the humans, not the horses.
LikeLike
Horses haven’t benefited from synthetic running surfaces and dramatically improved shoes. They are competing and equipped as they were 50-80 years ago.
As for humans, see: Big Hawk Chief.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DsHFswXL5vgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=indian+runner+us+cavalry+four+minute+mile&source=bl&ots=qk4JX0pWWj&sig=lvy4VOjn6V_NXPLEmb3XsXCoN_8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YZ4BU8OjEoj2oASOqIDwBw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Horses haven’t benefited from synthetic running surfaces and dramatically improved shoes. They are competing and equipped as they were 50-80 years ago.”
I was going to make that exact same point. Dirt is still dirt and horseshoes are still solid metal.
Some of the more extreme advances in human training don’t really apply to horses, either (hyperbaric chambers, some supplements, etc). In many ways, I think trainers know more about how to get the most out of a horse than many running coaches know how to get the best out of an athlete.
One of the biggest differences is that horses have been bred for speed for a long time, meaning there isn’t much room for a genetic gain, while humans never have been. Horses also never endured racism that kept many of the best from competing.
http://horsesonly.com/crossroads/xfactor/heart-1.htm
An important note about some of the best race horses is that they have healthy but enlarged hearts. Secretariat’s was estimated at 22 lbs, or almost 3 times normal for a horse his size. Sham, the horse he competed with in 1973, had an 18 lb heart.
LikeLike
Right, I think it’s the inbreeding (when it comes to time records). So with a limited gene pool, the only way a horse could top Secretariat is to be a genetic freak with an even larger super-large heart. There aren’t many of those. Maybe one a century or half-century?
LikeLike
“In contrast, humans still continue to set new records in events like the 100-meter dash, so if there is a limit to human speed, we have not reached it.”
An interesting Ted Talk called “Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?”:
LikeLike
More info from the same website:
At 1½ miles, the Belmont is the lonest of the three triple crown races. It wasn’t always so: in the 1800s, all three of them were that long. The 1½-mile length is increasingly rare, so very few horses and trainers have practice running it.
Between 1926 and 1978, half the horses (10 of 20) who had a chance to compete the triple crown, did so. Since then, they’re 0 for 13. But even more oddly, most Belmont winners since 1979 have been horses that won neither of the first two races.
So it seems that horses that excel at the first two races’ shorter lengths are not the best candidates to run a good mile and a half.
LikeLike
I heard a breeder on the radio this weekend. He said most breeders have shifted to seeking speed over stamina because so many races are shorter lengths. It also tends to bring a much better price when selling horses. There just isn’t a financial incentive to breed for stamina anymore.
The first two races are like the 200 meters for humans. The Belmont is more like the 400, requiring a lot of stamina in addition to top end speed. It’s rare to find a human that does well in both events at the elite level, too.
LikeLike
@Brian
The first two races are like the 200 meters for humans. The Belmont is more like the 400, requiring a lot of stamina in addition to top end speed.
The Derby is 10 furlongs* and the Preakness is 9.5. Belmont is 12. I don’t know if your 200/400 analogy holds up well.
*Furlong is 1/8 of a mile.
LikeLike
Mike,
“The Derby is 10 furlongs* and the Preakness is 9.5. Belmont is 12. I don’t know if your 200/400 analogy holds up well.”
I’m talking about actual length but the attributes needed to win them. The extra distance requires a different level of stamina that few possess in combination with the elite speed needed for the shorter races. Lots of fast horses fade down the stretch in the Belmont.
If you look at the Olympics, sprinters competing in the 100m and 200m is fairly common. It’s rare to see someone do the 200 and 400 double, though. That’s what made Michael Johnson so special. He’s the only man to win both at the Olympics.
LikeLike
Oops.
… not talking about …
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/article/4888986
All of the schools the article mentions as being adversely affected by realignment are in the AAC except for BYU. Coincidence?
LikeLike
The link no longer works…but yeah, I would agree with that. Except for maybe Boise State, every remaining school that was a realistic candidate for promotion to the P5 was either BYU or an AAC school.
And of course, until last year, the AAC and its predecessor, the football half of the Big East, was a BCS league, and hence technically an equal of the P5. So even the AAC/BE schools that never had a realistic shot at the P5 were basking in the reflected glory of BCS revenues that they will no longer have access to.
LikeLike
It works for me.
BYU, UCF, UC, UConn, UH and USF.
But UCF and UH have no real recent history of being in the AQs. USF couldn’t even win the BE once. UCF did win it once. At least UC had significant success in the BE.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/06/07/purdue-to-remove-some-ross-ade-stadium-bleachers/10178819/
PU is pulling out 6100 bleacher seats for this year. Will anyone notice?
LikeLike
Less empty seats.
LikeLike
Its in advance of forthcoming renovations to the stadium, including the south endzone.
http://wishtv.com/2014/04/13/get-a-first-look-at-possible-ross-ade-stadium-renovation/
LikeLike
More here:
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140415/SPORTS/140419788
LikeLike
http://pac-12.com/article/2014/06/08/pac-12-announces-decisions-out-summer-meetings
The P12 has announced they will add 11 am (2 pm ET) P12N kickoffs to reduce the number of night games they have to play.
LikeLike
I wonder if this represents just a few of the more boring games being pushed to the PAC 12 Network. I’m a PAC fan but I won’t watch Colorado vs. Wash St at 2 pm unless everything else is just horrid
LikeLike
I think the P12N is just switching games they would have shown at 8pm PT to 11am PT. I don’t think any other night games are being impacted.
LikeLike
Wilner’s take:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/06/09/pac-12-football-wake-up-wake-up-the-games-about-to-start/#more-35983
LikeLike
Mizzou also having issues with football scheduling:
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/alabama-missouri-favors-talking-schedule-issues/
LikeLike
I really don’t see the problem, especially with the SECN money about to start rolling in. So they have to pay an extra $250k for an opponent now. Boo hoo.
LikeLike
O’Bannon trial started today. Check out Jon Solomon on Twitter for updates. @JonSolomonCBS
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11055977/ncaa-reaches-20m-settlement-video-game-claims
The NCAA settled the video game lawsuit for $20M.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/06/09/Colleges/Bowl-sponsorships.aspx
Sponsorship changes for the major bowls:
Fiesta – Tostitos is out
Orange – Discover is out, Capital One is essentially in (just dotting i’s and crossing t’s)
Rose – Vizio out, Northwestern Mutual in (reported in April)
Citrus – Capital One is out once they agree with the Orange
Industry sources are not sure why Tostitos opted out, although the price increase on the title sponsorship could have played a role. Title sponsorship deals in the old BCS annually ran in the $15 million to $20 million range. Sources say that CFP title sponsorships are closer to $25 million a year, and ESPN is seeking six-year commitments.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/79080944/espn-college-football-playoff-tostitos-discover-northwestern-mutual-capital-one#!W7kfx
Why ESPN isn’t worried about losing sponsors.
When ESPN signed its deal with “the group that will administer the new college football playoff” in 2012, the money involved seemed staggering. It was a $5.64 billion deal over 12 years … to show six games a year. That’s $470 million a year. To compare, Fox gives Major League Baseball $500 million a year to show baseball games every Saturday, the All-Star Game, the ALCS and the World Series. It appeared an amazing number for something that, when they signed the deal, did not exist yet.
But if they’re charging $25 million for simply slapping a name on the title of the bowl, well, that changes matters. Let’s do the math. At $470 million for six games, ESPN is paying $78.3 million for the rights to broadcast each game. So knock off $25 million right there. (And note that some people even estimate the price could go as high as $35 million.) During the national championship game two years ago, a 30-second ad cost $1 million; that will surely go up next year and in future years in this 12-year deal. The Wall Street Journal found that the average NFL game featured a full hour of commercials; that could be $100-$120 million, not counting in-game ads. All of a sudden: $78.3 million a game, even accounting for the cost of broadcasting the game itself (considered about $200,000), looks like a bargain. It sort of looks like ESPN got a steal.
LikeLike
“…even accounting for the cost of broadcasting the game itself (considered about $200,000)…”
I’ve always wondered what broadcast costs might be. This is for the pinnacle of college game broadcasts. I wonder how this compares to the cost of a regular season ESPN game, one on the Duce, the U, etc.?
LikeLike
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2014/06/08/rutgers-ready-field-enter-big-ten/10207629/
Increases in fundraising but some ways to go to catch up to nearest rivals.
Hermann said fundraising “will finish the year up 25 percent from last year,” when Rutgers reported $6.1 million in contributions to the NCAA. Rutgers has begun mandating “seat gifts” with the purchase of football tickets. For example, a $240 end zone season ticket this fall includes a $25 mandatory donation to the Rutgers Student Athlete Scholarship Fund.
Maryland ($10.7 million) also is seeing a comparable increase in support, athletic director Kevin Anderson told Gannett New Jersey, but Penn State set the East Coast bar with $24.4 million in contributions last year.
LikeLike
OSU fans would kill to get a $240 season ticket with a $25 donation. An OSU season ticket is $655 this year with a minimum donation of $1500.
LikeLike
Big East not expanding for the time being
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/content/20140607-kevin-mcnamara-rhodys-schools-maintaining-their-distance-in-basketball.ece
The Big East has tabled any expansion talk and clearly won’t be growing beyond 10 members anytime soon. The reasons are simple: 10 is the perfect basketball scheduling number, the 10-member Big 12 has shown that that number of schools can work splendidly in hoops, and TV partner Fox isn’t demanding any change in inventory.
What PC’s Driscoll says the league is planning on doing is juicing up Fox’s offerings in the nonconference portion of the season. The recently announced Gavitt Tipoff series with the Big Ten is a great start, and sources said Fox was working to broker a similar partnership between the Pac 12 and Big East.
“Instead of expanding, we want to emphasize playing more high-profile games that will help us with TV and get more teams into the NCAA Tournament,” Driscoll said.
The Big East isn’t too small to succeed in basketball. It just had a very average first season with only four teams — Villanova, Creighton, Xavier, PC — making the NCAA Tournament. But Georgetown and Marquette won’t stay down for long. The 10-school Big 12 offered the perfect template last season by finishing first in the RPI with seven top-50 teams and earning seven NCAA bids.
LikeLike
I thought they would take Dayton and St. Louis and gut the A10 as a competitor.
LikeLike
The BE probably got an expansion value from Fox that they did not like.
LikeLike
Yes, “TV Partner Fox is not demanding any change in inventory” seems like it probably translates into “TV Partner Fox says they are not willing to pay anything additional for the extra inventory.”
LikeLike
A10 had only 5 schools in the top 100 in attendance:
28 Dayton 12,316
54 St. Louis 8,428
62 VCU 7,741
77 UMass 6,544
86 Richmond 6,102
The rest all averaged less than 5k last year.
LikeLike
@Transic – I continue to believe that’s a short-sighted decision by the Big East. SLU, in particular, provides a lot of value for what the league needs both market-wise and competitively.
LikeLike
The BE could also go the old Big Ten/Spinal Tap route and just go to 11 with SLU. Does add a nice market and a reasonably close school to pair with Creighton.
LikeLike
If the American got rascally and invited SLU as an Olympic sports only school, balancing FB-only Navy (which, it turns out, it a Western Division school, despite what foolish people who own atlases may have thought), then I expect the nBE would regret not inviting SLU.
And per Wainscott, 11 is less problematic in BBall than in FB, and the Big Ten made it work in FB for long enough.
LikeLike
Yeah, MBB lends itself to 11 teams reasonably well. Even with 18 game schedule, still get H and H with most conference teams. Also allows for a #1 seed first round bye in a conference tournament. Not as neat and easy as 10, but not the worst thing in the world. After all, the ACC will have an odd number of MBB teams.
As for CFB, it works fairly well, too on paper. I think the biggest issue the B1G had was more a media-driven mocking of an inaccurate conference name more than any significant issues in practice (and the lust for Notre Dame precluding the admission of any other school until it was dead clear that UND was not interested and the overall landscape was shifting with the BTN’s market driven value explosion).
“balancing FB-only Navy (which, it turns out, it a Western Division school, despite what foolish people who own atlases may have thought)”
Btw, reports are Navy specifically requested the West division, as they get more players from Texas than anywhere else. Navy’s coach explicitly states as much. I’d sure hope folks at the Navy can use atlases, otherwise, I fear a cruise missile hitting my OMG THAT CRUISE MISSILE IS COMING TOWARDS MY HOUSE!!
LikeLike
You have to have an 8 or 10 game schedule. With 8 you had a lot of imbalance. Regularly, some team who had avoided 2 of the Big 3 (OSU, UM, PSU) managed to be a contender.
LikeLike
You also had that year that Ohio St. and Iowa both finished 8-0 in conference.
LikeLike
Those issues also existed when the B1G had only ten teams. It was not a unique result of having 11 teams.
That instead of 1 team off the schedule it was 2 did not drastically change things.
LikeLike
OSU and Iowa were both 8-0 in 2002 I think (could be off by a year.
They also tied for the best conference record in 1981 at 6-2, a year the two did not meat on the field (strangely, the only two teams not to have 9 conference games that year–very curious). (http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/big-ten/1981.html)
LikeLike
Both of those issues are greatly increased as a problem of having 11 teams.
LikeLike
And you can’t do a 9 game schedule with 11, but you can with 10.
LikeLike
http://nfl.si.com/2014/06/09/super-bowl-2018-requirements-minnesota-vikings/
What a city has to do to get a Super Bowl.
LikeLike
Mack Brown’s firing/resignation caused 103 coaching job changes:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11055656/a-look-103-coaching-moves-caused-mack-brown-resigning-texas
LikeLike
Massachusetts might once again embrace the cause for independence,
http://mobile.gazettenet.com/home/12309979-108/as-football-conference-search-continues-umass-explores-possibility-of-independency
No truth to the rumor that students will react by dumping footballs into Boston Harbor.
LikeLike
Their A10 obsession will be their undoing. The FB conferences have the leverage over UMass and will refuse to accept them without all their sports. It would be much easier to find a I-A home if they brought hoops with them.
LikeLike
Their only hope is if the MAC splits into 2 conferences. North Dakota State is itching to move up to I-A as well as some Gateway schools for a “west”, with Buffalo, other Colonial teams (the small state schools like DE and UNH) being a match for Ohio U, Kent, Akron in an “east”.
LikeLike
Their best hope is that Army decides to join the AAC and they either get spot #14 there or spot #14 in CUSA if Rice or USM or ODU gets the AAC #14 invite.
LikeLike
USC off probation today, but won’t be fully back until ’16.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/06/10/june-10-2014-dawn-in-trojanland-examining-the-state-of-usc-football/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11060886/georgetown-hoyas-syracuse-orange-rivalry-resume-2015
The Hoyas/Orange rivalry will continue for 2015/6 – 2018/9 at least.
LikeLike
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/uk-soccer-world-qatar-idUKKBN0EK17020140609
Sponsors are now telling FIFA to clean up their act or they’ll stop being sponsors. Watch how quickly this gets results.
LikeLike
They just need to bribe a larger group of people now. It’s in their DNA.
LikeLike
FIFA – cartoonishly evil.
LikeLike
B1G should stick to its no FCS policy
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/102052/b1g-should-stick-to-no-its-fcs-policy?src=mobile
LikeLike
RU ramping up its renovations to facilities in anticipation of appearing on BTN
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/sports/college/rutgers/2014/06/09/big-ten-network-offers-rutgers-athletics-greater-exposure/10256427/
LikeLike
What might have been.
In September 2011, the Big East was stunned by the departures of Pitt and Syracuse and the Big 12 was in danger of losing four schools to the Pac-12.
“My favorite story that hasn’t been written,” Luck said. “After Syracuse and Pittsburgh (announced they were leaving for the ACC), that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess.”
So Luck began cold-calling athletic directors at Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State with a proposal.
“I didn’t know those guys from Adam,” Luck said. “I knew the schools. I told them ‘your conference may fall apart. You guys look like you might get left behind. Why don’t we take all of you and TCU, which was kind of homeless.”
Luck’s plan, which also had the support of Louisville athletic Tom Jurich, was to also add UCF for a 12-team Big East divided into two divisions. The West: Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, TCU and Louisville and East: UConn, Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida and UCF.
“I remember thinking – that’s not a bad conference,” Luck said. “And we would have kept the affiliation with the (Big East) basketball schools, because they loved the addition of Kansas. They (the Big 12 schools) also liked it. They were nervous as hell, too. We had a series of phone calls. That was sort of our best option.”
Luck said he had three or four phone discussions with the Big 12 schools. Then Big East commissioner John Marinatto was not involved in the discussions and no formal offer was extended, but the Big 12 schools – if left behind by the schools headed to the Pac-12 – were prepared for the merger.
“At that point in time,” Currie said. “We were ready to flip the switch.”
Of course, the merger never happened. Although Texas A&M and Missouri would leave the Big 12 for the SEC, Texas and Oklahoma remained in the Big 12. The Big 12 would survive, but the Big East would eventually lose a number of schools, including – ironically – West Virginia to the Big 12 a year later.
“I think (the proposed merger) that may have helped us get in the Big 12 later,” Luck joked. “They were like ‘hey, I’ve talked to that Luck guy before.’ “
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11066269/big-12-ads-say-no-discussions-expansion
LikeLike
Also in that article, Big 12 not looking to expand.
LikeLike
Well, yes. I’m sure they ran the numbers for expansion to 11 and to 12, and found that non single (or combination of) non-P5 schools adds sufficient value to upset the neater and cleaner 10-team conference set-up. I happen to think if 1 school added the necessary value, the conference would expand to 11 to capitalize.
I do think the calculus would be different if the B12 were planning a conference cable channel.
LikeLike
Interesting-a 20 team conference:
Baylor, TCU, KU, KSU, ISU, Marquette, DePaul, ND, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, WVU, Rutgers, UConn,
Georgetown, Villanova, Seton Hall, St. John’s and Providence.
LikeLike
Would have been interesting to see how they played out in the playoff discussion with 6 Big 12, 1 ACC, 1 B1G school and 4 AACs.
LikeLike
Notre Dame hadn’t left the Basketball side yet either.
LikeLike
This indicates that the supposed aborted move by OU/OkSU to the PAC was in fact a four team move. We just never heard about the Texas schools involvement. 2011 is a year after the P16 negotiations we all know about, and the first with UU/CU in the PAC-12.
LikeLike
There was some discussion about Texas at that point. Texas wasn’t really interested, but was exploring its options if OU left.
LikeLike
“There was some discussion about Texas at that point. Texas wasn’t really interested, but was exploring its options if OU left.”
Chip Brown begs to differ.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – Are you sure you are not confusing the timeline a little? This was 2011, after PAC16, the LHN deal, and when [redacted] and A&M were working their way to the SEC. Oklahoma held discussions with the PAC that ended up going nowhere. OU’s David Boren said the discussions were to get leverage with Texas and then they fired Dan Beebe.
LikeLike
What are you disagreeing with?
Texas made it clear they preferred the Big 12, but they were even talking to the ACC while OU was talking to the Pac 12.
LikeLike
I’m not disagreeing about anything. I was making a joke about Chip Brown’s breathless reporting that UT had eyes to the Pac.
Though, as Mike points out, I could very well have my timeline wrong.
LikeLike
Luck makes no mention of the ACC as a potential destination. Twice he specifies westward.
“…that was in the same time frame that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were playing footsie with (Pac-12 commissioner) Larry (Scott) and the Big East was a mess.”
And
“…– if left behind by the schools headed to the Pac-12 –…”
LikeLike
Oliver Luck wasn’t the Texas AD. DeLoss Dodds was.
LikeLike
True, but Deloss also talked about ND, FSU, etc to the B12, without fear of consequences. Luck was talking to a number of B12 members who were worried and seeking as much info as possible.
LikeLike
This article further confirms that Mizzou was never in any danger. They were always going to end up in either the SEC or the B1G. They would not be left behind with KU, KSU, ISU, etc.
LikeLike
Was this ever disputed?
LikeLike
Yeah, lots of times, by the usual dead enders on here. That’s how I became a regular on this site.
LikeLike
This article further confirms that Mizzou was never in any danger
During the second round of realignment. In 2010? Not so much.
LikeLike
Ha!
LikeLike
If the Pac 10 had expanded to 16 in 2010 (which is the scenario being discussed) then the SEC and B1G would have expanded past 12 as well, and the evidence has piled up pretty high at this point that at least one and perhaps both would have invited Mizzou.
LikeLike
NFL Draft may be headed to Chicago, Frank already in line:
http://nfl.si.com/2014/06/11/2015-nfl-draft-location-chicago/
LikeLike
TV spots acting as PSAs against the Redskins’ team name and other racist Native American terms and practices (tomahawk chop, etc) started airing last night.
LikeLike
It had appeared that the University of Houston had agreed to a name for their new football stadium, except the name would be construed as somewhat pleasing to a certain school from Greenville, NC. The UH athletic department has since taken down the announcement at their web page.
http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/houston-cougars-football-new-stadium-tdecu-naming-rights
LikeLike
LOL at Cougar High.
LikeLike
Given all the companies in Houston (one of the top 3 if not #1 in Fortune 500 company HQs), a credit union no one has ever heard of doesn’t seem like a successful sales job.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11068648/ncaa-gets-nod-judge-questions-obannon-trial
Judge may have shown the NCAA its path to victory in the O’Bannon case.
LikeLike
Per tweets, the Fox Big 12 TV contract was entered into evidence. Pac 12 TV deal was already made public before the trial.
LikeLike
Was the Big 12 successful in getting the dollar amounts blacked out? I haven’t seen anything either way.
LikeLike
Haven’t seen either.
But they mentioned the CBS/NCAA contract was heavily redacted. Made no mention of the Big 12 contract being that way. And the Pac 12 numbers came out in discovery.
LikeLike
Some quotes from an AD at a certain SEC school via Dave Matter’s (@Dave_Matter) twitter:
“… will stay around 11th in SEC revenue for next few years. Shooting for 8-9”
“Doesn’t envision five power conferences changing membership for several years”
“… supports playing one FCS team per year”
LikeLike
For context, Mizzou’s budget ranks 11th in the SEC and 35th in the country at $76M. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the B1G and SEC both get an extra $10M/school in the next couple of years from their tv networks. So that would put Mizzou at $86M, and with others moving up as well that would put Mizzou at around 30th in the country. To get to 8th Mizzou would need to pass Kentucky, who would be at around $105M and 18th in the country. So Mizzou’s goal is to add another $20M to their budget beyond the extra money they will make from the SECN. Sounds like a reasonable but ambitious goal.
LikeLike
http://mrsec.com/2014/06/division-iv-created-get-ready-conference-realignment/
Mr. SEC says D-IV would lead to more realignment. He cites two reasons – money and power.
I tend to disagree with him because I don’t see a valid money argument for expansion beyond possibly BYU, and they have other issues. The B10 doesn’t want in AAC or lower schools. The ACC doesn’t really want to grow any bigger beyond adding ND football and then presumably a 16th for balance. The SEC seems happy at 14 and there are no smaller schools that make money for them. The P12 has no good choices.
When it comes to power, he’s referring to voting blocs in D-IV. He assumes the B10 and P12 (26 schools) will vote together and the SEC and B12 (24 schools) will vote together, and that the two groups will differ over things like academics, oversigning, summer workload for athletes, etc. That would leave the ACC the power to actually make the decisions, since you’d need 39 votes (60% of 65) to pass anything. The 2 additional teams in the P12 give that bloc an edge because the other bloc would need unanimous agreement from the ACC including ND. I don’t see the conferences voting that rigidly, nor do I see many things passing by only 60%. I also don’t think schools would be willing to lose money just in case they might need the extra votes later for some issue.
LikeLike
If you want power, the last thing you should do is grant power to more institutions. You keep it within the 65 current members.
LikeLike
@Brian – I agree. This wasn’t their best article.
LikeLike
I actually think the power argument makes a whole lot of sense. The Big 10 and the SEC are in total agreement over cost of attendance, more freedom, and etcetera because they feel very threatened by O’Bannon and the increased scrutiny. But other than that, those two conferences don’t agree on much of anything. I do think that the Big 10 and Pac 12 would form a voting block within a D 4 structure. I think that the ACC would probably side with them on most issues or possibly split between the Duke/Wake Forests siding with the Big 10/Pac and the FSU/Clemsons siding with the SEC/Big 12. If the SEC and the Big 12 don’t want to get outvoted all the time, it would make sense for them to add members to counterbalance.
Do I think that necessarily will happen, no. But I think that if anything is going to override strictly monetary concerns, it would be power and influence. Certain Big 12 schools in particular (and the Big 12 is by far the most likely Power 5 conference to expand) seem to care more about power and influence than money.
LikeLike
I don’t see the B12 as a monolithic voting bloc on many issues, much like the ACC. You have strong and weak academics mixed, sports powers and sport weaklings mixed, northern and southern schools mixed, etc.
I’d also be really surprised to see anybody expand just to add a yes man. You may never need or get that vote, but you’ll give up millions of dollars a year just in case? That doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
I agree with Brian. It’s erroneous to think that opinions within a given conference are monolithic, and equally erroneous to think that B10/P12 and SEC/B12 are homogenous blocs that will persistently disagree with one another on the important issues. The power conferences actually agree with each other, far more often than not.
Moreover, any rulemaking disagreements at the margins are dwarfed by the one objective on which they all agree: making money. No league is going to expand to gain a voting partner, if they’d lose money in the process. There simply aren’t any financially accretive expansion targets any more, unless the leagues poach from each other.
LikeLike
The power argument makes sense but it don’t foresee many more additions to the 65. I however believe that it is more likely to see the Big 12 and or ACC split apart as the PAC/BIG and SEC look to gain more control.
One of the reasons I think that the BIG has put on a premium on AAU membership is power and control of that institution. Add enough memebers of the 62 and all decisions go thru the BIG. Same goes with the expressed desire of new states which brings more senators and more congressman and thus help in securing federal research grants.
LikeLike
“I however believe that it is more likely to see the Big 12 and or ACC split apart as the PAC/BIG and SEC look to gain more control.”
I think that’s true regardless of the power structure, due to economics. As long as the ACC is willing to keep Raycom in the loop, the better football teams are likely to make less money staying put than they would in another league. Also, if there’s conference championship team money to be made, the Big 12 can look at adding a BYU or equivalent. A school with a national name but a local market may be more amicable to a conference without shared Tier 3 contracts.
“There simply aren’t any financially accretive expansion targets any more, unless the leagues poach from each other.”
ACC + Raycom < Big 12. In my mind, it's not if ACC drops Raycom, but if they do it before more schools leave. (They probably will, since they want that ACC Network to be more than a syndication brand.)
LikeLike
…if there’s conference championship team money to be made, the Big 12 can look at adding a BYU or equivalent….
Under current rules, if they want to play a conference championship game, they’d need to add two schools. The CCG is not lucrative enough to overcome the revenue dilution from having two more mouths to feed. That’s why BYU isn’t getting a sniff, despite practically begging for an invitation.
LikeLike
I believe Bronco said the same thing when BYU was doing tis exploration and chose independent. Maybe things have changed, but you’re not looking in the right place to know. It’s the church leadership, and whether or not the church’s expectations (which may be completely different than that of any other school) are being adequately fulfilled. I’m not sure they give updates…
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“The power argument makes sense but it don’t foresee many more additions to the 65. I however believe that it is more likely to see the Big 12 and or ACC split apart as the PAC/BIG and SEC look to gain more control.”
The B10 might like to take a couple more ACC schools, but that’s for money not voting power. The same with the SEC expanding. Money would be the driver. And D-IV has nothing to do with any of this. The B10 and SEC have the same motivation now, but GoRs are blocking expansion.
“One of the reasons I think that the BIG has put on a premium on AAU membership is power and control of that institution. Add enough memebers of the 62 and all decisions go thru the BIG. Same goes with the expressed desire of new states which brings more senators and more congressman and thus help in securing federal research grants.”
Except history shows the schools will vote their consciences and not as one bloc for B10 interests (see NE getting kicked out).
LikeLike
The Nebraska ouster was a long time coming as their membership first came into question in 2000. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/education/03aau.html?_r=0. They were fighting against removal for 10+ years and still only lost by 3 votes when it finally happened. I am not sure being in the BIG for a few months really helped. With a few votes against supposedly by BIG schools would lend to your theory that they voted consciously not as a group.That being said, Nebraska as far as academics, doesn’t really have much in common with the elites and research giants of the BIG and was simply a sports move. I don’t think you will see another addition like them, except maybe Oklahoma.
Why would the BIG have a stated desire that additions be AAU members if there was nothing to gain within that organization? The AAU is principally a lobbying entity so in theory nonmembers would be just as good if they had a good lobbying department. Except for football heavy weights, it doesn’t seem the BIG is able to overlook nonmembership.
LikeLike
Had the U Neb. Med school have been contiguous to the rest of the school they would never have been in AAU jeopardy.
They technically haven’t overlooked for a FB heavyweight. UNL was a member when admitted, and nearly was retained. Only two votes swings the outcome, assuming your vote difference is accurate.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“Why would the BIG have a stated desire that additions be AAU members if there was nothing to gain within that organization?”
Because you are who you associate with. The AAU is a group of elite research schools, and so are all the B10 schools. They want new B10 members to fit in with the club, so they seek AAU members. The more similar the schools are, the better they will get along. I posted a link recently where RU’s AD pointed out how much more cooperation there is in the B10 than other conferences. That’s only possible among like-minded schools.
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.scout.com/story/1409916-comparing-careers-osu-five-star-recruits?s=145
A comparison of 5* recruits to all recruits (for OSU).
LikeLike
Big Ten Announces Dates and Sites for 2015 and 2016 Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse Tournaments
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-lacros/spec-rel/061214aaa.html
2015 Men’s Lax – Maryland – April 30 to May 2
2016 Men’s Lax – Johns Hopkins – May 5 to May 7
2015 Women’s Lax – Rutgers – April 30 to May 3
2016 Women’s Lax – Northwestern – May 5 to May 8
LikeLike
What I’ve learned after a few years on FTT:
1, Everyone want Missouri. They’re pretty special for an average college.
LikeLike
Mizzou = buxom farmer’s daughter.
LikeLike
Hey, that’s sexist and condones a culture of violence against women. Just like this advertisement:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/17929/
LikeLike
Well, the Big 12 did, or they wouldn’t have gotten so pissed about Missouri leaving.
The SEC did, or they wouldn’t have invited them.
Certainly the Big East would have loved to have had them.
The Pac 12 is probably too far away. Same with the ACC.
The only one in dispute at all is the Big Ten. That can be debated all day. It’s an established fact that some B1G schools wanted Mizzou and some didn’t. It’s also an established fact that they wanted Notre Dame and Nebraska more. Open to debate is where Mizzou ranked in terms of teams like Rutgers. We’ll never know the answer to that one. Although many have expressed their opinions.
LikeLike
Interesting. The last time a Big Ten team played a team from another power conference.
I’m surprised how rare Big Ten vs SEC games are.
LikeLike
Here’s the SEC data. SEC vs Big Ten/PAC are pretty rare.
LikeLike
Interesting, though Arkansas did play Miami when it was in the BE.
LikeLike
Ole Miss and the Pac12:
Not only has Ole Miss never played any current Pac 12 team (including Colorado & Utah), until 2013, it had never played any current or former Pac 12 school. In 2013, the Rebels played the Idaho Vandals, who were in the PCC until the 1950’s.
Closest Ole Miss has ever come is by playing:
BYU (potential future member)
Long Beach State (P12 affiliate member in some non-revenue sport)
UNLV (potential future member)
Boise St (potential future member)
(Potential is used very loosely, to connote schools within the realm of reasonably foreseeable possible future expansion candidates that the P12 would do research on if and when the time comes).
LikeLike
“(Potential is used very loosely, to connote schools within the realm of reasonably foreseeable possible future expansion candidates that the P12 would do research on if and when the time comes).”
None of those are reasonable with the possible exception of UNLV in the absolute broadest definition of “possible.” But that market is pretty well covered (surrounded) already. Plus there’s the whole sin city thing the CEOs don’t care for.
LikeLike
I’m sure the Pac 12 would do research on those three. Actual odds of any of those three are small. But wasn’t going for actual odds, hence the broad disclaimer.
LikeLike
BYU? Never.
Boise truck driving and hotel/motel management school? The Vandals get recalled to the majors first. I guess in 50 years that could change.
LB State? The “State” part is a disqualified as long as the other CA schools are members.
UNLV? With huge investment (in the school as well as the AD) is the only one.
LikeLike
!) I didnt list Long Beach State as a potential member
2) I gave a very broad definition of potential, and explicitly included as part of it that the Pac12 would research them. Since conferences will do research on a whole host of possible expansion targets just to have it, I fail to see what was controversial about my broad definition, especially when I made it clear its not designed to give odds of any of the three schools actually getting invited to join.
LikeLike
Boise is a member of the PAC for wrestling…
LikeLike
Hoti diggity.
Though, apparently, Long Beach State is not an affiliate member of the Pac12, and does not appear to have ever been. CSU-Bakersfield is. Fullerton was. My apologies for the misinformation.
LikeLike
No problem.
By the way the UC pres’s were apoplectic about allowing Cal St teams to potentially win a PAC title in wrestling, even though their schools, having dropped their programs, had created an opening/need for affiliate members.
LikeLike
BTW, anybody got a link to a newspaper article (contemporary or recent) discussing the formation of the modern Pac in the late 1950’s, and specifically, mentioning why Idaho was excluded?
I mean, I can surmise a general reason why Idaho was not invited back then (they stunk), but I wonder if there are accounts as to the politics involved (its not as if WSU was any better).
LikeLike
Not exactly what you are looking for…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Coast_Conference
Idaho, which was not involved in the scandals but had become noncompetitive in the PCC, was also barred from AAWU admittance in 1959. Unlike Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State, Idaho did not pursue AAWU admission, and competed as an independent before becoming a charter member of the Big Sky Conference in 1963. Idaho retains no strong connections to its PCC past, other than a continuing rivalry with neighboring Washington State; the two land grant campuses are just eight miles (13 km) apart on the Palouse.
LikeLike
No link, but I was skimming a book once and basically it said the same thing. Idaho didn’t put resources in it to compete and so the rest of the schools weren’t interested. Just like they play now in a 16k dome. They were more consistent in FBS than Boise, but they haven’t put the resources into it and got left behind again.
LikeLike
Ohio State played Mizzou, who is now an SEC school, about a decade after they played LSU, who is listed there as the last SEC school they played.
LikeLike
Mike,
Those are interesting links.
Average time for the B10 vs:
ACC – 13.2 years
B12 – 12.8
P12 – 1.9
SEC – 24.9
Average time for the SEC vs:
ACC – 7.3
B10 – 31
B12 – 9.6
P12 – 22.6
OSU would’ve had much better numbers but Vandy dropped out of our game last year.
Match-ups that need to happen:
Not since the 40s: PU, MSU vs SEC
Not since the 50s: PU vs B12; MN vs SEC
Not since the 60s: MN vs ACC
Not since the 70s: MSU vs ACC
Not since the 80s: IL vs ACC; IN, IA, UMD, NE, OSU vs SEC
Not since the 90s: MI vs ACC; IN, MI, RU, WI vs B12
The SEC has been very picky about which B10 teams to play. PU needs to play someone besides ND.
LikeLike
Oh, I forgot this one:
Average total for B10 teams = 50.9 years
Average total for SEC teams = 67.9 years
Plus, AR has never played the ACC and MS has never played the P12 (and no B10 since 1932). AU hasn’t played the B10 since 1931. UGA hasn’t since 1965. UF hasn’t since 1967. Vandy hasn’t played the P12 since 1961.
In summary, we need more intersectional games.
LikeLike
Ole Miss seems recently to have been playing no OOC P5 games .. the push to have all of the SEC schools play an OOC P5 game seems mostly to be a push to have Ole Miss and Miss St play OOC P5 games … this coming season everyone but those two, A&M & Vandy have P5 opponents. A&M has the change of conference upset to its schedule to cope with, which is a transitional cost, and already has a P5 opponent scheduled for 15&16 (AZ St ’15, UCLA ’16), while Vandy had a running series with Wake Forest (ahem) scotched when their game against the Vols was moved to rivalry weekend.
So if its a real push by the SEC and not just marketing regarding what was already in motion, its mostly Ole Miss and Miss State that are going to have to schedule games against somebody.
LikeLike
Florida, Georgia and South Carolina have played ACC schools. With Louisville’s promotion, UK does as well. Tennessee and LSU have historically scheduled some good opponents out of conference. Alabama and Auburn haven’t been consistent and sometimes have ridiculously easy ooc, but often also schedule good opponents. So its trying to get all the schools consistent as well as improve the schedules of the Mississippi schools. It also clashes with what A&M has seemingly been trying to do which is schedule a lot of G5 Texas schools.
LikeLike
A&M has ASU, UCLA*2, and OR*2 scheduled for 2015-2019. A&M had Arkansas scheduled for 2009-2014 as a B12 OOC, but that turned into a SEC game in 2012.
MS usually schedules a P5 game, and just had a home and home against Texas. Boise State is the best in 2014, no P5 until GT in 2017/18. MS might want to call IN.
MS St has a problem: Not even SEC teams want to travel to Starkville. Most recent P5 games were oSu in 2013 (Houston) and GT at home in 2009; next P5 on schedule is H&H with AZ in 2022-2023.
MO is favoring the lower end of the B1G western teams. Recent games with IL, and scheduled games with IN and PU.
LikeLike
Neutral site games look like one way for MS St to address the “we don’t want to travel to Starkville” problem ~ given the SEC eight game conference schedule, they could have 4 SEC home games, three buy home games and one P5 neutral site game per year.
If they adopt that strategy going ahead, it would seem like one more “No” vote on moving to nine SEC home games if it comes up again.
LikeLike
bullet: “It also clashes with what A&M has seemingly been trying to do which is schedule a lot of G5 Texas schools.”
They can do that while also scheduling on P5 OOC. That’s SMU & Houston in the American, Rice, UNT, UTSA and UTEP in CUSA, and Texas State in the Sunbelt (UTA being Olympic Sports only). With two Go5 spots in their schedule they could host their former SWC rivals on a three year rotation and the other four on a four year rotation.
They could do a deal like MSU did with the MAC Michigan directionals of 3-1 deals with their former SWC rivals, SMU, Houston and Rice (and for similar in-state marketing reasons). If they have a basic pattern of 8 conference games, 1 P5 games out of home and away contracts, 1 FCS game against a Texas school, and 2 Go5 games, the away game on a 3-1 could slot into the year the P5 OOC is home, they could play one former SWC rival at home every year, and over eight years host the four other Texas Go5 schools once each (in the years they are playing the P5 OOC game away). That gives them three Texas schools every year.
Texas FCS schools are Abilene Christian, Houston Baptist, Incarnate Word, Lamar, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State, Stephen J Austin and Texas Southern. And if the SEC moves to discourage FCS games, they have flexibility to increase their games against Texas Go5 schools.
LikeLike
Mack – I’m not aware of a “we don’t want to go to Starkville” attitude among SEC schools. Maybe by some fans, but while I like to make fun of Starkvegas as much as anyone, Starkville is really a fun place to go and gets a bad rap. The fans are friendly the game day atmosphere is nice, the in-stadium experience is fun, and my Tigers never lose there in football. Starkville is probably the 2nd best baseball atmosphere in the country.
Getting to the larger point, off the top of my head Miss State played West Virginia and OK State in the last few years. Ole Miss is probably the worst offender. With the exception of the Texas series, I can’t think of another P5 series the Ole Miss Rebel Louisiana Black Bears have played.
LikeLike
I’m surprised how rare Big Ten vs SEC games are.
The SEC has a lot of teams that rarely schedule road games outside of the South. They also have a number of teams with an annual home & home vs. the ACC, and don’t schedule anything difficult for their remaining three non-conference games.
The link provided included neutral-site games, such as Alabama vs. Michigan at Cowboys Stadium in 2012. If only true road games were included, the record would be even worse.
LikeLike
Mike – I thinks all the bowl tie-ins between the SEC and the B1G discourage regular season match-ups between the leagues, but Wisconsin will be playing LSU twice as well as Alabama in the next few years.
LikeLike
If you haven’t read todays JohnQBacon, you should. Here it is:
http://johnubacon.com/2014/06/how-to-save-the-college-football-game-experience-before-its-too-late/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+johnubacon+%28Bacon+Blog%29
LikeLike
Make that JohnUBacon. And Frank, re your last tweet; how about a post addressing all the adjectives that belong in front of jackass!
LikeLike
Bacon has some interesting points but I think he is living the past and all the love for the Bo days.. Michigan fans want a winner. Eventually they are going to need to pay coaches top dollar and they won’t be able to do that without viable future revenue streams.
We all wish some of things we had in the 70’s and 80’s could return but I am a big fan of the TV coverage and so are many others.
LikeLike
His best points are about the realities of attending games in person (high ticket prices, waiting times, lines to enter, lines for bathroom and concessions, weather, etc…), and the conundrum that all schools must deal with regarding alcohol (21 to sell, but most kids watching on campus have access to it regardless of age). Its an issue at a number of schools (even SEC schools, including Alabama), and there is no easy answer.
LikeLike
http://collegespun.com/independents/notre-dame/the-10-most-expensive-big-ten-football-games-of-2014/3
The 10 most expensive B10 games for 2014 on StubHub right now.
1. MI @ ND – no shock since it’s the end of the series
2. MI @ OSU – another obvious one
3. VT @ OSU
4. OSU @ PSU
5. PSU @ MI
6. PU vs ND in Indy – another series ender
7. UC @ OSU
8. RU @ OSU – RU fans must be excited
9. MI @ MSU – Who’s the little brother now?
10. NW @ ND – ‘Cats fans are pumped
OSU – 5
MI – 4
PSU – 2
MSU, NW, RU, PU – 1
ND – 3
VT, UC – 1
LikeLike
Michigan & Notre Dame has always been as high as any ticket in the second hand market. I’ve never had trouble getting rid of my pair of ND tickets for $600+ when I can’t make it (damn weddings) and could easily fetch for friends/co-workers…
Financially, ND would do incredible in the B10. Games against Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Sparty, Ohio State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois & Penn State would all fetch a premium and they could still play Navy & USC out of conference…
It would allow the Domers to raise ticket prices, build more seating and raise prices in those suites/premium seating they are building.
The silly pride of Independence is priceless to the Domers.
LikeLike
The silly pride of Independence is priceless to the Domers.
You’re wrong either way. If it’s true that independence is costing them that much money, then it’s not silly. Instead, it’s the rare example (in college athletics) of a school standing for principles more important than the almighty dollar.
But your premise is probably not true. Why should games against the likes of Indiana, Northwestern, and Illinois, fetch a premium above the games they get now? And no, they couldn’t realistically still play Navy and USC out of conference, which would leave them with only one variable game per year, something no school in any league has done.
I am guessing that Notre Dame understands the economics of its choices far better than most fans do.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you said, except USC and Navy would be two of three games they could chose to schedule yearly. Because we know two that would likely be scheduled does not mean they are limited to just one choice. The benefit of those games (to them and the opponent) make them seem required, when in fact they are just that highly desired.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you said, except USC and Navy would be two of three games they could chose to schedule yearly. Because we know two that would likely be scheduled does not mean they are limited to just one choice.
If they joined the Big Ten and committed to long-term annual series with USC and Navy, then they would have only one variable game per year, and I cannot think of another FBS team that has done this. It’s the same reason why no league has gone to 11 conference games.
Obviously, I do realize that every non-conference game is a “choice,” of sorts,” but once you have signed it away, then you no longer have that choice (unless you pay a penalty to break the deal, or don’t renew it the next time you have the opportunity).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2014/story/_/id/11068709/miami-heat-discussing-options-target-carmelo-anthony-free-agency
The Heat may try to add Carmelo in the off season.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/11074335/former-tv-executive-says-paying-college-athletes-dangerous-path
TV exec says paying players would cut the audience for college sports.
“I have a substantial concern it would change the fabric of the sport,” Pilson said. “A significant number of people in the public see one concept of college sports being that young people are playing for the joy of the game would convert into a sense that, well, this is just another professional sport.”
…
But he said that audience, at least on the college level, is more interested because of the schools themselves, not the players, who rarely play more than one or two years on television themselves.
“The loyalty of the audience isn’t for the most part to the players; it is to the sport and the institution,” Pilson said. “If Texas lined up to play Oklahoma and you took the uniforms off them and said one will be green and one will be blue, I don’t think you have a game.”
LikeLike
There are many valid reasons not to pay players for playing college sports. This is not one of them.
LikeLike
Actually it is. That’s why it’s being brought up in a court case.
LikeLike
You missed my point. I was talking about the tv executive’s statement warning of declining popularity if players are paid being a bad excuse for not paying players. The executive’s argument is very weak bordering on silly.
Has nothing to do with the validity of the overall topic if tv monies and rights.
LikeLike
I disagree. I’m not interested in watching schools mercenaries in competition. I can watch the NFL if I only care about who are deemed of high monetary value. Or I could play fantasy sports games with no association between players and teams, pro or college.
LikeLike
For that matter, how many people watch AAA baseball? That’s where college sports is heading. The illusion that the athletes are students enrolled in the university and are playing for fun is essential to the game. Of course, it wasn’t true even in the days of Chick Harley.
LikeLike
I’m not interested in watching schools mercenaries in competition.
But you are already. The players are being paid in the form of a free education, plus the other stipends and benefits they receive. Emmert and the P5 already agree that it’s inadequate, hence the move to full cost of attendance scholarships.
The argument now is not over whether they’ll be paid, only the price.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“You missed my point.”
No I didn’t. I just think you’re completely wrong about what is relevant. And apparently so does the judge, or she wouldn’t have allowed testimony on the issue (she has stopped the NCAA from making certain arguments before).
LikeLike
“No I didn’t.”
Yes you did. You confused my point’s assessment of the actual statement the TV executive made, about paying players = death of cfg with the overall relevance of the topic.
What the TV executive said is relevant to the case, but the actual statement is also stupid, easily rebutted by showings that identical warnings in other sports were wildly wrong
“I just think you’re completely wrong about what is relevant. ”
I wasn’t talking about the issue’s relevance, just the lack of wisdom behind the TV executive’s warning, and how its easily refuted.
“And apparently so does the judge, or she wouldn’t have allowed testimony on the issue (she has stopped the NCAA from making certain arguments before).”
Further proof you missed my point. A judge will allow any relevant evidence in, as all relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited for other reasons, and the test for relevancy is very broad. The judge has the authority to prevent irrelevant evidence in to the case, and has used that authority in this case. That the judge deemed some evidence relevant and some irrelevant does not implicate the wisdom of actually using relevant evidence.
LikeLike
I assumed my disagreement about that part was obvious from previous discussions. I mentioned the other possible way to take your statement because I’d disagree with that perspective as well.
In other words, I disagreed with you no matter how you meant it.
LikeLike
We’ve accepted scholarship students playing, and the cost of being a student is higher than what is covered by current scholarships. The difference can vary depending on the local. This is primarily what the proposals are addressing. There is no school/NCAA proposal to turn the athletes into paid employees beyond full cost of attendance.
If they want to eliminate athletic scholarships completely – I’m fine with that. But boy would that open the flood gates on under the table, booster and/or unscrupulous coaches, potentially comercial interests cheating. It’d probably make the SWC’s problems look minor. You’d have to be willing to level the death penalty in many more cases than just an example or two, no matter who is involved.
LikeLike
….audience, at least on the college level, is more interested because of the schools themselves, not the players, who rarely play more than one or two years on television themselves.
How is this different than most pro sports? A lifelong Green Bay Packers fan is a Packers fan, regardless of the players wearing the uniform at any given time. Obviously, in pro sports there is no four-year eligibility limit, but the concept remains the same. People develop loyalty to pro sports franchises, which transcends the careers of particular players.
One might even make a comparable argument about the individual sports, like Tennis and Golf. CBS pays to televise the Masters, not a particular golfer. Of course, the ratings are higher if Tiger Woods is in contention, but after Tiger retires there will be someone else.
LikeLike
Lots of pro fans follow players, not teams. Especially with the explosion of fantasy sports. At his peak, MJ was the favorite player of about 50% of NBA fans. The increased number of Heat fans corresponds well to the arrival of LeBron. This doesn’t happen in college. KU fans don’t become UNC fans because a stud player is there. OSU didn’t gain a large number of fans because Tyrelle Pryor signed with them instead of PSU.
LikeLike
Very true in the NBA. My son went with a bunch of kids to a Hawks-Heat game and they were all cheering for the LeBron and the Heat.
LikeLike
In baseball, while I was always a Reds fan, I pulled for Oakland when Morgan was there, Montreal when Perez was there and Philly when Rose & Perez were there.
LikeLike
“Lots of pro fans follow players, not teams.”
Is that being a fan of the game, or a cult of personality? One of the reasons I’ve cared less and less about the NBA is the manipulation of rules to promote stars, and why I enjoy San Antonio. And the talk of Carmello to the Heat? I remember hearing many thought that the three were good for not five, not six, but never ending championships. The grouping of several of the top individuals doesn’t necessarily create the overwhelmingly best team.
LikeLike
Its been that way for a while. Anybody breathed on Magic and it was a foul. Parish and McHale could do anything they wanted (except against Magic). When they put Greg Kite in to give them a breather, he would get called for all of their fouls that weren’t called plus some for good measure.
LikeLike
I agree there was some, but not like the straight arms MJ could get away with. He didn’t need to do that, but he could get away with it, so he did. It got to where Kobe was getting fouled on the elbow by the other guys nose. I really don’t pay much attention anymore, unless there is an actual “team” involved.
Magic was a Laker.
McKale, Parish, Byrd, etc were Celtics.
Even Jordan was the leader of the Bulls, who had other integral pieces that enabled success.
Even with all time greats, these played more of a team game.
The Heat should be called LeBraun and friends.
The Lakers are done until Kobe leaves.
Just start a one on one, or three on three league if it’s what is preferred to the five on five game. Don’t try to impose it in the current game.
But what do I know. I’m a wrestler.
LikeLike
The emphasis on individual players by a marketing/officiating combo that both reinforces itself and severely undermines the integrity of team competition, the soap opera nature of player movement, too many arrogant, spoiled, petulant players and the most ridiculous rule in all of professional sports (the late game half court inbound after a TO) among many other things have all combined to completely turn me off of the NBA. I much prefer a college game featuring players whose names I dk.
LikeLike
Lots of pro fans follow players, not teams. Especially with the explosion of fantasy sports. At his peak, MJ was the favorite player of about 50% of NBA fans. The increased number of Heat fans corresponds well to the arrival of LeBron. This doesn’t happen in college. KU fans don’t become UNC fans because a stud player is there. OSU didn’t gain a large number of fans because Tyrelle Pryor signed with them instead of PSU.
The college model simply doesn’t allow this to happen, because the average player has no more than 2-3 years of peak performance (sometimes less) before the rules force him to move on. This would be true regardless of their compensation.
I agree that the pro model, unlike college, has a place for fans who follow players rather than teams, but after a favorite player retires, the player-centric fans choose someone else, and the sport itself remains popular.
LikeLike
“…and the sport itself remains popular.”
The sport of football? Or of TMZ like fascination with particular personalities?
LikeLike
This is probably a topic worthy of its own post, but I don’t really agree with Pilson’s argument at all (which I’ve also seen from other college sports fans).
Most of the people commenting here on this blog are deep college sports fans and generally actual alums of the schools that we cheer for. However, we’re really a distinct minority compared to the much larger base of casual sports fans that watch college sports. Generally speaking, I really don’t think that casual sports fans make any type of distinction whatsoever between “semi-pro sports” or “pure college sports”. They just see college football and basketball as the place where the top athletes in those sports play before going to the pros with much better branding and pageantry than minor league baseball or hockey. And the thing is that I believe that they’re completely correct, whereas many of us as college sports fans are being blinded to the reality of the situation. Too many of us are holding onto a distinction on-paper (“semi-pro” vs. “college”) that hasn’t existed for many years. Does any critical mass of people care that the Olympics now feature basketball and hockey players that get paid millions of dollars or athletes in even “minor” sports pocketing a fair amount of endorsement money to the point that they’ve stopped watching the Olympics? The viewership data (as opposed to opinion polls where people’s answers often belie their actual viewing habits) shows not a single bit. If college football and basketball players start getting paid, I’m sure that there will be a subset of people that will get angry in principle, but the casual sports fan that matters the most to TV people (who in turn matter the most to the conferences and schools since that’s where the athletic money is growing) really makes no distinction between an Ohio State player getting paid or not paid (maybe because many believe that they’re getting paid under the table, anyway, so there’s no point in attempting to make a principled stand on the issue).
The reality is that college football and basketball need both the top players and the school branding to work. You can’t really separate the two. The existence of top players playing college football and basketball are the main reason why they draw casual interest in a way that college baseball and hockey (whose top players are largely drafted directly out of high school) don’t. In turn, the college loyalties added on top of that is what gives college football and basketball branding power over minor league baseball and hockey. The two factors are intertwined where the proverbial whole is greater than the sum of its parts. You can’t take either of those factors away and be successful.
LikeLike
Also, I’d also disagree that pro sports fandom is necessarily more personality-driven then college sports fandom. In some markets (like the Sun Belt markets where pro sports fan bases are relatively weak compared to college sports fan bases) that might be the case, but the very largest markets that TV networks care about the most – NYC, LA, Chicago, Philly, Boston, etc. – it’s exactly the opposite. The pro sports teams are the ones that draw absolute loyalty in those markets regardless of the individuals on the teams, whereas the college fan bases are almost entirely bandwagon-driven based on who’s hot at a particular moment. (LA might have a bit of a stronger case with the presence of USC football and UCLA basketball, but absolutely no one compares to the Lakers there.) So, just as I think the “semi-pro vs. college” argument noted above is tinged depending upon how directly connected to a college might be, the strength of loyalty to pro teams vs. college depends upon the market (and many of the most valuable markets are actually much more loyal to their respective pro teams).
LikeLike
The colleges aren’t doing this for the casual fan. ESPN is, but not the colleges. If they tick off their alumni and students, they are defeating the purpose of having college athletics. As it is, they mostly have to fight the faculty.
They expect the O’Bannon case to go 3 weeks. Not sure how long the judge will take after that to write her opinion. But that will certainly provide a lot for discussion and speculation while the losing side appeals.
LikeLike
@bullet – I agree somewhat, but I’d push back against the notion that alumni and students (as a general matter) are actually going to be that angry about athletes getting paid. Sure, we’re in the midst of a lot of changes to the way things have been done for a long time, so there are some strong entrenched opinions, but once the trigger is pulled on it (and I think it’s a matter of “when” as opposed to “if”), the vast majority of the people threatening to stop watching college sports will still end up watching.
The NBA discussion above is prescient (and I’m admittedly looking at this as a huge NBA fan). All the stuff that old school sports fans that swear that they won’t watch the NBA because of supposed selfishness, lack of team play (um, did anyone watch the Spurs this year?) and focus on superstars belie the actual viewership data that shows that the NBA has clearly moved ahead of MLB as the #2 pro sport after the NFL. It’s just like when sports fans complain about the focus on the Yankees and Red Sox in MLB – they would say in opinion polls all day that they’d want teams like the Rays to win championships, but when the Rays actually supplanted the Yankees and Red Sox for a period of time, no bothered watching it. The complaints aren’t being reflected at all when it comes to people sitting down and watching, so the actual viewers mean much more than the threats that you hear about. “I’m never watching X again because of Y” is a threat that you hear in every single sport (whether it’s about a certain team, player, rule change or structural issue)… and it has proven out to be an empty threat virtually every single time.
LikeLike
All the stuff that old school sports fans that swear that they won’t watch the NBA because of supposed selfishness, lack of team play (um, did anyone watch the Spurs this year?) and focus on superstars belie the actual viewership data that shows that the NBA has clearly moved ahead of MLB as the #2 pro sport after the NFL.
The thing is, TV viewership (particularly national TV viewership) isn’t everything. After all, NASCAR, not the NBA, actually has the second best national TV ratings and by their own admission they aren’t even close to being the second most popular sport in the country (though they actually had a chance before their ill fated attempt to nationalize the sport a decade ago).
LikeLike
Although part of the reason baseball has fallen is because they kept having strikes and lockouts. Once they cancelled the World Series, they broke a lot of bonds. People don’t have to threaten to have an impact.
With the colleges, it depends on how far they go. If they merely sponsor a team, they destroy it. If they pay too much, they severely hurt it. And there is a lot of pushback from students and politicians on how much they have driven up tuition. Right now the faculty complain about how much they spend on athletics, but they could reach the tipping point where a lot students and politicians and alumni get unhappy.
My basic philosophy is that they should treat them like students. In many ways now, they have less rights than students. Their scholarship is limited below the cost of attendance. They can’t transfer and continue to immediately continue their sport. They really can’t work over summers if they are football players. They can’t do internships, which are becoming increasingly important. I don’t have any problem with them getting more scheduling and tutoring help than the typical student or getting insurance for getting hurt playing the sport for the school. But they should really have to take classes. If they can’t do high school work, they shouldn’t even be admitted. They shouldn’t have a lifetime to take advantage of their scholarship. And if they want a million a year or even $100K cash, they should go pro. If a college scholarship didn’t have a lot of value and they really had that much value themselves, they would be going pro now.
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, I agree that athletes are actually foreclosed from a lot of opportunities like seeking paid internships (or there are so many hurdles imposed by the NCAA that it’s practically foreclosed), which is where the pushback is. A student on a music scholarship isn’t prevented from getting paid music gigs. A student on an engineering scholarship isn’t prevented from getting a paid internship from a software firm. A student on an accounting scholarship isn’t prevented from taking a part-time book keeping job. In fact, the students mentioned above would actually be *encouraged* to get paid experience in alignment with their personal professional goals. At the very least, athletes shouldn’t be prevented from even taking a job at McDonald’s simply because they’re on scholarship.
Beyond that, though, I just think a lot of long-time college sports fans have a blind spot on this issue that I don’t think most younger people or more casual fans have. When colleges are getting paid professional-level money from TV networks and paying professional-level ticket prices and receiving professional-level merchandising royalties and getting professional-level media coverage, it continues to puzzle me why so many college sports fans, in a Captain Renault voice, are “Shocked! Shocked that college athletes are considered pro/semi-pro athletes by the entire rest of the world!” If college sports fans truly want their respective schools to go to a Division III model where there literally isn’t any revenue or TV coverage, then that’s one thing, but if I’m personally cool with the Big Ten seeking to make as much revenue off of athletics as legally possible (and I feel that way), then it’s tough for me to turn around and claim that college athletes should be completely shut off from any of that revenue by NCAA fiat. As I’ve said elsewhere, when you take an all-or-nothing approach like the NCAA and its members have historically done, then it’s all too easy to poke holes into it. The NCAA had many, many, many chances to address this issue on their own terms over the years and they’ve completely ignored it until now where litigation and potential unionization have backed them into a corner. Overall, I think the tide is turning where a lot more people are bothered by the athletes not getting paid than the perceived loss of amateurism when they see TV contracts that are literally in the billions of dollars.
LikeLike
In pretty much every sport except football and basketball, they do go pro if they have value.
But the colleges with their brands and their exposure bring a lot of value on top of the scholarship.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The college model simply doesn’t allow this to happen, because the average player has no more than 2-3 years of peak performance (sometimes less) before the rules force him to move on.”
So?
“This would be true regardless of their compensation.”
Which is irrelevant to this side conversation. Pilson said college fans care more about the school than the players, and you asked how that was different from the pros. I pointed out that lots of pro fans care more about players than teams. Thus, a glaring difference between the two.
As for compensation, I believe his point was that CFB made money because of fans supporting their school, not because of the individuals playing the games. Replace the roster with 100 new players and the fans would still be there. It’s the brands that provide the value, not the players.
It’s the difference between Doctor Who (stays popular no matter who plays the Doctor) and Tom Cruise movies (the whole sales approach is based on the star).
LikeLike
“The thing is, TV viewership (particularly national TV viewership) isn’t everything.”
This!
It shows may a general high interest in a sport. But it says little about individuals support of their schools/conferences/regions that is the foundation of those national numbers.
My “interest” in Red Sox/Yankees is 95% national media driven, but it’s genuine and not as fabricated if a player from my college is on the team. Of course the Rays draw fewer national viewers. That’s irrelevant.
Unless we are ready for, and accepting of, performances in the place of competition that’s just the risk media runs when bidding on contracts, and I’m sure is accounted for in those bids.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Those national TV numbers are what matter much more today, though. Even Jim Delany has stated that revenue in the future is, to paraphrase, going to be driven by butts at home as opposed to butts in the stands.
I just don’t agree that the average person is going to materially change its views on whether he/she wants to watch a college football game if the people on the field are getting paid $0, $5000 for cost of attendance, or $1 million. They simply want to see an exciting football game that, in some cases, may involve their favorite school’s name on the jersey. Outside of the direct alumni connection, the viewership interest in the pros vs. college sports really isn’t as fundamentally different as a lot of people are making it out to be.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“This is probably a topic worthy of its own post, but I don’t really agree with Pilson’s argument at all (which I’ve also seen from other college sports fans).”
And I do agree (for me).
“Generally speaking, I really don’t think that casual sports fans make any type of distinction whatsoever between “semi-pro sports” or “pure college sports”.”
They must, because they watch one and not the other. And to be clear, the top minor leagues are better than college in terms of players and teams.
I think you underestimate how many college sports fans there are, too. Many went to smaller schools so they can’t watch their alma mater, but them being college teams does matter to a lot of fans.
“And the thing is that I believe that they’re completely correct,”
And I couldn’t disagree more. There is a vast and stark difference between the two. I laughed at you claiming it’s only a paper distinction.
“Does any critical mass of people care that the Olympics now feature basketball and hockey players that get paid millions of dollars or athletes in even “minor” sports pocketing a fair amount of endorsement money to the point that they’ve stopped watching the Olympics?”
We have no way of knowing. Ratings don’t tell you who is watching. Changes may cause group A to stop watching while group B doesn’t care and group C actually picks up the sport. I know I follow the Olympics a lot less than I used to, but that may just be NBC’s coverage driving me away. I follow the medal count more than I watch any event, because the success of Team USA is all that matters to me. Heck, I don’t think I saw a second of this past Winter Olympics. But I did watch the medal tally.
“If college football and basketball players start getting paid, I’m sure that there will be a subset of people that will get angry in principle, but the casual sports fan that matters the most to TV people (who in turn matter the most to the conferences and schools since that’s where the athletic money is growing) really makes no distinction between an Ohio State player getting paid or not paid (maybe because many believe that they’re getting paid under the table, anyway, so there’s no point in attempting to make a principled stand on the issue).”
I think it will have a greater impact than you expect. I also believe that all fans matter equally to TV. They don’t care who you are, they just want to maximize the total. What you pass over is that donations are a huge chunk of the budget for the big schools. The big donors tend to be alumni, the group most likely to get annoyed at paying players. If the deep pocket fans stop donating, season ticket sales will plummet. That will reduce ticket prices across the board. The schools, and therefore the conferences, care a lot more about these fans than they do the casual fan. Also, remember that these donors often donate to the school as well. Annoying them can cost the academic side as well.
“The reality is that college football and basketball need both the top players and the school branding to work. You can’t really separate the two.”
Sure you can. The sports would generate less money, but that’s a good thing in many respects. The increase in money has brought a whole lot of problems.
“The existence of top players playing college football and basketball are the main reason why they draw casual interest in a way that college baseball and hockey (whose top players are largely drafted directly out of high school) don’t.”
Except hockey is a niche sport (even the NHL struggles to get fans, so it’s not the talent level) and baseball doesn’t have young fans. That means college kids don’t watch their team and thus don’t become fans. And both are regional sports, especially at the college level. MN and WI get plenty of hockey fans, and SEC schools get lots of baseball fans.
“Also, I’d also disagree that pro sports fandom is necessarily more personality-driven then college sports fandom.”
And you’d be dead wrong. Most fans, especially casual fans, have no idea who the top CFB players even are. Two huge drivers of NFL success are fantasy football and gambling. Neither has to do with team fandom, and neither are as big in CFB. The NFL has a lot more casual fans than CFB (see the popularity of the RedZone channel).
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Beyond that, though, I just think a lot of long-time college sports fans have a blind spot on this issue that I don’t think most younger people or more casual fans have. When colleges are getting paid professional-level money from TV networks and paying professional-level ticket prices and receiving professional-level merchandising royalties and getting professional-level media coverage, it continues to puzzle me why so many college sports fans, in a Captain Renault voice, are “Shocked! Shocked that college athletes are considered pro/semi-pro athletes by the entire rest of the world!””
The schools don’t make nearly as much off sport-specific merchandising like jerseys as people think. Even for big schools, it’s mostly Nike that profits form that.
http://www.orangepower.com/threads/do-ncaa-athletes-missing-out-on-jersey-profits.3302/
The top college programs can generate as much as $1 million annually in royalties for apparel sales, according to Derek Eiler, chief operating officer for Collegiate Licensing Company, which handles licensing issues for most Division I universities. (Jerseys represent, on average, 6 percent of all apparel sales.)
…
At OU, the athletic department nets 8 percent of wholesale price of each jersey sold, said Rick Hart, associate athletic director for marketing. The retail price is $89 for a replica football jersey and $70 for a replica basketball jersey.
So that’s up to $60,000 per year from jersey sales, and around $4 per unit (wholesale is generally about 50% less than retail). How much of that value belongs to the name on the front versus the name on the back (many/most actually don’t have names)? As a team sport, how much of the value belongs to the individual player versus his teammates who help him win games (losing teams don’t sell many jerseys)? And what about the fact that the money goes back into the equipment budget to buy things for the players?
“If college sports fans truly want their respective schools to go to a Division III model where there literally isn’t any revenue or TV coverage,”
You’re assuming that’s what would happen. It could still keep some coverage and some revenue because the brands have value.
“but if I’m personally cool with the Big Ten seeking to make as much revenue off of athletics as legally possible (and I feel that way), then it’s tough for me to turn around and claim that college athletes should be completely shut off from any of that revenue by NCAA fiat.”
And I don’t feel that way, so I have no problem saying that the $250,000+ worth of education and training (What do you think Nick Saban’s hourly price would be for professional training? All the S&C coaches? The tutors? A free education from a top college?) they get is more than enough.
If they have a problem with it, they should start a minor league instead.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@ccrider55 – Those national TV numbers are what matter much more today, though. Even Jim Delany has stated that revenue in the future is, to paraphrase, going to be driven by butts at home as opposed to butts in the stands.”
He’s also said the B10 would go to a D-III model rather than pay players.
“I just don’t agree that the average person is going to materially change its views on whether he/she wants to watch a college football game if the people on the field are getting paid $0, $5000 for cost of attendance, or $1 million.”
How many fans aren’t average?
“Outside of the direct alumni connection,”
Which is literally millions of CFB fans.
“the viewership interest in the pros vs. college sports really isn’t as fundamentally different as a lot of people are making it out to be.”
This is based on what – opinion or some research you’ve seen? There are CFB fans that are also NFL fans and those that aren’t. Are you lumping these groups together in this? Or are you saying that the NFL fans who aren’t CFB fans now will more than make up for lost CFB fans?
LikeLike
Frank:
“If college sports fans truly want their respective schools to go to a Division III model where there literally isn’t any revenue or TV coverage, then that’s one thing…”
What, other than lack of history and school following (marketable value) prevents marketing D3? Would the SEC, B1G, etc suddenly be worthless if athletic scholarships were abandoned? I didn’t notice a commensurate drop in value as scholarship limits were introduced, or lowered.
LikeLike
“I’m never watching X again because of Y” is a threat that you hear in every single sport (whether it’s about a certain team, player, rule change or structural issue)… and it has proven out to be an empty threat virtually every single time.
This says it all.
I know I follow the Olympics a lot less than I used to.
Me either, but you and I don’t matter. If ratings as a whole went down, they’d have a problem. If you and I go away, but three others replace us, then they’re still golden.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
““I’m never watching X again because of Y” is a threat that you hear in every single sport (whether it’s about a certain team, player, rule change or structural issue)… and it has proven out to be an empty threat virtually every single time.”
On the other hand, there’s NASCAR. They aggravated their hard core fan base in the attempt to gain casual fans nationally, and now their numbers are way down.
LikeLike
“On the other hand, there’s NASCAR. They aggravated their hard core fan base in the attempt to gain casual fans nationally, and now their numbers are way down.”
Alternative hypothesis: NASCAR doesn’t make as much of a difference to ABC/ESPN as it did to NBC and FX in the prior contract. This explains how ratings have stabilized over the past four years. (Not that I think moving races to FS1 and NBCSN will increase ratings, of course.)
LikeLike
Without comment…
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/16/starbucks-free-college-tuition/10569971/
LikeLike
Tony Gwynn has passed.
Drafted by San Diego, in both MLB and NBA.
LikeLike
2-1 = exciting!!!
LikeLike
Over 80 straight minutes without scoring = not exciting (to me, at least)
I’m glad we finally beat Ghana, but with the injuries it may not matter. Ghana outplayed us, too.
We need to be better to compete with Portugal although they have injury issues as well. Germany is a much better team than us.
LikeLike
Yeah, that is the difference between being a soccer fan and being someone just cheering for the national soccer team ~ if you were following the play, the 20 minutes after Kevin Prince Boateng came on was riveting stuff, with the US with its back against the wall and at least four Ghana scoring chances that the US MNT saw off by the skin of their teeth. It was the preceding twenty minutes that made it such a let-down for Ghana to score just as it looked like the US was fighting back and starting to gain some possession in the attacking half, and that let-down that made that brilliant header to the ground and into the goal so exhilarating.
But for someone just watching the bouncing ball “waiting for something to happen”, it was a score, 45 minutes or so of players running around, halftime, 35 minutes or so of players running around, then two scores.
LikeLike
Yes, I make no claim of being a soccer fan. It’s a fundamentally flawed sport to me. To make it worse, World Cup play isn’t as good as the top pro leagues anyway since the teammates aren’t really used to playing together. The officiating is also all over the place.
Soccer loses me as soon as someone backpasses to the goalie from midfield without a defender forcing it to happen. All the goalie does is boot the ball way down field, usually for a turnover.
LikeLike
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/goalie-tim-howard-scores-cross-field-goal-wind-carries-ball-team-entertainment-15296818
LikeLike
http://fansided.com/2014/06/14/ed-obannon-says-little-leaguers-get-paid/
This says it all to me. O’Bannon testified that Little Leaguers should get paid, too. Because Americans are really tuning in to see John Smith instead of Joe Shmoe.
LikeLike
It may seem like a radical concept, but child actors in television series and movies get paid. If millions of dollars* are changing hands so that Little League baseball can be televised, why shouldn’t the athletes who entertain the viewers get a cut of it? I realize that would be a seismic shift, but if O’Bannon wins, the implications clearly extend to televised sports at all ages.
(* The article says it’s “millions of dollars,” which for sake of argument I am assuming is true. I’ve never looked into it myself.)
LikeLike
So you don’t believe in the amateur model at all?
The child actors, or child migrant lettuce pickers, are not picking/competing for nonprofit organizations that have laid down rules to govern organized contests.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – It’s not really about whether people *believe* in the amateur model, but whether it can actually exist (at least at the college level) going forward.
There are two elements to this: (1) what we believe is fair and/or principled and (2) what is actually legal.
The first element is generally what we have been discussing here: the debate about the “fairness” of compensation of student-athletes versus the principles of amateurism and ties to education. As you’ve seen in this debate, where you come down on this is generally colored by your personal opinion. I personally have zero issue with student-athletes getting paid and feel that the fairness of compensation overrides whatever principles that might have driven college decisions 100 years ago (and, as a result, whether athletes get paid has no impact whatsoever on my personal enjoyment of college sports). Others here feel the exact opposite. There isn’t necessarily a right or wrong here because it all comes down to your own opinion.
The second element, though, may make our personal opinions irrelevant. The question that we see in the O’Bannon case (and we’ll likely see over and over again in lawsuits related to college sports) is whether a blanket NCAA rule that these athletes are amateurs and aren’t entitled to compensation is a violation of antitrust law (as, at least from the plaintiff’s view, there are multiple institutions that made the collective collusive decision to engagement price-fixing… as in compensation for everyone on this matter would be $0). In essence, just because an entity like the NCAA (or Little League Baseball or AAU basketball or any other “amateur” sports organization) declares their athletes to be “amateurs”, that doesn’t mean that antitrust law believes that (a) it truly makes them to be amateurs in reality and (b) entitles that entity to set any type of cap on compensation for such athletes. My 10,000-foot view is that the NCAA is *extremely* susceptible here because, on its face, it’s an organization that’s representing hundreds of institutions imposing the same compensation rules on individuals across the board. Antitrust law generally doesn’t like that type of collusive setup regardless of any high-minded educational principles, as we saw with the Supreme Court itself when it handed the NCAA an antitrust loss with respect to TV rights back in the 1980s (and effectively set into motion the drive for TV money and overall conference autonomy that we see today).
LikeLike
I guess the bottom line is whether college sports are to be declared to now be professional. Excerpt from Bloom v NCAA wherein it’s noted the U S Supreme Court strongly supports the notion of amateurism, and an organization to safe guard it:
“The United States Supreme Court has recognized the NCAA as “the guardian of an important American tradition,” namely, amateurism in intercollegiate athletics. See NCAA v. Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. 85, 101, 104 S.Ct. 2948, 2960, 82 L.Ed.2d 70 (1984).
Under that tradition, “college sports provided an important opportunity for teaching people about character, motivation, endurance, loyalty, and the attainment of one’s personal best -– all qualities of great value in citizens. In this sense, competitive athletics were viewed as an extracurricular activity, justified by the university as part of its ideal objective of educating the whole person.” James J. Duderstadt, Intercollegiate Athletics and the American University 70 (Univ. Mich. Press 2003).
The NCAA’s “Principle of Amateurism” states:
Student-athletes shall be amateurs in an intercollegiate sport, and their participation should be motivated primarily by education and by the physical, mental and social benefits to be derived. Student participation in intercollegiate athletics is an avocation, and student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises. “
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – Well, that’s the dilemma. For some judges, “tradition” in and of itself might be a persuasive argument (generally the strict constructionist wing), but by and large, we’re moving to the proverbial “if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck” standard. Simply slapping an amateur label on an athlete doesn’t make it so when it every single other action that a school is taking with respect to its athletic department, whether it’s the entering of TV contracts, paying coaches millions of dollars (often becoming the highest-paid public employees in their respective states), spending massive amounts of capital on athletics facilities, and setting high ticket prices is done so with every bit the same type of sophistication, scale and scope as their pro counterparts. The NCAA and its members have no one to blame here if courts start hammering them. They (and a lot of fans) have been in denial that simply calling athletes “amateurs” is enough to skirt antitrust scrutiny, so they have been haphazardly applying a black-and-white standard in an increasingly grey world.
LikeLike
@Frank
Everything you mentioned is irrelevant.
Not for profit hospitals do everything the same as for profit hospitals. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of their responsibilities. That doesn’t mean they are for profit. They pay their presidents salaries as big as those in the for profit sector. They pay their doctors and nurses and accountants the same way. They treat patients the same way. They bill the same way and in the same amounts. The difference is what they do with their remaining funds.
The NCAA is not at all like major league baseball or football.
The vulnerability for the NCAA is how they treat the student-athletes. And I think you made the comment they were rushing to get the reforms because lawsuits were pushing them. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be in any hurry without that push. The likeness issue with video games and jerseys is another issue. Although that can be handled without dismantling the model (don’t do EA Sports and don’t sell jerseys or posters with names-or at least give royalties after graduation).
LikeLike
“Simply slapping an amateur label on an athlete doesn’t make it so when it every single other action that a school is taking with respect to its athletic department, whether it’s the entering of TV contracts, paying coaches millions of dollars (often becoming the highest-paid public employees in their respective states)…”
The athlete isn’t what is in question. The “duck” that’s in question is the amateur model of college athletic departments.
I agree that the pay for coaches is absurd, but they aren’t, and have never been (to my knowledge) covered by amateur rules. Same as HS coaches in some rabid FB states who may have no other duties year round. A number of college coaches have been the highest paid university employee for decades.
The point, and result of the ruling in NCAA v Board of Regents was to increase the ability of schools to make more money and increase/sustain their athletic offerings. That the Court would state support for the amateur mission of the NCAA in the ruling that gave the ability to market themselves to the schools is interesting. Is it instructive? I don’t know. But do believe we’ll remain in some form of amateur college athletic system.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@ccrider55 – It’s not really about whether people *believe* in the amateur model, but whether it can actually exist (at least at the college level) going forward.”
But we were discussing Little League, aka tweens playing sports.
“I personally have zero issue with student-athletes getting paid and feel that the fairness of compensation”
Get back to me when they start paying for what college is giving them. Tuition, room and board, books, hundreds to thousands of hours of free professional training from the best in the business (football coaches and S&C staff), tutors, first chance at class scheduling, a national platform for them to show their skills, etc. A college degree is worth $1,000,000 in future earnings. School for 5 years can be $250,000. An elite personal trainer can easily $100/hour, and these guys get 1000+ hours of that per year ($500,000 total). They also get coaching in football, and that is worth $250,000. That’s $2,000,000 in “compensation” potentially, and I didn’t even count the free advertising they get with the national platform. And I should be upset that they aren’t getting paid? That’s comical to me.
“There isn’t necessarily a right or wrong here because it all comes down to your own opinion.”
Yes, there is a right and wrong here.
LikeLike
So you don’t believe in the amateur model at all?
It’s not a question of what I “believe in”. The Division III Leagues say their athletes are amateurs, and behave as if that’s true. The Power Conferences say their athletes are amateurs, but behave as if that’s a lie.
LikeLike
Do D3 schools not charge admission to any sports events? They would/do market themselves, but with a realistic expectation as to their general attractiveness to the general public.
LikeLike
Do D3 schools not charge admission to any sports events?
I did student theater in college, and they charged admission, but it was to cover the cost of putting on the show. It didn’t make money.
LikeLike
So it’s a matter of scale? Because that’s what D1 athletics do, too. But with more expensive facilities, instructors, etc. Many, even most athletic departments run at a deficit and require subsidies from the academic side. A few are able to contribute some $’s back to the school as a whole.
LikeLike
Don’t know where this post will surface — but Universities “pay” for students in lots of areas — full scholarship for tuition, room, board, books + a $5000 per year for paid travel or other educationally-related stuff.
I hope that universities will pay top students to attend their universities. I want schools to be allowed to pay football and mbb players as much as they want. The argument against payment has nothing to do sacred concepts of “amateurism”. The current model enables universities to avoid being exposed for even greater hypocrisy and the current model enables school administrators to avoid controversial, public decisions.
Schools already allow booster networks to pay players — but do not have to publicly admit their complicity.
For example, Cam Newton’s value was pegged at $175,000 + annual gratuities. The beauty of the current arrangement for Auburn or MSU or any school that was in the Newton market is that they could be confident that the payment would be made but they did not have to tell the public that they made the payment. If it is a open, free market, I have no doubt, none, that the President of Auburn could announce to the citizens of Alabama, we paid Cam Newton $200,000 and we are confident that he will be worth every penny — and Auburn supporters would applaud the expenditure — and would agree to a bonus after the Iron Bowl was played. But, for example, Indiana currently could not pay market prices for any top fb players and ND could pay a premium for every player it wanted but would not.
The current model enables all three players — in this scenario, Auburn, IU and ND — to compete on a single — albeit unequal — playing field. Creating a public playing field will actually fracture this myth and force schools to actually decide whether they wish to show the world their spending priorities. Clearly, there would be gamesmanship in the early years. It is possible that the President of Auburn might be tempted to still ask boosters to hide their payments to Cam but in short order — the scheme will fall apart for two reasons. First, the boosters will lose out on a nice tax deduction that they cannot access now — and greed almost always wins out. Second, pick a scenario where Auburn reports that it only paid $50,000 for Cam but agreed to pay him the remainder through its current hidden booster network. Then LSU reports to the media that it offered him $200,000 and his father was foolish to take a lower bid. Lots of publicity and lots of crazy legal issues ensue. Certainly divorce proceedings will be even more interesting. Boosters who give money want to remain anonymous not only for NCAA reasons, but also for legal and tax reasons. It will get increasingly difficult for boosters to ensure anonymity. Significantly increasing transparency increase the likelihood of schools simply reporting publicly what they are willing to pay players. Also, in a crazy way, the current myths shield IU and ND. IU can hint at the tilted playing field but does not feel added pressure to go to the Legislature for money it cannot get. ND does not have to field angry calls from donating alums (95%) who argue that the per capita endowment of ND only trails Harvard and Princeton and our team lost a recruit for a measly $50,000 a year?
I want schools to publicly state how much they are willing to pay to attract and retain top football talent. How much is paid now off the books? I really hope that the charade will end soon.
LikeLike
Child actors are working a job. Little Leaguers are playing games that they would be playing without the TV money. That’s a huge difference. I’m all for child actors getting paid if the adults are.
The TV money goes back to the organization that made it possible for them to have a LLWS and helps more kids get a chance to play and to have properly trained coaches and such. They do outreach, education, etc with that money.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/tag/_/name/2014-position-u
ESPN is doing a series to determine Position U from 2000-2013. They’ve done the offense so far (QB, RB, WR, TE, OL). It’s hardly definitive, but a fun way to kill some time in the off season.
OSU:
QB – #7
RB – #12
WR – #10
TE – #35
OL – #9
I’m not surprised by the TE number since Tressel always treated them as an extra tackle. I’m amazed our OL scored so well considering Jim Bollman wasted so much talent. The QB ranking is all about Troy Smith’s great year in 2006.
LikeLike
They did the defense today.
OSU:
DL – #12
LB – #1 in a blowout
DB – #1
K – #1
LikeLike
Dave Joyner will resign as Penn State athletics director
http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/06/dave_joyner_will_resign_as_pen.html
Northwestern AD Jim Phillips has been rumored to be the most likely to take the job
LikeLike
B1G games overflowing to other networks?
http://thegazette.com/subject/sports/b1g-games-overflowing-to-other-networks-20140611
The Big Ten will not move games away from its current media partners, Rudner said.
“We’re definitely not peeling off any inventory to any third party,” he said. “There’s not going to be any side deals.”
I don’t necessarily agree. While E-Spin has stayed to the letter of the contract they aren’t necessarily a friend of the B1G these days. What better chance to let other media companies do a trial run of some games to see how they perform before the next contract starts than now? If Fox Sports 1, NBCSN or NBC, CBS or CBSSN is able to handle a couple of OOC football games then that gives some in the conference reassurance that they would not suffer as much in term of exposure as if those games were aired on ESPN Classic or ESPN News. Even NBCSN or CBSSN is 10x better than the ESPN Classic ghetto.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24590668/pac-12-returned-only-68-percent-of-its-record-revenues-to-schools
A better breakdown of conference payouts in terms of percentage of revenue.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24590392/fbs-conferences-pay-nearly-50m-for-outsourced-work-in-2012-13
A look at outsourced expenses for the conferences.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24590802/buffalo-wild-wings-pulls-sponsorship-from-bowl-game
BWW drops their bowl sponsorship.
LikeLike
Now they can focus on terrible commercials.
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/Fond-Farewell-For-The-BCS-29186971
A look back at the BCS.
LikeLike
Illinois only RB recruit denied admission to the school:
http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/illini-running-back-recruit-denied-admission
LikeLike
But these players are employees, not students. University employees regularly get denied admission to the school, right?
LikeLike
It’s a duel status. Meet student standards (somewhat relaxed) while doing a job worth considerably more than the scholarship is (especially if you consider that many of the students would choose different/cheaper alternatives or no school if not for the football).
LikeLike
Where are players going to get facilities, trainers, coaching (individualized), training partners, equipment, food/nutrition (education, and to consume year round), high level competition, travel arrangements, some legal advice, wide marketing to the world (and possible future employers), etc? Not to mention the potential benefit of an education. And cheaper? Where? I think it’s a very good deal for the many hundreds of student athletes at each school.
LikeLike
For the vast majority yes, but if you’re service to the school is essentially the work of an employee, then you shouldn’t be prevented from receiving compensation as for that act. How much is a great quarterback vs. a fair one worth to a school? What about a a mid range linebacker vs. a poor one? The schools monetize everything they can in athletics and have adjusted everything accordingly (ticket tied to donations, stadiums designed for expensive suites, a longer season, realignment that’s broken rivalries for TV markets, a post season set-up to maximize value, etc). That the students are then expected to just be students and not allowed to get any extra outside money themselves is absurdly wrong.
In the long run, I think the Olympic model is the model that recognizes what college athletics has become. It’s a duel set-up with the student athletes partly acting as employees, partially as students. The fair compromise is no direct payment for anything beyond tuition, but that the athletes can accept outside compensation provided it’s above the table and reported.
For the record, I don’t like what that will do to the game, but the chance to prevent in a moral fashion ended to me a long time ago. The colleges have gone too far themselves and aren’t going back, so now you have to take this forward for the students too.
LikeLike
The colleges are not doing anything they haven’t been doing for over a century. There has been outrage off and on all through the decades. Nothing has changed, except the source of some of the revenue generated.
http://gocrimson.com/sports/fball/history/Football_Tradition_Media_Center
I recall reading that soon after the first permenant concrete concrete stadium was built FB was generating far more than the entire Harvard Med school cost.
LikeLike
Eric,
“For the vast majority yes, but if you’re service to the school is essentially the work of an employee,”
Which it isn’t. Football is an extracurricular activity that they choose to participate in. I knew students who spent more time on their extracurriculars than athletes do.
“How much is a great quarterback vs. a fair one worth to a school?”
How much is the name of the school, the coaching, the facilities, etc worth to that QB? How about all the other players that make up the team?
“The schools monetize everything they can in athletics”
No, they don’t. They frequently turn down offers that would make them money.
“That the students are then expected to just be students and not allowed to get any extra outside money themselves is absurdly wrong.”
They don’t have to play. They can feel free to quit the team and get a job instead.
“In the long run, I think the Olympic model is the model that recognizes what college athletics has become.”
That model makes no sense for college sports. Countries don’t have to recruit Olympic athletes.
LikeLike
Brian,
Always enjoy reading your posts.
“Which it isn’t. Football is an extracurricular activity that they choose to participate in. I knew students who spent more time on their extracurriculars than athletes do.”
The schools aren’t making millions of dollars (either directly or in marketing brand value) through other extracurricular activities. The schools also rarely choose to admit student solely for an extra circular activity (possibly it’s an added benefit, but that’s all).
“How much is the name of the school, the coaching, the facilities, etc worth to that QB? How about all the other players that make up the team?”
How much is the name of a company you work for worth on a resume? The other employees you work with? Players should not be choosing schools based solely on what they can gain financially from them, but when providing that kind of service to a school, they should be able to expect a competitive system where they can analyze the financial benefits of different schools rather than a closed system where no extra benefits are allowed and every school is simply offering a scholarship and agreed bonuses to everyone equally.
“No, they don’t. They frequently turn down offers that would make them money.”
OK fair enough they have turned down some things. They’ve agreed on a lot of pretty sweeping changes though, especially the ones that are financially the biggest. Even areas people think they are leaving money the table (a big playoff for example), there’s debate about if the long term result of that is more or less money.
Some of these have direct negative effect on the players (more games equals more injury risk, more money in coaching means more turnover leaving players with coaches they didn’t get recruited for, and more oversigning means more kids lose their scholarships because of not being good enough in football), some of them are neutral, but there’s been very little the schools have done to make the vast added financial benefits they have received end up with the players. The full cost of attendance and a few other issues will at last add a little back, but I’d argue still does not absolve the schools of using the sport for big revenue/marketing and not treating the players at least partially as employees as a result.
“They don’t have to play. They can feel free to quit the team and get a job instead.”
They can and that is actually the best argument against paying to me (the system is there and you don’t have to be part of it). With that said though, I don’t feel it’s morally just to have a mufti-million dollar industry where the people responsible for a large portion of the value are not able to get a free market price for their skills.
“That model makes no sense for college sports. Countries don’t have to recruit Olympic athletes.”
Agree to disagree. The biggest effect of the change in my opinion would be that coaching salaries and money donated to facilities would decline substantially as boosters would instead be donating to funds that would go to the players which I think would be fair. The biggest schools would have an advantage, but not much more of one than they already have.
The actual set-up could vary. You would still be regulating this through the NCAA. Everything would have to be above table and you could even set it up so that a majority of the funds put places players would only have access to after they have left the college.
LikeLike
“With that said though, I don’t feel it’s morally just to have a mufti-million dollar industry where the people responsible for a large portion of the value are not able to get a free market price for their skills.”
Except for football and men’s basketball, their value is next to nothing. And those other sports are where almost all the excess is going. As for basketball, the players can get their fair value. They wouldn’t make much in the many minor leagues, but they could go to Europe. That almost no one does tells you they ARE getting fair value for what they do. And how many of the freshmen basketball players have any value? A couple dozen?
I don’t think there is any argument except for football. But then again, how many people have gone straight to the pros from high school? How many have gone after their freshman year? Reality is that almost none of them are physically mature enough to play at that point.
And even on the good teams, 80% of the players are pretty interchangeable with backups. So are they really worth more than they are getting?
LikeLike
Eric,
“The schools aren’t making millions of dollars (either directly or in marketing brand value) through other extracurricular activities.”
Most schools lose millions on sports, too.
“The schools also rarely choose to admit student solely for an extra circular activity (possibly it’s an added benefit, but that’s all).”
Musicians, dancers, etc often get special admission criteria.
“How much is the name of a company you work for worth on a resume?”
I’m not the one bitching about what I get paid. The players are claiming the TV money belongs to them. I’m saying most of the value is in the school name, not the individuals playing.
“Players should not be choosing schools based solely on what they can gain financially from them, but when providing that kind of service to a school, they should be able to expect a competitive system where they can analyze the financial benefits of different schools rather than a closed system where no extra benefits are allowed and every school is simply offering a scholarship and agreed bonuses to everyone equally.”
I couldn’t disagree more. They shouldn’t expect anything beyond what they get now.
LikeLike
When my nephew toured Rice, they bragged about a kid who got admitted with an 800 SAT who happened to have some collection (butterflies?) and had contacts around the world. So special talents other than athletics do get you in places.
LikeLike
Losing money is not a valid argument against paying players, as making a loss just means poor management. If Ohio State is losing money on sports, it is because they want to – they could stop paying high salaries and cut 10 sports and be profitable tomorrow.
LikeLike
Ohio State is not a for profit venture and it’s students are not employees. Money generated is to help offset the cost of offering high level programs, academic and athletic. Go invest in an NFL or NBA program if that is your interest.
LikeLike
http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup/story/1875845/brazil-and-mexico-play-out-goalless-draw-in-world-cups-group-a
Have the riots started in Brazil yet?
Mexico 0 – Brazil 0
LikeLike
Mexico is happy.
LikeLike
After today’s France-Switzerland game, if haters can’t see goals it’s because they don’t want to.
LikeLike
Sorry… Soccer = Paint Drying, Grass Growing, Crickets Chirping… and virtually everywhere, the media keeps trying to force it down American’s throats…
Look, just because someone else is doing something or likes something, doesn’t automatically mean it is fit for everyone. I’ll keep my American football—they can keep their futball…
LikeLike
That happens with a lot of things in ad-funded entertainment that are more popular in the demo than they are on average, and for lots of things that their audience places a high priority on … and of course, most “sports journalism” is an infotainment branch of the entertainment industry, so soccer is going to be covered out of proportion to the proportion of the population that has an interest in it.
LikeLike
Transic,
“After today’s France-Switzerland game, if haters can’t see goals it’s because they don’t want to.”
My comment wasn’t about that, just that Brazil didn’t win and there were some close calls.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-u-s-now-has-a-better-shot-at-the-world-cup-but-still-needs-a-point-against-portugal/
538 says the US has a 63% chance to advance, up from 33% before the Ghana game.
2 points (2 draws or a win) basically guarantees we advance.
LikeLike
◾Win once and lose once, almost certainly advance (there’s one highly unlikely mathematical exception).
That is the 3 way tie at 6 points, where goal differential is the first tie-breaker. Ghana>Germany, US>Portugal, Ghana>Portugal, Germany>US. It is just the way FIFA scoring works: 5 points and you advance, 6 points and you might be knocked out.
LikeLike
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2014/06/world-cup-soccer-cheating-study.html
An analysis of cheating in the last World Cup.
LikeLike
http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/why-its-ok-to-say-soccer-instead-of-football#
The history of the name “soccer.” It’s British, despite everyone’s attempts to blame the US.
LikeLike
Interesting read. Thanks for posting.
LikeLike
Ohio St. names wrestler Logan Stieber male athlete of the year.
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/6/17/5817872/ohio-state-wrestling-stieber-named-male-athlete-of-the-year
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Patent Office has ruled the Washington Redskins nickname is “disparaging of Native Americans” and that the team’s federal trademarks for the name must be canceled.
The 2-1 ruling comes after a campaign to change the name has gained momentum over the past year. The team doesn’t immediately lose trademark protection and is allowed to retain it during an appeal.
Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has refused to change the team’s name, citing tradition, but there has been growing pressure including statements in recent months from President Barack Obama, lawmakers of both parties and civil rights groups.
The decision means that the team can continue to use the Redskins name, but it would lose a significant portion of its ability to protect its financial interests. If others printed the name on sweatshirts, apparel, or other team material, it becomes more difficult to go after people who use it without permission.
LikeLike
How ridiculous. Somebody should just tell these people ‘tough sh*t.’ Just who do these politicians, activists and bureaucrats think they are that they can strip a legitimate business – one which has been around for the part of century – of ANY of its legal rights? What business is it of theirs? Who’s next – the Braves? Indians? Blackhawks?
The whole notion that a government entity should be charged with determining whether a “trademark was offensive to the people it referenced” is absurd. Referenced how? How far fetched is it to imagine some government ‘authority’ in the future ruling:
“Petitioners have found a preponderance of evidence that a substantial amount of Northern/Southern Americans found the term Tigers/Rebels/Jayhawks to be disparaging when used in connection with college athletics,” the ruling said. “While this may reveal differing opinions with the community, it does not negate the opinions of those who find it disparages the memory of their ancestors who were murdered/killed.”
I’m afraid its not nearly as far fetched as it should be.
LikeLike
John O,
“How ridiculous. Somebody should just tell these people ‘tough sh*t.’”
These people, as in Native Americans?
“Just who do these politicians, activists and bureaucrats think they are that they can strip a legitimate business – one which has been around for the part of century – of ANY of its legal rights?”
There is no legal right to trademark something offensive. The idea is to deter business from choosing offensive names and such because they can’t stop others from profiting off of them. This ruling doesn’t force the Redskins to do anything, it just means that if upheld other people could start selling stuff using the name.
“What business is it of theirs?”
How dare those minorities have an opinion on being called an ethnic slur! Next they’ll think they should have the same rights as a white man.
“Who’s next – the Braves? Indians? Blackhawks?”
Not those names, but maybe the tomahawk chop and Chief Wahoo.
“How far fetched is it to imagine some government ‘authority’ in the future ruling:”
It’s ridiculously far fetched, actually.
LikeLike
‘Redskins Are Denied Trademarks’
-Washington Post, April 3, 1999
‘Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules’
-Washington Post, October 2, 2003
We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.
As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation.
This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.
When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.
Why?
As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans…’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [Board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review’s today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.
In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:
It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.
The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/washington-redskins-statement-on-trademark-registration-ruling/2014/06/18/c663bad8-f701-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
LikeLike
@Brian,
“These people, as in Native Americans?”
No. Politicians, activists and bureaucrats – the politically connected who arrogate to themselves the authority to deem something offensive and to use the legal system to harass a legitimate, long established business whose name they dislike. Most Native Americans don’t care: http://cdn.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2004_03_redskins_09-24_pr2.pdf
“How dare those minorities have an opinion on being called an ethnic slur!” See above.
“There is no legal right to trademark something offensive. The idea is to deter business from choosing offensive names and such because they can’t stop others from profiting off of them. This ruling doesn’t force the Redskins to do anything, it just means that if upheld other people could start selling stuff using the name.”
Who is the arbiter of offensive? On what authority? The notion that the Washington Redskins business(es) should receive less brand protection or be treated any differently by the legal system than those of the Atlanta Braves, Boston Celtics, Minnesota Vikings, Microsoft, Kraft or Boeing is preposterous.
And talk about ridiculously far fetched – how ridiculously far fetched would this have all seemed to those who named the franchise 80+ years ago?
LikeLike
Who is the arbiter of offensive?
The Patent Office in this case.
On what authority?
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
LikeLike
John O,
“No. Politicians, activists and bureaucrats – the politically connected who arrogate to themselves the authority to deem something offensive and to use the legal system to harass a legitimate, long established business whose name they dislike.”
The complaints started with Native American groups and others joined in. So are you claiming nobody is allowed to recognize a good cause and join it unless they are among those suffering?
“Who is the arbiter of offensive?”
The Patent Office, I believe.
“On what authority?”
Federal law.
“The notion that the Washington Redskins business(es) should receive less brand protection or be treated any differently by the legal system than those of the Atlanta Braves, Boston Celtics, Minnesota Vikings, Microsoft, Kraft or Boeing is preposterous.”
No, it isn’t.
“And talk about ridiculously far fetched – how ridiculously far fetched would this have all seemed to those who named the franchise 80+ years ago?”
“Negroes” being able to vote would have seemed far fetched to them, too.
LikeLike
On what authority? None. From: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/20/opinion/randazza-redskins-constitutional/index.html
“Trademarks are First Amendment protected expression. There should be no issue with limiting their use to mislead the public. After all, what point do they serve if they do not propose a truthful association with their owner? And what rational governmental purpose does it serve to deny a benefit to a business because it might be deemed “immoral” by someone?”
It serves no purpose whatsoever. And the constitution prohibits it. End of story.
From Wikipedia:
“The team originated as the Boston Braves, based in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1932. At the time the team played in Braves Field, home of the Boston Braves baseball team. The following year the club moved to Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, whereupon owners changed the team’s name to the Boston Redskins.”
‘Redskins’ is a logical derivative of Braves, with the added bonus of using “Red” from the Red Sox, their new Fenway co-tenants at the time of the name change. Speculation, perhaps, but it makes sense as to why they may have chosen that name.
@Brian – Ignoring my speculative reasoning, simple logic dictates that a business owner won’t select a name for his business that he won’t be able to legally protect. What evidence do you have that those who gave the franchise its name thought it far fetched that “Negros” should be able to vote? I’ll wager you don’t have any.
LikeLike
John O,
“On what authority? None. From: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/20/opinion/randazza-redskins-constitutional/index.html”
1. It’s an opinion piece from a lawyer. Put 10 lawyers in a room and you’ll get 20 different opinions about a legal question. That doesn’t make it fact.
2. Apparently you didn’t read your own link.
Section (2)(a) of the Trademark Act bars the registration of any trademark that is “immoral” “scandalous” or “disparaging.”
That’s the authority.
“It serves no purpose whatsoever.”
That’s one opinion.
“And the constitution prohibits it.”
No, it doesn’t.
“End of story.”
We all know that isn’t true.
“‘Redskins’ is a logical derivative of Braves,”
No, it isn’t.
“Speculation, perhaps,”
No perhaps about it.
“@Brian – Ignoring my speculative reasoning, simple logic dictates that a business owner won’t select a name for his business that he won’t be able to legally protect. What evidence do you have that those who gave the franchise its name thought it far fetched that “Negros” should be able to vote?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_players_in_American_professional_football
Many observers will attribute the subsequent lockout of black players to the entry of George Preston Marshall into the league in 1932. Marshall openly refused to have black athletes on his Boston Braves/Washington Redskins team, and reportedly pressured the rest of the league to follow suit. Marshall, however, was likely not the only reason:
…
the bulk of NFL teams did not sign a black player until 1952, by which time every team but the Washington Redskins had signed a black player.
Marshall was quoted as saying “We’ll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing whites.”
The Redskins were the last NFL team to integrate, and they only did it then because the federal government forced it. By 1952, every NFL team but Washington had a black player. The government forced Washington to integrate in 1962. They were owned by a racist (Marshall).
More about Marshall:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Preston_Marshall
His legacy includes the George Preston Marshall Foundation which serves the interests of children in the Washington, DC area. The $6 million he left had the qualification that none of it could be used “for any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration.”
…
Marshall has gained infamy for his intractable opposition to having African-Americans on his roster. According to professor Charles Ross, “For 24 years Marshall was identified as the leading racist in the NFL”. Though the league had previously had a sprinkling of black players, blacks were excluded from all NFL teams in 1933. While the rest of the league began signing individual blacks in 1946 and actually drafting blacks in 1949, Marshall held out until 1962 before signing a black player.
I feel quite comfortable saying a virulent racist like Marshall didn’t support the right for negroes to vote.
LikeLike
Interesting on the fate of other slurs….
http://www.atlredline.com/you-remember-that-movie-ghost-world-me-neither-it-sta-1593750839/+tcraggs22
Racism and trademark law, so difficult to predict.
Links at the very end of the article go much more in depth.
LikeLike
Great article from Stewart Mandel this week about the B1G expansion:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140618/big-ten-expansion/
Delany implies the basis of expansion, in addition to the math, was that ACC’s expansion and outreach to some B1G schools spurred a desire to go on offense rather than risk being poached.
He has to think that PSU could have been tempted to leave the B1G without the conference adding at least 1 eastern school.
LikeLike
He has to think that PSU could have been tempted to leave the B1G without the conference adding at least 1 eastern school.
It is hard for me to wrap my mind around that being a credible threat. Even without Rutgers and Maryland, the B1G’s payouts are much higher than the ACC’s. To date, the one inviolable rule of realignment is that no school willingly switches conferences to make less money.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd:
Delany, by virtue of his long tenure, knows full well that you always have to prepare for the unexpected, especially when its an issue that’s been spoken about before. Planning for negative events if the hallmark of any good institutional leader, and this is not something that is so wholly unimaginable.
We should consider that it might not have been an immediate threat, but could very well have been a potential one–which is basically what Alvarez stated a while back when he commented that there was a desire to go east in part out of concern that PSU could be poached without having at least one other eastern school. JoePa repeatedly stated PSU’s preference for an eastern program as #12, so its not as if such desires by PSU were previously hidden.
Also, the article implies he knew ACC schools had contacted B1G schools. Obviously we don’t know the nature and extent of such contacts, but I’m sure their mere existence created some measure of concern–that ACC schools even thought they could try to poach B1G schools.
As for the money issue, well, if we go back to when UND joined the ACC, pre-UMD and RU, had PSU bolted the conference for the ACC, the ACC might have had enough brand power and market presence up and down the east coast to potentially make close to, or even more money than the B1G, who would have needed to backfill by 1 school, and likely not backfilling with an ACC institution. Moreover, Delany knows any lawsuit over breaking the B1G’s GoR would have ultimately been settled, like most cases of that ilk (which is why most anticipate a settlement between UMD and the ACC at some point). The blow to the conference would have been staggering–even if the odds of such an event occurring would have seemed small.
The ACC with Penn State could probably create a TV network that would rival the BTN–presence in NY, MA, NJ, PA, DC, MD, NC, SC, GA, & FL–as well as Chicago and Indiana (UND). PSU would have had short term losses for sure, but in the long run, I’m sure Delany wanted to ever let it get to the point that PSU has an opportunity to even consider leaving the conference. I suspect this fear–however remote–was a reason the B1G acted not 2 months after the UND announcement–to go on offense and weaken a prime rival before it can strike again.
Lastly, the ACC is close to the B1G academically, and I believe the ACC is trying to establish, or has recently established, a CIC-like cooperative program, so academic concerns would have been sufficiently dealt with in my mind.
LikeLike
Here’s the relevant Delany quote from the article:
“”That’s when it changed,” says Delany. “Once people start getting on our doorstep and calling our institutions, then I think it’s important to be able to be offensive and defensive. We came to the conclusion there was more risk in sitting still than there was in exploring other opportunities.”
Its not that PSU was going to leave, its that PSU could potentially leave. Though the risk seems small and remote to us, from the B1G perspective, why risk it when you can go on offense and gain a stronger measure of security through dollars?
LikeLike
The Big Ten grant of rights (if nothing else) guaranteed it wasn’t an immediate threat, but if it was a threat at all, the time the Big Ten had the most power was immediately. They knew they could probably grab an ACC school or two, which would both end the threat and appease Penn State. If you waited a decade and Penn State’s administration was seriously looking at an ACC whose dollar value was more on par with the Big Ten, then that might no longer be possible. As looks likely, even now, the Big Ten couldn’t pry away at the core Virginia/North Carolina schools it wanted so in a decade, without the grabbing of Maryland, maybe the ACC has the upper hand.
Granted, I’d still have voted as a fan for no expansion and to take that risk, but as a president, I’d probably have voted for it.
LikeLike
Or could it have been demographic incentive to make good on overdue assurances made in the early ’90’s? PSU wasn’t going anywhere.
LikeLike
He lost me at the start by leading with Brian Cook and MGoBlog. Then later he used an OSU blogger. Really? You can’t find better sources than 2 jackass bloggers?
Then he made the same mistake so many people make:
As the Big Ten’s population moves South and West, the conference’s base is rapidly shrinking:
No, it isn’t. It’s growing more slowly than other areas.
Then there’s this:
The Big Ten, which had long claimed the most populous footprint of any conference, suddenly ranked a distant third.
1. This is allowing 2 major conferences to both count TX and FL
2. This let’s the ACC count all of NY for having Syracuse
3. This treats all people equally as opposed to weighing the strength of the fan bases and such
4. ACC – 100.1M, SEC – 90.1M, B10 – 83.9M after adding UMD and RU
Half of TX = 13.2M
Half of FL = 9.8M
Also split : GA (1/2 = 5M), SC, KY
LikeLike
The B1G solution, obviously, is to add SUNY-Buffalo to lock up the NY state population.
Stewie also makes the popular mistake of claiming that Delany added PSU.
LikeLike
The conference did actually vote to add PSU after Delany became commissioner, and the process really gained steam after he came on board.
He started July 1989, and the vote was December 1989. Indeed, the speed in which it happened–and the lack of consultation with AD’s– created a lasting negative impact, which is what Delany cited to when the B1G announced its expansion analysis in December 2009.
LikeLike
“The conference did actually vote to add PSU after Delany became commissioner, and the process really gained steam after he came on board.”
Technicalities do not mean that Delany added them. Spin it however you like.
LikeLike
“Technicalities do not mean that Delany added them. Spin it however you like”
I’ll spin it with facts. Feel free to ignore them.
LikeLike
I agree with you on the demographics, especially since most B1G schools are target/destination schools for out of state students, especially children of alumni. Those alumni root for their school, and their kids generally do as well.
Its not as if Michigan’s negative population growth in the last decade is going to hurt UM as a school–if anything, it will allow it to accept more out of state students paying more who become lifelong fans in non-midwestern states.
LikeLike
And this is why the BIG will always be the most profitable conference with only the SEC to challenge it. Casual fans are nice but alumni drive money and ratings. As long as the BIG is producing a ton of alumni, they will be making a ton of money. The ACC with its small private schools enrollment in comparison will always play second fiddle no matter how many championships they win or geographic footprint they occupy.
LikeLike
He lost me at the start by leading with Brian Cook and MGoBlog. Then later he used an OSU blogger. Really? You can’t find better sources than 2 jackass bloggers?
As far as I can tell, as bloggers go they’re two of the better ones. You’d have to think practically all bloggers are categorically jackasses, to think that those two are.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“As far as I can tell, as bloggers go they’re two of the better ones.”
Let’s just say that lots of people online seem to have a different opinion of Mr. Cook than you do. As for Mr. Zimmerman, my opinion is based on personal interaction with him so those just reading his blog may feel differently.
“You’d have to think practically all bloggers are categorically jackasses,”
They aren’t?
LikeLike
I figured that when that article was out that people would focus on the PSU angle. PSU is only one school. If the other 11 schools thought that it was a bad idea then it wouldn’t happen. Simple as. The leaders running the other institutions understand the macro in college athletics today. It’s really the arrogant, self-centered “fans” who keep harping on this. Welcome to 2014!
LikeLike
Jeopardy! and the B1G:
http://collegespun.com/big-ten/ohio-state/video-jeopardy-contestants-have-no-clue-how-many-teams-are-in-the-big-ten#
LikeLike
Ohio Stadium no longer a true Horseshoe shape; Brian goes on murderous rampage.
http://collegespun.com/big-ten/ohio-state/photo-ohio-stadium-no-longer-much-of-a-horseshoe-ohio-states-installing-new-seats-to-south-end
LikeLike
It hasn’t been a real horseshoe for a very long time.
LikeLike
With all this talk about the NCAA, how is the NBA’s ban on 19 year olds legal? Would it be legal if a union agreed to ban African Americans or Anglo-Americans? Or those over 50? 18 and 19 year olds aren’t a “protected class,” but age discrimination is illegal.
I don’t see how a union has a right to deny someone the right to earn a living just because it is a union. There’s no physical reason an 18 year old can’t play professional basketball. With drinking, they can show statistics about drunk driving. And drinking isn’t a fundamental right like trying to earn a living.
I just don’t see how it stands up to a constitutional challenge.
LikeLike
bullet,
“With all this talk about the NCAA, how is the NBA’s ban on 19 year olds legal? Would it be legal if a union agreed to ban African Americans or Anglo-Americans? Or those over 50? 18 and 19 year olds aren’t a “protected class,” but age discrimination is illegal.”
Age discrimination is only illegal if they’re over 40. Also, unions can collectively bargain for almost anything. Maurice Clarett tried to fight it but the judge said a union has the right to make CBA that has an age floor. It’s stupid, but that’s the American legal system in a nutshell.
LikeLike
The law (not constitution) says that you cannot discriminate in employment for those over 40, but says nothing about those under 40. There is no law against the NBA setting a minimum age of 25 or even 35. They do have to show valid business reasons why they employ very few players that are 40 and above as do most athletic leagues. So far all athletic leagues that have been challenged have met the burden to continue defacto (statistical) discrimination against those over 40. No league actually prohibits older players if a team wants to sign them.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/06/19/e-michigan-to-play-football-on-concrete-gray-turf/10883381/
EMU putting in concrete gray turf. I guess they want the field to be as ugly as their play.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11105557/collegiate-commissioners-association-panel-formed-explore-early-signing-period-college-football
The MAC commish is chairing the panel to look into whether an early signing date should happen or not.
“While there certainly have been expressions of interest by a number of conferences, we really don’t have all the pieces of information we need to make a thoughtful decision,” Steinbrecher said. “It’s more than just making a decision on an early signing period. What we’re talking about potentially changes the recruiting calendar and the dynamics around recruiting. That could then potentially involve changing NCAA regulations.
“We need to get a better grasp of what that means in terms of the recruiting culture for football. We need to dig a little deeper, not only from a coach’s perspective or an administrator’s perspective, but from the prospect’s perspective and from the high school’s perspective. At the end of the day, we’ll need to find what’s best for the student athletes and what’s best for our institutions and merge all of that.”
Recently, the Atlantic Coast Conference announced its schools support an Aug. 1 date for an early signing period. The Southeastern Conference offered a recommendation for the Monday after Thanksgiving, and a number of Big Ten and Big 12 coaches said they would align more closely with the ACC. Then there are others like Stanford’s David Shaw, who has been an outspoken critic of an early period.
While Steinbrecher isn’t sure who else will be on his committee at this point, he did vow to make sure all of the key stakeholders involved in the recruiting process — especially the prospects and high school coaches — will be engaged in the discussion. He also said it’ll be important for his group to weigh every option possible, including recommending that no changes be made to the current recruiting calendar.
“In a perfect world, we’d report back in the early fall,” he said. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to meet that timeline. I would think we’re on a three to six month kind of timeline to dig into this.”
The NCAA doesn’t oversee when prospects can officially sign with institutions but has indicated it would be willing to adjust rules of when a prospect could take an official visit if conference commissioners recommend an early signing period.
LikeLike
Jim Delany is testifying in the O’Bannon case right now. @Andy_Staples live tweeting.
He did testify that the Big Ten requires AAU membership upon admission.
LikeLike
Saw that. Interesting comment given the B1G’s past courting of ND. Wonder if their criteria has changed.
LikeLike
I suspect their criteria are malleable for the right applicant. I don’t think there is any serious doubt that ND would still have an open door into the Big Ten. Syracuse and UConn needn’t apply.
LikeLike
Hypothetically though, I bet if Texas and Oklahoma could come as a package deal, the AAU requirement would be broken for OU.
LikeLike
I agree, that’s another exception they’d likely grant. As I’ve pointed out before, at the time they accepted Nebraska, it was well known that their AAU status was under review and stood a pretty good chance of being revoked.
Now, Delany can say with a straight face that every Big Ten team in the modern expansion era was an AAU member at the time of admission. But there is very little substantive difference between admitting an AAU school that gets kicked out shortly thereafter, and admitting a solid state flagship that was never in the AAU at all, especially when the king of all expansion targets comes along with it.
I don’t see OU and UT ditching their in-state sister schools, but as long as we’re talking hypothetically, I think the Big Ten takes that deal if offered.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I agree, that’s another exception they’d likely grant.”
The business side says it makes perfect sense, but I wonder if the academic side might win out and refuse to accept OU.
“As I’ve pointed out before, at the time they accepted Nebraska, it was well known that their AAU status was under review and stood a pretty good chance of being revoked.
Now, Delany can say with a straight face that every Big Ten team in the modern expansion era was an AAU member at the time of admission. But there is very little substantive difference between admitting an AAU school that gets kicked out shortly thereafter, and admitting a solid state flagship that was never in the AAU at all, especially when the king of all expansion targets comes along with it.”
I think that there is a huge difference between the two. One was in the club and then got booted essentially for where their medical school was located and having a large ag school. The other hasn’t even sniffed an invitation to the club.
LikeLike
Texas A&M has a large ag school and doesn’t have a medical school and they are a member of the club and are in no danger of being kicked out. Quite a few members have big ag schools. Nebraska was simply the lowest ranked member of their club on the broad range of things they consider important. And their President Pearlman took a confrontational approach making the same type of comments you are making.
LikeLike
UNL also doesn’t have the benefit of a PUF.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/06/20/college-football-playoff-selection-committee-tiebreaker-document/11070745/
“Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar,” the document reads. Those were proposed to differentiate between “teams with similar records and similar pedigree.”
Those also are three of the criteria the College Football Playoff Management committee, a group of commissioners from Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and Notre Dame athletics director Jack Swarbrick, outlined in the document titled “How to select the best four teams”. The final criterion listed is “Comparative outcomes of common opponents”, but without factoring in margin of victory.
“The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned,” the document reads, “with the ideals of the commissioners, Presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.”
LikeLike
I already can hear ESecPN starting preseason coverage pronouncing that being top two, perhaps three in the SEC places you “unequivocally” in the top four.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24593313/how-kentucky-almost-became-a-member-of-the-acc
Kentucky discussed becoming an ACC member in the ’90s
LikeLike
Surprised there is little discussion of the trial in Oakland where the NCAA is in grave danger of needing to share the riches with the players. The Big 10 Commish said paying the players would end the Rose Bowl, and the conference would split as some schools will pay and others will not. Many questions:
Would anyone not pay if the players get a cut? Does NW drop out and get replaced? If one leaves, can they sell their share of the Big 10 TV deal? If the conference decides it won’t pay, does OSU leave within 1 day or 2? How long can Michigan and Penn State not pay if Notre Dame pays $100k a year and they offer nothing? Does anybody watch a Wisconsin team with non-paid players or do they turn into present day Wisconsin-Whitewater? Do the leech sports all die once they can’t steal from basketball and football? Is the BTN worthless if the SEC pays and the Big 10 doesn’t? Do conferences return to geographically compact units if all the schools are essentially D3? Will there be riots of old white guys in the Midwest? OSU to the SEC?
The NCAA is dying in Oakland this week. I see no path for the NCAA to win on appeal – the country has changed and the NCAA has remained the same.
LikeLike
Mark,
I think there are many different thoughts on this subject, and it has the potential to devolve into really contentious banter (think of Andy going back and forth with people over Mizzou to the power of 10). To be fair, this is a complex and a multi-layered issue that touches on race, class, organizations, human networks, tv networks, administration and money made off the backs of students.
I don’t believe the current system is fair at all, but I’m not sure paying students is the best way to resolve this. I also happen to believe that universities are the worst run organizations in the country right now, and with better management, perhaps some of these issues can be truly addressed. Then, perhaps not. I do know that putting your head in the sand (NCAA) won’t solve or address anything.
I am surprised there aren’t more comments on this. If you follow Andy Staples or Mark Schlabach on Twitter, they have been live tweeting the trial, with great commentary.
I hope some of the posters jump in on this topic because I am curious to read their thoughts…
BuckeyeBeau, BoilerTex, Wainscot, Bullet, ccrider55, Brian, PSUHockey, Marc Shepard, Transic, Greg, Frug and Andy; what are your thoughts?
LikeLike
I think (hope?) the O’Bannon trial will result in my preferred outcome: Players can receive compensation for their likeness, aka the Olympic model.
Solves the issue of allowing players to be paid for their likeness, while avoiding title 9 issues and keeping most of the current system in place.
LikeLike
Enter Phil Knight and your highest compensated for their image HS players going to Oregon.
The Olympic “model” is not a competitive one. There is only one Team USA. It is the antithesis of the goal of the NCAA.
LikeLike
“Enter Phil Knight and your highest compensated for their image HS players going to Oregon.”
Big woop. So they’ll go to Oregon instead of USC or Alabama or OSU. Wait, they’ll still go to those schools. The rich remain rich, film at 11.
“The Olympic “model” is not a competitive one. There is only one Team USA. It is the antithesis of the goal of the NCAA.”
The goal of the NCAA is to make money, so I guess its against their goal. The goal of the IOC and USOC is to make money, too.
LikeLike
And what is likeness?
Video games?
Autographs?
Posters?
Jerseys with name on it?
Jerseys with your number?
TV?
And are individuals negotiating this or groups?
Who gets the money-only football team for football related and only basketball team for basketball related? Do they get a cut of sales of school merchandise?
LikeLike
And there’s also:
advertisements
equipment endorsements such as shoe contracts
LikeLike
“And are individuals negotiating this or groups?”
Some of both. Similar to the Olympics. The USOC signs a clothing deal for all athletes, yet individual athletes have endorsement deals.
“Video games?
Autographs?
Posters?
Jerseys with name on it?
Jerseys with your number?
TV?”
Yes.
“Who gets the money-only football team for football related and only basketball team for basketball related? Do they get a cut of sales of school merchandise?”
All players on all teams can accept endorsement deals. If a womens tennis team has a super star, she’ll get paid.
LikeLike
greg,
“The goal of the NCAA is to make money, so I guess its against their goal.”
I don’t understand this argument. The NCAA is a non-profit. It has large revenues from the NCAA tourney, but it turns around and spends that money on hosting championships for a lot of sports at all levels, student aid, etc. It even has to pay the D-I schools for the right to collect that tourney revenue.
LikeLike
“I don’t understand this argument.”
That is unsurprising.
NFL is also a non-profit. The non-profit designation is a tax dodge and nothing else.
LikeLike
“NFL is also a non-profit. The non-profit designation is a tax dodge and nothing else.”
Only one small (by comparison) part of the entire organization, and certainly not the teams.
This is part of why the U Az pres threw a fit at admitting GCU.
LikeLike
greg,
“That is unsurprising.”
That’s true, I rarely understand nonsensical arguments.
LikeLike
Unless Congress decides to step into the fray.
LikeLike
The reports of the NCAA’s death are exaggerated. Sportswriters are not lawyers. There are a lot of different paths this could take. And the most likely one is that the loser appeals all the way to the Supreme Court and it takes a while to resolve.
LikeLike
They could appeal, but I am not sure why the Supreme Court would feel compelled to take the case at all.
LikeLike
It does have the potential, depending on the prior ruling, to dwarf the importance of the NCAA v Board of Regents. I suspect they would want to reaffirm their stance freeing the schools and conferences to decide what to do with their media rights, and in which they stated support for the NCAA and the rules of amateurism.
LikeLike
There are a number of significant issues in the case. The basic argument is that the NCAA is conspiring to deprive individuals of their rights. That’s the type of issue that interests the Supreme Court. When does that line get crossed? And of course, there’s potentially a major financial impact on over 1000 universities around the country.
LikeLike
I am not sure why the Supreme Court would feel compelled to take the case at all.
One reason is that a victory by O’Bannon, should the Court of Appeals affirm it, would be binding only in the Ninth Circuit (which covers California and a few other western states). Since the NCAA is a national organization, it makes sense to resolve the issue on a national level.
LikeLike
This is from Time Warner Cable’s latest legal notice: http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/about-us/legal/regulatory-notices/programming-legal-notices/nyc-brooklyn-queens-manhattan-mount-vernon.html
On or about August 1, 2014 we will launch Big Ten Network on ch. 382 and Mundo Fox on chs. 807 and 1229. Big Ten Network will be part of our Variety Pass and Sports Pass service offering and Mundo Fox will be part of our Standard TV service offering. Also on that date, Big Ten Network HD will be offered as part of our Variety Pass service offering.
LikeLike
Are you Penn State guys hearing anything about LSU’s Joe Alleva as a candidate for the Lion’s AD job?
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/9515714-123/lsus-joe-alleva-very-happy
LikeLike
It’s beautiful. The B1G (i.e. Jim Delany) strikes a blow against the NCAA and for putting the student back in student-athlete and amateur back in amateur sports. This will teach the other conferences to block our academic-minded reforms.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11114473/big-10-jim-delany-hurts-ncaa-case-testimony
LikeLike
Athlon Sports has polled league experts to rank the Big Ten stadiums for 2014.
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-big-ten-stadiums-2014-experts-poll
This is their list:
1. Ohio Stadium
2. Memorial Stadium (Nebraska)
3. Camp Randall Stadium
4. Beaver Stadium
5. Michigan Stadium
6. Kinnick Stadium
7. Spartans Stadium
8. TCF Bank Stadium
9. Memorial Stadium (Illinois)
10. Byrd Stadium
11. Ryan Field
12. High Point Solutions Stadium
13. Memorial Stadium (Indiana)
14. Ross-Ade Stadium
LikeLike
The upgrade to Ohio Stadium of a few years ago was brilliantly conceived and executed. It cost $200M or so and only added around 10,000 seats (because of the luxury boxes installed), but they solved all of the environmental issues (1920’s latrines, few concessions, no elevator, antique press box, etc, etc). They also preserved the Roman Coliseum motifs. It is well-deserving of its top ranking just as the embarrassment known as Ross-Ade Stadium is deserving of its cellar rank. Why Purdue, a pre-eminent engineering school (where I got my graduate degrees) cannot get its act together on the playing field is beyond all understanding. I remember the brilliance of Bob Griese (I’m that old). Truly FUBAR and SNAFU.
LikeLike
Never been to Ross-Ade. It doesn’t look terrible on TV. Other than empty seats what are the big negatives about the stadium?
Not sure I agree that Spartans stadium should be ahead of TCF. The upper decks of Spartan stadium are terrible. Absolutely no concourses and much of the rest of the stadium has been unattended.
I think 2 through 5 could possibly fit any order.
LikeLike
There have been discussions of adding an upper tier to the Big House on both end zones at various points in the past. I think it would improve the stadium experience, especially if they widened seating in the lower bowl as a result…could possibly help with sound as well.
LikeLike
Michigan officials have said that they’ll do whatever it takes to ensure Michigan Stadium remains the biggest house in the country.
But you won’t see additional expansion unless they are forced into it. Michigan’s season ticket sales are way down: they’ve practically had to beg people to buy season tickets. Steeply increased prices, a variety of fan-unfriendly policies, poor home scheduling, improving TV coverage, and a decade without a Big Ten championship, have finally taken their toll. The string of consecutive 100,000+ crowds could even be at risk.
Unless they have to expand to keep up with the Joneses, I think you’ve seen the last Michigan Stadium expansion for quite a while.
LikeLike
What about expanding with luxury boxes in the end zones?
LikeLike
What about expanding with luxury boxes in the end zones?
Even the existing boxes weren’t gobbled up like hotcakes. Additional boxes with a worse view would probably not be immediately popular, and the construction would be quite expensive. I think Michigan has to generate more demand for the seats they have before building new ones.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24592329/new-faces-new-places-why-did-buzz-williams-leave-marquette-for-vtu
Speculation as to why Buzz Williams would jump from a program like Marquette to one that hasn’t taken a team to the big dance for 18 years in Virginia Tech.
LikeLike
CWS Finals are set. Vandy v Virginia.
Vandy goes for its first ever men’s national championship in any sport. Virginia tries to break the ACC’s 60 CWS championship drought.
LikeLike
Tough loss for UT. At least they made it to the semis, bullet.
LikeLike
Really tough to lose on a slow grounder to short.
Both teams didn’t play good defense (although nothing could be done on that play-it just bounced rreeeaaaalll slow).
I think that home run that won UT’s game 1-0 over UC-Irvine was the only home run of the series. It was the only HR to that point.
LikeLike
We’ll see if the tighter ball increases the HR numbers overall next year. Other than having an extended period with an unusual wind direction I doubt the CWS numbers go up significantly.
LikeLike
How stable is the Big XII? Not now but when their Grant-of-Rights expires in ’26 or ’27? Dormant, active or volcanic ash & lava flying out of its crater?
LikeLike
It expires in 2025, IIRC.
It’s impossible to say without knowing the financial landscape at that time. How do all the law suits against the NCAA change things? How much is each conference making by then? What changes has the CFP brought to the landscape?
In general, the B12 is as stable as UT wants it to be.
LikeLike
The LSU game at Texas A&M on Thanksgiving has been scheduled for 6:30 pm CST on ESPN directly against the TCU/Texas game on FS1. I’m sure the Seattle at San Francisco game (7:30pm CST) on NBC will win the evening, but it will be interesting to see if A&M versus the flagship of a neighboring state beats out UTx and another P5 in-state school in the state of Texas.
LikeLike
Unless either LSU and A&M have lousy years, ESPN probably wins easily over FS1 nationally. If it was Fox vs. CBS, that would be a different story.
I was just thinking of FS1 based on a lawsuit that may have an impact on conference networks and networks like FS1 and ESPNU. Cablevision is suing Viacom over their bundling practices. The effort to throw out the lawsuit was denied.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/cablevision-bid-to-end-viacoms-forced-channel-bundling-survives-challenge/
LikeLike
How long ’til someone sues because they don’t want to pay for the full channel lineup of a single channel? It’s just another form of bundling programs/programming.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24595262/usc-bucks-trend-will-now-offer-four-year-scholarships
USC is stepping up and will give 4 year scholarships for CFB and both hoops teams (their 3 revenue producing teams). I hope more schools follow suit.
LikeLike
But why not their other sports?
LikeLike
It may have to do with them being partial scholarship sports. Or maybe they already do in the other sports. I don’t know.
LikeLike
Those three are half of the headcount sports. WGym, WVB and WTennis are the others.
http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html
LikeLike
Brian,
Thanks for sharing… I think that is great news for students, and long overdue…
LikeLike
I applaud USC, but the Big Ten has already been leading the charge on this issue for years. Some articles are making this some watershed type of moment. The last article I read said 9 of the 12 schools (Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota not mentioned) were offering multi-year scholarships.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/44807/b1g-schools-offering-4-year-scholarships
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2012/01/big_ten_offering_recruits_secu.html
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24595183/photo-a-reminder-that-rutgers-is-joining-the-b1g
RU advertising in Time Square.
LikeLike
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2014/06/23/kentucky-announces-million-marketing-deal/11257257/
UK signs a 15 year, $210M marketing deal.
The deal includes: rights to UK football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball and baseball games; stadium and arena corporate signage and game programs for all home events other than at Rupp Arena; naming rights to university athletics facilities and premium areas; sponsorship on UKathletics.com; game sponsorship and promotions; coaches endorsements; pregame and postgame television shows and specials and postseason highlight DVDS and video features on video boards other than at Rupp.
The announcement also noted that JMI deal includes the potential, “at the university’s discretion, to market campus multimedia rights, creating the potential for an integrated approach to multimedia rights and marketing – something few universities are doing.”
LikeLike
World Cup ratings on ESPN are taking other non-football sports to the woodshed:
LikeLike
Taking a bite out of the competition, you might say.
LikeLike
Not one. Not two. Not three…err, umm…two, just two…
LikeLike
He could easily still return. Opting out gives them the freedom to restructure his deal in a way that helps them get better bench players.
LikeLike
It can definitely be said the judge in the O’Bannon case doesn’t have a bias, but she is clearly unqualified to be making these decisions when she doesn’t understand many basic things about college sports.
“Trying to help the judge after Banowsky explained both the FBS and the BCS, Rosenthal volunteered: “There’s a new acronym, CFP, the College Football Playoffs.”
“Just what we need,” the judge said, clearly exasperated and shaking her head in dismay.
It was not the first time the basics of college sports have thrown the judge. She tried to sort out conference realignment during the trial’s first week and abandoned the query when it quickly became mired in detail. And she was incredulous when she learned that committees, not the NCAA or the conferences, were in charge of bowl games.”
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11125524/ncaa-setup-baffles-ed-obannon-antitrust-trial-judge
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter who wins here. It’s just the preliminary round of a long game.
LikeLike
Assuming the students win and get a share in the sale of paraphernalia, how will the money be distributed? For example, at tOSU both Griffin and Katzenmoyer wore no. 45 (now retired, thankfully), and it is still a very popular jersey on campus. So, who gets the money? Griffin, who would likely give it to tOSU, or Katzenmoyer, who in not well-liked in Columbus despite his stellar college career? Or do they share. Do they share equally. Or does the player’s name have to be on the jersey.
This situation is even worse for jersey numbers that have been in use for decades and that have had multiple players assigned them.
By the way, jerseys are often sold without a players’ name attached because that reduces costs.
LikeLike
“This situation is even worse for jersey numbers that have been in use for decades and that have had multiple players assigned them.”
Other than numbers retired after first use, every one has had multiple wearers. The player wears a number, he isn’t the number.
LikeLike
“The player wears a number, he isn’t the number.”
But that’s his point–if multiple players have equal claim to a number–who gets the royalties for the sale of a #3 Notre Dame football jersey? Joe Montana? Ron Powlus? Rick Mirer?
Michigan unretired its numbers over the last few years. Would the estate of Gerald Ford be entitled to royalties now? Devin Gardner wore Mark Harmon’s number–should his actor son Mark Harmon get some royalties for jersey sales? Should all of the former players who had retired numbers get royalties for the sale of the commemorative patches now on the jerseys of present wearers of those numbers?
Fortunately, these questions aren’t relevant to the O’Bannon case, as the Judge dismissed the claims seeking damages for past harms. All that would be impacted would be the future (injunctive relief, prohibiting the offending conduct in the future). Now, for programs who don’t put names on jerseys, that could create these headaches in the future, but it will not be as difficult as having to backtrack x number of years, too.
LikeLike
“But that’s his point–if multiple players have equal claim to a number…”
That equal claim is zero, zip, nada, etc.Tthe team the jersey represents lends value, and the historical success of that team increases it. The number is simply a required identifier for positions. It can also identify players for the fans, but players can and do change them for various reasons.
LikeLike
If that’s true, then why are only certain jerseys with specific numbers marketed and sold each year?
Oh, its because the number signifying the player drives jersey purchases, as opposed to other forms of non-player apparel (t-shirts, etc…).
LikeLike
I can purchase jerseys of many different numbers. Nike, Addidas, etc decide how many of each to produce, and they are the primary financial beneficiary.
LikeLike
How much do numbers redirect sales instead of increasing them?
Now if you have a name, maybe it drives new sales. But numbers?
LikeLike
Jerseys are sold with certain numbers on them, and those numbers offered for sale can, and do, change season to season. That’s not an accident, but rather an intentional attempt to capitalize on the particular player wearing it in that season. You can dispute this all you want, but it won’t change it from being true. For example, there are many Michigan #16 jerseys for sale on the internet–without a name on it. Can you find me a non-customized #15 jersey for sale? #61? No, because they don’t correspond to marketable star players on teams in relevant seasons.
This is different from customization, which allows the purchaser to pick a name and number combo. I’m talking the mass-produced replica jerseys. The numbers are not random, not accidental. NWU didn’t happen to only offer one new number for this upcoming year for sale–#51–by picking it out of the blue, and UA didn’t randomly decide to make NWU #2 jerseys last year by selecting the number out of a hat (Kain Colter).
LikeLike
And Nike, Addidas, et al reap the financial benefit. The schools sell them the generic brand and primarily recieve publicity, notice, advertising, promotion of the school every time someone wears it.
Are we next going to expect every purchaser to get a (small) cut of the schools revenue since they are contributing to its increase?
LikeLike
“And Nike, Addidas, et al reap the financial benefit. The schools sell them the generic brand and primarily recieve publicity, notice, advertising, promotion of the school every time someone wears it.”
Jerseys are not sold to be generic, they are sold to link to a player with a number. T-shirts are generic. Not all forms of apparel are the same. That the maker makes money is unquestioned–but part of the money made is not because of the school, but because of the corresponding number on the jersey.
“Are we next going to expect every purchaser to get a (small) cut of the schools revenue since they are contributing to its increase?”
What?
LikeLike
But many people have other reasons for wanting a certain number. Maybe it was their number in high school. Maybe their favorite player years ago wore it. Maybe their favorite player in another sport wears it. Maybe it was the only one in their size. Or maybe it was just their favorite number (#1, #7, etc tend to sell well everywhere). At a top program, many great players may have worn that same number. Why should the current player get the money?
LikeLike
“But many people have other reasons for wanting a certain number. Maybe it was their number in high school. Maybe their favorite player years ago wore it. Maybe their favorite player in another sport wears it. Maybe it was the only one in their size. Or maybe it was just their favorite number (#1, #7, etc tend to sell well everywhere).”
To the extent you talk about jersey customization, that’s a different story. I’m talking about the fact that only a certain number of jerseys are produced to be sold each year, and they always correspond to the best/most marketable players on a team. To the extent you deal with intent, that’s true, but not relevant to the reasons specific number/jersey combinations are shipped to stores for sale.
“At a top program, many great players may have worn that same number. Why should the current player get the money?”
I raised that issue above. Its one of the reasons that backwards looking damages is unworkable in this case, and its one of the major issues affecting royalties for jersey sales in the future.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
says:
June 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm
“But many people have other reasons for wanting a certain number. Maybe it was their number in high school. Maybe their favorite player years ago wore it. Maybe their favorite player in another sport wears it. Maybe it was the only one in their size. Or maybe it was just their favorite number (#1, #7, etc tend to sell well everywhere).”
“To the extent you talk about jersey customization, that’s a different story.”
I’m not talking about customization.
“I’m talking about the fact that only a certain number of jerseys are produced to be sold each year, and they always correspond to the best/most marketable players on a team.”
1. That’s not true. Numbers of old great players are often available, too. Whether they current players is any good or not can be besides the point. They also tend to sell certain popular numbers all the time like #1.
2. The current player of that number may be good but that doesn’t mean that’s why the customer bought it. It may just be that the number they always wanted finally became available. Or they just wanted a jersey and don’t know which player they picked.
“I raised that issue above. Its one of the reasons that backwards looking damages is unworkable in this case, and its one of the major issues affecting royalties for jersey sales in the future.”
I’m talking going forward. No matter how great a current player is, sales of #45 OSU jerseys will be more for Archie Griffin than the current guy (Andy Katzenmoyer, for example). So why should the next #45 get the money instead of it going to Archie?
LikeLike
Assuming that a provable monetary value of various players, positions, etc. can be arrived at, you’d need to prove every sale was only made because of the player, for no other reason, and no sale would have occurred in his absence. And that the same sale would have occurred independent of a school or team association (put his name and number on a T shirt or plane jersey), regardless of school or of the TEAM’s success.
I capitalized “team” because that is what the visible players contributions to enable the player to gain notoriety. A team is indispensable for an individual player’s participation. The reverse is not true. Players are interchangeable/replaceable. There is only one team per school.
LikeLike
“1. That’s not true. Numbers of old great players are often available, too. Whether they current players is any good or not can be besides the point. They also tend to sell certain popular numbers all the time like #1″
That’s definitely true, and the only solution I can come up with is allow jerseys to be sold with names on the back. Those with no more eligibility could get money in regular installments (like an actor royalty check); those still in school could have royalties placed in a trust fund for them to get upon exhausting eligibility. A star player post-college could negotiate with the school for a greater share of royalties.
I used the example of UND #3–is it Montana? Mirer? UND #5–is it Paul Hourning? Mant’i Teo? I have no idea.
2. The current player of that number may be good but that doesn’t mean that’s why the customer bought it. It may just be that the number they always wanted finally became available. Or they just wanted a jersey and don’t know which player they picked.”
Customer intent doesn’t matter. Customers aren’t polled at the point of sale. That standard is not workable on a practical level.
“I’m talking going forward. No matter how great a current player is, sales of #45 OSU jerseys will be more for Archie Griffin than the current guy (Andy Katzenmoyer, for example). So why should the next #45 get the money instead of it going to Archie?”
That’s a legit issue, and I agree that there is no easy solution. See above for my off-the-cuff thoughts. But many schools have such number/player issues (USC #3, UND #3, UND #5, Alabama #12–is it Namath? Stabler? A more recent QB?), and in my book, without names, no one player has a better claim than another, regardless of recency.
LikeLike
Delany wants the Garden for B1G MBB 2018 Tourney; Coaches are not enthused:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-delany-20140624,0,2438565.column
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Delany wants the Garden for B1G MBB 2018 Tourney; Coaches are not enthused:”
I don’t blame them. The tournament would have to be a week early, meaning the season loses a week. That probably mean losing the weeks with only 1 game instead of 2.
Questions linger, but they should be answered soon: On June 3, Delany said he hoped to have an answer on the Madison Square Garden question in “a couple of weeks, not any shorter.”
LikeLike
Would be an interesting experiment, having the tourney a week early, when no other power conference is on the stage. Would generate tremendous week-long publicity (including promotional buildup). But the coaches have a legitimate gripe if that forces losing a week from the conference schedule (unless the conference sked starts a week early to compensate, but that’s far from ideal because of bowls and students being away from campus).
I suspect that Delany’s desire will win out, because: 1) Delany wins more than he loses within the conference; 2) coaches are generally opposed to things that get approved by administrators regardless (shift to 9 game sked); and 3) because it would be a one off event at MSG, not a permanent shift in conference scheduling.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/ryan-bowles-big-challenge-overseeing-marylands-transition-to-the-big-ten/2014/06/22/e74ef432-f644-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html
About UMD’s transition to the B10.
A ticketing task force wondered whether to charge fans to attend Olympic sports such as wrestling and volleyball, big deals in Big Ten country but lightly attended in College Park. Bowles chaired the football game day group, which recommended tailgating guides, postgame fireworks and the creation of a dedicated RV parking lot. …
Part of Maryland’s deal with the Big Ten included a travel stipend worth between $20 million and $30 million to alleviate the increased costs, though Bowles said the business and travel work group found that time spent on road trips wouldn’t deviate much, just the mode of transportation. A five-hour bus ride to North Carolina, for instance, becomes an hour-long drive to the airport, a three-hour flight and another hour in the bus to the team hotel.
LikeLike
Can’t imagine there will be many 3 hour flights. At least for the revenue sports that charter. The other sports will have added travel but the conference can help that through regional scheduling.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/06/24/big-ten-jim-delany-presidents-statement-ncaa-autonomy/11321741/
The COP/C speak out on improving things for student-athletes.
Here were the Big Ten’s priorities, as outlined in the statement:
* Providing four-year, guaranteed scholarships (the current NCAA athletic scholarship is for one year): “If a student-athlete is no longer able to compete, for whatever reason, there should be zero impact on our commitment as universities to deliver an undergraduate education. We want our students to graduate.”
* Lifetime educational opportunity: “If a student-athlete leaves for a pro career before graduating, the guarantee of a scholarship remains firm. Whether a professional career materializes, and regardless of its length, we will honor a student’s scholarship when his or her playing days are over.”
* Medical insurance: “We must … provide improved, consistent medical insurance for student-athletes. We have an obligation to protect their health and well-being in return for the physical demands placed upon them.”
* Full cost-of-attendance scholarships: “We must do whatever it takes to ensure that student-athlete scholarships cover the full cost of a college education, as defined by the federal government. That definition is intended to cover what it actually costs to attend college.”
LikeLike
All of these measures are, in effect, “paying the players more,” without calling the payments “salaries”. The argument now isn’t whether they’ll be paid, only about how much and the extent to which it’ll be regulated.
LikeLike
“The argument now…”
Very little has changed in the last fifty years regarding scholarships. What time frame do you consider “now” to encompass?
LikeLike
There are four bullets in the list above. I cannot remember a time when there was such a substantial expansion (or proposed expansion) of the value of a scholarship.
LikeLike
#1 and #4 were available in the past, but were restricted by the NCAA in the 60s or 70s.
Personally I see no need for #2. If they go pro, they should be able to afford to pay. Anyone else on scholarship doesn’t get an unlimited time to complete it.
#3 is already provided to a certain extent through on campus medical facilities while they are in school. So this is not a major expansion.
LikeLike
Yes. The history has been of increasing limitations and tighter controls. By increasing value/availability we aren’t really breaking new ground, but are in some respect returning to a prior time when the big schools could out spend the smaller (but in a prescribed fashion, rather than unregulated). I agree the scope is large, and seems reactive. However, how long has the hint/threat of a large school breakaway been an undercurrent? Many/most of these changes have been a part of those long term negotiations. This is (maybe?) the culmination of that process. Schools move slooowly when acting as a collective.
LikeLike
Delany and University presidents issue a smart, if late and incomplete, statement:
If the NCAA were led by someone with Delany’s common sense and skill, I have to believe some of the issues within college sports would have already been dealt with. Certainly most of the issues relating to Colter/NWU’s union push.
Not the O’Bannon trial, mind you, as all are opposed (though, I could see a ruling from the Judge creating a trust fund for each player that they obtain access to at the end of their college careers–if NIL payments are going to be in the future, this is the only way to give them to the players and maintain the image of amateurism).
LikeLike
They can each have x% of the profit…of a non profit entity.
What do they owe if the AD runs a deficit?
LikeLike
“They can each have x% of the profit…of a non profit entity.”
NIL is not profit sharing.
“What do they owe if the AD runs a deficit?”
Most AD’s run deficits as it is, if this makes deficits worse, then schools will have to figure it out. If a court mandates NIL payments, there’s no wiggle room for the schools.
LikeLike
What will happen if O’Bannon wins? The smaller Schools will drop Football, and even the Bigger Schools will drop Non-Revenue Men’s Sports (do not forget Title IX). A perfect example would be Penn State and Baseball. Not to mention FORGET growing College Hockey Programs and opening up more OPPORTUNITIES to kids. But that does NOT matter to Lawyers and O’Bannon.
LikeLike
Across the Big Ten, and in every major athletic conference, football and men’s basketball are the principal revenue sports. That money supports the men and women competing in all other sports. No one is demanding paychecks for our gymnasts or wrestlers. And yet it is those athletes – in swimming, track, lacrosse, and other so-called Olympic sports – who will suffer the most under a pay-to-play system.
The revenue creates more opportunities for more students to attend college and all that provides, and to improve the athletic experiences through improved facilities, coaching, training and support.
If universities are mandated to instead use those dollars to pay football and basketball players, it will be at the expense of all other teams. We would be forced to eliminate or reduce those programs. Paying only some athletes will create inequities that are intolerable and potentially illegal in the face of Title IX.
LikeLike
You are correct Brian. Except for one thing: It will be MEN’s sports that will be cut so the Schools can be Title IX compliant. @ Penn State it will be keeping the MEN’s Teams in. 1: Football. 2: Basketball. 3: Hockey. 4: Volleyball. 5: Wrestling. 6: Fencing. 7: Lacrosse. The rest? Don’t let the door hit you on the way out (soccer included).
LikeLike
Depends on how this comes about. If it’s simply preventing the athletes from receiving benefits rather than forcing the schools to pay more themselves, the costs to the schools themselves might not go up at all. Granted, if athletes can receive benefits from 3rd parties, that will effect donations schools received (with many instead be going directly to athletes), but it probably would not effect TV/ticket revenue at all, at least over the short term.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, I was quoting the statement by the COP/C.
LikeLike
At what point, assuming that O’Bannon, Kessler, et al, get their way, would academics at the more prestigious universities start saying “Enough is enough” and start campaigning to “take back their schools” from the athletics people? If CFB and MBB become essentially minor league football and basketball one could argue that the academic reputations of even the big-boy schools take a hit. Today, these academics tolerate (even if not enthusiastically) big-boy football and basketball thinking that the physics and math departments’ reputations don’t really suffer unless there is a causal relationship between the demands of athletics and cutbacks in the classroom. But a win by Kessler, et al, could well change that dynamic way too much in favor of big-boy athletics. That’s when I could see a backlash coming.
What was that line from Shakespeare again…
LikeLike
Transic,
“At what point, assuming that O’Bannon, Kessler, et al, get their way, would academics at the more prestigious universities start saying “Enough is enough” and start campaigning to “take back their schools” from the athletics people?”
Academics have always been campaigning for that, especially at schools that have to subsidize sports.
“If CFB and MBB become essentially minor league football and basketball one could argue that the academic reputations of even the big-boy schools take a hit. Today, these academics tolerate (even if not enthusiastically) big-boy football and basketball thinking that the physics and math departments’ reputations don’t really suffer unless there is a causal relationship between the demands of athletics and cutbacks in the classroom. But a win by Kessler, et al, could well change that dynamic way too much in favor of big-boy athletics. That’s when I could see a backlash coming.”
Schools are stuck now. They have so much invested in the sports infrastructure that they can’t really afford not to use it. What do you do with a 100,000 seat stadium except play sports and hold graduation? You still have to pay maintenance (or demolition, I suppose) costs and pay off construction/renovation debt. Where would the revenue for that come from? When your school loses 20% of it’s student body to schools that do play sports, how does the budget work?
LikeLike
I believe Cal St Fullerton abandoned FB the year after (’93) finally building an on campus facility ((’92). Granted, it is small and is used by soccer teams and apparently by UCLA to practice FB sometimes, but the cost of the FB program, even at a D2 or 3 was too high. But they do have one of the nicer soccer stadiums in Cali….
Stadium cost may not match the financial, and the alluded to reputation cost. I don’t think it likely, ever, but many pro and college stadiums of all sports are only partially full a significant amount of the time. I don’t think stadium costs would be the decider. Influential? Yes, but not the endgame.
LikeLike
Amos Alonzo Stagg Memorial Stadium (about 30k capacity) is now the home of soccer at Univ. of Pacific.
LikeLike
Precisely. tOSU spent over $200M to upgrade Ohio Stadium and another $200M to build the Shott plus the baseball field etc. Probably around $500M total. That debt has to be paid, so tOSU is stuck with big boy football and basketball for a generation. They will have to eat whatever the courts come up with.
But Michigan is a warning. Will the fans come and fill the seats. If not, big boy athletics has a real economic crisis.
LikeLike
Indiana loses their baseball coach.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/college/tracy-smith-leaves-indiana-arizona-state/
LikeLike
In a ruling that potentially could have significantly impacted college sports and definitely impacted broadcasters and cable companies, Aereo lost in the Supreme Court, 6-3.
http://www.nbcnews.com/us-news/u-s-supreme-court-pulls-plug-aereos-streaming-tv-service-n1404486
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/102817/analyzing-past-teams-conference-moves
How teams have done when moving into a major conference lately (other than NE).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/11128382/kirk-ferentz-iowa-hawkeyes-take-moneyball-approach-recruiting
The Hawkeyes are the Oakland A’s of CFB.
LikeLike
Everybody talks about Texas A&M’s improving its recruiting by virtue of being in the SEC, doing so at the expense of the Longhorns. I wonder what Missouri being in the SEC has done/will do to St.Louis area talent’s receptiveness to western Big Ten schools over time.
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
it may take three of four more years, but mizzou being in the sec will affect recruiting in minny, wiscy, ill, in and neb. and eventually, mich and ohio as well. kids can play in the sec (currently recognized as the best) w/o living/going to school in traditional sec territory (which could be a challenge). this could be pretty enticing, especially if you are a d lineman or a skilled position player. i hope that i am wrong, i really do, but i am worried about this in the future.
LikeLike
Missouri is focusing on Georgia and Florida.
LikeLike
Then again, kids from Ohio, Indiana, PA, and IL had the option for decades to play in the SEC relatively close to home at Kentucky, and few seemed interested in such an option–and the SEC’s dominance has not changed that, even in the last 2 recruiting classes (still under the new coach halo at UK).
Let Mizzou keep its recent success going for a bit longer first. And besides, as noted by others, Mizzou is now focused on recruiting Florida.
LikeLike
Mizzou recruits Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois as well.
LikeLike
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-technology-allows-disabled-man-to-move-paralized-hand/
The cyborgs are coming!!!
LikeLike
Concussions and football-the other kind:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2014/06/25/headers-soccer-brain-concussions-safety-groups/11349261/
Brandi Chastain won’t allow her kids to do it.
LikeLike
So we buy new and improved helmets for football and give the old ones to the soccer team. Problem solved.
LikeLike
Bring the discussion back to the actual topic:
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11134857/big-ten-network-comcast-agree-cable-deal-maryland-new-jersey
Big Ten Network president Mark Silverman and Big Ten president Jim Delany confirmed the Comcast deal to ESPN.com on Wednesday. BTN announced similar agreements with both Time Warner Cable and Cablevision in May, so the Comcast pact means the network will be available on the three major cable distributors servicing the New York and Washington D.C. markets.
“It indicates that the Eastern initiative is moving forward in the direction we hoped it would,” Delany said, “and that it means that Big Ten fans and college sports fans will be able to access 24/7 BTN on basic or digital basic carriage. Our goal was to achieve distribution in New York and D.C., Maryland and New Jersey.
…
BTN’s distribution will slightly vary from state to state, but it will be available to many more Comcast customers rather than appearing strictly on a separate sports tier. Although launch dates aren’t finalized, Silverman said all three cable distribution agreements will go into effect before the football season starts in late August.
…
Silverman didn’t expect all three agreements to be finalized before July 4, and said BTN now can focus on providing original programming for its new audience of Rutgers and Maryland fans, as well as other Big Ten alumni living in New Jersey, Maryland, New York and Washington D.C.
Silverman will try to get distribution deals with smaller cable carriers in the next few minutes.
I assume he meant the next few months.
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/06/big_ten_network_has_distribution_deals_with_the_three_major_local_cable_providers.html
Another tidbit:
Big Ten Network president Mark Silverman announced on Wednesday afternoon that the network has reached deals with the three biggest cable providers in the New York/New Jersey television market.
Silverman told NJ.com last month he had secured deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision. During a luncheon with local reporters on Wednesday, Silverman announced that the BTN has struck a deal with Comcast, the cable provider to a large portion of New Jersey.
Silverman said the BTN has reached similar distribution agreements in Maryland. The network will now reach 60 million homes, up from 52 million last year.
The network will be available on expanded basic cable, which is in line with how the BTN is carried in other Big Ten states. Previously, the BTN had been part of a sports tier. Silverman expects the changes to take effect by late August.
“It is a nice accomplishment for us,” Silverman said. “Our distribution team has done a fantastic job getting that done, and now we have to go make sure those people actually want to watch the network.”
Silverman did not divulge the financial terms of the agreements, but he said the network is receiving rates comparable to deals in other markets.
8M more homes at a “comparable” rate to the rest of the footprint:
8M * $1/month = $96M per year = $48M per year per new addition
LikeLike
VANDY WINS!
First men’s national championship ever.
LikeLike
Since 1990, 10 CWS titles and 7 runners-up for the SEC.
LikeLike
Impressive!
LikeLike
Since 2008, SEC team has been in the final 2 every year. 4 winners, 4 runnerups in 7 years. Vandy, S. Carolina-2, LSU have won. Georgia, Florida, MS St. and S. Carolina have been runnerups. 6 out of their 14 schools.
Prior to the baseball SEC run, Oregon St. won 2 in a row over UNC. That was the first non-Sun Belt school to win since Wichita St. beat Texas in 1989 (if you count OU in 1994 as Sun Belt). From 1967-1988, every winner was from California, Arizona, Texas (UT-2) or Florida (Miami-2).
LikeLike
In another similarity to football, Texas also won baseball in 2005 following a California school in 2004.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, the ACC drought is up to 60 years.
LikeLike
Brian – Here’s a summary of each P5 conference and their history at the CWS in the ESPN-TV era (1980-present).
P5 as constituted for the 2014-15 year.
SEC: 67 appearances, 12 different teams, 7 runners-up, 10 CWS titles
ACC: 61 appearances, 9 different teams, 7 runners-up, 4 CWS titles*
P-12: 47 appearances, 7 different teams, 6 runners-up, 10 CWS titles
B-12: 37 appearances, 7 different teams, 8 runners-up, 4 CWS titles
B1G: 8 appearances, 3 different teams
Counting only conference membership at the time of the individual team’s appearances.
SEC: 58 appearances, 11 different teams, 7 runners-up, 10 CWS titles (A&M, Ark & USCe all made 3 CWS appearances each before they joined the SEC but after 1980)
P-12: no change from above
ACC: 36 appearances, 7 different teams, 5 runners-up, 0 CWS titles (Louisville and Notre Dame haven’t appeared in the CWS as ACC members, while Miami and FSU made multiple appearances prior to joining the ACC and all of Miami’s CWS titles were won prior to joining the ACC)
B-12, SWC, Big 8 all lumped together: 46 appearances, 10 different teams, 8 runners-up, 4 CWS titles (Ark, A&M, and Nebraska all made 3 CWS appearances each as members of either the B-12, SWC, or Big 8 after 1980)
B1G: 5 appearances, 2 teams
Duff & ‘shroom – I sorry you lost your baseball coach.
LikeLike
Where do you get your figures? Pac12 has won 17 National championships in baseball. The real USC has 12 by themselves.
LikeLike
Here’s a great read from the New Orleans Times Picayune’s Ron Higgins on how the SEC baseball juggernaut was built over the last 35 years.
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2014/06/skip_bertman_and_ron_polk_shou.html#incart_river
LikeLike
My first live college sports event was a Kentucky baseball game vs. LSU in Lexington in the late 60s. My Mother worked at UK and I went with her one Saturday and walked over to the ballpark. The Little League park in our neighborhood in Houston was a better facility. UK just had a few bleachers, some screens, a couple of dugouts, and a small concession hut.
LikeLike
Final standings for the Directors’ Cup.
Click to access june26stand.pdf
1. Stanford
2. Florida
3. Notre Dame
4. Virginia
5. Penn State
LikeLike
Dave – my first sentence said “in the ESPN-TV era (1980-present).”
LikeLike
PSU wrestler David Taylor named B1G male athlete of the year.
http://www.intermatwrestle.com/articles/13302
LikeLike
A home and home series between Georgia and Notre Dame was announced yesterday.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11134777/notre-dame-fighting-irish-georgia-bulldogs-meet-2017-2019
LikeLike
@ Frank
As you noted, TAMU folks reminding you about your incorrect predictions about them. With Kentucky’s new 210 Million media deal – which will be paying for new Baseball, Softball, and Track & Field facilities and a current Directors Cup standing nearing the Top 10 I might remind you of early suggestions about UK. Their endowment is now in the Billion Dollar Club and with a rapidly growing medical complex and movement to become research intensive they are moving up quickly all around. http://www.research.uky.edu/vpresearch/ukrf/2013/treasurer_report.pdf
I will however say you were correct about Cincinnati. The day they went to state school status may have killed them as a B1G future school. Of all the potential Big 5 schools, they are the ones most headed in the opposite direction. Still think the Big 12 should have added them and Louisville when they had the chance. Cards will prosper in the ACC while the Bearcats and Big 12 seem to continue to struggle for long term survival.
@ Alan
CWS was a battle of top academic schools. Not something you often see in the top NCAA team sports.
LikeLike
Duff – here’s a take on Vandy’s CWS title from AL.com.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/06/knock_me_over_with_an_anchor_v.html#incart_river
If LSU can’t win the CWS, and it obviously wasn’t our year, I’m glad the smart kids from Vandy won. Now the rest of the rest of the SEC can finally show the Commodores the secret handshake, but they still have to do our homework.
LikeLike
Just found out two former Maryland soccer guys on the US National Soccer Team: Gonzalez (Omar) and Zusi. Sasho is doing a great job coaching these guys up.
LikeLike
Interesting take on all this from Ray Patterson, UT AD:
http://bleacherreport.com/tb/ddmYG?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=college-football
One of his quotes in the article:
■ College athletes marketing their own rights: “We’re spending all of this time talking about one-half of 1 percent of our student athletes [who have the power to market their likeness]. Not the 99.5 percent of student athletes who are supported by these programs. What we’re giving our student athletes, in terms of academic, athletic, financial aid, support for room and board, training, mentoring, student services, tutoring, is more than the average household income. And for some of our teams, it’s pushing into $70,000 a year per student athlete, and pushes into the top third of household incomes. Tell me one guy whose likeness is worth more than the average household income. … There was one guy last year. [Patterson holds his hands up and rubs his fingers together like Johnny Manziel.]
“It’s absolutely agents and trial lawyers that are the whole reason we’re talking about this. You’ve got guys like Jay Bilas out there making the claim that scholarships aren’t worth anything, and nobody says anything to discredit that. … So who is saying with any rationality or any fact that student athletes on a full ride aren’t getting something? They’re just flat-out wrong and they’re liars. And they’re doing the bidding of agents and trial lawyers. The longer everybody waddles around acting like it’s not about agents and trial lawyers, the more silliness we’re going to have out there.”
LikeLike
Small correction-Steve Patterson. Ray was his dad who was long time GM of the Houston Rockets.
LikeLike
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140626/us-census-getting-younger-1aab6c3018.html
Some good demographic news for the north for a change.
LikeLike
More good news for the north.
LikeLike
Man, SEC county is really dependent on its cities/metro areas for growth.
LikeLike
Well, the non-B!G parts of the north/plains, anyways.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24598262/ncaa-supreme-court-ruling-felt-at-obannon-trial-30-years-later
How NCAA v Oklahoma Board of Regents has led to today and how it may impact the O’Bannon trial.
LikeLike
““When Mike and I were together and got that call from (ESPN president) John Skipper, ‘We don’t want to negotiate, we’ll give you the same deal as the Rose Bowl,’ we fell out of our chairs,” Neinas said. “Whoever expected a game that hadn’t been played would command the same rights fee as the Rose Bowl? It’s stunning to a degree.”
If they are willing to pay Rose money with no negotiation the Rose Bowl is being severely underpaid!
LikeLike
An NCAA expert brings up the obvious point – other college associations could pay players if that was what was stopping competition. Groups like the NAIA, the other NCAA (C for Christian), NJCAA, etc. The USFL was formed to challenge the NFL. Nothing is stopping a group of schools from competing with the NCAA by paying players.
LikeLike
A group could even secede from the NCAA. It’s a choice to be a member, or not.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/81558288/college-football-2014-players-under-pressure-jeff-driskel-michigan-offensive-line#!4rncQ
Players under the most pressure this season.
LikeLike
3 of the 10 are from B10 teams (MI OL, OSU CBs, RU QB).
LikeLike
http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup/story/1876190/united-states-0-1-germany-both-teams-advance-to-round-of-16
Beep … beep … beep …
That’s the US backing into the round of 16 in the World Cup thanks to Ghana losing to Portugal.
The Americas are well represented with Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Argentina and the US (8 of 16).
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/6/25/5843160/world-cup-flop-rankings-injury-time-math-science-ftw
World Cup flopping stats.
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27978699
Americans bought by far the most tickets outside of Brazil.
LikeLike
What do the per capita numbers look like? Would be a more revealing statistic, considering the U.S.A. is the world’s third most populous country…
LikeLike
Even had Ghana won by the score they lost by, the US would have advanced. That’s how big the 2-1 first game win turned out to be…and although beating Portugal would have releaved today’s stress, that tie also was a good result.
LikeLike
I know the math, but explaining it all wasn’t worth it. The point is that we backed in despite being completely over-matched against Germany. At least we didn’t lose by 4, right?
LikeLike
The Big East adding Florida and Vanderbilt in women’s lax
http://www.bigeast.com/sports/w-lacros/spec-rel/062614aaa.html
It wouldn’t be a bad conference for JHU women but they chose to go indy.
LikeLike
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/indiana/2014/06/27/iu-implements-bill-rights-athletes/11494425/
IU is moving ahead with student-athlete welfare reforms.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/06/nba_draft_2014_big_ten_has_bes.html
The B10 had it’s best NBA draft since 1990 with 5 1st round picks (all in top 21).
LikeLike
ESPN gets US tv rights to the CFL- all games on ESPN3, Grey Cup and 17 games on an actual ESPN channel.
http://cfl.ca/article/espn-cfl-reach-multi-year-us-broadcast-deal
LikeLike
Final standings for the Directors’ Cup.
Click to access june26stand.pdf
1. Stanford
2. Florida
3. Notre Dame
4. Virginia
5. Penn State
LikeLike
Directors’ Cup by P5 Conference.
P-12: 1 Stanford, 7 UCLA, 8 USC, 15 Oregon, 20 Cal, 26 Arizona, 27 Arizona State, 33 Washington, 39 Colorado, 72 Utah, 75 Oregon State, and 149 Washington State (50 spots lower than the next lowest P5 school).
SEC: 2 Florida, 10 Texas A&M, 11 Kentucky, 16 Georgia, 17 Alabama, 24 LSU, 28 Arkansas, 34 Auburn, 35 South Carolina, 40 Tennessee, 45 Vandy, 46 Mizzou, 52 Miss State, and 54 Ole Miss (the highest ranked of any conference’s last place team).
ACC: 3 Notre Dame, 4 Virginia, 9 Duke, 12 Florida State, 14 North Carolina, 32 Maryland, 37 VA Tech, 41 NC State, 53 Syracuse, 60 Clemson, 64 Miami, 65 BC, 70 Wake Forest, 85 Pitt, and 89 GA Tech.
B1G: 5 Penn State, 13 Michigan, 18 Wisconsin, 21 Minnesota, 23 Nebraska, 25 Ohio State, 29 Michigan State, 36 Indiana, 47 Illinois, 48 Purdue, 50 Northwestern, and 78 Iowa.
B-12: 6 Texas, 19 Oklahoma, 22 OK State, 31 Baylor, 38 Iowa State, 55 Kansas, 59 Texas Tech, 69 West Virginia, 77 TCU, and 99 K-State.
Highest G5 schools by conference:
American: 30 Louisville. Rutgers came in 5th in the American at #91 overall.
MWC: 51 New Mexico
MAC: 62 Kent State
Sunbelt: 83 Arkansas State
CUSA: 94 Tulsa
LikeLike
ND gets credited as an ACC member in FB?
LikeLike
cc – I don’t think the Irish received any points for football. Regardless, the official standings put Notre Dame in the ACC
LikeLike
Final fall standings show 24th FBS place for 50 FBS points for ND, (overall 8th place at that time).
Click to access Jan9DIRelease.pdf
LikeLike
Not a big deal, but I’d bet UVA would like to be credited with being the highest placing conference school, counting conference eligible points (assuming ND wouldn’t have scored 40.5 in a sport they didn’t count). ND is the higher placing school, just not the higher ACC school. At least to me that would make sense, but my sense has been questioned before…
LikeLike
and 149 Washington State (50 spots lower than the next lowest P5 school).
Would the PAC ever kick the Cougars out?
LikeLike
Only one team has ever been booted from a pseudo power conference, and they got back. So, no. And even if there was a history of such removals, certainly not just as WSU is beginning an era of increased revenue and is starting investments.
http://www.cougcenter.com/wsu-cougars-football/2014/6/4/5777766/wsu-new-football-operations-building-wow-factor
LikeLike
What team are you thinking about?
Pretty sure Idaho and Montana are no longer in the PAC and they were none to happy about it.
LikeLike
Montana left the PCC in 1950, long before it dissolved. The PCC to PAC transition took several years. 1958 was last PCC year and WSU did not play in the PAC until 1962. Idaho was the only 1958 PCC member that did not get back in, and they were not happy about it, but it was not like getting kicked out of an ongoing conference.
Houston, SMU, Rice, and TCU were also left behind when the SWC dissolved and the B12 was created, and none of those schools were happy. TCU is the only one of the 4 to get back in.
Other schools that quit power conferences (all before the big TV money) include Chicago (BIG); Tulane, Sewanee, and Georgia Tech (SEC). Of these only GT is now in the P5.
Entire conferences have been demoted from power status. The Ivy league was a power conference in the first half of the 20th century. The BE/AAC is a more recent fall from power conference ranks, but most of it football schools (including all founding members) moved to other power conferences by the time it got demoted.
LikeLike
Only Temple got booted from a conference. A number have not joined (or been invited to) where they might have liked following a dissolution, but no others were booted. PCC dissolved, the four CA schools and Washington formed the AAWU (Big 5). Those invited UO (Big 6), and then invited OrSU and WSU to form the PAC 8 within five years. These weren’t charity moves but value added invitations. If SMU hadn’t blown up the SWC perhaps we still have the Big 8 and Rice and Houston wouldn’t have been left out of that realignment/consolidation.
LikeLike
NYC Celebrates B1G
LikeLike
Did Regis think the Irish joined the B1G?
I did like the Big Apple add to the logo tho!
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/06/28/obannon-ncaa-trial-student-athlete-antitrust
I’m linking this because it’s the rare article that says the NCAA did something right in this case. It also mentions some murky legal ground exposed in the case and how that might help the NCAA. Overall the article seems reasonably balanced and easy to understand the legal points.
LikeLike
Interesting comment by the judge about limiting coaches salaries. NCAA already lost that case. But I guess they aren’t anxious to remind her about that. (They limited salaries to certain categories of assistant coaches-got sued and lost-and paid triple damages).
LikeLike
But it really indicates a pretty complete lack of understanding of economics by the judge. So she doesn’t understand sports or economics.
LikeLike
And seems to not care about Supreme Court opinion, shared by both majority and dissent in NCAA v Board of Regents, regarding “players must not be payed” for college athletics.
LikeLike
In fairness, that was basically an aside and not a fundamental part of their opinion.
Actual majority opinion relevant language:
This decision is not based on a lack of judicial experience with this type of arrangement, 21 on the fact that the NCAA is organized as a nonprofit entity, 22 or on [468 U.S. 85, 101] our respect for the NCAA’s historic role in the preservation and encouragement of intercollegiate amateur athletics
…
Petitioner argues that the interest in maintaining a competitive balance among amateur athletic teams is legitimate and important and that it justifies the regulations challenged in this case. We agree with the first part of the argument but not the second
…
It is reasonable to assume that most of the regulatory controls of the NCAA are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams and therefore procompetitive because they enhance public interest in intercollegiate athletics
…
and then the commonly cited one
The NCAA plays a critical role in the maintenance of a revered tradition of amateurism in college sports. There can be no question but that it needs ample latitude to play that role, or that the preservation of the student-athlete in higher education adds richness and diversity to intercollegiate athletics and is entirely consistent with the goals of the Sherman Act. But consistent with the Sherman Act, the role of the NCAA must be to preserve a tradition that might otherwise die; rules that restrict output are hardly consistent with this role.
The fundamental ruling was that the NCAA was acting in an anti-competitive manner. An aside that agrees with the NCAA’s general philosophy, but does so just on the face of it without justifying it from law, precedent, constitution or anything other than “we say so” doesn’t seem like an especially strong source of precedent on its own (though in fairness, I’m no lawyer so I could be wrong).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24598301/moments-that-caused-college-footballs-growth-since-1984
20 important moments in CFB history since 1984.
LikeLike
Nothing finalized yet, but according to the Miami Herald, it looks like LSU and Miami will open up the 2018 season at Cowboys Stadium.
“UM CHATTER
Though nothing is finalized, UM’s talks with Cowboys Stadium have progressed and all parties are working toward having the Hurricanes open the 2018 season against LSU in Arlington, Tx.
The game would be on a Saturday night and televised nationally.
UM has decided to focus on finalizing that game and has decided against playing Alabama in Atlanta to open the 2017 season.”
Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/sports-buzz/2014/06/dolphins-roster-battles-um-advances-talks-with-cowboys-stadium-um-adds-player-heat-chatter.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
Maryland set to enter ‘a new world’ in the Big Ten Conference
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-big-ten-0629-20140628,0,3241145,full.story
As of the middle this month, Maryland said it had sold 20,096 season tickets for football, a 25 percent increase from a year earlier. It also has commitments for 55 of its 63 luxury suites. The school says it is holding four suites open for single-game sales and is “in conversation” with prospective customers for the remaining four. Slow suite sales hurt the school financially in the years after their September 2009 opening.
Anticipating more fans, the school hopes to upgrade its game-day experience and wants to expand the parking lot for recreational vehicles, Bowles said.
Maryland is considering displaying the flags of all the Big Ten schools at Byrd Stadium, Bowles added, which the school hadn’t done with its ACC opponents. Maryland also is considering following the lead of most Big Ten schools by charging a fee to attend some so-called Olympic sports, such as volleyball and wrestling.
“We have not made any final decisions,” Bowles said.
LikeLike
@Transic
The moved sure hasn’t hurt MD recruiting in FB. We’re on a hot streak from all over the place. And I’m getting calls from Big Ten alums I haven’t seen in years to “borrow my tickets or take them to the game” for the MSU or Iowa game.
LikeLike
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-big-ten-jim-delany-0629-20140628,0,6574271,full.story
As if people needed reminding (but many outside of here would never get it):
Delany has taken heat from the media, as well as Big Ten fans, in recent years for flipflopping on several hot-button topics, among them expansion and college football playoff system. Initially he seemed to be against both, but eventually agreed to add teams and accept a four-team playoff that will go into effect for the 2014 season.
Earlier this year, Delany was criticized by fans when he announced that the Big Ten men’s basketball tournament would move out of the Midwest for the first time in 2017, when it will be played at Verizon Center in Washington.
Delany is clear that he is not doing or saying things just to get a splashy headline.
“We’re willing to change when it makes sense to change, not just for the sake of change,” he said.
If anything, it is simply Delany acting on the demands of the Big Ten presidents. Though he said he could have kept the athletic directors and coaches in the loop more when he added Penn State — something he tried to do a little better two years ago when Maryland and Rutgers were invited to join — Delany is clear that his marching orders come from those paying him his reported $1.8 million salary.
Delany said Friday he still “works for the presidents and with everybody else,” but he is quick to add that “I know that you can’t execute an idea without everybody having their fingerprint on it.” After a bumpy start to his tenure, Delany said the last “15 to 18 years” have been remarkably smooth.
“We’ve probably had as collaborative a governance operation as anybody in the country,” he said.
LikeLike
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140629_The_Pulse__Mystery_tip_that_broke_Sandusky_case.html
The interesting backstory to how Sandusky finally got busted. Apparently one victim who can describe the crime in detail wasn’t enough for the prosecutor in this case. It took an email of a rumor to get some action.
LikeLike
Yuck. Again the World Cup demonstrates the worst of soccer.
1. Flopping for penalties (like a foul in hoops earning 25 free throws).
2. Playing for 2 hours for each team to score only once.
3. Deciding the most important games by penalty kicks. The golden goal (sudden death) or even silver goal (leader halfway through an OT when they switch ends) were much better methods to decide a winner. I’d even take multiple OT (bronze goal) until there is a winner at the end of time.
LikeLike
1: what happened to the emphasis on red cards for flopping a few years ago? I don’t mind PK for a real foul, or that alters play. This isn’t the NBA! 😉
2: Is that on the game, or the team? Especially one a man up for an hour?
3: Agreed. I’d suggest removing a player for time past 30′ OT, and every 10 minutes thereafter. Perhaps PKs after 7 on 7 as you’ve kinda left soccer behind at that point.
Shoot out PKs aren’t going away. Been in for a long time, and does provide killer drama. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/brazil-soccer-fan-suffers-fatal-heart-attack-world-cup-match-article-1.1848542
TV lover close ups of individuals and emotion. Shoot out gives ten unhurried, dramatic opportunities.
LikeLike
…TV loves…
LikeLike
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28089487
The 30-year-old said he did not cheat to win a decisive injury-time penalty but told Dutch TV: “In the first half I took a dive.”
Netherlands officials have claimed his comments were misinterpreted.
Fifa, world football’s governing body, have confirmed no action will be taken – stating that no rules were broken.
A spokesperson told BBC Sport that the conditions of article 77, which give Fifa’s disciplinary committee responsibility for “sanctioning serious infringements which have escaped the match officials’ attention” and “rectifying obvious errors in the referee’s disciplinary decisions” are “not fulfilled” by the Robben situation.
They added: “Fifa strongly appeals to all World Cup participants to uphold the principles of fair play and we will continue to work with the match officials as part of their preparations and training to identify simulations and take appropriate measures during a match to discourage such behaviour.”
LikeLike
I agree with you on the PK’s. Killed the game with a skills competition. Cheapened the event.
LikeLike
Big Ten completing 14-team scheduling puzzle
http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/college/purdue/2014/06/30/big-ten-completing-14-team-scheduling-puzzle/11754977/
Question: With 14 schools and the Big Ten trying to play more conference games, how did the puzzle come together in each of the sports?
Answer: It was really challenging. When you announce expansion, everybody gets really excited about football and basketball because that’s what fans are used to following. We’ve had a little more time this time around than we did with Nebraska. That led to more thoughtful discussions (about) what makes the most sense.
Going to 14 schools doesn’t automatically mean 14 schools sponsor each sport. Sometimes it makes it an even number and others made it challenging with a nine-team tournament. A lot of moving parts with the regular season and the tournament postseason championships. Coaches, administrators and the faculty reps have been involved in the process. Student-athlete welfare was at the forefront of their minds. Input from the faculty is to make sure we’re keeping the student-athletes in class as much as possible.
Q: How much discussion was there about divisions in other sports besides football?
A: The notion is once you get to 12 or more schools sponsoring a sport, it probably makes sense to consider divisions. At the end of the day, there wasn’t a big push. Administrators really deferred to each group. At least look at it if it’s 12 or more schools, but the coaches’ groups ended up in a place that they’re comfortable with.
Q: With the conference now spread from Nebraska to the East Coast, do regular-season schedules lean more toward geography in some sports?
A: Almost in all of our sports, travel partners, a divisional model or the geographic considerations were made in putting together the schedules. Softball has a divisional scheduling model, but they don’t formally recognize those divisions. Men’s lacrosse, for example, created a schedule where you wouldn’t have more than two flights in a year. Men’s soccer used a mileage chart in an effort to make it as equal as possible. When a team has four away games, you don’t want them to be the farthest part of the conference.
Q: Are individual sports required to play a minimum number of conference games?
A: No minimum games. Wrestling and women’s gymnastics are the only two individual sports that have regular-season schedules. Men’s gymnastics talked about it but is not implementing a conference schedule. We’ve had limited conversations, but the individual sports have opted to schedule the way they have and come together in the tournament.
LikeLike
Not good news for UNC
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11157920/ncaa-reopens-investigation-academic-scandal-north-carolina
ESPN’s article about it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11163817/ex-learning-specialist-files-lawsuit-university-north-carolina
The UNC whistleblower is now suing UNC, claiming retaliation and a hostile work environment.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/01/3978789/qa-on-unc-and-the-ncaa.html?sp=/99/103/
A Q&A on the UNC case.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/30/3976713/decock-unc-athletic-academic-case.html?sp=/99/103/
A column about the UNC case by a local writer.
UNC athletic, academic case not over yet, nor is it anywhere close
LikeLike
It’s about time the NCAA reopened the UNC case. The original claim of “academic-not-athletic” scandal was complete BS. But at the same time, the NCAA seems really tooth-less of late. So, really I am not expecting much to happen to UNC. I predict not a single basketball victory ~~ or any victory ~~ will be vacated.
LikeLike
To be fair, the NCAA did punish UNC a little bit for academic fraud already.
LikeLike
Louisville with their website touting their entry into the ACC, including a video featuring Jennifer Lawrence.
http://meetthecards.com/
LikeLike
Uh, Jen, remember who knocked your Cards out of the NCAA women’s basketball tourney? On your home floor?
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/College-Football-Playoff-Will-Four-Teams-Be-Enough-29408111
Does #5 deserve a playoff shot? They say yes, I say hell no. I think their analysis is wrong in that they compare #5 to #4 to see if #5 deserved a spot. The question instead should be whether #5 really had a case for being the best team that year or not.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2014/06/ohio_state-cleveland_state_gam.html
OSU may play Cleveland State in Cleveland (in hoops) this year. Cleveland is hosting a regional so OSU may want to experience the court once first.
Also some MAC news:
That would be talks between the Mid-American Conference and ESPN on a future TV deal. According to MAC officials, those talks, expected to come to fruition by the end of the spring, might not be complete until the dawn of football season.
Evidence of those conversations can already be seen in the bowl game partnerships which will begin following this season, and in the upcoming football schedule. ESPN has moved all of the ‘rivalry’ games around the league to late in the season to take advantage of the popular midweek TV window in November.
…
Non-conference basketball schedules are starting to be released. But there is one big omission that Mid-American Conference commissioner Jon Steinbrecher admits is impacting MAC teams. The loss of BracketBusters games – the late-season ESPN showcase featuring top mid-major teams playing head-to-head – is being felt on several levels. The decade-long ESPN event came to an end after the 2013 season.
“Absolutely, we are feeling it, and need to find something to take its place,” Steinbrecher said recently.
He also noted, with the MAC now playing an 18-game schedule vs. 16 in the past, the BracketBuster RPI loss is somewhat made up with quality teams within the league. But the marketing/PR loss of the event still stings.
One big loss was the top eight to 11 BracketBuster games were televised during the decade-long run of the event, which was a huge February bonus for teams looking to build their post-season tournament profile through a tough RPI game.
But the other big loss was the return BracketBuster game early in the non-conference season, which was another quality game that teams could rarely get on their schedule.
LikeLike
Think that’s a big loss to MAC to have their rivalry games mid-week. That’s their biggest attendance game and mid-week guts attendance.
LikeLike
A lot of the MAC rivals are pretty close together, and their attendance has never been great. TV money and exposure trumps ticket sales, especially for a MAC school, anymore.
LikeLike
The Atlantic 10 with a new logo
http://m.atlantic10.com/mobile/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=31600&ATCLID=209535535
LikeLike
Wake building a new indoor practice facility:
http://coachingsearch.247sports.com/Bolt/Wake-Forest-announces-new-indoor-facility-29416095
LikeLike
Ad in NJ newspaper thanking Pernetti for getting RU into the B1G, not so nice to Hermann:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/07/as_rutgers_officially_joins_big_ten_ad_julie_hermann_ripped_and_tim_pernetti_praised_in_full-page_ad.html
LikeLike
The Pernetti faithful are getting just as bad as the JoePa loyalists.
Let it go already (at least in public – feel free to keep fuming in private). You’re just making things worse for RU at this point.
LikeLike
Agreed, if they were real fans/supporters they would have contributed the money used for the add buy to a scholarship fund for the student athletes or something similar.
LikeLike
The difference is that at this point the Pernetti faithful are so few and so out of favor (for not moving on) that they have to take out an ad anonymously.
While many RU fans liked Pernetti and feel he got a raw deal, the idea that some idiot(s) placed this ad at all, let alone today of all days, is being almost universally criticized by the fanbase.
LikeLike
There are many, many Pernetti supporters. There is just no point in making noise. He is gone. It is an old story. His totally unqualified replacement is in place. Everyone knows why she (Hermann) was hired and it had nothing to do with her resume. Issue closed.
The tiny difference between JoePa and Pernetti, is that is appears to many that JoePa tolerated Sandusky, with many believing that it was impossible for JoePa not to know what had happened.
Is this true? Maybe not, but it is an overwhelmingly held position, except among PSU fans. Let’s not reargue that mess, but a majority around the county wanted PSU football to get the death penalty.
Oh, yes, and Sandusky committed horrible unforgiveable crimes. What I would do to Sandusky would definitely violate the 4th Amendment’s admonition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Coach Sandusky rapist and pedophile. Coach Rice – major jerk. A bit of a difference, I think.
Pernetti was purely a fall guy. BBall coach Rice throws balls at players or worse, Pernetti is told of this and properly reports it up the chain at Rutgers. Someone above him decides to do nothing. The case gets too hot and some one has to get thrown under the bus. It had to either AD Pernetti or Univ Pres Barchi. Meanwhile Barchi is in the middle of the reacquisition/merger with the medical school. Very easy decision. Pernetti may have done everything by the book, and properly, but he had to go. There was no way to interfere with the med school deal.
There has been no survey (of which I am aware) of RU fans, but I would definitely bet that a large majority would want Pernetti back right now.
LikeLike
Jersey Bernie,
“There are many, many Pernetti supporters. There is just no point in making noise. He is gone. It is an old story. His totally unqualified replacement is in place. Everyone knows why she (Hermann) was hired and it had nothing to do with her resume. Issue closed.”
That is my point. I’m not saying they’re wrong to be upset, just that they’re being counterproductive in continuing to say negative things about RU. Obviously the two situations are otherwise very different, but that one similarity jumps out at me.
LikeLike
The fact that you call the successor to Pernetti “unqualified”, when he was only in media before getting the RU job and she was the #2 at a successful and growing college athletic department, speaks volumes to your credibility.
There WERE many, many Pernetti supporters. He lost a lot of them as his hires for the major sports looked worse and worse, and when he proved to be so over his head during the Rice affair.
There definitely is a small segment of the RU fanbase that would want Pernetti (and/or Schiano) back. There is another segment that would like the current AD replaced because of her misteps and replaced by a new, qualified hire (not Pernetti).
The two segments added together would not compose a majority of RU fans, let alone a “large majority”.
The large majority of fans, whose emotions have progressed beyond child-like, are focusing on the amazing football schedule.
LikeLike
Julie Hermann apparently lied about her past, more than once, after getting the RU job. She was never fully vetted before being hired.
Read the stories on NU.com today about Hermann trying to win over the Pernetti supporters and Delany not getting involved. If Pernetti had been replaced by an AD viewed as honest and qualified, there would be a lot less nostalgia for Pernetti. Has anyone mentioned Delaney and the B1G not being concerned about the Maryland AD? I doubt it.
Phil, I just do not agree with you about the Hermann situation. Many people were very upset when she was hired, since she was not even among the three finalists for the position. One woman successfully pushed Hermann for the job. Everyone agreed that there was an agenda leading to the hire. If she got to RU and looked competent, that would have quickly gone away.
Then the lies and other problems came out.
I must say that I fully understand Hermann’s comments about the Star Ledger. The biggest paper in NJ is generally hostile to RU sports, so she was hostile to them. Good for her.
I do not think that a lot of RU fans are rooting against Hermann, they are just not happy with her hire or her job so far. She has a lot to prove. Hopefully she will surprise a lot of people and succeed.
LikeLike
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/07/rutgers_ad_julie_hermann_trying_to_win_over_tim_pernetti_loyalists.html
An interview with the RU alum who paid for the ad.
“My concern is if you take a look at Julie Hermann over the course of the first year and you extrapolate into the future, it’s some real cause for concern as Rutgers is going into the Big Ten,” Sulliman said. “That’s all this was about. It was about thanking Tim and it was about calling attention to (president Robert) Barchi throwing him under the bus and Hermann’s very checkered first year as athletic director.”
Sulliman said he has 21 season tickets for football and two courtside season tickets each for men’s and women’s basketball, which he donates to veterans and local families because he lives in Texas and can’t attend.
Sulliman said he has Rutgers’ best interests at heart and that he increased the donation that he makes to the university this year. He said he didn’t intend for the ad to be divisive.
“I see Barchi and Hermann as being divisive and I’m just documenting that,” Sulliman said. “This was no effort in any way to do any harm. I never would try to do any harm to Rutgers. It’s something I have great admiration for and I am indeed a loyal son. The problem that I have is with Barchi and Hermann, who have been demonstrative of great ineffective leaders.”
Sulliman said he has received support from other donors who share his views.
LikeLike
Oops:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000362774/article/florida-gators-calendar-features-aaron-hernandez
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24602613/college-football-program-draft-did-your-team-make-the-top-32
CBS does a 7 man draft to pick the top 32 CFB programs (like they were starting NFLDL).
CBSSports.com’s seven-man college football team has worked up a five-round draft with one simple goal in mind: Picking the best programs while keeping both short-term and long-term success in mind. The operative word is ‘programs.’ Picking the best teams would be a preseason top 25. If you needed to buy stock in college football programs and couldn’t sell for a while, this would be a guide.
Here’s a quick breakdown.
Format: Seven GMs presiding over a 32-team draft.
Making the picks: Jeremy Fowler, Dennis Dodd, Jon Solomon, Jerry Palm, Tom Fornelli, Jerry Hinnen, Chip Patterson. (Fowler gets first pick because, well, he’s also the league’s commissioner. He will pay himself a Larry Scott-sized salary).
Criteria: Must account for athletic budgets, resources, current coaching/lineup prowess, recruiting success, history, fanbase.
1st round: AL, OSU, UF, UT, ND, USC, OR
2nd: FSU, MI, OU, AU, UGA, LSU, TAMU
3rd: Stanford, OkSU, Clemson, WI, PSU, Baylor, UCLA
4th: SC, Miami, TN, MSU, NE, UW, VT
5th: MO, UL, ASU, TT
Potential expansion teams for future: Kansas State, Iowa, BYU, North Carolina, Ole Miss, UCF
Teams by conference: SEC — 9; Big Ten — 6; Pac-12 — 6; ACC — 5; Big 12 — 5; Independent — 1
Fowler’s final analysis: GMs were making long-term investments early in the draft. Five of the top 10 picks didn’t have particularly stellar 2013 seasons, but their history carried the day. FSU falling to eight is surprising. So is Baylor at 20, a Hinnen special. A year ago, Baylor doesn’t sniff the first three rounds. The top wasn’t SEC-heavy until back-to-back-to-back-to-back picks from 11-14. Hard to knock the bloated SEC numbers if you consider programs as stand-alones. Perhaps the only mild surprise was maybe Mizzou, which makes a strong case for this list. Otherwise, the balance was impressively good. No power league had less than five teams. A ton of proud programs fell to the 20s because of recent struggles — Tennessee, Miami, Virginia Tech, Nebraska. These could easily be top-10 picks five years from now. Best sleeper pick? Arizona State at 31. Had my eye on the Sun Devils in the rounds.
FYI, the 5th round was done in reverse order (#7 chose 1st, #6 2nd, #5 3rd, #4 4th) to somewhat balance the advantage the others got from the selection order.
Baylor went too high since they said you had to balance history with recent success. OkSU did, too.
Of the top teams by W% since 1984, the undrafted are #1 Boise, #13 BYU, #22-27 (Fresno, WV, Toledo, Marshall, Utah, IA), #29 AF, #31 TCU and #34 AR. Lower teams picked include #44 ASU, #47 SC, #56 Stanford, #75 MO and #79 Baylor.
The non-AQs getting skipped isn’t a shock, but WV (only team with 3 BCS bowls left out) and IA (only consistently successful always-AQ team with 2 BCS bowls left out – other were KSU and IL) probably have an argument for getting picked.
LikeLike
I’m surprised Pitt didnt get a sniff, even as an expansion team. There is still enough residual talent in that region that elevates the Panthers past tweener status.
So which teams have which schools as their AAA affiliate? in the Lovie era, OU or UT would have been the Bears AAA affliate.
LikeLike
I assume the lack of recent success doomed Pitt.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/07/excitement_at_a_95_questions_a.html
A RU Q&A with a beat writer covering them.
LikeLike
Our long national nightmare of boycotting Belgian waffles, chocolate and beer is over. Huzzah!
Maybe some year we’ll actually develop an offense and/or some skilled scorers. Even in soccer you can’t win without scoring.
LikeLike
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/has-the-u-s-mens-national-team-plateaued/
Nate Silver says the US MNT may be the Atlanta Hawks of soccer. Have we plateaued about where we should be based on wealth and level of interest in soccer, or are we still improving?
LikeLike
I’d say there is room for improvement. Cost Rica’s population is less than twenty six states. It doesn’t take a national sea change in interest, that’s for ratings. It does take time, and improving opportunities for players and coaches. And a recognition that improvement isn’t measured simply by World Cup championships, that 24+ years ago was the FB/BB talking head’s dismissive evaluation.
LikeLike
One big issue is our developmental system. The HS and college systems are not ideal for developing elite players. Too many teams dilutes the talent and reduces the competition players face every day. Add in the lack of interest (a small percentage of the best athletes play soccer as their primary sport) and we’re miles from what we could be.
LikeLike
The best ones play with the traveling clubs.
LikeLike
I doubt discovering a large pool of new HS players that might otherwise chose/try another HS sport rather than depend solely on expensive club systems is the problem. Most of the better players in my area play HS more like an off season rec league. The identified elite play club system the rest of the year. Although the two truely elite (college, then mls) that I knew did three HS sports, plus the travel teams. Athletes are athletes. High level coaching at college, and especially HS is what needs upgrading/improving. The current systems seem to have served the three major sports just fine, but there is a far greater number of qualified and well compensated coaches.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I doubt discovering a large pool of new HS players that might otherwise chose/try another HS sport rather than depend solely on expensive club systems is the problem. Most of the better players in my area play HS more like an off season rec league. The identified elite play club system the rest of the year. Although the two truely elite (college, then mls) that I knew did three HS sports, plus the travel teams. Athletes are athletes. High level coaching at college, and especially HS is what needs upgrading/improving. The current systems seem to have served the three major sports just fine, but there is a far greater number of qualified and well compensated coaches.”
People that know more than I do about soccer (and there are lots of them, I admit) have told me that soccer needs to change our “pyramid.” The best players from an early age need to be crammed into as few teams as possible and forced to compete every day for the starting spots. That will hasten their development and improve their skills. Part of our problem is the size of the US. Most of the top soccer countries are much smaller geographically so it’s easier to put the top players together. Part of improving our pyramid is dependent on growing fan interest, of course.
http://www.soccernewsday.com/usa/a/73/the-unruly-soccer-pyramids-of-america
LikeLike
I don’t see that he considers the new generation of young, talented, multi-citizenship players that hitting the US talent pool. We had a lot of servicemen stationed in Germany in the 90’s and 00’s.
We have already seen talented young players like Green and Brooks. Someone like Zelalem if we get him might be the truly world class creative center midfielder the US has never had.
LikeLike
It’s hard to measure potential, and 538 deals with numbers. Besides, we constantly hear the story about the next generation of players being the ones to get us over the hump. They were saying that same thing 20 years ago when we hosted the World Cup.
LikeLike
20 years ago Brazil with ten players made us look like the team a man down. We are improved. With Costa Rica’s draw we very well could be in the qtrs.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“20 years ago Brazil with ten players made us look like the team a man down. We are improved.”
Yes, we are. Now it takes a full team of 11 to make us look like we’re a man down. The question is if we’ve plateaued relative to the rest of the world or are still climbing the ranks internationally.
“With Costa Rica’s draw we very well could be in the qtrs.”
With our draw, we were lucky to advance at all and only a remarkable goalie saved us from getting crushed by Belgium. With Costa Rica’s draw, we also probably would’ve been 2nd in group meaning we’d play Colombia not Greece. That’s likely a loss for us, too.
LikeLike
We’re about where we should be; top 12 country who usually advances to knockout stage but does little there. US needs more elite athletes playing soccer instead of baseball, basketball, football, hockey, lacrosse, golf, tennis, x games, MMA, olympic/winter sports, weight lighting, etc. In other countries EVERYONE is playing soccer and those not good enough at it are playing other sports. Just the opposite of the US…
US should improve but until it becomes more popular with the youth and they actually choose it over the numerous sporting options I listed. Sporting preference is largely inherited imo and it becoming popular with the adults with trickle down to the youth, that takes time. Competition for other sports is too much greater in the US instead of people in a lot of other countries being option 1a and option 1b.
LikeLike
If the top young athletes chose to play soccer over football/basketball, there’s literally no limit on what USA soccer could achieve. The issue really is elevating soccer where its a viable option for people who also want to get rich and famous playing sports.
If, for example, LeBron had played soccer exclusively from childhood, with his raw athletic ability, I have little doubt he could have been one of the all-time greats. But until such time that an American can monetize soccer fame and success in America on a level equal to that of football, baseball, and basketball players, soccer will remain a step below due to athletes preferring to compete in more established sports.
LikeLike
I have a series of questions about this:
To start, what is/are the talent(s) needed to be an elite soccer player? Honestly, I don’t know. I have some sense of what talents are needed for Bball and Fball. But other than running a lot, I don’t understand what makes a great soccer player different than a mediocre one. Speed? Endurance? Acting ability? Size?
Second, it seems to me that there is a lot of athletic talent that does not end up in the NBA or the NFL. Why couldn’t some of that talent go into Major League Soccer at 20-22 years of age? Soccer looks simple enough. Can a Bball player quickly learn to be a soccer player?
My thought is that winning helps create interest; more talent equals more winning; etc. etc.
LikeLike
Its not the talent, per se, but the years fo work and practice needed to become elite at the particular skill.
Any ol’ Joe can kick a soccer ball, but precious few can, to use the popular phrase, bend it like Beckham. It takes years of practice to make a ball do those types of things with your feet. A 20 year old just starting from scratch, unless he is a true, innate natural, very likely cannot come in and dominate. The NBA and, to a lesser extent, the NFL, have players who started with the game in high school, and very few of them become elite players..
Much like any ol’ Joe can try to shoot a jump shot, but it takes innate athletic skill, combined with years of practice and playing to shoot it like Steve Kerr.
And that’s just one aspect of it. Soccer is a lot of the skills you mentioned, which I package into a simple broad term “athletic ability” (speed, endurance, size).
LikeLike
The key things unique to soccer:
1. Foot/eye coordination and ball control. That takes years to develop, especially at full speed. Other sports are all about using your hands, and you develop hand/eye coordination naturally in life. Throwing a 40 yard pass to a receiver in stride accurately is hard. Now do it with your foot.
2. Head/eye coordination and ball control. This also takes years to develop. Most of life you spend avoiding hitting things with your head. Now redirect something curving through the air at 30 mph at 90 degrees while speeding it up, too.
3. Body/eye coordination and ball control. Again, it takes a long time to develop. It’s not natural to let objects hit your body, let alone controlling where they fall afterwards.
Other keys:
1. Quickness is more important than speed, but speed has its uses.
2. Jumping ability (for headers or saves).
3. Endurance.
4. Strategic awareness (knowing when to make a run or expect one from the opponent, making the right switches on defense, exploiting gaps in the opponent’s defense, etc).
5. Good hands (for a goalie).
LikeLike
Oh, as to size. Short is fine in soccer for some positions, but height helps. Big is bad since you are running several miles during a game with lots of accelerations.
An NFL WR like Calvin Johnson could be a phenomenal goalie with training, for example. He could also make a great striker.
A quick PG or RB like Barry Sanders or Derek Rose could be a very good player if he grew up with the game. So could a DB like Deion Sanders.
The OL and DL of the world are just too thick. Some NBA players are too tall and probably couldn’t run that far for long (bad knees from being that tall).
Soccer players tend to be 5’6″ – 6’6″ and 140-210. Average is about 6′ and 175 lbs.
LikeLike
Basketball, and in much of FB being a genetic outlier in size and/or height is a big head start. An article posted some time back says one in six 7 footers are in the NBA. The loss of quickness and whole body dexterity seems to negate what many assume would be an advantage (how many 6′ 9″ are playing for non US teams?). The athletes we are missing are the thousands of FB DB’s, WR’s, RB’s, etc that dream of the NFL from a young age. For every college player how many were just barely not quite there? The distribution of body types would indicate a very large number of very good “normal” sized athletes get left, with not enough time to truly learn a new sport. Same for smaller basketball players.
LikeLike
Oft-wondered issue: http://athlonsports.com/overtime/what-if-americas-greatest-athletes-played-soccer and http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/dream-team-if-americas-best-athletes-played-soccer-wed-win-e .
Dwight Howard as goalie? Yes, please.
LikeLike
“Calvin Johnson with six days of training would be the greatest soccer goalie of all time and it wouldn’t be close.”
I’m not sure we want non soccer folk to adopt soccer. Grow it slow from the roots. If it never reaches NFL/NBA level, so be it. But let’s not be stupid. It doesn’t take 300M buying in to be a power. We only need some of those who aren’t ever going pro, or even college in FB/BB to see a different path as viable at a younger age.
LikeLike
Hakeem Alajuwon was a soccer goalie. He adopted basketball late. His footwork, hands, quickness, agility and jumping ability served him very well in basketball. How many 7 footers have ever been top 5 in steals?
LikeLike
Steve Nash is apparently a pretty decent soccer player, but he says there is a world of difference between his play and that of world team members.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/07/steve-nash-tries-out-for-elite-italian-soccer-team
LikeLike
Hakeem took up basketball at 15. Intersting thing in the wiki article on him: it says he told of Houston being offered the #2 pick and Clyde Drexler by Portland in order to get Ralph Sampson. Hakeem, Clyde and Michael Jordan may have all been on the Rockets. Instead, the deal didn’t happen and Portland took Sam Bowie, leaving Jordan for the Bulls.
LikeLike
http://www.espnfc.us/united-states/story/1929447/us-soccer-tv-ratings-top-nba-finals-average
The US/Belgium game (at 4pm ET on a weekday) easily topped the average viewership for the NBA finals this year and the last World Series (21.6M vs 15.5M and 14.9M respectively). US/Portugal did even better (24.7M), but it was on a weekend.
And this is without counting viewers in bars, offices and other public places (Nielsen never counts those). ESPN estimated in 2010 that the number of viewers would jump by 23% for a weekday World Cup game.
LikeLike
http://www.espnfc.us/united-states/story/1929437/jurgen-klinsmann-says-united-states-now-in-position-to-win-a-world-cup
Klinsmann thinks a big part of the problem with the offense is the mindset of our players.
No matter how strong a team he can field, though, Klinsmann conceded that the U.S. squad must continue to improve if it is to compete toe-to-toe with the world’s truly elite teams.
“When you go out [of the World Cup] in the round of 16, clearly it gives you the message that you have a lot of work still ahead of you,” he said.
Part of that work involves improving the mentality of the American player, according to the coach.
“There’s still a sense,” he said, “of having too much respect.”
Klinsmann contended that the only time the U.S. feels comfortable pressing the attack is when the team is losing. When the U.S. is even or ahead, the tendency is to sit back and play more conservatively.
“When you concede a goal you have to chase the game, and suddenly we are able to do it,” he said, pointing specifically to Tuesday’s loss.
“We could have turned that game around the last 15 minutes of extra time, absolutely,” Klinsmann said. “We had enough chances to win it 3-2. Why not [attack] earlier? This is a constant discussion we have — I believe it is a mental thing we have to work on more than it’s about talent.”
LikeLike
To everyone: great discussion and thanks !! Thanks for the links too.
I admit to being typical for an American and really not knowing too much about soccer. I basically analogize it to hockey and that’s the best handle I have on game strategy. Otherwise, I just watch them run around without much of a clue as to why they are running around in that particular way.
Interesting links/stats on viewership. But the WC gets a lot of hype, so I see viewership more comparable to the olympics, not NBA or MLB finals. What is the typical viewership of MLS season games? (Yes, I could “google” rather than ask…. but … I’m tired. LOL)
As for Klinsmann saying his team needed to attack more, well Coach, THAT is on YOU.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I admit to being typical for an American and really not knowing too much about soccer. I basically analogize it to hockey and that’s the best handle I have on game strategy.”
Hockey’s a fairly good analogy for soccer.
“Otherwise, I just watch them run around without much of a clue as to why they are running around in that particular way.”
I blame that on TV in part. The insistence on zooming in on the player with the ball and using shots from the side of the field make it harder to understand. If they used cameras at the ends of the field you could watch a play develop more easily. The same is true in other TV sports. There’s a reason football coaches watch the all 22 film and not the TV coverage.
“But the WC gets a lot of hype, so I see viewership more comparable to the olympics, not NBA or MLB finals.”
What impressed me is that those numbers were for a weekday afternoon game. There’s a reason why TV puts big events on in prime time on the east coast.
“What is the typical viewership of MLS season games?”
http://thebiglead.com/2013/11/12/mls-tv-ratings-are-lower-than-the-wnbas-can-the-league-do-anything-to-improve-them/
MLS ratings are abysmal, averaging 220,000 viewers in 2013 (the WBNA did better) on ESPN. They do average 18,594 in attendance though (on par with NBA and NHL), and the number was 310,000 in 2012.
By comparison, NBC got 390,000 with their English Premier League coverage.
Here’s a history of MLS’s TV ratings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_on_television#Ratings_and_viewers
“As for Klinsmann saying his team needed to attack more, well Coach, THAT is on YOU.”
That was my initial reaction, too, but the coach has limited ability to control the game once it starts. He can tell the players to press forward, but apparently they don’t always listen.
LikeLike
On TV, even more difficult to see are deflections sending the ball high into the air. Very difficult to follow that.
As for WC ratings, the afternoon ratings are impressive, but the uniqueness of the event, surrounded by the circumstances and the drama (knockout stage, at least), make it a rarity that causes those ratings. And ratings in WC games will be drastically lower, as ratings don’t factor in public viewing at bars, clubs, stadiums, and such. One report said factoring those in could boost ratings bu 25%. The bigger test will be Russia 2018, when games will be much less friendly for US TV audiences. Not as many folks will watch a game at 4am eastern compared to 4pm eastern.
LikeLike
http://collegefootball.blog.ajc.com/2014/06/20/tim-brando-no-sec-teams-will-make-four-team-playoff/
Tim Brando predicts 0 SEC teams in the playoff this year. He thinks the top SEC teams will knock each other off, leaving a 2 loss champ that won’t be selected over undefeated or 1 loss champs from other conferences. He mentioned the OOC schedules of certain SEC powers as a factor, as well as other leagues playing 9 conference games.
His prediction: UCLA vs MSU and FSU vs OU in the semis.
LikeLike
He’s just trolling for attention. If you look at the schedules, I don’t see where A&M, Auburn, LSU and ‘Bama all end up with two losses. I suppose something fluky could happen, but seems to me all the SEC teams have to have two losses for the SEC champ to get excluded.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/95760/college-footballs-top-10-scoreboards
Top 10 college scoreboards. Mostly big names, but AZ, MSSU and MSU all made the list with MN getting an honorable mention.
LikeLike
Top 10 scoreboards?
I eagerly await the following Top 10 lists from ESPN:
Top 10 CFB end zone designs
Top 10 CFB 50 yardline logo designs
Top 10 types of grass at CFB stadiums.
Top 10 Noisest CFB stadiums
Top 10 CFB stadiums for in-stadium food options
Top 10 reasons ESPN is so blatantly publishing BR-type click-bait in July (they had a post about which ACC schools would be SEC targets that was as bad and simplistic as you would imagine).
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/chatelain-west-division-is-a-wallflower-across-big-ten-s/article_75b39403-3ccb-560e-b42b-eef87f2409a0.html
One B10 fan base is really upset with the latest additions – Nebraska. A big part of the problem is the media focus on the East with the 3 kings plus the reigning champ as well as the newbies and their giant markets. Many of us expansion naysayers pointed this out beforehand. The other big problem is the lack of (perceived) balance between the divisions. Many of us anti-East/West people pointed this out in advance, too.
Nebraska football is yesterday’s news in the new league, friends. And when it comes to these new divisions, they might as well call them “Big Ten East” and “Big Ten Least.”
Don’t believe me? Count the headlines this offseason.
[list of storylines in the East]
Meanwhile, in the Big Ten West, the big story is …
…
Still looking …
…
[list of non-storylines from the West]
Has a conference ever entered a season with such “storyline disparity” between its two divisions? The easy comparison is the old Big 12 after Nebraska fell off the cliff.
But there’s a critical difference. Back then, the North’s best teams were still playing the South’s best. There were only 12 teams. You got three non-division games each year. It still felt like, ya know, a conference.
The new Big Ten has 14 members and only two non-division games. Worse, the way Delany divvied up the schedules, the Western contenders and Eastern contenders may as well be on separate continents.
Wisconsin’s non-division games: at Maryland, Rutgers.
Iowa’s non-division games: Indiana, at Maryland.
Nebraska’s Oct. 4 date at Michigan State is the only thing resembling an intriguing inter-divisional clash.
What the Big Ten should’ve done — not just for 2014, but for longstanding balance — is move Michigan State to the West Division. Give the Spartans an annual rivalry game with Michigan and call it good. Instead, Delany sent Purdue west, apparently fearful that abandoning the Purdue-Illinois trophy game would infuriate their rabid fan bases. (Tickets for last fall’s season-ending showdown were selling online for 40 cents.)
This is the Big Ten landscape in 2014: varsity in the East, JV in the West.
[cut to the silver lining]
On one hand, the Big Ten imbalance is frightening because it further devalues Nebraska’s national brand. If the Huskers drop a game or two in September and October, why should college football fans outside this neighborhood tune in?
But here’s the silver lining: Sports is still a meritocracy. And if you’re good enough — if you win enough — you eventually reap the rewards. ESPN will find you. The playoff selection committee will see you.
Nebraska has 12 games on its schedule, and if it wins ’em all, it won’t matter how many folks were sleeping on the Big Ten West in July.
In 2014, Nebraska will win big or it’ll be ignored. There isn’t much in between.
ESPN also discussed this topic, so it’s not just one old columnist missing the good ol’ days.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103182/take-two-nebraska-vs-latest-expansion
Maryland and Rutgers officially joined the Big Ten on Tuesday. That prompted celebrations in Piscataway, New Jersey, and College Park, Maryland, but more of a collective shoulder shrug elsewhere. One school’s fan base seems particularly unhappy about the latest additions: Nebraska. So today’s Take Two topic is this: Does Nebraska have a right to be unhappy about Maryland and Rutgers coming on board?
I’ll skip the excerpts and just suggest you read it.
LikeLike
I think this writer is a little over the top negative on the Big Ten West. The strengths of the divisions will play themselves out each year. The bigger issue is that the West has 1 historically elite team (which is now questionable given their long drought) and the East which has 3.
The idea that some Nebraska fans are longing for the days playing K-state, Kansas, Mizzou and Iowa State on a regular basis is somewhat laughable. Once we go to 9 games schedules will improve. Plus if we the conference eventually goes to 16 schools we could see an end to the divisions.
LikeLike
Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin are obviously going to benefit playing in a weak division, winning more games, being high ranked and help them build up their programs more so than they otherwise would. It’ll still be unbalanced if and PSU recovers and M gets its shit together but it probably won’t be near as bad as a lot expect.
LikeLike
@mckinleyr97 – They’re something to be said for those measuring stick games against a team that has everything you do. For Nebraska, that was Oklahoma. NU and OU had very similar resources at their disposal, so they tended to expose each others weaknesses. I don’t think it was a coincidence that when Oklahoma fell off (and then fell off the schedule) that Nebraska eventually fell off as well. Piling up the wins against the weaker competition tends to mask underlying problems that eventually cause the foundation to crumble.
LikeLike
The idea that some Nebraska fans are longing for the days playing K-state, Kansas, [redacted] and Iowa State on a regular basis is somewhat laughable.
@Kevin – They exist. They tend to be older and more tradition focused. They are the people who until the advent of the Big 12 enjoyed the easily driveable Big 8. They still hold up Oklahoma as Nebraska’s only worthy opponent. Had it not been for the Omaha World-Herald attempting to manufacture a rivalry with Texas by turning up the Texas hate, they would have lead the charge against joining the Big Ten. Instead they grudgingly accepted the move, giving up what they liked (the old Big 8 schools) from a Big 12 they weren’t happy with (no annual OU game, Texas runs the league, etc) for the promise of the big stages (UM, OSU, PSU) of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I agree with Kevin. The writer is well-read in Nebraska, but also has a reputation for rabble-rousing and being inflamatory (sp?). Plus, there is the convenient non-mention of the fact that the 9-game conference schedule does not kick in until 2016.
LikeLike
One B10 fan base is really upset with the latest additions – Nebraska.
@Brian – The author is the OWH’s resident troll (who’s thankfully moving to Milwaukee soon). Huge stretch to say the Nebraska fan base is upset based off of something he wrote. IMHO, Nebraska fans are welcoming the new additions but aren’t really excited or angry about it.
There are complaints with the home games this year (Illinois, Rutgers, Purdue, Minnesota) or the fact that there isn’t a Big Ten king in Lincoln until 2017, but very few are outright upset or even annoyed with the expansion.
LikeLike
Wisconsin’s home slate isn’t all that exciting this year but that’s where the AD has to schedule up in OOC. I am still looking forward to the season and the divisional matchups but excited come 2016 when we move to 9 games and play more parity based cross over games.
LikeLike
I would add that a lot of Wisconsin fans are grumbling that Michigan will be off the schedule until 2016. Last game played was 2010. That’s way too long as 2 of the recruiting classes will go without playing Michigan.
LikeLike
Mike,
“@Brian – The author is the OWH’s resident troll (who’s thankfully moving to Milwaukee soon). Huge stretch to say the Nebraska fan base is upset based off of something he wrote.”
I know he is, which is why I also included the link to the ESPN piece where 2 of their CFB bloggers discussed the exact same thing. They indicated that they are hearing the same thing from the NE fan base.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/07/take_that_penn_state_-_ohio_st.html
Bucking the national trend, OSU sold 29,614 student season tickets (more than the allotted 28,333). That’s up 13% from 2013 and 15% from 2012.
NEWSFLASH: Winning does wonders for ticket sales.
LikeLike
So does a fairly decent non-conf. schedule and not-too-bad conference games @ home.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/07/nfl-rookies-2014-concussion-sy.html
The NFL seems to be taking concussions seriously.
LikeLike
Clay Travis makes money:
http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/tech/2014/07/01/clay-travis-couch-crasher-sports-media-celebrity/11930439/
LikeLike
A Completely Logical Chicago and Illini Sports Blog and Random Thoughts on Politics, Pop Culture, and the World
Where Frank wen’t wrong.
LikeLike
http://thehockeywriters.com/2020-21-the-nhl-of-the-future/
A prediction of expansion and relocation in the NHL by 2020.
LikeLike
You know, that’s actually a reasonable set if predictions. I could see all but a Panthers move within that timeframe, and I definitely could see both Seattle and Portland with teams. I further agree that the NHL would love the buzz surrounding having the first major pro team in Vegas.
LikeLike
Why are people so obsessed about putting a team in Las Vegas? It will never happen.
LikeLike
Because almost 2 million people live in the metro-Vegas area, and Vegas itself has almost 600k residents. Also. LV with countless corporate entities who would be natural sponsors/purchasers of luxury suites/boxes/seats. Not to mention a vibrant nightlife to entice free agents. The first pro team in Vegas will do very well and generate considerable buzz, and the NHL is, of the 4 major sports leagues, the one most in need/desperate for taking a gamble (pun unavoidable) on Vegas for that reason. The major negative (and a legit negative that that) would be LV’s tv market, which would be bigger only than Buffalo among American hockey clubs (#42). Though, if TV alone was the deciding factor, Houston and Cleveland would both have clubs (top 20 markets), and the NHL would not have been as quick to pull out of Atlanta (#8).
In practice, all that’s missing is a suitable arena and internal NHL regulations on how to deal with casinos listing NHL games on Vegas sportsbooks.
LikeLike
metatron,
“Why are people so obsessed about putting a team in Las Vegas?”
Because it’s one of the 4 largest cities in the US without a pro sports franchise? And the city has plenty of rich potential owners. And they have a huge number of visitors which could equate to single game ticket sales. And they have all the hotel rooms a team could want. And it’s about the only major type of entertainment LV lacks.
“It will never happen.”
Eventually some sport will value the market more than they fear the stigma of gambling. It won’t be the NFL, but the other major leagues have at least toyed with the idea.
LikeLike
http://slippedisc.com/2014/07/last-week-no-classical-music-was-sold-in-the-usa/
Completely off topic, but apparently last week absolutely no classical music was sold in the US.
LikeLike
Brian: I am constantly amazed and happy with your links. Where in the ‘ell did you find this? Is Slippedisc dot com bookmarked? LOL
I am with some of the people who commented. The headline is the author’s lie.
Here is the whole thing:
“The weekly Nielsen numbers are in and they are even worse than usual.
The top-selling [classical] album, with 1,789 sales, is Casey Cresczendo of The Dear (sic) Hunter with a release called Amour and Attrition. It is described as a symphony – and may even be one (we have not yet received a copy) – but its USP is rock musician doing his thing. It’s not classical.
The next two items, selling 253 copies and 173 respectively, are singing nuns.
Below that, peanuts.
A statistician would say that last week, measured by the usual minimal criteria, no classical music was sold in the United States of America.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A wonderful snarkly little blurb. How dare some “rock musician” pretend he’s doing a symphony (to which the author has not even listened !!) And, damn those singing nuns as imposters !!
But then note that word “peanuts.” Well, “peanuts” may be a very very small number, but it is not zero. And then the last sentence really puts the lie into his/her headline.
But, of course, the author did his/her job. Wrote a shocking headline and got many more hits than he/she normally gets.
I’m going to smile about this on my way to work.
ciao
LikeLike
I think it was a sidebar link in another article I was reading. His headline did its job by getting me to follow the link.
LikeLike
chuckle. i hear ya. how does it go? “lies, damn lies and statistics.”
LikeLike
High School football not losing many players, participation in GA, TX, ALA have increased:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/concussion-risks-havent-slowed-down-high-school-football
LikeLike
SIX weeks without a new FTT article. My how times have changed.
LikeLike
If we want to compare horrible home football schedules, just look at Michigan’s – Appalachian St. (WHY?), Miami of Ohio, Utah, Minnesota, Penn St., Indiana and Maryland.
LikeLike
And yet people wonder why even Michigan has issues getting butts in the Big House? Pay exactly how much to watch that slate, and to deal with the hassles of attendance (security, concession lines, parking/traffic, costs, bathroom lines, lack of booze, etc…)?
Gee, that’s a tough one…
LikeLike
I don’t completely blame MI. They have zero control over the B10 schedule, including MSU and OSU both being road games. MI scheduled Utah as part of the B10/P12 scheduling alliance. Miami is the typical MACrifice to get an extra home game. I assume they chose App State as the most appealing I-AA they could find.
Realize that before ND ended the series, MI was about to have a 2015 schedule that featured OSU, MSU and ND at home. On average, that’s not a bad slate. It’s just highly variable year to year.
LikeLike
I don’t get scheduling App State again. To my mind, it’s all downside and AppST is not very appealing. The best MI gets out of this is “we are not afraid to play them.” Otherwise, it is bad PR since the only thing anyone will talk is the ’07 debacle. I don’t think MI fans are “pumped up” to see AppST. I suppose there might be some extra TV interest but that is driven entirely by the bad PR of the ’07 debacle. And God help Hoke if MI loses to AppST again.
I just don’t get it. Is this really the best OOC schedule MI could put together?
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I don’t get scheduling App State again. To my mind, it’s all downside and AppST is not very appealing.”
Another I-AA would draw more MI fans?
“The best MI gets out of this is “we are not afraid to play them.””
And to revenge their loss.
“I don’t think MI fans are “pumped up” to see AppST.”
They aren’t pumped up for any I-AA. Do you think playing UMass again (a bad I-A) would be more appealing?
“I just don’t get it. Is this really the best OOC schedule MI could put together?”
Of course it isn’t. Nobody puts together the best OOC schedule they can. They have a I-AA and a MACrifice to get them to 7 home games (a necessity for their budget). On top of that they are playing 2 AQ teams (@ND and vs Utah). Utah isn’t a powerhouse, but they get MI some mountain/west coast exposure and let them bring a game to some alumni far from home next year. That’s a better OOC schedule than many AQs are playing.
LikeLike
App. State isn’t FCS anymore, they are joining the Sun Belt this season. Not that they will be much better than most FCS teams (or UMass, as you mentioned).
It certainly is a terrible home schedule, however. I would have preferred another Utah level team in place of Miami of Ohio. I’m thinking something along the lines of Michigan’s 2015 schedule, with Utah on the road and BYU, UNLV, and Oregon State at home. Not spectacular either, but I think BYU and Oregon State are decent enough to merit some interest. I would have liked a similar setup this year.
LikeLike
I forgot they were moving up. Mea culpa.
I agree it stinks for fans, but every other year was always weak when you played at ND. Add in MSU and OSU being away games and almost nothing was going to excite the fans. Playing 2 AQs OOC is pretty solid, but Utah isn’t a flashy brand.
As for a comparison to 2015:
2014: @ND, Utah, Miami (OH), App State
2015: @Utah, OrSU, BYU, UNLV
I’d say it’s a toss up overall, but 2015 has the better home games.
LikeLike
I don’t completely blame MI. They have zero control over the B10 schedule, including MSU and OSU both being road games.
This is much debated on the Michigan fansites, and I feel uninformed as to the real answer. Clearly, the move to a 9-game schedule required some adjustments to some schools’ existing home-away patterns. But choosing Michigan to play at East Lansing two years in a row hardly feels like a random choice. Was every other alternative worse? Did Michigan’s Brandon eagerly embrace, oppose, or merely acquiesce in this decision? Would they make this sort of swap without consulting the ADs?
MI scheduled Utah as part of the B10/P12 scheduling alliance. Miami is the typical MACrifice to get an extra home game. I assume they chose App State as the most appealing I-AA they could find.
Personally, I prefer Appalachian State to some random paycheck opponent who will be quickly forgotten. The contrary view of some Michigan fans, is that, during the run-up to the game, the national media will endlessly replay the blocked field goal that ended the 2007 contest, serving up yet another reminder of Michigan’s shame that they’d rather forget.
Of course, paycheck games are an evil of the current system that almost all P5 schools have embraced to some extent. They are all “no-win” games. No one gives you any credit for a victory, but a close win or (God forbid) a loss is acutely embarrassing. But a second loss to Appy State would be even worse for Michigan than a loss to, say, Western Kentucky. It is even more of a no-win that your typical paycheck game.
Realize that before ND ended the series, MI was about to have a 2015 schedule that featured OSU, MSU and ND at home. On average, that’s not a bad slate. It’s just highly variable year to year.
Yes, the average is the same. But if you’re an athletic director, do you want alternating feast-famine years on your schedule? (Some Michigan fans blame Brandon for “losing” the ND series and not having a replacement lined up. I have yet to understand what he could have done about that.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This is much debated on the Michigan fansites, and I feel uninformed as to the real answer. Clearly, the move to a 9-game schedule required some adjustments to some schools’ existing home-away patterns. But choosing Michigan to play at East Lansing two years in a row hardly feels like a random choice. Was every other alternative worse? Did Michigan’s Brandon eagerly embrace, oppose, or merely acquiesce in this decision? Would they make this sort of swap without consulting the ADs?”
I don’t think anybody outside of B10 HQ knows for sure. I know scheduling is difficult and every choice can have unintended consequences. But it is certainly unusual to see a king forced to play their 2 huge rivalries at home in the same year when they’re both conference games. Maybe the B10 felt PSU plus their top crossover foe would balance it out, especially with the upcoming parity-based scheduling.
“Yes, the average is the same. But if you’re an athletic director, do you want alternating feast-famine years on your schedule?”
No, obviously not. I’m just pointing out that MI had no choice since the ND series was already scheduled and the B10 chose when to make OSU and MSU be road games. Utah was also already scheduled. Was Brandon supposed to add yet another AQ OOC game to the schedule on almost no notice?
LikeLike
For some reason I remember reading that years back, Michigan petitioned to have both MSU and OSU at home in the same year to maximize money in that year . It’s not like prices would then be lowered in the “off” year anyways.
LikeLike
I don’t remember that, though I wouldn’t doubt you. What’s interesting is that the Administration has been curiously silent about it. The fan reaction has been mostly negative, as far as I can tell. If Brandon thinks he got a good deal, he has not attempted to persuade anyone.
Now, he’d hardly say, “The best thing is, we can raise prices in odd-numbered years, and keep them high in even-numbered years when the schedule is worse.” But if there’s a case for it that the fans would accept, he hasn’t attempted to make it.
The problem might just be temporary. If Penn State returns to glory, then Michigan will always have the Nitts and a premier P5 OOC opponent at home in even-numbered years, which isn’t so terrible. Also, Wisconsin returns to the Big House in 2016, for the first time since 2010. So I don’t think Michigan in the foreseeable future will have a home schedule quite as putrid as this year’s.
Michigan is (uncharacteristically) struggling to sell tickets this year. The schedule, of course, is not the only problem.
LikeLike
I also remembered after I posted that originally Michigan refused to play at MSU and when they started to play at MSU they wanted to host MSU in the same year as OSU so that MSU would never be considered the biggest game on the home schedule. A little of the big brother little brother thing. This stretches back to the 50’s and 60’s though, and isn’t the present day reason. But might be one of the historical ones.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“It’s not like prices would then be lowered in the “off” year anyways.”
No, but season ticket sales dip, especially for students.
LikeLike
“No, but season ticket sales dip, especially for students.”
Students season ticket dips is concerning more for the future than the present (interested alumni) but those seats are being sold at a higher price to the general public. General public demand is steady.
Also, the student ticket dip seems to be in part because of bad UM policies implemented, as well as a 23% price increase last year (no increase this year, but no decrease either)–and a crappy 2014 home slate (as well as the other reasons I mentioned above).
See: http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/06/as_michigan_student_ticket_sal.html and http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2014/05/michigan_football_projecting_s.html
LikeLike
“But choosing Michigan to play at East Lansing two years in a row hardly feels like a random choice. Was every other alternative worse? Did Michigan’s Brandon eagerly embrace, oppose, or merely acquiesce in this decision? Would they make this sort of swap without consulting the ADs?”
Every B1G team has had frustrating scheduling issues, which is the result of expanding twice and now being at 14 teams. Iowa hasn’t played Illinois since 2008, this year they play on the road at Minnesota for the 4th time in 5 years, and went two years without playing Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that anything they did was going to inconvenience someone, and other teams have faced similar swaps as a result of re-alignment. I think we can agree, however, that the annually-contested rivalries (those that never, ever, drop off the schedule) are special; and to face one of those opponents on the road, two years in a row, is unusual. The Big Ten and the two schools have been curiously silent on the rationale for choosing that particular rivalry as the one to swap.
LikeLike
“I think we can agree, however, that the annually-contested rivalries (those that never, ever, drop off the schedule) are special; and to face one of those opponents on the road, two years in a row, is unusual. ”
I agree. Iowa-Minnesota has been played every season since 1918. They play for what is commonly called the best trophy in college football. MN chants “We Hate Iowa” at every single football game.
Somehow Iowa has to go to MN for the 4th time in 5 years. If two years is unusual, what would you call it when that happens twice in a 5 year span?
LikeLike
Why not just leave the conference, go independent, and try and schedule ONLY all the teams that everyone wants to see…. Wonder who all those teams would be???
LikeLike
Rutgers & Big 10
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/7/2/5863887/rutgers-big-ten-move-conference-official
LikeLike
Interesting article and some nice tidbits:
I liked this about Delany:
“Conference commissioner Jim Delany was there, dressed as if he were attending the wedding of some family friend he didn’t know all that well. And, much like a governor in a district he’s not worried about winning, Delany received his gift from the school, took a few pictures, spoke for 45 seconds at most, and left.”
I also liked the Rutgers crowd’s response to the mascots. Polite applause as each was introduced except for the Penn State cheerleaders. They got roundly and loudly booed. (As an aside, where has the Nittany Lion mascot gone?)
LikeLike
Day before a three day holiday weekend. Hurricane off the east coast. I wonder what bad news will break right before 5pm today in the hopes its forgotten on Monday.
LikeLike
OU adding the WR that was kicked off MO’s team for multiple drug incidents plus allegedly pushing a student down some stairs? He’s even going to apply for a waiver to not sit out a year because it was “out of his control.”
https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/484784869285691392/photo/1
LikeLike
Here’s the NFL’s bad news
http://deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-dumping-bad-news-on-us-while-nobody-is-payin-1599955487
LikeLike
nice little trip down memory lane from April 2013.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/4/23/4253490/college-conference-realignment-acc-media-deal
Someone probably linked it on this Board back a year plus ago. But seemed appropriate since July 1st was the real “end” to this round of realignment.
Also loved the link to the Syracuse Blog re: Rutgers “controlling” NYC. Very funny. I had never read that piece. (warning: some NSFW in the comments).
LikeLike
Thanks. The line to the Syracuse blog was muy fun, especially the comments. You might like this map:
http://commoncensus.org/sports_map.php?sport=5
LikeLike
yeah, actually is an interesting map. seems in line with the facebook type “maps” we have looked at. interestingly, it looks like Long Island is split between Rutgers and UConn. I thought the split in S. Carolina was very interesting too. Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24604706/senators-reschedule-ncaa-hearing-for-july-9
Senate hearing on the NCAA pushed back to next Wednesday.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24606601/american-athletic-conference-boise-state-settle-realignment-lawsuit
Boise and the AAC have finally settled all their issues.
LikeLike
According to the Idaho Statesman, Boise will pay 2.3 million. 1.6 now and 140K/yr for the next five years.
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/who-won-realignment-070114
Who won realignment (among AQ schools) by Clay Travis.
1. Rutgers
Rutgers is like the unemployed waitress who cashed a winning lottery ticket. The last survivor of a sinking ship, Rutgers stepped off the boat just as it went underwater and found itself on one of the finest yachts in America. When you assess winners and losers, you don’t necessarily analyze whose ceiling is the highest you compare how far up from the floor someone rose.
If Rutgers doesn’t join the Big Ten then the school is left behind in the American Athletic Conference. That conference’s yearly payout to members is less than $5 million a year. In the Big Ten Rutgers will eventually be receiving nearly $40 million a year. We’re talking about a move that netted the school hundreds of millions in additional revenue than it would have received in the AAC.
Here’s an easy way of putting it, many of the schools on this list ended up with better situations, but none of them had the stakes of Rutgers. Rutgers is the biggest realignment winner, but the school it beat out for the final bid in the Big Ten, UConn, is the biggest realignment loser.
Those names could have very easily been reversed.
…
7. Maryland
How much money did it take for Maryland to turn its back on the ACC? If projections are correct about twenty million a year. We’re headed for a new television world order where the SEC and the Big Ten dwarf every other conference in TV money. It’s not going to be close. That’s why I believe the ACC will eventually lose four more members to the Big Ten and the SEC. The SEC will take teams in Virginia and North Carolina and the Big Ten might take the other two in those states. Or the Big Ten might end up with Georgia Tech. Either way the money differential between the SEC and the Big Ten and the rest of college sports is eventually going to lead to more instability. It might take a decade or more, but Maryland’s departure to the Big Ten is a harbinger of things to come not an isolated incident.
…
9. Nebraska
Yes, the Cornhuskers are going to make much more money in the Big Ten than they would have in the Big 12, but how does the Big Ten make sense here? I just don’t see it. Where are Nebraska’s players going to come from? The Big Ten schools in the midwest are already fighting over the same, limited talent. Nebraska used to be able to go down to Texas and snag some players in the Big 12. But with those games curtailed, how do the Cornhuskers recruit?
Sure, a great recruiting head coach can help combat this difficulty, but those coaches aren’t very common. And are they even willing to come to Lincoln to coach?
I hate to say it, but sometimes money isn’t everything. I think Nebraska’s finding that out.
…
12. Syracuse
Honest question, if Syracuse doesn’t leave for the ACC aren’t they added to the Big Ten instead of Rutgers? The brand is much better, you still get New York state, and it’s a better geographic fit for the Big Ten.
Wouldn’t every Syracuse fan prefer to be in the Big Ten too?
Instead you jumped to the ACC from the Big East, from one unstable conference to another unstable conference.
The teams in the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac 12 can rest assured that whatever comes in the future, their conference is secure. The teams in the ACC and the Big 12? You’re ground zero for the next conference realignment earthquakes.
Out of 12 schools, FYI.
LikeLike
While his rankings are not bad (can quibble over a few placements), how is it possible for a national sports writer have so little understanding of many requirements (and even basic facts) that made/make up realignment decisions? Perhaps he’s just a regional writer who’s name has been pushed nationally…
LikeLike
Because he isn’t a journalist. His wants to create debate and drive page views.
LikeLike
He’s a mindless SEC homer. Insisted the SEC Network would get rates higher than the NFL. What I can’t figure out is why Fox hired him since they have the Pac 12 and Big 12.
LikeLike
(I posted this a year ago)
At least compared to where they were in 2009 the biggest winners are (in order)
1. Utah
2. TCU
(Moderate Drop)
3. Rutgers
4. BYU
(Massive drop)
5. Colorado
6. Missouri
(Drop)
7. Nebraska
8. aTm (could move into a tie pending how much the SEC Network ends up being worth)
(Drop)
9. Big Ten
10. PAC
11. SEC
12. Notre Dame
13-16. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and WVU
17. ACC and Big XII
You can put Texas in the UNL and aTm level if you count schools that didn’t move.
—-
The only real changes I would make now would be to drop BYU down quite a bit since the college sports landscape has shifted to their detriment, and put Maryland (who I forgot about) somewhere around 12.
LikeLike
Article I originally posted in
http://frankthetank.me/2013/04/22/acc-grant-of-rights-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-conference-realignment/
LikeLike
BYU was in a decent spot in 2009. Now they would have dropped if they stayed in the MWC, but they have dropped anyway. Curious why you thought Colorado and Missouri did so well and why the Big 10 was at the top of the conferences.
I think everyone who got out of the 2009 Big East had a pretty big upgrade.
LikeLike
Colorado and Missouri were both miserable in the Big XII (compared to A&M and Nebraska who had issues, but didn’t hate the league).
The Big 10 got the top slot amongst conferences since they added Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers and a CCG, which is more total value than anyone else added.
LikeLike
From a purely sports and sports finances aspect, Maryland and Rutgers are a big drag on the Big 10 and the worst additions. From that aspect, the Big 10 ranks at the bottom of the P5 although Nebraska was a clear plus. Now I think there are potentially some very significant non-sports benefits to those 2 schools and the Big 10 presidents probably end up very happy.
LikeLike
Bullet: “…and sports finances aspect, Maryland and Rutgers are a big drag on the Big 10…”
How so? That theory being already being shown wrong was the point of the commentary we are posting under.
“Still, this market represents tens of millions of dollars per year for the Big Ten solely based on the BTN.) The skeptics of whether Rutgers would pay off for the Big Ten (myself included) are about to eat crow. This was the financial end game for the Big Ten when the expansion process began nearly 5 years ago…”
LikeLike
If Texas A&M and Missouri bring zero to Tier I SEC, Maryland and Rutgers are negative in Tier I and probably also Tier 1.5 (the expanded part of the ESPN deal). They are a drag on home attendance for all the schools. The Big 10 has added 2 schools who are basically going to be for now in the bottom 3 in football and the bottom or next to bottom basketball program and one no one has familiarity with.
BTN may bring in millions more, but you need a lot just to break even. In the meantime you are splitting the ESPN deal, CCG, playoff money and NCAA basketball money 2 more ways.
LikeLike
The SEC additions bring increased inventory for tier 1 to be selected from, and will increase T1 value when it is again on the market. The increased inventory also makes/made the formation of the ESecPN channel a no brainer. Are you seriously suggesting the coming B1G T1 deal won’t be significantly effected by having two members in the NY to Va corridor? Just the gross increased BTN carriage from the one deal will have paid more than break even.
“Cablevision has 3.1 million subscribers in the area. Time Warner has a little more than 2.6 million subscribers in New York state, many of them concentrated in the city. New Jersey has a fraction of that at just over 40,000. Let’s just be extra conservative and put the total number of subscribers that will now get BTN at 4 million.
Just from this deal alone, the Big Ten just pocketed an extra $48 million per year.
Forty. Eight. Million. Dollars. Per. Year.
And that’s just from one carriage agreement in New York City. Let’s not forget Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and the rest of the I-95 corridor that BTN will look to expand into. Back in 2012, Sports Illustrated prophetically estimated that the Big Ten could make $200 million annually from television money on the east coast. And that number may now be on the low end of the spectrum.”
LikeLike
And they got a New Jersey/Maryland Comcast deal near the end of June.
LikeLike
CBS said the SEC additions added no value to Tier I. They get the first choice of SEC games. Adding two middle of pack programs adds no value. In some ways it hurts because it reduces matchups of the top SEC programs-Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennesse, Georgia and Auburn.
LikeLike
Do you know what rate they got? You’re assuming $1. And there are more people in NYC alone than all of Maryland and DC. So they just got the biggest chunk. I don’t know why you think it helps in Philly with PSU already in the conference.
Even with $48 million, that is only $24 million per school and doesn’t count additional expenses in setting up Rutgers and Maryland’s campuses. The Big 10 distributed more than that this year without playoff money. So they need a lot more to break even.
LikeLike
bullet,
“If Texas A&M and Missouri bring zero to Tier I SEC,”
Which isn’t quite true (see below).
“Maryland and Rutgers are negative in Tier I and probably also Tier 1.5 (the expanded part of the ESPN deal).”
Apples and oranges. CBS didn’t give them more money because they already broadcast 1 game per week nationally with strong ratings. The B10’s tier 1 deal is with ESPN and adding schools added inventory to that deal. More inventory equals more money. When NE joined, ESPN upped the money so nobody lost anything. Something similar probably happened this time.
“They are a drag on home attendance for all the schools.”
Are they? It remains to be seen. It’s not like IL and PU were packing the stands for other schools.
“The Big 10 has added 2 schools who are basically going to be for now in the bottom 3 in football and the bottom or next to bottom basketball program and one no one has familiarity with.”
And in exchange they got to have the three eastern kings play in NYC and DC a lot. Besides, UMD hoops is a known brand and OSU’s former coach went there and won a lot, including the National Championship.
“BTN may bring in millions more, but you need a lot just to break even. In the meantime you are splitting the ESPN deal, CCG, playoff money and NCAA basketball money 2 more ways.”
Show me evidence ESPN isn’t adding any money to the pot with these new additions. UMD may well earn us more hoops money, and wins over RU may help another team make the tourney.
“CBS said the SEC additions added no value to Tier I. They get the first choice of SEC games. Adding two middle of pack programs adds no value. In some ways it hurts because it reduces matchups of the top SEC programs-Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennesse, Georgia and Auburn.”
CBS didn’t give them more money, but they did waive their window exclusivity so the SECN can broadcast at the same time. That has value.
“Do you know what rate they got? You’re assuming $1.”
Of course not, because the B10 never tells. However, it was said to be a comparable rate to other areas.
A while ago I posted this link:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2014/06/big_ten_network_has_distribution_deals_with_the_three_major_local_cable_providers.html
Silverman said the BTN has reached similar distribution agreements in Maryland. The network will now reach 60 million homes, up from 52 million last year.
…
Silverman did not divulge the financial terms of the agreements, but he said the network is receiving rates comparable to deals in other markets.
8M more homes at a “comparable” rate to the rest of the footprint. That could mean the national average (about $0.30, last I heard), or the out-of-footprint rate ($0.10) or the in footprint rate ($1).
8M * $1/month (all in footprint) = $96M per year = $48M per year per new addition
8M * $0.70/month (2/3 in footprint) = $67.2M per year = $33.6M per year per new addition
8M * $0.50/month (1/2 in footprint) = $48M per year = $24M per year per new addition
8M * $0.35/month (1/3 in footprint) = $28.8M per year = $14.4M per year per new addition
8M * $0.10/month (none in footprint) = $9.6M per year = $4.8M per year per new addition
One of those numbers is probably pretty close.
“I don’t know why you think it helps in Philly with PSU already in the conference.”
The BTN had a big fight with Comcast getting into Philly, and was only on the sports tier there at first. Adding in all the RU fans in Philly would help generate the critical mass needed to move it to expanded basic if it isn’t already.
LikeLike
“…that is only $24 million per school…”
For only one deal in one, admittedly large, metro area. Do you think there might be a comcast deal to be made there, too? And other smaller cable systems?
Delany and the COP/C are known for making money losing decisions (sarcasm)…
I’m beginning to think [redacted] has hijacked bullet’s nom de plume.
LikeLike
“I don’t know why you think it helps in Philly with PSU already in the conference.”
Philly was always mentioned as a city that did not pay in-state BTN rates. Pundits may think that Rutgers would help move it to in-state rates.
LikeLike
From a purely sports and sports finances aspect, Maryland and Rutgers are a big drag on the Big 10 and the worst additions. From that aspect, the Big 10 ranks at the bottom of the P5 although Nebraska was a clear plus.
I could maybe see that argument for Rutgers, but I don’t see how you can make the case that Maryland. I mean they certainly bring more to the Big 10 than (at least) TCU does to the Big XII.
LikeLike
BTN carriage fee estimates are all over the map:
See: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/01/13/Media/SEC-net.aspx#.UtPl0k9cV14 :
“BTN launched in 2007 and currently charges up to $1 in its 11-state footprint from New Jersey to Nebraska. Sub fees on average from both inside and outside the footprint average 37 cents, according to researcher SNL Kagan.”
LikeLike
frug,
“At least compared to where they were in 2009 the biggest winners are (in order)
1. Utah
2. TCU
(Moderate Drop)
3. Rutgers
4. BYU
(Massive drop)
5. Colorado
6. Missouri
(Drop)
7. Nebraska
8. aTm (could move into a tie pending how much the SEC Network ends up being worth)
(Drop)
9. Big Ten
10. PAC
11. SEC
12. Notre Dame
13-16. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and WVU
17. ACC and Big XII
You can put Texas in the UNL and aTm level if you count schools that didn’t move.
—-
The only real changes I would make now would be to drop BYU down quite a bit since the college sports landscape has shifted to their detriment, and put Maryland (who I forgot about) somewhere around 12.”
With the BE collapse into the AAC, I think RU moves up the list. The MWC is better than the AAC, plus the B10 will pay RU more than Utah and TCU. I’d also move Pitt, SU and UL up the list.
I agree BYU drops.
I’d put UMD higher than 12.
LikeLike
With the BE collapse into the AAC, I think RU moves up the list. The MWC is better than the AAC, plus the B10 will pay RU more than Utah and TCU. I’d also move Pitt, SU and UL up the list.
I agree BYU drops.
I’d put UMD higher than 12.
Reasonable points, but like I said, this was relative to 2009 (before the realignment cycle started) and at that point the Big East was in substantially better shape than the MWC (as evidenced by the fact TCU was willing to leave the MWC for the BEast). And while Rutgers will make more in the Big Ten than Utah or TCU will make in the PAC/Big XII, Rutgers was already make something like 5 times as much money in the Big East as Utah and TCU were making in the Mountain West.
I don’t really see how Pitt, SU and UL could be much higher; they left the then poorest power conference to join what is now the poorest power conference.
Maryland is tough to rank because
A) They were in a pretty good spot, relatively speaking, before moving
and
B) It was the only move that was made for purely financial reasons.
LikeLike
frug,
“Reasonable points, but like I said, this was relative to 2009 (before the realignment cycle started) and at that point the Big East was in substantially better shape than the MWC (as evidenced by the fact TCU was willing to leave the MWC for the BEast).”
I know, but I guess I automatically extrapolated that to where they would be now if they hadn’t moved. The comparison isn’t BE to ACC or B10, it’s AAC to ACC or B10.
“And while Rutgers will make more in the Big Ten than Utah or TCU will make in the PAC/Big XII, Rutgers was already make something like 5 times as much money in the Big East as Utah and TCU were making in the Mountain West.”
In relative terms yes, but I was thinking in absolute terms. $5M vs $1M is only a $4M difference. $45M vs $35M (I’m just making up numbers, not claiming these are accurate) is a much bigger difference. Besides, RU needed the money more than any other school.
“I don’t really see how Pitt, SU and UL could be much higher; they left the then poorest power conference to join what is now the poorest power conference.”
Because they’d be in the AAC instead of the ACC. Look at where UConn is relative to 2009 just by staying put.
“Maryland is tough to rank because
A) They were in a pretty good spot, relatively speaking, before moving
and
B) It was the only move that was made for purely financial reasons.”
But as you mentioned for CO and MO, UMD wasn’t happy in the ACC (constant complaints about Carolina control, their locked rival being Pitt, etc) and they were broke.
LikeLike
The ACC is in a lot better spot than the Big East 2009 was when there was constant talk about them getting kicked out of the BCS group. Noone is talking about kicking the ACC out. There’s a difference between being the bottom dog in a group and being the bottom dog and in danger of getting kicked out of the group. So I think anyone in the Big East in 2009 who left is in a lot better position than anyone who left the ACC or Big 12. And that’s not considering the big increase in revenues they received.
LikeLike
I know, but I guess I automatically extrapolated that to where they would be now if they hadn’t moved. The comparison isn’t BE to ACC or B10, it’s AAC to ACC or B10.
Problem with that line of thought is that it introduces new variables. You can (for example) say Colorado would be in the Big XII now if they hadn’t moved, but then still assume that the all realignment would have still played out exactly the same, because it wouldn’t have.
This is especially true for the AAC. There is just no scenario in which there would be an AAC (as now composed) + Sryacuse or Pitt or WVU or Louisville or Rutgers. The moves were all interrelated.
In relative terms yes, but I was thinking in absolute terms. $5M vs $1M is only a $4M difference. $45M vs $35M (I’m just making up numbers, not claiming these are accurate) is a much bigger difference. Besides, RU needed the money more than any other school.
Well, like I said it is all relative. And you are ignoring other significant factors. Like the fact that Utah got to join the PAC 3 years earlier than Rutgers got to join the Big Ten and that Utah didn’t have to pay an exit fee or have legal fight with their former conference. And that fact, that Utah escaped a caste system by moving up (the Big East may have been the worst AQ conference but they were still on the inside.)
Because they’d be in the AAC instead of the ACC. Look at where UConn is relative to 2009 just by staying put.
That is why WCU, ‘Cuse, Pitt and Louisville are on the winners list and UConn is on the losers list. Just because they didn’t improve their situation as much as other schools doesn’t mean they didn’t improve at all.
But as you mentioned for CO and MO, UMD wasn’t happy in the ACC (constant complaints about Carolina control, their locked rival being Pitt, etc) and they were broke.
Maryland may have been irritated by the ACC (and especially the ND addition) but their issues with the conference aren’t even in the same area code as those that Colorado and Mizzou had. CU announced their departure from the Big XII before they even knew if the PAC was going to offer them more money than the Big XII and Missouri hated the Big XII so much they brought to public lobby the Big Ten and trash the Big XII.
LikeLike
Colorado didn’t have “issues with the Big 12.” Colorado had lots of rich alumni in California and Arizona. The economy of Colorado has changed over the last 30 years and they are much more tied to the coast instead of the plains.
California had far more alumni than any other state. Arizona was 3rd behind Texas and had more than all the other Big 12 states combined.
It wasn’t dislike of the Big 12, it was non-sports related reasons that caused them to want to go to the Pac.
LikeLike
Colorado didn’t have “issues with the Big 12.” Colorado had lots of rich alumni in California and Arizona. The economy of Colorado has changed over the last 30 years and they are much more tied to the coast instead of the plains.
California had far more alumni than any other state. Arizona was 3rd behind Texas and had more than all the other Big 12 states combined.
That’s my point though; on the issues Colorado had with the Big XII was that only 10% of their out of state alumni lived in Big XII states vs. 40% in Southern California alone.
Colorado had also realized that their inability to recruit the state of Texas effectively was going to prevent them from being competitive as long as they were in the Big XII. The move to the PAC let them develop more natural recruiting ties on the West Coast.
LikeLike
There is just no scenario in which there would be an AAC (as now composed) + Sryacuse or Pitt or WVU or Louisville or Rutgers. The moves were all interrelated.
But there is also no scenario in which the Big East would have remained an AQ league (or today’s equivalent of that), even had it retained its 2009 membership. The P5 had already made clear that in the next round of post-season negotiations, the Big East was going to be sitting at the kiddie table.
Furthermore, the moves were not all interrelated. Pitt and Syracuse went together; then there was a pause; then Maryland moved, creating the openings that Rutgers and Louisville took advantage of. Certainly, once Pitt and Syracuse were gone, it was clear that the remaining dregs of the Big East were going to be something like what we call the AAC today. When Rutgers and Louisville punched their tickets, there was no longer any chance of going back to 2009.
And you are ignoring other significant factors. Like the fact that Utah got to join the PAC 3 years earlier than Rutgers got to join the Big Ten and that Utah didn’t have to pay an exit fee or have legal fight with their former conference.</em.
Since re-alignment decisions generally last for decades, a 3-year timing difference and the exit fee (or lack of it) are practically immaterial.
LikeLike
But there is also no scenario in which the Big East would have remained an AQ league (or today’s equivalent of that), even had it retained its 2009 membership. The P5 had already made clear that in the next round of post-season negotiations, the Big East was going to be sitting at the kiddie table.
Actually, that’s not true. If the P5 in their 2009 alignments had jettisoned the Big East they would have lost their voting majority in FBS which was a non-starter. In order to keep control of D1A the P5 were always going to have to either pick up some Big East schools or cut a deal with the BEast.
Furthermore, the moves were not all interrelated. Pitt and Syracuse went together; then there was a pause; then Maryland moved, creating the openings that Rutgers and Louisville took advantage of. Certainly, once Pitt and Syracuse were gone, it was clear that the remaining dregs of the Big East were going to be something like what we call the AAC today. When Rutgers and Louisville punched their tickets, there was no longer any chance of going back to 2009.
Except it was the additions of Pitt and Syracuse that caused the Big Ten to pursue Eastern expansion and grab Maryland and Rutgers.
The moves were all interrelated meaning there is simply no way to isolate any one school and say “this is where X would be now if they hadn’t moved”.
Since re-alignment decisions generally last for decades, a 3-year timing difference and the exit fee (or lack of it) are practically immaterial.
They don’t have to be. TCU is on its 6th conference in 20 years. BYU, TCU, BSU and SDSU all quit conferences before ever actually joining them.
Louisville, Miami, WVU and V-Tech all spent less than a dozen years in the Big East I believe.
LikeLike
frug,
“Actually, that’s not true. If the P5 in their 2009 alignments had jettisoned the Big East they would have lost their voting majority in FBS which was a non-starter.”
A non-starter according to whom?
“In order to keep control of D1A the P5 were always going to have to either pick up some Big East schools or cut a deal with the BEast.”
The P5 are now pushing to get control of all of D-I. They are nowhere near a voting majority in D-I. How would the BE staying whole change that?
LikeLike
Brian:
I think frug is correct here. The P5 is trying to free themselves from some restraints as to what they may do, not dictate what all of D1 must do. It’s taken an increased threat of a breakaway (seriously damaging the whole NCAA’s income potential), which although still unlikely had become a bit more plausible and increased the likely acceptance of the requested changes that D1 schools/conferences may implement (assuming they do pass) if they chose to.
LikeLike
The P5 are now pushing to get control of all of D-I. They are nowhere near a voting majority in D-I. How would the BE staying whole change that?
Yeah, and they are trying to get control and there is no guarantee they will. In the meantime, they have continue to allow the NCAA and other conferences to take 100s of millions of dollars in basketball revenue from the NCAA Tournament.
You really think the P5 are going to risk letting something like that happen to football which they have virtually complete financial control of?
LikeLike
frug,
“Yeah, and they are trying to get control and there is no guarantee they will.”
I think it’s all but guaranteed because the others know the P5 are serious about leaving the NCAA in order to get these changes.
“In the meantime, they have continue to allow the NCAA and other conferences to take 100s of millions of dollars in basketball revenue from the NCAA Tournament.”
They choose to let that happen because they believe in that model for college athletics. They could easily have left the NCAA if all they cared about was maximizing their own revenue.
“You really think the P5 are going to risk letting something like that happen to football which they have virtually complete financial control of?”
Yes, because I don’t see significant risk. They can always leave the NCAA, and the rest of the NCAA knows that.
LikeLike
Yes, because I don’t see significant risk. They can always leave the NCAA, and the rest of the NCAA knows that.
Not unilaterally, at least in the short term. Remember, if the P5 overplay their hand the remaining schools can simply threaten to expel them from the NCAA immediately in all sports which result in de facto death penalties for the ejected schools entire athletic departments for at least a year (and probably more). Their just no way the P5 could get the infrastructure in place to administer all their sports in less than a year and they can’t meet their Title IX obligations unless they can sponsor all their sports.
So explain why exactly P5 would have passed on cutting a deal with the Big East and/or expanded to ensure their numerical superiority (which would have cost them a relative pittance) when the downside is losing $100s of million a year?
LikeLike
frug,
“Not unilaterally, at least in the short term.”
Yes unilaterally, even in the short term.
“Remember, if the P5 overplay their hand the remaining schools can simply threaten to expel them from the NCAA immediately in all sports which result in de facto death penalties for the ejected schools entire athletic departments for at least a year (and probably more).”
That would be suicide. Their ADs are dependent on NCAA tourney money and paycheck football games, which would go away.
“Their just no way the P5 could get the infrastructure in place to administer all their sports in less than a year and they can’t meet their Title IX obligations unless they can sponsor all their sports.”
They could if they had to. It wouldn’t be as smooth for a while, but it’s doable.
LikeLike
That would be suicide. Their ADs are dependent on NCAA tourney money and paycheck football games, which would go away.
True, but it would be even worse for the ejected schools who would have to shut down their entire athletic departments.
LikeLike
frug,
“True, but it would be even worse for the ejected schools who would have to shut down their entire athletic departments.”
I completely disagree. I see no reason why the power schools would have to shut down. They’d just have to reschedule some games/meets. The small schools are much more likely to suffer under that scenario since they don’t have the resources to handle it as easily.
LikeLike
I see no reason why the power schools would have to shut down. They’d just have to reschedule some games/meets.
That’s not the big problem.
The big problem is that the big schools would have to essentially create an entire new NCAA from scratch in less than a year.
Even if they simply copied the NCAA rulebook word for word they would still need to hire referees for all their sports and bureaucrats to handle all the administrative stuff the NCAA handles (we are talking about several thousand people at this point) and since NCAA has most of its staff under contract (including officials) the P5 schools couldn’t simply steal them away.
Plus, it would be impossible to reschedule a lot of non-revs because of their regionalized nature. (Only 1 power conference sponsors hockey, only 2 sponsor lax and I don’t think any sponsor sailing, rowing, shooting, etc…) There simply are not enough schools sponsoring these sports amongst the P5 to sustain them, but the schools that do sponsor them requite them to meet their Title IX obligations.
Then there are all the legal problems. Having been ejected from the NCAA all players would be free to transfer without penalty and all coaches could leave their contracts with no buyout, and if the schools attempted to block them they would face immediate anti-trusts suits that the players/coaches would almost certainly win. Plus, the schools would also have to reapply for tax exempt status and renegotiate all their TV and sponsorship deals.
There is simply isn’t enough to do all this in less than a year.
LikeLike
Frug:
The conferences hire the refs now. They arrange the bowls and D1 FB (where the money is).
They arrange post season MBB conference tournaments. They’d only need to arrange a smaller (16 or 24 team) championship.
Is Rosenblatt still standing? Is TD Ameritrade going to be happy with no P5 schools? The regionals/super regionals are school hosted.
Since they seem to know what parts of the NCAA regs they want changed they could adopt the set they would prefer with only themselves to bargain with.
Besides, the lesser D1’s would trip over themselves to curry favor with the P5.
LikeLike
@ccrider
You are right about the officials, but not quite on the bowls. While they do contract directly with the conferences (which is why it is so important that the P5 maintaining the voting majority) the bowl licenses are owned by the NCAA.
You are forgetting that it is more than just hosting the BB tournament.
Think about all the administrative tasks the NCAA does. All paperwork, the academic clearinghouse, the investigators. All that would have to be rebuilt from scratch… for every single sport.
LikeLike
Frug:
The NCAA has to exempt bowls from season limits. Rose Bowl is an arrangement between the B1G, PAC, and the Tournament of Roses (and whatever the BCS is now called). If the NCAA had any more control of D1 FB they would be making money off it. The conferences and/or schools are the recipients/signers of bowl invitations and payouts. The risk to the rest of the NCAA is having over half march madness turn to the same arrangement.
Much of the NCAA committees and positions are filled by reps from D1 schools. Building oversight for 60-70 is far easier than for many hundred with three/four subsets. The “old” NCAA would be in worse position. Their financial legs would be seriously compromised. While the new would likely have organizational challenges for a year or two they would have the finances to confidently move forward.
LikeLike
@ccrider
But the Tournament of Roses, Big Ten, and PAC have a separate contract with the NCAA which could prevent the holding of the game.
While the new would likely have organizational challenges for a year or two they would have the finances to confidently move forward.
The problem is the “challenges for a year or two” would be sufficient to shut down all the schools’ athletic departments. You really think that Michigan, Texas and Alabama are going to go two years without football?
LikeLike
Frug:
I’ve never heard of licensing bowls by the NCAA, other than clearing them as an extra allowable game under NCAA rules (which would no longer matter to non members anyway). What possible enforcement mechanism could the NCAA have over schools and organizations (bowls) that are no longer and/or never were members? There is no payout the NCAA administers that could withheld.
Why would there be no FB? There would be at least eight, and in some cases nine, currently scheduled conference games plus the currently scheduled P5 OOC games. How hard would it be to expand the conference schedules and/or create P5 OOC conference agreements along the line of the B1G/PAC scheduling (almost) agreement? We would see a better slate of games, even if we temporarily went back to 11 game schedule. Nothing in leaving the NCAA would prevent the Iron Bowl, Big Game, RRR, etc from happening, or any other game the new governing association would allow. It would be up to the old NCAA to tell those depending on payday games that they couldn’t play. Ban Colorado/CSU, Utah/USU, etc? And that might drive some/many go the Go5 to leave, too.
LikeLike
@ccrider55 is correct. Although there would be some scrambling, the major schools would have no great difficulty keeping their athletic departments running an a post-NCAA world. You are certainly mistaken about the bowls. The NCAA doesn’t own them. They would not be affected at all by the NCAA’s demise.
LikeLike
ESPN owns all but a handful of bowls. The Big 12 and SEC own the Sugar.
There is some discussion of delegation to the conferences of violations. They could outsource research into violations. 1 year would be a big challenge, but it could be done. The P5 don’t want to do go through that work and they don’t want to destroy athletic programs at places they may want to work in the future, but they could do it. And the rest of the NCAA can’t afford that.
LikeLike
Bullet:
ESPN owns media rights to most bowls, but not the bowls (other than a couple recent low level creations). They contract with the conferences and bowls, not the NCAA, except for D2/3 playoffs/championships. The point I was trying to make is that the “licensing” a bowl needs from the NCAA only applies to those governed by the NCAA. D1 schools uses FB rules and regs, but have ownership of the sports income.
LikeLike
frug,
“The big problem is that the big schools would have to essentially create an entire new NCAA from scratch in less than a year.”
Easily done by copying the old rules and hiring some people. It wouldn’t work as smoothly as the NCAA, but that’s OK. Every other school would crash and burn and then they could hire all the NCAA people.
“Even if they simply copied the NCAA rulebook word for word they would still need to hire referees for all their sports”
The refs aren’t NCAA employees, the conferences hire and train them.
“and bureaucrats to handle all the administrative stuff the NCAA handles”
You need a very small staff to deal with just the P5 schools. The NCAA is dealing with almost 1100 schools, not just 65. They also don’t have to deal with 3 divisions and nobody has to stage national championships in non-revenue sports.
“and since NCAA has most of its staff under contract (including officials) the P5 schools couldn’t simply steal them away.”
NCAA staffers quit all the time.
“Plus, it would be impossible to reschedule a lot of non-revs because of their regionalized nature.”
No, it wouldn’t be impossible. Just harder.
“There simply are not enough schools sponsoring these sports amongst the P5 to sustain them, but the schools that do sponsor them requite them to meet their Title IX obligations.”
I think you have a faulty view of what it takes to maintain a sport. All they have to do is have a regular season. The same schools can play each other multiple times. You don’t have to have conference championships or national championships either.
More importantly, you are ignoring all the problems the other schools would face. With no FB money coming in and with the tourney contract broken due to the loss of all the power schools, they’d have zero money to meet their obligations. They’d all have to go D-III, but many of them can’t afford to do that. Those schools know they’d be cutting off their nose to spite their face. That’s why they’d never let it happen.
LikeLike
frug,
“You are right about the officials, but not quite on the bowls. While they do contract directly with the conferences (which is why it is so important that the P5 maintaining the voting majority) the bowl licenses are owned by the NCAA.”
And they could choose to cancel their bowls and then form new ones with the P5. The NCAA license only applies to NCAA teams.
“You are forgetting that it is more than just hosting the BB tournament.”
It doesn’t have to be. They don’t have to recreate the old NCAA if they don’t want to do it. There is no law that they have to have championship tournaments for everything.
“Think about all the administrative tasks the NCAA does. All paperwork, the academic clearinghouse, the investigators. All that would have to be rebuilt from scratch… for every single sport.”
Only if they want it rebuilt. With a lot fewer schools, they might choose simpler alternatives.
LikeLike
frug,
“The problem is the “challenges for a year or two” would be sufficient to shut down all the schools’ athletic departments.”
Not even remotely true. They’d still play all the sports just fine. I don’t know where you are getting this view that the sky would fall.
“You really think that Michigan, Texas and Alabama are going to go two years without football?”
No, I don’t. Only you think that would happen.
LikeLike
If the P5 in their 2009 alignments had jettisoned the Big East they would have lost their voting majority in FBS which was a non-starter. In order to keep control of D1A the P5 were always going to have to either pick up some Big East schools or cut a deal with the BEast.
The P5 have nowhere near a majority in FBS. They didn’t before, and they don’t now. They were gonna take control of Division I, with or without a few former Big East schools. Their leverage has nothing to do with numbers. Their leverage is that they can leave the NCAA at any time, and without them the NCAA becomes a backwater.
It was the additions of Pitt and Syracuse that caused the Big Ten to pursue Eastern expansion and grab Maryland and Rutgers.
The moves were all interrelated meaning there is simply no way to isolate any one school and say “this is where X would be now if they hadn’t moved”.
This is incorrect in two respects. It was already well known that the Big Ten coveted the Eastern Seaboard, but it takes two to tango. Nothing the Big Ten did caused Maryland’s athletic department to get into such serious financial trouble, which created the impetus for them to move. It was simply luck that it happened when it did. Without that, the Big Ten could have batted its eyelashes for the next decade, and Maryland would still’ve been in the ACC.
I grant you that one can only estimate, and not say for sure, precisely where a school would’ve been, had it not moved. But the estimate doesn’t need to be perfect; it only needs to be better than yours. It’s abundantly clear that the 2009 conditions would not have remained, no matter what any individual school had done. The comparison to something that no longer exists, and cannot exist, is the least useful that I can imagine.
LikeLike
I would add that if the thought of making an intelligent estimate repulses you, then probably the best baseline is where the school stood, at the time it moved. When Louisville accepted the ACC’s invitation on November 28, 2012, it already knew that the 2009 version of the Big East no longer existed, since Pitt, Syracuse, WV, and Rutgers, had already left.
But anyhow, as Louisville made the final move of the 2009–2012 re-alignment spree, no speculation is required as to what would have happened to them. Either they or UConn were getting the final seat at the dance; the other was going to be an AAC team.
It requires very little insight to backtrack from that, at least for the last few moves. If you substitute Maryland for Louisville, the value of the ACC media deal doesn’t change. So if Maryland doesn’t move to the Big Ten, then they get the same payout ACC schools are getting now. If Maryland stays put, then Rutgers is stuck in the AAC, and what would they earn? It cannot be dramatically different than AAC teams are getting now.
The Big XII retained the same media deal even after it shrunk to ten teams, so it’s a pretty fair baseline that if CO, NE, aTm, and MO had not moved, they’d be getting similar payouts to what Big XII teams receive today.
The most difficult moves to evaluate according to this standard, are Pitt and Syracuse. From the past actions of Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College, it was already abundantly clear that the Big East was vulnerable. Practically no one thought that the league was going to retain its auto-bid after the BCS contract expired. Everyone knew that multiple conferences were eyeing Big East teams. But it is admittedly difficult to estimate exactly what would’ve happened had Pitt and Syracuse elected to stand pat, although I think one can state with certainty that they no longer would have had a 2009 Big East under any scenario. Any sane estimate you make has to be better than assuming things stayed the same.
LikeLike
@Marc
You are still underestimating how intertwined these moves were. After all, if Missouri tells the SEC no back in 2011, the SEC probably sucks it up and adds FSU. This, in turn, causes a chain reaction that leads to the complete collapse of the ACC. With one simple move (or lack there of) the Big East suddenly becomes the stronger of the two leagues and leads to massive fallout elsewhere (with the B1G, SEC, and XII grabbing as many goodies as they can).
Similarly, what if Nebraska tells the Big Ten no in 2010? Seeing as Missouri was the runner up that year, it is more than likely they get the spot that went Nebraska. However, assuming that everything else plays out the same (which you insist on doing) then a year later Nebraska is in the position Missouri was in (pissed off at the LHN along with the rest of the league and worried about longterm stability) at that point it seems like the Cornhuskers would reconsider their initial rejection of the Big Ten and the Big Ten probably agrees to add them. Having added two more Midwestern schools and needed a 14th, does the Big Ten then suddenly turn back East or do they continue their rampage through the Big XII by grabbing Kansas? And if the Big Ten were to turn down Nebraska would UNL turn to the PAC?
The comparison to something that no longer exists, and cannot exist, is the least useful that I can imagine.
Argue all you want about It was the last stable alignment prior to the current. To use alignments that in some some cases lasted for only a few days as a basis for comparison seems silly to me.
This is incorrect in two respects. It was already well known that the Big Ten coveted the Eastern Seaboard, but it takes two to tango. Nothing the Big Ten did caused Maryland’s athletic department to get into such serious financial trouble, which created the impetus for them to move. It was simply luck that it happened when it did. Without that, the Big Ten could have batted its eyelashes for the next decade, and Maryland would still’ve been in the ACC.
The Big Ten has said repeatedly that without the ACC expansion they would have stayed at 12. No Pitt and ‘Cuse to the ACC, no Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
“The Big Ten has said repeatedly that without the ACC expansion they would have stayed at 12.”
Huh. I recall the “blame” being given to the PAC for failing to ratify the scheduling agreement. And I recall that even during the PSU run up Rutgers kept showing very high on their lists. And I believe it was UNL that told the B1G “it’s now or never” after they’d already announced an intent to expand. The east addressed all the off the field concerns and they may only have asked one from there. But it’s hard to say no to a amiable king, making two in the east necessary to address those concerns.
Would UNL ever have considered moving west with Colorado?
LikeLike
Huh. I recall the “blame” being given to the PAC for failing to ratify the scheduling agreement.
It was the combination of the two.
The PAC scheduling alliance was intended to serve as a substitute for further expansion.
LikeLike
You are still underestimating how intertwined these moves were. After all, if Missouri tells the SEC no back in 2011, the SEC probably sucks it up and adds FSU. This, in turn, causes a chain reaction that leads to the complete collapse of the ACC. With one simple move (or lack there of) the Big East suddenly becomes the stronger of the two leagues and leads to massive fallout elsewhere (with the B1G, SEC, and XII grabbing as many goodies as they can).
I agree that the farther back you go, the harder it is to estimate what would’ve happened if a particular party had behaved differently. But no, the Big East wouldn’t have “suddenly” become the stronger of the two leagues. The ACC minus FSU was still a considerably more valuable brand than the Big East.
In that scenario, their more valuable schools would have gone to the Big Ten and the SEC. The remainder would have scooped up the cream of the Big East, while retaining the ACC name. No matter what, the Big East was going to die.
The Big Ten has said repeatedly that without the ACC expansion they would have stayed at 12.
I don’t have time to dive into the time machine, but I recall many quotes from Big Ten sources in that time frame, that they believed their long-term future was to the south and east. Since Nebraska is neither south nor east, it clearly implied they weren’t done at 12. They were merely “done, for the time being.”
It would be awfully naive to suppose that the Big Ten saw a collection of slow-growing rust-belt states as its permanent footprint, with no aspirations beyond that, until the ACC woke them up by taking Syracuse and Pitt, two schools the Big Ten didn’t want anyway.
LikeLike
But no, the Big East wouldn’t have “suddenly” become the stronger of the two leagues. The ACC minus FSU was still a considerably more valuable brand than the Big East.
In that scenario, their more valuable schools would have gone to the Big Ten and the SEC. The remainder would have scooped up the cream of the Big East, while retaining the ACC name. No matter what, the Big East was going to die.
Let’s see.
Assuming that after an FSU move to the Big Ten, Maryland, UVa, V-Tech, UNC, NC State and G-Tech were all able to grab spots in the Big Ten or SEC, and Clemson and Miami and were able to join the Big XII (which would be a better option at that point than anything else) you are left with an ACC consisting of Wake Forest, Boston College and Pitt and Syracuse teams that are still more than a year from joining and whom the Big East would have gladly taken back.
At that point the Big East is unquestionably the stronger league.
(And that is to say nothing of the fact that with the departure of 10 of its 12 voting members the departing schools would simply vote to dissolve the conference in order to avoid exit fees and bring along their tournament credits)
LikeLike
I think the relevant comparison is “where they are now” vs. “where they would’ve wound up, if they hadn’t made a move.” Accordingly, I would compare Rutgers in the Big Ten, to Rutgers in the AAC, not Rutgers in the 2009 version of the Big East. If no team had left the Big East, perhaps that league would’ve survived, but the writing was already on the wall that they weren’t going to have an auto-bid to a major bowl anymore.
If you accept that criterion, then the greatest winners are (in some order) Rutgers, Utah, TCU, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and West Virginia. They’re the ones that would’ve been on the outside looking in, if they had made no move.
I’m fairly confident that the top cohort is, in some order, Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, and TCU, because their moves were clear wins with no obvious drawbacks. In contrast, Syracuse and Pitt moved to a league that, in some respects, has similar weaknesses as the league they came from. Pitt and WV had to give up an annual rivalry that both valued. WV moved to a league where the travel is highly undesirable.
Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, aTm, and Maryland all moved to stronger leagues than they were in before, but had they done nothing, they would all still have been in a power conference. All of them gave up numerous valued rivalries. Based on fan reaction alone, it would seem that Missouri and aTm fans are absolutely delighted with where they wound up. Colorado, Nebraska, and Maryland fans are not so sure.
Do you rank these moves solely on financial value, or does fan satisfaction count?
LikeLike
Great explanations of your rankings of the winners. Makes a lot of sense.
With regards to the “top cohort” (Rutgers, Utah, Louisville and TCU), it’s fascinating how their journey to stability is so different.
It seems that Rutgers almost backed into the Big Ten. Their athletics are questionable and the university subsidizes a huge portion of the spend. The fact that Maryland wanted in and the ACC was making inroads into the the Northeast market made them attractive.
Utah has more successful athletics than Rutgers (football and Olympic sports), but that is really a very low bar. The need for PAC TV inventory and Colorado’s flexibility really helped Utah.
Louisville earned their spot in a surprising upset over UConn. While the ACC blue bloods were bewildered by Maryland’s money grab, Louisville was stressing how an efficiently run Athletic Department could generate high revenues even without massive TV money.
TCU is really the most surprising winner. The Big XII could have gone with many other schools. TCU does not expand the conference’s TV markets, so the school sells its commitment to having a strong football brand and a reliable conference member
LikeLike
Louisville earned their spot in a surprising upset over UConn. While the ACC blue bloods were bewildered by Maryland’s money grab, Louisville was stressing how an efficiently run Athletic Department could generate high revenues even without massive TV money.
The biggest factor was the football members digging in their heals and stopping just short of issuing and ultimatum that Louisville get the bid instead of UConn.
TCU is really the most surprising winner. The Big XII could have gone with many other schools. TCU does not expand the conference’s TV markets, so the school sells its commitment to having a strong football brand and a reliable conference member
It was really important for the non-Texas schools to get two annual games in the state. Plus, the Big XII didn’t want to deal with the Big East’s 27 month waiting period (remember, at the time they were not expecting Missouri to bolt), so TCU basically got the spot by default (especially since BYU, their top choice, turned them down.)
LikeLike
I think the relevant comparison is “where they are now” vs. “where they would’ve wound up, if they hadn’t made a move.” Accordingly, I would compare Rutgers in the Big Ten, to Rutgers in the AAC, not Rutgers in the 2009 version of the Big East. If no team had left the Big East, perhaps that league would’ve survived, but the writing was already on the wall that they weren’t going to have an auto-bid to a major bowl anymore.
(Copy/paste from my response to Brian)
“Problem with that line of thought is that it introduces new variables. You can (for example) say Colorado would be in the Big XII now if they hadn’t moved, but then still assume that the all realignment would have still played out exactly the same, because it wouldn’t have.
This is especially true for the AAC. There is just no scenario in which there would be an AAC (as now composed) + Sryacuse or Pitt or WVU or Louisville or Rutgers. The moves were all interrelated.”
I’m fairly confident that the top cohort is, in some order, Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, and TCU, because their moves were clear wins with no obvious drawbacks.
I agree on Rutgers, TCU and Utah.
In contrast, Syracuse and Pitt moved to a league that, in some respects, has similar weaknesses as the league they came from.
Louisville is making the exact same move as ‘Cuse and Pitt and you just said they “clear win[ers] with no obvious drawbacks.”
Pitt and WV had to give up an annual rivalry that both valued.
Ok.
WV moved to a league where the travel is highly undesirable.
And they will also be making (at least) $6-$7 million more a year than Louisville and got to leave a couple years earlier, so I think it cancels out.
Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, aTm, and Maryland all moved to stronger leagues than they were in before, but had they done nothing, they would all still have been in a power conference.
See my response above.
All of them gave up numerous valued rivalries.
Not really. Colorado didn’t care about the Big XII at all. The only game Nebraska will miss is Oklahoma and the conference killed that as annual rivalry back in ’96.
One of Maryland’s chief complains about the ACC was that because of the divisional alignments and expansion they were playing their rivals less and less often.
Missouri would like to play Kansas and aTm the Longhorns, but that means giving up 1 game not “numerous” rivalries.
Based on fan reaction alone, it would seem that Missouri and aTm fans are absolutely delighted with where they wound up. Colorado, Nebraska, and Maryland fans are not so sure.
Believe me Buffalo fans (at least those that are sober enough to notice) back the move almost unanimously. Only 10% of Colorado’s out of state alums live in Big XII states vs. 40% who live in Southern California (with sizable chunk in Utah and scattered up and down the coast as well).
Maryland fans were opposed at first, but after the initial shock passed almost all are either neutral or supportive of the move.
Nebraska fans might prefer a return to the Big XII if the conference was willing to make some concessions (say an annual game with Oklahoma and a pledge to hold the CCG in KC every other year) but the Big XII refused to compromise with them for 13 years (see the number of 11-1 votes they lost) so they are skeptical they would now.
Do you rank these moves solely on financial value, or does fan satisfaction count?
It’s a factor since fan satisfaction plays into ticket sales, donations and TV ratings.
LikeLike
In contrast, Syracuse and Pitt moved to a league that, in some respects, has similar weaknesses as the league they came from.
Louisville is making the exact same move as ‘Cuse and Pitt and you just said they “clear win[ers] with no obvious drawbacks.”
At the time Syracuse and Pitt moved, the disparity between the Big East and the ACC was not as great as it would be later on. Those two schools also had a lot invested in the Big East, and had to leave a lot of long-standing basketball rivalries behind. That’s fairly significant, especially to Syracuse, since their football program hasn’t been relevant in decades. Pitt, as I already mentioned, lost their WV rivalry. Although Syracuse and Pitt undoubtedly made the right decision, the merits were at least sufficiently arguable that some fans and sportswriters would shed rhetorical tears over what was being lost.
Louisville did not have the same decades-long historical ties to the Big East, which they joined in 2005. Furthermore, by the time they left, it was abundantly clear that the Big East/AAC had no shot at remaining relevant in football. Louisville is currently a much stronger football school than Syracuse or Pitt, so they had a lot more to lose if they were in a league that lacked access to the major bowls.
So that’s why it’s thoroughly consistent to describe Louisville’s move (but not that of Syracuse or Pitt) as a “clear win with no obvious drawbacks.”
LikeLike
Those two schools also had a lot invested in the Big East, and had to leave a lot of long-standing basketball rivalries behind. That’s fairly significant, especially to Syracuse, since their football program hasn’t been relevant in decades.
The chance to play UNC and Duke every year more than offsets the loss of any Big East basketball rivalry with the possible exception of Syracuse-Georgetown which has already been extended as a non-conference rivalry.
Plus, Pitt and Syracuse have historic ties with BC, Miami and each other.
Pitt, as I already mentioned, lost their WV rivalry.
The Backyard Brawl was a non-conference game for the first 7 decades of its existence. It only became a conference game in 1990 and if the two sides really are interested in extending it they can.
Louisville is currently a much stronger football school than Syracuse or Pitt, so they had a lot more to lose if they were in a league that lacked access to the major bowls.
Louisville may be stronger now, but Pitt and Syracuse have stronger football histories. And Pitt and ‘Cuse have historic rivalries with Miami and BC (and to a lesser extent V-Tech).
LikeLike
9. Big Ten
10. PAC
11. SEC
12. Notre Dame
13-16. Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and WVU
17. ACC and Big XII
I’m not quite sure about ranking leagues and schools on the same scale.
Among leagues, I’d rank ’em:
1. SEC
2. Big Ten
3. PAC
4. ACC
5. Big XII
The SEC added two excellent schools (both athletically and academically) and got access to Texas. In contrast, the Big Ten got Maryland and Rutgers, which have to be regarded as somewhat speculative, especially Rutgers. Neither of the PAC’s adds is especially sexy, but at least they didn’t lose anyone.
You have to put the ACC and Big XII at the bottom of this list, because they’re the only major conferences that lost schools they would have preferred to keep. Of those two, I have to put the Big XII at rock bottom, because they suffered a net loss of two schools. West Virginia is geographically awkward, and TCU gave them more of what they already had.
Even by the standards Frug is using (comparing what they have now to what they had in 2009), I’m not getting why he put Louisville so low. Even in 2009, don’t you think Louisville would have considered the ACC a massive step up?
LikeLike
I’d go, compared to 2009:
1: B1G – added three (at the time) AAU schools, a FB king, and a massive power and populating annexation, six senators with no P5 overlap.
2a: PAC-12 -added two good schools (one AAU), co-opted the western third of the country, four senators with no P5 overlap (although I think of BYU as a P5 Indy), added a CCG, and with media rights all in created a conference owned network and media entity.
2b: SEC – added two AAU schools, significant population, four senators with two non P5 overlap, and with the added inventory negotiated a secondary media deal for an ESPN owned SEC dedicated channel.
4: ACC – partially added a white whale, lost what Tobacco Road appeared to not minded until too late and replaced with Syracuse and Louisville, was not so unattractive as to lose their FB powers in spite of screwed up media rights deals (think PAC before Larry Scott).
5: B12 – lost four AAU schools and three states, to be replaced by WVU and vagabond TCU. Institutionalized disperate income potential (LHN, Sooner net), but got paid for not folding the tent.
LikeLike
And the ACC is a mess now with a disparate mix of private schools (6/15), state schools, former Big East schools (7/15), tobacco road and a special deal school.
LikeLike
And the ACC is a mess now with a disparate mix of private schools (6/15), state schools, former Big East schools (7/15), tobacco road and a special deal school.
The ACC was already a mix of public and private institutions when it was assembled in 1953. Except for the additions of BC and Notre Dame, every addition has given them more of what they already had.
I don’t see any obvious cultural clash between the new and old ACC. Of course, it has grown slightly more northern, just as the Big Ten has grown slightly more eastern. But I don’t see why the presence of Syrcuse is “messy” in a league that already has Duke and Miami.
BC and Notre Dame are the only ACC schools that are seriously unlike the others.
LikeLike
To look at the conferences from another perspective, you also have to look at subtraction by addition.
Now I think the Big 10 presidents will ultimately be very pleased with the Maryland and Rutgers additions, but it will be non-sports reasons-recruiting of non-athlete students and connections with alumni and decision makers in NYC and DC.
But from another standpoint, they have severely weakened the connections between their schools by going to 14. The west schools won’t see Ohio St., Michigan and Penn St. nearly as often. Competitively, they’ve added a team near the top and 2 cellar dwellers. That’s a net loss of competitiveness and fan interest.
One of the strengths of the Big 10 and SEC was the strong rivalries. Those bonds are weakened. That is even more true of the SEC. And the non-sports factors aren’t as beneficial. SEC schools were already recruiting Texas students who couldn’t get into Texas or Texas A&M. They were more likely to go to LSU or UGA than Oklahoma St. or Kansas St. And so far, only A&M seems to have benefitted by the association on recruiting athletes. Other SEC schools (again, so far) are recruiting less of the top 100 Texas players than they had been. Instead, A&M is poaching Louisiana and Mississippi players from other SEC schools. Arkansas, Auburn and the Mississippi schools may be losers.
LikeLike
bullet – almost every word in that last paragraph is incorrect. No strong SEC football rivalries were weakened by the last round of expansion. Florida/Auburn was a strong rivalry that fell by the wayside after the SEC changed its scheduling format from 5-2-1 to 5-1-2 when the league had 12 teams. Sure, LSU will play Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina less often, but while those are great games, we never played any of those teams very much to begin with. If anything, these games will have a much bigger feel now that Georgia will only come to Tiger Stadium once every 12 years. I certainly would have preferred a 9 game schedule with no permanent crossovers, but the new schedule won’t weaken any bonds.
Regarding recruiting, LSU signed 7 players from Texas last February, including 4 that had offers from Texas. For 2015, LSU has a commitment from a 5 star that was a former UTx commit. In February, A&M signed 2 players from Louisiana, only one of which had an LSU offer, and one player from Mississippi, while A&M signed two players from Arizona. Regarding Miss State, the Bulldogs have a 2015 QB commit from Texas that also has an offer from the Longhorns, and they signed a DE last February that also had an offer from Texas Tech. State traditionally get the bulk of its players from Mississippi and Alabama. Last February, Ole Miss signed a player with a Longhorn offer. Auburn gets the bulk of its players from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida and really has no need to actively recruit the state of Texas. Arkansas probably needs to do better in Texas, as they only got 2 Texas players last February, but the Hogs did get 3 players from Missouri (including 2 4*s), 5 from Florida, 4 from Louisiana, and 2 from B1G country.
LikeLike
You know that LSU always has done decent in Texas and got those players from Texas when Mack Brown got fired and the Longhorn staff was in limbo.
Your LSU perspective is a little different because LSU traditionally played among the fewest games against SEC schools prior to the SEC setting up standards. Sometimes LSU only had 5 conference games. Now no one in the east but Tennessee gets Alabama more than twice in 12 years. Same with Auburn other than UGA and LSU other than Florida. UGA/Ole Miss was a pretty strong rivalry. All of that stuff goes away when you only get them at home twice in a generation. There are a lot of ties with schools in the middle of the SEC that are good rivalries even if they aren’t Alabama/Tennesee, UGA/Auburn level of intensity. LSU has always been on the fringe of the conference. The ACC, Pac 12 and Big 12 don’t have those rivalries as broadly as the SEC. That’s one of the things that was a huge advantage for the SEC (and to a lesser extent the Big 10).
UGA has about the same level of intensity with Auburn, Florida, Georgia Tech, Clemson and South Carolina as Texas has only with Oklahoma. Georgia hates everybody. And Ole Miss/LSU/Alabama were more intense than Texas with Missouri or Kansas or even Colorado or Kansas St. That intensity will die out with the younger fans if they hardly ever play.
LikeLike
As for recruiting, A&M got 11 players from out of state the year before, most of those from Louisiana and Mississippi. They had a smaller class this past year as they signed 33 or 34 in 2013.
In 2007 among the top 100 Texas players, the SEC got 11 players, Missouri 2 and A&M 12. In 2008, the SEC got 8, Missouri 1 and A&M 15. In 2014, the rest of the SEC got 10, Missouri 0 and A&M 13. So that’s 25, 24 and 23. LSU got 5 in 2007, 4 in 2008 and 5 in 2014 (I happen to have 2007 and 2008 totals available-that’s why I’m using those years).
There’s a lot of hype, but nothing to back it up in 2013 and 2014. It could change in the future, but hasn’t yet. The most noticeable trends are TCU and the Pac improving. The Pac went from 4 to 8 to 11. TCU got 4 in 2007, 1 in 2008, but 6 in 2014.
LikeLike
(Here’s my losers list from last year)
1. WAC
(Massive Drop)*
2-3. New Mexico St. and Idaho
(Drop)
4. UConn
5. Cincy
6. USF
(Drop)
7. MWC (Could be higher if you use the brief one week period when they had Utah, TCU, BYU, Boise and a shot at KU, KSU and Mizzou as your starting point)
8. CUSA
(Drop)
9. NCAA
10. Sun Belt
11. NBC
12. Catholic 7
*If you are counting individual people Dan Beebe would be second only to the WAC
—-
NMSU and Idaho have since found homes for their football programs, but they are still in far worse shape than before.
LikeLike
CUSA is definitely worse off than the MWC. They are basically the Sun Belt now and there isn’t a competitive difference between them and the Sun Belt and MAC. Before there was a little bit of a gap.
CUSA membership now includes 3 schools new to FBS and 7 others who didn’t play FBS football in 1995. They’ve got 5 schools from the Sun Belt and 4 others who were Sun Belt schools at some point in time. They’ve got 4 (including one of the former Sun Belt) who are WAC refugees and Marshall who came from FCS with a brief sojourn in the MAC. Only USM was a football member when the conference started in 1996.
LikeLike
Mizzou was never going to the MWC. That was a ridiculous rumor with no basis in fact.
LikeLike
His biggest error is the supposition that if Syracuse had only waited it out, the Big Ten would have chosen them over Rutgers. I think the Big Ten still takes Rutgers, with its AAU membership, much larger student body, and recruiting territory.
LikeLike
I agree. As a result he also has RU too high. I don’t think any other school was seriously considered as a pathway to the NYC market.
LikeLike
“I don’t think any other school was seriously considered as a pathway to the NYC market.”
Andy thinks you forgot about Mizzou.
LikeLike
My list is a bit different:
1. Texas A&M
2. Utah
3. Rutgers
4. TCU
5. Louisville
6. Nebraska
7. Missouri
8. Maryland
9. WVU
10. Syracuse/Pitt
Yet to be determined- BYU
LikeLike
I forgot about Colorado. Here’s a revised list:
1. TAMU
2. Utah
3. Rutgers
4. TCU
5. Colorado
6. Louisville
7. Nebraska
8. Missouri
9. Maryland
10. WVU
11. SU/Pitt
NR – BYU (they may like independence so much they’d accept a lower profile)
LikeLike
Maryland has had talks with Rutgers and Penn State about creating a rivalry trophy. Seriously.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-is-a-big-ten-school-who-will-be-its-rival/2014/06/30/98150e96-fee2-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html
LikeLike
http://www.theozone.net/football/2014/FiveForFriday/IIndependence.html
A comedic look at the advantages to tOSU of going independent.
A good sample:
“1. Won’t have to be in a league with Rutgers.
To me, this alone may be worth going independent. Did you know that Rutgers has to register as a sports offender any time they move into a new conference?”
Happy Fourth !!
LikeLike
This is interesting
https://twitter.com/ralphhaurwitz/status/485142624123117568
LikeLike
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/07/04/cigarroa-tells-powers-resign-or-be-fired/
Here’s an article about it. The political control of the higher ed system in TX continues to be an embarrassment. I’m guessing bullet will have a comment or two about this.
LikeLike
A Houston Chronicle article on it with some additional perspectives.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/education/article/UT-Austin-president-asked-to-resign-or-be-fired-5600796.php
Perry and his regents seem to want to get rid of Powers on their way out the door. While Hall, who has been particularly destructive is a UT grad, the 2013 appointments by Perry include a Baylor grad and heavy Baylor donor and an A&M grad with a UH law degree. All the other members of the board are from UT.
Note that Perry is not confining his efforts to damage UT. A&M has followed his policies and got a warning letter from the AAU.
LikeLike
Former Senator Hutchison sent a letter to the Chairman of the Board and the legislature is making threats against the Board of Regents. Seems like its just another example of Perry being tone deaf, like when he pushed his Trans-Texas Corridor long after it was obvious it was a non-starter.
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Supporters-rally-behind-UT-Austin-president-5602791.php
LikeLike
Dear Money (BTN),
The Longhorn Network has not found you where they thought you would be. Mr. Powers is being relieved of duties for a failure to find Money. With A&M in the $EC and big gains in A&M recruiting we are rethinking our position. We noticed your money, and think that together we could be more money.
Sincerely, The UT Board of Regents
LikeLike
It has nothing to do with money. Powers has been very good for money and academics. Its basically Rick Perry trying to destroy the research universities in the state because he’s too stupid to understand the value. Perry was a C student at Texas A&M when it wasn’t a particularly good university.
As for the LHN, UT is getting paid. Its ESPN who isn’t making the money. And they’ve got it on everywhere now, but DirecTV and Comcast and a couple of tiny providers in Texas.
LikeLike
Same source now reporting that Texas BOR had an item for Thursday’s meeting for “discussion and appropriate action” on Bill Powers employment.
LikeLike
oops. Should say “has an item”
LikeLike
Frank, I expect you are very busy with your law practice. But I sure miss the good old days of realignment rumor. Do you suppose you could create some with the thought that maybe Maryland’s exit fee will be settled at 15-20 million dollars?
LikeLike
I believe Frank already opined that Maryland’s exit fee will be settled for something like that, which would leave very little for him to say that hasn’t already been said.
LikeLike
I’d like to make a point here. The ACC has withheld about $32 million in TV revenue from Maryland although we did not declare our intention to leave until required to do so by the by-laws. We are now a Big Ten school. There are some saying that this ($32 million) will be the total exit fee amount. The ACC is not about to write Maryland a check for any reason, and Maryland will not write a check either. So the amount withheld will represent the total exit fee. Does this sound reasonable or is this going to drag out in the courts for years to come?
Nemo
LikeLike
Personally, I don’t see UMD agreeing to that. I’m not a lawyer, but I think they have a pretty solid case to say the new exit fee isn’t valid or applicable. I think UMD is willing to take it to court to avoid paying more than $20M (old exit fee was $17M).
LikeLike
The ACC is not about to write Maryland a check for any reason, and Maryland will not write a check either.
One or the other is going to write a check, unless they settle the case coincidentally for that exact amount. I agree with Brian that that’s probably higher than Maryland is willing to settle for, so if the ACC sticks to their guns, a court is going to decide.
LikeLike
Nemo:
If I had to guess, I would say no settlement and both sides will slog through to trial and maybe even the appeals process. It is a lot of money; at the moment, there is no P.R. headache; an occasional news article, but no one is protesting or taking out full page ads to trash the current A.D., etc. So, there is no downside to continuing the lawsuit(s). MD has moved on; will start getting B1G money. The ACC has moved on and Louisville is now a member.
In fact, MD has an incentive to keep the lawsuit going during Louisville’s first seasons. How Louisville does, every article that says how great Louisville is, etc. etc., only adds to the pile of evidence proving that the exit fee is a penalty and that the ACC was not harmed by MD’s exit.
The exit fee is, in effect, like liquidated damages. If you can prove that the liquidated damages have no real relationship to the harm imparted by breaking the contract, you have a good chance of winning.
If Louisville is great, pumps up the ratings, does well in either Bball or Fball, etc. etc. etc., then MD’s argument is stronger and stronger. What harm did we do to the ACC by leaving? The $52M is just a punishment (and the courts don’t like fees/liquidated damages that are just punishment).
So, I’d say the lawsuit(s) go on for another year or two. No downside to either side in continuing.
LikeLike
Well Maryland could spend millions in legal fees and have to pay another $20 million to the ACC.
The ACC could spend millions in legal fees and have to pay Maryland back the full $32 million.
There’s serious downside to both for continuing. Like Brian, I think Maryland has a really good case for limiting themselves to $20 million, but it all depends on the law and the particular contract.
So I think there will be some sort of settlement unless the egos get in the way.
LikeLike
all good points, Bullet.
on the attorneys’ fees point, I will quibble that such is an unknown without knowing if the cases are being handled in-house or by outside counsel. And my experience with giant businesses (which these universities are) is that they do not skimp on attorneys’ fees, they do not let decisions turn on the amount of attorneys’ fees and that attorneys’ fees are just part of doing business.
further, the amount of money here justifies the fees in the sense that spending $5M is okay if it saves you $6M or $10M, etc.
finally, i’ll bet a lot of dollars that egos are and will be deeply involved in the cases. each side is a “spurned lover.”
it will be interesting to see how it goes.
LikeLike
You do know that Maryland and the ACC agreed to a mediator.
Why ? Because Swafford with ESPN’s help tried to do to the BIG
what they were able to do to the EAST. Contacting NW and PSU.
Plus, going against there own bylaws with a 50 mil exit fee.
Delany cut Swafford off at the knees by taking the biggest cities
along the eastern seaboard.
ESPN is SEC. Raycom is FOX which, the ACC would have to pay
even if a network were to be a reality.
The ACC is in trouble. Has NO money and will have NO network.
That’s why Maryland ( A founding member ) left to begin with.
Other schools will jump as well when case is settled.
Louisville, along with Cuse and Pitt only added to CBB.
FSU and Clemson are not happy with the ND butt kissing.
Look for the BIG & SEC to pic the bones of this conference.
Justice to what they did to the EAST.
LikeLike
Because Swafford with ESPN’s help tried to do to the BIG
what they were able to do to the EAST. Contacting NW and PSU.
“Contacting” is cheap. If I contact Kate Upton, are we dating? Syracuse and Pitt (and the other schools that moved earlier on) were willing to listen to offers. NW and PSU were not.
Justice to what they did to the EAST.
What about what the EAST did to itself? Aren’t they accountable for turning down Penn State? If you’re going to “blame” Swofford for taking EAST schools, aren’t the schools themselves part of it too, for listening? Conference membership isn’t a commitment for all eternity. It’s a business arrangement. If another conference has a better deal, a school can and should move.
LikeLike
I appreciate all the feedback and the reasoned analysis. Thanks! Like this board.
@Marc Shepherd @djbuck
I think the analysis of what Delaney did was spot on. If you look at the entire East Coast, you can spot the major metro areas easily. DC/Baltimore (considered one giant metro area now) is the smack dead center. So, here you have an Eastern Coast Conference, the Atlantic Coast Conference, and now the exact geographic center with the 2nd or 3rd biggest population by far has gone. Then add Rutgers and the New York/New Jersey market and you left the ACC with only the hinterlands. In terms of eyeballs, and the way the B1G is marketing around here (and judging by some of the recruits who are visiting) the brand, “Big Ten” is definitely getting a LOT of attention.
I think Swofford shot himself in the foot. And the fact that the Conference Hoops Championship is moving the the East Coast if only for one year was an act of genius.
Nemo
LikeLike
The ACC has not been resigned to the “hinterlands” as a result of losing UMd & Rutgers.
1) Plenty of eyeballs to go around in the NYC area as a result of the ACC roster of schools, especially in basketball. RU and UMd are critical for subscribers to the BTN, but do not exactly suck the oxygen out of their particular geographic region.
2) ACC still has a major presence in DC with Va & Va Tech.
3) ACC still in other major markets (Atlanta, Charlotte and the other NC cities, Pittsburgh, Boston) and a legit presence in Florida. The B12 would kill for hinterlands like that.
ACC may be the weakest of the P4, but its still a P.
LikeLike
djbuck,
Like you, I was once incensed about the demise of the old Big East. In particular, I was angry about the poor treatment the BE got from E-Spin and college sports writers outside the Northeast, even to the point of calling it an anti-Northeast bias.
As I later allowed myself to do some logical analyzing I then realized that it wasn’t meant to last.
First, you had the basketball-first schools acting like they were the rulers of the world because they helped found that conference. They hated football so much that they enthusiastically embraced the Domers, knowing that the Domers were never going to join them in football.
Then you had the all-sports schools backstabbing each other. You had private schools like Cuse thinking that they should control everything that happens in the Eastern seaboard. UConn was trying to move up the ranks in football but weren’t allowed in until the conference decided to kick out Temple. Miami was allowed in and, not long after, decided that the ACC was a better fit for them. VT followed them, going back to playing their former Southern Conference mates. BC then backstabs everybody by becoming the ACC’s 12th member, leading several other BE members to file a lawsuit, which was led by now-Senator Richard Blumenthal. That has soured things in the ACC so much that UConn is essentially blacklisted. Rutgers and West Virginia began feeling like orphans in the conference and everyone else thought that RU and WVU didn’t belong in the first place.
In other words, a fine mess. Why should Rutgers and West Virginia want to stay at a conference that doesn’t want them? Of course, there was no guarantee that they would find new homes but the college sports world was already changing around them.
What about TCU? When I first read that they were going to join, I lost my marbles. What’s “East” about TCU? They’re in Texas. I would have preferred ECU or UCF. At least those two are in the Eastern Time Zone. But the scum private no-football schools wouldn’t allow them. This isn’t a football or basketball argument. It’s about a matter of respect for all members. But since everyone else was out for themselves, I began losing any loyalty for what I thought was a potential powerhouse of a conference.
Now I’m through with the idea of regionalism and become more of a nationalist. May Rutgers play the best programs, whether it’s Midwest, West, South or East. What’s regionalism done for me except years of uncertainty and suffering? Why should the East lose out on national exposure that the likes of the Big Ten, SEC, Texas, Oklahoma, Duke, FSU and USC have enjoyed for decades?
LikeLike
The ACC has not been resigned to the “hinterlands” as a result of losing UMd & Rutgers.
Right: Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, aren’t the hinterlands by any definition. If the ACC’s four AAU schools in those states were available as a package, I think the Big Ten would take them in a heartbeat.
LikeLike
djbuck,
Like you, I was once incensed about the demise of the old Big East. In particular, I was angry about the poor treatment the BE got from E-Spin and college sports writers outside the Northeast, even to the point of calling it an anti-Northeast bias.
As I later allowed myself to do some logical analyzing I then realized that it wasn’t meant to last.
First, you had the basketball-first schools acting like they were the rulers of the world because they helped found that conference. They hated football so much that they enthusiastically embraced the Domers, knowing that the Domers were never going to join them in football.
Then you had the all-sports schools backstabbing each other. You had private schools like Cuse thinking that they should control everything that happens in the Eastern seaboard. UConn was trying to move up the ranks in football but weren’t allowed in until the conference decided to kick out Temple. Miami was allowed in and, not long after, decided that the ACC was a better fit for them. VT followed them, going back to playing their former Southern Conference mates. BC then backstabs everybody by becoming the ACC’s 12th member, leading several other BE members to file a lawsuit, which was led by now-Senator Richard Blumenthal. That has soured things in the ACC so much that UConn is essentially blacklisted. Rutgers and West Virginia began feeling like orphans in the conference and everyone else thought that RU and WVU didn’t belong in the first place.
What about TCU? When I first read that they were going to join, I lost my marbles. What’s “East” about TCU? They’re in Texas. I would have preferred ECU or UCF. At least those two are in the Eastern Time Zone. But the scum private no-football schools wouldn’t allow them. This isn’t a football or basketball argument. It’s about a matter of respect for all members. But since everyone else was out for themselves, I began losing any loyalty for what I thought was a potential powerhouse of a conference.
Now I’m through with the idea of regionalism and become more of a nationalist. What’s regionalism done for me except years of uncertainty and suffering? Why should the East lose out on national exposure that the likes of the Big Ten, SEC, Texas, Oklahoma, Duke, FSU and USC have enjoyed for decades?
LikeLike
Kristi Dosh piece on Maryland/Rutgers joining the B1G.
LikeLike
Yeah, but her article is really at:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/01/joining-big-ten-wont-bail-out-maryland-and-rutgers.aspx
It’s solid analysis, but nothing really new. She does bring together a lot of numbers from various sources, which is always nice.
Her main point is that UMD and RU need more than TV money to dig out of their financial holes, they also need to really increase their donations.
Financially, it was a no-brainer. According to the American Athletic Conference’s latest Form 990 (filed in May 2013), Rutgers received $10.4 million from its share of the conference’s annual distribution. Meanwhile, the Big Ten recently announced it would distribute approximately $27 million to each of its members for its most recently completed fiscal year. Future projections for 2017-2018 have each member receiving $44.5 million after a new television deal is realized.
Maryland will also see a pay bump by joining the Big Ten. Maryland’s previous conference, the ACC, recently announced an annual distribution of $20.8 million for each of its full members.
However, don’t expect to see the bank accounts of Rutgers and Maryland athletics to fill overnight. Neither will receive a full share from the conference until the 2020-2021 school year. That’s because the Big Ten has structured six-year integration plans for all new members. Nebraska, which joined the conference in 2011, will receive no more than $16.9 million from the Big Ten this year and won’t receive a full share until 2017-2018.
Reports indicate that Maryland negotiated a front-loaded deal and will receive $32 million following its first year in the conference. Considering the ACC has been withholding its conference distributions over a disputed $52 million exit fee, it’s money Maryland could use right away. A report conducted by Maryland and released in August 2013 showed Maryland athletics had a deficit of $21 million the previous year, and the department was forced to cut seven sports in 2012.
The hole Rutgers has been digging is even larger. From 2004-2005, Rutgers accumulated a $190 million deficit, and an array of one-time expenses added another $47 million on in 2012-2013. Another $183 million in deficit is expected by 2022, but thereafter the department is projected to be “budget neutral.”
Like I said, a nice collection of the numbers all in one place.
In fact, most athletic departments that top the list for revenue generation bring in more from donor contributions than television, although television is quickly catching up with the advent of conference television networks.
Still, there is a direct correlation between athletic departments that are self-sustaining and those that generate the most from donors. As you can see, Maryland and Rutgers fall at the bottom of the list when compared to Big Ten conference members last year.
School Donations
Wisconsin $58,900,000*
Michigan $31,300,000
Iowa $30,600,000
Penn State $24,500,000
Michigan State $24,100,000
Ohio State $22,200,000
Illinois $18,900,000
Purdue $17,200,000
Indiana $15,400,000
Nebraska $12,700,000
Maryland $10,700,000
Minnesota $8,500,000
Rutgers $6,100,000
* Wisconsin transferred a significant amount of gifts for a building project last year. To put it in perspective, Wisconsin reported $19.7 million in contributions the previous year.
LikeLike
“The hole Rutgers has been digging is even larger. From 2004-2005, Rutgers accumulated a $190 million deficit, and an array of one-time expenses added another $47 million on in 2012-2013. Another $183 million in deficit is expected by 2022, but thereafter the department is projected to be “budget neutral.””
Wow. A $373M deficit, followed by breaking even.
LikeLike
I’m not sure characterizing it as a deficit is accurate. The AD isn’t expected to pay it back to the academic side as far as I know. $373M in subsidies is more accurate.
I think moving from almost $400M in the hole over 18 years (over $20M per year) to breakeven is impressive. After RU has had a chance to improve their facilities, I’d expect to see them start giving a little back to the academic side (although just not taking $20M each year will feel like a gift to the academic side).
LikeLike
I’m not going to defend, the overall performance of the RU athletic dept on the field or financially, because both have been poor.
However, don’t get too hung up on the actual numbers. There are a lot of crazy things that go on in NJ.
For example:
-at the same time the state was reneging on the $30mm they promised for the RU stadium expansion, they were going ahead with spending $300mm+ in public money for road and rail improvements to benefit the politically connected private developers of the Xanadu shopping mall in the Meadowlands, which is now years late in opening.
-Until about a year ago, RU athletics didn’t control the concessions at sporting events. So, while the athletic dept incurred all of the costs of running the sports programs, the profit made by selling fans overpriced refreshments was credited to the RU Dept of Dining Services (the people that run the dining halls).
LikeLike
I guess that my question is that if Maryland is trading membership in the ACC for the additional 100 Million future dollars, would Virginia do the same thing……..soon after the final settlement?
“By Jeff Barker and Childs Walker, The Baltimore Sun
2:36 p.m. EDT, June 28, 2014
. “But now people realize what the Big Ten has to offer us.”
Maryland will make nearly $100 million more during its first six years in the Big Ten than if it had remained in the ACC,…………
LikeLike
swesleyh,
“I guess that my question is that if Maryland is trading membership in the ACC for the additional 100 Million future dollars, would Virginia do the same thing……..soon after the final settlement?”
1. And that’s just in their first 6 years in the B10. After that, they start getting a full share of revenue.
2. UVA is a much different case from UMD. UVA isn’t in financial trouble like UMD was. UVA is more attached to the ACC, in part because it is more southern. UVA has a sister school that might add complication. UVA has an actual rivalry with UNC. I’m not saying they won’t ever leave the ACC, but they are happier there than UMD was.
3. The ACC has a Grant of Rights through 2026-2027. Nobody else is leaving before then.
LikeLike
Brian-
In regard to your second point, the USA Today database shows that Virginia relied on student fees of $13.1M in FY 2012 and FY 2013 as part of its $84.4M in revenue. UVa’s AD expenses were just $200K less than that revenue figure in FY 2013. See http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/
I agree with you that Virginia wasn’t in the same financial duress as Maryland, but their profit margins are thin and 15% of the athletic department revenue comes from student fees. Your other points have a level of validity to them–particularly about the Grant of Rights. What will be interesting to see is how a program like UVa will operate in the brave new world of college athletics that is currently emerging.
LikeLike
But UVA didn’t have a disastrous stadium expansion undertaken at the precise wrong time relative to the economy, and a resulting fallout. It does, however, have a uber-wealthy hedge fund guy (Paul Tudor Jones) writing large checks. He gave $35 million to name the new basketball arena for his father.
UVA also has one of wealthiest alumni bases of any school in the nation. (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/top-15-universities-wealthy-alumni/story?id=18539608#all) (2 B1G schools on this list, and 3 COPC schools–UVA would make it 3 & 4)
LikeLike
I guess that my question is that if Maryland is trading membership in the ACC for the additional 100 Million future dollars, would Virginia do the same thing……..soon after the final settlement?
I agree with Brian that, if it happens at all, it’ll have to be closer to when the GoR expires. Otherwise, they’d be leaving too much money on the table—clearly a strange thing to do, if money is the sole reason for moving.
In the recent round of re-alignment, all of the schools that left power conferences either had a Big Problem (Maryland) or serious dissatisfaction with their current league (aTm, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska). They all made money by moving, but had additional reasons besides just: League X pays more.
@swesleyh is basically asking whether UVA would move, for no other reason than: the Big Ten pays more. We shall see, but I think UVA/UNC are a package deal; and both those schools have same-state sister schools that the Big Ten likely wouldn’t accept, and that they can’t easily turn their backs on.
The wild-card question is whether the Big XII starts making eyes at Florida State, or some other event that de-stabilizes the ACC, making the prospect of a Big Ten move an act of survival and not a pure money grab.
LikeLike
I think FSU made a decision to stay in the ACC unless the SEC comes calling. Think that Big 12 possibility is gone unless FSU just has no choice (UNC and UVA decide to leave and SEC isn’t interested).
LikeLike
I certainly think FSU is staying in the ACC for the next decade or more. For the Big XII to make a move, they’d need to be offering a better deal than they were able to offer this time around. (Formally, I’m not sure the Big XII ever actually got around to “offering” anything, so I’m using the word loosely.)
FSU has probably not decided what their view will be in the mid-2020s, because there’s no need to draw any conclusions that far in advance. I certainly think the income disparity would have to widen, before FSU would consider a move that seems sub-optimal in so many other ways.
LikeLike
I also think the relative success of FSU and UF might play a role in SEC thinking down the road. If UF does not get back to being a Top 10 program, whereas FSU sustains its present success, I could see the SEC adding FSU as a #15, and adding a new market school for #16 (such as a NC school). (Note: UF is not getting booted from the SEC, and I am in no way implying anything to the contrary–but of a down UF might not be able to sustain and/or grow viewership and carriage fees in Florida, A successful FSU might be very useful to the SEC, if for no other reason than to prevent those eyeballs from watching ACC or B12 games instead.)
Success on the field does have some role to play, as success on the field makes money for the school off it. These are 50-100 year decisions, and success on the field is not in and of itself everything, but adding the King In Your Backyard could very well be the best move for the SEC in 10 or so years. FSU would obviously be interested.
LikeLike
Unless Florida stays down for a very long time (20 years or more at least), it will be enough to carry the state for television purposes. Florida’s national brand may not be quite as strong as some others, but within the state it is. FSU had a chance to join the SEC (or two depending on who you ask), and they declined. I doubt the offer will be extended again. Besides, the FSU administration REALLY loves the academic associations in the ACC. Their eyes are solidly set on the Big 10 if a move is made.
LikeLike
An update on the SEC Network carriage efforts:
http://wildcatbluenation.com/2014/07/04/icymi-time-worry-sec-network/ (with links in that article to actual news reports).
I have a hunch the $1.30 in conference footprint number floated earlier this year was more PR than reality.
LikeLike
Wainscott – given the amount of TV and radio advertising, billboards and direct mail pieces down here, I think the SEC and ESPN are doing DISH and AT&T U-Verse a favor for signing up early and allowing them a chance to sign up new customers prior to additional announcements. Foxsports reported last week that a Comcast deal was imminent.
I could see a package deal of SECN and LHN in Texas for a slightly reduced fee and a reduced fee in South Florida, but most of the fans in the SEC’s core states should have service by Labor Day.
Here’s another update.
http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/07/comcast-suddenlink-continue-sec-network-talks/#15127101=0
LikeLike
What is the tenor of the ad campaign and PR push?
Also, as linked to in the wildcatbluenation article, even SECN’s President is getting into the scare game: http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/blog/2014/06/sec-network-leader-alarmed-more-carriers-havent.html . The big Birmingham carriers are merely still negotiating? Wasn’t it anticipated that carriers in those cities would acquiesce to whatever fee due to overwhelming demand?
That the PR push is this intense is, in and of itself, an interesting sign.
LikeLike
A channel/network won’t be judged by its first few weeks, months, or even year.
LikeLike
The SECN isn’t your typical network, and it was hyped from its very creation. If it fails to live up to that hype in the short-term, it will be seen as a big black eye for all involved. SECN powers that be know this, hence the big PR campaign to get carriers and viewers on board before the season starts.
LikeLike
It’s a conference network. There is one 100% conference owned one, and a 50/50 one. The only similar arrangement is the LHN, and the ESecPN is ahead of it at a similar time before launch. Carriage fights are the norm, and hype/sky is falling is just a part of trying to use the leverage that drives it. The sooner the better, but since no one is going to cut bait on the network it’s all temporary “noise”.
LikeLike
The big Birmingham carriers are merely still negotiating? Wasn’t it anticipated that carriers in those cities would acquiesce to whatever fee due to overwhelming demand?
That the PR push is this intense is, in and of itself, an interesting sign.
@Wainscott – In my experience, this is how these things go. Get a carrier or two to sign on early, and then apply max pressure to the others to get as much as possible. It won’t surprise me if there is an in footprint market or two that is late with the SECN, but eventually they’ll all be on board. It isn’t uncommon for these deals to not get done until they absolutely have to.
LikeLike
True, though the hype of SECN made it seem like, because of the rabid fan base, this process would go faster and smoother than usual, and that ESPN and the SEC would get its elevated carriage fee within the footprint without much fight.
To me, that this carriage fight is playing out as all the others do is the interesting part.
LikeLike
@Wainscott – There just isn’t any incentive (especially for ESPN) to get these deals done early once the initial carriers sign on. ESPN is hoping the scare tactics work and by the end of August tons of people are calling in demanding the SECN. If they do, ESPN will demand/get a higher rate. The carriers are hoping the scare tactics don’t work or a counter campaign gains steam to force ESPN to settle for less.
If on 9/1 the SECN has coverage on all the major carriers in the footprint than we’ll know if the SECN lived up to the hype. That would be a big win for ESPN.
What is interesting to me is the carriage fight that didn’t happen. The BTN getting deals in NYC and Maryland so soon.
LikeLike
@Mike:
Fair, well-reasoned points. Thanks for your comments. I’ll reserve judgment until it gets closer to showtime for the SECN.
LikeLike
Update- Cox has signed on to carry the SECN. Cox has 6 mil homes in the SEC footprint.
LikeLike
Not entirely a valid comparison, but the SECN now has 26 million subscribers vs. 16 million for the BTN at launch.
LikeLike
Here’s the SECN/ESPN/COX news release.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/07/cox-communications-to-carry-sec-network-for-august-14-2014-debut/
Cox is my provider and a huge corporate sponsor of LSU. I never really had any doubt that Cox would come on board. As I said in an earlier post, I think the plan was to give AT&T U-Verse and Dish a running start to round up some more subscribers since they signed up first. Now, with a little over a month until launch, the stragglers will be making announcements. Last week it was reported that the Comcast deal was imminent. I guess they will be next along with Brighthouse and Charter I’m not sure how Direct TV and TWC will be handled as AT&T and Comcast, respectively, are in the process of buying them.
LikeLike
Here’s the internet add for DISH.
http://info.godish.com/sec-network-coming-to-dish-mrsec
LikeLike
When you fill out the Get SEC Network Now form, here’s the response you get.
“SEC Network
Dear Alan,
On behalf of my entire staff, I’d like to thank you for your commitment to the SEC Network.
With you on board, there is no doubt in my mind that we can do something really special here. We have all the ingredients to be the best in the country. We’re talking 1,000 exclusive live events, 45 football games, 160 basketball games, 75 baseball games, 50 softball games and 24/7 coverage of all SEC sports.
However, we can’t rest on talent alone. We’ve got to keep the momentum going. Your TV provider may not currently carry the SEC Network. Which is why we need good people like yourself to call, email and tweet at them saying you want the SEC Network and you refuse to miss out on all the action.
We also need you to spread the word. The more people who join our recruiting class, the greater chance we have of getting your TV provider to carry the SEC Network. So tell your friends, tell your bus driver, tell your grandma, tell your grandma’s bridge partner. Tell everyone you have ever encountered in your entire life to follow your lead and commit to the SEC Network. Or take matters into your own hands by calling Cox Communications at 225-615-1000 to demand the SEC Network.
Thank you, and I look forward to getting that remote in your hand.
Geaux Tigers!
Les Miles
Head Football Coach, LSU”
LikeLike
How many times have you filled that form out? 🙂
LikeLike
Wainscott wrote: “How many times have you filled that form out? :)”
Wainscott – I guess the form I filled out the other day did the trick.
LikeLike
Fun little historical tidbit:
“The case against Pitt
Rumors of Pitt joining the Big Ten are more than twice as old as the Big East Conference itself.
When the University of Chicago, a founding member of the Big Ten, left the conference in 1946, Pitt was one of a handful of schools rumored to replace the Maroons, according to a Post-Gazette article published at the time. Michigan State joined the conference several years later.
When Penn State joined the conference in 1990, Illinois president Stanley Ikenberry tried to persuade other university leaders to invite Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers as well, according to a highly placed administrator at one of the Big Ten schools.
Ikenberry was unavailable for comment, an Illinois spokesman said.
But chancellors and presidents rejected the other three schools because — unlike Penn State — Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers were not considered academic peers to the other Big Ten schools when comparing research income, graduate programs, endowment, libraries and museums, the source said.
Pitt might again be left off the Big Ten’s invite list — not because of its academic profile but because of its location. The Big Ten is looking to grow — in size and geographic footprint — so that it becomes a more marketable conference to TV executives.
That could work against Pitt, said Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist at Smith College in Massachusetts, because Penn State already brings the Big Ten to Pennsylvania.
“I’m not saying they wouldn’t go for Pittsburgh,” Zimbalist said. “There’s just a smaller inducement to go into Pittsburgh as there would be New Jersey.””
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/10143/1060185-142.stm?
Academics makes a nifty excuse, but I’m not under the impression that PSU was all that much superior academically to Pitt, RU or Syracuse in the 80’s and early 90’s.
LikeLike
Academics makes a nifty excuse, but I’m not under the impression that PSU was all that much superior academically to Pitt, RU or Syracuse in the 80′s and early 90′s.
I’m reasonably sure that a state flagship like PSU would always have been more desirable than Syracuse, who eventually left the AAU voluntarily, rather than face the humiliating vote that Nebraska endured. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that PSU, Pitt, or Rutgers, was ever in serious danger of getting booted out.
The difference between PSU and Pitt is a closer call (and heatedly debated by their respective alumni), but it’s only natural that if the Big Ten was taking just one, they preferred the flagship.
In the 1980s, I believe Rutgers was playing a pseudo I-AA schedule, something like Army does today, and still couldn’t beat anybody. At the time, they had just one all-time bowl appearance, the 1978 Garden State Bowl. Today, you can squint at Rutgers from a distance, and see a team that could be competitive with the lower end of the Big Ten. In the 1980s, you couldn’t have done that.
Although I think the Big Ten is sincere when they say academics count, a school does at least need to make a showing of being acceptable in sports. Otherwise, why not invite Carnegie Mellon?
LikeLike
I agree–the clear differential between PSU and the other schools was PSU was a CFB power of the highest order, and the other three were not. But that blind quote in that article cites to the lesser academic quality of Pitt, RU, and SU as the reason for rejection–not the athletics–and I don’t sense there was much daylight academically between those 4 schools in the late 1980’s.
Syracuse was still firmly in the AAU in the late 1980’s, having joined in 1966 (as opposed to PSU’s 1958 entry). RU joined in 1989, Pitt in 1974.
LikeLike
Interestingly enough, this guys thinks SU and BC will be #15 and #16 to the Big Ten.
http://saturdayblitz.com/2014/07/07/conference-realignment-future/
LikeLike
He’s an “expansion for expansion’s sake” guy, suggesting moves for no other reason than getting bigger. When you read through his other moves, they make no sense. He’s got UNC and UVA camping out in a denuded ACC that resembles the old Conference USA. If the ACC were poached to that extent, its two most valuable state flagships wouldn’t be the ones left behind.
LikeLike
I didn’t even need to read through to see that this guy’s moves make no sense, as just seeing SU and BC to the B1G are sufficient demonstration of that.
LikeLike
Wow, he packs a lot of wrong in one post.
We all know conference realignment isn’t finished. The smaller conferences will continue to change each year as more teams enter Division I, and the larger conferences will eventually begin expanding again. Eventually the SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 will all have 16 teams. …
I don’t know if this will happen in 10 years or 30, but at some point the major conferences will all have 16 teams. Here is my prediction of who they will add and what they will look like:
Why would they all go to 16? Why is ND forced into joining a conference?
Big Ten
(Add: Syracuse and Boston College)
The Big Ten is obviously one of the most stable conferences, but it tends to be behind the other conferences when it comes to realignment.
Oh really? Which conference kicked off the end of the independents? Which conference started this latest round of realignment?
That won’t happen in the future though. Instead of expanding into the southern market, like the conference talked about in the past, it would be more pragmatic to jump to the northeast.
Would it? Neither Boston nor NY state are full of B10 alumni. In addition, Boston isn’t a strong CFB market. Besides, how much do those areas help the demographics, athletics or academics of the B10?
I think that a New York state market in addition to New York City (which Rutgers provides) would be huge for the conference, and a market in the New England region would also be smart.
Would SU and BC add enough to pay for themselves? How much would they further dilute the FB brand? How many B10 fans would you lose by expanding more to the northeast?
His other moves:
SEC – add VT and NCSU
P12 – add HI, SDSU, Boise, UNLV
B12 – add ND, Pitt, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
ACC – lose BC, SU, Pitt, ND, VT, NCSU, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami
ACC – add UC, UConn, UCF, USF, Temple, Army, Navy, Memphis, Tulane, So. Miss, UAB
Why would UNC and UVA stick around for that ACC? Why would the SEC settle for VT and NCSU when UNC and UVA are still out there? Why would ND join any conference, let alone the B12? Why would the P12 take those 4 schools?
LikeLike
Why I’ve always felt the B1G “demographics” issue raised by Delany & Co was a nice justification for expansion, but ignored other aspects that show just how well off the conference really is:
Delany: ““ We’re not a national conference (geographically) but we’re as close to being a national conference as anybody is, not only because of our network and going from Colorado to the Atlantic Ocean and the Canadian border to the mid-South but also because the Big Ten diaspora of our graduates. We’ve got more people in Phoenix than the Pac-12 does. We’ve got 300,000 people in southern California. A million people between Washington D.C and New York City, half of them are Rutgers and Maryland, half of them are our own people.”
http://www.scarletknights.com/news/release.asp?prID=14870#.U7rGbPldV8F
Not to mention, a number of schools who draw elite applicants from all 50 states annually (Mich, Wis, Ind, NWU, ILL, OSU, PSU, Purdue, UMD all come to mind off hand), and also draw the children of B1G alumni living elsewhere beyond the conference footprint.
LikeLike
Johnny Drug Habit?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11187131/ncaa-suggests-contact-limits-football-practice
The NCAA suggests limiting teams to 2 contact practices per week.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11187131/ncaa-suggests-contact-limits-football-practice
CBS goes into much greater detail on the suggestions.
LikeLike
At what point do safety measures reduce the skill and technique involved in tackling and blocking honed in practice? Bad blocking is a good way to get a QB or RB killed. Bad form tackling can also lead to injuries.
Not saying changes due to concussion fears aren’t necessary, but there should be some consideration of the unintended consequences. Especially in a sport where bodily sacrifice is a necessary element of success and victory.
LikeLike
FOX Sports has a list of eight coaches on the hot seat going into 2014:
8. Dan Mullen, Mississippi State
7. Bo Pellini, Nebraska
6. Norm Chow, Hawaii
5. Dana Holgorsen, West Virginia
4. Mike London, Virginia
3. Charlie Weis, Kansas
2. Brady Hoke, Michigan
1. Will Muschamp, Florida
Charlie Weis seems to be making a career out of appearances on such lists.
LikeLike
Most of those guys would be in hot demand as assistants should they get canned. Especially Chow, with his track record as an OC/QB guy.
LikeLike
Surprised to see Dan Mullen. Miss St is a program that has limited success over the years. He’s at least getting them to bowls.
LikeLike
If Mullen can finish middle of pack in the SEC West and beat 1 or preferrably 2 of Bama-TAM-LSU-Aub, he might replcace Muschamp.
LikeLike
I hope not. The name I want to see replace Muschamp is Mike Gundy.
LikeLike
Today’s WSJ contains the December 2013 Harris poll that asked, What is your favorite sport?
Professional football 35%
Baseball 14%
College football 11%
Auto racing 7%
Men’s pro basketball 6%
Ice hockey 5%
Men’s college basketball 3%
Other/not sure 18%
So, college basketball is to all intents and purposes a cult sport, with only half the fan base of ice hockey. So much for the UConn argument based on national basketball championships.
Actually all of men’s basketball only gets 9% of the fan base, which puts it between college football and auto racing.
Professional football and baseball together command half the fan base.
One wonders how the B1G’s move into the very heartland of professional sports fans will look in 10 years. Gee’s choice of Kansas and Missouri might look inspired.
LikeLike
I don’t think this data supports the conclusion that CBB is a cult sport. It would if it were possible to only like one sport, but we all know we all like multiple sports. For example, if you asked me what my favorite sport is I would say baseball, but I’m an engaged fan of the CFB, NFL, and CBB.
LikeLike
“So, college basketball is to all intents and purposes a cult sport, with only half the fan base of ice hockey. So much for the UConn argument based on national basketball championships.”
So if this is true, why does “March Madness” consume an entire country with betting pools in every office in the country? I agree with Mike.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Today’s WSJ contains the December 2013 Harris poll that asked, What is your favorite sport?
Professional football 35%
Baseball 14%
College football 11%
Auto racing 7%
Men’s pro basketball 6%
Ice hockey 5%
Men’s college basketball 3%
Other/not sure 18%
So, college basketball is to all intents and purposes a cult sport, with only half the fan base of ice hockey. So much for the UConn argument based on national basketball championships.
Actually all of men’s basketball only gets 9% of the fan base, which puts it between college football and auto racing.
Professional football and baseball together command half the fan base.
One wonders how the B1G’s move into the very heartland of professional sports fans will look in 10 years. Gee’s choice of Kansas and Missouri might look inspired.”
It’s important to remember that the question forces you to choose your favorite, not choose all the ones you follow. A lot of fans like the NFL and other sports, but Harris makes you choose only one.
A better question would have you rate your fandom of each sport on a scale (0-10 maybe). Then you would see what level of following all these sports really have.
LikeLike
LikeLike
http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2014/07/08/2014-cfb-playoff-committee-questions.html
Stewart Mandel interviewed several CFP committee members and asked them 4 key questions.
The committee’s official charge is to “select and seed the best four teams for the playoff,” which Arkansas AD and committee chairman Jeff Long reinforced in response to a reporter’s question at last April’s playoff meetings in Dallas. “Our focus is the best,” he said, “not the most deserving.”
That quote elicited groans from an already skeptical public, much of which was hoping the new system might be less subjective than the frequently maddening BCS. If anything it’s the opposite, now that there’s no computer component to the official standings.
But the committee has established a set of guidelines that do include several defined criteria. “Among the many factors the committee will consider are win-loss record, strength of schedule, head-to-head results, comparison of results against common opponents and conference championships,” says the CFP’s official website.
How do you determine strength of schedule?
The committee won’t employ an overriding metric, like the RPI in basketball, to measure this component. It’s up to each individual member how to interpret a team’s schedule.
For example, Ohio State took considerable flak for its 2013 schedule, which included 1-11 Cal. Well, the schools scheduled that game way back in 2002, when the Bears were a rising team under then-coach Jeff Tedford. The Buckeyes also took a hit when Vanderbilt, which wound up 9-4 last season, canceled its scheduled visit less than a year in advance. Will the six current or former ADs on the committee – who know well the perils of advance scheduling – take those circumstances into consideration?
“I think a lot of it is your intent to play a strong schedule in your non-conference,” said Wisconsin AD and committee member Barry Alvarez. “… It’s pretty easy for me to take a look at a schedule and see what the intent of the schedule is.”
That’s one approach. Some of his colleagues may have another.
“We just have to say, ‘Listen, it doesn’t matter how they got on your schedule — it’s on the schedule,’” said committee member Oliver Luck, West Virginia’s AD. “It is what it is. We have to take ‘em as they come. …
“The other thing that gets a little overlooked: some teams are playing six home games, others are playing eight. That’s something we have to factor in.”
Conference schedules aren’t necessarily clear-cut, either. The advent of 14-team leagues like the ACC, SEC and, beginning this season, the Big Ten, creates imbalances even within the same league.
Case in point: In 2013, Alabama’s two crossover opponents from the SEC East were that division’s sixth- and seventh-place teams — 5-7 Tennessee and 2-10 Kentucky. It missed ranked teams Missouri, South Carolina and Georgia. Conversely, the Vols faced all of those foes plus SEC West co-leaders Auburn and Alabama, No. 2 and 3, respectively, in the final BCS standings.
Committee member and longtime former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese faced much the same issue while serving on the NCAA basketball committee.
“Someone can say this conference is the second-toughest conference in the country. That doesn’t mean anything to me,” said Tranghese. “It’s who you played.”
How much emphasis do you place on conference championships?
… Their compromise was to place no restrictions on the participants but instruct the committee to use conference championships as a de facto tiebreaker between two similar teams.
Still, there figure to be instances where one conference boasts two or more of the four “best” teams. There may even be circumstances where a particular league’s champion isn’t considered the best team in its own conference.
“I firmly believe winning your conference is important,” said Luck. “I can’t tell you where that factors into the greater characteristics. But you can have a great team that’s not a conference champion. Oregon could be unbeaten but lose to a 7-5 Arizona State team in a driving rainstorm [in the conference championship game], but that’s a really good 12-1 team that probably should be in there.”
Conference championships could be another factor that varies in importance from one member to another.
“Winning the conference championship is an important criteria, but there’s going to be lots of other nuances,” said USC AD and committee member Pat Haden. “Sometimes conferences have a boatload of very competent teams, like the Big Ten last year with [12-1] Ohio State and [12-1] Michigan State.”
The 11-1 Spartans beat the 12-0 Buckeyes in their conference title game, providing an easy tiebreaker. But clearly one possible departure from BCS is the possibility that a team could lose its conference title game and still play for the national title.
What analytics will you employ?
…
CFP organizers enlisted the company SportSource Analytics to make available to members a cloud-based database of more than 100 opponent-adjusted statistical rankings as well as various comparative analysis tools. “It’s above arithmetic but below calculus,” SportSource co-founder Stephen Prather said of the platform. “It’s ridiculous the amount of information they’ll have.”
Multiple committee members mentioned a study the company performed for them last spring. It ran the numbers for every BCS top four team since 2005 across more than 40 categories and identified those in which the playoff-caliber teams most frequently finished in the Top 10. Prather said efficiency stats like points per possession proved to have strong correlation; turnover margin, among others, did not.
“What I’m going to focus on is those categories that historically have proven to be a common thread of championship teams,” said Luck.
How much weight should the ‘eye test’ carry?
LikeLike
Alvarez shouldn’t be on there. He’s too tied to being an AD. It doesn’t matter how good you thought they were going to be.
LikeLike
Apparently intent matters to him. That cuts both ways for teams.
Also note that he said that was a lot of it, not all of it.
If he wants to use intent as a tiebreaker amongst two evenly matched teams, I have no problem with that.
LikeLike
I am fine with his concept of “scheduling intent” as a tie-breaker, but it would have to be pretty far down the list of tie-breakers.
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Article/New-Playoff-Format-Fraught-With-Potential-Issues-29514082
11 potential issues for the new playoff.
LikeLike
Wow. Brazil is getting humiliated by Germany in the first half 5-0 (gave up 4 goals in a 6 minute span). Losing Thiago Silva seems to have stripped them of all defense, and without Neymar they lack any offensive threat.
LikeLike
Final: 7-1
Ouch. Riots?
LikeLike
Brazil still has the 3rd place game to play, and if it is against Argentina it will be hotly contested. Losing that one could produce riots.
LikeLike
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/brazil-loss-germany-world-cup-since-1975
To provide some context, Brazil was 50-0-18 in competitive matches at home since 1975. They last lost a match (a friendly) in Brazil in 2002 (42 match streak).
LikeLike
The latest “news” on UMD vs ACC:
Click to access ACC%20Order.pdf
UMD hired a big law firm in MD and made a motion to let them appear in the NC court (pro hac vice). The ACC contested it, in part because that firm represents 3 ACC schools already on other matters. The judge sided with the ACC, so UMD may use a small NC firm to represent them in court while the big firm does the behind the scenes work.
On the other hand, UMD was successful in getting the MD AAG allowed to appear pro hac vice.
According to some lawyers, the ACC fighting these motions is a sign of a contentious litigation so the court-ordered mediation probably isn’t going to result in a settlement. By the way, 7/10 is the deadline for mediation.
LikeLike
Brian, I learn more from you than on the Maryland boards….they’re asleep at the wheel on this.
LikeLike
To be fair, I basically took that all from the comments on a UMD blog.
http://www.testudotimes.com/2014/7/8/5880989/acc-lawsuit
LikeLike
http://www.ncbusinesscourt.net/TCDDotNetPublic/default.aspx?CID=3&caseNumber=12CVS10736
Here’s the docket for the case. It has links to all the motions and such.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Gee is smarter than the average B1G president, maybe smarter than all of them.
LikeLike
You don’t get much credit for good ideas you couldn’t persuade others to adopt.
LikeLike
Mizzou as a school and program weren’t the issue; rather, its location. Not nearly as much potential money in STL/KC than in DC/BAL/NY/NJ.
LikeLike
I actually like the additions of Rutgers (interviewed for a job there) and Maryland, and I agree with the logic.
However, if we go to 16, it should be Missouri and Kansas.
LikeLike
. . . if we go to 16, it should be Missouri and Kansas.
Since 16 is not mandatory, one needs to demonstrate not only that those two are the best two, but also that adding them is better than doing nothing.
What’s more, why should we think that those schools would be receptive to a Big Ten offer? Missouri already punched its ticket to the SEC, and Kansas would prefer to remain in a league with KState. The scenario where Kansas is available is a shade more believable, but not Missouri.
LikeLike
Is there news reporting that KU has a KSU problem? Are they actually handcuffed or do we just assume that’s the case? Relatedly, if there is no political handcuff, does KU feel a institutional need to be with KSU or would KU not think twice about leaving behind KSU for another conference?
LikeLike
Is there news reporting that KU has a KSU problem?
There was reporting to that effect when, for a while, it appeared that the Big XII might implode if the Pac-10 (as it was then) took four schools. KU and KSU share a board of trustees, so they are intertwined, to an extent.
That doesn’t mean that there are no conceivable circumstances in which they could split, only that it would be problematic. My somewhat subjective evaluation is that if the Big XII is healthy, the schools would choose to remain together, even if KU could earn more money in the Big Ten. But if the Big XII were threatened, they would split the two schools if it’s the best option.
LikeLike
Lets ask this hypothetical: what if the SEC moves eastward with a pair from North Carolina and Virginia or finally takes in FSU? Is the Missouri position negotiable once again if it is “encouraged” to move to a Western Division or a western “pod”? While a trade of Florida/Georgia for east Texas/LA/MS may be a wash in terms of football talent, it may give the administration pause for trading higher income southern states for downscale states for out-of-state student recruitment purposes.
LikeLike
1) It doesn’t look like the SEC is going to expand again, but if it did I agree that’s generally bad for Mizzou.
2) I really can’t see the current Mizzou leadership even considering leaving the SEC. Maybe in 30 years they might consider the B1G again, who knows? But not any time soon. The B1G could have had Mizzou if they moved more quickly. They missed their chance.
LikeLike
KU was the backup in the PAC16 proposal if A&M bolted for the SEC (which would have happened), and did not have a problem leaving KSU to its fate (BE) then. However, that was a situation where the XII would have imploded with just KSU, ISU, and Baylor left.
LikeLike
Mack, in that scenario KU also had a shot at joining the B1G along with Mizzou.
LikeLike
The B1G could have had Mizzou if they moved more quickly. They missed their chance.
They had no chance. When Missouri was available, there was no 14th school they considered acceptable. They could have had Rutgers at any time, but that wasn’t a combination they wanted. I doubt they have any regrets about that (Gordon Gee notwithstanding).
Now, Missouri + Maryland would have been compelling, but you can’t say they “missed” that chance, because the two were never available at the same time.
LikeLike
“Kansas chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little said last week that Kansas and Kansas State are not necessarily connected should the Big 12 dissolve, but McKechnie said the Board would prefer that the two schools stick together.”
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6937826/board-regents-prefers-ku-k-state-stay-together
LikeLike
Marc, I think it would be an oversimplification to say that only Gordon Gee has regrets. Doubtlessly others agreed with him. As for an acceptable #14, Kansas was an obvious choice. And beyond that, just because those who liked that plan at the time were in the minority does not mean that more could not regret not having gone along with it now. Especially after they saw that schools like Texas, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Georgia Tech ended up not being options.
LikeLike
And they just made it official on a Purdue home-home, another way off saying “forget” u to KU.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24612834/missouri-purdue-make-2017-2018-home-and-home-series-official
LikeLike
Just a two year deal. Mizzou still needs a Big 5 opponent for 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020 and beyond.
I know there’s been some talk about Illinois but that deal hasn’t been finalized yet.
Mizzou has always said that they will play Kansas if Kansas will agree. But they’re still pouting about being stuck in the Big 12.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11121315/florida-state-seminoles-coach-jimbo-fisher-uses-gps-technology-win-national-championship
Here’s the latest thing for colleges to spend money on. And this one seems to have a lot more benefit for the athletes than mirrors in the weight room.
LikeLike
Ross-Ade South End Zone Plans Revealed
http://www.purduesports.com/view.gal?id=163788
LikeLike
Going East not a Purdue scheduling priority
http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140709/SPORTS/140709709
LikeLike
Why would it be? PU is one of the few B1G schools without any real east coast alumni presence. For MBB scheduling purposes, it would be better off seeking out opponents in or near major midwestern cities. Plus, the article notes is already has some east coast games.
With the Indiana-KU series dormant, PU should try to get in on that.
LikeLike
In the article, PU’s athletic department is saying all the right things about academics and students-then-athletes. MBB wise, being best in IN and the day’s drive midwest is probably what they should and could pull off. For football, being several hours closer to the MI-OH Rust Belt and the MD-Philly-NJ corridor than its West Division counterparts might be attractive to a cohort of prospective football recruits who would like to dominate a weak division at a young age.
LikeLike
A few more details of the Cox deal have leaked out, at least locally in Baton Rouge. The SECN will be on the TV Essential package. That is the lowest price package in which a customer has access to other sports channels such as ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, NBCSN, TNT, TBS, Cox Sports, FS-New Orleans, FX, and NBC Golf. Cox will absorb the cost of the SECN, ie no rate increase.
LikeLike
According to the DMN’s Chuck Carlton, Texas Pres Bill Powers has resigned effective 6/2/15.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/
Just FYI, some former CFN writers have formed a new college sports blog (CFB and MBB).
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/the-editorial-section-a-college-football-roundtable.html
A roundtable discussion of how the playoff committee should deal with SOS vs conference championships.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/editorial-section-a-brave-new-playoff-world.html
A roundtable Q&A about the CFP.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/is-this-what-we-want-football-to-be.html
Is this what we want football to be?
LikeLike
Looks like Powers got his way. He will stay until June 2015.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/university-of-texas-at-austin-president-bill-powers-resigns-1404938444?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
The board gets to claim it forced him out, but he leaves on his own terms when he was thinking about leaving anyway.
LikeLike
Syracuse leads the nation in MBB attendance by a mile.
Click to access 2014.pdf
Other highlights
– Big Ten extends its streak for leading the country in attendance to 38 years with record 13,534 average.
– ACC moves up to second
– PAC falls all the way to 8th
– In its inaugural year the New Big East finishes fourth
– Northwestern actually outdrew Penn St, breaking the Wildcats’ streak for last place in the conference. But Nittany Lion fans need not fear staying in the basement for long as Rutgers makes Penn St. look like Kentucky
LikeLike
Correction, the Big East finished fifth.
Also, here is the NCAA press release
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2014-06-13/big-ten-sets-attendance-mark-conference-again-leads-nation
LikeLike
In order to balance yesterday, Argentina and the Netherlands are putting on an incredibly boring semifinal with almost no offense. 0-0 after 90 minutes with only 10 total shots and only 2 of those on goal. This is the “beautiful” game?
LikeLike
And Argentina wins 4-2 in penalty kicks to face Germany.
LikeLike
DirectTV, which has resisted the Pac 12 network, has changed its tone on the SEC Network. I thought it was likely they would wait until December when their Disney contract is up, but they sound like they are aiming for this season:
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/directv-hopeful-about-sec-netowrk/ngcqt/
LikeLike
Bill Walsh College Football remembered:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/7/10/5887881/sb-nation-reviews-bill-walsh-college-football
No names, yes numbers, no official school names.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11199507/buffalo-wild-wings-bowl-changes-name-cactus-bowl
The Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl (nee Insight Bowl) will now be called the Cactus Bowl. I’m not sure why they didn’t go back to its original name, the Copper Bowl.
LikeLike
Copper was a lousy name, Cactus is a better name for that region…
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/10/college-football-playoff-national-championship-odds
A comparison of national title odds for teams to real life events. For example, RU winning it is as likely as getting struck by lightning.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/09/ap-ncaa-congress-4th-ld-writethru
One good thing to come out of the senate hearing on the NCAA:
The NCAA may stop allowing ADs to investigate when one of their athletes is charged with sexual assault.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24613222/study-over-20-of-athletic-departments-investigate-sexual-violence
Here’s more about the issue.
More than 20 percent of universities give their athletic departments oversight of sexual violence cases involving college athletes, according to a report released Wednesday by U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).
The report was part of a broader examination about sexual violence on campus. It was released on the day NCAA president Mark Emmert testified before a United States Senate committee, resulting in McCaskill and other senators admonishing the NCAA and its universities for allowing athletic departments to oversee sexual assault investigations.
During the hearing, McCaskill cited the number of athletics departments that investigate at 30 percent. Her report, based on a survey, was slightly lower. It said approximately 20 percent of the largest public institutions and 15 percent of the largest private schools “allow their athletic departments to oversee cases involving student athletes.”
…
Emmert said he only read McCaskill’s sexual assault data on Wednesday and wants to better understand the results. He agreed the survey results contain an “enormous” amount of conflicts of interest that don’t help sexual assault victims.
Emmert said most NCAA members “are going to be very surprised” by the sexual assault data. Several senators called on Emmert and university presidents to change their procedures immediately.
McCaskill and other lawmakers are trying to create legislation to improve how universities handle sexual assault cases. A bi-partisan bill is expected to be introduced this summer.
LikeLike
Clashes with the autonomy proposals. Will the NCAA now tell schools how to handle internal investigations?
I think a better approach would be publicity. Shame them into eliminating special treatment for criminals masquerading as athletes.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to see the list.
LikeLike
Click to access SurveyReportwithAppendix.pdf
Here’s the whole report from McCaskill. The list isn’t in it.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s an issue if the NCAA says an internal investigation by the AD is not allowed to be the sole investigation. This is something campus police or the local police or the state police should be investigating anyway.
LikeLike
http://www.wiscnews.com/sports/columnists/andy_baggot/article_848e8519-2221-5cb1-a367-61bf9bfe8361.html
Gary Andersen thinks a 10 game B10 slate is coming and is OK with it. But he also says that means no more P5 OOC games.
UW coach Gary Andersen not only senses that the Big Ten Conference will go to a 10-game schedule some day soon, he believes all the other major affiliations in college football will do so eventually.
Let’s get the answer to your first question right out of the chute.
“I’m good with that,” Andersen said, “as long as we’re strategic and think about what we’re doing in those other games.”
The answer to your second question will require a little more time and patience.
If the Badgers were to play 10 Big Ten football games, how will they fill the two remaining holes in the schedule?
…
In his typically candid approach, Andersen said marquee non-conference assignments like UW has lined up for this season (Louisiana State), next season (Alabama) and in 2016 (LSU again) would likely go away if the Big Ten went to 10 league games.
The Big Ten recently directed its schools to include opponents from the other four power conferences – Atlantic Coast, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC – but the extra Big Ten game would seemingly fill that void.
“I don’t think I’d really want to line up and play the Kickoff Classic this year (vs. LSU) … or what we’re going to do the next three years and have a 10-game Big Ten schedule,” Andersen said during a recent interview in his Camp Randall Stadium office. “That would be a little bit much.”
Andersen offered a caveat, though, one tied to the 2014 debut of the College Football Playoff, its 13-member selection committee and its focus on strength of schedule.
“As long as it’s fair and everybody’s going to play on the same level playing field as far as scheduling the other two games, then I’d be good with it,” he said.
You’ll recall that the Big Ten has an emerging moratorium on having Football Championship Subdivision schools on the non-conference schedule. Western Illinois, which comes to Camp Randall to open the home season Sept. 6, is the last in that line for the Badgers.
Andersen cited his previous employer, Utah State, which came to Madison in 2012, and Bowling Green, which comes to Camp Randall on Sept. 20, as examples of likely non-conference opponents in the future if the Big Ten were to play 10 league games.
“I’d say that you’re going to get the same people you’ve seen here in the past,” said Andersen, whose future non-conference schedules also include Florida Atlantic, Hawaii, Miami (Ohio) and South Florida.
That’s not going to please critics of current and recent UW home schedules, which have lacked pizzazz. Marshall, UMass and Texas-El Paso were recent visitors. Troy and Georgia State are scheduled to come in 2015 and ’16, respectively.
LikeLike
My thoughts on a 10 game conference schedule:
* The OOC schedules would stink. The big schools will generally go to 2 paycheck games every year, with some choosing a neutral site game. The lack of intersectional games would be bad for the sport.
* 10 P5 games is still 10 P5 games, though. Plus a CCG could make for 11.
* It would be great for the bigger leagues (14+ teams) since you’d play 10 of 13 possible opponents. It’d be especially good for IN and PU.
B10:
Now – 8 games = 6 * 100% (division) + 6 * 31% (crossover) + 1 * 17% (IN/PU)
Soon – 9 games = 6 * 100% (division) + 6 * 44% (crossover) + 1 * 33% (IN/PU)
Future? – 10 games = 6 * 100% (division) + 6 * 58% (crossover) + 1 * 50% (IN/PU)
* Obviously the B12 wouldn’t move past 9 unless they expand.
* The schools with locked P5 OOC rivals would certainly complain.
* It just doesn’t seem likely to me unless the season expands to 13 games.
* I think the problem of alternating between 4 and 5 home games in conference is overrated.
LikeLike
I suspect 10 conference games would come if and when the NCAA permits a 13th regular season game for all schools, not just those playing Hawaii. In such a case, you get the extra conference game and still a spot for a non-conference P5 team, with two other games (in the B1G world, one would be MACtion and one a similar type opponent).
LikeLike
I think 10 conference games is around the corner without a 13th game or even two paycheck games. There will eventually be diminishing returns on these cupcake games to point of not making enough money off of them. Already major schools are having trouble selling out for these games. As Delaney stated, the future revenue of college football is thru television not gate receipts and television couldn’t care less about these massacres. It’s not right around the corner, but it will eventually happen.
The big issue regarding scheduling also will be the playoffs. Will teams get punished for playing cupcakes? Will it go to eight teams? Personally, I see more consolation in the future with the top 5 conferences condensing to 4. Will the playoffs be a simple 4 champions play each other with the conference championship games as quarterfinals or will it be bigger. Time will tell.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“There will eventually be diminishing returns on these cupcake games to point of not making enough money off of them.”
The top schools make up to $7M per home game, plus they give alumni a chance to return to campus and get asked to donate money, plus they bring a lot of money into the local community. An expensive cupcake is still less than $1.5M. It’ll be a long time before buying games stops making sense.
“Already major schools are having trouble selling out for these games.”
It depends which cupcake you schedule, who else you play and how the team has been doing.
“As Delaney stated, the future revenue of college football is thru television not gate receipts and television couldn’t care less about these massacres.”
Donations generally top TV money for P5 schools, and ticket revenue is right up there. None of the sources will become unimportant anytime soon.
“The big issue regarding scheduling also will be the playoffs. Will teams get punished for playing cupcakes?”
Probably not that much. They are supposed to pick the best teams, not the most deserving teams.
“Will it go to eight teams?”
Unfortunately, it probably will.
LikeLike
The issues with cupcake OOC games and the playoff should not be considered in isolation when considering general strength of schedule. Its all part of the overall SoS, and a strong conference slate would probably mitigate the harm from a weaker OOC slate (if for no other reason that there will be 3x as many conference as non-conference games). But a weak OOC slate compounded by a weaker conference slate could be problematic to a potential playoff team. The real value of SoS will be demonstrated by the committee over time–lets see how frequently 1 loss teams with very tough schedules get selected over undefeated schools with much weaker schedules.
Alvarez mentioned that one important aspect for him will be scheduling intent. Intent is useful, because, for example, OSU could schedule Miami (FL) home and home for 2019 and 2020, intending for it to be a prime OOC matchup but just run into bad luck if Miami is down/weak in those two seasons. But other committee members will discount this notion (as the article Brian posted above notes), and the logic behind it could be stretched further (key injuries weakening a preseason favorite, weather, etc…), which is one of the problems with relying too heavily on intent.
LikeLike
The big issue regarding scheduling also will be the playoffs. Will teams get punished for playing cupcakes?
Almost every school includes a couple of cupcakes on their schedule, and I don’t see that changing. But the Big Ten already announced that it won’t schedule FCS opponents any more, and I believe the SEC announced that too. Most of the perennial contenders schedule a serious non-conference opponent every year.
Remember, the vast majority of CFB teams have practically no viable shot at winning a national championship. They just want to get to six wins and be bowl eligible. Every cupcake you replace with a serious opponent is going to take bowl bids out of the conference.
The fact that the Big XII lacks a CCG, and that some leagues play only eight conference games, is a more substantial inequality than the presence of cupcakes on almost everyone’s schedule. The committee will have to sift through that.
Of course, there’s an element of luck to it. When Ohio State scheduled Cal in 2013, they didn’t know, and couldn’t have known, that they were getting a team that would go 1-11. What seems like a hard (or easy) game today, when you sign the contract, could be very different a few years later, when it’s actually played.
Personally, I see more consolation in the future with the top 5 conferences condensing to 4. Will the playoffs be a simple 4 champions play each other with the conference championship games as quarterfinals or will it be bigger.
I do not think they’ll go to auto-bids for conference champions, unless it expands to eight teams, and perhaps not even then, for several reasons:
First: the presidents and ADs have given no indication that they want to force all the independents, and particularly Notre Dame, to join a conference. Therefore, there’ll always have to be a mechanism where an independent could make the playoff.
Second: there would be serious legal issues with a system that categorically prevented a mid-major from reaching the playoff. Congress would almost certainly get involved. It is far better to have a system open to everyone, while recognizing that, 95% of the time, the playoff teams are going to come from the power leagues. During the BCS era, no mid-major ever reached the championship game, although a few came close. But making it entirely impossible would have raised a thicket of legal issues they would rather not face. It’s far better to give them a glimmer of hope, however unlikely it may be, than to freeze them out categorically.
Third: the more powerful leagues like the idea that, in good years, they can place a second team into the playoff.
Fourth: in some cases, conference champions simply aren’t that good. A few years ago, if UCLA could have pulled an upset, they could have won the Pac-12 with a 7-6 record. This is not like the NCAA basketball tournament, which grossly over-selects. If you can only have four, you really do want the best four.
LikeLike
Likewise, I do not see 10 conference games as very likely unless they add a 13th regular-season game. If they did so within a 12-game schedule, I agree with Brian that it would be the end of interesting non-conference scheduling. Most of the Big Ten would schedule paycheck games in the two open slots. Iowa, with its annual tilt against Iowa State, would be screwed. I don’t know what would happen to Purdue, with its frequent, but no longer quite annual, game against Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Believe the B10’s plan was 5 home games for one division, 4 for the other. That attempts to makes things fair in regards to advantage in division…
I really can’t see 10 games unless the B10 or SEC go to 16 members or the NCAA goes to 13 regular season games. 7 home games is the goal of most P5 universities to pay their bills (football drives the revenue for the entire athletic department) and that’s not possible with 5 road games and a home-and-home.
LikeLike
Ran across this interesting list-patents by university. Top 10 US universities no great surprise:
1. UC Board of Regents
2. MIT
4. Stanford
5. Texas
6. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
7. Cal Tech
8. Columbia
9. Georgia Tech
10. Michigan
11. Illinois
Next was a bit of a surprise-#12 was South Florida. USF, UCF (38), FSU (43), UF (14) were all top 50. USF, UCF and UMass (32) were only non P5 FBS schools in the top 50. Only other G5 in top 100-New Mexico (56), Rice (63), Akron (72).
Click to access NAI-IPO-Top-100-Universities-2013.pdf
LikeLike
Do the student/researchers get a piece of the action?
Just kidding, sort of…
LikeLike
Researchers usually get some, students don’t. On the other hand, much of that money goes back to the school and helps provide better facilities, equipment and financial aid for other grad students.
LikeLike
Yeah, I know. Just drawing a comparison to what schools provide, and pay for in athletics.
LikeLike
I’m not surprised at USF at #12–it’s invented many new methods of losing.
/rimshot!
LikeLike
I’m not surprised to see USF and UCF high on that list at all. Both of those schools put a huge focus on research, and both have extensive and deep relationships with the private sector. UCF has a major research park where private corporations have offices on campus, and I think USF has something similar. UCF is more engineering oriented, and USF is more medically oriented but there is crossover at both schools.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103519/buckeyes-spartans-gets-prime-time-slot
OSU @ MSU on 11/8 has been officially announced as a night game on ABC.
The Big Ten will have three such primetime games, as Ohio State-Michigan State joins the previously announced night kickoffs for Illinois-Ohio State (Nov. 1) and Michigan State-Maryland (8 p.m.). Times, they are a-changin’. Quite literally, in this case.
The Spartans and Buckeyes, then, should get used to playing at night in November (and possibly the cold). Ohio State fans in particular might need to increase their caffeine intake this fall. Thursday’s announcement gives Urban Meyer’s team five primetime kickoffs this season, with three of them at home. Ohio State has embraced night games, and this should bring plenty of exposure to the program, if possibly also creating some sleepy Sunday congregations in the Buckeye State.
LikeLike
Direct TV statement regarding the SEC network.
http://directvpromise.com/no-fan-should-be-sidelined/
I would expect Direct TV and Comcast announcements next week during SEC Media Days.
LikeLike
Re: UNC academic scandals
Southern Part of Hell by Bernie Reeves
http://www.nationalreview.com/phi-beta-cons/382232/southern-part-hell-bernie-reeves
Interesting piece here:
Thinking back, I know when the problems arose regarding athletics wagging the academic tail at UNC. I sat beside Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner John Swofford during a luncheon at the Kenan-Flagler School of Business at UNC in 1990, the day of the announcement Florida State University was joining the conference in 1991. Little did I know I was a witness to history to come when I asked Swofford why a conference composed of top-level institutions of higher learning was accepting a former all-female teacher’s college with scant scholastic prestige. The answer? Georgia Tech had informed the conference it was pulling out to join the Southeast Conference unless the ACC landed a Florida TV market school.
So much for the notion that GT couldn’t run away from the SEC fast enough. Regardless of the writer’s agenda, that one really blew me open. Which leads me to the question of why GT is not in the same division as FSU if they really wanted a Florida school. I know Miami is also a member but they weren’t a member until 2004.
It could also explain Louisville over UConn.
LikeLike
Clemson and NCSU were top-level institutions of higher learning in 1990?
“So much for the notion that GT couldn’t run away from the SEC fast enough.”
The SEC was at 10 schools then and might have said yes, I suppose. The SEC would not take GT now. The current administration wouldn’t try to join the SEC anyway.
“Which leads me to the question of why GT is not in the same division as FSU if they really wanted a Florida school.”
Because GT didn’t have the power to force that to happen. There are 4 southern schools, and they’re split 2 and 2. The FL schools were split for money reasons, but that meant GT had to go with Miami to reduce the trip length. FSU got Clemson. Besides, GT wanted a FL school for TV money, not because they wanted to play them necessarily.
“I know Miami is also a member but they weren’t a member until 2004.”
The ACC didn’t form divisions until 2005.
LikeLike
Tech split a national title with Colorado in 1990. They may have decided that the ACC needed and upgrade.
LikeLike
By 1991, Florida State was a good (not great) state school, certainly not out of place in a league that already had Clemson and N. C. State. The fact that FSU had started out as an all-female teacher’s college was by then irrelevant.
FSU even has AAU aspirations these days, and while they may be many years away, they’ve probably got a better shot at getting there eventually than ex-AAU member Syracuse.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting bit of history. I’m intrigued how that would have worked in practice. GT and FSU? SEC going to 14 with GT, Ark, FSU, and one more (USC?)? Ark announced a move to the SEC in early Aug 1990, weeks after the SEC announced it was looking to expand. (http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/1990-sec-expansion-southeastern-conference/ ; http://articles.latimes.com/1990-08-02/sports/sp-1412_1_southeastern-conference )
In an alternative history, that would have kept the B12 largely intact (likely no room for Mizzou unless SEC went to 16), a weaker and less lucrative ACC (without FSU and any presence in Georgia) could have made prime ACC schools ripe for B1G poaching. ACC would have become a glorified BE/leftover ACC conference, one in which UND could have secured even more favorable partial-membership terms.
LikeLike
” ACC would have become a glorified BE/leftover ACC conference”
It still might be headed there anyway.
What’s interesting is how the academic scandal will affect the future of UNC. Will there still be remnants when the GOR is finally up or will it be a long dead issue. UNC made a terrible mistake by not coming clean right away and diffusing the issue. By trying to contain the story it has just prolonged its impact.
LikeLike
What’s interesting is how the academic scandal will affect the future of UNC. Will there still be remnants when the GOR is finally up or will it be a long dead issue. UNC made a terrible mistake by not coming clean right away and diffusing the issue. By trying to contain the story it has just prolonged its impact.
Plenty of schools have endured athletic scandals far worse than this one, Penn State being the most recent example. I certainly agree that UNC handled it in just about the worse way possible.
LikeLike
Plenty? Name them. The duration and extent of the academic fraud seems to be unprecedented. I think you would have trouble getting to your 2nd hand in coming up with worse ones.
LikeLike
With GT and FSU, it could well be possible that they go after Clemson and not SC. Even Maryland could become possibility, depending on how far they want to go.
The SEC might end up not needing a Texas school if things go right:
Ark, Ala, Aub, Ga, Fl, FSU, GT, TN, VU, KY, MS, MSU, LSU, Clemson
Candidates would be: Miami, SC, Louisville, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Maryland
Let’s say SC and NC State are #’s 15 and 16.
Then UNC, Duke, WF, UMD, UVA join with BE football schools:
Miami, UNC, Duke, WF, UMD, UVA, Pitt, VT, Rutgers, BC, Syracuse, WV
Penn State having already joined the Big Ten. The Big Ten could look at an eastern school for #12. Candidates would be Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland or the white whale itself, ND. Maybe ND still turns it down and goes to the ACC/BE group. Could the Big Ten then look west?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103385/whats-it-take-to-be-a-big-ten-champion
What stats correlate with winning the B10.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103489/fitting-the-criteria-of-a-big-ten-champion
As a follow up, ESPN then looked at this year’s teams to see how they compare to those criteria. They had 4 criteria, and each criteria was met by at least 4 teams (1 was met by 6 teams). Only one team met all 4 criteria – OSU.
Criteria met:
4 – OSU
3 – MSU (missed on top 30 rush offense)
2 – MI, NE, WI
1 – IN, IA, NW, PSU, RU
0 – IL, UMD, MN, PU
LikeLike
Discussion of how the playoff selection will work. The key is actually having discussions and they seem to have a good plan. Just hoping “common sense” doesn’t mean mindlessly following generally accepted thinking and ignoring results on the field.
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/vahe-gregorian/aricle676086.html
“They’ll need to be able to do that. Hancock anticipates vigorous discussion. So much so that he’ll be surprised if the format doesn’t lead to much more fluctuation from week to week than before, from the first College Football Playoff poll announcement on Oct. 28 to the last in early December.
That’s because traditionally voters are prone to getting stuck in a continuum, in part because it’s more natural to try to stay with a course of thinking than to start fresh each week.
Instead of each member simply turning in a top 25 each week and having those averaged, they’ll come in with their top 25 in alphabetical order just to set the table for seven rounds of secret balloting.
That includes whittling the top six vote-getters down to three.
“So it’s all a process of analyzing a small number of teams against each other. Never been done in football,” Hancock said. “There will be tremendous debate.””
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/vahe-gregorian/article676086.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/nba/2014/07/11/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers
So LeBron is headed back home (and yes, bob sykes, even LeBron said it that way).
When I left Cleveland, I was on a mission. I was seeking championships, and we won two. But Miami already knew that feeling. Our city hasn’t had that feeling in a long, long, long time. My goal is still to win as many titles as possible, no question. But what’s most important for me is bringing one trophy back to Northeast Ohio.
I always believed that I’d return to Cleveland and finish my career there. I just didn’t know when. After the season, free agency wasn’t even a thought. But I have two boys and my wife, Savannah, is pregnant with a girl. I started thinking about what it would be like to raise my family in my hometown. I looked at other teams, but I wasn’t going to leave Miami for anywhere except Cleveland. The more time passed, the more it felt right. This is what makes me happy.
…
But this is not about the roster or the organization. I feel my calling here goes above basketball. I have a responsibility to lead, in more ways than one, and I take that very seriously. My presence can make a difference in Miami, but I think it can mean more where I’m from. I want kids in Northeast Ohio, like the hundreds of Akron third-graders I sponsor through my foundation, to realize that there’s no better place to grow up. Maybe some of them will come home after college and start a family or open a business. That would make me smile. Our community, which has struggled so much, needs all the talent it can get.
In Northeast Ohio, nothing is given. Everything is earned. You work for what you have.
I’m ready to accept the challenge. I’m coming home.
This is a much better way to announce his decision than what he did last time. Clearly he’s matured since then.
As an Ohio guy, this makes me nervous. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. How will the Cavs screw this up? Will they tease everyone by making the finals again just to lose? Will someone get hurt? Will the Bulls get everyone else and dominate the East for a while?
The Browns have Manziel, the Cavs have LeBron and OSU has Urban. Heck, the Blue Jackets just made the playoffs. Sports fans in Ohio should be thrilled, but history has taught us to expect the worst. Teams will come close only to lose in some terrible way (the Drive, the Fumble, UF crushing OSU, OSU losing to LSU with dumb plays after having the lead, the Indians being the first team to ever lose the World Series after leading going into the 9th of game 7) or they’ll just stink (Indians, Browns, Bengals, Blue Jackets).
LikeLike
WVU celebrates by burning couches. Do Clevelanders set a river on fire?
LikeLike
Brian,
I don’t know if any NBA titles are in Cleveland’s future. That’s a young team and I’m not sold on Irving just yet. However, the best player in the NBA is coming back home, and that means something. If nothing else, Cleveland is back on the map in a MAJOR way, as is the rest of northeast Ohio. The he handled this today was superb. It’s clear the decision has haunted him despite the two titles and four straight finals appearances. I’m pulling for him, and Cleveland.
So go celebrate and have a few “cocktails.”
DITB
LikeLike
http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college-football-hall-of-fame-sets-opening-date-na/ngcpm/
The CFB HoF will open 8/23 in Atlanta.
Stephenson also disclosed the official name of the facility: The College Football Hall of Fame and Chick-fil-A Fan Experience.
Chick-fil-A has signed a 30-year agreement as lead sponsor.
Other founding sponsors are AT&T, the Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, Coca-Cola and Kia.
LikeLike
http://recruiting.blog.ajc.com/2014/07/11/more-than-13-of-south-carolinas-football-signees-waiting-to-qualify/
One reason why recruiting class rankings can be meaningless. With fall camp about to start, 8 of 21 recruits for SC have yet to enroll in school because they are waiting to be cleared academically.
LikeLike
Baylor was notorious for that in the 90s. They would get a ton of top recruits, but they would almost all have to go to JC.
LikeLike
Well Frank can now do an NBA star realignment blog, especially since we are getting to 1700 posts on this one.
LikeLike
http://www.crimsonquarry.com/2014/7/10/5883517/big-ten-trivia-challenge-rutgers-maryland
B10 trivia with UMD and RU bloggers.
LikeLike
http://hawkcentral.com/2014/07/10/taking-a-trip-through-the-big-ten-heres-an-itinerary/
The ultimate B10 road trip, by an Iowa writer. It’d be a fun season if you hit all those games.
LikeLike
This afternoon, LSU announced the new Tiger Stadium capacity of 102,321. With the new south upper deck expansion, LSU moves into 5th place in capacity of on campus stadia.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/9698637-123/tiger-stadium-capacity-up-to
LikeLike
AD’s for Kansas State and Mississippi State arrange a football home and home entirely via Twitter. 2018 in Manhattan, 2019 in Starkville.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/athletic-directors-of-mississippi-state-and-kansas-state-arrange-home-and-home-series-on-twitter-220618203.html
LikeLike
Most wins among BCS programs over the last 10 years:
1. Oklahoma 105
2. LSU 104
3t. Texas 99
3t. Virginia Tech 99
5. Oregon 98
6. Wisconsin 96
7t. Florida 94
7t. Georgia 94
9t. Ohio State 92
9t. Auburn 92
11t. Southern Cal
11t. West Virginia
13t. Missouri
13t. Clemson
13t. Cincinnati
16t. Nebraska
16t. South Carolina
16t. Louisville
19. Texas Tech
20t. Alabama
20t. Florida State
22t. Notre Dame
22t. Michigan State
22t. Georgia Tech
25. Michigan
26t. Iowa
26t. Boston College
28t. Miami
28t. Rutgers
30. Texas A&M
31. Stanford
32t. Arizona State
32t. Oregon State
34. Pitt
35. UCLA
36t. Arkansas
36t. Northwestern
36t. Kansas State
36t. Cal
40. Tennessee
41. UConn
42. South Florida
43. Arizona
44. Baylor
45. Wake Forest
46. NC State
47t. Mississippi State
47t. Maryland
49t. Purdue
49t. Virginia
51. Minnesota
52. Ole Miss
53t. Vanderbilt
53t. Kansas
55t. Kentucky
55t. Iowa State
57t. Syracuse
57t. North Carolina
59. Washington
60t. Colorado
60t. Illinois
62. Indiana
63. Washington State
64. Duke
65. Penn State
I left out any schools that spent most of the last decade in the MWC, WAC, MAC, etc because those were not a BCS leagues and that’s where they got most of their wins.
LikeLike
I didn’t include all the win totals but you can view them here:
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2004&end=2013&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&c1a=on&by=Wins
LikeLike
Not a lot of difference between the MWC and BE in that time frame. Schools left out include:
10 TCU 93
15 BYU 87
15 Utah 87
just ahead of Mo/Cincy/Clemson
Of course Boise, who was mostly in the WAC, with 112 was easily #1.
This also helps explain to anyone asking, “Why did the Big 12 add TCU and West Virginia?”
LikeLike
Yeah, I didn’t count them because they got most of their wins in the MWC over that time period, which isn’t a BCS league.
I accidentally left off Okie State. They’re tied with Nebraska.
LikeLike
You also conveniently listed Mizzou ahead of Cincy and Clemson, whereas the list should be, and is in the linked to database, alphabetical when listing ties.
LikeLike
That’s on the rule that all teams with feline mascots go first.
… oh, no, wait, that’s not the rule. No, its the other rule, where schools with doubled letters in their nickname go first.
LikeLike
Northwestern, Kansas St., Villanova, Davidson, Kentucky, Arizona.
All Wildcats. Always thought the football futility and basketball success (except for NW) commonalities was rather interesting.
LikeLike
I clearly stated that they were tied. You’d have to be pretty friggin’ dense to be confused by that.
LikeLike
“I clearly stated that they were tied. You’d have to be pretty friggin’ dense to be confused by that.”
Yes you did, but you also ignored the rule that in a tie, you sort alphabetically.
Did anyone say they were confused? No.
LikeLike
I was not confused in any way as to why Missouri was placed first among that group of tied schools. I can’t imagine anybody would be laboring under the misapprehension that there was some form of consistent rule in force other than “place Mizzou as high as feasible”.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/5929290/here-are-your-all-time-vacated-wins-leaders-in-division-i-college-football
A record of vacated wins. You can find all of them via the NCAA database.
https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/miSearch
LikeLike
The notion of a “vacated win” creates all sorts of statistical confusion, because in some sources the game happened, and in others it did not. In the NCAA’s own database, the loser is still recorded as having “lost,” but not the winner as having “won”. I believe they still retain individual statistics (like points scored), but not the game outcome on the winner’s side. Any kind of statistical research can produce garbled results unless you separately account for that.
For instance, if you rather naively try to calculate Ohio State’s average yards rushing per game in 2010, you get an inflated figure, as the record book shows just one game played but retains 13 games worth of rushing totals. No football fan is likely to forget OSU’s lost season, but if you’re doing research across many teams and years, you could easily produce bad data if you didn’t realize there’s a vacated game, or games, in the sample.
I would prefer retaining the integrity of the statistics, but stripping the offender of the fruits of the victory. For instance, Ohio State would still be recorded as the Sugar Bowl winner after the 2010 season, but they’d relinquish the trophy, and they would no longer be considered a conference champion that year. The game could have an asterisk in the database, giving researchers the option of including or excluding vacated games in search criteria.
I think pro sports handle similar situations better. For instance, Pete Rose was banned for life from baseball for betting on the Reds to win while he managed them. But Rose’s statistical achievements from that period weren’t erased from baseball databases. The records of players from baseball’s steroid era are handled similarly. The statistics are still there, and each reader or researcher can decide the significance for themselves.
LikeLike
Even better, sometimes the NCAA vacates wins (12-1 becomes 0-1) but other times they forfeit games (12-1 becomes 0-13 plus the other 12 teams change an L to a W).
LikeLike
I agree. Its a ridiculous penalty.
Don’t really think this list is complete. I think there were some vacated wins before the 90s, but this list seems to be all 90s. NCAA seems to be going nuts over vacated victories. Some of them are really silly.
LikeLike
It is definitely incomplete. That’s why I added the link to the infractions database.
I understand the idea behind the penalty, but it is a hassle to deal with the stats. NCAA stats are a mess anyway since bowls only started to count recently for individual stats.
I think you either need to forfeit the games or just strip the team of any acknowledgement of success (no banners, can’t count or display any championships, no trophies, etc) while leaving the games on the books as is.
LikeLike
As a history/stats lover, count me in the group that despises vacating wins. I’m of the opinion if it happened, it happened. You can punish the player/coach/school later if need be and put an an asterisk, but please just leave the record to reveal what actually happened and not what we would like to pretend happened.
LikeLike
The huge number of vacated Penn State wins is the worst. They decided that from a particular date (when someone estimates Joe Paterno knew, or should have known, that Jerry Sandusky needed to be reported), none of his remaining wins count.
Whatever you may think of Joe Paterno, the logic is absurd.
LikeLike
It was totally ridiculous. There was no evidence anyone knew about the Alamo Bowl in 1998. There was not even a suggestion anyone knew. 2000 was when there was the allegation that was reviewed by the police. And even then, that investigation was handled properly. The police decided there wasn’t sufficient evidence. If they were anything than emotional idiots and wanted to vacate wins, they would have done it from after McQueary reported the last incident in 2001.
LikeLike
Mark Emmert would have the Patriots vacate all wins from the date Aaron Hernandez killed two people in 2012.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The huge number of vacated Penn State wins is the worst. They decided that from a particular date (when someone estimates Joe Paterno knew, or should have known, that Jerry Sandusky needed to be reported), none of his remaining wins count.
Whatever you may think of Joe Paterno, the logic is absurd.”
I actually think pretty highly of JoePa, but I think you misunderstand the NCAA’s logic. They claimed there was an unhealthy environment at PSU with football being too powerful. They think that earlier incidents should have been reported and investigated more aggressively, but everyone wanted to protect JoePa’s image so they left it alone. They felt they had to remove him from his pedestal to start reducing the hero worship. Thus, they went back to the first alleged incident and vacated wins from there. That left him below 300 wins, so he isn’t even ahead of Bear Bryant. He’s still revered, but not like he would be as the all-time wins leader.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Mark Emmert would have the Patriots vacate all wins from the date Aaron Hernandez killed two people in 2012.”
I don’t know about that. Perhaps someone should vacate some of their Super Bowls, though. They haven’t won one since spygate, so maybe their cheating was a bigger factor than people want to believe.
LikeLike
Maybe so, just drawing a parallel to the PSU where off-field failings were punished with removing on-field accomplishments, and the absurdity of the logic behind the decision.
Also, you raise the interesting point of Paterno’s legacy. I happen to believe that his legacy, his lifetime work on the Grand Experiment has absolutely taken a devastating hit, and that Paterno is largely viewed as a hypocrite who failed to do all he could to stop Sandusky (my take on the perception, as I think PSU administrators affirmatively sought to shield this from Paterno–giving him plausible deniability–and I do think he had no earthly idea the magnitude of what McQueary told him about what a retired assistant was doing in the football complex).
I think that even if he had been left as the all-time wins leader, the public by and large would still associate Paterno with this sick situation, and not his on field record.
Now, this is my outsider’s take. Paterno may still be revered in Happy Valley.
LikeLike
@Brian: I do realize that, from the NCAA’s perspective, there is a “logic” there, however tenuous it may be. But beyond the general drawbacks of vacated games (which I believe you and I agree upon), the connection between Paterno’s behavior and every single game starting with the first alleged incident, is exceedingly remote.
Even had the NCAA done nothing, Paterno’s reputation had already taken a significant hit that was likely to dog his reputation permanently. I was never a great JoePa fan, but I’m not prepared to say that his failure in this particular case entirely undermines the validity of everything else he created and stood for.
It’s not like Bernard Madoff: once you know his firm was a giant Ponzi scheme, there is practically nothing left to say in his favor. (It’s not sport, but it’s the best analogy coming to mind at the moment.) In contrast, I think Paterno was entirely sincere in most of what he said and did. His severe error in judgment about Sandusky deserves to be remembered, but not to the extent of completely obliterating the rest of his legacy.
Again, I give the Pete Rose analogy. He was banned from baseball for life, but his statistics weren’t wiped from the books. And unlike Paterno, there was a very specific rule on the books, covering the precise behavior in question, that Rose violated.
While this is not entirely a defense of what Paterno did, I don’t actually think there was a moment when Paterno said to himself, “You know, child rapes aren’t really that important, as long as the football team is winning.” This is quite different from Bernie Madoff, who knew perfectly well that the client statements he published were a complete fabrication; or Pete Rose, who knew perfectly well that he was not allowed to gamble on professional baseball (much less, games in which he was a participant).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I do realize that, from the NCAA’s perspective, there is a “logic” there, however tenuous it may be.”
It’s not tenuous, you just disagree with it.
“But beyond the general drawbacks of vacated games (which I believe you and I agree upon),”
Yes, but the NCAA doesn’t care about the difficulties people may have looking up stats and such.
“the connection between Paterno’s behavior and every single game starting with the first alleged incident, is exceedingly remote.”
Yes, of course it is. It was just a convenient marker in time for the NCAA to use to accomplish their goal of punishing PSU and their fans for the environment they built around football.
“Even had the NCAA done nothing, Paterno’s reputation had already taken a significant hit that was likely to dog his reputation permanently.”
Actually, I don’t think so. Americans have very short memories, so if JoePa wasn’t punished they’d gloss it over and go on with their lives. People would look back and just say it was a shame about Sandusky but what a great man and coach JoePa was.
“I was never a great JoePa fan, but I’m not prepared to say that his failure in this particular case entirely undermines the validity of everything else he created and stood for.”
It doesn’t, and that’s why PSU left his name on the library.
“In contrast, I think Paterno was entirely sincere in most of what he said and did. His severe error in judgment about Sandusky deserves to be remembered, but not to the extent of completely obliterating the rest of his legacy.”
He still has his name on the library, 2 national titles and 298 official wins. That’s hardly completely obliterating his legacy.
“Again, I give the Pete Rose analogy. He was banned from baseball for life, but his statistics weren’t wiped from the books.”
And JoePa wasn’t banned from CFB. Different sports do thing differently.
“While this is not entirely a defense of what Paterno did, I don’t actually think there was a moment when Paterno said to himself, “You know, child rapes aren’t really that important, as long as the football team is winning.””
No, but how many people around the program looked the other way or downplayed something that might have been a stain on JoePa’s reputation? Remember, the janitors were afraid to report what they saw for fear of being fired. That’s not directly JoePa’s fault, but clearly something was wrong around there.
LikeLike
“I do realize that, from the NCAA’s perspective, there is a “logic” there, however tenuous it may be.”
It’s not tenuous, you just disagree with it.
I would say it is beyond rational dispute that there is no clear connection between Paterno’s conduct and the exact number of games vacated; whatever connection may exist is arguable. No concrete rule, or even precedent, defined the penalty in such a case. If that doesn’t meet the definition of “tenuous,” I don’t know what does.
Compare this to the vacated Ohio State games in 2010—a sanction that, as you know, I also disagree with. But there, it is at least clear: Ohio State vacated every game in which an ineligible player appeared. Whether you agree with the penalty or not, the connection is at least well defined.
“But beyond the general drawbacks of vacated games (which I believe you and I agree upon),”
Yes, but the NCAA doesn’t care about the difficulties people may have looking up stats and such.
It is not merely the difficulty of looking up stats. It is even more basic than that: it’s the ability to know “what happened”, even qualitatively. I do realize, of course, that the NCAA couldn’t care less about my opinion. On a website where we debate “what ifs,” it’s inevitable that many of us will have opinions that those in power do not agree with.
“the connection between Paterno’s behavior and every single game starting with the first alleged incident, is exceedingly remote.”
Yes, of course it is. It was just a convenient marker in time for the NCAA to use to accomplish their goal of punishing PSU and their fans for the environment they built around football.
It’s incoherent to punish the fans for things they were never told and could not possibly have known about.
“I was never a great JoePa fan, but I’m not prepared to say that his failure in this particular case entirely undermines the validity of everything else he created and stood for.”
It doesn’t, and that’s why PSU left his name on the library.
We’re discussing the NCAA sanction. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over a library that is outside of the athletic department.
“In contrast, I think Paterno was entirely sincere in most of what he said and did. His severe error in judgment about Sandusky deserves to be remembered, but not to the extent of completely obliterating the rest of his legacy.”
He still has his name on the library, 2 national titles and 298 official wins. That’s hardly completely obliterating his legacy.
It obliterates everything he did, starting at the rather arbitrarily defined date of the first vacated win.
“Again, I give the Pete Rose analogy. He was banned from baseball for life, but his statistics weren’t wiped from the books.”
And JoePa wasn’t banned from CFB. Different sports do thing differently.
JoePa was already dead by the time the NCAA sanctions came out. They very well might have banned him, had it still mattered. The NCAA has issued show-causes in far milder cases. Anyhow, I certainly think it’s worthwhile to take note of differences between regulatory bodies, and to have an opinion about which are better.
I don’t actually think there was a moment when Paterno said to himself, “You know, child rapes aren’t really that important, as long as the football team is winning.”
No, but how many people around the program looked the other way or downplayed something that might have been a stain on JoePa’s reputation? Remember, the janitors were afraid to report what they saw for fear of being fired. That’s not directly JoePa’s fault, but clearly something was wrong around there.
As tragic as it was, do you think Bear Bryant’s janitor or Woody Hayes’s janitor would have felt any different?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I would say it is beyond rational dispute that there is no clear connection between Paterno’s conduct and the exact number of games vacated;”
1. I doubt that, but I don’t really want to have that debate anyway. An event occurred in 1998 and the NCAA chose to vacate from that time period. It’s not like they picked a random year to start.
2. That was not the NCAA’s logic, and thus why your tenuous comment doesn’t apply.
“No concrete rule, or even precedent, defined the penalty in such a case.”
So what? Few NCAA rules came with pre-defined penalties and the NCAA explicitly says they are not bound by precedent. The NCAA has discretion to punish as much as they see fit based on the totality of what happened.
“It is not merely the difficulty of looking up stats. It is even more basic than that: it’s the ability to know “what happened”, even qualitatively.”
Which, again, the NCAA doesn’t care about.
“It’s incoherent to punish the fans for things they were never told and could not possibly have known about.”
That’s one man’s opinion. Clearly the NCAA disagrees.
It doesn’t, and that’s why PSU left his name on the library.
“We’re discussing the NCAA sanction. The NCAA has no jurisdiction over a library that is outside of the athletic department.”
1. I must have missed the memo that only NCAA actions could be discussed here. Since PSU accepted the NCAA findings and punishment, I think their actions towards JoePa are somewhat relevant.
2. The NCAA can force complete dissociation of an individual from the university for a period of time. I wouldn’t be shocked if they extended that power to include building names.
“It obliterates everything he did, starting at the rather arbitrarily defined date of the first vacated win.”
No, it only removes his coaching wins. He did a lot more than coach games.
“Again, I give the Pete Rose analogy. He was banned from baseball for life, but his statistics weren’t wiped from the books.”
And JoePa wasn’t banned from CFB. Different sports do thing differently.
“JoePa was already dead by the time the NCAA sanctions came out. They very well might have banned him, had it still mattered.”
Shoeless Joe is still banned from the HoF. Different sports do things differently.
“As tragic as it was, do you think Bear Bryant’s janitor or Woody Hayes’s janitor would have felt any different?”
I won’t speak for AL, but yes for OSU. Woody coached when OSU’s faculty turned down the Rose Bowl because they felt football was growing too big and powerful. There was no delay in firing Woody when he punched that player. Woody was and is beloved, but he was never worshiped in the same way JoePa was.
LikeLike
1998 is pretty random to punish Paterno for something even the many conspiracy theorists haven’t accused him of knowing about. Why not go back to the 60s? Or when Sandusky was first hired?
LikeLike
bullet,
“1998 is pretty random to punish Paterno for something even the many conspiracy theorists haven’t accused him of knowing about.”
I don’t think it’s random at all. I fully agree there’s a weak correlation at best between what happened in 1998 to PSU winning football games since then, but that’s not what random means.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_9760cb60-2b91-5a1b-9963-dc1601a848e5.html
May 1998 is when the email discussion between administrators happened, allegedly showing that JoePa knew about an investigation into Sandusky molesting someone, so they used that as a marker. That seems very specific to me, not arbitrary at all.
LikeLike
I didn’t remember anything in 1998 but the Alamo Bowl.
I was thinking the incident when the police investigated and the Mother wanted a wire was in 2000. If what I thought was in 2000 actually happened in 1998, then it wasn’t random.
Still think its silly as proper procedures were followed. 2001 is where they failed.
LikeLike
I fully agree there’s a weak correlation at best between what happened in 1998 to PSU winning football games since then, but that’s not what random means.
If I rewrite the posts above with the word “weak”, do you still disagree with them? That was really all I meant by “tenuous.”
LikeLike
That’s one man’s opinion. Clearly the NCAA disagrees.
If posts that contain one man’s opinion are invalid for that reason alone, then most posts don’t belong here, including many of yours, and certainly all of Frank the Tank’s, in which case we wouldn’t be here at all.
I am not sure the exact point of observing that the NCAA disagrees with a discussion thread whose subject is the merits of something they did. Clearly, unless one says “the NCAA was right” every time, the NCAA is always going to disagree. I suspect they disagree with a lot that’s written and said about them, not just by me. So?
If I recall correctly, you did not support adding Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten. I could have said (but didn’t), “Clearly the Big Ten disagrees.” We all know the Big Ten disagrees and isn’t going to revoke the decision (or admit error) based on what we say, no matter how well argued. That fact doesn’t invalidate the debate, which I suspect we’ll be having for many years to come.
For that matter, I suspect historians will never stop debating whether George W. Bush should have invaded Iraq. Does it end the discussion, to say, “Clearly President Bush disagreed”?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“If I rewrite the posts above with the word “weak”, do you still disagree with them? That was really all I meant by “tenuous.””
The problem is that I don’t believe the NCAA ever claimed there was a strong correlation between any of the actions/inaction at PSU related to Sandusky and winning games. They didn’t punish them for cheating to win more games. They punished them for creating an atmosphere where CFB and an image were seen as more important than stopping child molestation.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“If posts that contain one man’s opinion are invalid for that reason alone, then most posts don’t belong here, including many of yours, and certainly all of Frank the Tank’s, in which case we wouldn’t be here at all.”
Which might be relevant if I said that your comment was invalid because it was just your opinion, but I didn’t. I noted that one particular sentence was your personal opinion and I didn’t declare anything invalid. And this was a comment in which you declared something to be beyond rational debate.
“I am not sure the exact point of observing that the NCAA disagrees with a discussion thread whose subject is the merits of something they did.”
Again, I said it about one sentence in particular. The point was to show that not everyone agrees with you about what makes sense despite you stating it like it’s fact. If it helps, I don’t agree with you either. But I also know you won’t change your opinion so there’s no point in trying to persuade you.
“If I recall correctly, you did not support adding Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten. I could have said (but didn’t), “Clearly the Big Ten disagrees.””
Yes, especially in response to an opinion about them. That sort of thing was said on here multiple times. It’s a valid point.
“Does it end the discussion, to say, “Clearly President Bush disagreed”?”
It can.
LikeLike
Kansas should be on that list. They vacated their 1960 win vs Missouri for using an ineligible player.
LikeLike
Kansas still claims the victory. Interesting background here: http://www.rockmnation.com/2010/11/21/1828767/the-1960-mu-ku-controversey
LikeLike
The key point is that the NCAA didn’t order any wins vacated. So for their record books, the win should count.
LikeLike
Either way they cheated.
LikeLike
Heard an interview of Billy Mills today, the 50th anniversary of one of the biggest Olympic upsets of all time.
He mentioned that three times he was asked to step out of the picture of national champions, because of his Native American heritage. Once at NCAA’s and twice at US championships. We aren’t where we should be, but it is good sometimes to get a sense of the progress that has been made. Count me in as saying NFL Washington should change their name to…Pigskins…or something else.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/07/02/maryland-students-get-first-taste-of-big-ten-ice-cream-but-wheres-the-old-bay/
Finally, the secret is revealed. B10 ice cream is now available at UMD.
A rich and creamy bourbon vanilla bean ice cream swirled with a raspberry and cream de cassis Melba sauce, accented with pieces of three historic, uniquely Maryland Cakes: Kossuth cake, Smith Island cake and Lord Baltimore cake, splashed with a hint of Triple Sec.
LikeLike
Was on campus today…but the dairy was closed. Did pick up an Under Armour Terps Big Ten shirt, however.
LikeLike
Frank,
Do we need to put you on suicide watch? Melo stayed in NYC, buy you did get Pau Gasol. The Bulls should still be in the top group of Eastern teams.
LikeLike
ADs to discuss tension of academics, athletics in #FanTownHall
Athletic directors from UNC, Duke, NC State and NC Central will join hosts Adam Gold and Jeff Gravley, and the conversation will be live on WRALSportsFan.com and 99.9 FM The Fan.
WHEN: July 17, 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. live on WRALSportsFan.com and 99.9 FM The Fan.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/fan-town-hall/13748855/
LikeLike
That should be fun for UNC’s AD. Are the other 3 just planning to point and laugh for the first 30 minutes?
No topic is off limits.
Wanna bet?
LikeLike
Video is up for those who missed the discussion live.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/rs/video/13812714/
LikeLike
Anything interesting?
LikeLike
Yow brought up the points of how FCOA could affect the distribution of the Pell Grant, in addition to the potential Title IX implications.
LikeLike
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/13/4003597/oklahoma-baptist-moves-closer.html?sp=/99/103/119/
Expansion news.
Oklahoma Baptist University in Shawnee is a step closer to becoming a member of NCAA Division II.
The Division II membership committee has recommended OBU’s membership application — which will be reviewed by the NCAA Division II management council during meetings set for July 21 and 22.
OBU begins a process of becoming a full NCAA member as a part of the Great American Conference that includes colleges and universities in Oklahoma and Arkansas. The process takes a minimum of three years to complete.
Oklahoma Baptist will compete during the coming season in the NAIA as a part of the Sooner Athletic Conference.
Proof that the NCAA has competitors, too.
LikeLike
Deutschland über Alles
LikeLike
http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-football/2014/07/13/penn-state-vs-michigan-state-a-budding-rivalry-game-again-thanks-to-conference-realignment/
Rant Sports making a claim of a Penn State-Michigan State rivalry.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Like most modern created trophies, it’s OK, but nothing special. The only big exception to that rule was the old crystal ball trophy which for some reason they didn’t keep.
LikeLike
I’ll just put it out there. We’ll know if we get reports out of mainstream outlets…
https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/488722805316276224
LikeLike
Who is this guy? Looking at his twitter account he has very few followers and limited activity.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11213953/espn-sets-schedule-college-football-playoff-selection-show
ESPN will announce the semifinal teams on Sunday 12/7/2014 at 12:45pm. The other major bowl pairings will be announced by 3pm.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103618/preseason-projections-west-division
ESPN’s Stats and Info blog predicts the B10 West:
WI – 9.3-3.2 overall, 5.9-2.1 B10, 21.9% chance of winning the B10
IA – 8.0-4.3, 4.9-3.2, 7.8%
NE – 7.6-4.5, 4.6-3.4, 4.5%
NW – 6.6-5.5, 4.0-4.0, 2.6%
MN – 5.5-6.5, 2.7-5.3, 0.4%
IL – 5.5-6.5, 2.7-5.3, 0.2%
PU – 3.6-8.4, 1.3-6.7, 0.0%
The East is coming tomorrow.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103625/preseason-projections-east-division
The East:
OSU – 10.5-2.2 overall, 6.5-1.5 B10, 40.9% chance of winning the B10
MI – 8.9-3.4, 5.5-2.6, 12.7%
MSU – 7.8-4.3, 4.7-3.3, 5.9%
IN – 7.0-5.0, 4.0-4.0, 1.8%
UMD – 6.4-5.6, 3.5-4.5, 1.3%
RU – 4.8-7.2, 2.3-5.7, 0.1%
PSU – 6.9-5.2, 3.6-4.4, 0%
They seem too down on MSU for my taste, and the B10 blogger agrees with me.
If sportsbooks started using these odds, something tells me there would be quite an avalanche of bets on Michigan State. For one reason or another, the Spartans just aren’t getting much love here. The Wolverines are actually projected to win more games. Overall, Michigan State is favored in nine contests but is only a 55-percent favorite or better in six of those. ESPN Stats & Info plans to update these numbers once the season starts, so it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to think these odds will end up changing in the Spartans’ favor. But, for now, the odds just don’t like MSU.
…
Only three teams in the nation — Florida State, Oregon, Marshall — are projected to win more games than the Buckeyes. So, once again, Ohio State is favored to win the Big Ten and do big things on a national scale. It’s given a 7.6 percent chance to win out, and it’s favored by at least 65 percent in every game it plays.
LikeLike
As football fests begin, ranking the FBS conferences
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/07/14/fbs-football-conference-rankings-aac-acc-big-12-big-ten-cusa-mac-mwc-pac-12-sec-sun-belt/12613255/
1. SEC
Top four: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, South Carolina
In terms of pure wattage, no league can match the SEC’s top half: Alabama, Auburn, LSU and South Carolina lead, followed closely by Georgia and a sixth national contender – whether you want to say Texas A&M, Mississippi, Missouri or Florida – in creating the deepest cast of potential playoff participants. Where the SEC lags is in its bottom third, where the decline from the elite top slice is severe. Hey, someone has to lose.
2. Pac-12
Top four: Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC
The deepest league in college football has drawn within a whisker of the SEC as a result of huge gains in the South Division. We knew Oregon and Stanford would lead the charge; USC, UCLA and Arizona State have joined the party, however, giving the Pac-12 as many as nine teams capable of winning nine or more games during the regular season. All told, don’t be surprised if 10 teams – all but California and Colorado – end up with seven wins. In a very short period of time, the Pac-12 has closed the gap.
<b?3. ACC
Top four: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Louisville
Any league headlined by Florida State earns our respect. But the Seminoles’ dominance has contributed to the idea – largely unfounded – that the ACC lacks depth. In truth, FSU merely outshines a fairly competitive conference: Clemson’s superb, Duke is on the rise, Louisville adds punch and as many as five teams could conceivably take home the Coastal Division. The league still needs UNC and Miami (Fla.) to deliver, but the ACC is on the rise.
4. Big Ten
Top four: Michigan State, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan State
Urban Meyer’s arrival has added some juice to the Big Ten, as has James Franklin’s leap from the SEC to Penn State. What the Big Ten needs – and this is an annual refrain – is a second national contender to join the Buckeyes, with Michigan State pulling the honors a season ago. The Spartans aren’t going anywhere in 2014 despite some losses; can Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan join the party? If so, the Big Ten is going to leap past the ACC as the nation’s third-best league. Even if not, the league is solidly in fourth. There is, as always, a good amount of potential.
5. Big 12
Top four: Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma, TCU
The Big 12 has an issue: it may be too deep. That seven of the league’s 10 teams would be wildly disappointed with a finish outside the postseason – and an eighth, West Virginia, would be simply angry with another losing season – essentially prevents one single team from escaping the regular season unscathed, perhaps costing the Big 12 a spot in the College Football Playoff. In terms of depth, however, this is a very solid league – and it’ll improve its standing if Texas can rediscover its groove under Charlie Strong.
6. American
Top four: Cincinnati, East Carolina, Houston, UCF
The American does lose Louisville and Rutgers – well, loses Louisville – but adds East Carolina, Tulsa and Tulane – well, adds ECU. The top four isn’t terrible: UCF will be a 10-win threat, Houston is underrated, Cincinnati is always a threat and ECU should hit the ground running from the start. The American’s issue lies in the mess beyond the top quartet, a group that may include just one eventual bowl team. Is Tulsa ready to rebound? Can Tulane maintain its current growth against a higher caliber of competition? The league gets ugly after the leaders.
7. Mountain West
Top four: Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Utah State
The Mountain West is nipping at the American’s heels. Boise State is Boise State. Fresno State reloads without its star skill players but with Tim DeRuyter. Utah State is supremely dangerous despite one of the lowest numbers of returning starters in the country. San Diego State is on an eight-win roll. What could lift the conference above the American is six-plus wins from the group of San Jose State, Nevada, Colorado State and UNLV; if so, this is the sixth-best conference in the FBS.
8. Mid-American
Top four: Ball State, Bowling Green, Northern Illinois, Toledo
Northern Illinois’ projected decline – it’ll be slight, but the Huskies will drop a touch – robs the MAC of a potential top-20 finisher. At the same time, perhaps Toledo finally breaks through, ending a frustrating run behind NIU, or perhaps Bowling Green grasps Dino Babers’ style to notch another double-digit-win season. Ball State will also struggle matching last year’s 10-win finish, but Buffalo, Akron, Central Michigan and Ohio should at least flirt with the postseason.
9. Conference USA
Top four: Marshall, North Texas, Rice, UTSA
Conference USA does house the non-major team with the best shot at an undefeated season: Marshall has the talent, experience and schedule to make a run at 13 wins. But the well quickly runs dry after the Thundering Herd, UTSA, Rice and North Texas; Conference USA’s bottom third is as bad as it gets, so the pressure is on Doc Holliday’s gang to do all of the heavy lifting. Well, at least most of it: UTSA could be one of the great surprises in the country. The league as a whole is still one of the nation’s weakest.
10. Sun Belt
Top four: Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, South Alabama, Troy
The Sun Belt brings up the rear – again. Arkansas State’s always steady. South Alabama is growing rapidly. Troy is ready to rebound. UL Lafayette is eyeballing 10-plus wins. Yet this same league also houses five of the nation’s worst: Georgia State, Georgia Southern, New Mexico State, Idaho and Appalachian State. In total, six Sun Belt teams were either in the Football Championship Subdivision or participating as an independent within the past three seasons.
LikeLike
Gotta put the B1G third in my view. Why anoint Louisville at this point heading into a new conference? And Duke? C’mon. FSU and Clemson fine but Duke and Louisville don’t yet belong as national contenders.
LikeLike
It still looks odd to see Rice listed in the Top Four.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11214389/oklahoma-state-football-investigation
OkSU football is under investigation by the NCAA after SI’s series about them last year.
LikeLike
Michigan & Oklahoma agree to home and home in 2025 & 2026.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11215134/michigan-oklahoma-meet-home-home-series-2025-26
MI and OU have a home and home in 2025-6. That’s an improvement on playing ND those 2 years for MI.
LikeLike
It’s the first non-conference opponent Michigan has signed, of comparable stature to what they lost when ND canceled the series. It’ll only take another 11 years for them to play.
LikeLike
Mich-OU will get a lower TV rating than a Mich-ND game, so I fail to see how this is an improvement to playing ND. Only Alabama or Texas provide the opportunity for a higher rating than ND with no guarantee
LikeLike
Mark,
“Mich-OU will get a lower TV rating than a Mich-ND game, so I fail to see how this is an improvement to playing ND.”
Since when are TV ratings the standard for comparison? MI/ND is seen as a regional rivalry by much of the country and so not of great interest, especially if one or both aren’t highly ranked. MI/OU is a more national game and will attract a ton of media attention for being new and different. It also gets MI more exposure in other parts of the country that might matter to them.
“Only Alabama or Texas provide the opportunity for a higher rating than ND with no guarantee”
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
It really depends. MI/ND drew a 5.3 (8.65M) last year at 8pm on ESPN. OU/ND drew a 2.6 (3.89M) at 3:30 on NBC. USC/ND drew a 2.2 (3.46M) at 7:30 on NBC. MI/UConn drew a 3.5 (5.73M) at 8 on ABC. MI/OSU drew a 5.8 (9.50M) at noon on ABC.
If you average those national ratings, ND was #9 nationally for 2013 and OU did much better than UT (both were below ND). Every year will be different based on schedules and who is winning, of course.
LikeLike
Much as I hate it, no ND game is regional. And additionally Michigan is (was) a long standing rivalry.
LikeLike
I know people hate ND, but an early season game vs ND is a gift in that ND tends to be overrated and many people will watch. Plus a win over ND is always good in a sport that is a beauty contest.
LikeLike
When a ND vs a standard ACC team game gets higher ratings than a Mich-OU game then you’d be right.
LikeLike
Former Penn State QB Rob Bolden is planning to transfer again.
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2014/07/lsu_wide_receiver_former_qb_ro.html
LikeLike
Eastern Michigan just won the Rob Bolden sweepstakes.
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/article/4998928
History of Oklahoma against Big Ten teams. Talks about future series with Ohio State and Nebraska.
LikeLike
The Sooners never have played Purdue or Michigan State. OU played Illinois once, in 1917. Played Indiana once, in 1928. OU has played Iowa State twice, in 1979 and again in the 2011 Insight Bowl.
oops.
LikeLike
Now fixed.
LikeLike
http://www.insideworldsoccer.com/2014/07/christoph-kramer-head-injury-germany-argentina-world-cup-final.html
And people say football has a problem.
But Kramer was knocked out cold in the 14th minute after taking a shoulder to the jaw from Argentina defender Ezequiel Garay.
The 23-year-old walked in two different directions on the way off the field, but was shamefully allowed to play on when he came to.
He then continued playing for 14 minutes before slumping to the ground and was finally taken off.
“I can’t really remember much of the game,” Kramer told German newspaper Welt.
“I don’t know anything at all about the first half. I thought later that I left the game immediately after the tackle. I have no idea how I got to the changing rooms. I don’t know anything else. In my head, the game starts from the second half.”
The fact that Kramer was allowed back onto the pitch is frightening and incredibly dangerous.
LikeLike
Minor leaguers getting into the act-suing baseball for minimum wage:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/major-league-baseballs-working-poor-minor-leaguers-sue-over-pay-n156051
LikeLike
They have a lot of issues to overcome.
1. Minor league baseball may be a seasonal occupation, which exempts it from the law.
2. I read another article where it says the players neglected to count signing bonuses when considering what they are paid (some of them get a lot).
3. They want to be paid for off-season conditioning. I don’t see how a team owes them money for it. They can show up out of shape, they’ll just get beaten out by someone else.
4. How you count the hours makes a huge difference. I doubt they hit 40 hours with just games and practice time.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11219276/nba-jerseys-now-feature-gold-tabs-collars-indicate-teams-won-titles
The NBA is copying soccer (among other sports) and adding a marker for teams that have won a title. All teams that have won a title will get a little gold tab on the back of their collar. Unlike other sports, there is no indication of how many the team has won (soccer uses 1 star for each World Cup won, for example).
I think they NBA should put the number of titles in the tab in black or make the tab bigger for each extra title. Otherwise it seems more like you’re just punishing the teams that have never won one rather than honoring winners.
NBA titles:
Celtics – 17
Lakers – 16
Bulls – 6
Spurs – 5
4 with 3
2 with 2
8 with 1
8 with 0
LikeLike
http://www.testudotimes.com/2014/7/15/5901937/football-focus-group-you-got-any-suggestions
Hey vp19 (or any other Terp fans), have you seen this yet?
LikeLike
Dienhart ranks top 50 Big Ten games of 2014
1. Ohio State at Michigan State, Nov. 8
2. Michigan State at Oregon, Sept. 6
3. Nebraska at Michigan State, Oct. 4
4. Wisconsin vs. LSU (in Houston), Aug. 30
5. Michigan at Ohio State, Nov. 29
6. Michigan at Notre Dame, Sept. 6
7. Nebraska at Iowa, Nov. 28
8. Wisconsin at Iowa, Nov. 22
9. Virginia Tech at Ohio State, Sept. 6
10. Nebraska at Wisconsin, Nov. 15
11. Michigan at Michigan State, Oct. 25
12. Miami (Fla.) at Nebraska, Sept. 20
13. Michigan State at Penn State, Nov. 29
14. Nebraska at Northwestern, Oct. 18
15. Iowa at Minnesota, Nov. 8
16. Ohio State at Penn State, Oct. 25
17. Penn State at Michigan, Oct. 11
18. Minnesota at Nebraska, Nov. 22
19. Minnesota at Wisconsin, Nov. 29
20. Northwestern at Notre Dame, Nov. 15
21. Iowa at Pitt, Sept. 20
22. Minnesota at Michigan, Sept. 27
23. Nebraska at Fresno State, Sept. 13
24. Iowa State at Iowa, Sept. 13
25. Michigan State at Indiana, Oct. 18
26. West Virginia at Maryland, Sept. 13
27. Northwestern at Iowa, Nov. 1
28. Michigan State at Maryland, Nov. 15
29. Indiana at Missouri, Sept. 20
30. Maryland at Michigan, Nov. 22
31. Cal at Northwestern, Aug. 30
32. Ohio State at Minnesota, Nov. 15
33. Utah at Michigan, Sept. 20
34. Minnesota at TCU, Sept. 13
35. Wisconsin at Northwestern, Oct. 4
36. Iowa at Maryland, Oct. 18
37. Indiana at Michigan, Nov. 1
38. Penn State at Indiana, Nov. 8
39. Northwestern at Minnesota, Oct. 11
40. Penn State vs. UCF (in Dublin, Ireland), Aug. 30
41. Michigan at Northwestern, Nov. 8
42. Ohio State at Navy (in Baltimore), Aug. 30
43. Illinois at Northwestern, Nov. 29
44. Penn State at Rutgers, Sept. 13
45. Maryland at Penn State, Nov. 1
46. Ohio State at Maryland, Oct. 4
47. Purdue at Indiana, Nov. 29
48. Rutgers at Maryland, Nov. 29
49. Illinois at Washington, Sept. 13
50. Northern Illinois at Northwestern, Sept. 6
LikeLike
Center for World University Rankings list of universities for 2014
http://cwur.org/2014/
21 – Michigan
23 – Northwestern
25 – Wisconsin
28 – Illinois
33 – Rutgers
46 – Penn State
47 – Ohio State
49 – Minnesota
52 – Purdue
76 – Maryland
112 – Michigan State
113 – Indiana
125 – Iowa
335 – Nebraska
Looking just at US rankings:
16 – Michigan
17 – Northwestern
18 – Wisconsin
21 – Illinois
24 – Rutgers
29 – Penn State
30 – Ohio State
31 – Minnesota
33 – Purdue
47 – Maryland
59 – Michigan State
60 – Indiana
63 – Iowa
125 – Nebraska
LikeLike
If anyone is wondering how or why Rutgers seems to have jumped up in academic rankings, I would imagine it is due to the merger with the medical schools. I believe that years ago, the med schools were part of RU, but politicians found the chance for graft to be much better by splitting the med schools away from the rest of RU. They were right, there were multiple scandals at the NJ College of Medicine and Dentistry – no show big pay jobs, etc. I believe that it finally got so far out of control that a return to RU became politically necessary. Anyway, RU had all kinds of grad schools, law, business, engineering, etc., etc., but no med school and now it has two med schools. One in New Brunswick and one in Newark.
The powers that be at B1G knew that the merger was in place before RU was invited to the B1G. Perhaps they anticipated a significant jump in academic stature for RU. In addition to AAU status, the anticipated upgraded ranking must have made the academic people at the B1G quite happy.
According to this, the B1G now has five of the top 33 universities in the world.
LikeLike
Half of the SEC schools that made the top 100 in the U.S.:
38 Florida
46 Vanderbilt
56 Texas A&M
85 Missouri
87 Georgia
89 LSU
92 Tennessee
with Kentuck falling just outside.
The SEC has some work to do.
LikeLike
As long as the SEC has enough football teams in the top 20, I am not all that certain that they care about academics in the top 100 (or maybe top 200 either)
LikeLike
B1G announces times, networks for first three weeks
LikeLike
Outside of Ohio St vs Virginia Tech the Big Ten has an absolutely awful slate of Big Ten controlled games (Indiana is off, Maryland, Michigan and Michigan St are away) on 9/6.
ESPN has to be thrilled they’re broadcasting:
Akron at Penn State on ABC
Nebraska vs McNeese St on ESPNU
Ball State at Iowa on ESPN2
Central Michigan at Purdue on ESPN News.
LikeLike
But, from the perspective of the B1G … .WOW !!! … ABC will actually broadcast PSU vs. Akron !!!! and one of the ESpin channels will actually (OMG!!!) actually televise the Neb vs. McNeese St. game.
How wonderful for the B1G.
LOL
LikeLike
Mike,
That’s true, but look at the context. You said to ignore the best game, VT @ OSU. In addition, several B10 teams have road games so the B10 doesn’t control the TV rights:
Michigan State at Oregon, 6:30 p.m. ET – FOX (previously announced)
Michigan at Notre Dame, 7 p.m. ET – NBC (previously announced)
Maryland at South Florida, 3:30 p.m. ET – CBS Sports Network (previously announced)
So yes, besides the 4 best games of the weekend there isn’t a lot on the slate. Also note that the ESPN family passed on taking NIU @ NW which should be a decent game.
LikeLike
@Brian –
That’s true, but look at the context
I’m aware of the context. I was commenting on how bad the draw was for ESPN and their Big Ten slots after OSU and VT. There is no reason Nebraska vs McNeese St should be on an ESPN network.
Also note that the ESPN family passed on taking NIU @ NW which should be a decent game.
A couple of people (fairly sure Matt Sarz was one) have noticed that this year the Big Ten has more slots on ESPN networks than last year. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that was a result of the Big Ten and ESPN updating their deal for the addition of Maryland and Rutgers. As part of the deal (another guess), the BTN got to pick ahead of ESPN for some Tier II games (i.e. Northwestern and N. Illinois) that turned into the BTN prime time games announced earlier this year.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I’m aware of the context.”
But I wasn’t sure everyone else was, so I added it back in.
“I was commenting on how bad the draw was for ESPN and their Big Ten slots after OSU and VT.”
They didn’t have to make OSU/VT a prime time game. And yes, they got the short end with 3 decent road OOC games the same weekend. But it just seems odd to say how bad their draw is when they chose one of the games to put on prime time and make themselves go farther down the list to fill their other spots. Especially if BTN got first choice for secondary games that weekend.
“There is no reason Nebraska vs McNeese St should be on an ESPN network.”
Why not? How many better game are being played at that same time?
“A couple of people (fairly sure Matt Sarz was one) have noticed that this year the Big Ten has more slots on ESPN networks than last year. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that was a result of the Big Ten and ESPN updating their deal for the addition of Maryland and Rutgers.”
Probably also a factor was the demise of the BE. ESPN was capped at 41 games before, now the number is undisclosed.
“As part of the deal (another guess), the BTN got to pick ahead of ESPN for some Tier II games (i.e. Northwestern and N. Illinois) that turned into the BTN prime time games announced earlier this year.”
That’s entirely possible. But it just furthers my point that there are a lot of good B10 games that weekend.
http://mattsarzsports.com/Contract/GameList?year=2014&conference=BigTen
For selection order, ABC has the first selection of games every week. Most weeks ESPN/ESPN2 will have the next set of game choices, followed by BTN. BTN will be able to leapfrog ESPN and/or ESPN2 on select weekends.
Perhaps the BTN chose this as one of their weekends.
LikeLike
@Brain –
But I wasn’t sure everyone else was, so I added it back in.
Fair enough.
They didn’t have to make OSU/VT a prime time game… …But it just seems odd to say how bad their draw is when they chose one of the games to put on prime time
The draw is still pretty thin if you make the OSU/VT a regional game and bump the others down.
Why not? How many better game are being played at that same time?
I’m against any FBS vs FCS ever being on a national platform other than a conference network or PPV. Nebraska shouldn’t be rewarded or encouraged by ESPN for playing FCS teams.
That’s entirely possible. But it just furthers my point that there are a lot of good B10 games that weekend.
Every Big Ten home team besides OSU (maybe Northwestern) is playing what should be an over matched opponent. Tough to call those games “good.”
LikeLike
Mike,
“The draw is still pretty thin if you make the OSU/VT a regional game and bump the others down.”
Yes, but it would at least get rid of the I-AA game.
“I’m against any FBS vs FCS ever being on a national platform other than a conference network or PPV. Nebraska shouldn’t be rewarded or encouraged by ESPN for playing FCS teams.”
That’s fair, but I’m not sure it’s realistic. ESPN has a ton of slots to fill, and I-A king vs I-AA is probably better for them than weak I-A vs even weaker I-A.
“Every Big Ten home team besides OSU (maybe Northwestern) is playing what should be an over matched opponent. Tough to call those games “good.””
I was including the 3 road games. A weekend with 5 good games is pretty good for OOC.
Or put another way, compare the average B10 weekend to the average for the other P5 conferences. The P12 will be better but the others won’t, especially once the B10’s I-AA ban fully kicks in. Maybe the problem is ESPN trying to fill 5 slots with games from only from 1 conference.
LikeLike
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/illini-sports/football/2014-07-15/loren-tate-ui-standards-out-whack.html
Academics are holding IL’s CFB and MBB teams back.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/16/alabama-usc-play-cowboys-classic-2016-crimson-tide-trojans
USC @ AL in Dallas in 2016 to kickoff the season.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/alabama-usc-is-on-for-2016-but-its-in-the-wrong-place.html
A lament for the rise of neutral site games rather than home and homes.
LikeLike
wow. very cool. Personally, don’t give a rat’s ass about the neutral site. That is a legendary match-up, admittedly based on the fact that Pete Carroll’s USC never played the SEC champ. And, of course, Carroll’s USC is long gone. But still…..
LikeLike
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/07/texas_offered_nick_saban_100_m.html
UT supposedly offered Saban $100M to leave AL and come coach for them.
LikeLike
This certainly supports Texas’ status as a not for profit entity. $100M for a state paid football coach.
LikeLike
While I find the amounts now being offered to certain coaches obscene, the fact a current paid position is now valued more highly says nothing about the non profit nature of the organization. It may say something about misplaced priorities, though.
LikeLike
Remember that the schools pay only a fraction of a coach’s salary anymore. The booster club and the apparel contract pay a lot more of it.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24623586/when-will-sec-wests-dominance-over-the-sec-east-end
A look at the lack of balance in the SEC.
LikeLike
Power Five’s College Football Playoff revenues will double what BCS paid
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/07/16/college-football-playoff-financial-revenues-money-distribution-bill-hancock/12734897/?siteID=je6NUbpObpQ-m7pDD9YBp9UewoOBDL7U4w
LikeLike
You left out all the details:
In the final year of the BCS, the baseline distribution to the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC and American was $27.897 million. Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West and Sun Belt split $13.168 million. In 2014-15, the base share for the Power Five is $50 million. The so-called Group of Five (including the American) will each receive $15 million.
Other revenues include:
— Each conference will also receive $300,000 for each school that meets the NCAA’s required APR for participation in a bowl game. (For example, if 10 teams met the requirement, a conference would receive $3 million.)
— Conferences will receive $6 million for each team selected as one of the four playoff participants. (There won’t be additional funds for the teams that advance to the championship game.)
— Conferences will receive $4 million for every team selected for a non-playoff bowl (in 2014, the Cotton, Fiesta and Peach bowls).
— Each conference will receive $2 million to cover expenses for each participant in a semifinal, and for the championship game.
— Notre Dame will receive $2.3 million in 2014; the other three independents will split $922,658. (Notre Dame and other independents would receive $6 million for participation in the playoff or $4 million for participation in the Cotton, Fiesta or Peach bowls.)
Revenue from the playoff does not include individual contracts conferences have with the bowls.
For example, in the 2014 season, in addition to its $50 million base payout, the ACC would receive approximately $27.5 million from its contract with the Orange Bowl.
The Rose and Sugar Bowls – tied to the Big Ten and Pac-12 and Big 12 and SEC, respectively – will serve as semifinals for the playoff this season. But in 2015, when the Rose and Sugar aren’t semifinals, those four leagues would each receive approximately $40 million (above the $50 million base payout from the College Football Playoff) from their contracts with those bowls.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/07/16/bill-hancock-college-football-playoff-sec-media-days/12734933/
The playoff committee will look at multiple scenarios before the CCG weekend to make sure they can quickly get the final rankings done. They also won’t try to avoid rematches (dumb, dumb, dumb).
Given the shortened time span between conference championship games and the final College Football Playoff rankings, Playoff executive director Bill Hancock said Wednesdsay the selection committee will enter the season’s final weekend with a blueprint with how to proceed in several different scenarios, similar to how the NCAA basketball committee maps out a projected bracket before the conclusion of the regular season.
…
The implication is that the committee will have thoroughly analyzed all the possible pairings in advance of Dec. 6 slate – one that includes the SEC and Big Ten championships, in addition to in-conference Big 12 games between Kansas State and Baylor and Oklahoma State and Oklahoma. The committee will unveil the four national semifinalists at 12:45 p.m. ET on Dec. 7, less than 12 hours after the conclusion of the Big Ten and Mountain West championship games.
“Basically, the voting process is to create a small list of teams that can be compared to each other, six to eight teams,” Hancock said. “They’ll be analyzed backwards, forwards, any way you can think of. Then the committee will vote three or four of those teams into the rankings.”
…
The 13-member committee will also place no emphasis on avoiding the possibility of a rematch – or a third meeting, in the case of teams that could meet during the regular season and again in a conference championship game.
“They won’t monkey with the pure seeds,” Hancock said. Even if Alabama and Auburn end the year ranked second and third, respectively, and even if the two had met only weeks earlier in the Iron Bowl, “they’ll leave them right there and they will be a rematch.”
“The fact is it’s absolutely based on the pure seedings – 1, 2, 3, 4. If that yield as rematch, or a third game even, then that’s the way it will be.”
LikeLike
i.e. they will basically make up their minds before the ccgs without regard to how the games play out.
LikeLike
I think that might be an exaggeration. I’m hoping they mean that they’ll have looked at multiple scenarios in advance (not all the games that day will really matter for them) and seen which teams they must focus on (if X and Y lose, who might jump up to the top 4?). If you know that only 6-8 teams actually have a shot at the top 4, and since 92% of their resume is complete already, you can get a pretty good idea of how the outcomes on that day might change things. As they pointed out, the NCAA selection committee does that with the B10 title game on Sunday.
I agree things would be better if they didn’t try to release the standings until Tuesday night, so they had plenty of time to study the teams.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/07/college_football_playoff_alaba.html
More info on how it might work.
If the College Football Playoff started in the 2013 season instead of this year, Auburn and Alabama probably would have rematched their epic regular-season finale in a playoff semifinal, said Bill Hancock, the Executive Director of the College Football Playoff, at SEC Media Days Wednesday.
Hancock also said the game would have likely been played at the Rose Bowl because, as the No. 1 seed, Florida State would have had dibs to play closer to home at the Sugar Bowl.
Hancock said that while avoiding rematches will be a factor in bowls, they will not be a factor at all in seeding for the playoffs.
…
Hancock’s presentation to the media included examples of how the selection committee would likely place teams based on hypothetical scenarios of final regular-season rankings and conference champions.
…
Hancock was asked if the committee would avoid two teams playing a third time.
“We role-played all of this,” Hancock said. “The concept of the third game has come up. It sounds a lot like Duke-(North) Carolina (in basketball), doesn’t it?
“The fact is, it’s absolutely based on the pure seedings, 1, 2, 3, 4. If that yields a rematch, or a third game even, then that’s the way it will be.”
…
“It’s all common sense stuff,” Hancock said. “Strength of schedule, head-to-head, comparison of common opponents, and whether you won your conference championship.”
He said no criteria will be weighed more heavily than others.
In one scenario, he had Oregon in the playoff as a No. 4-ranked team, but he had Stanford as the Pac-12 champion, ranked much lower than Oregon. He said the fact that Stanford was the league’s champion ahead of Oregon would be considered, but would not be weighed over other factors.
“Those criteria are not weighted,” he said. “In other words, they are to compare head-to-head, common opponent, strength of schedule, and conference champions whithout given any weight to any of them.”
How would an Oregon be picked ahead of a conference champion in its own division, as in this case?
“I think we probably decided that, yes, Stanford was the champion (in the hypothetical year) and we probably said we looked at the rest of the season and the records were so different that we left it the way we did.”
LikeLike
“…we probably said we looked at the rest of the season and the records were so different that we left it the way we did.”
So…we chose to disregard the rest of the season that crowned a champion.
This could be a bigger fuster cluck than the BCS do over game.
LikeLike
In order for OR to be much higher ranked by them despite Stanford winning the P12 and OR being in playoff contention, one or probably both of these things must have happened:
1. OR was much more impressive OOC (say a major win and 3-0 vs Stanford going 1-2).
2. Stanford won head to head in a less than convincing way (@ home, bad weather, questionable call, fluke play, etc).
Also, OR likely must have been 11-1 with Stanford probably 9-3.
LikeLike
The CFP selection process is going to be just as controversial as the BCS selection process. Sit back, make some popcorn, enjoy the show. The drama and outrage will be legendary. But, at the same time, it will be pointless.
LikeLike
Remember when people claimed a playoff would end all the controversy?
Still, I can’t imagine a scenario in which I will feel sorry for #5.
LikeLike
It’s not a playoff. It’s an invitational. That a conference championship, won on the field, can be…
Never mind.
Screw the mislabeled invitational.
I’m ready for regular season games, conference competition, rivalries, BBQ’s, etc. Those are what truly make CFB attractive anyway.
LikeLike
Hey, you’re preaching to the choir here. I’m at least as anti-playoff/invitational as anyone else. It’s going to suck more of the enjoyment out of CFB for me, just like the BCS did. I know they’ll gain fans overall with this, but they’re slowly losing me. That’s one reason I don’t mind cutting the cord before the season starts.
LikeLike
NFL Sunday Ticket available for streaming?
http://deadspin.com/satellite-free-nfl-sunday-ticket-for-xbox-ps4-tablets-1606150542
NFL Sunday Ticket has always been notoriously inaccessible, limited to just DirecTV subscribers and people who bought a copy of Madden last year. It sucks. But that looks like it’s about to change. A page that’s turned up on the DirecTV website says satellite-free packages of Sunday Ticket will be offered next year.
LikeLike
The New York Times has an interview with Graham Spanier, the outsted and indicted, but not yet tried, former president of Penn State.
There are many good points in the article, but clearly it is from Spanier’s point of view, so it is not uncontested truth, merely a point of view. Money quotes:
The article goes on to say that there is a movement afoot to repudiate the settlement with the NCAA. As wrong-headed as I believe the settlement was, I have trouble imagining how that could work. Generally, when you sign a deal, you gotta live with it, \unless the NCAA agrees voluntarily to modify it (which they in fact have already done, and have indicated they might do again).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“There is no mystery why Penn State signed the document — it was under duress.”
He seems to be using the common definition when the legal definition is what matters. It isn’t illegal to pressure someone into taking a plea, and that’s what the NCAA did. PSU had alternatives. They could have rejected the Freeh report. They could have demanded a hearing. But they didn’t want to risk the “death” penalty.
“The article goes on to say that there is a movement afoot to repudiate the settlement with the NCAA.”
That movement’s been around since day 1.
“Generally, when you sign a deal, you gotta live with it, \unless the NCAA agrees voluntarily to modify it (which they in fact have already done, and have indicated they might do again).”
By the time they could attempt to get out of the deal, PSU’s punishments would be over anyway. They just want their money and wins back so they can return to worshiping JoePa.
LikeLike
He seems to be using the common definition when the legal definition is what matters. It isn’t illegal to pressure someone into taking a plea, and that’s what the NCAA did. PSU had alternatives. They could have rejected the Freeh report. They could have demanded a hearing. But they didn’t want to risk the “death” penalty.
I don’t think the writer is suggesting that they were pressured illegally. The writer is merely pointing out the irony that they capitulated to “save football,” when the whole basis of the Freeh report was that they were too beholden to football.
I don’t see any way they could realistically have fought the NCAA, and as Brian points out, the NCAA quite skillfully took advantage of that fact. A lawsuit would almost certainly have dragged out for years (that’s the one constant of NCAA litigation), and while neither side could be assured of winning, Penn State had a lot more to lose.
On top of that, the court of public opinion would likely have been firmly against them. To the extent Penn State gets any sympathy today, it’s because they took their medicine (however dubious the penalty may have been) and put the case behind them. To have done otherwise would have been to risk re-litigating it endlessly for years and years.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I don’t think the writer is suggesting that they were pressured illegally.”
No, but that is what the movement to repudiate the settlement says. And since the article is so one-sided, it makes it sound like the author sympathizes with that position.
LikeLike
“…the article is so one-sided …”
Yeah, that’s my problem here. a pro-Spanier puff-piece. I thought the NYTimes had some objectivity and some standards? Guess not.
LikeLike
The SEC network’s GM comments from SEC Media Days.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/07/espn_exec_is_confident_holdout.html#incart_river
LikeLike
Lot of propaganda going around. GETSECNETWORK ads are everywhere on the internet. President is saying he is worried one week (trying to stir up fans). Then they say they expect everyone to sign on.
There’s a lot of gamesmanship to put pressure on the networks to sign on. Hard to tell what’s really going on. They probably are in pretty good shape. But we’ll know in the next 5 weeks.
LikeLike
Yeah, I need to hurry up and cut my cord before I provide a nickel to the SEC.
LikeLike
They’ll be fine. They’re just arguing about how fine.
LikeLike
Len Bias To Be Inducted Into University of Maryland Athletics Hall of Fame
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/16/len-bias-to-be-inducted-into-university-of-maryland-athletics-hall-of-fame/
LikeLike
Does he get a white powder plaque?
LikeLike
Still an a-hole. Grow up.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/11218369/what-change-recruiting-next-10-years
The future of recruiting?
LikeLike
Future of football-futbol?
SEC studies MLS for help in attendance issues:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-college-football-is-studying-major-league-soccer-1405556573?mod=trending_now_3
LikeLike
2014-15 Bowl schedule.
http://mattsarzsports.com/Schedule/Weekly?week=17&sportYear=football2014#.U8gxcs9OWUl
LikeLike
Interesting.
B10 schedule:
12/26 – Friday
1pm – Heart of Dallas – B10 vs CUSA
4:30pm – Detroit Lions – B10 vs ACC #7-10/ND
12/27 – Saturday
4:30pm – Pinstripe – B10 vs ACC #3-6/ND
8pm – Holiday – B10 vs P12 #3
12/30 – Tuesday
3pm – Music City B10/ACC #3-6/ND vs SEC #3-8
10pm – San Francisco – B10 vs P12 #4
12/31 – Wednesday
8:30pm – Orange – B10 #2/Sec #2/ND vs ACC #1/At large
1/1 – Thursday
12:30pm – Capital One – B10/ACC vs SEC #2
1pm – Outback – B10 vs SEC #3-8
1/2 – Friday
3:20pm – TaxSlayer – B10/ACC #3-6/ND vs SEC #3-8
It’s just wrong not to have the Rose in that list. It’s certainly better not to have all the games be on 1/1 at the same time, though.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11229760/sec-coaches-question-regular-season-structure
SEC coaches are against expanding the playoff without shortening the regular season to compensate.
Richt and Freeze – drop to 11 games or less (the extra playoff money will cover the lost revenue)
Saban – drop the CCG
“I would hope that if it expands beyond this, we gotta look at the regular season,” Georgia coach Mark Richt said as SEC media days concluded Thursday. “I think you have to reduce the regular [season]. A lot of people may not agree with that.”
Ole Miss coach Hugh Freeze agreed with Richt, saying college football would have to cut into the regular season for the well-being of the student-athletes participating. Alabama’s Nick Saban didn’t exactly take a side on the matter, but he did say that if expansion comes, the sport should consider the toll more games would put on players.
“Not having thought much about it, I do think that for college players, with their age, with their responsibility to academics and the things they have to do that we’re pretty much closing in on the limit of how many games they should be playing and how we can still fit them in,” Saban said. “In our league, you’d have to win 15 games to win [the national championship in a playoff]. If you expand the playoff, you’d have to win more than that.”
…
“I have always been concerned with the length of the season,” Freeze said. “But it’s so financially profitable that I’m not sure that there would be any interest [in shortening the regular season]. If you end up going to a longer playoff, there has to be talk of cutting the season back a game, at least.
“The workload that would be on these young men, I would think you’d have to look at shortening the season some if the playoff is expanding.”
While Freeze suggested cutting the regular season by a game, Richt didn’t have a specific number for the regular season. Saban, however, threw out the idea of eliminating conference championship games in order to make room for an expanded playoff and cut down the burden of an extra game between the regular season and the playoffs.
…
“Let’s remember how exciting the regular season is in college football,” he said. “If you start going eight or 16 teams, you’re going to diminish the importance of some of those games.”
LikeLike
Saban should just advocate Ala. going independent. Doesn’t seem to be interested in conference championships, and apparently doesn’t consider them as an important part of the post season.
LikeLike
Saban is saying that the CCG will not be worth playing if you go to 8 since the only possible impact would be the elimination of one of the schools from the Playoff. That would keep it at three rounds: CCG, semis, National Championship Game (NCG) vs. quarters, semis, NCG. He wants the path to be no more difficult than it is now.
But I think pressure will mount since there are 5 power conferences and at least one champion will not qualify annually, sometimes two. That is going to lead to a 5 champions and 3 at-large system, where the committee picks the 3 at-large only, and seeds all 8.
In this matter the Presidents are far stronger than the coaches, and they and the money crunching ADs make the call. Coaches never want their job to be harder and facing 4 strong schools to be National Champion is something they don’t like.
LikeLike
Spurrier was quoted as saying Saban was an underachiever. He had the best recruiting class every year for nearly a decade and only had 2 SEC championships (3 national).
Actually, the Big 10 and SEC did fine with 6 or 7 game schedules and 10 teams. So a round robin or CCG isn’t really needed. Of course, 14 is a different matter and 9 conference games may not be enough (just have the Big 10, SEC and ACC contribute 2 teams each + Notre Dame to a new conference!).
From 1933 to 1991, most of those years with 12 or 13 teams, the SEC only had 12 split titles despite the fact that most teams only played 6 conference games until the 80s and some only played 5. Interestingly, 8 of those 12 were unbeaten ties (one 3 way). It wasn’t until 1976 (UK and UGA) that there was a 1 loss tie for the championship. Then there were 3 in the 80s (85, 88-3 way, 89). The unbeaten ties:
1934 Tulane 8-0, Alabama 7-0
1939 TN 5-0, Georgia Tech 6-0, Tulane 5-0
1946 UGA 5-0, TN 5-0
1951 Georgia Tech 7-0, TN 5-0
1961 Alabama 7-0, LSU 6-0
1966 Alabama 6-0, UGA 6-0
1977 Alabama 7-0, UK 6-0
1981 UGA 6-0, Alabama 6-0
LikeLike
no fireworks for Michigan.
http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/michigan-regents-reject-football-game-fireworks
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103943/michigan-regents-douse-fireworks-fun
The ESPN B10 blogger is really upset about it.
Fireworks could have been a nice addition — maybe not after touchdowns but certainly after the game — yet they’re not happening.
Hilarious quotes in 3 … 2 … 1 …
“It is not prudent to have close-proximity fireworks at a crowded bowl-style stadium where, if something went wrong, panic could ensue with limited opportunity for a flight to safety,” regent Laurence Deitch said at Thursday’s meeting. “And I reached that conclusion before I knew this was going to happen mid-game, with a couple thousand people on the field itself.”
But wait, it gets better …
“We are not Comerica Park, Disney World or a circus …” regent Mark Bernstein said. “I love Michigan football for what it is … and for what it is not. It remains and should be an experience, a place that resists the excesses of our culture; intentionally simple. The fireworks should be on the field, not above it.”
Intentionally simple? Resists the excesses of our culture?
…
And while Michigan’s history/tradition is a huge part of its program, most of today’s fans want more than an intentionally simple experience.
…
I’m sure some Michigan fans will be pleased by the regents’ ruling. I’d be stunned if they’re under 35. Maybe Michigan is OK with this approach.
But if the goal is to improve the stadium experience, especially for younger fans, with a fairly benign addition, the Michigan regents missed an opportunity here.
1. Nice to just blow off safety as a concern. It’s not like fireworks have ever hurt anyone.
2. I notice that he ignored the regent who was worried about the impact on the people who live nearby, like fireworks well after 10pm (the PSU game is at night).
3. If they are only after the game, which seems to be what he wants, then how does that really help the game day experience? It’s 5 minutes of fireworks after being there for 4 hours or more. Is that really going to make the difference in whether people buy tickets?
LikeLike
I, for one, completely agree with Regent Bernstein. If I wanted a “pro-football” experience, like Gene Smith keeps saying needs to happen at the ‘Shoe, then I’d go to a pro-football game.
“intentionally simple” I love it !!
I don’t understand why the Athletic Directors can’t understand.
It is simple. The price is too high for garbage games; not just tickets, but food, souvineers (sp?), advertising, taking out the band so more crap can be shown in the jumbotron, brainless “games” and “contests” and “races”, sound effects for no reason, piped in music … Just stop the bull crap. Put a fair price on the ticket for the opponent being played; let the bands play; stop trying to fleece every nickle from your customers.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I, for one, completely agree with Regent Bernstein. If I wanted a “pro-football” experience, like Gene Smith keeps saying needs to happen at the ‘Shoe, then I’d go to a pro-football game.”
Agreed. I hate the way they are ruining the game experience.
“I don’t understand why the Athletic Directors can’t understand.”
Because fans like us are the minority. For every one of us they drive away, they’ll get 2 that want more bells and whistles. Look at how many fans complain about wifi. Why are you looking at your phone? Watch the game. That’s what you paid all that money for. And I didn’t pay to have you hold your phone up in front of me so you can poorly record the game.
“It is simple. The price is too high for garbage games; not just tickets, but food, souvineers (sp?), advertising, taking out the band so more crap can be shown in the jumbotron, brainless “games” and “contests” and “races”, sound effects for no reason, piped in music … Just stop the bull crap. Put a fair price on the ticket for the opponent being played; let the bands play; stop trying to fleece every nickle from your customers.”
They don’t accept lowering ticket prices as a reasonable suggestion. Therefore, they try to polish a turd. I don’t think they control the vendor prices directly, they just take the highest bid and let them do what they want (more or less). I could do without much of the jumbotron silliness, but replays are nice and I like to see the scores from other games.
I really don’t understand why they have undermined the bands by piping in bad music at 140 dB rather than letting the band play (or pipe in recordings of the band playing if the problem was that not everyone could hear them). I remember when TBDBITL used to split up and little groups would walk around the stadium playing in different sections for a few minutes before moving on during the game. That beats the heck out of “7 Nation Army” being played for the billionth time.
LikeLike
Brian: I will quibble with you on a few points. For example, Wifi: I am ALL for that. I get that fans shouldn’t be looking down at their phones, but until the jumbotron gives replays like my TV at home, glory be hallalujah (sp?) for having the replay on my smartphone. Plus the phone gives updates on other games unlike the lame in-stadium updates.
I know you think the replays are “nice” but they are still not as nice as you get on broadcast. IMHO. And the score update are NO WHERE NEAR AS good as online.
So, anyway, I am ALL for the wifi upgrades.
Here’s the thing too: so much downtime now with all the media timeouts. So, the smartphone/internet provides an outlet. You can check other games, scores, email, etc.
So, as said ….
As for the camera-phone, if some sot wants to try and record the game via phone, well, I’m with ya there. “SIT DOWN you D-BAG!!” But, honestly, that is just part of the fun. Some idiot doing something stupid so I can yell at him/her about it !! LOL
And we are of like-mind re: TBDBITL (and bands in general over piped-in Muzak).
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“I will quibble with you on a few points.”
Fair enough.
“Wifi: I am ALL for that.”
I just don’t understand asking your school to raise ticket prices to install something that helps you not watch the game. Plus, I’m not a phone junkie like many people.
“I get that fans shouldn’t be looking down at their phones,”
And yet you want to install something that promotes it.
“but until the jumbotron gives replays like my TV at home,”
They do. Maybe not as many, but the schools are improving that.
“glory be hallalujah (sp?) for having the replay on my smartphone.”
I don’t really see the point in watching replays on a 4″ screen, but to each their own.
“Plus the phone gives updates on other games unlike the lame in-stadium updates.”
Some schools are better than others about how many scores they show and how often.
“I know you think the replays are “nice” but they are still not as nice as you get on broadcast.”
Neither is the view from the seats as good as TV. To me, the point is to experience the game in person, not go to the game and then watch TV.
“And the score update are NO WHERE NEAR AS good as online.”
And those updates aren’t all that important, either. If you really need them, you can get them on the radio easily.
“Here’s the thing too: so much downtime now with all the media timeouts. So, the smartphone/internet provides an outlet. You can check other games, scores, email, etc.”
Or you can just focus on the game and your surroundings and check that other stuff later.
LikeLike
“I really don’t understand why they have undermined the bands by piping in bad music at 140 dB rather than letting the band play”
One of my complaints. They are copying the pros there who don’t have bands and create artificial noise. SEC just took the caps of doing that. Some places (Tennessee for one) you can’t have a conversation with the people around you between plays because of the noise being blasted at you from the speakers.
LikeLike
My decibel meter app has shown easily high enough that employees would be required to wear hearing protection, even for short periods. Maybe OSHA can do what schools won’t – moderate the controllable volume.
LikeLike
The real reason Murdoch bid for Time Warner? To bolster FS1.
LikeLike
Another article.
http://deadspin.com/how-rupert-murdoch-may-go-to-war-with-espn-1607116901
This tidbit as well:
Upon launch last year, cable operators laughed at Fox Sports 1’s demands for an 80-cent carriage fee, and FS1 settled for $0.23 a month.
LikeLike
I believe the .23 was the rate that channel was under contract for (before it changed to FS1). While they’d have loved a boost I think they are trying to set up for the negotiations when the contract expires.
LikeLike
You’re right.
(By comparison, the monthly subscriber fee for ESPN is $5.54. The fee for NBCSN is $0.33.)
That $0.23 figure is what those distributors currently pay for the Speed channel
[snip]
The difference between the $0.80 they were asking for and the $0.23 they got equates to $615,600,000 less in revenues over the first year.
[snip]
So instead, Fox will wait for its Speed contracts to expire, which will happen at various points over the next few years, before negotiating for fee increases.
http://deadspin.com/you-will-not-be-paying-much-for-fox-sports-1-1154646778
LikeLike
SMW’s opinion here:
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/07/media-consolidation-could-kill-turner-sports/
LikeLike
Comcast and SEC Network reach an agreement per Sports Business Journal. Sounds like a deal with DirecTV is imminent as well.
Nice job by ESPN in getting agreements before the season starts.
LikeLike
Impressive
https://twitter.com/Ourand_SBJ/status/ 490177249778212864
LikeLike
LikeLike
The quote in the article is that is the SEC Network’s “rate card.” They may or may not be getting that $1.40 in area, $.25 outside.
LikeLike
Very, and the linked to article also raises a key issue for the SECN-editorial independence. I’ll be impressed if the network has a MLB Network-type editorial freedom to report and break stories both good and bad.
What’s the revenue split between the SEC and ESPN again? SEC gets a flat rate guaranteed, and ESPN gets everything above?
LikeLike
@Wainscott –
What’s the revenue split between the SEC and ESPN again? SEC gets a flat rate guaranteed, and ESPN gets everything above?
I don’t think that’s public yet. The LHN was 15 Million a year guaranteed* until ESPN reached 295 million in total profits, then Texas and ESPN would split any subsequent profits 70/30. I would be pretty surprised if the SECN deal is structured differently.
*contract actually says 10.98 with 3% increase a year. averages out to about 15 million a year. see:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byz6Uzwv3AiuM2I3NjAzNGItOGFiMS00ZWZlLTkxYTAtZTMzMjhiMDJmYzY0/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
LikeLike
Never seen anything published. Message board rumors are a 50/50 split with ESPN. Don’t think they get much of a guarantee. Presidents have been saying they don’t know what to budget but don’t expect much the first year (with Comcast signed and only DirecTV and Time Warner outstanding-and both talking-the first year will probably be better than they thought a few months ago). They were expecting only a million or two the first couple of years is the internet stories I’ve seen in two or three places that weren’t populated by Clay Travis homer types.
LikeLike
A link reports rumors like what Bullet stated, ESPN owns the network and profits are split 50/50.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/05/06/Media/ACC-network.aspx
A question I have is, what happens in 2034 if ESPN owns the network and the SEC is, for whatever reason, dissatisfied with ESPN’s management of the network? Unlike the BTN, who owns the network (Fox operates it and presently owns 51%, but the BTN agreement with Fox expires in 2032), it could be the SEC with a bigger problem in that situation.
LikeLike
As the contract expires, I would imagine the SEC would be able to shop its content around to any other network. ESPN may have a decided advantage in the negotiations as they would already have the infrastructure and branding in place, but I’m sure the SEC would want other bidders to affect their negotiating position.
And what infrastructure is there, really, in a conference network? A couple studios and some production sites? I believe my school (Mizzou) is/was building a building on campus for SEC network broadcasts, but I would assume that is owned by Mizzou and a change of network partners would have no impact. Perhaps the SEC starts building up its own infrastructure to take the network over themselves by 2030, but who knows what the cable/internet landscape will look like by then.
LikeLike
But if ESPN owns the network, if the SEC goes to another partner, would it have to renegotiate new carriage agreements and go through the whole process again? And branding is a big issue, as there will be a tremendous amount of goodwill invested in SECN than the SEC would lose.
Alas, these questions are answered in contracts we are not privy to.
LikeLike
A link reports rumors like what Bullet stated, ESPN owns the network and profits are split 50/50.
@Wainscott – I forgot to add in my post that this is what Alan said he had heard as well. As far as I know, you are right, if the SEC wanted another partner they would have to start from scratch or buy the network from ESPN.
LikeLike
So…in other words the SECN is simply a variation on standard media rights purchase by ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc. Now, if the schools/conference are building essential pieces of the infrastructure on campuses (as has been mentioned) and retain ownership of those, then they do own a piece of what could one day become a conference owned network. They wouldn’t be starting from scratch.
LikeLike
Meanwhile, at the HQ of the SEC in Birmingham:
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11232095/nfl-restrict-evaluations-underclassmen
The NFL is trying to reduce the number of players that come out early for the draft. They’ll restrict evaluations to 5 players per school and will tighten up their advisory process.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/18/ncaa-governance-model-power-five-autonomy
The NCAA’s proposed new governance model is out.
Major changes:
The P5 need 60% and a majority of 3 of 5 conferences or 51% and a majority of 4 of 5 conferences to pass something. It was 67% before, which almost gave veto power to each conference.
In exchange, the P5 gave up the ability to control transfer rules. However, the P5 could regain autonomy on transfer rules if “substantial changes” aren’t made within 2 years of the new structure being approved.
Each P5 conference gets 3 student-athlete representatives with a vote, bringing the total to 80 votes (60% = 48 votes, 51% = 41 votes).
The NCAA board will vote on 8/7 and if it passes, it could start on 1/1/2015.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/18/ohio-state-ncaa-power-5-autonomy
Gene Smith is confident autonomy will pass.
LikeLike
They never “had” autonomy on transfer rules. The Pac 12 and others wanted it. Not sure what they intended to do with it.
LikeLike
No, but it was part of the previous proposal. Thus, I listed it as a major change. It was basically traded to get the lower voting threshold.
LikeLike
Overall division I council is 5 P5 with 4 votes each; 5 G5 with 2 votes each; 22 other conferences with 1 vote; 4 commissioners with votes matching their conference-1 P5, 1 G5, 1 FCS, 1 nonfootball; 2 student-athletes and 2 faculty reps.
Net P5 24
G5 12
other conferences 24
students 2
faculty reps 2
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24626578/power-5-conferences-get-lower-voting-threshold-in-ncaa-proposal
Here’s some more about it.
The NCAA steering committee removed transfers from the autonomy list for the Power 5 conferences — with a caveat. “The five conferences requested autonomy over transfers if substantial change isn’t accomplished within the new structure’s first two years,” the NCAA press release stated.
For instance, SEC executive associate commissioner Greg Sankey said this week, is the one-year graduate student transfer rule meaningfully focusing on education, or is it simply a way to transfer and play right away? Sankey said schools must also discuss how to avoid having too much control on transfers while letting students make decisions they need to make.
…
Under the revised proposal from Friday, the weighted voting totals on shared issues would be:
* 37.5 percent for the Power 5 conferences
* 18.8 percent for the remaining five FBS conferences
* 37.5 percent for the FCS and non-Division I football conferences
* 3.1 percent for college athletes
* 3.1 percent for designated faculty athletics representatives
…
Here are some of the comments offered to the NCAA revealing that tension:
* Montana State athletic director Peter Fields said the new structure does not provide more agility to deal with evolving issues in college sports. Fields wrote that the “perpetuation of idea that the Big-conference group knows what it wants may not be an accurate assumption.”
Added Fields: “It is evident that Big 5 athletic administrators from President’s to (senior women administrators), do not trust representational governance. They have shown time and again that to them shared governance means to share within the group of 5 as they know best what is good for the Association. This thought process has not been beneficial to the overall wellbeing of the Athletic enterprise on campus and across the nation. I assert that we presently have what the power group created, and now they want something different for a myriad of reasons. Question to end: on other than the top 20 or maybe 30 revenue-producing athletic departments, who does this change really benefit? Does this really benefit the student-athlete?”
He really wonders if things like FCOA, better insurance and health care and the like helks student-athletes?
* Indiana State athletic director Ron Prettyman said he supports autonomy or weighted voting for the Power 5 conferences, but not both.
“Why is it important that the schools from the 5 highly funded conferences not only have autonomy but also expect the authority of weighted voting?” Prettyman wrote.
Perhaps because they are subsidizing everyone else’s AD plus they are the ones getting sued by athletes?
* The Atlantic Sun wrote that it was “puzzled” why it’s necessary to provide weighted voting on issues of equal concern to every NCAA member. “Are academic standards, for example, any more important to an SEC school than an Atlantic Sun school?” the Atlantic Sun wrote. “We think not. … We’d strongly prefer a ‘one member, one vote’ approach, which we believe (is) in the best overall interest of Division I, both the institutions and the student-athletes.”
Except you have proven that you’ll put yourselves ahead of the student-athletes if you have an equal say. Anything to preserve the false sense of equality with the big boys.
The Atlantic Sun said it accepts autonomy for the Power 5 but expressed concern of how far those conferences will go. The Atlantic Sun even suggested that perhaps autonomy should be granted to the other 27 conferences to separately consider legislation not driven by the Power 5 conferences.
The areas for autonomy have been clearly laid out, and they all relate to student welfare. What would the little guys need autonomy for in student welfare issues? The big boys would back them on any issue to help the athletes out.
* Northeastern athletic director Peter Roby wrote that he was concerned about the “unintended consequences” of giving the Power 5 conferences autonomy and letting the rest of Division I adopt their legislation as well. “I fear it will drive a wedge between schools in the same conferences and result in more conference realignment and lost trust among conference members, not to mention the continuation of the ‘Arms Race’ we have witnessed over the last 20 years,” Roby wrote.
Conference members still trust each other? He is aware each conference could set a rule preventing all their schools from adopting any new legislation unless the conference approves it in a vote, right?
Roby raised the possibility of a “sunset provision” included in autonomy legislation that allows the NCAA to revisit the structure in five, seven or 10 years.
Everything in the NCAA can be revisited at any time. Why build in an automatic sunset?
“Many of the items highlighted for autonomy already exist,” Roby wrote. “This suggests that the call for autonomy is more about public perception and less about true governance reform. So much of what inspired these changes involves football…why not make any governance changes limited to just FBS football?”
So MBB players and others shouldn’t get FCOA or better health care?
Roby wrote that if the Power 5 conferences are “recruiting students with a realistic chance to graduate then the amount of academic support the Autonomous 5 conferences provide their athletes should already suffice.”
Umm, generally the P5 schools graduate athletes much better than the little guys do. If they want to provide more support to counterbalance the time commitment, why would you say no?
“I want to help the Big Five solve their problems,” Hull wrote. “But legislative autonomy is, at best, a short-term solution to a long-term problem. It will not work long term for the Big Five primarily because it does not directly address the sources of the problem.”
You’re right, but the P5 don’t want to leave D-I. That is what would really solve their problems.
“Ironically, the whole concept of legislative autonomy for the Big Five seems to verify that the focus is on revenue,” he wrote. “Essentially the concept is that the high-resourced conferences are generating billions per year in revenue, and they need to be able to spend it without input from those who do not have similar revenue. The best solution is for the NCAA and the Big Five to take some small percentage of these new revenues and share across all of Division I, to the benefit of student-athletes at universities far and wide. The Big Five would be smart to embrace those lower resourced universities outside the Big Five whose focus is clearly on education.”
Yes, the P5 should focus more on charity for the little guys rather than on helping out the student-athletes that are directly generating the money. That makes perfect sense.
Hull said another problem with autonomy is it tries to fix all sports rather than “focusing on where the real problem is — FBS football and men’s basketball.” Autonomy will damage and “perhaps destroy” what’s left of a level playing field in Division I sports, Hull wrote. Hull recommended three separate management councils for football, Division I men’s and women’s basketball, and all other sports, and include a commissioner for each category.
There has never been a level playing field. The top schools have better facilities, better coaches, etc.
You think the NCAA should triple its bureaucracy? Really?
In addition, Hull recommended that the NCAA consider asking Congress for an antitrust exemption or relief from antitrust rules so schools can control over costs. The escalation of costs associated with salaries, facilities and other items “is on an unsustainable path,” Hull wrote.
Yeah, like congress can get anything done right now.
* The American Athletic Conference said it wants a process or criteria for adding or removing conferences from the autonomy group. The American used to be the Big East, which had a BCS bid, but is not part of the five Power 5 conferences who have the ability to create their own legislation. Under the proposal, the American and other conferences could adopt some of the “permissive” legislation passed by the Power 5.
The American wrote that “it should be made explicit that mobility in either direction is possible.” The conference recommended that criteria for being autonomous could include a conference’s increased resources to help athletes, its competitiveness at the highest levels, its media exposure and sources of revenue, and the similar scrutiny it may receive nationally on issues such as NCAA enforcement, transfer policies and national governance. The American suggested decisions to enter and exist autonomy could be made by the Division I board or Division I membership.
Gee, I’m shocked that the AAC wants to set some threshold that they can cross and nobody else can to rejoin the big boys. Accept it – you’re aren’t a power conference.
In its letter to the NCAA, the Big East noted that although the revenue stream is increasing from the College Football Playoff, those funds don’t flow to the NCAA or directly support the association. Yet, the Big East noted, the NCAA is responsible for issues such as player eligibility, rules compliance and enforcement, and management of playing rules, legal services and research related to health and safety.
“We believe this fragmentation has governance and other ramifications and encourage the Steering Committee and the Board to examine this anomaly as part of their continuing review of the NCAA’s functional responsibilities and funding model,” the Big East wrote. “At the very least, the exclusion of football-related revenue from the NCAA’s budget only underscores the primacy of basketball interests to the overall operation.”
Yes, the NCAA should focus on MBB even more. I realize they are trying to leverage some power by threatening to tap into the FB money, but surely the BE realizes that any attempt to do so would force the P5 to split off from the NCAA.
LikeLike
Really, the P5 are ONLY doing this because of lawsuits. They have abused the student-athletes far more than any of these other schools have. A lot of this is necessary because of their excesses. They are mostly relatively elite schools and they are admitting athletes who can’t cut it as a student in their population. They have been pushing the limits on travel and abusing the limits on hours training and taking away summers by having “voluntary” workouts.
So your sarcasm is misplaced. The P5 rules will benefit the student-athletes, but it is being done for the interests of the P5.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Really, the P5 are ONLY doing this because of lawsuits.”
I don’t completely agree. That is the motivation for many/most, but Delany clearly has bigger things in mind as he didn’t just toe the party line when testifying.
Also, it depends in part what you consider “this” to be. The big schools have wanted to make some changes for years and have always wanted more control (who doesn’t?).
“They have abused the student-athletes far more than any of these other schools have.”
I disagree 100%.
1. I don’t see abuse. I see schools giving a lot and demanding a lot in return.
2. The little schools that can’t afford the extras (great facilities, elite education, etc) yet demand just as much seem closer to abusive, especially when they become like Grambling and can’t even provide a clean and safe locker room.
“They are mostly relatively elite schools and they are admitting athletes who can’t cut it as a student in their population.”
Except the results prove otherwise. With the right kinds of help, they can succeed at these schools if they want to enough to do the work. Which means that other students of that same caliber could too, but nobody wants to pay for all the academic support.
“They have been pushing the limits on travel”
What limits on travel? You can study while traveling. I know people that worked longer hours at jobs to pay for school than athletes put in (including travel).
“and abusing the limits on hours training and taking away summers by having “voluntary” workouts.”
The players do that all by themselves. They hear someone else is doing it and their competitive nature drives them to do it, too. Sure coaches encourage it by playing the guys that do it, but those guys are also the ones that are better at CFB because of the extra hours they put in. Should a coach play lesser guys because they took summer off?
“So your sarcasm is misplaced.”
I disagree 100%. When someone says that giving me (Go5 schools) money rather than giving it to third parties (athletes) is what is best for the third parties (athletes), they deserve sarcasm. That’s what’s best for the G5. What’s best for the top athletes is to let the P5 give them more stuff than they do now despite the G5 not being able to afford it.
“The P5 rules will benefit the student-athletes, but it is being done for the interests of the P5.”
So what? That’s still better than not helping the student-athletes isn’t it?
LikeLike
I do think the athletes get decent compensation. But the rules are all designed with the colleges in mind and the student-athletes treated like chattel. They don’t have the same rights as other students on scholarships. They have things like 1 year scholarships, restrictions on transfers, oversigning leaving players high and dry that are abuses by the schools because they can.
With the travel, the athletes are sometimes getting in at 3 or 4 in the morning because of long distance travel, most likely scheduled for TV purposes. Then they have to go to class.
And if you think the summer workouts are truly voluntary these days, there’s someone with a bridge in Arizona he wants to sell you.
The P5 are getting sued because they are the ones with the money, but they are also the ones pushing the envelope with the professionalism of college sports.
LikeLike
“With the travel, the athletes are sometimes getting in at 3 or 4 in the morning because of long distance travel…”
But they are usually sober, while many of their fellow students getting in at 3 or 4 are not.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I do think the athletes get decent compensation.”
Then they aren’t being abused. They volunteered for it in exchange for that compensation and can quit whenever they want.
“But the rules are all designed with the colleges in mind”
And that’s different from anything else in life how, exactly?
“and the student-athletes treated like chattel.”
Not true. They are never sold or traded to other schools.
“They don’t have the same rights as other students on scholarships.”
Other students aren’t on scholarship for extracurricular activities where strict rules are needed to prevent cheating.
“They have things like 1 year scholarships,”
Some do, some don’t.
“restrictions on transfers,”
Workers often have non-compete clauses and/or NDAs. That’s all this is.
“oversigning leaving players high and dry”
Not everyone participates in that, and of those that do very few actually manage to leave a player high and dry.
“With the travel, the athletes are sometimes getting in at 3 or 4 in the morning because of long distance travel, most likely scheduled for TV purposes. Then they have to go to class.”
And regular college students never stay up until 3 or 4 the night before class, right?
“And if you think the summer workouts are truly voluntary these days, there’s someone with a bridge in Arizona he wants to sell you.”
They are completely voluntary, but you either be super elite or not expect to play if you don’t participate.
“The P5 are getting sued because they are the ones with the money, but they are also the ones pushing the envelope with the professionalism of college sports.”
Which of those practices you listed are G5, I-AA, D-II and D-III schools not doing (except for scholarship “abuses” in D-II obviously)?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/24625398/mike-slive-universities-should-handle-athlete-violations-of-school-policy
Mike Slive says schools, not ADs and not conferences, should discipline all students who break the law or school rules.
While I agree the schools should enforce their own rules and have equal punishment for any student who breaks the law or their school rules, I disagree with him beyond that.
I think conferences (ideally the NCAA) should set minimum punishments for certain violations. The coaches are the last people that should make the final decision because of their huge conflict of interest.
I’d rather see the AD determining a policy that applies to all athletes for violating team rules than letting the coach decide each case. And if the whole conference or the NCAA agrees on the same minimums, so much the better.
LikeLike
I agree with the Senator that its outrageous that athletic departments at some schools determine discipline.
I don’t think the conferences or NCAA should make determinations on these types of things. If Nebraska or Miami wants thugs to stay on the team, that’s their choice to stain the reputation of their university. But the School should decide, not the athletic department.
There’s definitely something to be said about the AD dealing with violation of team rules, especially with regard to things like drug tests. Things like curfews and that probably should be left to the coach’s discretion.
LikeLike
bullet,
“I don’t think the conferences or NCAA should make determinations on these types of things. If Nebraska or Miami wants thugs to stay on the team, that’s their choice to stain the reputation of their university.”
I think schools should have the final say, but I’d like to see a minimum punishment established by a larger group. I’m talking for important things like criminal convictions and failed drug tests, not the lesser stuff. The NCAA has higher ideals than just letting people do whatever they want. They punished PSU for it, so why not players that beat up or sexually assault women? The NCAA should set a thuggery threshold that they won’t allow a player to cross. The schools can set a higher standard, but the NCAA should set a minimum one so no school can collect all the thugs and just win, baby.
“There’s definitely something to be said about the AD dealing with violation of team rules, especially with regard to things like drug tests. Things like curfews and that probably should be left to the coach’s discretion.”
Yeah, I’m talking about the alleged violation of team rules (that means they failed a drug test 9 times out of 10), not things like being late to a meeting. But any AD-wide rules (like responses to arrests or failed drug tests) should be enforced by the AD, not the coach.
LikeLike
That sounds a lot like the Catholic Church disciplining its own priests for sexual abuse.
LikeLike
Everyone expects the SECN to be successful over time. Deloss Dodds of Texas was quoted as saying the SECN would make them a “bunch of money.”
I don’t think a model dependent on forcing those who don’t want your service to pay for it is viable long term. The internet or regulators are going to put a stop to such a market distortion eventually. Not soon. BTN and SECN will make lots of money for a while. But the basic model is flawed.
Frank says content providers will still have valuable content. Yes, but if PPV or the sports tier was so profitable, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to get on basic carriage. It won’t be AS valuable. Other models simply aren’t as profitable as the current one.
LikeLike
I think you’re mistaken. We pay for things we don’t want in nearly everything. They don’t reduce the price of a burger when asked to hold the pickles. Buy a car new car and you’ll pay for the tires it came with. Spreading the profit/loss over larger numbers creates stability. I’ve seen little to suggest bundling products/services/rights runs afoul of any laws. The Aero decision strengthens the current rights purchasers position.
LikeLike
I agree. I think the soon to be 2-3 major providers wield so much clout that the government will never dare to take away their power. Besides, the downsides of a la carte are so significant that a reasonable case can be made to not allow a la carte due to the loss of value that would come with it (same price for 15 stations instead of 150).
Only the consumers have the power to force change, and that’s by cutting the cord. But you have to be willing to sacrifice what cable offers to do it. And even then, your internet provider is basically the cable company anyway so you’re still supporting them.
LikeLike
“And even then, your internet provider is basically the cable company anyway so you’re still supporting them.”
Bingo.
LikeLike
A lot of people are cutting the cord.
AT&T got split up. And everyone hates the cable companies. Not sure a lot of these mergers aren’t to prevent one of the weaker carriers from offering split packages that separate the expensive sports channels.
The change will happen. It will just take time.
Now it will probably cost sports fans more. But non-sports fans will see a huge benefit.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/07/18/ncaa-name-and-likeness-release-student-athlete-statement-form/12840997/
The NCAA has removed the name and likeness release from the standard bundle of paperwork student-athletes have to fill out.
LikeLike
Hey Frank, do you want to maybe start a new post comparing the success of the B1G to the SECN? Looks like the SECN has now signed on with Dish, Comcast, Uverse, Google Fiber, among others, with a DirecTV deal close.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2014/07/18/comcast-signs-on-to-carry-sec-network/12831855/
“According to Sports Business Journal, the channel’s rate card is at $1.40 per subscriber per month within the SEC’s 11-state footprint and $0.25 per month outside of it.”
Is that good?
LikeLike
Frank: I vote you ban Andy forever from this Board because he has the emotional maturity of a six year old. Andy’s singing; “N’yah n’yah, I was right you were wrong.”
As noted below, Andy, GROW THE F UP !!
LikeLike
And telling me to “GROW THE F-UP” is so much more mature LOL
LikeLike
Seems like he was correct.
If others can’t own up to that, then maybe they are the ones with the problem and not Andy?
You have to give props to the SEC if they have the network in 75+ million homes at launch……unless of course you are incredibly biased.
LikeLike
I seem to remember a few people on here (bullet, duffman, the usuals) poo pooing the idea that the SECN could 1) sign on with the major providers from the get go, 2) get a full footprint rate in Texas, 3) make anywhere near as much money as the BTN. When I asked them for their reasoning it was the usual B1G elitist dismissive groupthink that this comments section is famous for. And as has happened again and again, it looks like those usual suspects were completely wrong.
LikeLike
geez, Andy … why the need to troll the board. So, some people wrong. As I recall, a lot of other people took a “wait-and-see” attitude and other people predicted the SECN would make oodles of money.
so, what is the point of calling out the naysayers. They were not the majority of the board, not even the majority of opinions voiced/written about how the SECN would do.
seriously, how old are you? Grow the F up !!
LikeLike
I was hoping one of them would come out and try to dispute the fact that they were totally wrong. I got my wish below 🙂
LikeLike
1: cite anyone saying no major providers would be on board at startup.
2: do we know in footprint rate applies to all of Texas, and for all providers?
3: we have only guesses as to what ESPN is paying, and how it is calculated, for the SEC content on the new dedicated ESPN channel.
Are you actually suggesting a channel not yet on air, and still with carriage agreements to conclude, is more successful than the BTN?
(Remember, I’ve always felt major conference networks are more valuable than many others have, the SEC included. My only concern is that with LHN and SECN ESPN has merely purchased broadcast rights and provided a new outlet. They are ESPN owned channels with media rights agreements. They aren’t truly the school’s or conference’s network.)
LikeLike
1. no, you and your peeps didn’t say that no major providers would sign on early. But I suggested that basically all of them would and you called me a crazy homer and dismissed the possibility out of hand. Looks like I was right and you were wrong. Ha.
2. Yep. I provided the link above. Read it and weep.
3. We basically do have all of that info. The SEC and ESPN are splitting it 50/50. And now we have the carriage rates. So it should be a hell of a lot of money. Even though you argued at length with me last year that it would not be. You were so wrong. Ha.
No, I’m not suggesting that the SECN is making more money now before it starts than the BTN is making after it has already started. Don’t be retarded.
As for whether splitting revenues 50/50 with ESPN vs owning your own network makes any difference, I don’t think either of us knows the answer to that question. I would think that revenue stream is more important than equity b/c what are the odds of it ever being sold? but that wasn’t the topic I brought up at all, so it’s beside the point.
Anyway, that was fun. Thanks!
LikeLike
You are memory damaged? This was one of the items I fully agreed with and defended your (the SECN’s value) position.
It’s futile to engage you, whether disagreeing or agreeing.
LikeLike
I don’t know, cc. All I know is that over the past 2 or 3 years I’ve long said that once the SEC gets started up the SEC should catch up with the B1G in revenue very quickly. I estimated it would only take a year or two. I’ve heard boatloads of excuses from the usual people about how that’s just not going to happen. It’s all been pretty funny, so I’m just enjoying a little “I told you so” action today.
If you agreed with me on that one feel free to join in. You disagree with me on basically everything so I guess I just figured you disagreed with me on that too.
LikeLike
No. You don’t have a clue who thought the SECN would fail, because my best recollection was nobody did. There was discussion about inventory, re doing contracts, what form it would take, how long the various scenarios would take, etc.
I don’t always disagree with you, but I’m pretty sure I always find you disagreeable.
LikeLike
Every single post anybody has every made on this blog still exists so feel free to prove me wrong.
I got into multiple lengthy arguments on here specifically on the topic of whether the SEC can make as much money as the B1G once the SECN got going. I was met with widespread dismissive denials on here. Maybe you weren’t a part of that, I don’t know. But several of the usuals were.
LikeLike
The B1G and SEC are going to be the top earners, although the PAC has intruded into the discussion. I’d wait until the B1G T1 is renegotiated and the eastern corridor has been accounted for before even trying to make a judgment. Just as I’ll wait until we actually get revenue figures and hopefully some leaks assigning their sources (flat fee, % of rev, % of rev over X amount, etc ?) for the SECN. Claiming to have caught up (were they even behind?) is just as fact based and stupid as saying they wouldn’t. It’s a future prediction.
LikeLike
Yes, the SEC is behind right now. The Big Ten is at $25.7M right now. The SEC is only at $20.9M per school. But will all the major providers either having signed on to the SECN or being reported to be very close to signing on, and with carriage fees looking like they will be higher than the BTN’s, including in Texas, it’s a safe assumption at this point that by 2015 the SEC will have basically caught up with the B1G. As far as who will make more over the long run, that remains to be seen, but I like the SEC’s chances at this point.
LikeLike
Please link the payment structure for the ESECPN. Will ESPN be paying 50% to a 0% ownership stakeholder? Or will it be X% after Disney covers costs and satisfies shareholders? Other?
LikeLike
http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2013/5/6/4304894/report-sec-espn-to-split-sec-network-profits-evenly
LikeLike
Nice, but not definitive: “…and this here is the first we’ve seen of how the two entities might split up the lucre this network will generate.”
Might?
Now, what exactly the contract defines as profit?
Don’t get me wrong. I think they’ll make a bundle. I just am in the camp that believes all the profit (and control of everything) is available for the cost of production. No qtr profit concerns, dividends to external share holders, etc. I hope when the Gox contract expires the B1G retains 100% BTN ownership. Every cent a media company offers to participate means there is considerably more worth they are bidding for in order to realize.
LikeLike
That’s all details.
Best case scenario: The SECN makes something like $1.40 per subscriber in the 11 state footprint and 25 cents per subscriber outside of the footprint, and then they get 50% of that minus operating costs, which are pretty much covered by advertising. If that happens you’re looking at something like $23M per school just from the SECN.
Worst case the cable/satellite companies negotiate that down to something like $1.10, and SEC schools get something less than 50% because the terms are less favorable than what has been supported. Then it’s more like $18M per school just for the SECN. Add that to the $21M they already get and SEC schools should be seeing $40M per school on the low end. Could even be $45M. And then if the SECN turns out to be highly successful then they could raise rates and get substantial advertising revenue. Then it could maybe get as high as $50M.
I was predicting $35M a year ago and people on this forum would have nothing of that. Right now I’m seeing $35M per school as an absolute worst case scenario.
2014 won’t be as high though because there won’t be a full year of the network and there will no doubt be some start up costs. I expect 2015 will be the first real year of SECN revenue.
LikeLike
*terms are less favorable than what has been reported, not supported
LikeLike
So his argument is that the SEC will make more from their garbage product that CBS and ESPN don’t particularly want, than they will from their prime product.
If any conference gets to that point, its obvious why conference networks have to fail in the long run.
LikeLike
Bullet:
You have it backwards. That would be evidence of success. If conference networks even approach the revenue of the primary contract I’d surmise that the primary is undervalued. And who’s to say conference networks will only have garbage leftovers? P12N has two first and five second picks during FB season. Granted, several early selections are made by ESPN/Fox before the pick rotation is drawn. But I’m sure that was paid for in the contract. They could have not paid a premium and allowed those games to go through the selection process.
LikeLike
Given that 2 of the P5 have new contracts and 2 have restructured contracts, its hard to argue that the primary contracts are under-valued.
And the BTN and SECN don’t have the same level of picks that the P12N does (who BTW isn’t really making anything yet).
LikeLike
ESPN owns ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the SECN, so they can feed the SECN whatever games they choose, other than the one game per week that CBS picks.
LikeLike
Nothing has disclosed the rate, only ESPN’s “rate card.” The tweet is different from what is actually said in the article. So that is what they are asking. Attorneys and Accountants have standard rates, but usually don’t bill at those rates. Now maybe ESPN has been successful in getting those rates across the board. Maybe they aren’t getting those rates anywhere. Maybe they are getting those rates some places, but not others. Noone outside really knows.
LikeLike
Even if for some reason these reports are false and it’s something like 20% below what is being reported that’s still substantially better than what you were saying was impossible last year.
LikeLike
Andy, you just make stuff up. Pretty much everyone thought it would eventually be successful. Just that Clay Travis saying it would make more than the NFL was pretty stupid and that it would take time to make much money. And SEC presidents and ADs were saying in the past month it will take time. Yours and Clay’s math don’t have as much credibility.
LikeLike
I agreed that Clay was overshooting it, but all along I said that it was still going to be a lot of money. Somwhere in the mid to high $30Ms per school overall is what I was projecting. And you and several others were in complete denial. You. Were. Wrong.
LikeLike
Show me the money!
The SEC hasn’t brought in a dime yet. Noone is wrong or right.
$30 million per school for the SECN still seems absurd.
LikeLike
LMAO!
LikeLike
Does that mean your head is shaking?
Earning 50% more for the lower end Tier II and the Tier III stuff nobody really wants than for the top half of your inventory?
LikeLike
Again, try to follow, ESPN owns ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the SECN, so they can feed the SECN whatever games they choose, other than the one game per week that CBS picks.
LikeLike
Sorry, Alabama/LSU is not going on the SEC Network. I’d be surprised if any games between Alabama/LSU/Florida/Georgia/Auburn (add Tennessee to that list when they return to being Tennessee) are on the network. The highlight of the 1st 4 weeks is a Manziel less A&M (picked 4th in division) vs. South Carolina, a challenger, but not one of the SEC’s marquee names.
ESPN is not stupid. They will do a little better schedule the first year to get carriage, but won’t put any good games on to get miniscule ratings when the same game might get great ratings on ESPN.
LikeLike
bullet – I wouldn’t be surprised if the SECN got the #3 game ahead of ESPN2 for their prime time Musburger/Palmer game half the time, at least for the first few seasons. I do doubt that the SECN will ever get the #1 game (CBS) or the #2 game (ESPN primetime)
LikeLike
While I agree with Andy that ESPN can feed what they chose to the SECN and it behooves them to make it successful. However, this is a partnership with a competitor. There will be a point where sharing profit will be a cost to ESPN as compared to not sharing on 2, U, etc. If the SECN begins to encroach on profitability of the others then bullet is likely right and the lower level FB games will wind up on it. However this discounts the undervalued (in my opinion) “non revenue” sports to successfully fill the rest of the year. I’m looking forward to SEC track, baseball, and gymnastics. I’m sure other sports will be of interest as well.
LikeLike
I’m talking about football. SECN will get prime non-rev games and may get some pretty good basketball. There’s a lot of basketball that doesn’t get on networks. I don’t think its any coincidence that Kansas led the Big 12 in Tier 3 revenues easily prior to the LHN and that the 3 biggest buyouts for the SECN were Kentucky, Florida and Arkansas, the 3 biggest basketball schools in the SEC.
LikeLike
I agree, but that’s my point. FB drives the bus, but there are a bunch of passengers who are able to contribute more through a conference network. How are we going to assign and differentiate exactly what is contributing to SECN’s overall success? And without knowing the agreements, and rates for ads on the different channels, we won’t know at what point ESPN decides to boost which of its channels through better FB games. I wonder if they know…it’s a peril of partnering with a competitor.
LikeLike
Mr SEC’s take:
http://mrsec.com/articles/how-the-sec-network-could-actually-hurt-national-exposure-for-league-schools-at-first
He discusses the possible loss of exposure. The SECN is a little different than the other 2 conference networks.
The BTN took games that were on syndication or not shown back in 2007. The Pac 12 network is mostly getting games that weren’t getting aired as they had limited exposure. The SEC Network is pulling some from ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if the SECN got the #3 game ahead of ESPN2 for their prime time Musburger/Palmer game half the time, at least for the first few seasons. I do doubt that the SECN will ever get the #1 game (CBS) or the #2 game (ESPN primetime)
Alan,
Do you think there will be a cost (‘buy back’ a better phrase?) charged to SECN for those games? If the SECN is a 50/50 split I would be very surprised to see ESPN move games and weaken their ESPN2/U products for half the return the SECN will give them. I could see them doing this in the short term to win carriage, but after?
LikeLike
Mike – I have no idea about a buyback. The SEC and ESPN have a committee that makes programming decisions and if they all think its in everybody’s best interests to put the #3 SEC game on SECN, I guess they’ll do it. I would think its in ESPN and the SEC’s best interest to pump up ad revenue on the SECN now that most of the carriage wars are over. Putting the #3 SEC game on the SECN a few times a season should help. I’m guessing that ESPN2’s ad revenues are basically set based on past ratings.
LikeLike
@Alan,
I agree with Mike. Ad revenue pales to carriage fees. Now that the SECN appears to have gotten its ideal carriage fee, the battle is over, and ESPN/SEC has won. The carriage fees will not go down, and ESPN and SEC have been up front that the purpose of the network is additional exposure, not to showcase the prime games. ESPN will continue to show better games, now that carriage has been achieved, on networks where it gets 100% of the money.
Further, as you noted, ESPN2 ad rates are likely set by past ratings, which gives ESPN incentive to have better games on there, which would drive up ad rates in future years (ie: if 2015 ad rates are set based on 2014 ratings, and so on).
I would suspect that SECN would get the #3 game in weeks ESPN/ESPN2 are televising another conference game/another sporting event, pushing the better games down to other networks.
LikeLike
Also, in the interest of fairness, my skepticism that the SECN would get its desired carriage fees was clearly off base. Props to them to capitalizing so quickly on the passion of SEC fans.
LikeLike
“Also, in the interest of fairness, my skepticism that the SECN would get its desired carriage fees was clearly off base.”
It is surprising how quickly SECN received carriage. But maybe even more surprising is how quickly Maryland and New Jersey were added to BTN carriage. The market has changed since BTN first hit the airwaves.
LikeLike
Wainscott says: “@Alan, I agree with Mike.”
I don’t think we are disagreeing on anything. I just think the TPTB may put the #3 SEC game on the SECN for a few weeks during the first few seasons. On some Saturdays, the difference between the #3 and the #4 or #5 SEC game is minimal.
Looking at the bigger picture, ESPNU is probably the biggest loser for quality SEC games. I suspect the U will get one of the worst games every week. The U may even become the de facto ACC Netowrk.
Also, I think even the most ardent SEC fans and haters can all agree that the carriage battle went a lot smoother than anyone anticipated.
LikeLike
I’m not as surprise as many seem to be. It is a proven commodity now. P12N got Comcast, TW, Brighthouse, Cox over a year before launch. BTN gets agreements in NY/NJ/Balt./etc before Rutgers and Maryland are actually in the B1G. There will be some holdouts and fights (see: DTV vs Pac, but the P12N unexpectedly got Dish carriage), but the format is proven. And especially in the south, denying the football “religion” for a slight billing difference would be as sacreligious.
LikeLike
Looking at the bigger picture, ESPNU is probably the biggest loser for quality SEC games. I suspect the U will get one of the worst games every week. The U may even become the de facto ACC Netowrk.
Like Alan says, the SECN does significantly downgrade the lineup on ESPNU and to a lesser extent ESPN2. The money involved with the SECN may make ESPN not care, but I figure ESPN would have asked for something to make their lesser networks whole. As noted in an earlier comment, ESPN has more Big Ten slots this year so I imagine they’ll use those to help fill in those lost SEC games.
What ESPN does with ESPNU is probably worthy of its own thread, but here are some possibilities I’ve thought of:
1) Stays the same (low tier 2 B1G, SEC, ACC, etc games)
2) As Alan said, the defacto ACCN
3) Transitions into the ACCN
4) After a separate ACCN launch becomes the home for tier 2 G5 games.
LikeLike
really, FtT. It is time to ban Andy. His trolling is clear, his premeditation is obvious, his mens rea is evident.
LikeLike
I, for one, will be laughing my rear end off if Missouri ends up joining the B1G in 10-15 years.
LikeLike
I’d be fine with that but it won’t happen. Although the B1G keeps getting crappier by adding schools like Rutgers so it’s becoming less appealing.
LikeLike
Yup, Andy, according to the listing in this thread, RU was just rated as the number 33 university in the world and 24 in the US, far higher than any SEC school. That makes sense since the B1G is an academic conference that plays football and the SEC is a group of football teams attached to universities. That does not count the 9 million people in NJ and the huge number of RU alums in NYC, as well as the other many B1G alums. I grant that RU has sucked at sports for a long time, but it does seem to have other virtues – not the least of which is the very likely possibility that RU will make money for all of the other teams in the B1G.
.
LikeLike
Rutgers also has maybe the worst athletic program in the country. They water down the entire league in just about every sport. Yeah by merging with their med school recently their research dollars went up, and thus their cwur ranking went up, but their USNews ranking is below average for a B1G school, and their ACT average is as well. I mean, they’re a decent academic school, no doubt. But they aren’t elite by any means. And they absolutely suck at sports and always have.
LikeLike
I’d have to say Missouri is #10 of universities I’d hope would join the B1G one day.
LikeLike
Rutgers has a lousy athletic program (and has for years), but hardly the worst. The lousy football team has made bowl games 8 of the last 9 years. Some P5 schools somewhere must be worse than that.
As far as academic ranking, let’s see what the new US News rankings are the next time out. I was pretty surprised that RU went up so much due to the addition of the two medical schools, but what do I know?
What Rutgers has is enormous potential in sports. Will it ever be recognized? Good question. There are only a handful of states in the country that have more big time football and basketball players than NJ, and those states all have at least two P5 programs, and generally three of more.
RU is alone in NJ and is the only P5 football program within 130 miles of NYC. That should be worth something.
LikeLike
I suppose they haven’t been “the worst” lately. Bad, but not “the worst”. But if you go over the last 40 years or so, yeah, Rutgers is the worst. Who’s been worse than Rutgers?
LikeLike
” But if you go over the last 40 years or so, yeah, Rutgers is the worst. Who’s been worse than Rutgers?”
Since 1973? In Football? Many teams:
http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=1973&end=2013&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&c1a=on&by=Wins
Cal, Kansas, Duke, Baylor, NWU, Wash State, Indiana, and others.
Until the mid 1990’s in football, NWU was a bigger dumpster fire, and the school’s still never been to the NCAA tourney in MBB.
As an athletic program? Rutgers like every other schools, has good programs (WBB), so its hard to quantify the worst ever, which is why I refer to football (also, because football is really all that matters).
LikeLike
“As far as academic ranking, let’s see what the new US News rankings are the next time out.”
Why, exactly? A heavily gamed buyers guide rating of undergraduate teaching doesn’t have a lot of relevance as to the academic status of Universities. Its mostly used by sports forum commentators because its an easily obtained number, not because what its supposed to be measuring is particularly relevant to “academic status”, nor because its a particularly reliable measure even of what it is supposed to be measuring.
LikeLike
Rutgers wasn’t anything special in the other academic rankings until they acquired the New Jersey Medical Center a few months ago. If mergers and acquisitions are all it takes to increase your ranking by 50 spots then I’m not sure how valuable those rankings are.
LikeLike
@Wainscott, sure, they’re near the bottom as far as football but not at the absolute bottom. The only thing keeping them from the bottom is that they’ve made some Pappa John’s Pizza bowls, but nothing better than that. Ever. In their history. But they haven’t made an NCAA tournament in men’s basketball about 25 years. Their baseball team is a non-factor, and other than some occasional success in some obscure sports, I struggle to find anything notable whatsoever about Rutgers athletics.
If you want to go on defending Rutgers athletics, go right ahead, but it just confirms what I’ve said about you: you argue to argue and you don’t even care if you make sense while you’re doing it.
LikeLike
Rutgers was 61 in ARWU in 2012 before the merger, just behind Purdue and Pitt and just ahead of Brown and Ohio St.
LikeLike
” but it just confirms what I’ve said about you: you argue to argue and you don’t even care if you make sense while you’re doing it.”
LOL. The only person that applies to is you, the self-professed corrector of the internet.
LikeLike
First Andy says:
“But if you go over the last 40 years or so, yeah, Rutgers is the worst. Who’s been worse than Rutgers?”
Then, when presented with proof he’s wrong, Andy says:
“sure, they’re near the bottom as far as football but not at the absolute bottom.”
So, Rutgers is the worst, according to Andy, but at the same time, is not at the absolute bottom.
Nice work there.
LikeLike
Rutgers ARWU world rank of 38 in 2003.
LikeLike
I only correct when trolls like you blatantly like about Mizzou, which happens amazingly frequently.
As far as your “gotcha” quote, I was clearly talking about “sports” over the last 40 years, not “football”. And I stand by my statement. Lots of programs that are bad at football are good at something else like basketball. Rutgers is good at nothing. I can’t think of any other BCS program you could say that about. Maybe Washington State but at least they make a Rose Bowl now and then. I don’t have any other candidates that I can think of that are worse.
LikeLike
*blatantly lie, not like.
LikeLike
Andy: “Rutgers wasn’t anything special in the other academic rankings until they acquired the New Jersey Medical Center a few months ago. If mergers and acquisitions are all it takes to increase your ranking by 50 spots then I’m not sure how valuable those rankings are.”
Who makes stuff up?
LikeLike
“I only correct when trolls like you blatantly like about Mizzou, which happens amazingly frequently.”
SCHOOL IS IN SESSION!
“As far as your “gotcha” quote, I was clearly talking about “sports” over the last 40 years, not “football”. And I stand by my statement. Lots of programs that are bad at football are good at something else like basketball. Rutgers is good at nothing. I can’t think of any other BCS program you could say that about. Maybe Washington State but at least they make a Rose Bowl now and then. I don’t have any other candidates that I can think of that are worse.”
1) Football is all that matters for expansion purposes.
2) Other schools have been very bad in many sports over this time frame. You ignored the part of my initial reply when I referenced NWU having some football success and zero MBB success over the last 40 years. RU’s football record over 40 years trumps NWU’s over the same time frame.
3) You also missed where I referenced RU having a decent/respected/successful WBB program for some time now. WBB is a meaningful part of an overall athletic department.
4) Rutgers is mid-level in soccer, baseball. Not top-tier, not the worst. Same for lacrosse.
Indeed, you’re actually basing your perception on Rutgers almost entirely due to football and MBB.
Rutgers is bad overall, and certainly closer to the bottom than the top over the past 40 years. But not necessarily the worst.
And it’s also now a member of the most prestigious overall athletic conference/academic consortium in the country.
“If you want to go on defending Rutgers athletics, go right ahead, but it just confirms what I’ve said about you: you argue to argue and you don’t even care if you make sense while you’re doing it.”
The self-professed defender of Mizzou’s message board honor attacks someone for incessantly arguing to, and past the point of, making sense? Oh, ok.
LikeLike
You can make up whatever statements you want and place whatever importance you want on them. I stand by my statement that overall Rutgers is about as bad as it gets at sports in general. Feel free to list some schools that are noticably worse. It can’t be done.
As for academics, I don’t know if it was 30, 40, or 50 spots but they just made a big jump thanks to that merger.
LikeLike
ARWU Rank 61 in 2012, before merger.
And…ranked 61 in most recent 2013 ranking.
Wow! What an effect!
LikeLike
“You can make up whatever statements you want and place whatever importance you want on them. I stand by my statement that overall Rutgers is about as bad as it gets at sports in general”
Then why did you above in this very thread, say:
“I suppose they haven’t been “the worst” lately. Bad, but not “the worst”., then qualifying that they are the worst over 40 years, without any support for that other than base generalizations easily refuted?
LikeLike
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball/story/2014-07-18/dayton-new-uniforms-logo-archie-miller-elite-eight
U of Dayton changes the logo. I thought the old logo was kinda unique in that the full name was in the logo.
LikeLike
Like the pros, trying to get people to buy new gear?
Rockets switched to their blue pajama unis after winning two back to back to sell more stuff. Eventually gave it up and switched back to something similar to their old uniforms.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/103930/tough-slates-tougher-on-some-b1g-teams
A look at how the tougher scheduling principles for the future impact the weaker B10 teams.
—
On the topic of scheduling:
One thing I think goes unmentioned is how much the BCS hurt OOC scheduling. In the 80s and early 90s, the big programs seemed to play each other OOC more. Once the BCS started, going undefeated mattered more than who you beat so schools dumbed down their schedules. I realize it also got harder and more expensive to buy home games, so schools started buying lesser teams, but I think the BCS was a major driver of this change.
From 1980-1996, OSU played 43 P5 regular season games OOC (2.5 per year). That’s out of (normally) 3 OOC games per year.
From 1997-2013, OSU played 22 P5 regular season games OOC (1.3 per year). That’s out of (normally) 4 OOC games per year.
So OSU went from 83% P5 OOC games to 33% P5 OOC games. No wonder fans are balking at buying tickets.
LikeLike
I think you had more money for the coaches and ADs and they got more risk averse in scheduling. They also got greedier and tried to squeeze more money from customers in home games.
LikeLike
You bring up an interesting point. For all the money being thrown around at coaches, you would think that these programs would have figured out how to determine the best value for it. Amazingly, short-order cooks get greater scrutiny in business than football coaches. That’s the reality.
And that’s why the coaches love it that college football has yet to be privatized.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24626997/progress-made-with-playoff-bowls-who-have-yet-to-sign-contracts
The playoff contracts with the bowls are supposedly closer to being signed now. The playoff dropped a clause that had been holding things up.
Language was eliminated calling for three-year look-ins to the agreements with the so-called “host” bowls – the Cotton, Peach and Fiesta.
The look-in would have allowed for CFP officials to open the contract and evaluate the bowl’s performance a quarter of the way through the overall 12-year playoff deal. As it now stands, the Cotton, Peach and Fiesta are believed to be comfortable signing six-year deals with a six-year CFP option.
Jerry Palm
Preseason playoff and bowl projections for every game
Those bowls were understandability skittish about having to possibly undergo scrutiny only three years into the 12-year playoff agreement.
“Some new bowl might come up that’s terrific or [other existing host] bowls might struggle,” one of the sources said.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24627091/smus-june-jones-have-not-conferences-should-play-in-spring-like-usfl
June Jones thinks the Group of 5 should move football to the spring.
“I think the have-nots should go ahead and move to the spring just like the USFL did. I think that there’s an opportunity to do a complete other side of that division, and I think that if we don’t think that way as a group of have-nots, we’re going to get left behind,” Jones told 620 AM WDEA (Tampa) during a radio interview on Friday. “I can see in five-to-seven years, possibly, the public would demand to have the two leagues play, just like I think the USFL had in mind, originally, of the winner of the USFL playing the winner of the National Football League.”
Upside – they’d have TV all to themselves football-wise
Downside – no paycheck games against the big boys
If they did it, maybe the big boys would be allowed to play a spring game against a Go5 team instead of as a scrimmage. That could make some money.
LikeLike
Jones is a thinker, that is clear. The have-nots (Group of Five) is only going to get left further behind in the dust. Gotta come up with something to get noticed.
LikeLike
It didn’t work for the USFL itself. They actually went back to a traditional fall schedule before they folded. However, three USFL cities did get NFL franchises, and many athletes went to the NFL. Maybe some G5 schools will get into a P5 conference.
LikeLike
I think it might work better for a group that doesn’t pretend to be on par with the top group. Football fans are desperate for something to watch (in addition to March Madness) in spring.
The problem is when to play. March-May? That means camp in February which would be tough at many schools, especially in the north. You can’t go later without becoming a 2 semester sport.
An outside-the-box idea:
fall camp – August
fall games – September
spring camp – March
spring games – April-May
In fall they can all play some paycheck games, then quit and heal up before playing conference games in spring.
The presidents would hate it, of course.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11239033/non-power-5-commissioners-no-chance-moving-spring
The Go5 conferences say no to spring games.
Commissioners Mike Aresco, of the American, Craig Thompson, of the Mountain West, and Jon Steinbrecher, of the MAC, each told ESPN that they have “no interest” nor do they even expect to consider moving from the fall to the spring.
“We have no interest in doing that and have no plans to discuss or look into it,” Aresco told ESPN. “Our position is clear. We are an integral part of the fabric of FBS college football.
“Our conference is and will be extremely competitive and our goal is to play at the highest level, compete for playoff and host bowl spots and challenge the Power Five. We want to be in the power conference conversation and, sooner than later, be regarded as the sixth power conference.”
…
Steinbrecher also dismissed Jones’ idea.
“I have not reviewed this concept with our membership but I cannot imagine we would support such a concept,” Steinbrecher said. “We look forward to competing in the fall.”
Added Thompson: “There is no chance.”
Maybe D-II or D-III will give it a try sometime.
LikeLike
DIII is in it more for the tradition than the money (no TV money for them anyway, and almost all DIII programs lose money but for alumni donations, and alums would much prefer the fall). No TV money for DII either to move to the spring. FCS? Eh. I doubt enough people will watch to make a spring schedule worthwhile (and we know the Ivies won’t move).
LikeLike
Ivy League schools do get on DirectV in the 600 slots, so they must be getting some money. I did actually watch part of the Harvard/Yale thingy last year. It sorta looked like college football, except everyone was small and slow.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24626949/randy-edsall-terps-not-in-a-basketball-conference-anymore
Randy Edsall is happy for the move to the B10.
“As a football coach, I feel better,” Edsall told a group of fans at a July 10 lunch event held by PressBox Baltimore. “I’m going to a football conference. I’m not in a basketball conference anymore.”
To which Jimbo Fisher, Dabe Swinney and the rest of the ACC’s current football coaches — who, it has to be pointed out, didn’t exactly lack for success against Edsall — likely responded: O RLY?
In Edsall’s defense, the remarks were clearly welcomed by the Terp fans in attendance, the ACC does have a better national reputation in hoops than football, and the Big Ten likewise has been the stronger conference from a football perspective, traditionally speaking. It’s not the worst bone we’ve ever heard thrown to a crowd who Edsall could still stand to win over.
LikeLike
This is my problem with journalists today. That word should be in quotes, cuz they aint anymore.
“To which Jimbo Fisher, Dabe Swinney and the rest of the ACC’s current football coaches — who, it has to be pointed out, didn’t exactly lack for success against Edsall — likely responded: O RLY?”
Snarky retorts are unprofessional at best. Edsall is saying what needs to be said given the change in conference.
LikeLike
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/07/18/randy-edsall-to-maryland-fans-if-you-dont-come-visiting-fans-will/
More from Edsall:
One interesting question posed to Randy Edsall during a recent appearance on ESPN 980: What will the crowds at Byrd Stadium look like when traditional Midwestern powers visit College Park.
“You know, whatever it is, it is,” Edsall said. “One of the things I heard when I first got here with our schedule, [was complaints about] not playing tough people. Well, you can’t have a better schedule than what we have. In terms of people wanting to come and see big-time football and see big-time opponents, I mean, go buy the tickets and show up.
“Now you’ve got what you want, so get out there and come support us,” he continued. “Because if you don’t, there’s gonna be 20,000 people from Ohio State, 20,000 people from Iowa who are gonna sit in the stands. And if we get off to a good start, people are gonna want those tickets. Well guess what: They’re not gonna be there to be had.”
LikeLike
20,000 Iowa fans are traveling to Maryland for a game? I’d be surprised if they got 2,000 there.
LikeLike
6-18 in conference play in a basketball conference. Losses to Syracuse and Boston College last year. Losing to Marshall in a home…err… Military Bowl Game against Marshall.
Imagine if Maryland/Edsall had been in the B1G for the past three years? Lolz.
LikeLike
It will take time for Maryland to build a football-oriented culture. It’s similar to the first few years of the Nationals, when Phillies fans would show up at Nats Park in greater number than their D.C. counterparts.
LikeLike
OK. Good luck.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11233041/sandusky-relatives-voice-support-interview
Jerry Sandusky’s family issued a statement that they stand by him after one of his adopted sons went on Oprah and described how Sandusky sexually abused him.
The family released a statement on Friday saying none of them ever saw abuse or any indication of inappropriate activity.
Matthew Sandusky said in Thursday’s broadcast that his adopted father subjected him to a range of sexual abuse, including oral sex.
The statement is from Sandusky’s wife, Dottie, and the couple’s other five adopted children.
It says attacking Matthew will provoke him and they’re worried about what he’ll say about the family.
He accused his dad of molesting him. What else could he say about the family that you’re worried about? That you knew and didn’t stop it? Many already believe that.
LikeLike
Some numbers from an article speculating sports rights were part of the reason Fox wanted Time Warner.
“To date, Fox Sports 1 has not given ESPN reason for great concern. Over the last 11 months, Fox Sports 1 has averaged 88,000 male viewers 18 to 49 years old in prime time, and 122,000 people of both sexes 18 to 49 years old in prime time, compared with ESPN’s 762,000 and 1,070,000, respectively, according to Brad Adgate, director of research for Horizon Media.
Those ratings translate into affiliate revenue, or the fees cable and satellite companies pay to the entertainment companies to distribute the networks. The average affiliate revenue per monthly subscriber is $6.04 for ESPN, nearly 10 times the fees of Fox Sports 1, according to SNL Kagan. (Time Warner’s TNT generates $1.48 per monthly subscriber, and TBS makes $0.72.)”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/business/media/fox-challenges-espn-with-ursuit-of-time-warner.html?_r=0
College sports ADs are probably rooting for Fox. As a competitor, they drive up rates.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24628323/acc-turned-down-in-request-to-use-helmet-cams-and-sideline-communications
The NCAA says no to the ACC’s request to use helmet cams and HC to QB in-helmet communication. They said it was, in part, because the request came too late (June) for them to have time to properly study the issues.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/07/17/fox-erin-andrews-leaving-college-football-to-focus-on-covering-nfl
Erin Andrews will no longer cover CFB. She’s NFL only as of this year. Hallelujah.
LikeLike
yeah, but she’s essentially replacing Pam Oliver. Really liked Oliver. Sad to see her move on to non-sideline endeavors. But best to Oliver. Never understood the appeal of Andrews other than the hair, face and body. Her brain is merely adequate.
LikeLike
I don’t watch the NFL, so demoting Oliver doesn’t impact me. I’m just glad to get rid of Andrews.
LikeLike
Me thinks Joey Harrington should watch his back. I think his employment on NCAAF studio for Fox was largely at the behest of Erin Andrews seeking a “non-threatening” co-host.
LikeLike
They really need a coach or two on the set versus vs. mostly former players. Clay Travis can go too.
LikeLike
Amen to everything you just said….
LikeLike
Interested to see what FS1 does with a pre-game. If they want to go after the B1G I think they are going to need a pre-game show of some sort. Maybe on a smaller scale like ABC use to do. They need to have a lead in to the games especially bigger match-ups.
LikeLike
A number of interesting comments on several topics from Bowlsby:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/big12/2014/07/21/bob-bowlsby-big-12-media-day-olympic-sports-cuts/12941181/
LikeLike
Bowlsby: “Enforcement is broken.” Haven’t had infractions committee mtg in in more than a year. “Not an understatement to say cheating pays”
•(To a question about cheating in college sports) “No, I don’t think it’s rampant, I don’t think that at all. I think our coaches and programs are of high integrity, and I don’t have any concerns on a local basis.
“I don’t think it’s cut-throat out there, but I think those that conspire to do things that are intended to get around the rules have less resistance to it now than they they’ve gotten very sophisticated. It’s easy to move money around. There are lots of people outside of universities that are handling things and they can’t be compelled to testify even if they get caught.
“That’s the biggest challenge that Jon Duncan and the enforcement staff have. They have neither the power of subpoena nor the power of the way to perjury. And absent those things, you can’t compel anybody to participate in an investigation.”
LikeLike
Some relevant quotes about sports networks in LA and the Lakers and Dodgers having trouble getting carriage.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dodgers-tv-standoff-20140718-story.html#page=1.
Time Warner Cable is seeking more than $4 a month per subscriber for SportsNet LA, and the price escalates sharply from there, people familiar with the negotiations said. Though Time Warner Cable declines to comment on its offer, it says the price is not out of line with the value of Dodgers baseball to distributors.
[snip]
Those fees are the reason Time Warner Cable wants so much for SportsNet LA. Last season, Prime Ticket charged about $3 per month, per subscriber, according to industry consulting firm SNL Kagan
[snip]
The rising costs to carry sports programming has distributors in a bind. On the one hand, sports is incredibly valuable content — Chris Bevilacqua, a top sports TV deal-maker described it as “the glue holding the pay-TV system together.”
[snip]
Landing DirecTV is key for Time Warner Cable and the Dodgers. Not only does DirecTV have about 30% of the pay-TV market here, it competes head-to-head with everyone else. Because DirecTV has played hardball with Time Warner Cable it has given the other distributors cover to draw a line in the sand as well.
[snip]
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11244495/baylor-bears-art-briles-tells-florida-state-seminoles-jimbo-fisher-worry-acc-not-big-12
Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher said Monday at ACC media days that it’s “ridiculous” the Big 12 doesn’t play a conference championship game.
…
As college football journeys into a four-team playoff era, conferences have been lobbying to strengthen their position. The Big 12 has been touting the fact that it will play nine conference games, while the SEC and ACC will only play eight.
But the Big 12 is the only major conference without a championship game.
Fisher called the conference championship game essentially an extra playoff game that the Big 12 doesn’t have to play.
“And by the way I think every conference should have to have one,” Fisher said. “We got a (national) champion and not everyone plays the same number of games and does the same thing.”
…
“Don’t come down here to Texas and try to tell me how to do mine,” Briles said from Big 12 media days in Dallas. “Jimbo Fisher needs to worry about the ACC. That’s what he needs to worry about.
“I’m not telling him how to do their business.”
LikeLike
The obvious snide remark is other conferences champs don’t have it as easy as FSU. They don’t get ACC schedules. Kind of dumb on Jimbo’s part.
LikeLike
Last year’s FSU team would have rolled through the Big 12 just like they rolled through the ACC.
He has a fair point – the Big 12 champ will play one less game than the champs from the other major conferences, and that should be considered by the committee when selecting playoff teams.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/11240742/espn-survey-shows-most-football-recruits-support-stipends-college-players-playoff-system-determine-champion
ESPN survey of top FB recruits show several things:
1. Kids are still dumb.
Would you play with a concussion? 61% Yes
2. They want an early signing period.
Favor an early signing period? 58% Yes
LikeLike
Too much of 1 contributing to 2?
LikeLike
I don’t think so. I think many of them get sick of the harassment by coaches and media, especially when they’ve known where they wanted to go for months/years.
Also, remember this was just top 300 recruits. They can basically pick their school at will. Lesser recruits might think differently.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11244603/jimbo-fisher-explains-why-florida-state-seminoles-jameis-winston-went-unpunished
Jimbo explains why Winston won’t be punished by him at all:
In the case of Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Jameis Winston’s supermarket citation in April, however, Fisher said there weren’t any consequences to speak of.
When Winston was caught shoplifting seafood at a Tallahassee, Florida, store, he was ordered to reimburse the store and perform community service. He also was suspended from the baseball team, and at the time Fisher said he stood by baseball coach Mike Martin’s decision. Speaking to reporters Monday at the annual ACC Kickoff, Fisher explained why he declined to pile up the punishment.
“Not after we found out the story and what had happened and [what Winston did] was not a malicious thing,” he said. “It was not done with intent.”
At the time of the incident, the Leon County Sheriff’s Office said it would not speculate on whether Winston took the items — $32 worth of crab legs and crawfish — intentionally.
“People need to realize, when you suspend him in baseball, you understand how important baseball is to him? That cut his heart out,” Fisher said Monday. “If it was done maliciously, we may have done other things. It was a silly mistake and not done with any malicious doing, and you don’t punish a guy twice for the same crime.”
Apparently he wasn’t malicious while stealing expensive food, so it’s OK. According to Winston at the time, he forgot to pay. Yeah, that happens to me all the time at the grocery store. I leave with large packages of food and walk by the registers wondering why everyone else is waiting in line.
After all he missed 3 whole OOC games out of a total of 60 baseball games (the equivalent of missing the first 3/4 of 1 OOC FB game). And he’s the closer, so wouldn’t have appeared in all of them anyway (3 games in 2 days and the last was a 7-1 win; so maybe it’s more like he missed a half).
LikeLike
There were some hilarious cartoons at the time. Maybe there were reasons other than the low probability of landing him that caused Mack Brown not to pursue him.
LikeLike
Nah, it was probably just the low probability of landing him. Mack was hardly above recruiting shady and/or stupid players.
LikeLike
Because it’s the backward South, where football is more important than anything outside of fundie religion.
LikeLike
It isn’t just a southern problem.
LikeLike
MLB ratings this season a mixed bag; up on ESPN, way down on Fox, down on MLBN:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2014/07/22/Media/MLB-TV.aspx
LikeLike
There’s a good chance this could be the first year in the wild-card era that neither the Yanks nor the Bosox will make the playoffs. I’m not sure how Fox and TBS would handle a postseason without either AL East evil empire.
LikeLike
Linked to in the above article, but noteworthy enough to merit its own post:
How baseball RSN’s are doing this year: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2014/07/14/Media/MLB-RSNs.aspx
LikeLike
I can’t believe someone hasn’t already posted a link to this WSJ article regarding a radical realignment plan set forth by two Ohio State sports researchers.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/a-radical-realignment-plan-for-college-football-1406069526
“What a “Division IV” in college sports would look like is still anyone’s guess. But two Ohio State sports researchers have an idea: What if schools were sorted into conferences based on their football strength?
To do that, Jonathan Jensen and Brian Turner chose to ignore geography and tradition, the typical forces in conference realignment. Instead, they focused solely on football and its financial implications, coming up with a formula that factored in every team’s football revenue, winning percentage, computer ranking and attendance between 2003 and 2013. Then they sorted teams into clusters to figure out which schools were most alike—and should be playing each other. “
LikeLike
Doesn’t say how he determined what the groups were, but his Tiers I-IV could also be described as-SEC, B1G, Pac and Big 12 tiers. Tier I 5/10 were SEC (B1G-2, Big 12-2, ND), Tier II 5/12 were Big 10 (SEC-3, P12-2, ACC-2), Tier III 6/11 were Pac 12 (SEC-2, ACC-2, Big 12-1) and Tier IV 4/10 were Big 12, one a former Big 12er and 2 were commonly rumored B12 expansion candidates( ACC-2, SEC-1, Pac-1, other-2)
LikeLike
I can’t believe the WSJ would print such tripe.
LikeLike
In other words, they recreated the king/prince/etc tiers but only looking at the past 10 years. I think that time period is a little short, personally, but one could argue that the more distant past is represented in the attendance and revenue numbers.
The clue a non-CFB fan wrote the article:
But there were some surprises in their analysis. They found that not all teams in top conferences deserved to be with their current peers. Boise State and Brigham Young would be promoted up, while 23 schools would be relegated, including Arizona, Baylor and Mississippi State.
Anyone who knows anything about CFB would not be surprised by any of that.
Some more unsurprising results:
Top 4 tier teams (10/12/11/10 = 43):
SEC – 5/3/2/1 = 11 ~ 34 (tier 1 = 4, tier 2 = 3, …) = 2.43 per team
B10 – 2/5/0/0 = 7 ~ 23 = 1.64
P12 – 0/2/6/1 = 9 ~ 19 = 1.58
B12 – 2/0/1/4 = 7 ~ 14 = 1.40
ACC – 0/2/2/2 = 6 ~ 12 = 0.86
Other – 1/0/0/2 = 3
LikeLike
Mizzou in cluster 4? Some poor WSJ reporter is about to get Andy-bombed.
LikeLike
Aside from Andy, who out there really views Missouri as a top tier program though. There is always some truth to the perception others hold.
LikeLike
Sounds like he weighted wins in the last 10 years pretty heavily (see Boise who draws about 30k a game and is way behind on revenue). Missouri has done pretty well under Pinkel.
In any event, its a top 43, which Mizzou probably fits in. They’re in that interchangeable mass of a dozen to a dozen and a half teams after the top 25 or so.
The big line is around #19. There are 19 schools who have been in 3 or more top 5s in the 29 years since BYU won their MNC. Those 19 are also the only schools to be in the top 3 more than once (and only 6 have done it once-3-TCU, Okie St. and Michigan St.-in the last 4 years). All of those schools but Oregon and Georgia have an MNC in that time frame. And no one outside has even a piece of an MNC except for Georgia Tech’s shared title with Colorado in 1990.
LikeLike
I’ve been over it a bunch of times.
Over the last 10 years Mizzou ranks 13th in the country in wins among BCS programs.
The 20 years before that Mizzou ranked 58th,.
The 40 years before that Mizzou ranked 18th.
All numbers from here:
http://football.stassen.com/records/compute-request.html
So Mizzou over time is a top 25 level program that had a very severe, lengthy dry spell because of a severe lack of institutional support in the 1980s.
That dry spell knocks them down into the mid 30s overall if you’re going to count it that way, but it’s misleading if you’re trying to estimate the current strength of the program.
In the last 7 seasons Mizzou has two 12 win seasons, two 10 win seasons, and 4 conference divisional titles in two of the best leagues in the country. Nate Silver estimated that Missouri has the 22nd largest fan base in the country.
All of that would seem to indicate that Mizzou should be in the 2nd or at worst 3rd tier, not the 4th. But I can see how the numbers would put them in the fourth if the 80s and 90s are given much weight.
LikeLike
A realignment of such scale — even if it would apply only to football — is asinine, and would further amplify revenue inequality between conference members.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24635676/notre-dame-and-navy-to-play-under-the-lights
CBS is going with an odd triple-header on 11/1. AF/Army at 11:30, UF/UGA at 3:30 and ND/Navy at 8:00. Veteran’s Day is 11/11/2014 (a Tuesday), which makes it even weirder to me.
LikeLike
I agree–there is no place on CBS for large cocktail parties taking place outdoors 🙂
LikeLike
Then again, November 1 is the last Saturday before this year’s Election Day, so that should take care of the patriotism angle.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/uncategorized/cfb-playoff-gives-rise-to-some-bad-arguments.html
Some thoughts on the effects of a playoff.
LikeLike
Not new issues. Texas always had a Cotton Bowl or bust mentality about bowls in the SWC. They usually didn’t show up unless it was a Cotton Bowl. These are college teams and anyone can be somewhere they don’t want to be. Although Saban has done a very good job of keeping his team steady. Last year’s team just simply weren’t as good as their reputation, which was built on the 4 preceding years.
LikeLike
Add Time Warner and Bright House to the list of companies providing the SECN.
http://secsports.go.com/article/11260106/time-warner-cable-bright-house-deal
“With the addition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, the SEC Network will be available to approximately 60 million households nationwide.”
LikeLike
I live well away from any area that Time Warner Cable serves, but, given that company’s history of confrontational relationships with sports channel owners (i.e. NFL Network before the 2011 football season), I am definitely happy for those SEC fans who do live in regions whose cable television comes from either TWC or Bright House (which, despite being owned and operated separately from TWC, apparently has had a long-term agreement to piggyback onto TWC’s channel carriage deals).
Now, besides DirecTV, two of the biggest remaining holdouts for the SEC Network are Charter and Verizon FiOS. Charter is among the largest cable providers across the SEC footprint (particularly in smaller towns and rural areas), and FiOS seems to be strong in the parts of Florida and Texas where Verizon offers that service.
LikeLike
You do realize Comcast will be taking over TWC by the beginning of next year and
will switch regional coverage will Charter.
Charter gives up a lot of the southern region to Comcast.
Charter will get all of Ohio and Wisconsin.
Look. We know ESPN went all in with the SEC after BTN was started in 07′.
Basically, the SEC has had it own network since then with ESPN.
Now you have a ESPN package deal to carry that will now include other sports with in the SEC.
The SEC will make money because of the mothership’s help.
The BIG will make upwards of 50-60 mil per with the eastern seaboard added to the mix
by 2017. not to mention expansion is still out there for the P3 conferences.
I say power 3 because the ACC and B12 carry no weight anymore.
Their footprints are to small now.
Look for the BIG, Pac12 and SEC to have the pick of the litter.
LikeLike
P12N going international on YouTube’s first 24/7 sports channel.
http://pac-12.com/pac-12-networks-international
LikeLike
Texas and Florida in talks for a future home and home series?
http://www.burntorangenation.com/football/2014/7/24/5934809/texas-longhorns-florida-gators-home-and-home-football
LikeLike
That would be a major change in philosophy from Jeremy Foley (UF AD). I suppose the playoff could force him to do it, but I’m surprised he’d even consider it until the committee proves they’ll stress SOS highly. Especially with FSU back at an elite level, giving UF 1 tough OOC game every year, plus the UGA game being neutral site every year.
LikeLike
If he’s willing to play Texas, why won’t he play Miami?
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/ethical-questions-abound-with-cfb-playoff-sec-network.html
Ethics, ESPN and CFB.
LikeLike
http://deadspin.com/espn-spent-the-past-24-hours-carrying-water-for-the-nfl-1610928027
On a related note, look at how ESPN covered the Ray Rice suspension.
LikeLike
Frank, looks who’s leading the Nats in wins and is arguably their most effective starter — your old Illini buddy, Tanner Roark: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2014_07_25_wasmlb_cinmlb_1&MODE=WRAP&partnerId=ed-8477769-728285793#gid=2014_07_25_wasmlb_cinmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=was
LikeLike
For those who missed it you can watch the Big 10K race:
http://btn.com/2014-btn-big-10k-live-feed/
LikeLike
Penn State will announce a new hire in the athletic department. Press conference will be live.
http://btn.com/penn-state-press-conference-july-26/
LikeLike
Congrats to former Tulane AD Sandy Barbour upon being selected as Penn State’s new athletic director.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11267305/penn-state-nittany-lions-hiring-sandy-barbour-athletic-director
LikeLike
Hopefully Barbour does better at PSU than she did at Cal.
LikeLike
She’s the AD that let slip in 2010 (according to her) everyone was trying to figure out how to get from six power conferences to four.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/07/28/ex-cal-ad-sandy-barbour-hired-by-penn-state/
Jon Wilner’s take on PSU hiring Barbour.
The hire certainly came as a surprise, in that Barbour’s judgement has been suspect in recent years … if one cared to take that view of the matter. (Evidently, Penn State did not.)
I thought her comments about the final years in Berkeley — “What it really boils down to is I stayed too long,” she said at an introductory press conference in State College — were spot on.
…
*** I’m not familiar enough with the issues at Penn State, beyond the Sandusky-related mess, to know whether her strengths fit with what the Nittany Lions need at this moment.
[She] has shown an aptitude for hiring Olympic-sports coaches and is staunchly in favor of student-athlete welfare. She’ll speak her mind in meetings with longstanding Big Ten ADs.
At the same time, she hasn’t distinguished herself with the three Fs: Fiscal matters, fundraising, and football.
Then again, maybe James Franklin proves to be so good that football runs itself for the next decade or two.
*** I’m interested to see how Barbour fits culturally in State College (in much the same way I’m curious about Sonny Dykes in Berkeley).
LikeLike
bullet,
How are UT fans reacting to Strong cleaning house? Just business as usual for a new coach, or surprise at the numbers?
LikeLike
I think everyone is surprised at the numbers, although a number of people were predicting some would be gone. There’s a lot of, yeah Strong needed to clean up Mack’s mess. But then there are a lot of irrational Mack haters.
Don’t think there is much surprise at who has been kicked off. If you had a betting list, these people would pretty much be the favorites. And there are rumors that its not done.
Its going to make it tough this year. So far only 1 or 2 replaceable starters, but depth is taking a really big hit. Realistic people understand that.
A lot are convinced this needed to be done. I’m hoping its good in the long run. I’m a little concerned he is going to have a rough first season and the honeymoon will be over quickly.
LikeLike
On the bright side, it means he gets multiple large recruiting classes in the next few years. Just by size they will be highly ranked, which will appease the fans somewhat. It will also let him get the type of players he wants more quickly.
LikeLike
Everyone seems dismissive of ad value in conference network valuation. Carriage rate is treated as singularity important. Has there been a fundamental change since Frank’s Apr. 2010 post?
http://frankthetank.me/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/
Frank. Is that long time TV person Patrick available to provide some illumination?
LikeLike
I think that’s because its easier to generate back of the envelope guesstimates based on carriage rate numbers being casually tossed around … generating back of the envelope guesstimates of ad value requires more detailed knowledge of cable ad markets than most casual forum commentators can scare up with an afternoon of googling around.
LikeLike
What I can quickly find about the BTN:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/51064/big-ten-to-distribute-284-million-to-teams
In June 2012, Silverman said ad revenue was up 20% over the previous year.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-14/business/ct-biz-1014-executive-profile-silverman-20131014_1_mark-silverman-btn-college-football-game
From 10/2013:
Football is the network’s driver, with 60 percent of BTN’s advertising revenue tied to 14 Saturdays in the fall.
…
In 2013, BTN is projected to bring in $270 million in total net revenue, of which $234 million is from license fees charged to cable and satellite distributors to carry the network, according to SNL Kagan.
On average, subscribers pay about 37 cents per month to receive BTN. But within the Big Ten footprint, that rate is nearly $1 per subscriber, according to sources, making the East Coast expansion a potentially big revenue boost.
Net advertising revenue has grown to a projected $29 million this year, despite a conference ban on alcohol ads.
So the key data:
Ads only make 11% of the total revenue for the BTN now, and that’s with rapid growth annually.
Of that 11%, most of it comes from the football Saturdays. That means it’s highly tied to on field success.
In other words, carriage rate is roughly 90% of the revenue right now. If you get that right, the ad revenue is round off error for the sort of analysis we do. Besides, carriage info is more available generally.
LikeLike
I think a 60/40 ratio changing to a 10/90 would have some obvious cause. Or perhaps the original estimate/ratio was faulty.
LikeLike
I think Patrick’s 2010 estimate was way off, personally.
The Big Ten schools together made roughly $214,000,000 as of the last report. $100,000,000 from ABC / ESPN, $2,000,000 from CBS, and the schools collected $112,000,000 from the newly formed Big Ten Network. That is $19,454,545 per school.
Mistake #1. He took the total, subtracted ABC and CBS money and declared the rest from BTN. He forgot that the NCAA tourney shares are a large revenue source as are the bowl games.
The regular network haul of $102,000,000 per year isn’t going to change.
Mistake #2. He used the average value of the contract per year as the actual value paid per year. We know these deals escalate annually.
Any new members would need to make up that difference, plus carry their own weight of $38,146,166 in new revenues to the Big 10 Network. The conference only controls 51% of the Big 10 Network, FOX News Corp owns the other 49% and takes 49% of the overall profits. So each possible addition would need to earn the conference $19,454,545 per year AND earn FOX News Corp $18,691,621 AND make up the difference in the take from ABC / ESPN / CBS to break even for the current members.
Mistake #3. He confused himself here. The $19.45M per school is the total payout. The BTN money was much less than that, so schools don’t need to bring anything near $38M to the BTN. If that were true, almost no school would be worthwhile.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-network-had-record-revenue-in/article_e05a998c-a390-11e1-99b2-001a4bcf6878.html
In 2011, the BTN payout was $7.2M per school.
Since the conference reported a $112,000,000 payout, the actual profit margin of the Big Ten Network is around $219,607,840.
Mistake #4. The B10 never reported any such thing. The $112M is the average value of the BTN deal over 25 years. It wasn’t worth anything near that in year 4.
In addition, there are a number of news stories indicating that the universities take this year was just shy of $22,000,000. I haven’t seen anything official on that but if it is true than the BTN made around $272,000,000 in the most recent year.
Mistake #5. The 2011 number from that article was $242M in revenue, $79M in profit.
By the Big Ten’s own admission they are clearing about $0.36 per subscriber per month for the states inside it’s footprint.
Mistake #6. The national average is $0.37 per customer, that’s not the in footprint number.
They also tell us that there are 26,000,000 subscribers and it is AVAILABLE to 75,000,000 people. The BTN wants to increase the available number but even more important is to increase the subscriber numbers, and there is an opportunity to do that within the current footprint. Regardless, at $0.36 per month for 26,000,000 households over 12 months I only came up with $112,320,000 for a cable carry rate. Well short of the $272,000,000 that the network likely made last year. The other $160,000,000 is advertising revenue!
Mistake 7. His previous errors combine here to give a ridiculously high advertising estimate.
LikeLike
I think you’re figuring is much closer. I do think 29M isn’t a rounding error…or I run in the wrong circles. That’s enough to pay for any number of less revenue intensive sports.
LikeLike
For a person, no. But for a P5 conference? Especially since we are talking about back of the envelope calculations of revenue. The ad revenue will grow over time, but the dependence on FB and MBB for those ads really caps their value unless the B10 is willing to move the top games to BTN.
LikeLike
There is a joint product issue here, which is that its a bit arbitrary which revenue the costs are being deducted from … if $234m of net revenue “comes from licenses and fees”, and $29m from ads, that could be read as $29m left from advertising after they have covered costs, plus $234m in gross license and fee revenue on top, or it could be read as costs allocated in proportion to gross revenues, with $29m in ad revenue remaining and $234m in license and fee revenue remaining.
LikeLike
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/jeremy-fowler/24638277/more-big-ten-games-coming-to-yankee-stadium?v=1&vc=1
Jeremy Fowler discussing the possibility of PSU, UMD and RU playing some games at Yankee Stadium.
LikeLike
I can see RU playing there on occasion, but PSU makes no sense. They could fill a much bigger stadium than that if they are going to play neutral site against RU. UMD/RU might work.
LikeLike
I could see a neutral site between game PSU and a team from the B12, SEC or ACC. The Meadowlands would be the most likely place to do it, with a smaller chance of having it in the Linc. A game like RU-UConn at YS or against Army, Navy, ND could work as well.
LikeLike
There are only a couple of ways that I could see Rutgers playing at Yankee Stadium.
1. At the specific request of Delany, I think that RU would do it as part of the price of admission to the B1G. I do not really see why this should matter to the BTN, as a TV enterprise. I doubt that stating that the game is in the Bronx at the Stadium will impress many BTN football viewers. If PSU or UMD played RU at Yankee Stadium rather than Rutgers, how does that make more money for BTN or add viewers?
2. If the ticket demand was so overwhelming that RU actually made more at Yankee Stadium (or the Meadowlands), than they would make at home in Piscataway.
As far as the ACC, or SEC, it would need to be a big time school – FSU, Clemson, or Bama, Army and Navy both have played regularly at Rutgers. As far as UConn, if they ever play RU in football in the future, I cannot see why either team would give up a home game for a neutral site.
From what I have read, even 52,000 seat (or whatever High Point) is more profitable to Rutgers that losing the home game and selling 80,000 tickets at a neutral site.
LikeLike
Actually, a game at Yankee Stadium might draw viewers to see a game in a different setting, like NWU vs. IL at Wrigley.
And RU already has Yankee Stadium games scheduled vs. Army.
RU needs to do unconventional things to attract attention and draw coverage, and Yankee Stadium games is a good way to do that.
Granted, PSU playing at Yankee Stadium would be a waste, as PSU could fill much larger stadiums. That’s not the case for RU vs., say, Maryland. That game really would be a great candidate for Yankee Stadium.
LikeLike
I agree with Bernie – For the near future RU will not be playing conference games away from campus unless its at the specific request from the B1G to assist them in their NY market strategy.
LikeLike
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2014/07/27/dollars-trump-tradition-in-expansion.html
Gene Smith’s views on expansion.
LikeLike
He’s a bad AD in many ways, but at least he’s honest about the recent additions.
“From a business point of view, it makes huge sense,” Smith said. “This is a business deal. This is about money. Everybody wants to dodge that; I don’t. It’s about the stability of our conference for the long term.”
…
Smith said he even expects the Big Ten to someday expand full membership again, maybe after five or six years.
“There will be a point,” he said, “when the business model changes again, frankly, because of media platforms.”
LikeLike
Did anyone really believe 14 was the magic number? I’d like him to explain/expound on “media platforms.”
LikeLike
Unlike many, I don’t believe there is a magic number. Certainly not a universal one. 16 let’s fans play the pod game as well as dreaming of some super-symmetric playoff scenario.
I also don’t believe 5-6 years from now is the correct time frame. The GoRs don’t start to expire until 11 years from now (B12 – 2025, ACC – 2027). Nobody is moving 5-6 years before their GoR expires, and probably isn’t even discussing moving until 2-3 years before expiration.
LikeLike
It’s probably true that 5-6 years is a little early but a lot can happen in that time. With the new governing structure and full cost of tuition stipends, there will some schools in the big 5 that will be harmed by the increase in exposes. There are currently on a few self sufficient athletic departments in the black so these increase in expenses will just increase the deficit for those in the red already. Small schools could willful drop out out of dvision four. Now would that nullify the GOR? Anyone know?
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“With the new governing structure and full cost of tuition stipends, there will some schools in the big 5 that will be harmed by the increase in exposes.”
Most schools are estimating FCOA as costing them $1M per year or less, and that’s the most expensive of the proposed improvements so far.
“There are currently on a few self sufficient athletic departments in the black so these increase in expenses will just increase the deficit for those in the red already. Small schools could willful drop out out of dvision four.”
The cost of dropping down is at least an order of magnitude greater than the cost of staying up, and that’s before looking at the indirect costs (loss of publicity leading to fewer applications, fewer donations, etc.).
“Now would that nullify the GOR? Anyone know?”
IANAL, but it shouldn’t unless a specific provision is broken. The school leaving wouldn’t even be breaking the GOR since they aren’t trying to take their rights elsewhere, they will just stop providing inventory and in return stop receiving payment. The devil is in the details in any contract, though.
LikeLike
other interesting things in the article. This struck me. I don’t believe this Board has ever seen/discussed population number specific to age groups. I wonder what national state-by-state figures would look like.
“The number of Ohio residents ages 15 through 19 fell 19.7 percent from 1980 to 2008.”
Without context, that seems very ominous. But comparative data is needed. Maybe Florida dropped 12% in that same 28 year span. Who knows. But if Florida actually gained residents ages 15 through 19, then WOW. Curious what the numbers are for MD and NJ.
LikeLike
Click to access c2010br-03.pdf
You have to be careful because of the impact of the baby boomers and other generations.
The number of people 15-19 in 2010 was up 9.0% over 2000 and the 20-24 year-olds were up 13.8%. People 15-19 in 2008 would be split over those two groups, so call it up 11.4% versus 2000.
People 15-19 in 1980 would be 35-39 in 2000 and 45-49 in 2010. In 2010, 35-39 year-olds were down 11.1% while 45-49 year-olds were up 13.0%. In other words, there was a bulge in the population born in the early 60s.
Other stats:
Mean age in the Midwest is 37.7 vs 37.0 in the south.
% of people age 18-44: midwest 35.4, south 36.7
% of people age 0-17: midwest 24.1, south 24.3
Basically, the problem is overblown because the reporter picked 2 specific years to compare. It was a problem for a while, but the midwest is recovering.
LikeLike
Five or six years might be his estimate of how long it would take UConn to get its act together.
LikeLike
1. UConn is NOT a viable candidate, for multiple reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum.
2. And #16 would be?
LikeLike
This article also outlines the financial case for adding Rutgers, despite its athletic failings:
“Although the Northeast traditionally is a pro sports market, the Big Ten noticed how the New York area of 20 million responded to a big-event college football game on Nov. 9, 2006.
On that Thursday night, the Manhattan skyline had the Empire State Building lit in scarlet as No. 15 Rutgers, led by star running back Ray Rice, beat visiting No. 3 Louisville. The broadcast drew an 8.1 rating, which is on par with Bowl Championship Series games.
Already, the addition of Maryland and Rutgers has beefed up the Big Ten Network’s coffers by reaching deals with the cable providers in New York, New Jersey and Maryland.
“This is about the ability to expand into a television market to allow us to expand the viewership of the Big Ten Network, which we’ve done,” Smith said.”
LikeLike
Sure, if Rutgers can become a top 15 team again then it’s a slam dunk move by the B1G. Trouble is they’ll likely average about 5 or 6 wins.
LikeLike
I mean, 2006 (8 years ago) was literally their best season in school history. It was a 3rd place finish in the Big East an a trip to the Texas Bowl. Their next best season was in 2009 when they tied for 4th in the Big East and went to the Beef O Brady bowl vs UCF. Every other season ever was 8 wins or fewer (usually fewer) and nowhere near ranked in the top 25.
LikeLike
Realignment is not just about athletic performance. If Rutgers stays mediocre in the sports, the addition is still a huge win for the conference. The gamble was whether or not the BTN could use Rutgers to get beneficial carriage on cable. The rates aren’t out yet but it appears that gamble has paid off.
LikeLike
Also the BIG is in a lose lose situation with Rutgers football. Unlike the SEC, when a crap team’s defeat of a name team is spinned as a sign of the outstanding depth of the conference, if Rutgers were to ever run the table against PSU, OSU, UM, and MSU, it would be spinned as further evidence that BIG football stinks. So if OSU beats Rutgers it’s because Rutgers stinks but if Rutgers beats OSU, the whole conference stinks. The best outcome for the conference might be for Rutgers to be rolled by PSU, OSU, and Michigan instead of upsetting any of them.
LikeLike
I see what your saying, but you could easily take the other side of that and say that RU would be seen as a Cinderella team finally realizing its potential.
You would be right if RU upsets OSU and PSU in the same year while still finishing with 6 wins. But a 1 loss RU that wins the B1G Title game and goes to the CFB playoff would be celebrated.
That some will hate on the B1G is a given, much like how some will hate on any other conference.
LikeLike
Rutgers OOC schedule is embarrassing and has been for 10+ years. Agree with PSUhockey
LikeLike
Rutgers just finished a home and home with Arkansas and in the next 8 years has h/h games with:
Washington St
Washington
Kansas
UCLA
Miami
LikeLike
Rutgers, as I and others have said repeatedly, is a gamble. If RU can get their athletic act together, then the B1G will print money. If it cannot, then the B1G’s returns will not be nearly as large (though, there is evidently some value there as it is, judging by the completion of carriage agreements for cable companies in NJ).
LikeLike
The B1G will print money either way. Carriage rates won’t suddenly rise if a Scarlet miracle happens this year. Rutgers becoming anything above bottom dweller would be a bonus (and a surprise). Those of us that don’t think of this as a gamble felt an athletic king or prince was not a necessity if the other primary goals were met.
LikeLike
Well, the B1G will make money either way. A very successful Rutgers on the field would definitely yield more money in various forms, including carriage fees and overall ratings.
LikeLike
Ratings drive advertising rates, which we’ve learned are a “rounding error.”
LikeLike
On the BTN, ad rates are tiny. Not the case on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2.
And RU success would mean more in merchandizing, awareness in NYC/NJ, and, yes, higher carriage fees And, in the long run, a more lucrative TV deal.
Its not controversial to say that a school’s location has value, but that success on top of the location can multiply that value.
LikeLike
The conference doesn’t gain from advert rates on ABC/ESPN except as it relates to what is being offered for the tier 1 contract every 10-12 years. That is what the bidders are purchasing and betting will exceed their offer. We don’t even know, but assume, that BTN ad revenue is split evenly with Fox.
As to success multiplying value above location, that depends on the multiplier. I doubt it would be significant. How much value did Boise St gain with a decade of success? They gained attention and to some extent legitimacy on field, but not the value of a much denigrated but well located school. This add will probably illustrate the multiplier of all the B1G alums in the corridor whether Rutgers (or Maryland) is a power or not.
LikeLike
I was talking about Rutgers, and also did not say location would multiply value, that it can multiply value. That is not a disputed idea, and in Rutgers case, it is undisputed that whatever value RU has by virtue of its location can be increased by factors if RU achieves consistent success on the field, and that would make more money than RU at its present level of success with its location.
And I also did not say that the B1G would print money with a good Rutgers immediately, but,”in the long run, a more lucrative TV deal”.
LikeLike
I think you misread. I said school size, academics, location, population, regional alumni of the rest of the conference’s schools, proximity to media center, etc are the primary factors brining value. Sure, good FB would be better than bad, but not by factors or large multiples. It might be modest fractions or possibly/maybe double digit percentages. An argument that great results are worth that much is an argument that only kings make expansion worthwhile. They are preferable (and easier for media talking heads to drone on about), but not required to achieve the goals.
LikeLike
“The conference doesn’t gain from advert rates on ABC/ESPN except as it relates to what is being offered for the tier 1 contract every 10-12 years.”
And since its coming up fairly soon … are quite relevant to the discussion of the benefit of adding Rutgers if they should experience some early success.
LikeLike
“And since its coming up fairly soon … are quite relevant to the discussion of the benefit of adding Rutgers if they should experience some early success.”
It might help a bit but, as I said, it wouldn’t be by large multiples or factors. ESPN, Fox, etc. know teams have ups and downs. How long in either direction over long periods creates the on the field heirachy. That, combined with all the other factors (opponents/conference mates, population, alumni, etc) is what long term media rights purchases are about. Not what a particular team may do in one or two particular years.
It can drive ad revenue, though. That is mostly a short term investment looking for rapid returns.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/7/28/5944805/the-internets-top-25
How to come up with a preseason top 25 poll.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/07/27/lsu-rethink-home-football-schedule/13249907/
LSU should rethink their scheduling policy according to this columnist.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24639274/big-ten-wont-halt-national-title-drought-by-adding-rutgers-maryland
UMD and RU won’t help B10 football according to Dennis Dodd.
Also, this:
Figures obtained by CBSSports.com show that the Big Ten Network alone is expected to produce $102 million in net revenue in 2014. (That’s $4 million less than the Pac-12 posted in overall expenses). That’s also an average of $7.4 million per school just from the league’s cable network.
All of it before Maryland and Rutgers were added.
LikeLike
From the article..
“The ACC beat Delany to the punch by getting Notre Dame, Syracuse and perhaps even Pittsburgh”
Not true. Syracuse and Pitt were never in contention. The ACC didn’t “get” ND, they are not a full member. B1G would never have given them that deal.
LikeLike
“Oh, I get it from the warm-bodies-needed angle. The ACC beat Delany to the punch by getting Notre Dame, Syracuse and perhaps even Pittsburgh. A rumored move by the Big Ten to poach some combination of North Carolina/Virginia/Georgia Tech fell through when the ACC added a grant of rights.
Delany couldn’t afford — for the lot of reasons — the ACC and SEC growing to 14 while his league stayed at 12. So Maryland and Rutgers, it was.”
Loses all credibility with that garbage. One his timeline is bad; the ACC’s GOR was signed after MD left where this makes it sound like it was before. Secondly, he is making it sound like Rutgers and Maryland were leftovers compared to Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and a partial membership of Notre Dame. The BIG had zero interest in Pittsburgh and probably Syracuse too, whose combined football stinks as bad if not worse than Rutgers and Maryland which is kind of important in an article about football. Also since this is a football article, Notre Dame is not a part of the ACC. I don’t know my hatred of ND is blinding me to not see how allowing them to have all the benefits of a conference without actually participating in it for its marquee sport in a good thing for the ACC like it has been spun by all the national writers. Notre Dame’s partial memebership in the Big East, and its ability to vote on conference business including contracts even though it was a partial member, was one of the reasons that conference died.
LikeLike
Speaking of ND and the ACC, interesting debate on the merits of that partnership:
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=acc&i=TWT&id=72602&w=1e8y3&src=desktop
LikeLike
This is the non-mobile link for those who want it:
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/72602/take-2-will-nd-help-or-hurt-the-acc
LikeLike
Had Syracuse remained a full-fledged AAU member (and been stronger on research), it might well have beaten out Rutgers to be Maryland’s partner. SU has as much appeal (if not more) in metro NYC as Rutgers, and has a better football tradition — even if you take out the Orange’s golden years of the ’50s and ’60s.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Had Syracuse remained a full-fledged AAU member (and been stronger on research), it might well have beaten out Rutgers to be Maryland’s partner. SU has as much appeal (if not more) in metro NYC as Rutgers, and has a better football tradition — even if you take out the Orange’s golden years of the ’50s and ’60s.”
It’s an interesting discussion.
NY state > NJ, which helps for SU if they can get the BTN on in most of the state.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
On the other hand, Nate Silver said RU had a lot more fans in NYC and more total fans.
SU hoops is a definite plus.
Maybe the B10 would have taken RU and SU instead of UMD? Or maybe they would’ve taken 4 schools?
LikeLike
Syracuse is big in hoops, but people make the mistake of thinking a great fan showing at the Big East tournament was an indication of some deeper fan support in NYC that doesn’t exist. In actuality, Syracuse is so consistently good in MBB that the BET became an annual event that Syracuse alums could plan for with the understanding their team was going to be around for at least the semifinal.
They are a complete non-entity in the NYC area when it comes to anything but MBB. They could only draw 39,000 to Giants Stadium for a football game against USC when Rutgers was playing the Howard Bison in front of 50,000 in Piscataway.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2014/07/27/college-quarterback-tutoring-ken-mastrole-george-whitfield-david-morris/13235321/
A look at the growing trend of private QB coaches.
LikeLike
UA’s new Navy football jersey seems to borrow from UA’s much ballyhooed NWU jersey:
http://sneakerreport.com/news/under-armour-debuts-navy-footballs-new-look-for-the-upcoming-season/
LikeLike
A roundtable discussion of the B10:
Part 1 – http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/editorial-section-big-ten-roundtable-part-one.html
About MSU vs MI, the source of MI’s woes and James Franklin at PSU.
Part 2 – http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/editorial-section-big-ten-roundtable-part-two.html
About RU, Randy Edall at UMD and how does B10 realignment affect the expectations for various schools.
For all the guff the B1G gets routinely about the end result of the on-field product … which seems to be reported on a bit negatively by default by our precious media … the conference continues to win in the wallet, routinely out-earning every other conference in the nation with its slick business decisions and forward thinking.
Rutgers represents pretty much that.
…
The discussion of expectations brought up a thought. NE and WI should be fighting for a lot of division titles in the near future (with IA and NW and others sticking their nose in, too). Perhaps that’s exactly what the B10 needs to revitalize the NE brand and help build the WI brand. As those teams keep appearing in the B10 title game, a lot of casual fans will more strongly associate them with success. That could be good in the long run for the B10.
Thew other side of that, of course, is the eastern kings could hurt each other. However, I think their brands are pretty strong and beating each other up may be looked at more like SEC losses (shows how good the winner is, not how bad the loser is) as Franklin rebuilds PSU and assuming MI rebounds soon.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/uncategorized/michigan-football-tinkering-with-its-soul.html
What’s wrong with Michigan?
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2014/07/37997/b1g-media-days-urban-rips-unnecessary-recruiting-hoopla-players-talk-michigan-night-game
More evidence the B10 CCG needs to stay indoors.
From OSU players talking about The Game and whether it should be at night (no, it shouldn’t):
“I feel like it should be,” he said. “If it’s gonna be a night game, it’s gotta be earlier in the season. Because at the end of the season like Nov. 30 last year it was cold. Oh my goodness. Freezing. It’s not good.”
Michael Bennett offered a similar sentiment.
“It would be freezing,” he said with a smile. “That game would be nuts if it was, but they have to be careful because a lot of people, like fans, are going to be frozen solid in the stands.
“That’s what you’ve got to take into account up in the north. Night games in late November are probably risky.”
The CCG is a week later, and Chicago is colder than Columbus.
LikeLike
I think those quotes are more aimed at the context of The Game, coming up with justifications for not messing with The Game’s traditional daytime start.
LikeLike
Except the first player said The Game should be a night game, but that they would have to move it earlier in the season because it’s too cold at the end of November. That seemed a relevant statement about the weather for the CCG.
LikeLike
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/andy-baggot-some-big-ten-non-revenue-teams-likely-in/article_44d885eb-0b17-5b3c-a3b9-c5be3824522a.html
Raises the issue of non-revenue sports in a future where more money has to be spent on student-athletes.
The qotd:
One jarring option was thrown on the discussion table last week when Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby acknowledged that non-revenue sports could be cut down the road.
“There’s only so much money out there,” he said. “I don’t think that coaches and athletic directors are likely going to take pay cuts. I think that train’s left the station.
“I think over a period of time what we’ll find is that instead of keeping a tennis program, they’re going to do the things that it takes to keep the football and the men’s and women’s basketball programs strong.”
Barry Alvarez, the University of Wisconsin athletic director, picked up on the theme.
“There will be opportunities lost because some schools are going to have to cut sports to subsidize this,” he said.
The Alvarez Era in Madison was in its infancy in 1991 when the cash-strapped UW Athletic Department dropped five sports: baseball, men’s and women’s fencing and men’s and women’s gymnastics.
A multimillion-dollar budget deficit was subsequently wiped out and a healthy reserve built due mainly to Alvarez’s success as football coach from 1990 to 2005.
Bob Bowlsby’s translation: “Darn it. We can’t let those SEC boys out-spend us in football cuz, darn it, it’s the only thing that matters out here in our neck of the woods. How much more for Bob and Charlie? Go ring up that cash register!”
LikeLike
Breaking news! Water main break at Westwood, CA. UCLA campus being flooded right now.
LikeLike
Alford now has a “crappy facilities” excuse. Another possible application of the dark wood contrast floor design(like Oregon) in the offing.
LikeLike
It appears Pauley will get a new floor sometime in the fall, displacing the Bruins’ women’s volleyball team but enabling both basketball teams to stay in Westwood this winter.
LikeLike
I was looking forward to visiting Pauley Natatorium…
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/in-the-battle-for-fans-in-the-stands-schools-have-already-lost.html
Schools lost the battle for butts in the seat when they sold out to TV. It’s just taking time to come to fruition as ticket prices go up and TV technology improves.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/time-for-the-big-ten-to-step-up-to-the-plate-in-a-critical-season.html
The B10 needs to step up this year, especially in bowls. Personally, I think the new bowl slate will help the B10 as there are fewer road games against higher seeds.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/29/ncaa-concussion-lawsuit-preliminary-settlement
The NCAA settled the class action head injury lawsuit for a $70M medical monitoring fund (open to any player in the past 50 years). The NCAA will also pay $5 for concussion research and institute some new medical protocols for head injuries
According to The New York Times, the settlement does not cover treatment costs or individual financial damages claims, meaning current and former athletes will still be able to sue on a case by case basis to seek personal injury damages.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/btn-the-sec-and-principles-college-footballs-media-day-mess.html
About ESPN, the SEC, BTN, P12N and media bias, all discussed in relation to the recent media days for each conference. A good read.
LikeLike
A good read?
More like a bad attempt to compare completely different types of businesses, and cast judgements about different choices/abilities as though they were similar in motivation and business model.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“A good read?”
Yes. You don’t have to agree with him for it to be a good read. It’s better than the typical off-season fluff.
“More like a bad attempt to compare completely different types of businesses,”
3 TV networks are different types of businesses? Sure they aren’t exactly the same, but they have a lot in common.
“and cast judgements about different choices/abilities as though they were similar in motivation and business model.”
2 of the 3 are very similar in motivation, and one possible problem is the third sometimes acting like it is also similar. As for the business models, I don’t buy that as an explanation for the behavior he discussed.
I don’t agree with him across the board, but I think he brings up some valid points on multiple sides of the issues. It’s the sort of column that should make you examine your opinion more closely. To me, that’s a good read in CFB coverage compared to the typical one-sided coverage.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2014/07/why_hasnt_ohio_state_played_a.html
A look at neutral site games, from an OSU/B10 perspective.
Neutral-site games are becoming more popular, but they are a tricky balance for athletic departments. Brandon said Michigan can make about as much off a neutral-site game as it can off one home game. That means Michigan can make more off two neutral-site games than it can off a home-and-home with a national power, where the Wolverines would get a big gate from the home game, but nothing more than a relatively small appearance fee for the road game.
Brandon said once every five years is about right for the Wolverines in taking games like this. It’s the exception, not the rule.
It could eventually be an exception for Ohio State, too, but only, Smith said, if everything fits.
…
Smith said he’ll never take a big neutral-site game at the expense of a home-and-home series, like the one the Buckeyes have with Virginia Tech for 2014-15, Oklahoma for 2016-17, TCU in 2018-19, Oregon in 2020-21 and Texas in 2022-23. He’s too much of a traditionalist, and he wouldn’t want to take the money out of Columbus.
Brandon said a home game generates between $14 million and $15 million for Ann Arbor, and admits in 2012, and again in 2017, that money will instead go to Dallas.
“There are people who count on that for their livelihood,” Smith said.
But Brandon likes when the games can do for his program.
“It’s a chance for kids to play in an NFL venue and be in a primetime event and play an opponent we haven’t played in a long time,” Brandon said.
Still, if the deal is right, previous agreements can always be shifted. But Smith said he thinks a neutral-site game would probably have to work when the Buckeyes accept having just six home games in a year in which at least several of those home games, to use Smith’s word, are “magnificent.”
…
Alabama might be nice.
“I’m not sure I’d play them in a neutral-site game,” Smith said, preferring a home-and-home. “Come to me baby, then let me come to you.”
Whatever the opponent, the Buckeyes certainly will keep getting asked.
“Every year I talk about it,” Smith said. “I don’t know if we’ll do it or not, but every year I talk about it.”
This is one of the few things I agree with him about. OSU is being a good citizen by playing at home and helping the local economy. It’s also good for the team not to get a pseudo road game in the south which is what the major kickoff games are now (AL in Dallas or Atlanta, etc).
OSU does play smaller teams at NFL sites as part of home and homes, though (home and at Cleveland vs Toledo, home and at Baltimore vs Navy). I’m sure they’d be happy to move games like @UNC to Charlotte in 2017 or @TCU to Jerryworld in 2018 or @BC to Foxboro in 2024, too. I doubt the bigger foes would even consider it (VT in 2015, OU in 2016, OR in 2020, UT in 2022, etc).
LikeLike
Smith is just an enigma to me.
He says all the right things one day and on the next day he says all the wrong things.
Maddening.
LikeLike
Ohio State has no obligation to play games in Columbus. Most Columbus citizens would like the games to move out of town to decrease the traffic congestion. Maybe 20% of the people in Columbus care about OSU football, probably less.
These types of arguments are silly, similar to people who said don’t punish Penn State because it will hurt restaurants and hotels in State College. Well, that is the same as saying don’t arrest mob leaders since they create jobs.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Ohio State has no obligation to play games in Columbus.”
Not a legal one, no. And yet they feel obligated to do it.
“Most Columbus citizens would like the games to move out of town to decrease the traffic congestion.”
Many would, right until they see their tax bills jump because $15-20M per home game disappears in local business revenue and taxes. Besides, tens (and maybe hundreds) of thousands of those residents are at the games or watching on TV.
“Maybe 20% of the people in Columbus care about OSU football, probably less.”
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/10/01/college-football-saturday-night-football-helps-abc-win-the-night-in-viewers-all-key-demos/206270/
That’s just factually wrong. Last year OSU/WI drew a 40.0 rating in Columbus. That’s 40% of all households with a TV watching the game. Then add in all the people who were at the game, at bars, at game parties, busy but still care, etc.
LikeLike
The folks at Emory Sports Marketing Analytics (whose prior work has been quite spotty, in my view) have gone ahead and ranked NFL fanbases:
https://scholarblogs.emory.edu/esma/2014/07/28/nfl-fan-base-analysis-2014-the-best-fan-base-belongs-to-the-cowboys-or-perhaps-the-steelers/
I didn’t study the metrics that closely, but the list conforms in a general sense with what I would have anticipated.
LikeLike
Stewart Mandel, now at Fox, is out with his latest mailbag:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/2014/07/30/big-ten-cfb-playoff-ohio-state-michigan-state-sec-mailbag.html
Not sure I agree with his point below, regarding the biggest shift in the playoffs vs BCS:
“But I don’t think that will be nearly the biggest drawback. Over time I think we’ll see a narrowing of fan interest and media coverage of the sport to primarily the 15 to 20 teams that regularly contend for the playoff. As of now, less prestigious power-conference teams like Northwestern, NC State, Washington State and so on still draw interest on a typical Saturday simply by playing college football. But part of that is they’re playing for something — the best possible bowl.
Within a few years, no one but a team’s own fans will care about who makes the Outback Bowl, and all but the diehards will probably tune out if the teams/games have no playoff ramifications. A mid-November game between two 7-3 teams could become the equivalent of a Week 15 NFL game between two 5-8 teams. It’s unfortunate but probably unavoidable.”
How is this different from the BCS? Few other than die hards cared much about 7-3 teams facing off in mid-November as it was. The focus was on #1 vs. #2, and now its on #4 vs. #5 (and to a lesser extent, the makeup of 1-3 for seeding purposes.)
LikeLike
Mandel’s statement doesn’t compute. The vast majority of college football games have always been for nothing more than pride, and that hasn’t stopped them from being incredibly popular.
In the pre-BCS era, #1 and #2 seldom met in a bowl, which meant there could be several bowl games featuring teams with a chance at winning the mythical NC.That still left many, many bowls that were pure exhibitions, and yet those bowls proliferated. If fans were going to stop paying attention to those bowls, and the regular-season games leading up to them, I think we would have seen it by now.
I’m not sure how much more popular CFB can get, but the playoff structure leads to many more relevant games. Of course, it will still be true that the vast majority of college football games are for nothing but pride. But now there will be four teams each post-season with a realistic shot at winning a national championship, plus all the late regular-season games involving teams with a chance of being in the top four.
In the BCS era, if you were #8 going into the last couple of weeks of the season, you would have needed a series of fairly miraculous events to make it to the championship game, since a lot of teams would have needed to lose, and some of them would probably have had to lose twice. Now, a #8 team, even fairly late in the season, still has a real shot.
In the BCS era, most teams (and their fans) took considerable pride in reaching a “BCS bowl,” even if it wasn’t the NCG. The number of bowls under the committee’s control is now six (it used to be five). If those bowls have comparable prestige, then the number of teams with “something to play for” late in the season will be anyone with a shot at the top 12, which should be a considerable number, right up to Thanksgiving.
So, for all those reasons, it seems to me that fan interest ought to go up, not down.
LikeLike
NCAA basketball. Now only relevant (to a general sports fan) in March, and that was significantly contributed to by expanded tournament. I think his point is partly this, and that expanding to a playoff format demotes even the top bowls.
I’m old school enough to hope/wish a team who hasn’t been to a Rose Bowl in some time would decline a playoff invite in order to experience it. Would you rather,for the rest of your life, be able to say “I played in the Rose Bowl Game”, or “I played in an elimination round that someone was obligated to host?”
LikeLike
@ccrider55: The size of the NCAA basketball tournament has expanded steadily over the years. Is there any evidence that each expansion led to a corresponding reduction in the popularity of the regular season? None that I can see, but perhaps you’re aware of something.
As far as I can tell, the popularity of the regular season has gone up, because there are so many more teams with tournament hopes, even fairly late in the season. You actually have to try pretty hard to find a game on TV where neither team has anything to play for.
Nor do I see any evidence that once a team clinches a tournament bid, meaning that its remaining regular-season games technically don’t matter, the fans stop paying attention until the tournament begins. (Of course, the games really do matter, because seeding is considered fairly important.)
You might say as a purist that you hate seeing a champion like UConn, that was merely a 7 seed and finished merely 3rd in its conference regular season. But that’s a whole other matter than saying that fans care less about the regular season than they did when the tournament accepted fewer teams.
Is the basketball analogy even relevant? As @BuckeyeBeau noted, about one in five teams make it to the tournament. For one in five teams to make the football playoff, they’d need to expand to 24 teams. We’ve got just 4, and I don’t think even the most ardent playoff supporters have suggested going beyond 8 (or 16 if they’re really loony).
With four teams, the regular season is still going to remain highly relevant, since even one ill-timed loss can knock you out of contention, and certainly I don’t think you’ll see many playoff teams with any more than two regular-season losses.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@ccrider55: The size of the NCAA basketball tournament has expanded steadily over the years. Is there any evidence that each expansion led to a corresponding reduction in the popularity of the regular season? None that I can see, but perhaps you’re aware of something.”
TV ratings? They’re hard to find, but they might shed some light.
“As far as I can tell, the popularity of the regular season has gone up, because there are so many more teams with tournament hopes, even fairly late in the season. You actually have to try pretty hard to find a game on TV where neither team has anything to play for.”
That doesn’t mean people are watching. I don’t know anyone in real life that actually watches regular season MBB.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03/college-basketball-tv-ratings-numbers-for-every-game-of-the-2013-14-season/
According to Sports Media Watch, 79% of televised games last year drew a 0-0.4 rating. 11% drew 0.5-0.9. 7% drew 1.0-1.4. 1% drew 1.5-1.9. 1% drew 2.0-2.9. 1% was N/A. No games drew a 3.0 or higher.
Of the 942 games SMW tracked, only 9 drew a 2.0 rating or better. Only 8 regular season games drew 3M+ viewers. Only 4 hit 4M.
I have no evidence how that compares to the past.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2014/03/college-basketball-wrap-espn-sets-record-fs1-edges-nbcsn/
On the other hand, ESPN claimed record numbers with an average of 1.0 and 1.45M viewers. CBS averaged 1.8M.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/story/2012-03-08/college-basketball-concerns-attendance-drop/53424996/1
MBB attendance, including the tourney, has been on the decline lately.
If there’s a place for optimism, it’s in TV ratings. Healthy numbers affirm that attendance drops don’t necessarily reflect a decline in interest.
The NCAA tournament averaged a 6.4 rating last year, when co-rights-holders CBS and Turner Sports spread games across four channels — CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV — for the first time. That meant 6.4% of all possible viewers tuned in, the biggest slice since 2005. Regular-season ratings have steadied over recent years, and even nudged upward this year on ESPN.
“The tournament definitely has an impact,” says CBS Executive Vice President Mike Aresco. “But there’s an appetite for regular-season college basketball, obviously as long as the games are compelling.”
That’s some evidence that TV ratings have fallen over time and finally found a new, lower plateau.
The there’s this:
Attendance at regular-season games has dropped in recent years. So have television ratings. That, combined with the overwhelming popularity of college football and the hundreds of millions of dollars that sport generates in TV contracts, effectively forced basketball to the background as conferences scrambled to reconfigure.
…
On Sunday, seven of the Big East’s so-called basketball schools — Seton Hall, Villanova, Marquette, St. John’s, Georgetown, Providence and DePaul — met with the conference’s new commissioner, Mike Aresco, in New York to lay out their concerns about the future.
Aresco, who previously worked for CBS, acknowledged the issues facing college basketball.
“There are limits to what you can do with the regular season,” he said. “You have to work with the model you have. It won’t be the same as it was. We’re not going back to the ’70s or ’80s.”
To that end, college basketball finds itself in something of a quandary. Much of what makes the tournament so popular makes the regular season less so. Tranghese cited a lack of alternatives. For all the criticism of football’s Bowl Championship Series, “the value for that has gone through the roof,” Tranghese said, adding: “Why? The regular season is so important. That’s the problem with college basketball.”
When basketball teams finish fifth in major conferences and still advance deep into the N.C.A.A. tournament — or win regular-season titles in midmajor conferences but fail to make the tournament — the value of those thousands of games played from November to February is diminished, and greatly.
…
“College basketball is becoming more difficult to watch,” said Jay Williams, a Duke star turned ESPN analyst. “It’s becoming more difficult for the everyday viewer to follow, with transfers and one-and-done and conference realignment. It’s becoming more difficult for me to follow. Each year, you have to push the reset button.”
The Chronicle of Higher Education published an attendance analysis in March. It found that for about one in every five Division I men’s basketball programs, regular-season attendance dropped by at least 20 percent over the past four seasons. The Pac-12 had a 14 percent decrease since 2009.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“But I don’t think that will be nearly the biggest drawback. Over time I think we’ll see a narrowing of fan interest and media coverage of the sport to primarily the 15 to 20 teams that regularly contend for the playoff. As of now, less prestigious power-conference teams like Northwestern, NC State, Washington State and so on still draw interest on a typical Saturday simply by playing college football. But part of that is they’re playing for something — the best possible bowl.
Within a few years, no one but a team’s own fans will care about who makes the Outback Bowl, and all but the diehards will probably tune out if the teams/games have no playoff ramifications. A mid-November game between two 7-3 teams could become the equivalent of a Week 15 NFL game between two 5-8 teams. It’s unfortunate but probably unavoidable.”
“How is this different from the BCS?”
All the AQ conference champs made the BCS. That meant a lot of games from other parts of the country mattered because your team might play those teams in a major bowl. Now winning your conference means next to nothing. Also, every game impacted the computer ratings so you had to track the opponents of other teams as well. There’s no telling what will impact the committee, so those other games will lose importance.
Now the top four teams according to a committee make the playoff. Nobody outside the top 10 teams matters. ESPN needs to make big money off the playoff, so their coverage will be even more focused on the top teams to the detriment of everyone else.
In addition, the playoff just increases the emphasis on the postseason. CFB was the rare sport where every game in the regular season really mattered. But as the postseason gains in emphasis , the regular season loses its impact.
LikeLike
@ccrider55:
not going to happen. no B1G or Pac-12 school is going to skip a playoff game and go to the Rose Bowl instead.
of course, that sort of highlights the point being made by many that the playoff is changing everything for the worse. the Rose Bowl diminishes in importance simply because it is occasionally a playoff host and because, in other years, it is JUST the Rosebowl. But change happened and there is no turning back the clock.
The OSU/MI game is diminished since, now, there is still one more game to determine who goes to the Rose Bowl — oh, and even that is not true anymore.
As for the more general discussion of how the playoff will impact the regular season, I am not sure.
The CFP is causing higher profile games to be scheduled. See Wainscott’s link below to the Clemson/Auburn game. (Of course, that could be caused, not by the CFP, but by Espin which, owning both the ACC and the SEC, is arranging an unofficial yearly SEC/ACC football challenge … but I digress).
So, on the one hand, I see Mandel’s point. We can add Saban’s recent comments as support for Mandel’s position. Saban essentially said his team played poorly because it wasn’t a NC game.
But on the other hand, fan interest and ratings will surely go up with better games.
I also don’t think it is a real problem that the sport will “focus on the 17-20 teams” that have the resources to compete. In my view, that group is fluid. MI and FL are down and are, for now, replaced by MSU and FSU. FSU was down for awhile. Miami was up for a long time, but has been down for awhile. Penn State and Nebraska were up for awhile, but now down. Stanford was a doormat forever, but now it is “highly respected.” Even ‘Bama was down for a long time.
College football ebbs and flows. It is one of its greatest features.
College basketball is a different story. The tournament, per se, was not the problem; going to 64 was. Once you get a tournament that big, now the regular season is seriously diminished. There are about 320 basketball teams eligible. So, basically, 1 in 5 teams get to the Dance. Regular season is now not so interesting.
If the CFP goes to 8, that will be bad. Really really bad if it goes to 16.
A few other thoughts.
I agree with the idea that ESpin will be pumping, hyping and pimping the CFP and all the teams that ESpin owns. I am NOT convinced that the Selection Committee will be immune to ESpin’s influence.
We are now already talking differently. It used to be “football season” and “bowl games.” Now it is “regular season” and “post-season.” In truth, we now have three seasons: “regular,” “bowl” and “playoffs.”
I hope that the “BCS Bowls” retain their prestige. Someone needs a good name for that group. Probably something as simple as the “Premiere Bowls.” But we will see.
To finish, I will join ccrider55 in hoping for things that will never happen: I hope that, if the CFP turns out to be a bad idea, the B1G and Pac-12 just go back to playing in the Rose Bowl. National Championship trophies are not the end-all-be-all.
LikeLike
The truly best system was that in place in 1970, when Ohio State, Nebraska and Texas all got ranked as the national champion by one survey or another.
Also, men’s basketball was best when both the NCAA and NIT were at 16 teams, and a team could win both, which actually happened at least once.
LikeLike
I actually think there is some merit here as there is an issue here people don’t see.
College football has long been a sport that acts in two ways, 1. as a sport with many leagues and prizes, 2. as a national league with one (or possibly 2) championship crowns.
This duel nature has served it well as #2 has helped get a lot of national attention on teams/races while #1 keeps interest in the rest.
The sport is increasingly emphasizing #2 over #1 though and that if you go to far, that will result in less attention on the secondary prizes and local rivalries. Don’t get me wrong they won’t go away and maybe the CFP doesn’t go far enough to effect this a lot, but I think there is a definite argument that the CFP/realignment will limit a lot of attention that some teams once were better able to get.
LikeLike
Auburn & Clemson schedule a home and home in 2016 (at Auburn) & 2017 (at Clemson):
http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2014/07/auburn_clemson_agree_to_two-ga.html
LikeLike
wow. we fans are getting some good game coming up in the future.
LikeLike
SEC Network carriage update.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/07/charter_communications_finaliz.html#incart_river
LikeLike
So the only major provider not accounted for is DirecTV, or are there others operating within the SEC footprint not on board?
LikeLike
Wainscott – the only big name carriers left are Direct TV and Verizon.
LikeLike
DirecTV is close. So is Suddenlink.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/directv-reportedly-close-to-picking-up-sec-network.html
Earlier this week, DirecTV CEO Mike White talked with investors about the satellite providers quarterly earnings and said the service was close to an agreement for SEC Network.
White said DirecTV has agreed on rates to carry SEC Network and he’s optimistic that it will have it in time for the August 14 launch. As with other providers, it appears the deal to carry SEC Network will be part of a comprehensive deal with Disney that could also bring Longhorn Network to DirecTV’s Sports Pack as well as WatchESPN and WatchABC, two online services which subscribers have been yearning for.
The Houston Chronicle’s David Barron noted that Suddenlink will most likely announce the agreement to pick up SEC Network sometime next week.
LikeLike
bullet – Suddenlink is already on board, as is just about every smaller cable system in America.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/08/walt-disney-company-national-cable-television-cooperative-announce-robust-long-term-distribution-agreement/
Here’s the NCTA’s membership.
https://www.ncta.com/who-we-are/membership
LikeLike
Charter also announced that it will carry the SECN.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/generalsports/9887701-123/charter-signs-on-with-sec
I think that wraps it up 11 days before launch.
LikeLike
@Alan-
NCTC and NCTA are separate and distinct groups.
http://www.nctconline.org/public/about.asp
LikeLike
Actually, most carriers are signing the SEC Network independent of the other ESPN products.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1427689.html
The top 25 playoff contenders, with why they’ll make it and why they won’t.
B10:
3. OSU
10. MSU
14. WI
22. IA
23. NE
25. MI
MI? Really?
SEC:
2. AL
6. AU
7. UGA
9. SC
13. LSU
18. UF
20. MS
21. MO
UF? MS? Really?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11286885/iowa-hawkeyes-offer-free-tuition-boost-football-ticket-sales
IA offering a chance to win free tuition to get students to buy season tickets. They need to offer $8000 to make sales?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24643071/badgers-alvarez-sec-schools-werent-interested-in-home-and-home
AL and LSU refused home and homes with WI, so that’s why WI is playing them at “neutral” sites.
So why aren’t the Tigers coming to Madison, or the Badgers headed to Baton Rouge? Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told the State Journal he asked both LSU and the Crimson Tide for home-and-home series — but was turned down.
“They weren’t interested,” he said of LSU. “They wouldn’t tell you why. They just weren’t interested.”
Intriguingly, Alvarez said he was in the preliminary stages of arranging a future home-and-home with another SEC team — not Bret Bielema’s Arkansas, he was quick to point out — but that those discussions were in the “infant stage.”
LikeLike
Brian – I would have loved to see LSU and Wisconsin play and home and home series. Wisconsin is my favorite B1G team. I think Madison is one of the best college towns I’ve visited and I’ve visited a lot of college towns. I attended a game in Camp Randall and think its a great venue for college football.
LSU has been looking for a partner to play in Houston for quite some time. Houston has the biggest LSU alumni base outside of Louisiana. According to LSU’s associate AD in charge of scheduling, Verge Ausberry, a home and home was never discussed with Wisconsin, but in order to get Wisconsin to agree to the Houston game, LSU had to agree to a Green Bay game.
LikeLike
I just think it’s a shame when games like that are played away from campus. Students deserve the chance to see games like that at home and the local residents deserve to make their money. At least it’s a pair of “neutral” site games that mimics a home and home.
Why not just play a lesser team from TX in Houston, like UH or Rice?
LikeLike
Local residents deserve to make money – what?? Money will be spent regardless of a football game, people will go to the movies instead. No jobs lost from 1 football game. As for the students, why do they deserve anything?
LikeLike
People come from all of the region to go to these games.so revenue is lost by those businesses that surround stadiums including local hotels etc.. It’s a similar argument regarding the bowls. Mid-Westerners supporting local economies in Florida/California etc.. seems a bit backwards to many.
LikeLike
Mark,
“Local residents deserve to make money – what??”
Considering their taxes are supporting the school, they have some reason to expect a good neighbor.
“Money will be spent regardless of a football game, people will go to the movies instead.”
Nobody is driving 400 miles to Columbus to watch a movie. That hurts hotels, restaurants, gas stations, stores selling apparel, local food vendors, etc.
“No jobs lost from 1 football game.”
Not true. Some businesses are dependent on all those games to stay open. They lose money the rest of the year.
“As for the students, why do they deserve anything?”
Because they pay tuition and athletic fees, and because athletics are claimed to be part of the academic experience.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/the-locker/playoff-talk-takes-a-turn-but-in-which-direction.html
Oliver Luck reiterated that the committee will focus on the “best” teams and not the “most deserving” teams.
How does that fit with the supposed emphasis on conference champions? My guess is that it means champ status is relegated to tie-breaking between 2 teams already determined to be among the best.
LikeLike
It’s an interesting concept, as it assumes that one could somehow be “deserving” without being “best”. We all know that those are code words, but someone who parachuted into the discussion, without the background, would wonder why those two are different in anyone’s mind.
It used to be that if you won a conference championship, then you were the best in that conference by definition. The advent of the CCG means that a team can have a mediocre season, and win a championship by winning a weak division and then getting hot (or lucky) on that one Saturday.
Since the committee has to give Independents a shot, since CCGs are not mandatory, since there are more power leagues than playoff spots, and since the committee is required to allow at-large participants, it’s pretty apparent than winning one’s league can be only one of many criteria considered.
I’d say that a tie-breaker among teams otherwise considered approximately equal, is about as much weight as winning one’s conference ought to have.
LikeLike
“The advent of the CCG means that a team can have a mediocre season, and win a championship by winning a weak division and then getting hot (or lucky) on that one Saturday.”
This is true of any single game, including BCS, CFP, CCG, or OOC preseason. We have a “playoff” that begins by discounting the qualifying round (reg season/conference play) as elimination. Why not have the selection committee vote after the semi games, too. You know, just in case that the impression following them is that the best two actually played in one semi? It would be consistent.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It’s an interesting concept, as it assumes that one could somehow be “deserving” without being “best”. We all know that those are code words, but someone who parachuted into the discussion, without the background, would wonder why those two are different in anyone’s mind.”
I think those are two very different things. If the Seahawks suddenly were in the MWC, they’d clearly be the best team in CFB. But their schedule wouldn’t make them the most deserving. That would be the team that ran the table against a tough schedule.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/statistical-summer-college-football-since-2003-part-one.html
The first of a series looking at annual CFB stats since 2003.
LikeLike
ACC chief tackles some of college athletics’ thorniest issues
http://www.orangeandwhite.com/news/2014/jul/24/john-swofford-q-acc-chief-tackles-some-college-ath/
LikeLike
The pre-season Amway coaches poll is out.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/polls/smg-usat/2014/1/
LikeLike
More balanced than we’ve seen recently, it seems like.
SEC (7) – 2, 5, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20
P12 (6) – 4, 7, 11, 15, 18, 25
B10 (4) – 6, 8, 14, 22
B12 (4) – 3, 10, 21, 24
ACC (3) – 1, 16, 23
Other (ND) – 17
Plus 27 more teams receiving votes, if I counted correctly.
LikeLike
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/texas-am-is-the-most-overrated-team-in-the-amway-coaches-poll
Apparently TAMU is the most overrated team in the poll. Miami is the most underrated team not in the poll.
LikeLike
FYI – I’m coming out of my summer slumber to write a Q&A post for next week. Feel free to submit your questions on any topic (CFP, NCAA governance, paying players, realignment, TV rights, etc.) here in the comments or on Twitter.
LikeLike
If the B1G were to add Kansas and Oklahoma do they keep divisions or dispense with them? Under what circumstances would the B1G adopt a 10 game conference schedule? Is a 17 school B1G with UT possible/feasible? If UT wanted membership and a TX partner would Rice be a candidate?
LikeLike
One guys opinion. Let’s check on this prediction later in the season as there is a ton of talent on A&M’s team. Anyone who thinks Kevin Sumlin won’t produce one of the top offenses in the nation doesn’t have a good understanding of his history as a head coach.
LikeLike
Yes, very clearly it is. And not one I necessarily agree with. TAMU has some issues/questions, but so does every team. I don’t see #20 as a ridiculous ranking. I’m not sold on Miami either.
LikeLike
Forbes with its list of America’s top college of 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/
2 | Stanford | Pac12
17 | Notre Dame | ACC
19 | Northwestern | Big Ten
23 | Duke | ACC
36 | Boston College | ACC
37 | California | Pac12
40 | Virginia | ACC
44 | UCLA | Pac12
45 | Michigan | Big Ten
50 | North Carolina | ACC
54 | Vanderbilt | SEC
61 | Wake Forest | ACC
68 | Illinois | Big Ten
70 | Wisconsin | Big Ten
73 | Washington | Pac12
76 | Texas | Big12
78 | Southern Cal | Pac12
82 | Maryland | Big Ten
87 | Florida | SEC
90 | Georgia Tech | ACC
94 | Georgia | SEC
107 | Indiana | Big Ten
108 | Minnesota | Big Ten
117 | Virginia Tech | ACC
118 | Colorado | Pac12
119 | Purdue | Big Ten
128 | Miami | ACC
137 | Texas A&M | SEC
141 | Utah | Pac12
155 | Ohio State | Big Ten
158 | Syracuse | ACC
163 | Clemson | ACC
166 | Penn State | Big Ten
167 | North Carolina State | ACC
169 | Michigan State | Big Ten
177 | Rutgers | Big Ten
186 | South Carolina | SEC
190 | LSU | SEC
192 | Iowa | Big Ten
195 | Baylor | Big12
198 | Pittsburgh | ACC
202 | Oklahoma | Big12
204 | Auburn | SEC
216 | TCU | Big12
226 | Florida State | ACC
230 | Missouri | SEC
235 | Oregon | Pac12
250 | Arizona | Pac12
261 | Iowa State | Big12
280 | Nebraska | Big Ten
292 | Tennessee | SEC
293 | Arkansas | SEC
297 | Kansas | Big12
323 | Oregon State | Pac12
335 | Alabama | SEC
336 | Kentucky | SEC
359 | Mississippi | SEC
362 | Arizona State | Pac12
365 | Mississippi State | SEC
367 | Kansas State | Big12
369 | Oklahoma State | Big12
370 | Washington State | Pac12
402 | Texas Tech | Big12
443 | West Virginia | Big12
548 | Louisville | ACC
LikeLike
Transic_nyc,
“Forbes with its list of America’s top college of 2014.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2014/07/30/ranking-americas-top-colleges-2014/
Methodology:
32.5% post-graduation success (largely based on alumni salary)
25% student satisfaction
25% student loans
10% academic success
7.5% graduation rate
There are a lot of biases built into their system. Coastal workers get paid more to compensate for the COL, so coastal schools get favored. The loans score is impacted significantly by the typical student (rich kids don’t take loans). The academic scores are biased towards elite private schools that can be very picky in admittance and thus a higher percentage of their students can excel.
To see these effects, just look at the top 10:
* All cost at least $55k per year (except Army).
* All are private (except Army).
* All are essentially coastal (Swarthmore is in PA, but in Philly), with 8 in the northeast and 2 in CA.
* The largest (Harvard) has fewer than 11k undergrads. 6 have fewer than 8k total students.
LikeLike
Long threads are great for readers who visit once every few months. If you skim the entire thread you get an interesting picture. I did want to respond to this post since it is an important issue and the analysis really goes in the wrong direction.
Anyway, Brian, your response to the Forbes ranking is off base since the main drivers: ACT/SAT scores and career placement go hand-in-hand — and not in the direction that many, including myself, wish.
1. ” Coastal workers get paid more to compensate for the COL, so coastal schools get favored.”
This assumes that graduates of “coastal” schools compete in a regional labor market where differences in the cost of living distorts the fact that graduates of top 20 schools and top 200 schools land essentially the same jobs — more false than true, Brian.
I-Banking, Top Tier Consulting, and Top Tier Tech jobs are national markets. Undergraduates from the top 200 schools — apply for these jobs — simply a much smaller number and therefore percentage of graduates from these schools land those highly coveted jobs. Therefore it is not a COL effect but a composition effect — more higher paying jobs, sought by everyone, are on the coasts, more top 20 grads secure these jobs, therefore, more people seek admission to top 20 schools and therefore the top 20 schools have increasingly used ACT/SAT Scores as to primary criterion for admission.
2. “The academic scores are biased towards elite private schools that can be very picky in admittance and thus a higher percentage of their students can excel.” The scores index is not “biased” — it reflects a sad truth that has worried me for a decade — the trend line for ACT and SAT 25-75 splits for domestic US students has dropped significantly for the public schools. Recruiting international students (who are not easily placed in the US upon graduation) with higher scores has masked this problem but now the international market is smarter about this “bait and switch.”
Big 10 schools need to be “very picky” in who they admit. Otherwise, they admit students who cannot be placed into top tier jobs upon graduation — note my response to #1.
3. “The loans score is impacted significantly by the typical student (rich kids don’t take loans).” I think your bias is showing — not Forbes. One reason why the top 20 schools are significantly more selective than the top 200 is that these schools will promise that no student who is admitted is turned away due to financial pressure. This is a claim that is difficult to verify. But, if you take the ACT and SAT factor into consideration, the lower student loan balance for students in top 20 schools is better explained not by the financial health of the family but the fact that a great percentage of students report academic performance that allows them to be admitted into schools that can waive tuition as needed — which is why these schools are “very picky” in whom they select and tend to focus on ACT and SAT scores and since they are picky, upon graduation these students secure higher paying jobs that are sought by graduating students from around the world. Finally, if the top 20 schools closed immediately, the vast majority of their students would receive full rides to top 200 schools.
The Big 10 needs to change the profile the students they admit into the bottom quartile. If they cut 1000 students per year, their rankings would stop declining.
LikeLike
“The Big 10 needs to change the profile the students they admit into the bottom quartile. If they cut 1000 students per year, their rankings would stop declining.”
Because that is what large, State Universities are created to do?
LikeLike
rich2,
“This assumes that graduates of “coastal” schools compete in a regional labor market where differences in the cost of living distorts the fact that graduates of top 20 schools and top 200 schools land essentially the same jobs — more false than true, Brian.”
No, it isn’t. Map the alumni of schools and you’ll see the tendency towards staying local. Sure, plenty of people move around, but the numbers favor getting hired somewhat locally.
Are there more coastal jobs? Are there more coastal schools? Are there more coastal residents? Do coastal jobs pay more in part because it’s more expensive to live there?
Yes to all of those.
“The scores index is not “biased””
Yes, it is. Any single statistic chosen to discriminate between individuals (people, schools, etc) is biased. That choice of statistic determines the result. When you normalize data based on total enrollment, you bias the result toward smaller schools. That’s how math works. Add in the fact that the role of state schools is to serve a broader segment of the population, and the choice is also biased towards private schools.
Another example is that they used 4 year graduation rate. That favors students who arrive with credits and/or don’t choose a STEM major. So a highly selective private liberal arts school is automatically going to look a lot better than a large state school with a lot of STEM students. The stat determines the outcome. Is a 4 year history degree better than a 5 year biomedical engineering degree?
“I think your bias is showing — not Forbes.”
Rich kids don’t take out loans and state schools don’t get as high a percentage of rich kids. I fail to see what’s controversial about that.
They show the percentage of students on financial aid. A $60k a year school like Harvard has a lower percentage on financial aid (77%) than a much cheaper state school ($29k and 91% for Cleveland State, for example). That’s a lot higher percentage that can afford twice as much in tuition at Harvard.
Then add in the endowment that a private school may have that allows them to give free rides to poor kids. State schools also can’t match that, so they end up with a lot more students taking out loans.
You should probably note that biased statistical choices aren’t always wrong choices. However, “best” is a nebulous concept and their choices biased their results.
Is the Military Academy one of the 10 best schools in the country? Is Pomona College? It really depends on what you think “best” means in this case.
LikeLike
And to be clear, I’m aware private school alumni are much more spread out than state school alumni. In large part that’s because the students come from a wider area. But even privates have more locals.
https://www.cappex.com/colleges/Northwestern-University/your-fit#heatMap
Take NW:
IL – 26%
NY and CA – 8%
International – 7%
No other state tops 5%. Adjust for population of each state and clearly IL stands out even more.
And also, many of these measures seem to evaluate the student body more than the school. A school that starts with “better” students should produce “better” graduates. A school that has more motivated students should produce “better” graduates. A school with fewer students burdened by outside distractions like jobs and families should produce “better” graduates. Does that make the school better?
LikeLike
Are there any public colleges ranked above Berkeley?
LikeLike
If you count Army, Navy, and Air Force Acadamys as public, then there are three.
LikeLike
Cornell has public components.
LikeLike
Wow! Missouri is really dragging down the SEC, academically.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/coaches-at-penn-state-and-pitt-trying-to-reignite-the-rivalry/
The coaches at PSU and Pitt both want to renew the annual rivalry. Pitt’s coach even prefers PSU to WV if he can only bring back 1 rivalry.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/07/28/group-five-cinderella-college-football-playoff
Is Cinderella dead in CFB?
LikeLike
http://online.wsj.com/articles/colleges-may-seek-antitrust-exemption-for-ncaa-1406741252
We knew this was eventually around the corner.
Universities with big-budget sports programs may ask Congress to give the NCAA an antitrust exemption should a federal court rule that it is illegal to forbid college athletes from making money, people familiar with the plans said.
Major college conferences and NCAA officials are discussing whether to seek the exemption as a way to ward off a multi-front attack on the organization’s founding principle of athletic amateurism—an ideal that critics say is obsolete when it comes to the money-making sports of college football and men’s basketball.
Such a request would be a last-ditch effort for schools given the significant hurdles to winning over lawmakers, the people said. A nearly century-old antitrust exemption for Major League Baseball has long been under attack, and the NCAA has recently faced criticism on Capitol Hill for issues ranging from player safety to the role of athletic departments in dealing with sexual assaults on campus.
NCAA president Mark Emmert acknowledged the discussions about an exemption and said he could envision winning political support for such a move.
An end to amateurism “would be the end of college sports as we know it,” Emmert said in a recent interview. “There is strong interest in the American populace to preserve this and anything that destroys it would be met with great resistance.”
LikeLike
No chance in the current political environment. They can barely keep the government open, nobody is wasting political capital to help the NCAA
LikeLike
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/07/30/follow-money-realignment
The Big East leads in the profits made in basketball, at $154,122,296, followed by the Big Ten and ACC.
Big East | $154,122,296
Big Ten | $138,054,933
ACC | $133,479,911
SEC | $124,636,534
Big 12 | $105,706,308
Pac 12 | $80,129,005
Statistic Brain calculated the conference profits listed above after the NCAA basketball tournament, which showed the Big East as the most profitable basketball conference after the debut of Fox Sports 1 (as reflected in the numbers on the table above).
LikeLike
Now that I read that again I think the writer got confused by the way the data was presented in Statistic Brain. Only men’s basketball revenues is listed but the column on the left is named “Most Profitable Basketball Conferences”
Just to be on the safe side, I’m going to assume it is revenues, not profits.
LikeLike
It’s unclear how they reached those numbers. They mentioned subtracting the required Title IX balancing sports, but they also said WBB is basically breakeven (not true). They also used next year’s alignment.
I used the data cutter tool from the DOE to look at 2012 numbers for the 12 B10 teams combined:
CFB: R = $551.4M, E = $262.6M, P = $288.8M
MBB: R = $176.1M, E = $82.2M, P = $93.9M
WBB: R = $11.9M, E = $40.1M, P = -$28.1M
Other: R = $107.5M, E = $280.6M, P = -$173.1M
All Sports: R = $847.0M, E = $665.6M, P = $181.4M
Not Allocated: R = $304.1M, E = $419.3M, P = -$115.2M
Total: R = $1.15B, E = $1.09B, P ~ $60M
LikeLike
For comparison, here’s the SEC:
(R = revenue, E = expenses, P = profit)
CFB: R = $759.3M, E = $353.9M, P = $405.4M
MBB: R = $156.3M, E = $96.7M, P = $59.6M
WBB: R = $23.4M, E = $51.5M, P = -$28.1M
Other: R = $97.3M, E = $250.1M, P = -$152.8M
All Sports: R = $1036.4M, E = $752.6M, P = $283.8M
Not Allocated: R = $280.8M, E = $482.4M, P = -$201.6M
Total: R = $1.32B, E = $1.23B, P = $82.2M
The SEC profits more on FB and loses less on other sports (they play fewer of them). They lose a lot more on non-allocated expenses, though, so much of this may be accounting games.
Once you correct for conference size, the net result is pretty similar:
B10 – total P = $66.2M = $5.52M per school
SEC – total P = $82.2M = $5.87M per school
LikeLike
So Ferentz said that he thinks a 10 game conference schedule will eventually come to the Big Ten. Maybe for your next post Frank, what are your thoughts on this?
Financially, it just seems like it would never work. The top schools (Nebraska, Michigan, OSU, PSU) in ticket sales would be losing a lot to give up one of their guaranteed home games. Wouldn’t this also diminish the quality of the remaining two OOC games? I see how it would boost the value of the TV package by increasing the inventory of conference games, but I am not sure the SOS boost is enough to merit the change (even though I am a fan of seeing other Big Ten teams more).
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/31/kirk-ferentz-says-10-game-conference-schedules-are-coming/
LikeLike
IMO, a 10 game conference slate will come in around the same time that the NCAA permits a 13 game regular season, precisely for some of the reasons you outlined.
LikeLike
I think with the Paul George injury the “too many games” issue may have to be taken into consideration when debating whether to increase the number of games in a season. If the CFP expands to 8 teams then that 13th game may not make any sense.
LikeLike
Paul George’s injury will have no bearing on anything.
CFB players have suffered major injuries in bowl games, and yet more bowl games and championship games are created.
LikeLike
Ross,
I think it would work financially. The TV package would increase with the greater inventory during the season (70 B10 games vs 63), meaning better selections and more BTN games. On the other hand, you lose 14 OOC games (some wouldn’t be at home anyway, so call it 10 lost and TV can’t control their quality). The big boys could still get 7 home games if they buy 2 games, but they’d likely move to more neutral site games (1 paycheck game and 1 neutral site each year = 6 home games/year but more total money).
I believe people have overstated the problems with playing 9 conference games. Since the whole division is in the same boat, there is no competitive advantage for anyone. IA suffers in variety since ISU makes 10 locked games for them (leaving only 2 flexible games OOC), but it’s hardly like ISU is an elite opponent. What’s the difference between playing 9 B10 games and 1 P5 OOC game versus 10 B10 games in terms of difficulty or the number of home games? Either way you are likely to get 2 weak OOC games or only have 6 home games.
The only significant difference I see is that 9 games lets you play a marquee OOC game while still having 7 home games. With 10 games, the AD has to choose between 7 home games and playing a marquee OOC game. That increased variety and national interest is valuable, especially for a playoff contender, but a home game also has a lot of value to the school and the community.
LikeLike
So as an AD at those bigger schools, is the larger TV package worth losing the ability to have 7 home games in addition to a marquee OOC game every year?
As a fan, it would be disappointing to see games between P5 conferences diminish because conferences are playing 10 games. Would also seem like you get less of a barometer of where conferences fall relative to one another.
LikeLike
Ross,
“So as an AD at those bigger schools, is the larger TV package worth losing the ability to have 7 home games in addition to a marquee OOC game every year?”
I wouldn’t think so, especially not now with the playoff money about to start coming. Add in the big jump the B10 is expecting from the tier 1 deal, and I don’t see a financial imperative. They might go along to help the smaller schools, but I don’t think it’s good for the big boys. IA will oppose it for obvious reasons.
So to me, the question is whether it’s helpful enough to the 7 smaller schools that they can talk the bigger ones into agreeing.
“As a fan, it would be disappointing to see games between P5 conferences diminish because conferences are playing 10 games.”
Yes, it would. But I really do think the neutral site games would pick up much of the slack. So it’s really home games that would be lost more than marquee games.
“Would also seem like you get less of a barometer of where conferences fall relative to one another.”
Yes, it would make the committee’s job much harder.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/08/niu-and-maryland-schedule-2020-21-football-series/
Northern Illinois will travel to face Maryland at Byrd Stadium in College Park on Sept. 12, 2020. The Huskies will then host the Terps at Huskie Stadium in Dekalb on Sept. 25, 2021.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/2014/your-favorite-college-football-team-based-on-where-you-live.html
Your favorite CFB team based on where you live. It’s not super accurate, but some of the state splits are interesting.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for most of these states, but Kentucky is definitely incorrect. The vast majority of the state is UK fans; there are many even in Louisville. The UK/UL plots should be flipped (a ring around Louisville with the rest being UK). I am surprised by Michigan as well. Michigan fans certainly outnumber MSU, but I think it’s a more even split.
LikeLike
As a follow-up, it says this was based on 2700 responses, meaning the average is 54 responses per state (though there are invariably some very large differences in the number who responded in each state). Plotting an entire state’s fandom by geography on roughly 50 people’s responses seems…inaccurate.
LikeLike
Georgia, Florida and Texas are pretty ridiculous too. I don’t know California that well, but it doesn’t make sense either.
LikeLike
Texas looks just about right to me.
LikeLike
Even if you think the Aggies dominate east and south Texas, do you really think Tech dominates west of I-35?
LikeLike
Well, I guess the circle around Austin could be smaller. A&M pulled huge ratings in Austin so maybe just a circle around the 40 acres would be accurate.
LikeLike
On an expansion related note, if the Big Ten could have its top two picks out of the Big 12 vs. its top two picks out of the ACC, which would it choose/which would be more valuable?
Let’s say that it comes down to OU/Texas (granted, OU is academically weak, but I would say it is still overall the next most valuable/desirable school in the Big 12 after Texas) and UVA/UNC. The ACC block gets you stronger east cost exposure, though I am not sure to what extent it would help with the NY strategy. The DC corridor would benefit, and you would likely lock down the Mid-Atlantic. Finally, the academia would certainly support this pair over the Big 12 pair.
On the flip side, Texas is obviously a behemoth, and OU is another football king. They present issues such as travel and raise the question of whether you can have too many kings in one conference (at some point your kings in Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Texas, and OU are taking a lot of losses against one another). In addition, you have to wonder if there would be tension between the kings and if a school like Texas would constantly be looking to reestablish something like the LHN. They also don’t really do much for the east coast strategy, though I imagine the Big Ten would be fine with that if it meant grabbing Texas.
I am not sure which way the Big 10 would lean. I think the Big 12 pair is more valuable, but I think the ACC pair is more palatable.
LikeLike
Taking one more football power would be the move. However, two more football powers may end up hurting the football powers already in the B1G. Therefore, taking a Kansas may have a lot more value as a program that gives the other powers a win in most games plus having a basketball power to buttress the BTN ratings. Now it could be KU and OU or it could be KU and UT. However, the LHN likely rules out Texas. Since Disney’s favorite network is very likely to keep UT under its wing, I could see Texas taking a ND-type deal with the ACC down the road, with maybe TCU and Baylor being brought along for the ride in order for the ACC to have a real presence in the state of Texas.
Should Texas go off the board I could see Delany and athletic directors force the academics to hold their nose and go for the KU/OU combo to get the best remaining B12 programs before the SEC does, as the ACC would then be strengthened and the B1G would be at an athletic disadvantage that they may not recover from. This is all about money and power and preventing the SEC from having too much of an athletic advantage.
OU, KU, NE, IA, MN, WI, IL, NU
Reunites the two traditional powers of the Big 8 and gives the B1G an in to the DFW/Texahoma market that is rabid about football. Also gives that division a lot more balance to the Eastern powers.
PU, IU, RU, UMCP, PSU, MSU, OSU, UM
Purdue goes to the East, where it would balance out the non-powers and the powers. Purdue has had good teams in the past, so it won’t be a patsy all of the time. Plus, having access to East Coast recruiting areas would help them tremendously.
LikeLike
I don’t think OU would part from both Texas and OSU. Big 10 money/security and a Nebraska reunion would make it tempting, but I think the ties to Texas (rivalry, recruiting) and OSU (rivalry, political) would make it pretty hard for them to leave both behind.
LikeLike
“Should Texas go off the board I could see Delany and athletic directors force the academics to hold their nose and go for the KU/OU combo…”
Should UT go off the board it would likely be with OU.
The B1G wouldn’t take the OU/UT combo before. Why would they wait til the strongest piece is gone to accept a weaker partner to accompany their previously objectionable applicant?
LikeLike
“The B1G wouldn’t take the OU/UT combo before. Why would they wait til the strongest piece is gone to accept a weaker partner to accompany their previously objectionable applicant?”
They didn’t even have Nebraska yet. So to think they could jump over hundreds of miles of territory to get to OU/UT was unrealistic in those days. They could also have a couple of states between them but passed. I think the SEC taking in A&M may have changed some thinking, although I can’t guarantee that. Should the SEC take OU, assuming OU gets a scheduling agreement with UT once UT goes to the ACC, then the SEC/ACC would essentially block the Big Ten from taking any southerly direction, as UT to ACC would give the ACC an improved bowl lineup and financial position that they would have strength to resist any temptation from SEC/B1G.
This is why Kansas may become a critical piece in the puzzle. In the last Realignment Chaos, KU, OU and in some respects UT have gotten closer. Yes, OU and UT have had a critical partnership for years but they’ve had that partnership before UT joined the Big 8. If it becomes necessary then those two could go their own ways, scheduling the RRR as they’ve done before. So with that factor taken care of, then any partition of that three-way partnership could take two courses (I’ve come to now believe that the PAC may no longer hold any possibility, as Dodds has said that they’d look East if they were to change conferences in the future). Whereas before neither cared about who the other took in as it didn’t affect them directly, it would become a competition between the SEC and B1G over who gets the remaining strong piece. Get Kansas and you get the best chance at drawing in Oklahoma. If the SEC gets Kansas they get a strong basketball program that buttresses the SECN, reuniting them with Missouri. The SECN gets a stronger presence in the Midwest. The western flank of the B1G not only loses its buffer between them and the SEC but the B1G is essentially locked into the northern states, which forces the B1G to depend more on the Eastern markets. With OU and KU, the B1G has a pipeline to draw in talent from Texahoma, even though the two states themselves have small populations, easing the stress on both the Western division and Eastern division.
The other possibility is UT and KU. That one may be acceptable to academic elites and sports fanatics alike. However, is the B1G willing to compromise on the LHN to make that move possible?
In the end, I could see why the bigwigs at Chicago may not want to risk ripping the B12 apart.
LikeLike
Dodds also said ND would possibly join the B12.
Look, as long as the B12 is adequate for UT they’ll stay. If not, they’ll go where they can take friends and relatives. Assuming they did decide they wanted to move, the big impediment is ESPN has near veto power as to what they can do until the LHN contract expires. And I don’t see either the B1G or PAC doing a special deal for any school, ND included.
LikeLike
Transic_nyc,
“Taking one more football power would be the move. However, two more football powers may end up hurting the football powers already in the B1G.”
I don’t think so. The SEC does fine with 7 big brands in a 14 team league. Some are down in any given year but others are up. And by human nature, any team that beats several other brand names is viewed as a very good team even if all those brands were down.
Besides, the kings wouldn’t play each other all that often in crossover games:
9 games with 16 teams = 7 division games + 2 crossover games
for a western king: 2 games * 3 kings / 8 eastern teams = 0.75 crossover king games per year
That’s 2.75 total king games per year.
OSU in current alignment: 2 in division + 3 games * 1 king / 7 western teams = 2.43 king games per year
That’s essentially 1 extra king game every 3 years.
“Now it could be KU and OU”
No, based on academics.
“However, the LHN likely rules out Texas.”
More than the GoRs rule out any of these teams? It’s a hypothetical of all teams being available.
“Should Texas go off the board I could see Delany and athletic directors force the academics to hold their nose and go for the KU/OU combo”
The ADs have zero power to force the presidents to do anything. They listen to Delany, but he can’t force them either.
“to get the best remaining B12 programs before the SEC does, as the ACC would then be strengthened”
You’re assuming the ACC gets stronger because the SEC raids the B12? That would just increase the gap from the SEC to the ACC, making them potentially more vulnerable to an SEC raid. Or are you assuming 16 is some impenetrable barrier of size?
LikeLike
Ross,
“On an expansion related note, if the Big Ten could have its top two picks out of the Big 12 vs. its top two picks out of the ACC, which would it choose/which would be more valuable?”
I guess we’re assuming the B10 wants to expand. This is a hypothetical where everyone is available and willing and will play nice, correct?
That’s really four separate questions:
1. Who would the COP/C choose?
It would be UT/KU vs UVA/UNC, I think. Taking the ACC pair would be more coherent with the eastern push, but I don’t think they would say no to UT and that population base.
2. Who would Delany choose?
It would be UT/OU vs UVA/UNC. He’d take the B12 pair for the money and the football.
3. Who would the ADs choose?
Same as Delany, I think
4. Who would the fans choose?
Same as Delany, I think
“On the flip side, Texas is obviously a behemoth, and OU is another football king. They present issues such as travel and raise the question of whether you can have too many kings in one conference (at some point your kings in Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Texas, and OU are taking a lot of losses against one another).”
Competition makes you better. Look at how it’s worked for the SEC. As one or two major brands are down, others step up. The B10 has 4 kings but only 1 that’s been playing like one lately. Besides, it would provide much needed balance to the divisions, with 3 kings and at least 1 prince on each side. The media would give both sides lots of attention. It would also help the western teams and schools in recruiting.
“In addition, you have to wonder if there would be tension between the kings”
The current 4 get along just fine. I think OU would be fine. The only question is UT, and I think they’d be just fine too. They would be surrounded by peers that wouldn’t take any crap from them. Besides, they wouldn’t have the leverage of a large number of dependent schools that would always back them.
“and if a school like Texas would constantly be looking to reestablish something like the LHN.”
They want money and exposure, just like everyone else. If the B10 offered a better alternative, they’d be fine with that. I’d let them keep it but without exclusive rights to events. The BTN can’t carry all the non-revenue sports events already. Letting LHN show the worst of UT hoops games isn’t a problem either. Just let BTN simulcast the football game.
“They also don’t really do much for the east coast strategy, though I imagine the Big Ten would be fine with that if it meant grabbing Texas.”
The plan was to improve demographics in the footprint and get PSU some partners. Part 2 is accomplished (UVA and UNC aren’t tied to PSU at all) and TX does wonders for demographics.
“I am not sure which way the Big 10 would lean. I think the Big 12 pair is more valuable, but I think the ACC pair is more palatable.”
I think the COP/C would take UT/KU (both AAU, both kings, essentially contiguous with the footprint) unless they fear the consequence of driving OU and maybe even UNC into the SEC and/or they want to hurt the ACC and save the B12.
LikeLike
On an expansion related note, if the Big Ten could have its top two picks out of the Big 12 vs. its top two picks out of the ACC, which would it choose/which would be more valuable?
If the Big Ten sticks with its stated strategy and past behavior, it would take UVA/UNC. This is consistent with its oft-repeated policy of maintaining a contiguous footprint and admitting only AAU schools. It also gets them into the part of the country that they covet the most.
I assume the Big Ten wouldn’t even consider Texas unless it joined on the same equal footing as every other full member, which means the LHN is either disbanded or folded into the Big Ten network somehow. I am not suggesting that Texas and/or ESPN would ever agree to do this; only stating that if Texas gets to keep its own network, then it’s not a candidate, no matter who the second school might be.
Assuming Texas is available on those terms, I personally think that them plus either Oklahoma or Kansas is better for the Big Ten than the UVA/UNC pairing. If you take Texas plus Kansas, you’re getting the single biggest White Whale out there, and on top of that, a basketball school that’s every bit as much of a blue-blood as UNC. Both are AAU.
If it comes to such a choice, then you’d need to figure out what you think the next steps would be, as clearly there is no Big XII as we’ve known it without Texas, nor is there an ACC without UVA and UNC. If such a move is imminent, then you’ve got to work out your best guess of the next few moves that would get made, and decide which world you want to be in.
(Of course, all this assumes that all these schools would willingly separate from their in-state sister schools, which they might not.)
LikeLike
Its an interesting scenario. As a business venture, the BIG would be way better off taking Texas and OU. As another poster stated, that gives you 3 kings and a prince in each Divsion. More important 6 of the top 10 teams of all time (PSU included without vacating 112 wins due to the scandal). So irregardless of the BTN subscriber boost, which would be significant, the Tier 1 increase would be huge. The BIG could actually take a page out of the NFL and sell each divisions tier 1 separately much like the NFC and AFC is sold. Espn/ABC could get PSU, OSU, Michigan, and MSU games plus home field crossovers, while Fox gets Texas, OU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin with the other crossovers. The windfalls would be huge.
Breaking it down further: you would have 6 division games between the 4 top schools each season in a 9 game schedule with 7 Divsion games plus 2 crossovers. Out of the 2 crossovers, you could schedule it so each of the top 4 teams would play at least one of the other top 4 in the other division plus a 2nd tier school. So 4 big games spit between west and east home field. So that would give each network 8 marquee games between traditional powers out of a 12 game season. No other conference could match that. The profits would be so great I would think the snooty presidents could swallow hard and take OU.
UNC/UVA doesn’t provide near the money making opportunity but would satisfy the academic elites.
The Texas/OU adds would be beyond a home run. It is so obvious, I would think the powers that be in the BIG would have already thought about it.
LikeLike
The powers that be are chancellors and presidents of educational systems, of which the athletic component makes up 5-10% of the overall budget. They aren’t owners of pro sports teams, and act differently in many ways.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s any evidence that the Big Ten passed on any Texas/Oklahoma combo (or any combo that involved Texas). In fact, if the Big Ten actually did have the opportunity to add both Texas and Oklahoma alone (meaning that they didn’t also have to take Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, etc.) and passed on it, then that would have been a *MONUMENTAL* blunder. AAU membership is significant to the Big Ten, but the leaders aren’t that obtuse to pass on a UT/OU combo. Heck, I think the Big Ten would jump at a Kansas/Oklahoma combo right now (much less one with Texas involved). The big issue for the Big Ten with those schools has been much more about political pressure to take their in-state little brothers, which wouldn’t be acceptable.
LikeLike
Well back around 1989 when Texas was looking and interested they told them they wouldn’t expand. No indication of anything since the Big 12 started.
LikeLike
Does the “UT has a Tech problem” email ring a bell?
LikeLike
FtT:
Correct officially, but as you know a school rarely continue a process when it’s been made plain chances of success are rated low by those who’d decide. I shouldn’t have stated it as I did. I don’t think the pair alone have explored without sibling. The rumor I heard quite a while ago (from a recently retired PAC administrator…damn, I sound like Andy) was OU was politely told OkSU was not their impediment. Point is unless some amazing improvement occurs in western non P5 schools boosting their desirability, UT/OU don’t have to abandon their siblings. The PAC may be happy at 12, but they’d be richer at 16, and they remain the only one to offer that brothers too option, as a group of four.
LikeLike
Well Frank is saying they didn’t pass on UT or any combo. I don’t think that e-mail is an indication the interest was as strong as it was in 1989. That sounded more like a general discussion.
LikeLike
Interest from which side? Wasn’t ’89 pre SWC collapse? 2010 was in the midst of the near dismantling of B12 and UT considering the P16 proposal.
I agree there was never an official “pass”. Rarely is an offer/application actually made unless acceptance is guaranteed, especially where kings and power conferences are concerned. The PAC supposedly “passed” on OU/OkSU, but officially they were happy at 12 and weren’t actively looking to expand further at that time. Nothing requested, offered, or declined (officially).
LikeLike
Texas and Texas A&M were planning on leaving in 1989. Texas president talked several times with the Big 10, but was told they weren’t expanding for several years. Then the plan was Texas to Pac 10 and A&M to SEC. That was basically set, with informal approval from the Texas board, but Stanford unexpectedly voted no and the Pac had to be unanimous. So Arkansas left for the SEC and Texas and Texas A&M stayed.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jeremy-fowler/24646950/why-big-ten-network-prez-is-always-ready-for-future-expansion
Yes, something could happen, even though it can’t happen so soon, but let’s be ready for something to happen in case it happens.
Or something like that.
LikeLike
Fowler has some interesting numbers on the SEC Network: “The SEC has surpassed even internal expectations with distribution of the SEC Network, which launches Aug. 14.
The league already has a reported 60 million homes locked up and will expand that number once it secures a deal with DirecTV, which looks promising. No way DirecTV passes on the Disney/ABC behemoth. If SEC Net hits the $600-million mark off subscriptions and the conference/ESPN split is 50/50, which has been speculated, that’s a mammoth haul for the league, though one side must cover tens of millions in operating costs (ESPN might take that off the top).”
SECN is an unqualified instant success.
Assume $40M in costs, leaving $560M to distribute. That’s $280M to the schools (and yes, I chose the number for ease of math). So, $20M to the Schools from the SECN the very first year. And that is just subscriber fees. Once the advertizing revenue starts flowing in, the SEC is going to be awash in $$$.
They are getting about $30M now, add $20M and let’s say $10M in ad revenue by 2020, that’s $60M per school.
So, if each SEC school is bringing in $60M a year, could they pry loose UNC and Duke?
How much money does it take to lure UNC and/Duke?
How much money is too much money for the GoRs to no longer be barriers?
LikeLike
What about taxes? This is an ESPN owned entity. I would imagine the entity would pay some sort of tax and the profit-split with the SEC would likely be after-tax. Curious how the BTN works when it comes to taxes.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
If SEC Net hits the $600-million mark off subscriptions and the conference/ESPN split is 50/50, which has been speculated, that’s a mammoth haul for the league, though one side must cover tens of millions in operating costs (ESPN might take that off the top).
That’s a huge assumption. The B10 averages $0.37 per subscriber. The SECN is charging more, but the writer forgot how many people will pay an out-of-footprint rate. The SECN is rumored to have asked $1.30/mo versus the BTN’s $1/mo.
1.3*.37 = SECN average rate
Revenue = rate * subscribers * 12 months = 1.3*0.37*60*12 = $350M
Call it $360M to allow for some future growth (and easy math later). That’s a conservative number to work with. To get to $600M you have to assume almost twice the percentage of in-footprint subscribers for the SECN.
“Assume $40M in costs, leaving $560M to distribute.”
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/illini/big-ten-network-had-record-revenue-in/article_e05a998c-a390-11e1-99b2-001a4bcf6878.html
In this article I linked again recently, the BTN reported $240M in revenue and $80M in profits. Assuming they mean profit for the B10 (the rest of their math seemed to indicate that), that means $80M in expenses. The P12N had roughly $80M in expenses in year 1 (not including start-up expenses). Why would the SECN be so much cheaper to operate?
360 – 80 = 280
That’s $280M revenue total, not to the schools. That becomes $140M to the schools or $10M per school.
Every $28M more in total revenue equals $1M more per school:
$378M = $11M per school
$406M = $12M
$434M = $13M
$462M = $14M
$490M = $15M (40% increase in total revenue for the network)
etc
“They are getting about $30M now, add $20M and let’s say $10M in ad revenue by 2020, that’s $60M per school.”
1. The SEC paid out more like $22M this year.
2. Add $10M – 15M as a more realistic estimate to start with.
3. BTN generated $30M in total ad revenue in 2011 (23% growth from 2010). Even at 23% annual growth that’s only $56M now. That would project to $193M if 23% growth was maintained. You’re projecting $280M in ad revenue by 2020? $140M might be high, and remember to split it with ESPN.
22+10+5 = $37M
Allow for some growth beyond my estimates, and you’re still in the $40-45M range.
“So, if each SEC school is bringing in $60M a year, could they pry loose UNC and Duke?”
Maybe, but I doubt money is sufficient. They have to want to go, and money is no object for Duke.
“How much money does it take to lure UNC and/Duke?”
Nobody knows.
“How much money is too much money for the GoRs to no longer be barriers?”
There is no reasonable amount of money worth breaking not having TV rights for a year or more. You need to have a lawyer break the GoR or reach a settlement that will get your rights back.
LikeLike
I have a question. If schools start making a lot of tier 3 network programing, wouldn’t that lead schools to start questioning the value of the tier 1 and 2 contracts?
LikeLike
No, it would cause cable operators and customers to question the value of the networks.
LikeLike
Gailikk,
“I have a question. If schools start making a lot of tier 3 network programing, wouldn’t that lead schools to start questioning the value of the tier 1 and 2 contracts?”
They constantly question what they’re getting paid for those deals. Look at the big jumps you see every time a conference signs a new deal. Or look at what ESPN volunteered to pay for the playoff. College sports have been seriously undervalued for a long time and the TV money still hasn’t caught up to their current value.
LikeLike
There have been reports that $1.40 is the rate for SEC states. I think that was the rate Comcast agreed to per media reports. As for expenses, the SEC Network is utilizing ESPN,s existing broadcast facilities in Charlotte so that is likely holding down costs.
LikeLike
Forgot to skip CBS links. I really don’t want to see an ad for their Big Brother show (or whatever it is).
LikeLike
Not sure if this is already posted here. Gene Smith on why expansion happened.
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/27/ohio-state-ad-big-ten-conference-expansion-rutgers-maryland-is-about-money/
“From a business point of view, it makes huge sense,” Smith told Jones. “This is a business deal. This is about money. Everybody wants to dodge that; I don’t. It’s about the stability of our conference for the long term.”
Smith looks at these moves as a way to adjust to the changing landscape of college football and the United States’ shifting population.
“It provides a new geography for us to have a presence in, for a number of reasons: television, recruiting, (and) providing Penn State with some geographical partners,” Smith stated. “The reality is, growth was inevitable for intercollegiate athletic conferences. We needed to be part of that.
“As far as the shifting population, that is reason enough by itself to look at the concept of expansion.”
LikeLike
“You’ve got to be prepared,” Silverman said. “We’re always kind of, not so much just expansion either — there are a lot of things on the TV industry, the cable bundle, people talk about a la carte. You always have to be evaluating various different potential changes to your business model. We’re always kind of looking at what happens if this, what happens if this. Expansion plays a little part in that but it’s really more. Where are we going to be in 2020? What is the network look like? How are people going to be watching games?”
LikeLike
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/02/4269092/checkbooks-and-balances-budgets.html?sp=/99/1444/1649/
Article argues that there may be trouble on the horizon for FCS schools.
With fewer open dates on their schedules and the CFP system discouraging cupcake games, major football powers are shying away from scheduling undermanned Football Championship Subdivision schools.
FCS coaches have long been wary of sacrificing potential wins and player safety in the mismatches, but the payouts associated with so-called “guarantee games” have been crucial to balancing entire athletic departments’ budgets.
Now coaches at FCS-level programs this year worry about how their teams will handle the competition, but they also worry they might not have an FCS team in a few years.
While the FCS teeters on a financial cliff, smaller FBS schools in conferences such as Conference USA and the Sun Belt Conference totter, watching their power rise.
For agreeing to travel to Indiana in 2015, FIU got the Hoosiers to come to Miami in 2016 and give the Panthers $800,000. FIU athletic director Pete Garcia said he had never heard of a school getting that kind of deal before.
Other small FBS schools are agreeing to “guarantee games” with the top teams that no longer want to line up FCS schools, and they are getting paid more than ever before, with payouts reaching $1.5 million.
The big boys causing change are coping with it too. If trends continue, cliques could emerge within major conferences as schools with larger budgets are able to pay to have more home games than relatively cash-strapped peers.
Florida will play all four of its 2015 nonconference games at home by paying New Mexico State, East Carolina, and Florida Atlantic $3.75 million combined.
However, Miami has to travel to Florida Atlantic and Cincinnati.
Florida — the birthplace of the “body bag game” term in 1987 when Emmitt Smith’s Gators hosted Cal State Fullerton, and won 65-0 — is now home to schools of all sizes contorting toward a new paradigm.
The balance of power in college football will follow the money. It might take competitive balance with it.
LikeLike
Larry Scott on Pac 12 network:
For the major conference networks, the trick is persuading cable and satellite carriers to add their channels.
As the oldest of the group, the Big Ten is available in 90 million homes throughout the U.S. and Canada. The SEC will launch to 67 million households nationwide, with more deals reportedly in the offing. The Pac-12 comes in third at 60 million.
The numbers look even worse for the Pac-12 when you consider actual subscribers — the consumers who pay for an additional tier to watch the network.
The Pac-12 has only 11 million subscribers as compared with 57 million for the Big Ten, according to SNL Kagan, an industry consulting and research firm.
Though it is too early to make projections for the SEC, that conference’s pre-launch growth could result in a highly successful debut.
“It’s frustrating,” Scott said. “We don’t have that full distribution.”
….
When Big Ten executives blazed a trail with the first major conference network in 2007, cable and satellite companies had to listen because Fox sat at the negotiating table. ESPN carried even more clout in selling the SEC Network.
“We didn’t have that leverage,” Murphy-Stephans said.
They still don’t. The Pac-12 has tried to compensate by asking for about 80 cents per subscriber, well below the reported rates of $1 for the Big Ten and $1.30 or more for the SEC.
The Pac-12 has also been creative, securing a deal with AT&T U-verse by packaging its networks with exclusive telecommunication rights to the 12 member schools. As Scott said: “AT&T does a lot of business with our universities.”
None of that has helped with DirecTV, which distributes the Big Ten Network and appears close to signing with the SEC, but has remained steadfast in its two-year stalemate with the Pac-12.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-pac-12-networks-20140802-story.html?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fsports%2Fgolf+(L.A.+Times+-+Golf)#page=1
LikeLike
Scott seems to have a different understanding of the ESecPN financial arrangement: “The SEC handed its channel over to ESPN in exchange for a massive rights fee and the Big Ten entered into a roughly 50-50 joint venture with Fox Cable Networks.”
I wonder how the BTN2Go figures in. Domestically, Everything in the PAC is dependent on a TV subscription.
LikeLike
Good ol’ Steve Spurrier. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/3/5964867/steve-spurrier-east-carolina-big-ten-scheduling
“The big five conferences all playing each other, I don’t think that makes a lot of sense, really. Playing East Carolina is a lot tougher game than maybe picking up one of those bottom Big Ten teams, and a lot of fans around here would rather see a team that’s close by.”
LikeLike
Being better than PU or IL last year isn’t a high bar.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/
At the end of last season, Sagarin had these rankings:
52. PSU (#7 in B10)
56. ECU
57. IN
58. MN
65. NW
73. UMD
76. IL
100. RU
157. PU
Other P5 teams below ECU (in order):
TN, BC, SU, ISU, WV, CO, AR, WF, UK, UVA, NCSU, Cal, KU
All were well above PU, though.
LikeLike
http://cfn.scout.com/2/1429241.html
A look at the schedules for the top playoff contenders and how they might impact the race for a spot.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24647917/college-football-conference-predictions
CBS’s predictions for all the conference races. Interestingly, it seems easier to pick the worst team than the best one as the “experts” were unanimous on 7 of the 9 last place teams in the P5 and 6 of 7 agreed on Cal in the P12N (SECE was split 3/4 for UK/Vandy).
B10E – OSU 5 vs MSU 2 (6 of 7 picked the E champ to win the CCG)
B10W – WI 4 vs IA 2 vs NE 1(the 1 picked NE to beat MSU in the CCG)
Teams with a range of 4 places – IA (1-4), NE (1-4), UMD (3-6)
LikeLike
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PARTY_SCHOOLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-08-04-12-32-55
The B10 dominates the top 5 party schools list with #2 IA (last year’s #1) and #5 IL. SU was #1 this year. #3 was UCSB and #4 was WV.
What’s up SEC? Can’t keep up with the northerners on this?
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-athletics/2014/08/38208/an-interview-with-ohio-state-athletic-director-gene-smith
An interview with Gene Smith. Mostly it’s only of interest to OSU fans, I realize, but there were some big picture questions like NCAA enforcement reform and COL.
Also this for B10 fans:
November night games
Smith said expect to see more games under the lights in the future.
“I think you’ll see more because, actually in our AD meetings this past week or whenever it was, we agreed in the future to be more open in November,” he said.
“Because originally, we were talking about just the first weekend in November. And some of us said, hey we can play the second weekend in November when you really look at it. I think you’ll see a couple more down the road.”
It marks a shift from a Big Ten that’s long been opposed to night games after October for a slew of reasons.
“We really were concerned about the weather and all those types of things. Some of us were concerned operationally. Could we handle it? And I think we’ve grown over the years where operationally we’re better at handling traffic after a game at midnight,” Smith said.
“A lot of people don’t think about that stuff, but we do. A lot of logistics around that. I think we’re at a better place operationally, I think our fans have embraced it.”
But it comes with a price.
“I think we have to think about the collateral damage. There’s the family in Toledo who’s up in age, who may have come to a lot of games over the years and now we’re throwing night games on them and can’t make that drive or can’t afford to do the hotel overnight stay. There’s an impact. There’s collateral damage there that we have to be sensitive to,” he said.
“You don’t want to do too many that you lose the novelty because there’s a novelty with it” – Gene Smith
“People have asked me, well what’s the right number (of night games), and I don’t know. I was surprised they asked for the Illinois game at night … we’re putting in the permanent lights. Urban’s right, it does help us in recruiting.
“There’s a balance here: you don’t want to do too many that you lose the novelty because there’s a novelty with it so we gotta watch that. I’m hoping that over time, there’s a 3-2, 3-2 type of balance at home.”
LikeLike
@Brian – From a pure TV perspective, those extra night games make sense. The Big Ten can easily sell a separate prime time package to ESPN and/or Fox and rake in even more revenue. This is very low hanging revenue fruit.
LikeLike
Yes and no. OSU/IL isn’t going to draw much of an audience outside of Ohio and maybe IL (11/1 on BTN). If that’s the quality of game they have to sell, it doesn’t have much value. Might as well play during the afternoon and put something better on at night.
LikeLike
Its quality for TV purposes, as its Ohio State at night against a conference opponent. NWU is not a brand name to say the least, but OSU vs. NWU did spectacular in the ratings on ABC Saturday Night last year.
Frank correctly notes that more night games will come in handy when renegotiating the TV deals in 2 years. Only 8 or so night games are on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 on Saturday nights, leaving other weeks ripe for Fox or another network to bid for games. Not including night games on BTN. With 7 conference games a week now, 2 night games still leaves enough daytime inventory to go around.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Its quality for TV purposes, as its Ohio State at night against a conference opponent. NWU is not a brand name to say the least, but OSU vs. NWU did spectacular in the ratings on ABC Saturday Night last year.”
NW was ranked and hosting GameDay for the first time ever. There was lots of hype. It was a close game to the end, with lots of national fans hoping OSU would lose. IL will be lucky to have 5 wins by 11/1 and still will be unlikely to reach a bowl. There will be zero hype.
“Only 8 or so night games are on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 on Saturday nights, leaving other weeks ripe for Fox or another network to bid for games.”
Fox stinks at CFB coverage, so they’d have to pay a major premium over ABC/ESPN to be worth the loss of build up.
“With 7 conference games a week now, 2 night games still leaves enough daytime inventory to go around.”
Don’t forget about the byes. Some weeks will have only 6 games. You can quickly run out of quality games for TV, and the networks know it. Especially since they are also paying for day games, which you are reducing to the absolute worst games on the schedule.
LikeLike
” There will be zero hype.”
Likely true (assuming IL sucks as anticipated), but its still Ohio State playing a conference game at night. There is quality value just in that alone.
“Fox stinks at CFB coverage, so they’d have to pay a major premium over ABC/ESPN to be worth the loss of build up.”
No, because I’m talking about the weeks where ESPN/ABC would not be featuring a B1G game in prime time. No loss of buildup because none would really exist. You’d be right if I were talking about the B1G leaving ABC entirely or partially, taking games and giving them to Fox (which would be moronic).
“You can quickly run out of quality games for TV, and the networks know it. Especially since they are also paying for day games, which you are reducing to the absolute worst games on the schedule.”
The accelerating trend toward prime time games is something networks prefer. They know what they are paying for, and keep paying more for more games in prime time.They are also aware of the impact it has on the day schedules (weakening them), but the increase in prime time money evidently offsets that.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Likely true (assuming IL sucks as anticipated), but its still Ohio State playing a conference game at night. There is quality value just in that alone.”
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
OSU’s 2013 ratings:
Buffalo @ OSU (ESPN2, 12) – 1.1
SDSU @ OSU (ABC, 3:30) – 2.6 – mirror with OR @ UVA
OSU @ Cal (Fox, 7) – 2.0
FAMU @ OSU (BTN, 12) – ???
WI @ OSU (ABC, 8) – 4.0
OSU @ NW (ABC, 8) – 4.4
IA @ OSU (ABC, 3:30) – 3.4 – mirror with UCLA @ Stanford
PSU @ OSU (ABC, 8) – 2.5
OSU @ PU (BTN, 12) – ???
OSU @ IL (ESPN, 12) – 2.1
IN @ OSU (ABC, 3:30) – 2.7 – mirror with OR @ AZ
OSU @ MI (ABC, 12) – 5.8
There’s some value in OSU playing at any time. Later gets better ratings, in part because they are better games. Fox isn’t going to pay huge money to pull a 2.5 or worse at 8pm every week.
“No, because I’m talking about the weeks where ESPN/ABC would not be featuring a B1G game in prime time.”
Which Fox can’t know about years in advance. Are they getting 2 weeks or 5 weeks the next season? No, they’d have to bid for something like a 2nd choice every week (or a subset of weeks) and ABC would have to factor that into their bid for the 3:30 and 12 slots.
“No loss of buildup because none would really exist.”
There is a lot of build-up and cross promotion for upcoming OSU games on the ESPN family, whether they are at 12, 3:30 or 8. You lose all that with Fox.
“You’d be right if I were talking about the B1G leaving ABC entirely or partially, taking games and giving them to Fox (which would be moronic).”
Where do you think these games would come from? They’d have to hurt the 3:30 slot if nothing else.
“You can quickly run out of quality games for TV, and the networks know it. Especially since they are also paying for day games, which you are reducing to the absolute worst games on the schedule.”
The accelerating trend toward prime time games is something networks prefer. They know what they are paying for, and keep paying more for more games in prime time.They are also aware of the impact it has on the day schedules (weakening them), but the increase in prime time money evidently offsets that.
LikeLike
Fox would pay through the nose for B1G games, in part because of the brand names involved. Fix pioneered overbidding for sports, and it’s part of a larger desire to take on ESPN.
ESPN would still promote OSU in general, as it would still have rights to at least half it’s games. Would be good business. ESPN still covers the b1G title game comprehensively even without televising it.
As for where games come from, the 330 slot is nice, but it’s not primetime. The daytime slates are weaker now than ever with more prime time games, yet the game has never been more popular.
Further, if Fox was inclined to bid, the specific details of prime time games could be worked out. I think ultimately that ESPN will overpay in the pre-negotiation period to prevent Fox from getting any part of the B1G regular season. And the B1G knows ESPN is the King, and you always want to do business with the King.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Fox would pay through the nose for B1G games, in part because of the brand names involved. Fix pioneered overbidding for sports, and it’s part of a larger desire to take on ESPN.”
They’d do it, but only if they got first pick some weeks. They won’t pay huge money to never have the top B10 game. Maybe they would take a deal where if ABC passed on a game for 8pm Fox could take it for prime time before ABC could put it at 3:30. Otherwise, they’ll offer big but not huge money.
“ESPN would still promote OSU in general, as it would still have rights to at least half it’s games.”
The less they show OSU, the less they promote OSU. Especially with the SECN in place. They’d much rather tout how great those teams are.
“ESPN still covers the b1G title game comprehensively even without televising it.”
1. There are only a few games that weekend. They have to cover it.
2. It depends how much it could influence the playoff. When OSU had a chance at the NCG, of course ESPN covered it. I don’t remember such thorough coverage when it was NE vs WI.
3. Covering it as news is different from promoting it.
“As for where games come from, the 330 slot is nice, but it’s not primetime.”
OSU did better at 3:30 vs IA, IN and SDSU than at night against PSU or Cal. And of course they crushed all their other games when they played MI at noon. The opponent matters a lot for ratings (except for ND). It’s apples and oranges to compare prime time ratings to afternoon ratings because the quality of the games chosen. The night games face tougher competition, so a bad night game draws a bad rating.
“The daytime slates are weaker now than ever with more prime time games, yet the game has never been more popular.”
In total viewers, sure. However, CFB used to be more popular than the NFL so I wouldn’t necessarily say “never.”
“I think ultimately that ESPN will overpay in the pre-negotiation period to prevent Fox from getting any part of the B1G regular season.”
Frankly, I don’t think ESPN has ever overpaid for any sports rights except the LHN. CFB is still undervalued. I agree they are somewhat likely to make a sufficient bid to sign the B10 without Fox getting a piece, but they showed with their P12 deal that they don’t necessarily mind splitting packages with Fox.
“And the B1G knows ESPN is the King, and you always want to do business with the King.”
Which is why I think the B10 stays put. Fox may get a piece of the action since there is more and better inventory (2013 ~ 36 OOC + 48 B10 = 84; 2017 ~ 28 OOC + 63 B10 = 91).
I don’t think we really disagree all that much. I just think the night games are headed towards diminishing returns as they add more of them since the quality of each extra one is a little lower and there is more competition. They’ll still make money and TV will still want them, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t think they’ll be the giant cash cow some others seem to think they are.
At some point, the schools are going to push back a little, too. There’s a limit to how many night game any one school wants to play in (varies by weather, obviously).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/104708/longevity-key-in-b1gs-signature-seasons
ESPN picked the “signature” season for every school. Most P5 conferences had a bunch of very recent choices, but not the B10.
The selection process involved several factors — time period, statistical milestones, clutch plays/games and position, to name just a few — and a heavy dose of subjectivity. But I would add “conference” to the list. Picking a defining season for a Big Ten team is different than one for a Pac-12 or ACC team.
The greatest individual Big Ten seasons, like fine wine or leather, seem to improve with age. In fact, I’d argue that age is a requirement in selecting signature seasons for Big Ten teams.
…
Illinois: Red Grange, 1924
Indiana: Anthony Thompson, 1989
Iowa: Nile Kinnick, 1939
Maryland: Randy White, 1974
Michigan: Charles Woodson, 1997
Michigan State: Lorenzo White, 1985
Minnesota: Bronko Nagurski, 1929
Nebraska: Mike Rozier, 1983
Northwestern: Damien Anderson, 2000
Ohio State: Archie Griffin, 1974
Penn State: Lydell Mitchell, 1971
Purdue: Drew Brees, 2000
Rutgers: Paul Robeson, 1917
Wisconsin: Ron Dayne, 1999
The selections from other conferences show a different picture. Five of the SEC’s signature seasons occurred between 2007-13. The Pac-12 had five selections between 2002-12, the Big 12 had four between 2003-11 and the ACC had five between 2001-09.
Is it just a coincidence that the Big Ten’s signature seasons occurred so long ago? Perhaps it’s because the league overall has struggled in the past decade and failed to win a national title since 2002. Although we evaluated individual performances, certain players gained credibility for helping their teams win championships.
Nebraska has a limited Big Ten history (three seasons), while Rutgers and Maryland have no history in the league. But I’d argue that Nebraska’s storied tradition puts it in the same category as several Big Ten programs when you’re trying to identify superlatives. There’s just more to consider with programs like Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.
Does a Big Ten season need some age on it to truly represent a program? There is so much history in the league, and to minimize or gloss over the distant past in an exercise like this is wrong.
The longevity factor doesn’t seem to be as strong in other leagues. The Big 12 includes only one signature season before 1963 (TCU’s Davey O’Brien in 1938). The SEC includes no signature seasons before LSU’s Billy Cannon in 1959, and the Pac-12 feaatures none before Oregon State’s Terry Baker in 1962.
The Big Ten, meanwhile, has four signature seasons that took place before 1940. Even most of the runner-up seasons in the Big Ten illustrate the historical differences: only five occurred in the past decade and two stem from newcomer Rutgers (Ray Rice in 2007, Kenny Britt in 2008).
I’d like to think a great season is a great season, whether it occurred last year or eight decades ago. I feel the same way about Baseball Hall of Fame votes. If a player merits the Hall on the first vote, he should get in. If he doesn’t deserve it, why should he get in on the 10th ballot?
The fear here is that we’re short-changing certain seasons because they occurred not long ago.
Anybody disagree with the choice for your school? All the other I-A schools are listed elsewhere if you follow the links.
LikeLike
What do they define as a signature season? How does a 5-6 1989 for Indiana beat a 9-1 Rose Bowl trip to face OJ in 1967?
LikeLike
Signature player season, not team season.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11130049/the-season
The Season. That’s what we set out to find. That one great season by an individual player that can be considered the best in the history of all 128 Football Bowl Subdivision schools.
ESPN.com writers and editors, in consultation with sports information directors, settled on one player for each school.
Some players had better careers. Some had gaudier stats. But these players represent the one season that combined a great individual accomplishment with its impact.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11130049/the-season
This is all of them plus the honorable mentions for each school.
LikeLike
I always find Archie Griffin a curious case. For those that only read his stats after the fact, it’s hard to explain how he became so lauded. I will try to explain it briefly. In a nutshell, he was Mr. Consistency at an elite level.
Context:
1. The seasons were shorter back then and bowl stats didn’t count.
2. Woody was so conservative that he took very few risks on offense, even with great players.
3. His freshman year was the first year freshman were allowed to play, so Woody strongly favored older players. Playing at all was an accomplishment, and he started by a few games into the season.
4. Archie played with Pete Johnson, perhaps the greatest scoring machine at FB ever. Johnson’s still #25 on the all-time NCAA TD list with 51 in 41 games because Woody liked to use the FB in the red zone. In 1975 (Griffin’s second Heisman year), Johnson ran for 1059 yards and scored 25 TDs. This is why Archie never had flashy TD numbers.
Archie tidbits:
1. He ran for over 100 yards in 31 straight games (still the NCAA record) and 34 overall in his career.
2. He averaged at least 5.5 ypc all 4 years (6.6 in his best year).
3. He had 924 carries over 4 years (159 as a frosh, 247-262 the other 3 years).
4. He ran for at least 1350 yards his last 3 years (5177 total – the NCAA record at the time = 5589 if you add the bowls).
5. He was at or near the top of the national lists for attempts, ypc, rushing yards and total yards in 1973-5.
6. He was 5th in the Heisman vote in 1973 before winning it twice.
While 1974 was a better statistical season for him, I would have chosen 1975 because that’s when he made history by winning his second Heisman.
LikeLike
Also, he was a Columbus native, Columbus East HS. He was and is always the perfect gentleman, which cannot be said for the oaf who inherited his number, now mercifully retired.
I was in stands the first time he carried the ball. He was third string on the team listing. He literally tore up the field that day. He and Pete were the perfect complements. Woody’s offensive lines were almost NFL quality.
LikeLike
This list is a good example of the potential of NJ (RU) football, which admittedly might never be realized. Four of the 14 named players were born in and played HS football in NJ. Obviously, Paul Robeson is one. Robeson, in addition to being a two time All American football player almost exactly 100 years ago, was a famous opera singer, actor, etc., etc. For those who do not know, he is an African American, and I am not sure how many colleges had black players 100 years ago.
In addition to Robeson, Ron Dayne, Lydell Mitchell, and Mike Rozier are all Jersey boys.
LikeLike
As Lou Holtz once said on a 1990s pre-game show, just change the name to the University of New Jersey and all that talent will stay home out of pride.
LikeLike
Direct TV and Disney announce a deal for the SECN.
http://secsports.go.com/article/11309530/directv-carry-sec-network-launch
LikeLike
According to this article, the SECN will be available to 85 million households at launch on August 14.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/08/directv_reaches_agreement_to_c.html#incart_river
LikeLike
I saw 87 million.
I would love to see the breakdown of in footprint and out of footprint, as to carriage, tier, and fee. Its not even offered on any tier where I live.
LikeLike
I also would like to see the exact numbers. It could be that the BTN is undervalued based on the numbers being thrown around.
LikeLike
If it was overvalued Fox wouldn’t have exercised the five year extension/majority position option.
LikeLike
I thought it was the Big Ten that exercised that option?
LikeLike
No, it was Fox.
LikeLike
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/157692/
Story about it.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
And thus Disney’s own “Southern Strategy” has bore fruit in a huge way. Part of it was already done with the saving of the Big 12 through the LHN. Now a massive part, via the SECN, is close to done. The ACCN won’t be far ahead. What’s coming is to get rid of content that is inconsistent with the strategy (i.e. northern schools and conferences, you get what I mean).
Yep, Disney is about to get ready to tell the Big Ten “You’re on your own now.”
LikeLike
I assume your kidding right. ESPN needs the BIG more than the BIG needs ESPN.
LikeLike
Yep, Disney is about to get ready to tell the Big Ten “You’re on your own now.”
Once ESPN is done creating those other networks, they will still have to “feed” ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU with quality games to justify their own carriage and advertising rates. You can argue that the Big Ten will be even more valuable to ESPN than it is now because some quality SEC and ACC games will be on their respective networks to justify their carriage/advertising rates.
LikeLike
Mike – I am starting to think Fox acquires all of the B1G content. Seems there is more synergy with using one TV partner.
LikeLike
Except ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 is a much more powerful block of networks for CFB coverage than Fox/FS1. The ratings are higher, the cross-promotion is better, and ESPN sets the national tone. If the B10 leaves them, it will suffer a backlash.
Besides, the B10 is a very valuable commodity that ESPN doesn’t want to lose and they have very deep pockets. I could see a split, but not leaving entirely.
LikeLike
Spurrier’s comments about ECU and the Big Ten weren’t said without the knowledge of ESPN. Part of it was to prepare the casual audiences for when they no longer have to carry the Big Ten. It’s very ingenious of them. Creates the perception that the Big Ten no longer has any worth to them.
It’s similar to how they began downplaying NASCAR once they decided that they will not renew. They let it run out. No more NASCAR on their news shows. No more NASCAR-related talk. NASCAR got the hint and negotiated with other companies.
The Big Ten will land on its feet wherever they go but there will be complaints about not seeing games on ABC. However, that’s just the way the business works.
LikeLike
Steve Spurrier says things because he wants to say them. He likes to needle people. ESPN had nothing to do with it. He’s been saying things about other schools for years.
LikeLike
Mike – I am starting to think Fox acquires all of the B1G content. Seems there is more synergy with using one TV partner.
@Kevin – That certainly could happen. I would be shocked if FOX doesn’t make a bid (either with alone or with ESPN) for the Big Ten. Besides the exposure problems Brain mentions, FOX does run into a time slot crunch in that they have commitments to Big 12, PAC12, MLB, NASCAR*, and the UFC which will limit further what they have to offer. My guess is that either the Big Ten signs with just ESPN or they’ll end up with a CBS/ESPN combination similar to the SEC.
*NBC and FOX split NASCAR coverage starting in 2015. I have no idea what dates FOX and NBC have.
LikeLike
Spurrier’s comments about ECU and the Big Ten weren’t said without the knowledge of ESPN. Part of it was to prepare the casual audiences for when they no longer have to carry the Big Ten. It’s very ingenious of them. Creates the perception that the Big Ten no longer has any worth to them.
If ESPN wanted to create that perception they have much bigger hammers to create that perception. Spurrier (“You can’t spell citrus without UT”, “FSU is Free Shoes U”) has been doing stuff like this for years.
LikeLike
The B1G will likely go to bid in late 2015. TV deals seem to be announced about a half year before the final year in contract.
LikeLike
Steve Spurrier has always been a water carrier for the powers that be. Corporate mole in a ballcap is his destiny.
LikeLike
First rule in trying to figure out conference big strategies: Coaches never know anything that the general public doesn’t…if they even know that.
Really, there were a lot of realignment things coaches talked about, but never once did I see anything ever out there that wasn’t already well known and there were times you could read things that those of us following this stuff closely knew clearly wouldn’t happen. You also have Nick Saban talking about wanting to play all power 5 teams, but you’ll never see an Alabama schedule like that, because no AD is going to accept less than 7 home games.
Second rule is that there is rarely/ever some big mulit-year secret grand strategy.
LikeLike
Transic_nyc you are squinting too hard at the tea leaves … there is zero difference at this point between ESPN’s strategic behavior if they have a maximum amount they are willing to pay, and so MIGHT not sign the contract, and their strategic behavior if they EXPECT to not sign the contract. So you can squint as hard as you like, there’s not going to be evidence that isolates one of the two. Seeing one of the two just means that is what you are looking to see.
LikeLike
UT/OK would be perfect. I think the more time that passes the more likely UNC, if it ever moves, will be SEC bound (with VT or Duke). I think UT being lured into the ACC with some sort of ND style deal is also more likely than them going West. The time difference for all sports is just too much to deal with, and wallowing in a PAC east division would defeat the purpose. I still believe if ND joins a conference for FB (unlikely) it will be the Big Ten. The ACC will be better in theory than reality for ND football fans. They still talk about Michigan and Michigan state more than all their other rivals combined on the ND nation boards.
LikeLike
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/05/growing-stratification-ncaa-conferences-concerns-less-wealthy-division-i-colleges
Arguments over the potential impacts of autonomy that have been debated here and elsewhere.
Excerpt:
There’s been occasional talk of such a split for at least 35 years, and concessions that give them more independence and power have often followed. In the early 1990s, the NCAA’s attempt at promoting gender equity had conferences fearing for their football program budgets and threatening secession. A decade before that, the large football conferences discussed leaving the NCAA over their share of television contract profits.
“These crises come and go,” said John Lombardi, former president of the University of Florida and the Louisiana State University system. “But eventually everyone makes a deal which preserves the integrity of the division so it can keep making money.”
For the less-wealthy conferences, the separation of the five conferences from the rest remains a scary threat. With their departure, Ensor said, the remaining conferences could lose access to Division I championships, their sense of identity as a division, and, perhaps most importantly, the sharing of revenue that flows from those championships — especially the Division I men’s basketball tournament that has become one of the world’s most lucrative sporting events.
LikeLike
http://bloguin.com/thestudentsection/uncategorized/cfb-playoff-best-most-likely-and-doom-scenarios.html
The best, worst and most likely playoff scenarios.
LikeLike
http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2013/10/how-big-ten-network-destroyed-big-ten.html
How the BTN killed B10 football. It’s from last fall, but still entertaining.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=11292249
According to Brad Edwards, history shows that at least 2 of the top 4 teams in the final regular season poll will start outside the pre-season top 10 and often 3 will.
So that means the current playoff favorites (FSU, AL, OU, OR, AU, OSU, UCLA, MSU, SC, Baylor) are likely to provide 1 or maybe 2 of the 4. The rest of the top 25 (or below) most likely will provide 2. Who seems likely to you?
ACC – Clemson, UNC
B10 – WI, NE
B12 – KSU, UT
P12 – Stanford, USC, ASU, UW
SEC – UGA, LSU, MS, TAMU,
Other – ND
If Clemson beats FSU, they could get there.
I could see WI making it if they do OK against LSU.
I have a hard time seeing a B12 team other than OU making it, but maybe someone surprises me.
Stanford could win the P12 and make it.
UGA, LSU and TAMU are viable options out of the SEC.
LikeLike
A&M has no defense. And their new QB is not Johnny Manziel. They may struggle to make a bowl. The other 5 you mention seem viable. Don’t see any of the others making it except maybe Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I agree TAMU seems the least likely of those SEC teams, and I don’t give them a big chance.
They may not have much D (I don’t know, I haven’t followed their off season), but I’m guessing they’ll still be able to score. They have 4 tough games on paper and 3 are on the road. Certainly they could survive 1 loss. If events break their way (injuries, fluke plays, etc), they could make it. I think the SECW winner is likely to make the playoff no matter what because everyone fawns over them. That’s why I included TAMU.
LikeLike
bullet – you sure seem to think you’re an expert on A&M, don’t you? You just spout the conventional wisdom coming out of ShaggyBevo which is why you’re wrong about A&M 95% of the time. How about you leave the A&M commentary to others and focus on that sorry program you’re a fan of. You want to talk about overrated, then look at Texas. The program has worse talent now than it has in a decade was was not good at all the last three years. Getting 6 wins will be a good year.
Of course the new QB isn’t JFF but whomever starts from Kyle Allen or Kenny Hill will lead an offense better than the vast majority teams in the P5. Allen was the top rated QB in the HS ranks last year and Hill was a 4 star who came out of Southlake Carroll and played well in spots last year. Kevin Sumlin has been a head coach for 6 years. His offense has only finished out of the top 10 nationally one year when it finished 11th. In that year his top two QBs were injured for the year during the third game of the season. The OL, RB and WR positions are two and three deep with talent. This team is going to score in bunches.
It is true A&M struggled on D last year but they were decent the year before. The defense is loaded with talent. LOADED… but it is young. It is going to be much improved this year especially on the Dline where an influx of talent is starting to hit the field. 9 wins is not out of the question. Low mark is 7.
LikeLike
FrankTheAg,
“9 wins is not out of the question.”
Based on that, would you agree it’s a bit of a stretch to see them making the playoff this year?
LikeLike
Why don’t you comment on what you know about rather than pretending you can read my mind? You’re the Andy of A&M.
Manziel was a difference maker. The replacement is good (and probably better than what Texas will field at QB), but Manziel was special. And you lost your 1st rd pick at receiver, a highly drafted lineman and 2nd leading rusher (behind Manziel). Forgot where it was, but CNNSI or CBSSports or one of the major outlets called A&M the most overrated team in the top 25.
Struggled is a kind word for your defense. Manziel bailed them out a lot last year and A&M was 8-4. There was plenty of talent last year too.
As for Texas, I already made a comment to Brian about UT.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2014/08/best-home-records-college-football-since-2011/
The best home records since 2011.
1. 17-0 – NIU
2. 20-1 – LSU, SC, Stanford
5. 19-1 – Baylor
6. 20-2 – OSU, OR
8. 19-2 – AL, Clemson, GA Southern, MI
LikeLike
And of course the most important rankings of the year were released this week… top party schools!
http://www.princetonreview.com/schoollist.aspx?type=r&id=737
1. Syracuse
2. Iowa
3. UC Santa Barbara
4. WVU
5. Illinois (way to go guys!)
6. Lehigh
7. Penn St.
8. Wisconsin
9. Bucknell
10. Florida
11. Miami (OH)
12. Florida St.
13. Ohio
14. Depauw
15. UGA
16. Ole Miss
17. Tulane
18. Vermont
19. Oregon
20. Delaware
So that’s 4 Big Ten schools in the Top 10, not too bad.
LikeLike
This LA Times article has some interesting carriage numbers, parsing between available and actual subscribers::
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-pac-12-networks-20140802-story.html#page=1
“For the major conference networks, the trick is persuading cable and satellite carriers to add their channels.
As the oldest of the group, the Big Ten is available in 90 million homes throughout the U.S. and Canada. The SEC will launch to 67 million households nationwide, with more deals reportedly in the offing. The Pac-12 comes in third at 60 million.
The numbers look even worse for the Pac-12 when you consider actual subscribers — the consumers who pay for an additional tier to watch the network.
The Pac-12 has only 11 million subscribers as compared with 57 million for the Big Ten, according to SNL Kagan, an industry consulting and research firm.”
The Pac’s issue is that it historically does not have the same base of uber-passionate fans that SEC and B1G schools do. They have major markets, major brands, a rich history and tradition, but not the same amount of crazed and excited alumni/fans. The Pac got greedy (doing the network itself to keep all the profits in house) and it is so far biting them in the behind.
LikeLike
“The Pac got greedy (doing the network itself to keep all the profits in house) and it is so far biting them in the behind.”
They are lacking DTV (but got Dish which was a reversal of expectations at the time), who has denied the Dodgers to LA during one of their best seasons ever. With DTV the P12N would be at 81+M. They are also receiving 100% after costs are subtracted. BTN is about 50%. ESecPN is back to unknown with Scott’s characterization of it and the BTN: “The SEC handed its channel over to ESPN in exchange for a massive rights fee and the Big Ten entered into a roughly 50-50 joint venture with Fox Cable Networks.”
The PAC knew they were choosing to not go down the easiest path. But they aren’t shilling for ESPN now, either. We complained about ESPN promoting conferences. Now we have a conference promoting them. “ESPN” is included prominently in the supposed conference network logo! (At least UT didn’t do that with the ESPN owned LHN.) The PAC bought a level of control and independence at the risk of some income. They knew that from the start, but at 100% after costs I don’t think they will be hurting.
LikeLike
I don’t see the problem. ESPN is good at what they do. Partnering with them should be very beneficial.
LikeLike
Foust thought he had a good bargain…
LikeLike
…Faust…
(butter thumbs)
LikeLike
okay..
LikeLike
The Big Ten get’s a rights fee on top of a profit split.
LikeLike
To be sure, the BTN is aligned with another massive media constant with Fox. Disney and Fox have much more leverage with cable and satellite companies than an independent channel like the Pac-12 Network.
Also, as I’ve said before, I think a lot of us Big Ten fans complain about the supposed bias of ESPN. They still have the top Big Ten package with the best time slots, which is the only bias that matters from a coverage perspective (as opposed to the little-watched Mark Mays of the world). A strong relationship with ESPN is critical for the Big Ten (and every single other pro or college league that wants to have more than a niche audience) no matter how successful the BTN becomes.
LikeLike
But would you want to be branded by them? To become a part of them?
LikeLike
“Disney and Fox have much more leverage with cable and satellite companies than an independent channel like the Pac-12 Network.”
Yes, but at a cost (50%). I keep thinking of Kevin Weiberg saying when the P12N was being formed that the single biggest change at BTN startup would have been to fully own it. But, a conference network having never before been done at D1, partnering provided cover. I may be foggy in my memory, but I recall it as being phrased as what “we would have done different”, perhaps implying it wasn’t just his evaluation alone. Frankly, as long as Fox (or whoever) is partnering in a conference owned, or will revert to conference ownership at the end of a contract network, the partnership seems to work well. Especially in penetrating NY.
LikeLike
I wonder what position the Big Ten would have been (would be?) had they chosen the 100% ownership route. As you note, it’s a little different considering the BTN was the first of its kind, so having a partner to take on some of the risk is a bigger boon in that situation. Part of the SECN’s ease in getting market penetration is no doubt a combination of the strength of ESPN in concert with the fact that the conference network model is a proven commodity (and the SEC’s product is itself strong).
But back to the original question, would the Big Ten have the same coverage it has now? It’s been around longer than the Pac 12’s network, so it theoretically could have faced the same initial issues only to eventually resolve them, but would the fees/carriage rates work out to being the same? Even if they didn’t, would the Big Ten be in a stronger position financially with 100% ownership? I have to think the Big Ten made the right choice partnering with Fox, all things considered, but I wonder what choices will be made when the current contract expires.
LikeLike
“…but I wonder what choices will be made when the current contract expires.”
Well, it’ll be a long time before we find out (’32 ?). Fox saw enough value in a 50/50 steak to exercise their five year extension option. Now, would a non partnership deal be worth as much? Probably not in total. But I doubt it would be worth 50% less after production costs. BTN at $1, minus 25% production costs (totally arbitrary number), divided in half is aprox 38¢. P12N at 80¢, minus the same 25%, divided by one is 60¢. You can have lower carriage numbers (60M vs 90M) and still be in the same ballpark. I know, I know. In footprint, out of footprint, advertising rates, etc. will make a not insignificant difference. But the point is 50% is a huge amount. Plus you’d own 100% equity in the infrastructure/network.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Also, as I’ve said before, I think a lot of us Big Ten fans complain about the supposed bias of ESPN.”
There is nothing supposed about it. It consistently shows on their website and via many of their analysts.
“They still have the top Big Ten package with the best time slots, which is the only bias that matters from a coverage perspective”
No, it isn’t. The consistent negative propaganda has sunk into the American subconscious so now most fans, media and coaches buy into it. That has hurt the B10 in the past and will continue to hurt it in the future.
“(as opposed to the little-watched Mark Mays of the world).”
Pregame, halftime, postgame, nightly wrap up, on SportsCenter and during games (even non-B10 ones) is not little-watched to me. And that’s not counting the online material.
“A strong relationship with ESPN is critical for the Big Ten (and every single other pro or college league that wants to have more than a niche audience) no matter how successful the BTN becomes.”
Agreed. Unless a real competitor ever steps up.
LikeLike
Is it “bias” if it’s true? B1G football sucks. Fact.
LikeLike
The BIG has been down and done itself no favors in big games. It is true that ESPN does over-promote the SEC but that can all change if the BIG actually started to win on the field. They will have that opportunity with the playoffs as it will be doubtful the BIG champion will be left out since BIG teams bring ratings.
If any league has been screwed it is the PAC. They are constantly underrated and almost always are pasted over for other bigger brans simply because of fan interest and lack of media attention due to the pacific time zone.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – Yes, I largely agree with this. The thing that we have to remember is that the Big Ten is playing in these big games in the first place (i.e. top bowl games, high profile non-conference games) BECAUSE it has media power. Any losses are going to be magnified when there’s a bigger stage. I’m as big of a Big Ten guy as anyone, but objectively speaking, the conference really hasn’t performed well overall in its biggest games for the past decade. Now, I think that the depth of the Big Ten has been constantly underrated because of the losses at the top end of the league, but public perception of conferences has never been driven by depth. (It’s akin to an NBA team – you only talk about depth on your roster if you don’t have any legitimate stars. A GM will take a shallow team with a hard-to-get superstar than a deep team every single time.) The SEC kept winning national championships and did it against Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 teams, so we’re putting blinders on if we don’t think there’s at least a reasonable on-the-field basis for ESPN’s SEC hype. Note that Fox went out and hired Clay Travis, quite possibly the most irrational SEC homer in the media out there this side of Paul Finebaum that somehow continues to receive a wide audience, so even the largest sports network without any financial relationship with the SEC at all is getting in on the “SEC is the best” action. The only way that this changes is the top of the Big Ten actually winning big games for a continued stretch of time in the manner that the SEC has done for the past decade.
LikeLike
Do you really think Finebaum is as bad as Clay Travis???
That really was a head-scratching hire. Fox has no SEC content and the SEC CBS contract lasts for 10 more years and the rest for 20.
Only thing I can figure is getting some of the TV audience there where TV ratings are higher than elsewhere in the country. But it turns off Big 12 and Pac 12 fans.
Of course, I could never figure out the networks fascination with Brent Musberger.
LikeLike
I’ve stated my positions on these issues at length before. So, I won’t belabor them. In short:
1. The Andy Troll should be banned.
2. ESpin is not anti-B1G per se, but rather pro-ESpin-owned-property. The All-ESPIN-NC last year was a good example. No hysterical hatred of FSU across the various “platforms” and media and opinion spouters. It was as remarkably calm as it was nauseating considering that if tOSU had made the NC game, ESpin would have loosed the dogs, hounds, wolves and every other animal onto tOSU in the lead-up to the NC game.
I remind everyone that, other than the ESpin-owned Texas, ESpin hates the BXII just as much as the B1G. No better example than the All-SEC-NC; a whole week of disrespecting the one-loss Okie State so that the one-loss Alabama could play in the NC game. Disgusting on every level.
LikeLike
Psuhockey,
“The BIG has been down”
Yes, it has. But not to the extent that their talking/writing heads repeatedly claim.
“and done itself no favors in big games.”
The B10 was 15-15 in BCS games (1-2 in the NCG). OSU was 7-4 (1-2). Both get ridiculed for their BCS performance.
Context:
The SEC was 17-10. The P12 was 14-8. The BE (8-7) and B12 (10-12) were both right around 0.500 just like the B10, but with a lot fewer at-larges involved. The ACC was 5-13.
Only the SEC was above 0.500 in the NCG (9-2), and the B12 is the only other conference to play in the NCG more than 4 times.
“They will have that opportunity with the playoffs as it will be doubtful the BIG champion will be left out since BIG teams bring ratings.”
I disagree. I don’t think the committee cares at all about ratings. They don’t make more money if the games do well.
“If any league has been screwed it is the PAC.”
The media is talking them up as the best or at worst second P5 conference in the country. That’s not being screwed. Look at how many people claim the B10 was worse than the BE and ACC during the BCS era thanks to the ESPN spin. That’s being screwed.
“They are constantly underrated”
Funny, I keep seeing OR in the top of all the polls and so was Stanford for several years. UCLA is in the top 10. USC is in the top 15. They have 6 top 25 teams. How are they underrated? They haven’t won a national title since USC vacated their BCS title in 2004. They last won a consensus title in 1972 (5 split titles since then).
“and almost always are pasted over for other bigger brans simply because of fan interest”
TV is in the money making business. If fewer fans watch your games, you don’t get as many good TV slots. Show me that the P12 is being passed over by teams that draw lesser ratings, then you’ll have something.
“and lack of media attention due to the pacific time zone. ”
It’s nobody’s fault that the eastern time zone is by far the most populous. Night games out west are harder for people on the east coast to watch live.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“The thing that we have to remember is that the Big Ten is playing in these big games in the first place (i.e. top bowl games, high profile non-conference games) BECAUSE it has media power.”
No, it has audience drawing power.
“Any losses are going to be magnified when there’s a bigger stage.”
But more for the B10 than any comparable loss by anyone else (OU and the B12, etc)
“The SEC kept winning national championships and did it against Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 teams, so we’re putting blinders on if we don’t think there’s at least a reasonable on-the-field basis for ESPN’s SEC hype.”
There was clearly a basis for hyping the top of the SEC, and nobody objected to that. It was hyping every team and every player in the SEC that people objected to. Besides, the B10 fans complain about the relative treatment of the B10 and OSU versus the non-SEC conferences (like OU and the B12 performing similarly in the BCS but not getting half of the flak for it) more than anything else.
LikeLike
“No, it has audience drawing power.”
Audience power begets media power. The B1G has media power because of its market location, size, brands, audience size, etc…
LikeLike
The Big 10 was worse than the Big East and ACC in the 3 years or so before realignment heated up. The Big 10 was in a very deep downturn and just was turning back up at that time. It was Ohio St. and the 10 drawves.
The Mountain West was ahead of the Big 10 on several of the BCS metrics. Only their really bad bottom half kept them ranked lower.
LikeLike
Wainscott,
“Audience power begets media power. The B1G has media power because of its market location, size, brands, audience size, etc… ”
Not in CFB. ESPN has all the power in that area. The B10 needs ESPN more than ESPN needs the B10.
LikeLike
bullet,
“The Big 10 was worse than the Big East and ACC in the 3 years or so before realignment heated up.”
Based on what?
2005 – 2009 seasons:
* NCG – B10 2, ACC&BE 0
* BCS at-larges – B10 5, ACC&BE 0
* Champs (final BCS ranks – B10; ACC/BE)
2005 – 3; 22/11
2006 – 1; 14/6
2007 – 1; 3/9
2008 – 8; 19/12
2009 – 8; 9/3
Clearly the B10 was better at the top.
I’m not arguing that the B10 had quality depth during that period, especially once RichRod came to MI.
“It was Ohio St. and the 10 drawves.”
Which may color my memory of that time period. On the other hand, the B10 had deserving BCS at-large teams in most of those years so it wasn’t just OSU. The other team just rotated (PSU, MI, IL, PSU, IA).
“The Mountain West was ahead of the Big 10 on several of the BCS metrics. Only their really bad bottom half kept them ranked lower.”
And half of their conference shouldn’t matter when discussing how good or bad they are? As I recall, they were fairly small differences in the other metrics. Again, I’m not saying the B10 was strong during that period. Also, please note that my comment was talking about the whole BCS period, not just a small window.
LikeLike
But the Big 10 gets dinged because of the “recency” phenomena. People forget that the Big 10 may have been the best conference in 2006 because it was so weak from 2007-2009.
LikeLike
You keep hearing people say Texas has done less with more than any other school. Yet despite the last 4 years Texas is still 3rd in winning % this century, 2nd behind Ohio St. in YE poll points and is tied for first in number times ranked in BCS era with VT and UGA.
Alabama was pretty mediocre for most of the BCS era. People forget that because of the last 5 years.
LikeLike
Charter is now on board with the SECN.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/08/espn-charter-communications-sign-distribution-agreement-sec-network/
““With the addition of Charter, SEC Network is currently slated to be available to eight of the top ten distributors nationwide at launch, covering 90 percent of all U.S. cable homes,” added Sean Breen, Disney and ESPN Media Networks Senior Vice President, Affiliate Sales.”
Verizon is now on the clock.
LikeLike
New apparel sales rankings out. BCS-level Realignment related schools (as in, every school that would possibly consider switching BCS conferences or already has) ranked as follows:
1. Texas
8. Florida State
9. Texas A&M
10. North Carolina
12. Oklahoma
13. Nebraska
19. Missouri
20. West Virginia
21. Kansas
22. Clemson
23. Oklahoma State
24. Louisville
25. Texas Tech
29. Virginia Tech
30. Duke
33. Syracuse
40. Utah
42. Boise State
43. Maryland
44. Virginia
45. TCU
46. Cincinatti
47. UConn
48. BYU
49. Colorado
50. Georgia Tech
51. Pitt
53. Rutgers
http://www.clc.com/News/Annual-Rankings-2013-14.aspx
LikeLike
ESPN financials. Insane how much ESPN makes.
http://www.deadline.com/2014/08/walt-disney-corp-record-earnings-quarter-2/
Media Networks, the largest business, had an anemic quarter with revenues +3% to $5.5B and operating income flat at $2.3B. Much of that was due to ESPN which was hit by rising programming costs for baseball plus outlays for FIFA World Cup soccer. The sports channel also had two less NBA games. All told, the Cable Networks’ profit dropped 7% to $1.9B with revenues up 1% to $3.9B. In Broadcasting, which includes ABC, profits rose 66% to $354M helped by retransmission consent deals with revenues +7% to nearly $1.6B
(emph. mine.)
LikeLike
http://www.footballfoundation.org/News/NewsDetail/tabid/567/Article/54853/need-to-know-rules-changes-for-2014-season.aspx
The important rules changes and points of emphasis for 2014.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24650283/by-the-numbers-cupcakes-still-rule-in-college-football-playoff-era
The playoff hasn’t changed scheduling as much as people think. This article looks at the numbers.
I think one reason for the disconnect is he analyzes it based on all P5 schools, but in reality only a subset of them are scheduling with the playoff in mind. Many are looking for bowl eligibility, and that’s getting harder with new restrictions on scheduling (ACC/SEC must play 1 P5 OOC, B10 eliminates I-AAs and adds a 9th game, etc).
LikeLike
Also, it would be silly to think that there won’t be a lag in reaction to the playoff, both because some people will take a wait and see attitude, and also because a number of OOC games are scheduled well in advance, and many of the games scheduled near the last minute have substantially fewer degrees of freedom.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24650164/the-first-faux-playoff-before-the-first-playoff
A post-season prediction using a consensus top 25 poll. It had the 4 semifinal teams plus the other 6 major bowl teams. It has no value as a prediction, but is useful as a reminder of how the process might work.
LikeLike
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-2014
Anonymous B10 coaches talk about other B10 teams.
LikeLike
Haven’t seen anyone note this (although I may have missed it), but early last week, the NCAA settled the concussion lawsuit. They set aside $70 million for testing. But any individual with problems has to sue independently. No class action.
LikeLike
Sneak preview of SECN programming schedule?
https://mobile.twitter.com/FauxPelini/status/496517744511053824/photo/1
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11319063/bill-snyder-kansas-state-wildcats-think-sold-out
Bill Snyder thinks college sports has sold out.
LikeLike
I ran across a website-Arrest nation, the sports arrest database. Has data back into 2010. The Big 12 numbers ranged from 2 to 28. Bill Snyder’s KSU was the 2.
LikeLike
Phil Knight quits!
Oh, wait. It’s the school president, not the boss.
http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/31976362-75/uo-president-quits-effective-thursday.html.csp
I think they’ll be on their fifth pres in six years once a replacement is named.
LikeLike
Pingback: Frank the Tank Summer Mailbag: Power 5 Conference Autonomy, Conference Realignment, Playoffs and More | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Word on the street is that Delaney is about to add UCONN to lock up the NYC market.
LikeLike