The financial news stories coming out of ESPN over the past several months have been quite negative. The Disney-owned cable network has endured several rounds of layoffs and reported last week that it has lost 7 million subscribers over the past two years. This is of particular interest to the Big Ten, which will be negotiating new television contracts over the next year and has been banking on massive increases in rights fees. All of the Big Ten’s off-the-field moves during this decade, from conference expansion to adding a conference championship, has been leading up to providing the league with maximum leverage in this negotiation. The Big Ten Network has certainly been a boon, but the first tier national TV contract is still the Big Ten’s top priority both financially and in terms of brand exposure by a wide margin.
Many of the Big Ten’s financial projections during the conference realignment process were based upon the assumption that ESPN would offer a massive rights fees increase (which in turn would garner similar bids from other media companies, particularly Fox). However, should the Big Ten be worried with the recent turbulence at ESPN? Do the cost-cutting measures at ESPN mean that the network will pull back on what it could offer to the Big Ten?
John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal recently examined the race for the Big Ten rights and noted that the market may not be as “frothy” as it was when the Pac-12 secured a huge rights fee increase in 2011. However, he still expected “ESPN and Fox Sports to at least double the conference’s annual average payout and share the rights” despite the overall market factors (and he would have as great of an insight of what’s likely for sports media rights as anyone in the business).
I completely agree with Ourand on the likelihood of ESPN and Fox splitting the Big Ten rights (as I also predicted in my last post). This would have the effect of ESPN and Fox not having to each completely break their individual banks yet provide the Big Ten with much larger overall rights fees compared to one single contract holder. At the same time, I believe that the Big Ten greatly values the exposure the ESPN provides via its multiple platforms that can’t be matched by any other media company (even with pressures on the basic cable model). I don’t buy the notion that the Big Ten would walk away from ESPN completely – Jim Delany has set up this league to be like the NFL with multiple high profile media partners viewing it as an essential product. (See this article from Ed Sherman from this past March pointing out the presence of ESPN, Fox-affiliated BTN and CBS all at the Big Ten Tournament.)
At the same time, Big Ten fans shouldn’t pay attention to the arm chair observers (i.e. partisans from other leagues that would love to see the Big Ten fail to meet its expectations) that simply assume that ESPN cutting costs in its operations will mean that it will cut its spending on rights fees (and thereby the Big Ten). Ultimately, content is king, and ESPN in particular needs live sports content whether we live in a basic cable world or cord-cutting a la carte/over-the-top streaming world. If anything, retaining premium live sports programming becomes even more critical to ESPN as more people drop basic cable. It’s not going to sell over-the-top subscriptions like HBO Now with more Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith shows. The only way ESPN is going to get people to shell out $20 (or $30 or $40 or $50 or more per month) if it has to move to that environment is to have the broadest suite of exclusive live sporting events that large audiences want to watch as possible. That includes the Big Ten.
The adjustments that ESPN’s corporate siblings at Disney in Hollywood have already made years ago provide a template for sports programming expenditures in the future. Movie studios have already had their revenue and profits eroded by the Internet much more quickly than the television industry. Box office revenue is only being buoyed by ticket price increases (masking a general decline in attendance) while increases in digital streaming and downloads have not been enough to offset the decline in sales of DVDs and Blu-ray discs . It’s harder than ever to make money in the movie industry today.
However, that doesn’t mean that Disney has slashed all of its movie budgets. Quite to the contrary, Disney will greenlight massive production and marketing budgets for its tentpole franchises and brands, such as Star Wars, Marvel and Pixar, that dwarf the figures that have been used in the past even on an inflation-adjusted basis. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is estimated to have a production budget of $200 million and films of that size typically have marketing costs that come close to matching that number dollar-for-dollar on top of that. The Avengers: Age of Ultron had a combined production and marketing budget of over $340 million. When it comes to premium content, Disney isn’t skimping because those tentpole movies have downstream impact on the company’s business, such as merchandising and theme park tie-ins. (This classic Spaceballs clip is now literally the business strategy for all of Hollywood.)
Disney will also greenlight lower budget movies, such as documentaries out of its Disneynature unit. Other Hollywood studios have figured out that really cheap horror films provide the best returns on investment in the business, which is why consumers now get a steady diet of new horror movie releases throughout the entire year.
What Disney did completely cut, though, was its middle budget film division. Disney sold off Miramax in 2010 (less than a year after Disney purchased Marvel), which was the Oscar nominee producing machine of films such as Pulp Fiction. The prestige film business might provide nice publicity during awards season, but it doesn’t generate the top-to-bottom movie/merchandising bonanza of tentpole films like Star Wars or the pure ROI of low-budget movies. As a result, Disney has gotten out of the mid-budget film market entirely.
This “high/low” budget strategy while cutting out the middle is almost certainly what ESPN has in mind. Indeed, one the highest profile casualties of ESPN’s recent cost-cutting was the elimination of Grantland. In my opinion, Grantland had produced the best content on any ESPN platform over the past few years (particularly Zach Lowe on the NBA and Bill Barnwell on the NFL) with its mix of sports and pop culture analysis targeted to educated readers. The issue from ESPN’s perspective was that employing the talent to produce such high-level analysis was relatively expensive, yet its mothership website has been getting its most hits for fantasy football lineup recommendations. What is ESPN going to spend its resources on in the future: more top flight reporting on Outside the Lines that is getting marginal ratings, or more lowest common denominator hot take shows where the same broadcast can take up a couple of hours on ESPN2, get syndicated on ESPN radio affiliates across the country and be uploaded to the ESPN website as a podcast? It doesn’t take long to figure that one out.
Believe me – I don’t personally like these trends. Even though I’m a massive Star Wars fan and I’ve got my tickets with the exact seats reserved for opening weekend (along with buying the spectacular Chewbacca Illini T-shirt shown above that might as well have been custom-made for me), I’m also a large watcher of prestige films (and I have zero interest in cheap horror flicks). Grantland was one of my favorite websites and I can’t stand vapid talking head shows (whether news-based or sports-based). We need more resources dedicated to hard news and smart analysis. Unfortunately, the Internet’s business model doesn’t really reward that type of content compared to slideshow click-bait. As a result, prestige content producers may need to go toward an NPR-type funding model.
Putting my personal feelings aside, the high/low budget strategy still works very well for the Big Ten. As far as sports properties go, it’s definitely the equivalent of a tentpole movie franchise and, timing-wise, it’s the only tentpole of any kind available on the TV rights market until the next decade. That’s not hyperbole. Outside of the NFL (which is the undisputed king of TV sports), college football has consistently delivered the best week-in and week-out ratings out of any sport for U.S. viewers and the Big Ten has been at the top of those ratings next to the SEC for many years. This is not a property that ESPN can afford to lose (whether on the mothership cable channel or ABC, whose Saturday programming is heavily reliant on the Big Ten), and this is also not a property that Fox can afford to miss out on. Top tier sports brands like the NFL, Major League Baseball, NBA, SEC and Big Ten aren’t going to be the ones that are worried about cord cutting because they are all proven drivers of viewership on multiple platforms. Inexpensive sports rights with lower production costs and high ROI (think West Coast Conference basketball with Gonzaga games) will also be in high demand. The sports brands that should be worried are the ones that have relatively high production costs but lower viewership, such as Group of Five conference college football and non-major tennis and golf events.
At the end of the day, ESPN (and likely Fox with them) will end up paying top dollar for the Big Ten just as its Disney corporate siblings continue to pay top dollar for Star Wars films. Going forward, ESPN is in a position where it needs to keep its premium sports rights because that is the only way that it can maximize its value regardless of whether the world stays with basic cable (where such rights are needed to keep the basic cable subscriber fees high) or moves to an over-the-top environment (where such rights are needed to draw in direct paying subscribers). ESPN still paid a premium for more European soccer rights in the past month (as Ourand pointed out) and was still willing to sign up for massive deals with NBA and Major League Baseball when they were fully aware of the erosion of their basic cable subscriber numbers. The Big Ten has tentpole sports content and that will always be in demand.
Follow @frankthetank111
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Go Bucks and Go Jayhawks!
LikeLike
Geaux Tigers! Geaux Les!
LikeLike
Alan,
I was glad to see LSU came to their senses and kept Miles. I can understand the frustration of LSU not being AL, but there are very few coaches out there that have shown they could top Miles’ performance at LSU (Saban and Meyer, maybe a couple of others are on par with Les) and they aren’t leaving their current jobs to go to LSU. It may be good to get some pressure on Les to upgrade the offense, but the talk of paying almost $20M to fire him made no sense to me.
LikeLike
Saban, Meyer, Harbaugh, Dantonio, Stoops, Gary Patterson.
Chip Kelly & Art Briles for someone willing to go that route.
LikeLike
Miles has a national title, putting him ahead of Harbaugh, Dantonio, Patterson, Briles and Kelly in CFB accomplishments. You can make arguments for them to be on his level or maybe even potentially better, but only Saban and Meyer have done more.
Besides, would any of the coaches you listed leave for LSU either?
LikeLike
All of them are (was, in the case of Harbaugh) at schools that either don’t have the resources or recruiting potential of LSU either.
A national title isn’t everything.
Gene Chizik won a national title. Want him?
LikeLike
As I said, you can make cases for them but they haven’t proven it. That’s a big gamble with an almost $20M buyout and a 76% winning percentage in place.
National titles are one of the major measures of coaching greatness. Not all great coaches win one, and not every coach that wins one is great, but it’s a common measuring stick. Also, that’s the goal for LSU fans so it seems relevant here.
Miles is 1-1 in the NCG and 2-1 in the SECCG in 11 seasons at LSU.
Saban is 4-1 in the NCG/semis and 5-1 in the SECCG in 13 seasons in the SEC.
Meyer was 2-0 in the NCG and 2-1 in the SECCG in 6 years at UF.
So the two most accomplished active coaches in CFB played for SEC titles roughly 50% of the years they coached and national titles less than 40% of the time. Miles is at 27% and 18% respectively and he did it while facing one or both of those two for much of his career.
If it wasn’t for AL, LSU would likely have several more SEC titles under Miles. Only 3 years has a team other than AL or LSU won the SEC W since Miles arrived. The West has won the SECCG 6 times in a row and 7 of 8 times (plus is a heavy favorite this year), too. LSU has the 2nd best SEC W% since Miles was hired. His only real problem is that he has been stuck in the same division as Nick Saban at Alabama.
LikeLike
Brian and Richard – here’s the latest on the Miles saga.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/14179166-63/sources-lsu-jimbo-fisher-entered
Everything I’m hearing is that Jimbo was ready to come to LSU, but his agent Jimmy Sexton was trying to drive up the price to over $7mm.
BTW, Les is 3-3 against Urban.
LikeLike
Go Terps — go Durkin.
As a screenwriter specializing in romantic comedies, I know of what Frank speaks.
LikeLike
Seems to be a pattern throughout the economy. The middle is getting squeezed.
Even with accounting firms. Late 70s there were the Big 8 and about 16 large middle firms.
Now there are the Big 4 (7 merged into 4 and 1 died) and probably 3 middle firms who are much further behind the Big 4 than they used to be. The middle has gotten squeezed by the giants (Star Wars) and by the nimble small specialists (for example-cheap horror films).
LikeLike
#4 Hawks!!!
LikeLike
May the Schwartz be with you
LikeLike
Frank – does Gordon Gee from West Virginia visiting Houston as well as Herman signing his more contract have any bearing in your mind for Big 12 expansion in the near future?
LikeLike
@BePcr07 – I haven’t heard anything about Gordon Gee visiting Houston. I’ve heard through the grapevine that the Big 12 has put out feelers over the past few months to Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis, but it’s about the same level of feelers as last year (which weren’t acted upon). So, I think it’s an indication that the Big 12 is open-minded regarding expansion, but I wouldn’t call it imminent or that they’re ready to move on it quickly.
LikeLike
Its was on the UH president’s twitter a day or two ago. She’s also had pictures of herself with Ken Star (Baylor) handing him a UH book and Greg Fenves (Texas) in the past month or so. Clearly, she’s letting alums know that she is “working the room.”
That Gee was on campus doesn’t mean he was visiting for athletic reasons.
LikeLike
Is WVU a lateral or even lesser move for Herman? Is Holgorsens’ buyout much less next year than this year? Trip may have been made by Gee under the guise or “primary” reason being B12 expansion, but also the 2nd purpose of trying to snare Herman.
LikeLike
WVU is technically a step up from Houston, but not the sort of step that I would see Herman making after just one year.
If he can string together a few good seasons at Houston, Herman would be angling for jobs like LSU, USC, Nebraska, etc. — not those exact jobs, but jobs of that caliber. There’s no particular reason for him to take a detour to WV, which is not likely to be a terminal job for someone of his ambitions.
LikeLike
Herman re signs at Houston for around 3M per yr.
LikeLike
Posted this in the previous thread, but it ties in with the topic here:
Hm. Ourand says he foresees a huge rights increase for the B10. Then says it will double.
I suppose the key is what will double? The average over the life of the contract or the year-to-year jump at the beginning of the contract.
For example, for the StL Cardinals, their annual average over the life of the contract jumped from $20M to $66M, but the year-to-year jump was from $30M to $50M (and they got a share of Fox Sports Midwest).
The B10 has grown as well, so is that doubling per school or of the contract?
The B10 will probably receive close to $150M from the old contract in it’s final year. A doubling of the average (from $100M to $200M) would be extremely disappointing (it would be less than the Pac got, and B10 TV ratings blow that conference’s away). It would also mean almost no year-to-year bump.
But if it’s a year-to-year doubling and per school, that means $30M/year per school in the first year and an average annual amount of $500M-$600M over 15 years.
An $8.4B 15 year contract.
LikeLike
He explicitly states in the article that he expects “the average annual payout” (the $100 million) to “more than double.”
LikeLike
OK, but “at least double” (which is what he said) can mean doubling, tripling, or quadrupling (or X5, X6, X7 times more), and each of those mean a very different amount of money.
As I said, if the annual average merely doubles (and it’s a 15Y instead of 10Y deal, and it’s $200M average annual (but now spread over 14 schools) that’s very disappointing. It would mean vrtually no year-over-year jump (or even a year-over-year decrease) and a lower payout than the Pac/B12/SEC get for tiers 1 and 2. If it’s $420M average annual ($30M per school), that’s a different story. It would put B10 schools’ TV revenues at the upper end of P5 conferences, but not too far away from the SEC. $700M total ($50M per school, which has been bandied around by some people), and B10 TV revenues would blow all other conferences away.
LikeLike
If it merely doubles, the Big 10 would be in last place for Tier I and Tier II.
What that demonstrates is how much it has to go up to get far ahead of anyone else.
I think they will probably just be a little ahead of the pack and not blowing everyone away as many Big 10 fans imply.
Big 10 average contracts:
ESPN $100 million
Fox-ccg $24 million
CBS-basketball $12 million
That’s $136 million. That has to increase to $294 million just to equal the Pac 12’s $21 million per year average.
LikeLike
The Big 12’s contracts went from $60 million to $110 million on Tier I (effectively,after it all got re-worked between Fox and ESPN-now they split Tier I & II while previously ESPN had Tier I and Fox Tier II) and from $20 million to $90 million on Tier II.
The big increase was Tier II. What seems to be happening is the “junk” in college football is generating much more money than it did before. The increases are coming in Tier II and Tier III.
LikeLike
Richard,
We have to remember that the B10 expanded during these contracts. The $100M number is not applicable anymore, it’s the amount per school per year. By the most common reading, that is what Ourand says will at least double. The B10’s projected numbers support that.
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
Back in 2014, the B10 projected the total payout per school to jump from $35.5M in 2016-2017 to $44.5M in 2017-2018 (only for the 12 getting a full payout). That’s an increase of $9M per year per school.
The Big Ten is anticipating 12 schools will receive roughly $33 million in 2017-18 from television revenue alone — about a $10 million per school increase from 2016-17 projection, the final year of a 10-year, $1 billion deal which started in 2007-08.
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3163/a-comparison-conference-television-deals
We also need to remember that there are multiple TV deals coming up for bid all at once. The tier 1 TV deal for FB, the CCG deal and the tier 1 MBB deal.
CFB tier 1 deal = $1B / 10 years / 11 schools = $9.09M per school
Hoops deal = $72M / 6 years / 12 = $1M
CCG deal = $145M / 6 years / 12 = $2.01M
Total = $12.1M
I’d expect some increase in all the deals, but the MBB and CCG deals were for 6 years so they aren’t as out of date plus we didn’t add any football power. On the other hand, we added major markets and a strong hoops program. Still, the CFB deal is the heart of the TV payout. And doubling it to $18M on average would basically match what the B10 projected.
LikeLike
Brian, your doubling is from the average of the last contract to the first year of the new contact (not the average of the new contract).
If it’s the average of the new contract that’s doubling the average of the last contract (as Ourand seems to be saying), then there’s almost no year-over-year jump from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.
A $10M jump implies an average of $30M-$35M/school/year in the new deal.
The non-BTN TV revenue is probably already at $15M (or slightly above)/school/year. If that $12.1M figure is doubled, an average of $24.2M would imply roughly $17M/school/year for 2017-2018. That would be a figure that would be at the bottom of the range of the P5 conferences and almost no year-over-year jump.
LikeLike
Yes, it is. But that’s because I think that’s the simplest reading of the numbers. I think people remember the B10 projecting a $9-10M growth in TV revenue going into the new deal, crunch the numbers to show that the current deal gets the B10 $9M average and say they expect it to double. I just don’t expect most people to put more effort into it than that.
You can crunch the numbers and determine roughly what the total value of the deal would be expected to be to give the $9M step change the B10 projected.
Assume a 7% annual growth
Old deal: year 1 = $6.6M -> year 10 = $12.1M and average = $9.09M
Double the average: year 1 = $13.2M -> year 10 = $24.3M and average = $18.2M
As you noted, it makes for a small change from the old to new deals. Essentially it’s an extension of the current deal.
Deal to make a $9M bump for year 1: year 1 = $21.1M -> year 10 = $38.9M and average = $29.2M
You can tweak the numbers by using a different growth rate obviously. At 5%, the new deal would average about $25.4M for example.
LikeLike
And 1 more case:
1st year = double the last year of the old deal
year 1 = $24.2M -> year 10 = $44.5M and average = $33.4M
LikeLike
I’m predicting an average annual payout per school of at least $30M.
LikeLike
That’d be nice. Are you including the CCG and MBB in that number or just tier 1 CFB?
I’m not making any predictions.
LikeLike
That would be total, so including MBB & CCG and whatever else that isn’t on the BTN.
LikeLike
I’m just happy Tim Beckman’s face isn’t the first thing you see on this page anymore!
LikeLike
Go Big Red
LikeLike
Go Bucks.
LikeLike
I’m also a large watcher of prestige films (and I have zero interest in cheap horror flicks). Grantland was one of my favorite websites and I can’t stand vapid talking head shows (whether news-based or sports-based). We need more resources dedicated to hard news and smart analysis. Unfortunately, the Internet’s business model doesn’t really reward that type of content compared to slideshow click-bait.
Best part of your post. needs to be shouted from the rooftops but in this day and age it will not.
LikeLike
Frank,
I noticed on Twitter you are continuing to bang the 8-team playoff in January drum. I have a couple of questions:
1. Why do you continue to dismiss the 2-semester problem? Every president or commissioner I’ve ever seen quoted or paraphrased has said that’s a huge issue, but you blithely dismiss it every time. Do you have any source to support your stance that the issue is a smokescreen? It doesn’t matter whether anyone else understands or agrees with them, the important thing is whether or not this is a sticking point for the presidents. I’ve always heard it is a line they won’t cross. Eventually I could see enough financial pressure building up that they might cave in, but not anytime soon with the current playoff money being a fresh boost to the bottom line. They seem much more inclined to move quarterfinals earlier than bump the final four later, but that runs into academic calendar issues unless something else gives.
2. What is so great about emphasizing division races? Nobody nationally should care about 3-loss teams competing for a division title. That should only be of regional interest. Only the best should be eligible for a playoff. Why on earth would TV want to focus on 6-6 UCLA in 2011 or 7-5 WI in 2012? Why should that WI team have made any playoff that claims to be finding the best team in the country? That’s the problem with unqualified autobids.
You reference the NFL, but that’s a double-edged example. The NFL playoffs demonstrate every negative aspect of a playoff. You tout the objectiveness of all division winners getting in, but it’s countered by ignoring many of the regular season results and declaring a 9 or 10 win team the best team over a 14 to 16 win team. You even have teams with losing records eligible. In addition, a large amount of the interest in the NFL regular season is based on gambling and fantasy sports. Neither is as big in CFB and the presidents want to keep that true.
I understand the concept of trying to have more teams “alive” later in the year, but is there evidence that’s ever hurt CFB? Do ratings drop as the season progresses or do fans shift to watching the big national games instead of their team? Also, you don’t really fool those fans into thinking their team has a realistic chance. After a third loss almost every fan will admit that their team doesn’t deserve to be #1 and wouldn’t win a playoff. I think you are trading making more games technically matter for reducing how much the big games matter. There are no big games if a loss doesn’t really matter. That’s how 2011 basically killed the BCS. Early OOC games would become mostly meaningless so why watch them no matter what the rankings? That’s the cost of making 6-3 teams still be alive on paper.
LikeLike
Frank’s 8-team proposal is not the one I’d support. I also think that if it ever happens, it’ll take a LOT longer than most playoff proponents believe is possible. You’re talking mid-2020s, at the earliest.
On the 2-semester problem, however, Frank does have some valid points. Many of the university presidents and conference commissioners who approved the 4-team playoff, are the same people who once said they would never, ever, ever, agree to that.
In other words, they have a track record of doing something they once said could never be done. . . . a track record of citing a problem as insurmountable, only to “surmount” it later on. I therefore think, that when evaluating what this crowd says, we have to analyze the underlying issues ourselves.
CFB is already a multi-semester sport. In some years, the championship game will be as late as January 13, a date by which many (most?) schools have already resumed winter classes. Of course, all schools have 15 organized practices in the spring—basically, the same amount of time it takes to prep for a bowl game, without the actual game.
It must also be noted that the length of the CFB schedule has expanded repeatedly. There was always a purported reason for the prior limits, before they were erased and rewritten. The same is also true in college basketball, already a two-semester sport by any definition. (There has been some whingeing that the CFB season should be cut back, but I’ll believe it when I see it.)
Since there is no real analysis behind the claim that football needs to be a one-semester sport, I conclude that it really is just a “smokescreen”. It seems to be a convenient way of avoiding a substantive discussion, just like the reasons originally given why a 4-team playoff would be unacceptable. I cannot believe that this issue would stand in the way, if all the other problems were solved—not that they have been.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Frank’s 8-team proposal is not the one I’d support.”
I’d prefer December quarterfinals if it has to happen, but his plan makes some sense.
“I also think that if it ever happens, it’ll take a LOT longer than most playoff proponents believe is possible. You’re talking mid-2020s, at the earliest.”
I also think expansion is a long way off. They need to get used to the current playoff cash before they start feeling the need to get even more.
“On the 2-semester problem, however, Frank does have some valid points.”
I don’t disagree with most of his arguments, I just don’t think they’re necessarily relevant. I won’t believe the presidents will cave on mid-December games until I see it due to the sanctity of finals time to them. Likewise, they’ve been adamant about not going deeper into January. With all the academic concerns any more, I believe they truly don’t want football players to have to deal with more January games. As part of that, I think they’re also concerned about the impact on MBB if CFB is still going until late January.
“Many of the university presidents and conference commissioners who approved the 4-team playoff, are the same people who once said they would never, ever, ever, agree to that.”
Which might make them more likely to dig in their heels, having already placated the other side with expansion to 4 teams.
“I therefore think, that when evaluating what this crowd says, we have to analyze the underlying issues ourselves.”
Which is great, but I’ve rarely/never seen anybody really take the president’s stance on this issue seriously to begin with. There’s no analysis of why they feel the way they do and how strong those feelings are, just dismissal of their stance as stupid or fake.
“CFB is already a multi-semester sport. In some years, the championship game will be as late as January 13, a date by which many (most?) schools have already resumed winter classes.”
That Monday is the day many semester-based schools start classes again (quarters schools tend to start 1 week earlier). Any push back from then would interfere with classes.
“Of course, all schools have 15 organized practices in the spring—basically, the same amount of time it takes to prep for a bowl game, without the actual game.”
And we all know that isn’t what they’re referring to when they talk about the two-semester issue.
“It must also be noted that the length of the CFB schedule has expanded repeatedly.”
But not in a way to interfere with academics. They dropped a bye week for another game. They started before classes were in session. The presidents have declared Labor Day weekend the starting point and drawn a line in the sand in mid-December to protect finals. With all the health risks, I’m not sure anyone wants to start earlier in August. I doubt the presidents will cave on mid-December any time soon either. Likewise, I believe they are serious about protecting the winter term from football.
“The same is also true in college basketball, already a two-semester sport by any definition.”
And the presidents hate what the academic numbers are in MBB. They also don’t like the attendance and interest MBB receives before March.
“I cannot believe that this issue would stand in the way, if all the other problems were solved—not that they have been.”
I think there is diminishing pressure for each further expansion of the playoff. How much net financial gain is there in adding quarterfinals after subtracting the impact on bowls and CCGs? How tough is it to solve all the other problems? Until a lot of people can agree on a plan that deals with all the issues, I think the status quo wins.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/128054/b1g-statement-big-ten-staking-claim-as-best-conference
ESPN.com has a headline that the B10 is staking a claim as the best conference this year. I note that because first, I usually complain about how negative they are about the B10, and second because I don’t think it’s remotely true.
Arguments for:
* B10 teams are #4, 5, 6, 14, 15 (nobody else has more than 3 in the top 15)
* B10 could be the first conference to get 2 playoff teams in one year (doubtful)
Arguments against:
* IL, PU, RU, UMD (4 of the worst P5 teams in the country, all in the bottom half of I-A according to the Massey composite of ranking systems – http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm)
* Sagarin’s conference rankings (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2015/conference/) show the SECW as by far the best division, then the B12, P12N, P12S, B10E, ACCC, ACCA, SECE and B10W. The #5 and #9 divisions don’t add up to the top conference. Sagarin isn’t the end all, be all but he’s one of the few that explicitly lists the conferences.
If you only consider the top of the conference you can make a valid case, but then I’d want to know why only the top teams matter.
LikeLike
Well you can’t have a whole bunch of good teams in a conference without having a bunch of teams with terrible records. I understand your point but I don’t think Purdue and Rutgers beating OSU and MSU this year would necessarily make the conference stronger.
I think you can argue a conference’s perception is as strong as it’s best teams. B1G got a boost simply by OSU winning last year.
LikeLike
They could have good OOC records and poor conference ones, though. And objective measures all say those are bad teams, not decent teams with bad records. The number of their coaches that got fired backs that up I think.
LikeLike
I’d agree. Leagues that are really elite shine in OOC play, and the B1G really hasn’t this year.
LikeLike
Anyone know what the OOC record of the P5 conferences against other P5 teams are?
LikeLike
vs P5 + ND:
SEC 6-5
P12 5-5
B10 8-8
B12 4-4
ACC 7-13 (6-8 without ND)
ND 7-2 (2-1 without the ACC)
LikeLike
Should include BYU as well.
In any case, that’s what I thought.
The B10 isn’t any worse than the SEC this year.
LikeLike
Now subtract the FCS games…
LikeLike
Never mind.
I use to be able to read…
LikeLike
Richard,
“Should include BYU as well.”
BYU was 1-1 vs B10, 0-1 vs P12, 0-1 vs SEC.
“In any case, that’s what I thought.
The B10 isn’t any worse than the SEC this year.”
I think you’d need to look at the individual games to determine that. Beating Clemson and beating WF are two very different things (see ND’s record vs the ACC and why I pulled it out). That said, most of the matchups between conferences balanced out. The biggest mismatch was the B12 going 2-0 vs the SEC (TN lost to OU in 2OT, TT beat AR).
LikeLike
True, but the only OOC wins over a top 15 team (not counting the ND games; all of the ND losses would be in OOC play) were Northwestern over Stanford, SCarolina over UNC, Memphis over Ole Miss, Utah over Michigan, and MSU over Oregon. B10 has 2 of the 5. Even if you count the Stanford and Clemson wins over ND, the B10 ties with the Pac for the highest number of impressive OOC wins.
That’s not a bad record and doesn’t support any assertion that the B10 is weaker than other conferences this year.
LikeLike
Richard,
“That’s not a bad record and doesn’t support any assertion that the B10 is weaker than other conferences this year.”
I’ll let Matthew defend his assertion if he wants. I didn’t use OOC vs P5 results in deciding that I didn’t think the B10 was the best conference.
LikeLike
Mendenhall to UVA?
http://m.bleacherreport.com/uva-football
LikeLike
Perhaps he got tired of the lifestyle restrictions for players limiting his recruiting. He should be a good fit for a school like UVA plus he’ll have more fertile recruiting grounds.
LikeLike
B10 filed an amendment to require CCGs to be between division winners, but does not require the divisions to have 6+ teams. Did not see reference to round-robin requirement either. So more restrictive than the current ACC/B12 proposal, but it will still allow B12 to hold CCG without expanding. Under the more restrictive B10 proposal they would just need to name the 5 team divisions before the start of the season.
LikeLike
A division without a round-robin is not a very meaningful construct.
LikeLike
Neither is a CCG in a small enough conference that full RR can occur and still allow for several OOC games.
LikeLike
The meaning of the construct in the Big12’s case is adding an additional quality win to the school that is named the conference champion, to increase their clout in taking a CFP spot … which is exactly why they would like it to be top-2 playoff rather than division winners playoff.
IIUC, from the gaps in the reporting I’ve seen about what is NOT mentioned in the Big Ten proposal, it would seem to allow the Big12 to do the least useful of possible CCG’s if they stay at ten. But if a full division-round-robin is not required to select division champions (it is not strictly required at present, for conferences that do not have balanced divisions, but a waiver is required each year), would permit a 14-team conference playing six in-division games and three cross-division games to expand to 16-teams while continuing to play six in-division games and three cross-division games. And requiring the CCG to be division winners without a lot of additional regulation on divisional structure would seem to allow a 14-team conference that plays eight conference games to expand by one into three five-team divisions, playing four games in-division and four games cross-division, with a “best of division winners” CCG.
LikeLike
You know, this is a proposal that gives the B10 what it wants as well. Maybe not so much right now, but it would make expanding to 16/18/20 a lot more logistically feasible.
No B10 school really has more than 3 rivalry games that they need to protect, and this way would allow each school to play 3 rivals annually and yet still play all the other schools at least half the time (so both home and away over a player’s 4-year career) even with 16 teams (and a 9 game conference slate).
LikeLike
You know, this is a proposal that gives the B10 what it wants as well. Maybe not so much right now, but it would make expanding to 16/18/20 a lot more logistically feasible.
Yes and no. If the B10 is thinking about a 16- or 20-team future, what it should want is maximum flexibility to structure that game as it sees fit, with minimal interference from bureaucrats outside the league. It should therefore prefer the B12/ACC proposal.
However, all of that is moot unless the B10 actually gets to 16-20 teams, which it cannot do unless the B12 or the ACC fails. Therefore, it should want to throw as much sand in their gears as possible, which this proposal is evidently intended to do.
The article states that the proposal has the votes to pass as it stands, as long as the B10 is the only league voting no. Of course, we don’t know for sure how the B10 would vote, if it came down to the B12/ACC proposal or no reform at all.
LikeLike
But if there is a part of maximum flexibility that they are not interested in, while taking it away also throws sand in the gears, it would be understandable to offer a proposal to ONLY take away the flexibility you don’t have an interest in using. If there is adamant opposition inside the Big Ten to sending anybody but a division champion to the CCG, so that the Big Ten is already constrained to doing that for internal reasons, then retaining that constraint in the NCAA rule might not be an ADDITIONAL constraint on the Big Ten.
A “Big Ten Wet Dream” 18 realignment might be UTexas, UVA, UNC and Duke/GTech. So Big Ten West, UTexas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern; Big Ten Central, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, MSU, TSUN, OSU; Big Ten East, PSU, UMD, Rutgers, UVA, UNC, Duke/GTech. 5 conference games, two each from two other divisions, 9 conference games, top two division champions play in CCG.
LikeLike
It really depends on the size of the division. For a 20 team conference, that’s 10-team divisions. No conference is likely to completely drop crossover games and a 10-game conference schedule is also highly unlikely. Playing 7 of 9 in division is certainly more meaningful than playing 9 of 19 overall. I’d say 16 is about the limit for a round robin in division.
LikeLike
This.
LikeLike
For 16, 18 and 20, it allows two divisions, seven games in-division. For 18, it also allows three divisions, full round robin in division, best two of three play in CCG. It supports all of the pod people nonsense that various conference realignment addicts were hanging their hopes for another fix of conference realignment excitement on for a while, which are effectively divisional scheduling with rotating divisions … and which would allow two divisions of ten each annually playing no cross-division games because the divisions get shuffled every year.
The only system I can see that it does not support is a non-divisional schedule with a different set of locked opponents for each school and the top two schools play in the CCG. So if they known that there are hard political barriers against doing that there is nothing lost by the Big Ten in the medium or long term in “deregulation of divisions, deregulation of choice of division winners, CCG’s are only for division winners”.
LikeLike
At 16, there could be four Divisions of 4 schools…
Each school plays the 3 in their Division & 2 each from the other 3 Divisions.
Then, they’d play a Conference Semi-Final & Title Game.
LikeLike
At 16, there could be four Divisions of 4 schools…
Each school plays the 3 in their Division & 2 each from the other 3 Divisions.
Then, they’d play a Conference Semi-Final & Title Game.
The proposal as it stands does not permit both a conference semi-final and a conference title game, unless the semi-final occurred as the last game of the conventional 12-game regular season—something no rational league would do.
LikeLike
Mack,
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25401391/big-ten-trying-to-stop-acc-big-12-move-to-alter-conference-title-games
Here’s a link about it.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told CBS Sports he believes there is enough support among the 10 FBS conferences for his league’s version of the legislation to pass.
However, “two divisions isn’t the end of the world,” he said.
The legislation will be considered in January at the NCAA Convention.
“Consistency, that’s what you have everywhere else,” Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said in explaining the Big Ten amendment. “We’re trying to make sure there is consistency with what the college football committee will look at. That’s my view.
“I’m in that room with those guys [CFP Selection Committee] this weekend. I would want what’s in basketball. I remember being on the basketball committee and figuring out divisions and no-plays. It’s an absolute nightmare.”
Smith was referring to his time on the Division I Men’s Basketball Committee that selects and seeds teams annually in the NCAA Tournament.
…
“There’s really no magical reason we did it, just looking for more structure,” a Big Ten spokesman said. “Full deregulation would lead to unintended consequences.”
The spokesman was not specific about those consequences.
The Big Ten’s rationale taken from the NCAA’s legislative database not accessible to the public: “In order for the additional game to be exempted as a conference championship, the match-up must be reflective of the participating teams’ success within the conference, which is provided through the divisional-format provision.”
Bowlsby believes that at least four of the five Power Five conferences support the Big 12-ACC version. That would total eight votes. If that’s the case, the rest of the FBS conferences could only muster seven votes.
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said the SEC could be willing to allow the Big 12 to stage a conference championship game with 10 teams and no divisions while playing a full round-robin schedule.
“There’s a willingness to listen but not an interest to just say, ‘Yes, let’s change the model,’ Sankey told CBSSports.com’s Jon Solomon. “I think the rules and regulations we have now are appropriate for 12-team and 14-team conferences. I think divisional play is healthy. But in circumstances where there are 10 [teams], I’m open to conversations about the Big 12 with 10 if they play a full round robin and have a championship game in addition.”
Sankey said he often hears questions from the public, and even fellow commissioners, about why the Power Five conferences can’t get on the same page regarding scheduling and conference championship games.
“I don’t necessarily feel the need to dictate every scheduling parameter for other conferences in part because when I look at the rigor of a Southeastern Conference schedule, that’s real,” Sankey said. “We play eight [conference] games. That’s an appropriate model for us. If others want to play a different number of games, they’re certainly free to do that. But I think that’s part of the regulatory process that doesn’t need to go further.”
LikeLike
Pfffttttt!!!
LikeLike
Tap the brakes on CCG deregulation.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14307386/big-ten-amendment-slows-big-12-effort-conference-championship-game-deregulation
LikeLike
“I agree a conference should not have to expand in order to have a championship game,” Delany told ESPN.com. “That wouldn’t be right. That’s tail wagging dog. On the other hand, I want to have some familiarity — some knowledge as to how these things are going to play out. I don’t want unintended consequences. I don’t want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that’s unfamiliar.
“We don’t think he should have to expand to have the same option we have,” Delany said, “but we feel he should have a structure similar to ours.”
…
“We don’t want to play two five-team divisions then have the potential of everyone else has the two best teams in one division,” Bowlsby said. “We don’t think we ought to be forced into that sort of thing.”
Delany is looking for more specific answers from Bowlsby and ACC commissioner John Swofford, who together submitted the original proposal to loosen the NCAA’s restrictions on how conferences hold title games. Delany wants to know exactly how the Big 12 and ACC would determine their respective champions if given complete liberty.
Swofford reiterated his support for the proposal and for conferences to have power to determine their champions in the way they choose but expressed contentment with the ACC’s current situation.
…
Said Delany: “They’re the sponsors, so they should have the ability to articulate what they plan to do. We already have enough differences.”
…
Bowlsby is still under the impression, though, that his conference could be at a disadvantage because it doesn’t have one. Michigan State jumped Oklahoma for the No. 3 spot in the final ranking on Sunday in large part because of its win over Iowa in the Big Ten title game.
“It was really a function of what Michigan State did in their 13th game,” committee chair and Jeff Long said. “They beat last week’s No. 4 team in the nation, and that was significant. No question that had an impact on the committee. I think that win over that highly ranked team, added to the rest of their body of work, caused Michigan State to be ranked ahead of Oklahoma.”
Delany said he has spoken with Bowlsby about deregulation in person, written him a note about it and discussed it on a teleconference with the other commissioners. Delany said the Big 12 should be different than the ACC because it is a smaller league and plays a round robin format, and he doesn’t think there would be sympathy for the ACC to simply select its two best teams to play in a title game because there’s not a round robin format to determine the ACC’s top two teams.
Delany said the Big Ten’s amendment was less of a blatant rejection of the proposal than it was the “straw man” in getting the discussion going.
“I’m sympathetic to what Bob wants to achieve, but we wanted to start the conversation and not just have one vote for total deregulation,” he said.
I think this is a wise step. The goal should to de-regulate within reason, not just endorse anarchy. Perhaps the final solution is as simple as each specific proposed CCG format must be approved individually by a committee vote. That way if someone comes up with something crazy in an attempt to game the system they can be stopped. It sounds like Delany has no interest in stopping the B12 from selecting their top 2 to play but has concerns with the ACC or SEC doing that.
LikeLike
He can spin how he likes, but bottom line is introducing limitations and requirements (to keep it as close to the other conference’s CCG qualifications as possible). Henry Ford once said customers could have model T in what ever color they wanted – as long as they wanted black.
Bowlsby: “We don’t think we ought to be forced into adding schools in order to have a championship game, but it could end up that way.”
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“He can spin how he likes, but bottom line is introducing limitations and requirements (to keep it as close to the other conference’s CCG qualifications as possible).”
Now who’s spinning? The bottom line is keeping some limitations and requirements, not introducing them.
“Henry Ford once said customers could have model T in what ever color they wanted – as long as they wanted black.”
And that went so poorly for him.
“Bowlsby: “We don’t think we ought to be forced into adding schools in order to have a championship game, but it could end up that way.””
Except Delany explicitly said that wasn’t their intent as I quoted above.
LikeLike
Brian:
1: Offering the amendment to the proposed deregulation isn’t introducing regulation to what was proposed?
2: Ford sold a lot of black cars, right up to when he decided to do other colors. Customers didn’t get to dictate.
3: Who cares what Delany says about the amendments intent. What matters is its effect.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“1: Offering the amendment to the proposed deregulation isn’t introducing regulation to what was proposed?”
No, it’s reducing the amount of regulation to be eliminated. The regulation already exists, the question is how much to remove.
“2: Ford sold a lot of black cars, right up to when he decided to do other colors. Customers didn’t get to dictate.”
And? All he did was delay the growth of the after-market car painting industry by doing it in house. People were always free to repaint their cars any color they liked and some did.
“3: Who cares what Delany says about the amendments intent. What matters is its effect.”
The amendment contains no language requiring expansion by the B12. It would allow a 10-team B12 to have a CCG. Therefore Bowlsby’s comment is irrelevant. What they’d have to do is form divisions, not add anyone.
LikeLike
And Bowlsby’s take is that they might need to, not as a requirement but as an effect. Why? I’m not sure, but that’s what he said. Perhaps… I got nothing.
LikeLike
That’s my problem with his statement. He didn’t articulate any reason why they would feel forced to expand any more than they do now. They’d get the CCG money and resume boost they want. What new pressure would divisions create in a league that plays a full round robin that forces expansion? Is splitting the 10 teams really that difficult if you keep the round robin?
LikeLike
Why the f**k are the B1G, ACC, PAC (and MWC) championship games all at the same time?
LikeLike
Unimaginative TV schedulers. Primetime has the most viewers and nobody wants to go head-to-head with the SEC in the afternoon.
However, OSU-UMich draws huge ratings even with a noon kickoff, so ESPN definitely could have moved the ACC CCG to noon, but they didn’t because they’re stupid.
LikeLike
This is the problem with tv trying to nationalize every game. College FB, both teams and conferences, are primarily regional with a national interest to a lesser extent.
Perhaps you have it backwards and they don’t want to expose that the SEC, and their investment in it, might not be the national draw (especially this year) if competing for other regions eyeballs at the same time?
LikeLike
Absolutely no one wants to go up against the SEC Championship Game head-to-head, especially when it’s the late afternoon. When Fox is paying over $23 million per year to the Big Ten, they basically dictate what would be the best for exposure.
The ACC used to have a 12 pm ET start for its championship game, but it generally got slaughtered in the ratings compared to the prime time games despite less competition. Ever since the new ACC-ESPN deal has been in place, the ACC title game has been in prime time (likely a mutually agreeable situation).
LikeLike
IIRC the Pac-12 experimented with Friday night for more or less this reason, and then when basically no one showed up, they abandoned it. I think it was UCLA-Stanford, though I could be wrong.
LikeLike
@Matthew Smith – The Pac-12 CCG time slot is entirely dictated by TV. When ESPN/ABC has the game, then it’s on Saturday. When Fox has the game, then it’s on Friday night since the Big Ten CCG has Saturday locked down on that network. It was on Friday night last year because it was a Fox season.
LikeLike
Frank: that’s what I thought too. However, it’s on Saturday in ’16 and ’17 on their projected schedule. Perhaps Fox didn’t like Friday?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Why the f**k are the B1G, ACC, PAC (and MWC) championship games all at the same time?”
Because the games are on Fox, ABC, ESPN and ESPN2 respectively. What can they put on in prime time that would top a CCG? Besides, they count on several of the games being duds and the viewers switching to the best game available. In addition, the ESPN family may have certain other contractual obligations that require the CCGs to all be later.
LikeLike
A little insight into how different BYU operates compared to most other schools. If Miles or Sabin or whoever applied, they wouldn’t be acceptable unless they were LDS in good standing.
http://www.sltrib.com/home/3267192-155/byu-football-shallow-pool-of-candidates
Perhaps Mendenhall saw no P5 membership likely?
Andy Reid seems unlikely, although the church did suggest the dean of Harvard business school leave to become president of BYUIdaho (formerly Ricks).
LikeLike
Most people who examine the issues believe that P5 membership is unlikely for BYU.
LikeLike
I’ve been saying ESPN and FOX will split the rights for years. Jim Delany, where’s my media consultant job?
In any case, ESPN is more desperate than ever to keep the Big Ten rights and they’ll pay handsomely to have that programming. They could work out a deal so ESPN or at least Gameday has first choice on games. Either way, I figure the Big Ten to make out like bandits.
LikeLike
Yo Frank……..
Do you believe the chances are that BigTen will add any schools during TV contract negotiations?
If so, which schools do you believe are most likely to be added?
Thanks
LikeLike
Zilch. There is nothing suitable left in the East, and only Kansas and Missouri are siitable in the West. The B1G might stay at 14 for a generation.
LikeLike
Unless the ACC or B12 break up.
LikeLike
Yes, so the Big Ten might stay at 14 for a generation, it might expand in a decade with Oklahoma bolting the Big12 and Texas deciding it wants to get into a bigger money conference presenting the shiny bauble for academic snobs to swing Oklahoma in. (Or, less happily, in a decade’s time, one or more of the presently snobbier schools has bad enough budget crises in its state that its no longer in a position to be a snob to Oklahoma.)
LikeLike
If not “zilch,” then pretty close to it. Outside of the SEC (and nobody is leaving the SEC), all of the desirable schools are locked up in grants of rights with many years left to run. I can’t see the money making sense, when a school would be leaving so much on the table.
The next realistic window for expansion will be in the early 2020s, when the GORs start to approach expiration. Not that anything will happen then, but nothing’s likely to happen any earlier.
LikeLike
Who will Stanford play in the Rose Bowl????
LikeLike
I think OSU.
I hope OSU because I’d like to see the Cardinal stomped.
LikeLike
Iowa, they outrank tOSU in the B1G, and had a better season overall.
LikeLike
I’d say the two have very similar resumes. Both lost to MSU. OSU beat MI and IA beat NW. OSU would’ve won the East if MI punted successfully against MSU. They’ll probably be ranked next to each other. I personally think OSU is a better team, but on paper they are about the same.
If I were the Rose Bowl, I’d take Iowa. They haven’t been there in a long time while OSU was there pretty recently. I think IA fans will be more excited to go. OSU fans are disappointed in 11-1 while IA fans are thrilled with 12-1.
LikeLike
0 & 1 loss teams after 14 weeks and who picked up 2nd loss
———————— P5 schools + Notre Dame ————————
ACC 07.14% / 14 teams / 1 team remains
(1) | 13 – 0, 8-0, and 1-0 Clemson beat North Carolina (picked up 2nd loss)
B12 10.00% / 10 teams / 1 team remains / NO CCG
(1) | 11 – 1 Oklahoma
B1G 07.14% / 14 teams / 1 team remains
(1) | 12 – 1, 7-1, and 1-0 Michigan State beat Iowa
(2) Iowa @ 12-1 and Ohio State @ 11-1
PAC 00.00% / 12 teams / 0 teams remain / eliminated in week 11
SEC 07.14% / 14 teams / 1 team remains / CCG
(1) | 12 – 1 Alabama beat Florida
IND 00.00% / 3 teams / 0 teams remain / eliminated in week 13
———————— non P5 schools ————————
AAC 00.00% / 12 teams / 0 remain / CCG
(1) | 12 – 1 Houston || probably eliminated in week 12
MAC 0.00% / 13 teams / 0 remain / eliminated in week 13
CUSA 0.00% / 13 teams / 0 remain / eliminated in week 10
SUN 0.00% / 11 teams / 0 remain / eliminated in week 10
MWC 0.00% / 12 teams / 0 remain / eliminated in week 7
.
…
.
4 playoff spots locked down, all is according to plan?
ACC / Clemson (Big State School)
B1G / Michigan State (Big State School)
SEC / Alabama (Brand Name)
B12 / Oklahoma (Brand Name)
LikeLike
Wow! Sparty, that was a drive for the ages!
LikeLike
Quick prediction:
1. Clemson
2. AL
3. OU
4. MSU
Orange = Clemson vs MSU
Cotton = AL vs OU
Rose = Stanford vs Iowa
Sugar = OkSU vs MS
Fiesta = UH vs OSU
Peach = FSU vs ND
LikeLike
Wrong on the playoff. I like your logic on Rose Bowl, but tOSU has not been there that recently and that would be a marquee matchup. I agree with Richard that tOSU might stomp Stanford, just as I am confident that Stanford would stomp Iowa. So, I prefer Stanford v. tOSU. And that is the matchup that will prompt Stanford fans to drive down for the game. As for Fiesta, all the “experts” are calling ND to Fiesta Bowl.
BTW, I question FSU being ranked ahead of UNC. I wonder if the committee will do that too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It will Iowa. The B1G is like the GOPe. It’s Iowa’s turn. Besides, Iowa is higher than OSU in the B1G standings.
LikeLike
Well, it’s up to the Rose Bowl and not the B10. They’ve said they would normally take the highest ranked team in the CFP rankings but can pick someone else if special circumstances apply (like WI going 3 years in a row). The question is whether IA or OSU will be ranked higher.
LikeLike
And IA is #5 with OSU #7.
LikeLike
“I like your logic on Rose Bowl, but tOSU has not been there that recently”
2010. Iowa was last there in 1992.
“and that would be a marquee matchup.”
There is no such thing as a marquee matchup involving Stanford.
“As for Fiesta, all the “experts” are calling ND to Fiesta Bowl.”
Good for them. I’m not convinced the committee thinks the same way the experts do.
“BTW, I question FSU being ranked ahead of UNC. I wonder if the committee will do that too.”
FSU was ahead last week and UNC lost yesterday. Why would they move UNC up?
LikeLike
Experts were right.
Anyway, Stanford is a pretty big name in college football now. Like TCU or Baylor or even Oregon, they may not have been decades ago, but they are now.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Experts were right.”
They often are. I considered that the committee might factor in distance (UH is much closer to Phoenix than ND/OSU) more than ranking (7. OSU, 8. ND, 9. FSU). I realize UH is closer to Atlanta than Phoenix, but ND and OSU are both closer to Atlanta than UH is.
“Anyway, Stanford is a pretty big name in college football now. Like TCU or Baylor or even Oregon, they may not have been decades ago, but they are now.”
To CFB fans, maybe, but not to casual fans. The big bowls are all about getting the casual fans to watch. Stanford doesn’t have anywhere near the drawing power of the marquee brands.
LikeLike
One thing to consider is that there was a not-so-hidden quid pro quo that the Fiesta Bowl wouldn’t get “stuck” with the G5 participant for a second year in a row. Everyone should expect the Cotton Bowl to get the G5 team next year no matter who it might be.
LikeLike
A traditional B10-Pac Rose Bowl will draw in casual fans regardless of which teams from those conferences play in it.
Also, TV viewership numbers these days are driven much more by rankings than “name” programs.
BTW, AZ has a ton of Midwestern retirees.
LikeLike
Richard,
“A traditional B10-Pac Rose Bowl will draw in casual fans regardless of which teams from those conferences play in it.”
The evidence doesn’t really support that.
2009 – #7 OR vs #8 OSU – 13.2 rating
2011 – #6 OR vs #9 WI – 10.2 rating (up to 11.3 to adjust for switch from Fox to ESPN)
2014 – #4 MSU vs #5 Stanford – 10.2 rating (also up to 11.3)
“Also, TV viewership numbers these days are driven much more by rankings than “name” programs.”
Evidence?
“BTW, AZ has a ton of Midwestern retirees.”
I’m well aware of that.
LikeLike
TCU-Baylor (even though Baylor already had one loss and TCU 2 losses by that game) got more viewers than both OU-Texas and OU-OKSt. even though the RRR is a rivalry game that features 2 big names, Bedlam is a rivalry game with a big brand and playoff consequences and OU has been good this year.
LikeLike
Richard,
“TCU-Baylor (even though Baylor already had one loss and TCU 2 losses by that game) got more viewers than both OU-Texas and OU-OKSt. even though the RRR is a rivalry game that features 2 big names, Bedlam is a rivalry game with a big brand and playoff consequences and OU has been good this year.”
Numbers:
BU/TCU – 3.1 rating, 5.11M viewers, Friday 11/27, 8pm, ESPN, no major CFB competition
Bedlam – 2.8/4,79M, Saturday 11/28, 8pm, ABC, versus ND/Stanford & FSU/UF & MS/MsSU
RRR – 3.3/4.99M, Sat. 10/10, noon, ABC, no major CFB competition
Bedlam was on at the same time as several other major games, reducing their rating and viewer numbers. Perhaps the 12.5M viewers (6.7 rating points) watching those other games might have been more likely to watch Bedlam if it was the only game on.
The RRR was on at noon which always reduced viewer numbers. In addition, UT was terrible coming in at 1-4 and just having been blown out by TCU 50-7.
You expect those 2 games under those conditions to exceed BU-TCU?
LikeLike
BU-TCU was on a Friday night, which traditionally is a bad night for TV viewing.
In any case, you’re taking the side that brand trumps rankings, and regardless of how terrible Texas is, they still have the brand. But they drew fewer viewers even against another power program in a traditional rivalry.
LikeLike
Richard,
“BU-TCU was on a Friday night, which traditionally is a bad night for TV viewing.”
It was Black Friday which is just a bit different from a typical Friday.
“In any case, you’re taking the side that brand trumps rankings, and regardless of how terrible Texas is, they still have the brand. But they drew fewer viewers even against another power program in a traditional rivalry.”
At noon. In a game nobody expected to be close. And the RRR drew a higher rating.
LikeLike
The RRR was on ABC while Baylor-TCU was on cable, which should give the RRR a significant advantage.
LikeLike
Baylor-OKSt. also drew roughly as well as UF-FSU and USC-UCLA even though the last 2 games are big rivalry games featuring king programs and both UF and FSU were ranked as well.
LikeLike
Baylor-TCU also outdrew OU-Tennessee while Baylor-OKSt. drew roughly as well. Yet I hope you’ll acknowledge that OU and Tennessee are bigger traditional brands than Baylor, TCU, or OK St.
LikeLike
Finally, those Baylor-TCU and Baylor-OKSt. games (and TCU-OKSt. as well) far outdrew the UMich-PSU and UNL-Miami games last year. UMich-PSU was far higher this year because Michigan was good and they hired Harbaugh.
Which means that rankings (and personalities, to an extent) matter more than brands when it comes to ratings.
LikeLike
Which is why the SEC ratings have been so good the last few years.
They have had brands AND rankings.
LikeLike
Texas/OU was the top rated game of that weekend. That shows the power of brand. Texas was 1-4, had just been blown out and had been looking mostly unwatchable on offense. Still carried the weekend.
LikeLike
Well, if you have one king program who’s good (like OU this year) in a game, that game will draw boffo ratings.
For instance, OSU-Rutgers got more viewers than the RRR. Does that show how great a brand RU has (since they got great ratings despite a down year)?
LikeLike
Oh well. They chose to bump MSU past OU. AL is a 9 point favorite over MSU while OU is favored by 2.5 to beat Clemson.
1. Clemson
2. AL
3. MSU
4. OU
Semis:
12/31 Orange = Clemson vs OU
12/31 Cotton = AL vs MSU
Predictions:
12/31 @ 12:
Peach = FSU vs ND
1/1 @ 1, 5 & 8:30 respectively
Fiesta = UH vs OSU
Rose = Stanford vs IA
Sugar = OkSU vs MS
Notes:
1. Stanford is locked
2. MS and OkSU are essentially locked (replacements for missing champs)
3. ND and OSU are interchangeable for location
4. IA and OSU might be swapped, in which case IA would go to the Fiesta and ND to the Peach
LikeLike
CFP rankings:
1. Clemson
2. AL
3. MSU
4. OU
5. IA
6. Stanford
7. OSU
8. ND
9. FSU
10. UNC
That should get IA the Rose Bowl and FSU a NY6 game.
LikeLike
Semis:
12/31 Orange = Clemson vs OU
12/31 Cotton = AL vs MSU
12/31 @ 12:
Peach = FSU vs UH (this game should get about 17 viewers due to date, time and teams)
1/1 @ 1, 5 & 8:30 respectively
Fiesta = ND vs OSU
Rose = Stanford vs IA
Sugar = OkSU vs MS
This is an ugly set of games at first blush. There isn’t a single one I’m looking forward to watching.
LikeLike
Then you’re strange.
The playoff games will be watched.
ND and OSU are only 2 of the most tradition-laden and successful power programs in college football.
Stanford vs. Iowa features 2 top ten teams and a traditional B10 vs. Pac matchup as well as a cinderella story in Iowa. It will draw tons of viewers.
LikeLike
Honestly, I’m more interested in the Rose and Fiesta than any of the other bowls including the preliminary games of the invitational…err, playoff. That said, Go Sparty!
LikeLike
Agreed, Brian is strange. We’re getting some of the best big name matchups in decades, especially downcard, like Michigan/Florida.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Then you’re strange.”
Nothing new there.
“The playoff games will be watched.”
I didn’t say they wouldn’t be. I said I’m not excited about them and that the Peach won’t get many viewers. People will watch the games out of sheer habit if nothing else. And maybe some of them will turn out to be good games.
I’ll be working on 12/31, so I’ll definitely miss the Peach and Orange. As I hate the playoff, hate seeing major bowls moved to 12/31, hate watching AL win and also hate seeing B10 teams lose to the SEC in bowls, I have zero motivation to watch the Cotton. Besides, I don’t have cable so I don’t have to worry about watching any of these bowls.
“ND and OSU are only 2 of the most tradition-laden and successful power programs in college football.”
Really? I’ve never heard of them. I never like to watch ND and there is no rivalry between them and OSU.
“Stanford vs. Iowa features 2 top ten teams and a traditional B10 vs. Pac matchup as well as a cinderella story in Iowa. It will draw tons of viewers.”
It’ll draw decent numbers but nothing special unless the game turns out to be better than expected. It could easily be a snoozefest like the first 3 quarters of the B10 CCG.
LikeLike
The B10 CCG was the most watched program in primetime.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“We’re getting some of the best big name matchups in decades, especially downcard, like Michigan/Florida.”
We were only discussing the NY6 games.
LikeLike
Richard,
“The B10 CCG was the most watched program in primetime.”
So? That doesn’t mean it wasn’t boring football. A CFP slot was on the line no matter who won and it was a close game.
LikeLike
Brian, my opinion is that only people who don’t understand/appreciate football would have found MSU/Iowa boring. That was one of the most drama-filled finishes to a football game this year.
And my point is, what you consider a snoozefest, people will watch.
In short, you are strange and out of sync with the rest of the world (as per usual).
LikeLike
“Brian, my opinion is that only people who don’t understand/appreciate football would have found MSU/Iowa boring. That was one of the most drama-filled finishes to a football game this year.”
Note that I specified the first 3 quarters of the CCG, which ended at 9-6. IA had less than 200 total yards at that point and MSU less than 250. There had been 7 punts, 3 TOs and 2 missed FG to go with the 3 made FG. I don’t think it’s a stretch to call it boring and many comments in social media and even in articles agree.
“And my point is, what you consider a snoozefest, people will watch.”
Some will, some won’t. The WI/TCU Rose Bowl didn’t do very well by Rose Bowl standards. It was #3 vs #4 and expected to be a slugfest like this one and was, and pulled an 11.3 rating versus 13.2 the year before.
LikeLike
TCU/Wisconsin also wasn’t a traditional Pac-B10 matchup.
Try again.
LikeLike
I can only work with the game that were played. Very few recent Rose Bowls (available TV rating data doesn’t go back too far) paired highly ranked teams and were slugfests with two physical teams. You’re the one who claims rankings trump brand, so #3 TCU should be valuable.
LikeLike
I also noted the importance of a traditional B10-Pac matchup for Rose Bowl ratings.
LikeLike
Boy, MSU looks like a sure thing with 9 points. Unless Alabama shuts out Sparty, I don’t see how it scores enough points to cover.
LikeLike
We all know that the SEC West has been better than the East for years, but the Sagarin ratings this year show just how far they have diverged.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2015/conference/
At least based these ratings, the SEC-W is best division in college football, while the East is the worst among P5 conferences (and that includes counting the Big XII as one division).
LikeLike
The East was really weak this year. SC was terrible and UGA disappointed. UF lost their starting QB and all of their offense with him. TN is improving but not over the hump yet. Vandy was the Vandy of old and so was UK. MO was bad, too.
I’d expect big improvements next year. UF will have some offense. SC can’t be worse. UGA and TN should improve. I assume MO will be at least decent.
LikeLike
I think that may be too simplified
4 of the 7 were really down – VU, UK, MU, and SC so this may have tended to affect the perception as a whole. As for the other 3 I am not sold on just how far down they are.
Georgia, at 9 wins, would be an enviable record in any of the P5’s and with their only losses to ranked teams (Alabama, @ Tennessee, and vs Florida) not sure I would say they were down in any broad metric associated with FBS football.
Tennessee, at 8 wins, is even more deceptive as to where they are right now. September losses to Oklahoma (in double overtime) and @ Florida (by a single point) may have been reversed if the games were played right now. October rolled around with losses to Arkansas (by 4 points) and @ Alabama (by 5 points) show nobody blew them out early in the season. Since Halloween they have gone 5-0 – granted against a softer late schedule – but they seemed to have turned the corner and become the team Herbstreit and other touted so highly in the pre season. Seems all those close losses were to teams who will be playing in the postseason.
Florida, at 9 wins, only dropped 2 games in the regular season (@ LSU in a night game in Tiger Stadium) and (vs in state rival Florida State) before picking up a 3rd loss in the SEC CCG. Again, some losses to top 10 type teams but no losses to lesser schools and no total blowouts that might indicate major flaws.
We will now have to see what happens in the bowl season but I can see Tennessee beating Northwestern. The other 2 may be coin flips or blowouts but allow the games to be played to see where the real answer lies.
LikeLike
Georgia didn’t beat anyone and got whipped by the 3 good teams they played.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“4 of the 7 were really down – VU, UK, MU, and SC”
I said the same thing about all of them. But MO and SC have both been much better than that recently so I expect some reversion to their mean (so be at least decent).
“As for the other 3 I am not sold on just how far down they are.”
How much did you watch them this year?
“Georgia, at 9 wins, would be an enviable record in any of the P5’s and with their only losses to ranked teams (Alabama, @ Tennessee, and vs Florida) not sure I would say they were down in any broad metric associated with FBS football.”
UGA beat nobody and struggled with some of those games. They got blown out by UF despite UF having no offense. In consecutive weeks to end the season they barely beat 6-6 Auburn, 8-4 GA Southern and 3-9 GT. They were blown out by the only 2 ranked teams they faced. Their best win was over 6-6 Auburn. They had no skill at QB and were totally reliant on running the ball. Being a top 50 but not top 25 sort of team is down for UGA.
“Tennessee, at 8 wins, is even more deceptive as to where they are right now.”
Yes, they are improving but not quite over that hump yet. They still blow too many games they should win. They should be quite good next year.
“Florida, at 9 wins, only dropped 2 games in the regular season (@ LSU in a night game in Tiger Stadium) and (vs in state rival Florida State) before picking up a 3rd loss in the SEC CCG. Again, some losses to top 10 type teams but no losses to lesser schools and no total blowouts that might indicate major flaws.”
Their QB was lost for the season in mid-October and their offense died. After LSU, they topped 170 yards in passing only once in 6 games (against a terrible SC). They didn’t hit 135 yards in 2 of them, including against FAU.
“We will now have to see what happens in the bowl season but I can see Tennessee beating Northwestern. The other 2 may be coin flips or blowouts but allow the games to be played to see where the real answer lies.”
I expect TN to win, and UF too if they can find any passing attack. UGA may be a mess with the coaching transition and no QB. None of that means the East wasn’t weak this year with several teams playing below expectations.
LikeLike
Finbebaum said on ESPN’s playoff announcement show that, as hard as it was for him to say, the Big Ten IS the best football conference this year and that MSU would be number three. He was right. On both counts. Best line up of bowls in ages. Michigan vs. Florida. Awesome. OSU vs. ND. I was praying for this one. I also think IOWA is going to beat Stanford, although that could go either way.
LikeLike
The Bowls will demonstrate how over-rated BiG is this year, except Sparty could very well upset an over-esteemed Alabama, which would then spin the truth. The only way that Iowa beats Stanford is if Shaw “turtles” again once the Card establish a lead – just as he did two years ago v. Michigan State.
LikeLike
I’d take the SEC over the B10 this year no questions asked. The B10 is better at the very top but the SEC is deeper.
LikeLike
And they ended up with really good matchups. MSU doesn’t match up well with Alabama. Ok. St. is probably #4 in Big 12, not #2. Most of the way down the line they have favorable matchups.
LikeLike
Paul *Finebaum
LikeLike
Just came back an read this latest entry. I got about halfway down and started thinking ‘uh oh, we’re in trouble’. And there it was in the penultimate paragraph:
“The sports brands that should be worried are the ones that have relatively high production costs but lower viewership, such as Group of Five conference college football and non-major tennis and golf events.”
The bifurcation of FCS is almost complete. Unfortunately the richss of CFB on the P5 will spill over into other sports that smaller conferences once could compete in. College basketball may have room for the Big East to be competitive. But I don’t think anyone outside the P5+1 has won championship since the 1980s. Baseball is going the same way. There won’t be spot for the Rice Owls in ten years. Some SEC teams spend as much on baseball as Rice U. spends on sports.
LikeLike
Loki:
With roster/scholarship limits I doubt baseball and basketball will be as dramatically impacted as FB (with its rosters large enough to stockpile top recruits). College baseball has always been impacted by the MLB first year draft, yet is a good product. It is the selection process that stacks the post season with power conferences (sometimes more than half a P5 conference getting in) that reduces the odds of a non P5 champ. Yes, money drives the ability to schedule a more likely path. But Fullerton, Dallas Baptist, Long Beach, Stony Brook, etc. aren’t in the money area code of the SEC but have shown well…when they get an invite.
LikeLike
What are your thoughts on Delaney’s attempted block on the Big 12 CCG deregulation proposal? I can’t tell if it was because:
– he’s a stick in the mud who generally doesn’t like change;
– he’s trying to mess with and/or piss off the Big 12;
– he’s actually trying to force the Big 12 to expand by taking two of a bunch of really mediocre options;
– “something else”
I suppose the conspiracy theorist in me might suspect this is him actually trying to destroy the league and/or push UT/OK to bail, but this seems like a pretty ham-handed approach if that’s actually the goal.
LikeLike
He doesn’t want the B12 to gain a competitive advantage.
For example, if the B12 gets to match their top 2 teams, both with one loss, the winner of that game has a better chance of getting in to the playoff than a B10 division winner with one loss who matches up against an 8-4 team in the CCG even if they win.
LikeLike
I’d say it’s something else.
1. I think his proposal is aimed at the ACC (and the SEC) more than the B12.
2. I think he wants to prevent scheming to game the system.
3. I think he’s rational enough to realize a CCG makes no sense without 2 divisions, and divisions make little sense without as close to a full round robin as is possible.
LikeLike
@Brian – Yes, I think Delany seems to be aiming this proposal more directly at the ACC and the notion of just taking the two highest ranked teams in a league without any divisions. He seems to have less of a problem with the Big 12 having a CCG with 10 teams as long as they have divisions since they inherently play each other in a round-robin, anyway. Of course, splitting a 10-team Big 12 into divisions defeats almost all attraction of the league holding a CCG (where the main goal for the Big 12 was to just have its 2 highest ranked teams play each other). So, Delany’s amendment would effectively kill the Big 12’s desire to have a CCG even though the rule superficially looks like it’s aimed at the ACC. I don’t know if I personally agree with Delany’s stance on this issue, but it’s a slick move.
LikeLike
Only if he pulls it off. If his amendment is voted down, and the original one passes (which I’d guess is likely given that B12 / ACC want the original without amendment, and it’s hard to see Pac-12 / SEC having a very strong “anti” opinion), then the whole thing just looks bad.
LikeLike
Really? I doubt most CFB fans even know anything about this. Certainly casual fans don’t. After the January vote it’ll be a forgotten issue until and unless someone tries a funky new CCG format.
LikeLike
It’s possible that some in the PAC-12 might just now be thinking that giving the Big12 a better crack at the CFP is not necessarily the best medium term play. If so, Delany could be pitching to them.
LikeLike
I meant more looking bad to the other people in the room. Irritating the Big 12 and ACC without any actual gain seems like an unforced error politically. I’d agree that casual CFB fans aren’t really paying attention to this.
LikeLike
Matthew Smith,
“I meant more looking bad to the other people in the room. Irritating the Big 12 and ACC without any actual gain seems like an unforced error politically.”
See my comment below. Larry Scott agrees with Delany and supports the amendment.
LikeLike
He doesn’t want the B12 to gain a competitive advantage.
It’s interesting how far we’ve come from the purported aims of the rule as originally written. Now Delany is worried because it might work too well, and produce a “better” (more qualified) champion than it otherwise would have. And this is called “gaming the system”.
I think he’s rational enough to realize a CCG makes no sense without 2 divisions, and divisions make little sense without as close to a full round robin as is possible.
What exactly is “as close to a full round robin as is possible”? I’ve never heard of a sport with divisions, without a full round robin in each division. Without that, the “division” is pretty close to a meaningless thing.
Obviously, you could imagine leagues large enough that a divisional round robin was not realistically possible (or not possible at all) without increasing the length of the regular season, but that concern is not what is driving the ACC/B12 proposal.
LikeLike
A ccg with 10 seems like a competitive disadvantage. Everyone plays each other and then you have a guaranteed rematch in the ccg. It decreases your chances of getting a 2nd team in the NY6.
LikeLike
A ccg with 10 seems like a competitive disadvantage. Everyone plays each other and then you have a guaranteed rematch in the ccg. It decreases your chances of getting a 2nd team in the NY6.
It depends on what goal you’re seeking to optimize. Last year, the B12 was the only league that didn’t place a team into the playoff, because their champion lacked the extra game to prove themselves against a tough opponent. This year, the B12 did make the playoff, but their champ was demoted from third seed to fourth in the final weekend, again for the same reason.
A CCG with the two best teams gives you a pretty high likelihood that your champ will have the extra game against a strong opponent that all the other power leagues have. It also ensures an extra loss for one of your teams, which could be a negative, but so far hasn’t been. There’s a risk that a strong regular season will be ruined against a much inferior opponent, which happened a few times when the B12 used to play that game.
LikeLike
It’s a slight competitive advantage in that it largely eliminates the chance of a clearly unworthy champ somehow squeaking in due to an unbalanced division and a CCG upset (see: 1996 Texas, 2001 LSU, 2005 Florida St, 2012 Wisconsin [sanctions-enabled], nearly 2012 GA Tech, nearly 2012 UCLA, etc.). When a non-playoff competitor scores an upset, it knocks your league out, while when a team ranked in say the 8-12 range scores an upset, they at least have a shot of jumping into the mix.
Of course, the flip side is that when you have huge CCG mismatches, the upsets become relatively less common. So I’m not sure that it really is any kind of meaningful edge either way.
LikeLike
It’s a slight competitive advantage in that it largely eliminates the chance of a clearly unworthy champ somehow squeaking in due to an unbalanced division and a CCG upset.
There’s really two questions that one needs to answer. The first is whether it is, in fact, advantageous. The second is who gets to decide.
The question of advantage is debatable. But the one thing that is without debate, is that if they ARE at a disadvantage, they can do nothing about it unless they expand and split into divisions, a prospect so undesirable that the cure might be very well be worse than the disease.
We will need a lot more data, before we know how the committee judges these things. In the two years of the playoffs, no league yet has been harmed by its CCG outcome, but one league clearly has been harmed by not having it at all: the Big 12.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
[discussing a CCG with 10 teams]
“There’s really two questions that one needs to answer. The first is whether it is, in fact, advantageous. The second is who gets to decide.”
The B12 gets to decide. They can choose to have one or not under the B10’s amendment.
“But the one thing that is without debate, is that if they ARE at a disadvantage, they can do nothing about it unless they expand and split into divisions, a prospect so undesirable that the cure might be very well be worse than the disease.”
No, they can choose to form divisions and hold the CCG if they feel that not having it is a disadvantage. Nobody is forcing them to expand.
LikeLike
The B12 gets to decide. They can choose to have one or not under the B10’s amendment.
I was referring to today. No reform has passed yet.
LikeLike
They still get to decide. Nobody is forcing a CCG on them. And it seems unlikely that one or the other plan won’t pass in January. Even if the ACC and B12 aren’t thrilled with it, it doesn’t hurt them to pass it. They can still push for complete deregulation in the future. The B10 and P12 can’t really turn around and vote against their own plan.
LikeLike
As I proposed many months ago, missing one division opponent in divisions larger than 6 or 7 (or 8?)would allow for more cross division and retain OOC. Most conferences didn’t play full RR before CCGs, and until they got even larger the need to divide and play off to decide champ didn’t exist (or wasn’t demanded). I don’t love it, but find it a reasonable accommodation. Far better than anarchic deregulation.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What exactly is “as close to a full round robin as is possible”?”
Which word is confusing you? If there’s a 24-team conference, that’s 12 per division. It’s unrealistic to expect 11 conference games in a 12 game season so you’d want “as close to a full round robin as is possible.” Even at 18 teams, expecting 8 division games is unrealistic.
“I’ve never heard of a sport with divisions, without a full round robin in each division.”
So? You are eliminating any new ideas ever? Mister deregulation is demanding a full round robin? Most sports play many more games than football, so there is no lack of games to complete a round robin. There have been plenty of conferences that didn’t play a full round robin in CFB. As conferences get larger, why is the concept of a division not playing a full round robin so hard to understand?
“Without that, the “division” is pretty close to a meaningless thing.”
Not really. It’s a subset of the teams in the conference and they play each other more often than they play the other division.
“Obviously, you could imagine leagues large enough that a divisional round robin was not realistically possible (or not possible at all) without increasing the length of the regular season, but that concern is not what is driving the ACC/B12 proposal.”
Who said it was? However, consider the ACC. The currently play 8 conference games due to the ND deal and all their locked rivalry games, and those 8 include 2 crossover games to keep everyone connected. That’s fine at 14 teams but what if they expand to 16? Or what if they decide they need 3 crossover games to maintain their connection? Isn’t that why they want the change?
Any new rule will have to deal with that situation as well as any future superconference or miniconference. Can a future 8 team conference stage a CCG? What if a conference wants to try 3 or even 4 divisions? There’s no telling what someone might want to try in the future. Allowing a free for all isn’t always wise policy.
LikeLike
“I’ve never heard of a sport with divisions, without a full round robin in each division.”
So? You are eliminating any new ideas ever? Mister deregulation is demanding a full round robin?
No, I am suggesting that any new rule needs to make sense. I’ve long said that the old rule was outdated (however well intentioned it may originally have been), but I realize that many dumb rules stay on the books simply due to inertia.
If you actually bother to change it, then it ought to, you know, not be a sham. Jim Delany needs a better reason than, “I’m afraid the ACC might use this rule to crown a champion that the playoff committee likes better than ours.”
That’s a genuine concern, if you’re Jim Delany, but it’s not the problem that this rule was intended to address.
LikeLike
“What exactly is “as close to a full round robin as is possible”?”
Which word is confusing you? If there’s a 24-team conference, that’s 12 per division. It’s unrealistic to expect 11 conference games in a 12 game season so you’d want “as close to a full round robin as is possible.” Even at 18 teams, expecting 8 division games is unrealistic.
There are no 18- or 24-team conferences in FBS. For the conferences we have now, a 9-team round-robin (for the Big-12) or a divisional round robin (for the other leagues) is “as close…as is possible” to a full round robin.
So I am wondering what is “as close as possible” to you, given that a full divisional round-robin (or full league round-robin for the B12) is clearly possible today, without changing anything.
Obviously, any rule they write needs to anticipate the contingency of further expansion, but when the B12 and ACC made their proposal, I don’t think their main motivation was to answer the question, “What will we do in the future, if we have 16 or 20 teams in our league?” They want relief to change the way they operate at their current size.
In order to make such a change, one needs to acknowledge that the aim of the new rule must be something different than what it was before. Because as @ccrider55 has so often, and so patiently explained, for the original purpose the status quo works just fine.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No, I am suggesting that any new rule needs to make sense.”
And the abandonment of all regulation makes sense but retaining some of it doesn’t?
“If you actually bother to change it, then it ought to, you know, not be a sham. Jim Delany needs a better reason than, “I’m afraid the ACC might use this rule to crown a champion that the playoff committee likes better than ours.””
Delany would be fine with not changing it at all. He just wants to restrain the changes to minimize any unintended consequences.
“That’s a genuine concern, if you’re Jim Delany, but it’s not the problem that this rule was intended to address.”
So what? If the B10 is voting on it, their vote will be based on their concerns and not the supposed intention behind the rule. Intentions are irrelevant to rules, what matters is only what’s in black and white.
“There are no 18- or 24-team conferences in FBS.”
Now. But there may be in the future.
“So I am wondering what is “as close as possible” to you, given that a full divisional round-robin (or full league round-robin for the B12) is clearly possible today, without changing anything.”
I discussed this in another thread on here already. I think 14 teams can do it, and possibly 16 depending on how many crossover games are felt necessary for conference cohesion. Any more would require 10 conference games and that isn’t realistic win a 12 game season.
“Obviously, any rule they write needs to anticipate the contingency of further expansion, but when the B12 and ACC made their proposal, I don’t think their main motivation was to answer the question, “What will we do in the future, if we have 16 or 20 teams in our league?” They want relief to change the way they operate at their current size.”
First, their motivation is irrelevant to what the rule will actually allow. Second, the ACC has repeatedly said they have no intentions of making any changes right now. They want freedom in case they decide to make changes later, and expansion is at least possible as a future change.
“In order to make such a change, one needs to acknowledge that the aim of the new rule must be something different than what it was before.”
The aim of the B10’s amendment would be something different from the current rule, too. It would allow any conference to stage a CCG without expanding to some minimum size.
LikeLike
…the abandonment of all regulation makes sense but retaining some of it doesn’t?
It very well might not. The status quo had a very clear purpose, which (as you know) I disagreed with, but at least it was clear.
As @ccrider55 has so often explained, they wanted to keep a lid on the number of games played (for player safety and academic/athletic balance). The extra game, therefore, was allowed only for those leagues that could not settle their championship with a round robin.
A permissible reason for the extra game was NOT, “We want one more chance to impress the Committee”; nor was it, “We want the TV money from an extra game.”
Apparently, Jim Delany is now conceding that he doesn’t mind if 10-team leagues play a CCG, even though they very clearly CAN stage a round-robin without it. So that raises a question, to which I don’t know the answer. What is the new rule’s purpose? Only then can we assess whether the regulation is a suitable answer to a real problem.
One should not speak of “unintended consequences,” before first establishing what the intended ones are. If he is worried about the former, it’s on him (not on me) to enumerate some of the possibilities, and articulate what’s so terrible about them.
Of course, Delany could simply say, “I prefer the status quo.” That had a clear purpose, which was namely to limit the extra game to leagues that truly needed it. The ACC/B12 proposal also has a clear purpose: to get the NCAA out of the CCG regulation business.
This middle ground is not so clear. My suspicion is that Delany is being disingenuous: submitting an amendment that’s de-regulatory on its face, but in actual operation, helps no one but him. Of course, people are allowed to submit legislation for entirely selfish reasons, but if he wants support, he will probably (at least publicly) have to state other reasons. So I am wondering what those are.
Brian is focused on what happens if a league expands to 16+, certainly a valid question, but I am trying to figure out what legitimate benefits Delany’s proposal has (if indeed it has any) for the size of the leagues that exist today.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Apparently, Jim Delany is now conceding that he doesn’t mind if 10-team leagues play a CCG, even though they very clearly CAN stage a round-robin without it.”
I think he’d prefer to prevent it but knows he can’t get the votes. He’s trying to draw line where he might have a chance at getting some support.
Also, remember that he did some similar things with the playoff. He said then, as now, that his main goal was to start a discussion about the bigger picture rather than just quickly voting on something.
“What is the new rule’s purpose?”
The B10’s amendment is designed to start a discussion and on it’s face allow the B12 to add a CCG without expanding. It’s also designed to keep all the conferences more similar, making it easier for the CFP committee to compare teams.
“One should not speak of “unintended consequences,” before first establishing what the intended ones are.”
He’s talking about the B12’s proposed rule when he says that, and that rule is designed to allow conferences to have their cake and eat it, too.
“If he is worried about the former, it’s on him (not on me) to enumerate some of the possibilities, and articulate what’s so terrible about them.”
No, it isn’t. He can stick with the avoidance of unintended consequences as his rationale. Nobody has to enumerate what those might be.
“This middle ground is not so clear. My suspicion is that Delany is being disingenuous: submitting an amendment that’s de-regulatory on its face, but in actual operation, helps no one but him.”
That’s not disingenuous, although I disagree that this amendment specifically helps the B10 more than the P12 or SEC.
“Brian is focused on what happens if a league expands to 16+, certainly a valid question, but I am trying to figure out what legitimate benefits Delany’s proposal has (if indeed it has any) for the size of the leagues that exist today.”
I’m mentioning it as a possible source of unintended consequences. Remember, all these I-A CCGs are an unintended consequence of the original rule so it’s not like there isn’t a track record of this type of rule being susceptible to issues.
LikeLike
“If he is worried about the former, it’s on him (not on me) to enumerate some of the possibilities, and articulate what’s so terrible about them.”
No, it isn’t. He can stick with the avoidance of unintended consequences as his rationale. Nobody has to enumerate what those might be.
It depends on the mood in the room. Mike Slive used to point out, that the first time he raised the idea of a playoff in a meeting with his fellow commissioners, he was met with silence. No one even wanted to have the conversation, in which they stated a viewpoint and supported it with facts. That happens sometimes.
But if people actually want a debate…then yes, you generally have to give reasons, and unarticulated “unintended consequences” might not cut it.
“This middle ground is not so clear. My suspicion is that Delany is being disingenuous: submitting an amendment that’s de-regulatory on its face, but in actual operation, helps no one but him.”
That’s not disingenuous, although I disagree that this amendment specifically helps the B10 more than the P12 or SEC.
I’d call it disingenuous if you have one aim, while claiming another.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I’d call it disingenuous if you have one aim, while claiming another.”
Where is Delany claiming anything different from his intent? The ACC & B12 are the ones championing deregulation, not the B10. Delany is proposing to limit their plan.
Also, being deregulatory and only helping the B10 (something I don’t see in this proposal anyway)are orthogonal issues. It’s not disingenuous to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Has he ever claimed he didn’t think his amendment was better for the B10 than the ACC/B12 plan? Has he made claims to be anti-regulation?
LikeLike
Mark Shepherd “There are no 18- or 24-team conferences in FBS.”
Brian: Now. But there may be in the future.
There were no Power conferences with the numbers to have a CCG game when the CCG rule was first passed. The phenomenon of power conference CCG’s is an unintended consequence of a rule change.
LikeLike
I really dislike this move as I’d love the Big Ten to go division-less. I hate feeling like Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc are half in another conference. The Big Ten should be spearheading this instead of trying to derail it.
LikeLike
It’ll get a bit better with nine conference games.
LikeLike
Don’t forget the parity-based scheduling.
Now:
8 games = 6 * 100% (division) + 7 * 28% (crossover)
2016-2033:
All but IN and PU – 9 games = 6 * 100% (division) + 3 * 56% (same tier crossover) + 4 * 33% (other crossover)
IN/PU – 9 games = 6 * 100% (division) + 1 * 100% (locked rivalry) + 6 * 33% (other crossover)
The plan:
* Tier 1 vs tier 1, tier 2 vs tier 2 – 1 locked, other 2 rotate with IN/PU (6 years then rotate locked team) = 10 games in 18 years for same tier, 6 game for IN/PU
* Tier 1 vs tier 2 – rotate equally (once every 3 years) = 6 games in 18 years
* Tier 1 = NE, WI, IA // OSU, MI, PSU
* Tier 2 = MN, NW, IL // MSU, UMD, RU
Except for PU or IN, you’ll see 3 teams in the other division twice as much as you do now. You’ll see the rest slightly more than you do now.
LikeLike
Actually, we don’t know what the locked crossovers will be after 2021 yet.
Who knows; if the B12/ACC proposal goes through, the B10 may just drop divisions.
Otherwise, they may decide to emphasize rivalries the next 6 years from 2022-2027 (after the new TV deal is locked in, if it turns out that less strong schedules and more wins for top teams is better for ratings and/or getting teams in to the playoff and/or rivalry games get a ratings boost).
Right now, we don’t know if the B10 has 2 tiers or 3 tiers (because it’s a straight down matchup of #1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, etc. to #6 vs. #6).
But if from 2022-2027, they decide on emphasizing rivalries, I can see
UMich-Minny
OSU-UIUC
PSU-UNL
MSU-Wisconsin
RU-Iowa
UMD-NU
OK, the last 3 aren’t rivalry games, but then, RU and UMD wouldn’t have any rivals in the B10W.
It would be a matchup of
B10E tier #1 vs. B10W tier #3
B10E tier #2 vs. B10W tier #1
B10E tier #3 vs. B10W tier #2
Still some attractive annual cross-overs, especially if MSU stays elite, Wisconsin stays good, and PSU and/or UNL get better.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Actually, we don’t know what the locked crossovers will be after 2021 yet.”
We don’t know anything beyond the published schedules, but we can extrapolate the pattern. Especially using Delany’s comments in the past.
“Who knows; if the B12/ACC proposal goes through, the B10 may just drop divisions.”
Yes, all future things are subject to change.
“Right now, we don’t know if the B10 has 2 tiers or 3 tiers (because it’s a straight down matchup of #1 vs. #1, #2 vs. #2, etc. to #6 vs. #6).”
Actually we do, because Delany basically said so. He didn’t use the word tiers, he just listed the teams in tier 1. That leaves 8 teams, and clearly IN and PU form a separate tier for scheduling do to their locked game.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75684/jim-delany-talks-divisions-league-schedules
If you look at the schedules, what you’ll see is over time, the crossovers rotate. In the first 18 years, you’re going to see a lot of competition between teams at the top of either division. We call that a bit of parity-based scheduling. You’ll see Wisconsin and Nebraska and Iowa playing a lot of competition against Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. But it will eventually rotate.
LikeLike
Ah yes. He said that a few years ago.
We’ll see if the B10 sticks to that philosophy after the first 6 years.
LikeLike
Yes, obviously the B10 could change their minds about the scheduling plan at any point. That shouldn’t stop us from talking about the current plan to the best of our understanding. As I recall, you were the one who first predicted the plan on here and then the next batch of released schedules backed you up.
The whole plan would take 36 years to complete. I think most of us highly doubt that the last 18 years, with intentionally having fewer marquee matchups for almost 2 decades, will ever happen. But I think the parity-based scheduling plan may be part of the sales pitch to the networks just like moving to 9 games and requiring tougher OOC schedules is. It may have enough extra value that the B10 decides to keep cycling through the first 18 years of it over and over assuming no further expansion.
8 games straight:
Division – 3 king/king games, 5 king/prince games, 1 prince/prince game (locked)
Crossover – 0.86 K/K game, 2 K/P games, 0.57 P/P (average)
9 games straight:
Division – 3 king/king games, 5 king/prince games, 1 prince/prince game (locked)
Crossover – 1.28 K/K game, 3 K/P games, 0.86 P/P game (average)
Increase = 0.43 K/K game, 1 K/P game, 0.28 P/P game (average)
9 games parity-based (first 6 or 18 years):
Division – 3 king/king games, 5 king/prince games, 1 prince/prince game (locked)
Crossover – 1 K/K game, 2 K/P games (locked)
Crossover – 1.67 K/K games, 3.67 K/P games, 0.67 P/P game (average)
Increase vs straight = 0.38 K/K game, 0.67 K/P game, -0.19 P/P game
Increase vs 8 games = 0.81 K/K game, 1.67 K/P games, 0.10 P/P game
The increase in the number of marquee games definitely has TV value, especially if the B10 is pushing to get a prime time game every week. The new plan offers over 2.5 more marquee games (based on brand) per season on average (from 12.43 to 15). That makes it much easier for a network to find a good game to show every week.
LikeLike
The whole plan would take 36 years to complete. I think most of us highly doubt that the last 18 years, with intentionally having fewer marquee matchups for almost 2 decades, will ever happen.
You’d probably struggle to find any league, pro or collegiate, that ever made a 36-year scheduling plan, and stuck to it.
Even assuming no change in the underlying conditions, new people will eventually be in charge, and they will not feel bound by the original trade-offs and assumptions that such a plan entails.
LikeLike
Yep, the B10 followed the plan I predicted (thanks for the acknowledgement, BTW).
However, that plan was to achieve a purpose (to maximize the new tier 1 TV contract).
However, once that TV contract starts, the goals shift to maximizing BTN ratings and getting teams in to the payoff (assuming that the TV contract doesn’t put in restrictions on scheduling).
Maybe they’ll decide that parity-based scheduling still does the best job, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they switch to emphasize rivalry games more from 2022-2027.
LikeLike
Richard,
“However, once that TV contract starts, the goals shift to maximizing BTN ratings and getting teams in to the payoff (assuming that the TV contract doesn’t put in restrictions on scheduling).”
I don’t know how deep those contracts normally get into conference matters like scheduling. My guess is they normally stick to discussing inventory but would expect a heads up if a major scheduling change was coming (dropping OSU/MI, going to 7 games, etc). That said, I could see the price of getting the absolute best deal being putting certain things in writing. A vow to schedule a certain way means nothing to a network.
“Maybe they’ll decide that parity-based scheduling still does the best job, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they switch to emphasize rivalry games more from 2022-2027.”
I think it should make things better across the board for TV. The more peers play each other, the more competitive games there will be. That should help ratings. Also, I’d be a little surprised to see them drop this plan after just 6 years. They release schedules years in advance and I don’t think they’ll have enough evidence to know how the plan is working before it’s time to release the 2022 schedule.
LikeLike
I’d like that too, I just wouldn’t want a CCG.
LikeLike
Personally, I feel that if the B12 gets it’s way, the B10 should just drop divisions and have 3 locked games and 6 vs. the other 10 teams.
LikeLike
The Big Ten should be spearheading this instead of trying to derail it.
It’s typical NCAA corruption. Right now, Jim Delany is more worried that the ACC will get stronger. And he might want to poach a few of those teams, one of these days. That concern is trumping the fact that, if the rule passes as first proposed, he would get flexibility that he might find useful someday.
LikeLike
How is that corruption?
LikeLike
I dislike deregulation. CCGs were allowed because a couple of Division II conferences were too large to schedule a rr.
LikeLike
I like deregulation. I don’t think that more regulation by the NCAA, by the P5’s or any other collective or programs is the answer to CFB’s problems.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of that going around:
Paul Myerberg (Verified) @PaulMyerberg
Calif. appeals court rules NCAA disregarded the truth in Bush case to reach a “predetermined conclusion” against USC http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/07/court-slams-ncaa-reggie-bush-usc-violations-case-todd-mcnair/76958960/ …
9:51 PM – 7 Dec 2015
LikeLike
NCAA losing. Any chance USC can get wins/title back, and Bush his trophy?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/07/court-slams-ncaa-reggie-bush-usc-violations-case-todd-mcnair/76958960/
LikeLike
Guess I should read all posts before posting same info…
LikeLike
Any chance USC can get wins/title back, and Bush his trophy?
I think it’s very likely that USC will get the wins and title back. The entire premise of the NCAA’s case was that USC knew that Bush was receiving illegal benefits. This, in turn, was founded on the premise that Todd McNair knew—the very question that is at issue in the current lawsuit.
If that part of their case fails, then there is no basis for the sanctions. The cancelled scholarships can never be returned, but the NCAA can un-vacate the wins and the title. Much as happened with Joe Paterno, we could be headed in that direction.
Reggie Bush is a different story, because no one disputes that he knew he was getting the benefits.
LikeLike
Actually, it was founded on the premise that McNair knew or should have known about the illegal benefits.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
The whole season of ratings (minus the SECN, P12N, BTN and CBSSportsN) not including the CCGs.
Provides some input on the debate above concerning ratings. Are they driven by brand name or by rankings? We are hampered here by not having the BTN and SECN numbers.
Northwestern provides a few data points: four games reported here (PSU, Iowa, Neb, & IL) none well watched. They are not a name-brand, but they have been ranked most of the season.
Iowa is interesting. They get a good number for the last game against Nebraska, but otherwise, they did not seem to gain viewers as their undefeated season progressed.
I think the data supports the idea of brand names primarily driving ratings. The data also supports the idea that some brands (e.g., Baylor) are growing. The data (for a very long time) also shows that winning brings in eyeballs (from the fan base that is winning at the minimum (bandwagon effect, I guess)).
LikeLike
I think you have to differentiate between top 20 and top 5 when debating whether rankings matter. Northwestern, while ranked several weeks, was never top 5, and it seems like top 5 (or so) teams get a major viewership boost.
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“Provides some input on the debate above concerning ratings. Are they driven by brand name or by rankings? We are hampered here by not having the BTN and SECN numbers.
…
I think the data supports the idea of brand names primarily driving ratings.”
It’s clear that both factors impact ratings. I think different games get a different amount of impact from each factor. In a major bowl where both teams generally are highly ranked, I think brand trumps actual rankings. Some other times, rankings are more important.
“The data also supports the idea that some brands (e.g., Baylor) are growing. The data (for a very long time) also shows that winning brings in eyeballs (from the fan base that is winning at the minimum (bandwagon effect, I guess)).”
Winning grows brands. Some easy examples are Miami, FSU, Boise and TCU. Enough losing can erode a brand, too (MN for example). But if you build a brand for long enough, you can survive some down years.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/12/pac-12-championship-ratings-espn-stanford-usc-overnights-texas-baylor-college-football/
PAC12CCG ratings are/have been terrible. Will always be terrible?
LikeLike
Probably, because they generally have smaller fan bases and the fans are less focused on CFB compared to the midwest or south. Stanford will always hurt their TV numbers due to the lack of a large alumni base. USC vs OR would draw pretty well I’d think.
LikeLike
It was also a rematch of a blowout. Not exactly a highly anticipated matchup, and one that would have required chaos in a couple other games going on at the same time in order to have impact on the playoff picture. I watched B1G game 60% of the time and McCaffery, err Stanford/USC the other 40%.
LikeLike
USC (with an undergrad student body of less than 20K) and Oregon are also fairly small schools by B10 standards, however. Both would be in the bottom half of the B10 in student body size.
In that sense, the Pac needs bandwagon fans in order to draw well as they just don’t have as many alums, and college football just isn’t as big a deal out West.
LikeLike
Yes, I figured those 2 were the most likely to attract a large number of casual fans and bandwagon fans. USC under Carroll was must-see TV and Nike University has been quite popular, too.
LikeLike
There’s also the time zone issue. A 7 pm game on the west coasts starts at 10 pm on the east coast. I used to watch a number of the late Pac 12 games when I lived in the central time zone, but its just too late in the east.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/12/sec-championship-ratings-cbs-alabama-florida-overnights-highest-season-college-football/
Like FtT mentioned above, no one wants to compete with the SEC CCG for ratings in that time slot.
SEC CCG gets biggest audience of the season.
LikeLike
If B1G CCG was sole game in time slot and SEC joined the other three competing in another (not just ACC but P12 and MWC were at same time) wouldn’t the numbers be different?
Maybe Friday on fox is a better time for the PAC?
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/12/big-ten-championship-ratings-fox-michigan-state-iowa-overnights/
If I am reading this right, viewership jumped quite a bit from the 3:30 time slot.
ACC = 4.6; P12CCG = 2.0; and B1GCCG = 5.9
LikeLike
As an aside, does anyone know how the ratings handle channel-switching when there are three games on simultaneously? I know I often switch between games. How does that impact the ratings?
LikeLike
Viewership always jumps significantly in prime time. That’s why the networks push to move so many games there all season long. More people are home and available to watch TV than during the afternoon (kids activities, honey do lists, etc).
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/12/thursday-night-football-ratings-packers-lions-overnights-hail-mary-cbs-nfl-network/
and while we are at it, some NFL numbers for comparison. 11s, 12s and 13s in overnight ratings. As FtT said above, the NFL is king.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/12/acc-championship-ratings-abc-clemson-unc-overnights-down-college-football/
Here’s the link for the ACC CCG and AAC’s first CCG. Houston/Memphis pulled a 2.0 (same as P12CCG).
LikeLike
sorry, make that Houston vs. Temple.
LikeLike
http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=210560102
The Big 12 has announced it will require Conference football programs to annually play at least one non-conference game against an autonomy conference institution (ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC, plus Notre Dame).
“Schedule strength is a key component in CFP Selection Committee deliberations,” commented Commissioner Bob Bowlsby. “This move will strengthen the resumes for all Big 12 teams. Coupled with the nine-game full round robin Conference schedule our teams play, it will not only benefit the teams at the top of our standings each season, but will impact the overall strength of the Conference.”
Additionally, no Big 12 program shall play more than one game annually against a non-Football Bowl Subdivision opponent.
This new scheduling requirement does not impact existing non-conference game contracts.
LikeLike
It’s about time. That leaves only the P12 and ND without such a rule, and nobody accuses them of scheduling softly. Baylor has been playing embarrassing OOC schedules for years with no change in sight. Apparently it takes B12 action to force them to play real OOC games.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14321459/big-12-schools-required-schedule-game-power-5-team-notre-dame-fighting-irish-going-forward
The rule figures to have the greatest impact on Baylor.
Kansas, which went winless this past season, and Baylor are the only Big 12 schools without a Power 5 nonconference opponent on the schedule for 2016.
Winner of the previous two Big 12 championships, Baylor played SMU, Lamar and Rice this season. The Bears have a home-and-home scheduled with Duke for 2017-18, but no other Power 5 opponent until 2023-24 against Utah. Since Baylor’s schedule is filled out through the next three years, the earliest the Big 12 mandate will affect the Bears will be 2019.
It’s also nice to see them limit themselves to 1 I-AA game per year. It should be pointed out that by NCAA rule you can’t count 2 I-AA wins towards bowl eligibility until we run out of 6-6 teams so this is hardly a sacrifice on their part. I doubt any of their schools are intentionally playing 2 I-AAs in a season very often anyway.
LikeLike
The only ones this last year in the P5 were North Carolina and Duke.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25406227/pac-12-commissioner-larry-scott-wants-big-12-to-play-conference-title-game
Big news. Larry Scott wants the B12 to add a CCG and he supports the B10’s amendment. His focus, much like Delany’s, is getting things to be more similar between conferences.
“I’d like to see more consistency (between conferences) rather than less,” Scott said. “I’d like to see the Big 12 go to a championship game. I don’t think it’s good or fair to see a conference not have to win that extra game and have that extra opportunity both for a win and a loss. I don’t like the idea that a champion can be in the clubhouse and not put it on the line when, in this case, there are strong teams in other conferences that if they lose can be out of the playoff.”
…
There is, of course, some irony that Scott wants the Big 12 to stage a championship game. The Pac-12 made an unsuccessful play for Texas several years ago that caused the Big 12 to lose members and drop below the 12-member, two-division NCAA threshold for a championship game. Scott supports the Big Ten’s amendment to NCAA legislation that would allow the Big 12 to stage a championship game with 10 teams, but only between division winners. Deregulating conference championship games will be voted on at the NCAA convention in January.
LikeLike
Simple. Tell Delany and Scott to send Nebraska and Colorado back.
LikeLike
Tell the B12 that keeping its own house in good order would have not necessitated four members of a CCG holding conference choosing to go elsewhere.
LikeLike
Its just pretty arrogant for Scott and Delany to try to tell the Big 12 what to do.
LikeLike
You mean arrogant for telling them we’ll loosen the rules (expansion to 12 not required) from what both of them were required to do? Arrogance is saying “we want to do whatever we want.” Which (to reiterate past posts) is in fact completely allowed as long as done in the 12 games allowed without the 13th game exemption.
LikeLike
Arrogance is stealing teams and then trying to tell them they have to get back to 12 when they had 12 before. If you can’t see that, I can’t help you.
LikeLike
bullet: Nobody is telling the B12 that they have to expand. They can hold a CCG without expanding. They just have to split in to divisions to do so.
LikeLike
Receiving an application, and then accepting it is not stealing. It’s not other conferences responsibility to be membership guards for the B12, especially to their own detriment.
No one says anybody has to get back to twelve. In fact, the B1G amendment allows for a CCG at current membership level. If this isn’t a case of want your cake and eating it, too, then I really don’t understand this as anything other than a tantrum.
LikeLike
Its just pretty arrogant for Scott and Delany to try to tell the Big 12 what to do.
I happen to think the B12/ACC proposal is the correct one.
Having said that, when you join a self-regulatory organization, you have to accept that it will sometimes adopt rules you don’t like. If you want the benefits of membership, then you take the detriments as well.
Granted, the Delany amendment is most likely offered with corrupt intent. Nevertheless, as Brian loves to point out, nothing obligates them to legislate against their own self-interest.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2015/12/08/maryland-name-change-byrd-stadium-segregationist/76974966/
UMD’s president recommends renaming the football stadium since it’s named after a segregationist former school president who had to be forced by court order to integrate the campus.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/11/byrd-stadium-renamed-maryland-stadium-maryland-football/77148594/
And the BoR supported him. It’s now Maryland Stadium.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2015/12/08/mwc-not-happy-with-colorado-st-nevada-playing-in-same-bowl/76998744/
Because of how the bowl process worked, 2 MWC teams are playing each other in the Arizona Bowl.
LikeLike
So, if “deregulation” passes with the B1G amendment will UT and OU insist on being in the same division? Will UT still resist the CCG itself, or are they on board with it? Bullet?
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone likes the idea of a ccg with 10 teams. Haven’t heard anyone seriously suggest it and Bowlsby questioned whether that made any sense. Expansion would have a better chance than a ccg with 10 teams.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B12 will institute a CCG with 10 games, unless they see a persistent pattern of being at a disadvantage because they play one less game. It would take several years for such a pattern to develop. And after they institute it, very likely the Longhorns would go 12-0 the following year, and get upset in the CCG by a 7-5 team. When you flout the football gods, they tend to retaliate.
The difficulty of creating balanced divisions has plagued the B12. When they had a CCG, the South division won it 11 out of 15 times. But they wanted to keep the Texas teams together, and they also did not want a RRR re-match in the CCG. Without altering those constraints, they didn’t have much choice.
If they were going to do it, I’d simply re-seed the teams every year. Division X would have the prior season’s #1, 4, 5, 8, 9. Division Y would have the prior season’s #2, 3, 6, 7, and 10. The following year, you tear it up and start over again. This is the best chance you have, of not being locked into divisions that are permanently unbalanced.
LikeLike
That makes fairly good competitive sense. Stands no chance for that reason. And the fact it’d be more confusing than the Atlantic and Coastal divisions are.
LikeLike
The basic idea of having a CCG w/ 10 teams is that you do a full round robin and the best two teams play. So it’d be REALLY rare for a 12-0 Texas to match up against a 7-5 whoever. With divisions, such an outcome is much more likely. And in fact you could see that in the old Big 12, where you had a really nasty two-year run of North champs in 2004-2005:
2004 Colorado 7-4 pre CCG (4-4 B12)
2005 Colorado 7-4 pre CCG (4-4 B12)
In both those seasons, the south runner up was much worthier (2004 Texas at 7-1, 2005 Oklahoma/Texas Tech both at 6-2). So in a non-divisional round robin (or near round robin) setup, you would have seen better CCG’s compared to what actually happened those years (and probably others as well).
LikeLike
In both those situations the results spoke to the accuracy of “selecting the best”. Were they upsets? Yes. But they prove the south wasn’t untouchable or the north undeserving of the game. 66-0 routes by the favorite would support your position, not examples providing proof the underdog is more than competitive.
LikeLike
Not sure what you are saying. In 2005, Texas beat Colorado 70-3 in the ccg. In 2004, OU won 42-3.
LikeLike
And yet UT wanted to avoid the possibility of damaging upsets disregarding the positive confirmation value of wins, even big ones.
My point is that the blowouts are confirmation of superiority in that division. The “upsets” highlight that what conventional wisdoms says about the superiority of one division is sometimes not the case. That’s why we play the games.
LikeLike
KSU wasn’t better than OU when they upset them. A&M wasn’t better than KSU when they upset them. CU wasn’t better than Texas when they beat them by 2 after losing 41-7 earlier in the year. Now maybe Missouri didn’t deserve to be #1 when OU upset them for the 2nd time. But most of these were clear upsets, like Michigan St. to Nebraska.
LikeLike
Just win, baby.
In standings and results I’ve W and L, and in the past T. I’ve never seen a colum U (for upset). What is that – lost, but not really? Doesn’t count because we were expected to win?
LikeLike
The basic idea of having a CCG w/ 10 teams is that you do a full round robin and the best two teams play.
This is precisely what the Big Ten is trying to prevent, with their proposal. Jim Delany wants you to lock in your two divisions, before you know who the two best teams will be.
In that scenario, you very well could have three 11-1 teams in Division X, and the best team in Division Y is 7-5. Something similar to that actually did happen when the B12 had divisions, except that the disparity between the divisions wasn’t quite as bad.
LikeLike
ccrider55,.
“So, if “deregulation” passes with the B1G amendment will UT and OU insist on being in the same division?”
The divisions shouldn’t be such a big issue since they’d keep a round robin anyway. For financial reasons I’d think they’d want the chance for a RRR rematch since they have to have a rematch anyway.
LikeLike
@Frank
re: your tweet about Marriot taking out the desks. That’s hilarious!
There’s a lot of internet “knowledge” about millennials that seems to be based on focus groups and not based on any serious research.
LikeLike
@bullet – It’s pretty incredible that Marriott could be that myopic. It would be one thing to take out desks if these were, say, strictly W Hotels, but the main Marriott brand gets a ton of business travelers that need desks! I work with a lot of Millennials that have to travel for work almost 100% of the time and the thought they’d *want* to get rid of desks in hotel rooms is insane. The focus groups must have been composed of Millennials that don’t actually have to travel for work.
LikeLike
IMO, from the perspective of the B10, full deregulation of the CCG criteria makes sense only after its TV negotiations are done.
After that, they may relent.
So full deregulation of CCG’s by the 2017 or 2018 season at the earliest.
They’ll probably do the full first 6-year cycle themselves first, but after 2021, don’t be surprised if the B10 switches to 3 locked rivals and 6 vs. others.
LikeLike
bullet:
“Which is why the SEC ratings have been so good the last few years.
They have had brands AND rankings.”
However, going forward, the B10 will be just the same as the SEC in having both a relatively large number of brands and highly-ranked teams. The B10 has as many kings as the SEC (with no other conference being close) and going forward, all 3 of UMich, OSU, and MSU look like they will be elite (and PSU may even join them, if they turn out to be as good as their recruiting has been).
This is why in 2015, of the 29 regular season games that topped 5M viewers,
the B10 had 10 of them, the SEC had 9.5 of them, and the rest of college football has 9.5 of them (and ND was in 4 of those)*.
* OOC games were split between 2 conference; ABC split telecasts were split between the 2 games
The only games that topped 10M viewers were
OSU-VTech
‘Bama-LSU
OSU-MSU
OSU-UMich
There were only 3 telecasts (out of 29) that had over 5M viewers and did not get any contribution from the B10, SEC, or ND:
FSU-Clemson
OU-Baylor
Baylor-TCU
Of the other 5 telecasts where a non-B10, non-SEC conference got credit and was not playing ND,
3 were split telecasts where the B10 game was on ABC in the majority of the country and 2 were OOC games with B10 teams (MSU-Oregon and OSU-VTech).
Every non-ND OOC telecast that got more than 5M viewers had a B10 team (those 2 above + ‘Bama-Wisconsin & OSU-NIU/UNL-Miami)
LikeLike
@Richard – Thanks for posting that data. I think that this trend also helps the Big Ten regarding the subject of this post (TV rights fees) regardless of the macro cost issues that ESPN and other cable networks are facing right now. At the end of the day (and without hyperbole), SEC and Big Ten football consistently deliver the highest ratings of any sport in the America besides the NFL (even more than NBA and Major League Baseball outside of their respective championship rounds). The ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 might ride a hot team or two periodically (i.e. Florida State, Texas, USC. etc.), but there’s significantly greater year-to-year brand depth in the Big Ten and SEC (which is why it isn’t an accident that they both have highly successful TV networks, the best time slots, the best tier 1 TV exposure, the best bowl deals, etc.). The expectations for what the Big Ten will receive in rights fees should continue to be at the maximum amount (and I think they’ll be end up being higher than what all of us armchair QBs are projecting, just as it was the case when the much less popular Pac-12 signed its current TV deal).
LikeLike
Yep. I believe that the average annual per school non-BTN TV payout will be between $30-$50M. Delany evidently threw out that $50M/school number, though I don’t know if he was counting the BTN money (which should be close to $15M/school annually in a few years) in that.
If I had to make a guess, I would peg the new contracts (covering everything outside the BTN) to average $34M-$37M per school annually. That would put the B10 at the top of the range in TV money, but would not be a lot more than what the SEC and Texas get. $50M/school annually would blow everyone away.
LikeLike
Could the complete deregulation of cgs allow the ACC to devise criteria that would allow ND playing a 5 or 6 game conference schedule to qualify for its cg? Would the Big XII consider adding only one school while going to an 8 game schedule and staging a cg?
Also, its interesting to note that in a 16 school conference w/o divisions, a 9 game schedule with 3 locked rivals allows for schools to play non-locked conference foes 50% of the time.
LikeLike
John S,
“Could the complete deregulation of cgs allow the ACC to devise criteria that would allow ND playing a 5 or 6 game conference schedule to qualify for its cg?”
Yes, it could. They could choose the two teams with the best W% so that 6-0 ND would always make it but a 7-1 ACC team would trump 5-1 ND. For that matter, they could choose any criteria they want. They could pick the two most popular teams regardless of record. They could choose FSU vs Miami no matter what. Anything’s possible with no rules.
“Would the Big XII consider adding only one school while going to an 8 game schedule and staging a cg?”
Who knows? I’m not sure what adding 1 would buy them, though. They could drop back to 8 games now if they wanted that. They could also theoretically schedule their #1 team to play ND in the B12 CCG every year if there were no rules.
“Also, its interesting to note that in a 16 school conference w/o divisions, a 9 game schedule with 3 locked rivals allows for schools to play non-locked conference foes 50% of the time.”
Yep. We’ve looked at the math for schedules a lot on here. Many people have suggested the B10 move to that type of model. Some (one person, really) has suggested having a variable number of locked games for each school based on how many rivals they have.
14 teams, 9 games:
3 locked = 60% * 10 teams
5 locked = 50% * 8 teams
LikeLike
Big 12 cannot go to 8 game schedule with 11 teams. TV contract requires 45 league games.
LikeLike
Got held harmless, and paid for it anyway, when the CCG went away. I’m sure adjustments would be made. I’m not sure why they would want to do that (drop to eight) and add a single school. Kinda make it a per school revenue neutral move at best.
LikeLike
They could pick the two most popular teams regardless of record. They could choose FSU vs Miami no matter what. Anything’s possible with no rules. . . . They could also theoretically schedule their #1 team to play ND in the B12 CCG every year if there were no rules.
It is fine with me if they want to behave like idiots—not that I think these ideas have any realistic shot of being adopted, even if they were allowed. If you’re Jim Delany, you ought to be delighted if they do something that dumb.
As noted elsewhere on this thread, I think he’s worried they’ll do something a lot smarter than that, i.e., pair the two best teams.
LikeLike
Ohio St. vs MSU would have been a viable choice last week under a “do as you want non-rule” rule.
I’m not sure, other than in the gilded cage conference, that majority of membership in power conferences want to forfeit opportunity, and institutionalize popularity and perception as a competitive criteria.
LikeLike
Ohio St. vs MSU would have been a viable choice last week under a “do as you want non-rule” rule.
I’m not sure, other than in the gilded cage conference, that majority of membership in power conferences want to forfeit opportunity, and institutionalize popularity and perception as a competitive criteria.
Exactly: you’ve made my point. There is no way a majority of the Big Ten would agree to a rule where the most popular teams get to play for the championship, regardless of merit.
No other college sports have a rule like the present CCG rule; and in those other sports, no league has adopted the idiotic system that you’re apparently so worried about.
LikeLike
I’d say almost every sport does. Does basketball choose the finalist for conf tourney? Does baseball? Or wrestling? Or gymnastics or softball? No. They compete, and if seventh seed meets eighth seed in the finals, one of those earns the auto berth (unless the conference has assigned that to the regular season champ in team sports).
LikeLike
I thought what you’re “worried” about is that, if the CCG is de-regulated, the Big Ten could just put UM and OSU in to the championship every year, because they are the two most popular teams. No sport does that.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I don’t necessarily agree with Delany’s stance, but there is a legitimate concern that having complete deregulation would allow for manipulative and lopsided scheduling practices. For instance, what if the ACC changed its scheduling on annual basis so that the best projected teams don’t play each other in the regular season to maximize their chances of all having high rankings by the end of the year? What if they avoid having Florida State and Clemson play each other in the regular season for 10 years straight? I’m not sure if that’s what Delany is concerned about, but that is what I would point to as a real potential problem if you eliminate any divisional round-robin component. This seems to track why he (at least superficially) said that he wasn’t as bothered by the Big 12 since everyone is playing each other in a full round-robin in a 10-team league (so there isn’t the concern that the Big 12 would avoid scheduling certain teams against each other in the regular season), while the ACC could easily start using more manipulative scheduling practices.
In thinking about this further, a lot of us might be making a naive assumption that conferences will use nice, tidy. logical, pod-like rotations for scheduling if there’s complete deregulation (and I say that as someone that generally supports deregulation). It’s not so much that the conferences would explicitly put the two most popular teams in their conference in the championship game every year, but they can start manipulating their scheduling practices to maximize the chances of that occurring.
LikeLike
Let’s completely deregulate the additional game rule. Let’s remove the waiver that allows for any 13th game for any reason. Let conferences do whatever they want within the allowed 12.
Some regulation is wanted/needed by those supporting the theory that the less regulation the better.
LikeLike
What this could lead to is no CCG’s but replacement by playoff quarterfinals that weekend.
Everybody (unless they visit Hawaii) has a 12 game regular season.
Indy and Atlanta as permanent sites. The last 2 permanent sites would be tougher. Bay Area? DFW or Charlotte or somewhere in FL?
LikeLike
I don’t necessarily agree with Delany’s stance, but there is a legitimate concern that having complete deregulation would allow for manipulative and lopsided scheduling practices. For instance, what if the ACC changed its scheduling on annual basis so that the best projected teams don’t play each other in the regular season to maximize their chances of all having high rankings by the end of the year? What if they avoid having Florida State and Clemson play each other in the regular season for 10 years straight?
They are already allowed to do that. The ACC put FSU and Miami in separate divisions, believing they would frequently meet in the CCG. (In fact, Miami has never won the Coastal Division, which shows the folly of trying to predict such things.) It so happens that they are also locked in the regular season, but that was the ACC’s choice. No rule made them do it.
I don’t see it as the NCAA’s role to preclude all the dumb ways that a conference could put its schedule together. As far as I know, nothing prevents the Big Ten from having Michigan and OSU play each other 3 times a year, since that’s the conference’s most lucrative game. Never mind that its value would obviously decrease if it were played too often. We’re talking about what’s allowed, not what makes sense.
Indeed, in the ACC’s current scheduling format, there are some cross-division games that only very rarely occur. That sort of schedule manipulation (if you call it that) is perfectly legal.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – Oh, I understand, but there’s still the primary rule of having to play a round-robin within each division (so there’s still a limitation to how much you can mess with the scheduling from year-to-year). I’m just trying to explain Delany’s possible thinking (not that I agree with it). Also, I’m fairly certain that Delany would have totally different viewpoint if the Big Ten still had the Leaders/Legends divisions instead of the geographically-based ones. The Big Ten and Pac-12 both now have pretty well-defined geographical divisions, whereas the ACC has a hodgepodge that, as you’ve said, was basically originally set up to maximize the chances of a Miami-FSU title game (which has never occurred).
LikeLike
“What if they avoid having Florida State and Clemson play each other in the regular season for 10 years straight? I’m not sure if that’s what Delany is concerned about, but that is what I would point to as a real potential problem if you eliminate any divisional round-robin component. ”
Not sure about how a University President would view this, but if it was me I’d be royally pissed off if the conference I belonged to took such obvious steps to tilt the playing field in someone else’s favor. Talk about a huge slap in the face. I’d argue it would increase the chances, of those schools penalized by such scheduling, that they’d be open to a possible shift to another conference.
LikeLike
Not sure about how a University President would view this, but if it was me I’d be royally pissed off if the conference I belonged to took such obvious steps to tilt the playing field in someone else’s favor.
Of course! There’s no way a majority of the ACC presidents are going to approve that.
It would be nice if those who support the Delany amendment could cite a consequence of full de-regulation that: A) You honestly believe a league will do; and B) What is actually so terrible about it.
Instead, we see these extreme counter-factuals, such as, “The league’s #1 team vs. Notre Dame, every year, regardless of ND’s record.” I’ll grant that if you fully de-regulate, you can’t predict what people will do, but I’d be interested to see someone give it their best shot.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“It would be nice if those who support the Delany amendment could cite a consequence of full de-regulation that: A) You honestly believe a league will do; and B) What is actually so terrible about it.”
A. We have no idea what a conference might do. That’s why they are called unintended consequences. If we knew what would happen, they would be intended consequences.
“Instead, we see these extreme counter-factuals,”
How can you have a counter-factual hypothetical future? Has any suggestion been literally impossible?
“I’ll grant that if you fully de-regulate, you can’t predict what people will do,”
Which is Delany’s main issue with it. He also wants conferences to be more similar, not less, since they have a joint post-season. Nobody would care about this if the old bowl system was in place.
Some of the many possible options:
1. The ACC takes the 2 highest W% in conference, including ND in the mix.
2. Someone takes the two highest CFP ranked teams regardless of conference records (possibly including ND in the mix if it’s the ACC).
3. Someone decides to let the #1 seed pick their opponent.
4. Someone decides to make an easier match-up if the top seed is a CFP lock already.
5. Someone decides that undefeated teams don’t need to play in the CCG and by rule pits #2 vs #3 instead.
6. Someone decides that divisions can be very different sizes and only counts division games to help get a brand into the CCG.
7. The B12 decides to give ND an autobid into the CCG (an easy win most years and always great for ratings).
8. Someone decides to form more than 2 divisions so they can play fewer conference games.
LikeLike
A. We have no idea what a conference might do. That’s why they are called unintended consequences. If we knew what would happen, they would be intended consequences.
Well sure, but in rulemaking it’s quite typical to first consider the intended ones, and then consider whether one has unintentionally made it over-broad or over-narrow.
“Instead, we see these extreme counter-factuals,”
How can you have a counter-factual hypothetical future? Has any suggestion been literally impossible?
You’re not obligated to answer my question, but I’ll ask it again anyway. Is there any “bad option” that you honestly and sincerely believe someone would do? I do not think you actually believe that any league would…..
…..let the #1 seed pick their opponent.
Instead, I think you are trying deliberately to dream up the most absurd scenarios imaginable. They’re all possible, but none are believable. And anyhow, my reaction to these would likely be: “Okaaaaay, if you want to do something that stupid, then go ahead.”
“I’ll grant that if you fully de-regulate, you can’t predict what people will do,”
Which is Delany’s main issue with it.
In point of fact, I think his main issue is what FTT said above: he doesn’t want leagues to pit their #1 vs. their #2 — which is the most overwhelmingly likely consequence of de-regulation. I’d buy you an expensive dinner if Delany said that any of the various “joke” options you listed were the ones he is truly concerned about.
He also wants conferences to be more similar, not less, since they have a joint post-season. Nobody would care about this if the old bowl system was in place.
He didn’t seem to care if they were similar when he was issuing invitations to Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.
LikeLike
Marc:
I don’t think it’s Delany’s primary point, but my issue with matching #1 and #2 is without a playoff like structure (divisions) you can’t be certain in every instance that you have the proper two. It may seem obvious many times, but sometimes not. We’re trying to decide a champion with a CCG, not the best final matchup. The upsets often cited as reasons to select are in fact the evidence that selection is nothing but guess work. Was CU the better team? That day, yes. That year, probably not. Don’t play a CCG if your wanting year results to be decisive.
Whether the B1G added or not, the concern is about the structure in place. He even is conceding on minimum number to hold a CCG. It’s the concern about its structure – keeping results an apples to apples comparison so winning a championship in each conference makes comparison meaningful.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Well sure, but in rulemaking it’s quite typical to first consider the intended ones, and then consider whether one has unintentionally made it over-broad or over-narrow.”
Which sounds exactly like what Delany is doing. He isn’t fighting to prevent the B12 from getting a CCG like everyone else has without expanding, he just doesn’t see the need to give anyone more freedom than that.
“Is there any “bad option” that you honestly and sincerely believe someone would do?”
It doesn’t matter what I think because you’ll dismiss any option I suggest. If I’d suggested 30 years ago that every conference would expand to 12+ teams and stage CCGs you would’ve denied that as crazy talk, too.
“I do not think you actually believe that any league would…..”
I think anything’s possible if there is enough money to be had.
“…..let the #1 seed pick their opponent.”
It means fewer upsets and thus more CFP slots. That has direct monetary value. And it also would be a way to play a team you didn’t face during the season instead of getting a rematch.
“Instead, I think you are trying deliberately to dream up the most absurd scenarios imaginable.”
As I predicted above.
“In point of fact, I think his main issue is what FTT said above:”
Fine. I think his main issue is that he doesn’t know what they might do, you think it’s one particular scenario. That seems related to me since my issue contains yours plus all other scenarios.
“he doesn’t want leagues to pit their #1 vs. their #2 — which is the most overwhelmingly likely consequence of de-regulation.”
How can you possibly know the most likely outcome? The ACC has said all along they don’t want to make any changes and the B12 hasn’t clearly decided to stage a CCG even if they can, so wouldn’t the status quo be the most likely consequence?
“I’d buy you an expensive dinner if Delany said that any of the various “joke” options you listed were the ones he is truly concerned about.”
I think he’s worried about all of them including the 1 vs 2 scenario.
“He didn’t seem to care if they were similar when he was issuing invitations to Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.”
Sure he did. He was trying to become yet another 2 division conference with a CCG when he added NE, and he succeeded. He was trying to become yet another 14 team conference with 2 divisions and a CCG when he added RU and UMD, and he succeeded.
LikeLike
. . .my issue with matching #1 and #2 is without a playoff like structure (divisions) you can’t be certain in every instance that you have the proper two. It may seem obvious many times, but sometimes not. We’re trying to decide a champion with a CCG, not the best final matchup.
This is an entirely valid point, but let’s consider how far the goalposts have moved. The original idea (as you explained many FTT posts ago), was:
— They really don’t want you to play a 13th “regular season” game. (The rules treat that extra game as if it were part of the regular season, though practically everyone thinks of it as a post-season game.)
— Therefore, they want to limit it to situations where the game is truly needed; and
— They want to ensure that the selection of the two teams in that game address the actual need, i.e., the inability to play a full round-robin.
All of that is lost in the Delany proposal. In fact, Larry Scott (who supports the Delany amendment) has said explicitly that he wants all leagues to have a CCG, so that conference champions will have played the same number of games, and can be more readily compared.
The current rules allow conferences wide latitude—essentially unlimited latitude—to schedule the first 12 games according to any pattern they want. I could easily think of dozens of silly regular-season scheduling ideas like Brian’s that no conference has adopted, but that the current rules permit.
Indeed, conferences have already adopted a fairly wide variety of scheduling strategies in the first 12 games, making comparisons difficult. No one yet has suggested putting further constraints on them.
There is an intellectual coherence to the idea of limiting the length of the regular season, and therefore permitting the 13th game only where “you really need it”. Once you concede that every league can play that game, that idea is out the window.
The upsets often cited as reasons to select are in fact the evidence that selection is nothing but guess work.
Favorites win a statistically significant majority of games. The fact that they sometimes lose does not mean there was no basis for them being favored.
It’s the concern about its structure – keeping results an apples to apples comparison so winning a championship in each conference makes comparison meaningful.
How could that truly be the concern, given the even wider variation in regular-season scheduling formats, which no one is proposing to alter?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
In reply to ccrider55, not me.
“This is an entirely valid point, but let’s consider how far the goalposts have moved. The original idea (as you explained many FTT posts ago), was:
— They really don’t want you to play a 13th “regular season” game. (The rules treat that extra game as if it were part of the regular season, though practically everyone thinks of it as a post-season game.)
— Therefore, they want to limit it to situations where the game is truly needed; and
— They want to ensure that the selection of the two teams in that game address the actual need, i.e., the inability to play a full round-robin.”
That was the original (and current) rule, yes. The SEC abused the lack of specificity in the rule to apply the CCG for an unintended use. That then caused other conferences to follow suit. All of conference expansion for the past 25 years could be viewed as an unintended consequence of the original rule being too broad.
“All of that is lost in the Delany proposal. In fact, Larry Scott (who supports the Delany amendment) has said explicitly that he wants all leagues to have a CCG, so that conference champions will have played the same number of games, and can be more readily compared.”
The genie is out of the box now. They know there is no way they can unring this bell and recognize that some rule will be passed that allows the B12 to add a CCG without expanding. Based on the two years of the CFP so far, it has become apparent that making the conferences more similar in scheduling would make the selection process more fair for everyone.
The question is how best to meet that new goal while minimizing the damage to student-athletes and the original intent of the rule. By requiring divisions, the amendment maintains similarity between the conferences while allowing enough freedom for various sizes. Complete deregulation could easily defeat the purpose of increased similarity.
“The current rules allow conferences wide latitude—essentially unlimited latitude—to schedule the first 12 games according to any pattern they want.”
Not as much as you indicate. The season is tightly restricted by the calendar and number of games. There are weekly limitations in terms of time as well as practicality. Game locations are regulated, too. The types of wins that can count towards bowl eligibility are also regulated.
“Indeed, conferences have already adopted a fairly wide variety of scheduling strategies in the first 12 games, making comparisons difficult.”
One of the sources of the desire to keep the CCGs regulated to some degree.
“No one yet has suggested putting further constraints on them.”
Bull. Lots of football people (head coaches and others) have suggested that everyone should have to play 9 conference games and/or that everyone should have to play a CCG to make things more similar. There has also been talk of some dropping back to 8 conference games to match what others are doing.
“There is an intellectual coherence to the idea of limiting the length of the regular season, and therefore permitting the 13th game only where “you really need it”. Once you concede that every league can play that game, that idea is out the window.”
Obviously not or they’d be pushing for all teams to get 13 games and nobody is advocating that. Everyone involved wants to keep these games to a minimum, but they also don’t want to force expansion on the B12.
“Favorites win a statistically significant majority of games. The fact that they sometimes lose does not mean there was no basis for them being favored.”
The B12 CCG experienced many more upsets than would be expected.
Top 3 teams nationally went 7-5 in the B12 CCG:
1-3 vs top 10 teams (#8-#10)
2-1 vs top 15 teams
2-0 vs top 25 teams
2-1 vs unranked teams
“How could that truly be the concern, given the even wider variation in regular-season scheduling formats, which no one is proposing to alter?”
You have it backwards. The disparity in the regular seasons is one thing driving the desire to make the CCGs more similar. And lots of people have proposed to make the regular seasons more similar, but they realize that has to be an internal decision by each conference. The CCG started off as regulated so it’s easier to maintain regulation there than add it to the regular season which has been more free for a long time.
LikeLike
Marc:
I agree with a fair amount of what you are saying, but disagree about some of the conclusions.
The CCG still serves the original purpose and could continue to with no change. However, the playoff/selection has added to (not replaced) its importance as it relates to other conferences primarily as an additional game against a higher quality opponent that every CCG winner will have on it’s resume. It is also a $ producer for the conference. Allowing a 13th game in a 10 team conf with the rest of regs in place is completely reasonable rather than requiring the B12 to scavenge a couple more schools just to get on the even playing field. Complete deregulation is saying everyone can create whatever playing field they currently think is advantageous. May as well not change at all – only one conference is currently possibly disadvantaged (and maybe not) – rather than introduce potential chaos and comparing maybe five different systems.
Most conferences are increasing conf games, and limiting 1aa. The SOS component is forcing these without legislation. We have had rules governing what/how many games of different levels count for bowl eligibility, so in fact we have legislated consequences for regular season scheduling.
“Favorites win a statistically significant majority of games. The fact that they sometimes lose does not mean there was no basis for them being favored.”
Nor does it provide a basis for underdogs exclusion based on perception. In fact it argues for their inclusion as it proves perception incorrect, at least on that day (the same day another supposed stronger opponent would like to be credited with proving themselves the champ.
LikeLike
Brian:
I think Delaney offered the amendment because he knew the ACC/B12 proposal had the votes. I doubt the B10 wants any change to the current CCG rules. This looks like an attempt to get the PAC and SEC to support a watered down change. I expect the ACC/B12 is now trying to keep the SEC on side and checking interest among the Go5. The Go5 have more to gain and less to lose if they structure a CCG to give their conference the best shot at the Go5 bowl slot. As far as allowing the B12 to hold a CCG with 10 members, the PAC would probably have wanted OU to have another chance to lose this year so that was probably a non-starter.
LikeLike
Mack,
“I think Delaney offered the amendment because he knew the ACC/B12 proposal had the votes. I doubt the B10 wants any change to the current CCG rules.”
I agree. The B10 knows some change will be passed to accommodate the B12 and wants to limit the collateral damage. Besides, I think most presidents would rather let the B12 stage a CCG with 10 teams than force another round of expansion just so the B12 can get to 12 and stage a CCG.
“This looks like an attempt to get the PAC and SEC to support a watered down change.”
The P12 already does support it.
“I expect the ACC/B12 is now trying to keep the SEC on side and checking interest among the Go5. The Go5 have more to gain and less to lose if they structure a CCG to give their conference the best shot at the Go5 bowl slot. As far as allowing the B12 to hold a CCG with 10 members, the PAC would probably have wanted OU to have another chance to lose this year so that was probably a non-starter.”
The G5 could be a tough sell because P5 CCG upsets help them potentially. They need P5 upset champions to have a shot at getting a top 4 team.
LikeLike
I wonder if Delaney’s motivation for the proposal is to position the B1G to go to subdivisions of four (or five) teams with future expansion?
LikeLike
I highly doubt it since the B10 amendment would prevent having a CCG in that scenario. The completely deregulated proposal would work for that scenario, though. This has to be aimed at limiting the options of others (ACC, B12 and ND).
LikeLike
I agree with Brian: Delany wants to limit their options.
As noted upthread, the most likely option Delany wants to prevent, is a CCG that simply pairs the two best teams. For conferences adopting this choice, it practically guarantees that they’ll always crown a champion with legitimate playoff credentials.
In contrast, conferences with static divisions risk a major CCG upset, where their champion is nowhere near playoff caliber. That hasn’t happened the last couple of years, but historically it does happen occasionally.
Of course, the more sinister explanation is that Delany opposes any move that makes the Big 12 and ACC stronger, since they have teams he might want to invite to the Big Ten eventually.
LikeLike
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
LikeLike
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
True, but you—of all people—would have to concede that the Delany amendment has taken the rule pretty far afield of its original intent, which was to provide a way of crowning a clear champion, for leagues that could not conduct a round robin.
If Delany has any integrity (which there is no guarantee he does), he should return to first principles: what legitimate regulatory purpose does the new rule serve, and how does his amendment address that purpose?
Of course, he might win without ever having to state his reasons, but that doesn’t stop people like us from inquiring what they might be.
LikeLike
Marc:
As you know, the rule has nothing to do with dictating how a conference identifies it’s champion. It is an exception to the 12 game rule so large conferences in which it’s impossible to come close enough to RR to accurately identify one to RR in halves and playoff for the title in a 13th game. We seem to have arrived at the point where TV, money, and national final four have subsumed the rule. I am disappointed. Competitive balance/similarity seems to be Delany’s emphasis. The reason for the game has changed – it’s now for reasons external to the conference.
I’m back to thinking four super conferences, CCGs as qtr finals, each champ to the semi’s, is the only way to restore competition to this fake playoff (selection) we are now arguing how to put on the best beauty contest in hope of being chosen.
LikeLike
Right. Its the ACC and Big 12 amendments that take the rule pretty far afield of its original intent.
LikeLike
No, it’s the ACC and B12 proposal to erase any regulation governing the holding of a 13th game. The amendment Delany offered only partially restores some regulation.
LikeLike
Right. Its the ACC and Big 12 amendments that take the rule pretty far afield of its original intent.
Yes, but their aims are at least clear: they want to de-regulate, which is an intent anyone can relate to. Delany’s proposal has neither purpose: not the original intent, nor the ACC/B12’s intent.
Leaving aside joke proposals, Delany’s fear seems to be that a fully de-regulated CCG will work too well (i.e., giving the ACC a clear #1 vs. #2 every year). That doesn’t strike me as a very legitimate regulatory purpose, even though I can see why (selfishly) Delany would love for it to work that way.
LikeLike
“Yes, but their aims are at least clear: they want to de-regulate, which is an intent anyone can relate to.”
De-regulation is not an end in itself, its a means to an end. It’s reasonable to ask what end it’s a means to.
LikeLike
De-regulation is not an end in itself, its a means to an end. It’s reasonable to ask what end it’s a means to.
Your comment would be accurate, if you replaced “de-regulation” with “regulation”.
The normal state of everything is non-regulation. There is an infinite number of things that people can do, and only a tiny fraction of them are regulated.
Regulations are passed, either to prevent re-occurrence of a specific harm that has already happened, or to preempt a harm that has been anticipated.
It is fairly clear that the regulators no longer care about the original (purported) harm that animated the current CCG rule. It was supposed to limit the 13th game to leagues that could not conduct a regular-season round robin—on the grounds that football in excess is harmful, and 12 games should ordinarily be enough.
They are now perfectly willing to allow all leagues to play that game, regardless of size. Once you make that concession, it’s reasonable to ask why the CCG should not be like the rest of the schedule: that leagues choose the participants however they want.
LikeLike
You assume there is no reason they should care.
In fact, with the legal and social environment, they absolutely should keep the original purpose of the rule in mind. Just adding another game without justification (other than money) is the mentality that got them in some of this trouble in the first place.
Some of the same arguments for not expanding the playoffs to 8 are ignored with regard to this rule. With expanding the playoffs, at least there is some benefit (gives more a shot at a championship) to the student-athletes (I’m sure Baylor and TCU last year and Stanford and Ohio St. this year would be unanimously in favor of expanded playoffs). This is just adding a game with no reason for its existence. If you have a round robin, you shouldn’t have to beat the same team again. If you can play a round robin in a division, then you should, or you should forgo a championship game.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The normal state of everything is non-regulation.”
In what world is that true? Every facet of society and life is regulated.
“There is an infinite number of things that people can do, and only a tiny fraction of them are regulated.”
What you can say, where you can go and what you can do are all regulated. Whether your choices bump up against those regulations or not is based on your choices. The same is true of CFB.
“Regulations are passed, either to prevent re-occurrence of a specific harm that has already happened,”
Like “forced” expansion to stay competitive?
“or to preempt a harm that has been anticipated.”
It isn’t always one specific harm that calls for regulation.
“It is fairly clear that the regulators no longer care about the original (purported) harm that animated the current CCG rule.”
No it isn’t. You have no idea what they care about. Accepting that something is going to happen despite your wishes doesn’t mean you don’t care about it happening.
“They are now perfectly willing to allow all leagues to play that game, regardless of size.”
Accepting that the votes to force it are out there is different from encouraging or supporting it.
“Once you make that concession, it’s reasonable to ask why the CCG should not be like the rest of the schedule: that leagues choose the participants however they want.”
They can’t choose participants however they want, at least not if they want the games to count.
LikeLike
In fact, with the legal and social environment, they absolutely should keep the original purpose of the rule in mind.
That ship has sailed. Once they allow a 10-team league to conduct a CCG—which it appears they are about to do—what vestige of the original purpose is left standing?
Just adding another game without justification (other than money) is the mentality that got them in some of this trouble in the first place.
Exactly what “trouble” did it cause?
LikeLike
“The normal state of everything is non-regulation.”
In what world is that true? Every facet of society and life is regulated.
Just think about it a little harder: of the millions of things you elect NOT to do in your life, how often is a regulation or law the reason why? Very few.
As full of regulation as our world is, the things you are free to do vastly outnumber the things that are prohibited.
“It is fairly clear that the regulators no longer care about the original (purported) harm that animated the current CCG rule.”
No it isn’t. You have no idea what they care about.
@ccrider55 has often explained the original purpose of the rule, and I don’t recall you disagreeing. Actually, I was pretty sure you agreed (and you are not the sort to allow even the slightest disagreement to pass without comment). Have you changed your mind?
“They are now perfectly willing to allow all leagues to play that game, regardless of size.”
Accepting that the votes to force it are out there is different from encouraging or supporting it.
If “the votes are there”, that means that a majority or super-majority(*) is now “perfectly willing to allow all leagues to play that game, regardless of size.” What else could it mean?
By the way, I believe I read that if just two P5 leagues voted against it, the B12/ACC proposal would be de-railed, and the status quo would reign. It takes more than just a bare majority to pass legislation.
Larry Scott has said explicitly that he thinks it would be preferred if all leagues played a CCG regardless of size, because it would more easily facilitate comparisons across conference champions.
“Once you make that concession, it’s reasonable to ask why the CCG should not be like the rest of the schedule: that leagues choose the participants however they want.”
They can’t choose participants however they want, at least not if they want the games to count.
I assume you are referring to the fact that no more than one FCS game can count towards bowl eligibility. Nevertheless, there are a few FBS teams this year that elected to play two FCS teams. If it had beaten Clemson decisively in the CCG, North Carolina could very well have made the playoff despite having two FCS teams on its schedule.
It just goes to show what I have been saying, that the variety of scheduling options that are allowed vastly outnumbers those that are prohibited.
“No one yet has suggested putting further constraints on them.”
Bull. Lots of football people (head coaches and others) have suggested that everyone should have to play 9 conference games and/or that everyone should have to play a CCG to make things more similar.
I assumed you realized I meant, “no one with the authority to legislate,” not, “no human being anywhere.”
After all, a few coaches have said that Notre Dame shouldn’t be playoff-eligible without being forced to join a conference, but you know they are whistling past the graveyard. There is essentially zero chance that the presidents would enact legislation that prevents ND from remaining independent.
There has also been talk of some dropping back to 8 conference games to match what others are doing.
I have not seen any talk of enforcing that legislatively. Doing it voluntarily, of course, would just be another example of what I am talking about. Leagues already “game” their schedules for a wide variety of reasons.
LikeLike
#1 They haven’t approved a 10 team ccg yet. And they shouldn’t.
#2 Their money grubbing without considering the interest of the student-athlete, in fact while increasing time demands and putting more restrictions on what the student-athlete could do with regard to working, transferring and doing things outside of athletics, lead to a lot of the resentment against the NCAA that created the union movement and several of the lawsuits. It also weakened their position in some of these lawsuits.
LikeLike
Marc:
By joining the NCAA every aspect of competition is governed (regulated), except for activities the NCAA doesn’t sanction. Perhaps the B12 would like to leave the NCAA and create an anarchist only organization?
There is a huge difference between being “perfectly willing” as a matter of indifference and begrudgingly willing because of changing circumstances making the CCG far more important now than a few years ago. Allowing the 10 team CCG is a choice between evils. The choice to allow is seen by the B1G and PAC as the lesser as long as the format remains similar (divisions).
NC stood absolutely no chance of inclusion precisely because of those games. I’d argue that with a loss and even just one 1aa game they wouldn’t have passed Stanford, but they had two.
LikeLike
I guess that I come down in the middle on this issue. The primary reason for the NCAA’s entire existence is to be a regulatory body. It regulates which schools get to be FCS or FBS (or Division I, II or III). It regulates the number of players that get scholarships on each team. It regulates the fact that those players don’t get paid a salary. Those are just a few examples of pretty extraordinary regulatory measures that would be antitrust violations in virtually any other industry. As a result, I don’t agree with the sentiment that de-regulation is the “natural” course for college sports because that has very clearly never been the case. In fact, it’s one of the most heavily regulated industries in all of America when you consider all of the restrictions that are in place.
That being said, I can sympathize with the arguments that (a) college sports are too regulated at a general level (as I’ve argued that many times before regarding player compensation) and (b) the conference championship game requirements should have few or no regulations at a specific level. I can make up some arguments that would justify Jim Delany’s position regarding the conference championship game requirements, but they don’t really make sense. IMHO, either keep the current rule in place (as it at least has a reasonable basis of requiring a round robin within each division for 12-team leagues that are too large to realistically have a full conference round-robin) or get rid of the requirements entirely. There’s little point in having a rule that’s in between.
LikeLike
“In fact, with the legal and social environment, they absolutely should keep the original purpose of the rule in mind.”
The original intent was D2 tennis.
LikeLike
In general, I find the argument that deregulation is the natural state (ergo deregulation is good) to be a poor argument for anything.
For instance, there are a lot more things you may do in or with your car than there are regulations prohibiting such actions. But if you try to argue that that means that seatbelt laws should be invalid, everyone would find that argument ludicrous.
Plus which, very few people would actually want to live in the “natural” state of anarchy with no laws or regulations, even if they think they do (in such environments, strongmen take over, feudalism develops, and religious extremism flourishes).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The normal state of everything is non-regulation.”
and
“Just think about it a little harder: of the millions of things you elect NOT to do in your life, how often is a regulation or law the reason why? Very few.
As full of regulation as our world is, the things you are free to do vastly outnumber the things that are prohibited.”
Are two completely different statements. And regulations/laws prevent all sorts of choices people and businesses would prefer to make. How many drunk drivers would there be if DUI wasn’t a crime? How much theft? How many murders? How much freely dumping toxins into the ground or water? How much abuse of workers? How would government function without rules to enforce taxation?
Yes, of course I have many legal options. That doesn’t make the normal state of things non-regulated.
“If “the votes are there”, that means that a majority or super-majority(*) is now “perfectly willing to allow all leagues to play that game, regardless of size.” What else could it mean?”
It means that the people offering this amendment aren’t in that majority and thus don’t agree with their thinking. So the rules that make sense to one group are different from what makes sense to the other.
“By the way, I believe I read that if just two P5 leagues voted against it, the B12/ACC proposal would be de-railed, and the status quo would reign. It takes more than just a bare majority to pass legislation.”
It’s possible. Have a link? 4 P5 conferences equal 8 of the 15 possible votes which is why the B10 can’t kill it by themselves. With 2 P5 conference saying no, it would be up to the G5 conferences to decide if it’s a majority vote (which is how ESPN was explaining it).
“It just goes to show what I have been saying, that the variety of scheduling options that are allowed vastly outnumbers those that are prohibited.”
No, that isn’t what you’ve been saying. Nobody would’ve disagreed with that.
“I assumed you realized I meant, “no one with the authority to legislate,” not, “no human being anywhere.””
Head coaches and ADs are a little different from fans and media in this regard. Presidents don’t talk much on any sports issue.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“IMHO, either keep the current rule in place (as it at least has a reasonable basis of requiring a round robin within each division for 12-team leagues that are too large to realistically have a full conference round-robin) or get rid of the requirements entirely. There’s little point in having a rule that’s in between.”
I’d agree in the pre-CFP era. But the committee has made clear how important a CCG is to their decisions. Thus every conference now needs access to that 13th game as an unintended consequence of starting the playoff. Presidents are loathe to force another round of conference expansion, but that would be the likely result of not giving the B12 some path to as CCG with 10 teams. A conference with 10 or 11 teams needs some way to compete with the bigger conferences. The B10/P12 amendment grudgingly grants that path while keeping restrictions to avoid rewarding a smaller conference too much either.
LikeLike
#1 They haven’t approved a 10 team ccg yet.
Absolutely correct. We can only go by what they are saying publicly, and so far no one (with the authority to vote) has said they oppose it.
#2 Their money grubbing without considering the interest of the student-athlete…..
Football has been a revenue sport for decades. The horse hasn’t merely left the barn…it’s left the galaxy. We could go back to the late 1960s, when Big Ten teams played 10 regular-season games, and only the champ went to a bowl. Every single one of the schedule expansions since then, and it has happened repeatedly, has been done to make money.
I don’t know how old you are, but if you stood on a building and yelled “Stop!” every time, at least you would be consistent. Otherwise, it is remarkably incoherent to complain about “money grubbing” now, as if it were ever (in our lifetimes) about anything else.
LikeLike
By joining the NCAA every aspect of competition is governed (regulated), except for activities the NCAA doesn’t sanction.
That’s a big “except”. As far as I can tell, what you’ve just said, is: competition is regulated, except where it’s not.
Perhaps the B12 would like to leave the NCAA and create an anarchist only organization?
Was there an overnight news story I missed? Last I checked, the B12 was working lawfully through the legislative process.
NC stood absolutely no chance of inclusion precisely because of those games. I’d argue that with a loss and even just one 1aa game they wouldn’t have passed Stanford, but they had two.
I am not so sure what the Committee would’ve done, had they demolished Clemson, but remember, Stanford had to beat USC. There certainly are scenarios where NC gets into the top four with two FCS wins. They made a strategic scheduling choice, one of many allowed them.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with the sentiment that de-regulation is the “natural” course for college sports because that has very clearly never been the case.
Of course it has been the case: there wasn’t always an NCAA, and it didn’t spring out of the ground fully formed. Regulation evolved gradually, to solve particular problems that the members felt were worthy of a nationwide solution.
But anyhow, I think you’ve misstated what I meant, when I said that non-regulation is the natural state of things. This does not mean that we are headed (or ought to be) in a direction where nothing will be regulated.
All it means, is that non-regulation is the natural state. Just about everything starts non-regulated (as college sports, in fact, did), and regulation is added gradually as problems arise.
The current CCG rule solves a particular problem, which someone at the time thought was important enough to regulate. It appears they no longer care about that problem.(*) For a new CCG rule to make sense, someone ought to articulate what the NEW problem is. “Scheduling uniformity” is pretty weak, given the enormous variety of regular-season scheduling formats that are already allowed, and which they are not proposing to further regulate.
Of course, Delany and Scott have a trump card, namely, that the original rule is still in place, and although no one acts as if they believe in it any more, it doesn’t just magically go away. (This is why Acts of Congress often have sunset dates, but the NCAA doesn’t legislate like that.)
(* I can only go by what people in authority say in public. @ccrider55 has often explained the purpose of the original rule, and it makes sense. No one I can find is saying that today. And beyond that, if you permit CCGs for 10-team leagues, and no longer require divisional round-robins, it is pretty obvious that the original concerns have been tossed out the window.)
LikeLike
In general, I find the argument that deregulation is the natural state (ergo deregulation is good) to be a poor argument for anything.
“Deregulation is the natural state” does not mean “deregulation is good.” It only means that most things start out non-regulated, and we add regulation where we (as a group or society) conclude that it is needed.
For instance, there are a lot more things you may do in or with your car than there are regulations prohibiting such actions. But if you try to argue that that means that seatbelt laws should be invalid, everyone would find that argument ludicrous.
Actually, this is precisely the point I was making: there are far more things you can do with your car, than things you cannot. Seatbelt use was once optional. (I can remember when seatbelts weren’t even standard equipment; you had to pay extra for them.) Society concluded after much experience that seatbelts should no longer be optional. You are certainly not seeing me argue that that was a mistake.
On the CCG topic, it appears to me that the P5 commissioners no longer care at all about the concerns that motivated the original rule. I am not a mind-reader, but not one of them is talking about that. Brian refers to “grudging acceptance,” as if poor Jim Delany is forced to play a game that, gosh dangit, he really wishes didn’t exist. My heart bleads for the poor guy, who schemed for years to expand so that he could play a game that he never wanted.
LikeLike
There are lines you can cross on money-grubbing. I disliked it when they drove a Mercedes out on the field at UT’s Memorial stadium in the 90s. I don’t know how much they got for it, but that was crossing the line IMO. Degrading the value of a championship (and adding a game with no real value) by having a 10 team ccg also crosses it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Of course it has been the case: there wasn’t always an NCAA, and it didn’t spring out of the ground fully formed.”
http://www.bigten.org/school-bio/big10-school-bio.html
The precursor of the B10 formed in 1895 in part to regulate college athletics.
The history of the Big Ten traces back 120 years to the Palmer House hotel in Chicago, where on January 11, 1895, then-Purdue president James H. Smart and leaders from the University of Chicago, University of Illinois, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Northwestern University and University of Wisconsin set out to organize and develop principles for the regulation of intercollegiate athletics.
In 1895, all of 7 schools had played more than 100 games (and it was more rugby than football). Another 8 had played at least 50 games.
Between 1890 and 1905, 330 players died. In 1905, Teddy Roosevelt supposedly threatened to shut down CFB if changes weren’t made. While that is disputed, he definitely met with football representatives from 3 Ivy League schools. This lead to the precursor of the NCAA forming in 1906 (it became the NCAA in 1910).
“Regulation evolved gradually, to solve particular problems that the members felt were worthy of a nationwide solution.”
Completely irrelevant to your point. You said non-regulation is the natural state, so any regulation disputes that point.
“But anyhow, I think you’ve misstated what I meant, when I said that non-regulation is the natural state of things. This does not mean that we are headed (or ought to be) in a direction where nothing will be regulated.
All it means, is that non-regulation is the natural state. Just about everything starts non-regulated (as college sports, in fact, did), and regulation is added gradually as problems arise.”
Society has regulated human behavior for tens of thousands of years. It’s what we do. The natural state implies that is where it should be, not just where things start. And even then I’d dispute that CFB started without regulation because the two teams had to agree to a whole set of rules. Time just added more regulation.
“The current CCG rule solves a particular problem, which someone at the time thought was important enough to regulate.”
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/05/16/conference-championship-games-rule-origin
Yes, it was designed to allow the PSAC and CIAA (2 D-II conferences) to play a CCG without wasting the final week of the season for everyone else. Due to a lack of experience by the drafter, the rule was left too broad. The PSAC never even staged a CCG because the D-II playoffs expanded and they didn’t want to risk an upset.
The SEC jumped on the rule and expansion took off.
“For a new CCG rule to make sense, someone ought to articulate what the NEW problem is.”
Which they have, but you turn around and automatically respond with garbage like this:
““Scheduling uniformity” is pretty weak, given the enormous variety of regular-season scheduling formats that are already allowed, and which they are not proposing to further regulate.”
Since there is no reason you’ll accept as valid, why ask them to state their reasons?
“(* I can only go by what people in authority say in public. @ccrider55 has often explained the purpose of the original rule, and it makes sense. No one I can find is saying that today. And beyond that, if you permit CCGs for 10-team leagues, and no longer require divisional round-robins, it is pretty obvious that the original concerns have been tossed out the window.)”
The proposed amendment keeps that divisional RR requirement, showing that the original concern hasn’t been tossed out by some.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
““Deregulation is the natural state” does not mean “deregulation is good.” It only means that most things start out non-regulated, and we add regulation where we (as a group or society) conclude that it is needed.”
It most certainly does not mean that in the English language.
“On the CCG topic, it appears to me that the P5 commissioners no longer care at all about the concerns that motivated the original rule.”
Except the 2 that have proposed an amendment that would retain much of the original purpose. A third has said absolutely nothing on the topic as far as I have seen. That leaves 2 that have proposed a change but neither has committed to actually implementing any approved change.
“Brian refers to “grudging acceptance,” as if poor Jim Delany is forced to play a game that, gosh dangit, he really wishes didn’t exist.”
The CFP committee has made it clear that you need a CCG to stay on a level playing field.
“My heart bleads for the poor guy, who schemed for years to expand so that he could play a game that he never wanted.”
Schemed for years? It took him less than 1 year to add a 12th member once the B10 committed to doing it. The B10 kicked the tires of ND a couple of times but there was no scheming going on.
LikeLike
In any case, count me now as someone in favor of the B12/ACC anything-goes CCG deregulation proposal.
Then the B10 can have 5 locked games per school (protecting any and all rivalry games out there) yet still allow everyone to play everyone else at least half the time. Both would be improvements over the current system. Furthermore, I can lock the games in such a way that each king (UMich, OSU, PSU, and UNL) is locked with 2 kings and one prince and each prince (MSU and Wisconsin) is locked with 2 kings while every other team is locked with the one king that the makes most sense for them, so some parity-based scheduling would still be preserved.
Maybe put this in after 2-4 years of the current system, so going in in 2018 or 2020 so NJ and MD still get a bunch of kings visiting for a while.
LikeLike
For those dying of curiosity, here are the locked series that I propose:
UMich: OSU, UNL, MSU, Minny, PU
OSU: UMich, PSU, Wisconsin, UIUC, IU
PSU: OSU, UNL, MSU, RU, UMD
UNL: PSU, UMich, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Wisconsin: UNL, OSU, Iowa, Minny, RU
MSU: UMich, PSU, IU, Northwestern (MSU wants to visit Chicagoland), UMD
Iowa: UNL, Wisconsin, Minny, Northwestern, UIUC
Northwestern: UNL, Iowa, UIUC, MSU, RU
UIUC: OSU, Iowa, Northwestern, PU, UMD
Minny: UMich, Wisconsin, Iowa, IU, PU
IU: OSU, PU, MSU, Minny, RU
PU: UMich, IU, UIUC, Minny, UMD
RU: PSU, UMD, Wisconsin, Northwestern, IU
UMD: PSU, RU, MSU, UIUC, PU
All rivalry and trophy games protected (except UNL-Minny and the bogus Minny-PSU trophy game).
4 kings locked with 2 kings and 1 prince (counting Wisconsin and MSU as princes).
2 princes locked with 2 kings
The rest locked with the king that makes most sense for them. All of those 8 besides PU and UIUC locked with a prince as well (as UIUC is too if you count Iowa as a prince).
And here’s the thing: You won’t actually end up with more unattractive games than the current 9-game schedule with divisions and even semi-locked crossovers.
King-king matchups each year:
Old plan: 4.67 New plan: 5 (even more!)
King-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 6 New plan: 6
Prince-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 0.33 New plan: 0.5 (even more!)
Even if you count Iowa as a prince, that becomes
King-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 8.67 New plan: 8.5
Prince-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 1.67 New plan: 2 (even more!)
LikeLike
Richard,
“In any case, count me now as someone in favor of the B12/ACC anything-goes CCG deregulation proposal.”
I’m not, but I’m against CCGs in general.
“Then the B10 can have 5 locked games per school (protecting any and all rivalry games out there) yet still allow everyone to play everyone else at least half the time. Both would be improvements over the current system.”
I’ve laid out such a plan before as well. Marc always objects that I’m locking too many games but I think you need 5 to accomplish all the goals of the B10, plus I like the symmetry of playing everyone else 50% of the time.
“Furthermore, I can lock the games in such a way that each king (UMich, OSU, PSU, and UNL) is locked with 2 kings and one prince and each prince (MSU and Wisconsin) is locked with 2 kings while every other team is locked with the one king that the makes most sense for them, so some parity-based scheduling would still be preserved.
Maybe put this in after 2-4 years of the current system, so going in in 2018 or 2020 so NJ and MD still get a bunch of kings visiting for a while.”
My plan is similar although I also focus on getting brands to visit the newbies.
“UMich: OSU, UNL, MSU, Minny, PU
OSU: UMich, PSU, Wisconsin, UIUC, IU
PSU: OSU, UNL, MSU, RU, UMD
UNL: PSU, UMich, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Wisconsin: UNL, OSU, Iowa, Minny, RU
MSU: UMich, PSU, IU, Northwestern (MSU wants to visit Chicagoland), UMD
Iowa: UNL, Wisconsin, Minny, Northwestern, UIUC
Northwestern: UNL, Iowa, UIUC, MSU, RU
UIUC: OSU, Iowa, Northwestern, PU, UMD
Minny: UMich, Wisconsin, Iowa, IU, PU
IU: OSU, PU, MSU, Minny, RU
PU: UMich, IU, UIUC, Minny, UMD
RU: PSU, UMD, Wisconsin, Northwestern, IU
UMD: PSU, RU, MSU, UIUC, PU”
NE – WI, IA, MN, PSU, MI
IA – NE, WI, MN, UMD, MSU
MN – NE, WI, IA, MI, RU
WI – NE, IA, MN, MSU, NW
NW – IL, RU, PU, IN, WI
IL – NW, OSU, PU, IN, UMD
IN – PU, OSU, MSU, IL, NW
PU – IN, NW, PSU, IL, MSU
MSU – MI, WI, IN, IA, PU
MI – OSU, MSU, NE, MN, RU
OSU – MI, PSU, IL, IN, UMD
PSU – OSU, RU, UMD, NE, PU
UMD – PSU, RU, OSU, IA, IL
RU – PSU, UMD, MI, NW, MN
They’re pretty similar except I don’t emphasize king/prince games as much while getting more prince/prince games. I don’t lock a king for NW but they’ll get 2 every year. That gives everyone equal Chicago access. To lock a king for NW I’d need to drop the NYC and DC focus and I don’t think the B10 is ready for that yet. Maybe in a few years. That’s a punishment for OSU, so I’m only doing it because I think the B10 wants it right now.
“King-king matchups each year:
Old plan: 4.67 New plan: 5 (even more!)
King-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 6 New plan: 6
Prince-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 0.33 New plan: 0.5 (even more!)
Even if you count Iowa as a prince, that becomes
King-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 8.67 New plan: 8.5
Prince-prince matchups each year:
Old plan: 1.67 New plan: 2 (even more!)”
I do count WI, MSU and IA as princes.
My plan:
K/K – 4 locked + 2 * 50% = 5
K/P – 3 locked + 9 * 50% = 7.5
P/P – 3 locked + 0 * 50% = 3
LikeLike
Marc always objects that I’m locking too many games but I think you need 5 to accomplish all the goals of the B10. . . .
If you feel it’s important to lock an equal number of games for all, I think you accomplish all of the B1G’s goals with four locks, which creates more “openings” to play the remaining teams in the league.
For most teams, your fifth “lock” seems a bit random. If your plan were adopted, there are probably very few Ohio State who’d think “Indiana” was an obvious lock. Among those paying attention, half would be grateful to the Big Ten office for the closest you can get to an automatic win, among the original ten teams.
The other half would be wondering why they’re stuck with Indiana on their schedule every year. Among fans of the other teams, I suspect there’d be a large number wondering whom Gene Smith paid off, to get the gift of Indiana as a locked opponent.
From Richard’s proposal…..
MSU: UMich, PSU, IU, Northwestern (MSU wants to visit Chicagoland), UMD
MSU wants to visit Chicagoland for the same reason everyone does: for recruiting. It’s not as if the Spartans have a special kinship for Chicago that is beyond just the general, widely shared desire to frequently visit the league’s biggest city.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“If you feel it’s important to lock an equal number of games for all, I think you accomplish all of the B1G’s goals with four locks, which creates more “openings” to play the remaining teams in the league.”
And I think 5 is better. 4 ins enough for most teams but not all. Besides, I prefer playing everyone else 50% of the time to locking 4 and playing 9 teams 56% of the time.
“For most teams, your fifth “lock” seems a bit random. If your plan were adopted, there are probably very few Ohio State who’d think “Indiana” was an obvious lock.”
Every school except NW got a king locked. IN got OSU. It wasn’t random. OSU and IN also have strong ties being border states and having Bobby Knight in common, not that there’s any football rivalry.
“Among fans of the other teams, I suspect there’d be a large number wondering whom Gene Smith paid off, to get the gift of Indiana as a locked opponent.”
Everyone gets them half the time already. PSU got PU. MI got RU.
LikeLike
“For most teams, your fifth “lock” seems a bit random. If your plan were adopted, there are probably very few Ohio State who’d think “Indiana” was an obvious lock.”
But for an Indiana fan, continuing Indiana’s longest standing series, at 88 games and I believe over 80 Big Ten games could well be something they insist upon, despite the lopsideness of the series. If you had each school bid their top three preferences, it could well be Indiana’s second preference, after Purdue.
LikeLike
OK, I replied to the wrong place. But yeah, it’s not random, and 56% is virtually no inprovement over 50% (1 extra game every 18 years).
BTW, Brian, I locked UNL with Northwestern (because OSU and UMich already had their fill of locked games).
LikeLike
Richard,
“But yeah, it’s not random, and 56% is virtually no improvement over 50% (1 extra game every 18 years).”
Exactly. And I think it’s much easier for fans when you have something clear cut like a 50% schedule. Then the question becomes whether to do home and homes or alternate teams every year.
“BTW, Brian, I locked UNL with Northwestern (because OSU and UMich already had their fill of locked games).”
I wanted to lock those two as well but after the western trio and then 2 kings NE had no games left. You could easily justify giving NE only 1 king since they have WI and IA, but I thought they might want that MI game. You can also put in NW over MN (they do get MI after all), but I like that regional game to be kept. In short, I don’t think there’s a perfect answer and I’m not sure what each school would request. I’m not even saying my list is better than yours, they just have slightly different goals. Not having to put MI in NYC and OSU in DC would help with other games.
LikeLike
“In short, I don’t think there’s a perfect answer and I’m not sure what each school would request.”
If you try to guarantee each school their top two preferences and try to give them one of their third and fourth, I think that for many schools their picks are in one or another of those lists. If you sort “over-requested” schools out by history of the series, you get even closer to those lists.
And I think you often end up needing five games when you start considering that low priority games for one school may be a higher priority game for another school, and with five locked games giving a simple seeing the other schools 50% of the time, once at home each four year cycle, its a bit of a focal point solution.
LikeLike
I’ll add as a postscript to Brian’s that if OSU and TSUN split the newbies, they might prefer the split the other way around, since I have the impression that TSUN has more of the Big Ten DC alumni, and OSU has a larger share of its alumni in NYC than DC. But whichever, everyone would play on the east coast half the time, even if they are not locked with UMD or RU.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“I’ll add as a postscript to Brian’s that if OSU and TSUN split the newbies, they might prefer the split the other way around, since I have the impression that TSUN has more of the Big Ten DC alumni, and OSU has a larger share of its alumni in NYC than DC.”
https://www.osu.edu/highpoints/alumni/
No, it’s the other way around. DC is the top city for OSU alumni outside of Ohio, with almost 9400 versus 9100 in NYC. It’s not a huge difference, obviously, but MI is tilted the other way slightly (I think).
http://www.annarbor.com/news/where-u-m-alumni-live/
MI has over 25k alumni in NY state, over 13k in NYC. They have “only” about 20k alumni in VA and MD combined, so presumably fewer in DC than NYC.
“But whichever, everyone would play on the east coast half the time, even if they are not locked with UMD or RU.”
I know, but this would get RU and UMD even more king games and that was one thing the B10 stressed when adding them – getting brands to play there to build the B10 brand on the east coast.
Just to be clear, my list isn’t my personal list but what I think the B10 might do. I would never choose to lock OSU with UMD otherwise.
LikeLike
Chicagoland has the most MSU alums outside MI of any metro are.
In any case, 4 locks would lead to playing the non-locked schools 5/9ths of the time, which is essentially no improvement on 50% of the time, so might as well put in 5 locks to achieve the other goals (more attractive matchups and at least 1 locked king for all).
LikeLike
I am in favor of the current divisional setup. It adds more intrigue to the B1G by creating two separate races (East and West). You can’t predict the future but for the next several years as long as Harbaugh, Meyer and Dantonio are at their respective schools, the top 2 teams would come from those 3 if you get rid of divisions. If you’re not MSU, UM or OSU, say good night. With the divisional set up, those 3 will continue to rule the East (maybe PSU gets in the mix) but at least the West is wide open for anyone to win, even Purdue.
Personally as a Michigan fan the East division is just about perfect. Michigan plays MSU, OSU, and PSU every year. I live on the East Coast so playing Maryland and Rutgers every year is great since I can see Michigan at least once in person. I could care less about Indiana but I could also care less about any of the West teams aside from Nebraska, and I have no desire to play any of them more frequently. I would certainly not trade the current setup to play Purdue or Minnesota every year.
LikeLike
I agree fully. Living in central Ohio and being a tOSU fan, I like to see MSU, MU and PSU every year. And since I grew up on the east coast, I like to see tOSU play Rutgers and Maryland every year. I especially like it the tOSU one of the top five winning teams in history gets to play one of the founding schools of football. I graduated from Purdue, but I’d not particularly interested in seeing them every year, nor Minnie.
LikeLike
From OSU’s perspective, the tradeoff would be UIUC (which you folks have a trophy game with) and Wisconsin in favor of RU, UMD, and MSU.
For UMich, it would be UNL, Minny, and PU in favor of PSU, RU, UMD, and IU.
BTW, as someone who’s from the Midwestern part of the B10, I have to say that cheering against your alma mater or even being a fan of another B10 school (except during OOC play) is a foreign concept.
LikeLike
As someone who was born in Columbus and grew up in Central Ohio, becoming a Buckeyes fan in HS when I went to some games in the Shoe on my mom’s student tickets … I have to say that I am a mild fan of another Big Ten school most weeks of the year, except the last week of the regular season or weeks when the Buckeyes and/or TSUN has a bye.
LikeLike
Taking a page from Arkansa’s Boss Hog, this guy thinks the B1G/SEC Challenge is where the future of college football is headed. Not sure if this has been posted yet. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogergroves/2015/12/07/the-future-is-now-for-sec-big-ten-rivalries-in-bowl-games/
LikeLike
Um, does that guy realize that the B10 & SEC have been matching up in the top bowls outside of the BCS/NY6 for decades now?
B10 #2 vs. SEC #2 in the Citrus*
B10 #3 vs. SEC #3 in the Outback
Lately, B10 #4 vs. SEC #4/5 in the Gator/Music City
*Really, the best team outside the NY6 bowls in these conferences is rarely the 2nd-best now, but I’ll still use that ordering.
LikeLike
Arkansas’/Arkansas’s
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25410047/rice-utep-being-mentioned-as-mountain-west-considers-expansion
Rice and UTEP are the focus of MWC expansion talk, but nothing is imminent.
Two sources familiar with the process said expansion of the MWC is not imminent. One huge hurdle: The current 12-team league splitting revenue 13 or 14 ways. Major rightsholders may not be in position to pay any more for league rights given current financial conditions.
“I don’t think it’s any point where they’re going vote on it right now,” said one source of the Mountain West meetings.
Another source course close to the situation said the expansion discussions are “accurate but misleading,” in that no immediate action is expected to be taken.
…
Any Mountain West expansion candidate would have to bring approximately $3.5 million in annual equity to the league. The conference distributed a record $47 million to its 12 members last season. Without a team in the New Year’s Six, that number will be closer to $40 million this year.
The current MWC television contract expires after the 2019-20 academic year.
BYU has long been speculated to be a Mountain West expansion candidate since it chose independence in 2011. One source termed current Mountain West support for BYU as “fractioned.”
The Mountain West has only 11 basketball-playing schools. Wichita State of the Missouri Valley inquired about membership two years ago, according to a source, but that’s as far as it went.
LikeLike
What is the consensus out in the broader world? Is the MWC a step up from CUSA? It seems like it would be with all of the back-filling from the SunBelt and FCS that CUSA has had to do. More travel in the MWC but better, more well-known schools. Football and basketball would be better, but baseball would be worse.
LikeLike
I’d consider it a step up in football. I don’t know enough to judge how it is for MBB. CUSA baseball is probably much better, though. Overall I’d consider it a small step up in reputation.
The unknowns for me are the financial benefits versus increased travel costs and what the next CUSA TV deal will be worth (it ends after this fiscal year). There’s also the TV downside of the MWC playing later games.
LikeLike
It also seems like a better fit academically, too. AFA is probably the closest peer to Rice in either conference. About the same size and selective. Plus four state flagships where CUSA has none.
LikeLike
Absolutely. CUSA is now basically the old Sun Belt. 5 members directly from Sun Belt, 1 indirectly, 3 former members who added football in the last 5 years (UAB after dropping). Only ones who aren’t are UTEP, Rice, USM, Marshall and UTSA.
LikeLike
Also average revenues, $35.3 million vs. $28.0. Rice is 2nd highest in CUSA. Would be 6th in MWC.
LikeLike
“Football and basketball would be better, but baseball would be worse.”
I think the consensus in the broader world is that this in itself clearly answers the question. “FB and BBall is better but X would be worse” = “better conference”
LikeLike
Key point is that this is just taking the temperature of the conference, since it seems the last time they talked through conference realignment was when they realigned. If an unexpected move happens, there will be a lot of rushed conference calls, and having an up to date feeling for where members stand on the basics now that they have had some experience with the new alignment is only prudent.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25407923/college-football-playoff-avoids-acc-refs-but-gets-pac-12-refs-in-title-game
CFP refs have been announced. B10 for the Orange Bowl (Clemson vs OU), B12 for the Cotton Bowl (AL vs MSU) and P12 for the title game.
LikeLike
Wow. I guess Pac-12 refs have come a LONG way. Our refs were the WORST (by far) just a few years ago. But, then again maybe it’s because Pac-12 refs are the only ones guaranteed to be neutral this season.
LikeLike
Neutrality’s the main thing, methinks
LikeLike
Rice and UTEP to the MWC? Sounds like Back to the Future. Slowly putting the WAC 16 back together. BYU, Utah and TCU are gone, replaced by Boise, USU and Nevada, but that would bring everyone else back except for Tulsa and SMU, now in the AAC.
Wonder how Rice’s position would change if Houston got invited to Big 12?
LikeLike
BYU is available, maybe? Could part of mendenhall’s leaving be connected to B12 not happening?
LikeLike
Considering that BYU’s TV contract by itself gives them more than twice the MWC’s total per school payout, I would say no.
The B12 wasn’t happening for BYU in any case (I say that with 99% certainty), but that doesn’t mean that BYU will abandon independence. Their rationale for independence hasn’t changed since they went independent.
LikeLike
Is there any chance they’d add them but let BYU keep their TV package? They’d get to add all BYU’s road MWC games to the inventory for the MWC TV deal which has some value. The MWC already has 12 teams, so I’m not sure BYU would add enough value to make it worthwhile. Add in the hurt feelings from the past and I doubt it.
LikeLike
Maybe MWC proactive replacing B12 bound BSU and AFA?
Sorry, I’ll put the bottle down.
LikeLike
Is there any chance they’d add them but let BYU keep their TV package? They’d get to add all BYU’s road MWC games to the inventory for the MWC TV deal which has some value.
What benefit does BYU get out of that?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“What benefit does BYU get out of that?”
Ease of scheduling in football plus playing their other sports in the MWC instead of the WCC. That’s less travel and a better conference for their other sports plus less travel for football without losing any TV money or exposure.
LikeLike
And CCG possibility.
LikeLike
But I think BYU wants to play a national schedule in football, as they think it improves their chances of becoming a P5 team. (How likely those chances really are, is a whole other question.)
As long as they are able to put together a schedule, I can’t see why they would give that up, unless the WCC is a serious detriment to their other sports.
LikeLike
They’d still have 4 games for national scheduling and a conference makes late season scheduling easier. They play 6 western games per year right now. Being in a conference can keep them relevant later in the season and makes bowl games much easier to get, too.
LikeLike
This was discussed quite a while ago, folks. BYU wants to play a national schedule because of the LDS. Not because of P5 aspirations. Almost everything BYU does is because of the LDS.
Would the MWC make enough concessions to be attractive enough to BYU? Who knows, but it would be beyond what any other conference gives a member. No other conference allows a member school to have its own TV contract in a sport where it is a member for all home games (Texas has the LHN, but that does not get first pick; ND football has NBC, but ND is not in the ACC in football). And many people have noted that these special deals may weaken rather than strengthen a league.
LikeLike
Also, as an independent, BYU is playing 4-6 P5 teams each year (from 2015-2020).
They won’t be able to do that as a member of the MWC.
LikeLike
Believe me – BYU is either going to a P5 league or it’s going to stay independent. Beyond what others have stated already about BYU’s desire for a national schedule and being able to play several more P5 teams per year compared to being in the MWC, they are *extremely* concerned about perception. BYU would prefer to get a P5 (meaning a Big 12) invite over being independent, but being independent is definitely better than being G5 school in heir eyes. At a very guttural level, BYU can argue that they are “special” compared to Utah because they are independent and have the national fan base to get their own ESPN contract. In contrast, being in the MWC or any other G5 institutionalizes the fact that BYU is a lower level school than Utah, which is a 100% non-starter. To them, this would be like Michigan joining the MAC while Michigan State is in the Big Ten. Absolutely *nothing* (whether it’s ease of scheduling or more bowl opportunities) is worth that in the eyes of BYU.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25409017/no-daily-fantasy-ads-will-air-during-college-football-playoff-games
There will be no daily fantasy ads in the CFP games. ESPN agreed to let the CFP follow the same rules as all NCAA championship events in that regard. I assume the trade-off is that all the other bowl games will have nothing but DFS ads.
LikeLike
http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2015/12/ohio-state-passes-alabama-in-athletic-department.html
The 2014 financial year data are out.
1. UT – $180M (+13%)
2. OSU – $171M (+19%)
3. AL – $151M (-1%)
4. LSU – $139M
5. OU – $136M
6. MI – $132M (-3%)
7. UF – $131M
8. PSU – $128M
9. AU – $127M
10. WI – $126M
The top 67 includes all the P5 teams plus #13 ND, #52 UConn and #66 BYU.
Lowest P5 by conference:
ACC: #67 WF – $59M
P12: #65 Utah – $65M
B10: #64 RU – $65M
B12: #62 ISU – $66M
SEC: #59 MS St – $68M
Average by conference:
SEC – $110M
B10 – $102M
B12 – $99M
P12 – $86M
ACC – $82M
Central-weighted average by conference:
SEC – $111M
B10 – $99M
B12 – $93M
P12 – $85M
ACC – $81M
# of schools over $100M:
ACC – 2 (FSU and UL; 11 below $87M)
B10 – 7 (MN yes, MSU no; 6 below $88M)
B12 – 4 (6 below $88M)
P12 – 3 (Stanford, USC, UW; 8 below $86M)
SEC – 10 (MO, MS, MS St and Vandy all below $84M)
Distribution:
>$120M – 13
$100M – 14
$80M – 18
$60M – 20
$40M – 14
<$40M – 47 (mostly in the 20s and 30s)
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2015/12/64938/report-ohio-state-to-hire-greg-schiano-as-defensive-coordinator-to-replace-departed-chris-ash
Most people probably don’t care, but OSU will hire Greg Schiano as the new DC (and assoc. HC) to replace Chris Ash who is leaving to coach RU. Schiano is already on campus working.
LikeLike
Catbird’s seat, if Meyer has a re-occurence of heart problems.
LikeLike
I don’t know. I think Tom Herman is sitting pretty with some HC experience, too. In a couple of years Ash could be a possibility as well.
The Meyer coaching tree has been impressive so far and he’s only 51:
Dan Mullen (MS St)
Charlie Strong (UL, UT)
Steve Addazio (BC)
Kyle Wittingham (Utah)
Doc Holliday (Marshall)
Gary Andersen (OR St)
Tim Beckman (IL)
Gregg Brandon (BGSU)
Tom Herman (UH)
Dan McCarney (UNT)
Chris Ash (RU)
DJ Durkin (UMD)
3 lower level HCs
They haven’t all been great, but that’s a lot of HCs to churn out so early.
LikeLike
And just to be clear, Ash is coaching at OSU through the bowl game but not recruiting. Schiano is only recruiting for now.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/128404/iowa-fans-ignite-secondary-ticket-market-for-rose-bowl
No surprise here. IA fans are excited for the Rose Bowl.
The school, preparing for its first Rose Bowl in 25 years, capped requests on Thursday for its 22,000-ticket allotment at 54,381. Iowa will notify fans Monday on the status of their requests.
…
The average resale price of a ticket to the Rose Bowl has outpaced all others by a significant margin. Seats to the game are selling for $691, according to ticket aggregator SeatGeek, and $633 through StubHub.
StubHub and SeatGeek both report 31 percent of Rose Bowl sales to addresses in the state of Iowa, followed by California at 20 percent. SeatGeek lists Illinois addresses third at 10 percent and Wisconsin with 5 percent of sales.
The next priciest postseason tickets sold, by comparison, according to SeatGeek, are for the Capital One Orange Bowl ($333), the Goodyear Cotton Bowl ($323), BattleFrog Fiesta Bowl ($226) and Buffalo Wild Wings Citrus Bowl ($169).
…
Iowa fans left without tickets will perhaps look to help from Stanford, as Michigan State fans did before the 2014 Rose Bowl. That game, fueled by MSU interest, ranked as the most expensive Rose Bowl of the past six years on the secondary market, according to SeatGeek, with a final average selling price of $576.
The Rose Bowl demand this year may dip before kickoff, though it has shown no signs. In fact, SeatGeek reports an average resale price of $940 over the past three days.
LikeLike
http://www.masslive.com/umass/2015/12/more_from_umass_ad_ryan_bamfor.html
Article related to UMass. Found this question and comment interesting-doesn’t really tell much, just says what the ADs are doing:
As Bamford explained, there’s not a whole lot he or UMass president Marty Meehan can do about finding a new conference when there aren’t any “Help Wanted” signs hanging up around the country at other leagues. I asked Bamford if the Big 12 situation, which could spark up more realignment if the Power Five conference decides it wants to expand, is the one he keeps the closest eye on:
“I think you look at everything. I don’t look necessarily right at the Big 12. I keep my ear to the ground, I talk to ADs every day and people in the know about what they’re hearing. It’s hard to say. I don’t think anybody could have predicted what has happened in the last five years and where schools are currently residing. So I don’t try to get a crystal ball and figure out all the different permutations. I think it’s really important for us to just focus on what we’re doing and make sure that I’m doing the right things for this university and that we’re putting ourselves in the position to have success.”
LikeLike
UMass is in a tough spot geographically. The MAC doesn’t make much sense and they aren’t good enough for the AAC. If CUSA loses Rice and UTEP, would they consider UMass or stay at 12?
LikeLike
UMass and who else? 13 doesn’t work very well. It kind of seems more plausible if only UTEP was to leave CUSA … for the exact reason that 13 is awkward for FB.
That was a major reason that UMass didn’t work as a FB-only school for the MAC … the MAC needed to add one or drop one, and weren’t willing to add one for a FB-only school that would be gone at the first better offer, so they played their “get all the way in or all the way out” card. But of course, that was mutual, the MAC only really made sense for UMass when Temple was in: Temple, Buffalo, Akron, Kent State, OhioU and MiamiU is not that bad, given that there are only 3 FBS schools in New England.
So the MAC really stopped making sense exactly the first season that UMass played in the MAC.
If Northern Illinois ended up being raided somewhere near the end of the decade, when movement seems a bit more likely than at present (and Northern Illinois BBall may be on the improve over the next two or three years), there might be a willingness on the part of the MAC to have UMass as a #12 FB-only, playing BBall with 11, just as the MWC do today.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“UMass and who else? 13 doesn’t work very well. It kind of seems more plausible if only UTEP was to leave CUSA … for the exact reason that 13 is awkward for FB.”
Don’t they have 13 teams now (until UAB returns in 2017)? Lose 2 and add 1 would work short term.
But to answer your question: Army. I know they failed in CUSA before, but that was a stronger version of CUSA. Most of the teams from back then have moved on to better conferences (ACC, B12, AAC x6) with only USM and UAB left. Army would provide a geographical bridge to UMass from the rest of CUSA, too (ODU and Marshall are the nearest schools).
LikeLike
But UAB is going to return in 2017 … since Rice and UTEP wouldn’t be gone next year, 2017 and after IS the short term for a CUSA realignment.
I hadn’t considered Army, since I hadn’t seen any indication they are looking to join a conference. If they do look to join a conference again, FB-only, CUSA would be the one for them to join … it has a much broader footprint than the MAC, so they would be able to have more of a national schedule than in the MAC, and gives them much more hope for going bowling than the AAC. And it would leave the Army/Navy game OOC, which would be in Army’s interest.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14348174/navy-coach-ken-niumatalolo-confirms-meeting-byu-cougars-head-coaching-opening
BYU is interviewing Navy’s coach to fill their HC vacancy. Niumatalolo is LDS and his son plays at BYU.
“I love the Naval Academy,” Niumatalolo said. “I love what it stands for. But when this one opened up, it’s different. It’s just different for me.”
Niumatalolo is a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He and his family were featured in last year’s documentary “Meet the Mormons,” and Niumatalolo’s son Va’a is a sophomore linebacker at BYU.
“My faith is everything to me, and so this is the only reason I just feel like I need to listen to what they have to offer, and that’s it,” Niumatalolo said.
A team with BYU’s talent level running the triple option could be devastating at the lower P5/upper G5 level. They’d basically be GT but with an easier schedule.
LikeLike
I checked a couple fan boards. Fans are adamant, almost apoplectic over the thought of triple option coming to Provo. A majority feel/think the interview of Ken was “suggested” by church leaders. Many believe Holmoe may have Utah’s Wittingham, but elders want that guy who was in their “Meet the Mormons” video. I doubt this, but the church hierarchy did “suggest” the BYU Idaho president exit as dean of Harvard business to take the post…
LikeLike
Hilarious.
The triple-option can win at BYU.
Guess there are folks who don’t prioritize winning at BYU.
LikeLike
I think the issue is that the triple option is boring to watch. It makes sense to run it at Air Force, Navy and Army, but less so at BYU, which can recruit higher level athletes. BYU’s incoming class is ranked #53 per 247. That’s right in the range of a lot of Power 5 programs. The service academies are all ranked #90 and above.
Obviously, Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech has shown that you can run the triple option in a power 5 league and have success. But there is a reason that Power 5 teams (aside from Georgia Tech) have moved away from it. I actually think Georgia Tech would be better off running something else since they are located in one of the most talent rich areas. I understand they have some academic restrictions but so do Northwestern, Stanford and Duke, all of which have higher ranked classes. They are essentially hindering the level of athlete they can recruit. Their current class is #69, well below most Power 5 teams.
One place where I think the triple option could work very well is Purdue. They have been among the worst recruiting teams in the country the past several seasons. Indiana produces decent talent, but the best talent always goes to teams not named Purdue and Indiana. You also have to contend with Indiana’s Big 12 style offense which is fun to watch and very unique to the B1G. Under Tiller, they differentiated themselves by running a pre-cursor to the air raid that was unique to the B1G. Purdue could carve out a niche by installing the triple option. They aren’t recruiting high level talent anyway. Their current class is ranked #107 per 247.
LikeLike
You didn’t watch it in its hey-dey. It was pretty exciting watching Texas and Oklahoma play it in the 70s. The teams playing it now are doing it because they don’t have Texas/Oklahoma level athletes. When you combine it with that explosive speed, its very exciting.
Now if you play it all the time, you know how to stop it. It was Texas slowing OU that finally shifted teams away from it.
Now I don’t think it makes sense for BYU. They have a long tradition for getting great passing QBs. They get a lot of big linemen (triple option tends to use smaller linemen). I haven’t heard that Navy’s coach intends to use the triple option there. He shouldn’t.
LikeLike
Last time there was even discussion of that at Purdue, Jeff George ran screaming to Champaign (after a pit stop in Coral Gables) following Fred Akers’ hiring in ’87. There are several Chicago area HS power houses that run that type of offense, so that might help keep some local talent around plus the native IN talent.
LikeLike
Personally, I like watching the triple-option.
Also note that Nebraska ran it not too long ago.
Evidently, they recruited well enough to win 3 national titles with it.
(As an aside, I believe that Peterson firing Solich and ditching the triple option to go pro-style will go down as one of the all-time greatest administrative mistakes in college football).
Also, while Northwestern and Stanford do have academic restrictions for athletes above what other schools have, Duke (and Vandy) don’t really (at least for revenue sport athletes; otherwise, there’s no way Coach K gets all those McDonald’s All-Americans).
Thus, GTech’s academic restrictions may be even more severe than Duke’s.
In theory, a coach there can recruit anyone who meets the NCAA minimum. In practice, every GTech student has to pass one year of calculus in order to graduate. That limits the recruiting pool quite a bit. Obviously not all kids can do that, and even of those who can, not all are willing to tackle calculus.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Also, while Northwestern and Stanford do have academic restrictions for athletes above what other schools have, Duke (and Vandy) don’t really (at least for revenue sport athletes; otherwise, there’s no way Coach K gets all those McDonald’s All-Americans).”
I think Duke is like most B10 teams in terms of having standards higher than the NCAA minimum but not at the level of Stanford and NW. My brother used to tutor some of the MBB players at Duke and they weren’t illiterate idiots but they weren’t all Rhodes scholars either. It all comes down to how many special admits Duke allows Coach K, and I don’t know that number.
“Thus, GTech’s academic restrictions may be even more severe than Duke’s.
In theory, a coach there can recruit anyone who meets the NCAA minimum. In practice, every GTech student has to pass one year of calculus in order to graduate. That limits the recruiting pool quite a bit. Obviously not all kids can do that, and even of those who can, not all are willing to tackle calculus.”
http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/
The Atlanta paper has done an in depth look at football players versus normal students at the major state schools in GA over the past 6 years.
2014 GT freshmen average SAT scores:
football – 1025
normal – 1445
There were a handful of extremely low scores. Georgia Tech admitted one player with a Math-Verbal combined SAT of 590, and UGA, 570. A score of 400 is the lowest possible on the SAT. Among college-bound seniors in 2014, just 2 percent of all SAT test takers nationally scored 600 or below, according to the College Board.
…
The University System of Georgia sets minimum benchmarks for admission to its campuses.
The standard uses a freshman index, which is a formula that takes into account grade point average and either SAT or ACT test results. The minimum SAT score for admission to a four-year university is 430 Critical Reading and 400 Math — or 830 combined.
Students with SAT scores below that threshold may be considered as a category of special admit referred to as a presidential exception. Schools have caps on the number of such special admits they may accept in a given year.
Special admits from 2009-2014:
GT – 31
UGA – 63
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores
Quoting from a similar 2008 article by the AJC:
Many schools routinely used a special admissions process to admit athletes who did not meet the normal entrance requirements. More than half of scholarship athletes at the University of Georgia, the University of Wisconsin, Clemson University, UCLA, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University and Louisiana State University were special admits. . . At Georgia, for instance, 73.5 percent of athletes were special admits compared with 6.6 percent of the student body as a whole.
USN&WR continues:
At a glance, here are the top 10 highest and lowest schools based on the average SAT scores of football players (out of a maximum 1600 score):
FOOTBALL SAT SCORES:
THE TOP 10
School, Average
Georgia Tech, 1028
Oregon State, 997
Michigan, 997
Virginia, 993
Purdue, 974
Indiana, 973
Hawaii, 968
California, 967
Colorado, 966
Iowa, 964
THE BOTTOM 10
School, Average
Oklahoma State, 878
Louisville, 878
Memphis, 890
Florida, 890
Texas Tech, 901
Arkansas, 910
Texas A&M, 911
Mississippi State, 911
Washington State, 916
Michigan State, 917
Obviously no private schools are included since they don’t have to release information.
LikeLike
Hard to imagine how an 830 could survive at Georgia Tech, yet they were recruiting an average of 5 a year during that time frame.
And they still had the highest average SAT.
LikeLike
Free tutors and unlimited academics support is my guess. Also lots of electives to counterbalance their calculus grades.
LikeLike
GTech does have a handful of humanities majors. And at most places, its possible to graduate in something with a GPA above 2.0 if you are disciplined enough to put in the work.
LikeLike
A good tutor and a lot of drilling, you can pass calculus at a C level by investing a lot of grunt work. Mostly need to get algebra skills up to speed, but if its a good tutor and a solid base of information on what kind of problems will show up, a lot of it is overcoming math anxiety and the ingrained idea that there is some math gene require to do passable work in basic math techniques, as opposed to investing the time and effort into learning the skills and learning to step through the problem solution steps. And learning to recognize basic problems and hard problems, so you take the points on offer and don’t sweat too hard over the problems that are there to sort the A’s from the C’s.
Of course, part of the challenge of recruiting academic under-performers for a school like GTech is recognizing the difference between woefully badly taught students and dummies. Indeed, come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure GTech would necessarily wants a dummy playing offensive line in a triple option offense.
LikeLike
Bruce:
Another challenge is getting kids who want to major in football.
Having the ability to pass calculus is one thing. Having the inclination is another.
UNC had their fraudulent joke classes for athletes. At many other schools, a student-athlete may actually have to do the work, but the work may not be much or that demanding, at least compared to passing calculus.
LikeLike
“Having the ability to pass calculus is one thing. Having the inclination is another.”
And that is something that the SAT score will not actually tell for a HS student that has been badly taught. I am not talking in general, I am talking about the specific system at GTech … being able to offer the genuine chance to overcome that kind of academic handicap is not going to have traction with a majority of FB-scholarship-bound HS students, but it could well be that ones for which it does have traction are likely to be a good fit for the GTech system.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I checked a couple fan boards. Fans are adamant, almost apoplectic over the thought of triple option coming to Provo.”
They probably spent years mocking AF for having to use a high school offense and now fear that same offense coming to them. Also, they have such a long history of the spread and a strong passing attack that I’m sure it’s a culture shock.
“A majority feel/think the interview of Ken was “suggested” by church leaders.”
It probably was if Holmoe didn’t think of it on his own. How many successful LDS head coaches are out there? Add in that he’s Polynesian which is a big group for BYU in recruiting.
“Many believe Holmoe may have Utah’s Wittingham, but elders want that guy who was in their “Meet the Mormons” video.”
Is BYU going to greatly outspend a P12 school for a coach? I know he’s a BYU alumnus and LDS member but I doubt he gives BYU a discount.
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2015/12/9/9881834/byu-football-coaching-search-kyle-whittingham-this-is-not-a-drill
Whittingham is paid around $2.6 Million at Utah, and per Drew, BYU is prepared to go “as high as $2 million” and probably much less than that if they aren’t hiring a sitting FBS head coach.
Coming up with the money to pry Whittingham away with a raise would require some major digging into BYU donor pockets, plus a bit of a change in how BYU has traditionally operated.
LikeLike
Utah AD has been undermining Whittingham for years. No love lost there. That is why Whittingham interviewed at Wisky and Nebraska last year. I expected to hear Whittingham’s name come up in searches this year, but it has not – except that he said he was willing to listen to BYU when Holmoe reached out. . . .There were rumors in Salt Lake papers last December that BYU was going to hire Whittingham then. Is this why Mendenhall left now?
LikeLike
FWIW the rumors said USC considered Wittingham.
LikeLike
Ha! USC didn’t even conduct a search. Talk about insular. But hey, the USC AD is the gift that keeps on giving as far as the rest of the Pac-12 is concerned.
LikeLike
B10 has 2/4 Final Four teams and 6/16 Sweet Sixteen teems in the NCAA volleyball tournament. The conference with the 2nd-most Sweet Sixteen teams was the Pac with 3 (granted, the B12 also has 2 Final Four teams, but they were the only B12 Sweet Sixteen teams as well).
None of the 9 B10 teams who entered the tournament lost in the first round.
Ever since the advent of the BTN, the B10 has turned in to a volleyball powerhouse (which makes some sense as B10 country has plenty of big tall people).
LikeLike
Granted, B10 volleyball wasn’t bad before, and adding Nebraska has definitely helped. However, while PSU has that insane run (6 national titles in 8 years from 2007-2014), in recent years, the depth the B10 has in volleyball rivals that of SEC football during its title run.
The B10 has had half the Final Four in 3 of the past 4 years, now.
Since 2011, 6 different B10 schools have made the Final Four.
LikeLike
Texas and 3 Midwest schools in the final 4. Nobody from the west coast. Quite a dramatic change. USC was ranked #1, but lost to Kansas.
LikeLike
First time ever that there is no representation from the Pacific Rim at the Final Four, in fact.
LikeLike
Under Aird, a former PSU assistant, Maryland is making progress in B1G v’ball. The Terps probably will reach respectability in that sport before they do in wrestling.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14369127/missouri-legislator-proposes-bill-revoke-student-athlete-scholarships-strike
A MO state legislator has proposed a bill that would strip an athlete’s scholarship if strike. Coaches would also be fined for encouraging or supporting it.
The bill proposed by Republican Rep. Rick Brattin last week in the Missouri House of Representatives would strip scholarships from any athlete who “calls, incites, supports or participates in any strike.” Colleges and universities would be required to fine coaching staff members who encourage or enable such student protests.
…
Brattin wasn’t immediately available to comment, but Rep. Kurt Bahr, the co-sponsor of the bill, said his goal is to show that some state lawmakers don’t approve of how University of Missouri administrators handled student unrest. Bahr said he hopes this bill fosters discussion between the legislature and university leadership.
The aim is to show “the response that they’ve had has not been as strong as the legislature would like,” said Bahr, a St. Charles Republican, “and that we, the General Assembly, expect the leadership of this state institution to actually lead and not allow the students to call the shots.”
…
Brattin’s bill is one of a number proposed in response to the unrest at the university. Republican budget leaders have said state funding for the university will be under greater scrutiny in the legislative session that begins Jan. 6.
LikeLike
@Brian – That’s a perfectly reasonable bill outside of being blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
LikeLike
Always sweating the details…
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14382140/bo-ryan-says-greg-gard-keep-wisconsin-badgers-together-show-improvement
I hate to see another prominent coach quit in midseason. These guys would throw a fit if one of their players did the same thing. He’s trying to influence the hiring of his replacement by getting him a free trial and that bothers me. It’s not his job to decide on his replacement. Too many coaches stick their nose into their “legacy” at a school.
“I really wanted to have something like this done earlier,” Ryan told ESPN. “I know this is unorthodox to some people, but in the long run, [Gard] will have a chance to take over before the Big Ten season. I had to make the decision in time to give him a chance to be able to show what he knows.”
…
Ryan said part of the reason he came back for this season was to give Gard time to be with his father, Glen, who was diagnosed with cancer in the spring and died this fall. Ryan said the demands on Gard’s time to fly around the country meeting with doctors and helping Gard’s dad put his retirement on the back burner. Following Glen Gard’s death, Ryan then spoke with athletic director Barry Alvarez and decided the semester break would be an appropriate time to step down.
He could do all the recruiting and preseason practice work but coaching the B10 season was too much to ask? Yet he couldn’t retire immediately and let someone else be the interim either? If he just retired at the end of last year, then the job would have to be posted and his assistant would have a much smaller chance at the job. By forcing an interim hire, he gets his hand picked guy 20+ games of an audition with Ryan having laid the entire foundation.
LikeLike
@Brian – Eh, I’m not that bothered by it. Bo Ryan built up an unusually large amount of capital during his time at Wisconsin. If Bo made his decision clear after Gard’s death, then what more can the university reasonably ask for? Wisconsin basketball has turned into a perennial contender with 18,000 seats sold out every night under Ryan at a school and location where that sport doesn’t have any natural strength in terms of tradition or recruiting. Also, Barry Alvarez is pretty much the last guy that can say much about preserving a legacy at a school after retiring as a coach.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“If Bo made his decision clear after Gard’s death, then what more can the university reasonably ask for?”
Screw Alvarez and the school. It’s a jerk move from Ryan to do this to them, and I assume Alvarez responds in kind by demoting Gard ASAP after the season ends, but they don’t get my sympathy. They can still hire whomever they choose longterm.
I don’t like it for the players. He announced over the summer he would retire after the season. Freshmen thought they’d play for Ryan this season and seniors thought they’d finish their careers under him. Considering what a prick he was about Jarrod Ulthoff transferring from WI, it stinks to see him do this although it isn’t surprising.
LikeLike
He was a prick to Ulthoff, but why is this a jerk move?
Is anyone in Madison upset by the promotion of Gard? Alvarez? The players? Anyone else at the school? If not, why do you care, Brian? It’s not even your school.
LikeLike
Richard,
“He was a prick to Ulthoff, but why is this a jerk move?”
Because he lied to his players about coaching them this season when he only returned to get his guy a shot at the job? Because he quit midseason for no pressing reason but would throw a complete fit if one of his players decided to quit in midseason for no pressing reason? Because he’s bailing out during his worst season ever despite all the coach’s talk about overcoming adversity and sticking together as a team that the players have to hear?
“Is anyone in Madison upset by the promotion of Gard? Alvarez?”
Yes, by all accounts Alvarez is.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/109736/big-thought-bo-ryan-edition-prepare-for-three-fascinating-months-in-madison
Simply put: Ryan wants to turn his program over to longtime assistant Greg Gard. He has expressed this desire privately, publicly and frequently. Alvarez, by all accounts, has remained unconvinced. In the AD’s view, as Jeff Goodman writes today, “feels as though this program — one that is coming off back-to-back Final Four appearances — has elevated itself enough to land a high-profile coach. Someone like Virginia’s Tony Bennett.”
By leaving now, Ryan has made it impossible for Alvarez to do anything but give his interim head coach an extended audition, an audition Gard was unlikely to get under any other circumstances. Per ESPN Wisconsin’s Zach Heilprin, Ryan was willing to step aside before this season if Gard would get the job. When Alvarez “scoffed at just handing the keys of a program coming off back-to-back Final Fours to a guy who had never been a head coach before,” the man who tripled Wisconsin’s all-time NCAA tournament appearances from seven to 21 (in 14 seasons!) had no choice but to wait until Alvarez would have no choice. For Gard to get a chance, this was the way to do it.
“The players?”
Were all surprised by the announcement, with some indicating they assumed it was for a health reason. Since they have to play for Gard this season at least, nobody is going to come out and say anything negative directly even if they do dislike the choice. We may find out more in the offseason if players transfer. My guess is that they mostly like him (assistants are often pretty popular with the payers).
“If not, why do you care, Brian? It’s not even your school.”
Oh, I forgot that I’m not allowed to have opinions about anything outside of OSU. Hypocrisy from coaches is something I can only comment on if it happens at OSU.
LikeLike
Gard’s father was battling Cancer last summer and died in October. Ryan wanted to retire back in April but Alvarez wanted him to think about more. When he announced in June that he would coach for another year they didn’t think Gard’s dad would necessarily die in October.
LikeLike
He has to quit midseason because the man died early? Don’t agree to coach for another season if you don’t mean it. The players deserve to know who their coach will be.
LikeLike
What is comes down to is whether you want Ryan or Alvarez to decide who the next coach (at least in the short term) should be. If I was a Wisconsin fan, for basketball, I would trust Ryan more.
LikeLike
Richard,
“What is comes down to is whether you want Ryan or Alvarez to decide who the next coach (at least in the short term) should be. If I was a Wisconsin fan, for basketball, I would trust Ryan more.”
What expertise does Ryan have in hiring head coaches exactly? He wants his protege to get the job but the guy has zero head coach experience. The history of first time head coaches at major programs is very hit or miss. So is the success of coaches handpicked by their predecessor. Not every great assistant is also a great head coach. A no-name coach could also potentially undermine recruiting compared to hiring a known commodity. Besides, perhaps Alvarez wants to see a different style of hoops now that WI is a big enough name to recruit decent players. He’s the AD. It’s his job to make that call. And at least he has the benefit of the experience of having hired several head coaches before.
I’m not sure forcing Alvarez to hire his protege as the interim coach is going to really help the guy either. It adds ill will into the scenario. Seeing how a guy does coaching for 2/3 of a season is very different from seeing the results of him running a program for several years anyway. If Bo really wanted this guy to replace him, he should have pushed him to take a HC job several years ago to build his resume.
LikeLike
Basketball and football are 2 different sports. I still remember the Schembechler era at the Tigers. It was hilarious. He filled their farm system full of guys who were athletic and would be spectacular on the football field. The Tigers stunk.
And changing a style that has been successful is one of the most bone-headed moves an administrator can make. Peterson did that at Nebraska. UNL still hasn’t recovered.
LikeLike
Richard,
says:
December 17, 2015 at 9:11 pm
Basketball and football are 2 different sports. I still remember the Schembechler era at the Tigers. It was hilarious. He filled their farm system full of guys who were athletic and would be spectacular on the football field. The Tigers stunk.
“And changing a style that has been successful is one of the most bone-headed moves an administrator can make. Peterson did that at Nebraska. UNL still hasn’t recovered.”
Many teams used to run the wishbone or an option attack and most survived the transition – OU, OSU, etc. The key is that certain styles limit who you can recruit, so a program that has elevated its status might wan to consider a change to allow it to pursue the better athletes that will now listen to their pitch. I’m not saying Alvarez wants to do that, but he might. If nothing else there was talk of hiring Bennett from UVA who is more proven than a career assistant.
LikeLike
“The key is that certain styles limit who you can recruit, so a program that has elevated its status might wan to consider a change to allow it to pursue the better athletes that will now listen to their pitch. I’m not saying Alvarez wants to do that, but he might.”
The key is winning games and titles, not winning recruiting season and getting better athletes.
Bo Ryan’s time-killing packline style and the recruits he got playing that style got Wisconsin to the Final Four both of the last 2 years. Pretty tough to top that, unless you get Calipari (and no, I think there is zero chance of Wisconsin being able to get Cal or Self/Coach K/Izzo, etc.)
If they do make a switch in style, I think it will be monumental mistake akin to Peterson abandoning the option & ground-based offense for a West Coast offense at UNL. In 34 of the last 35 years that they relied on an option and I-formation run-heavy offense under Devaney/Osborne/Solich, Nebraska never had more than 4 losses in a season (and won 5 national titles). Only 1 year with 4 losses. Pretty much never in those years did Nebraska have among the top recruiting classes.
Since replacing Solich with Callahan, Nebraska has _never_ had a year with less than 4 losses (compare winning percentages instead and the story still remains the same).
Just like Nebraska football is unlike OSU/OU/Texas football (who can rely on superior athletes to win with a more conventional scheme because they have access to enough top athletes), Wisconsin basketball is not UK/KU/Duke basketball, so adopting a more conventional scheme to chase better athletes is a sure-fire route to disaster and about as bone-headed a move as you may make if you are Wisconsin.
LikeLike
I hate to see another prominent coach quit in midseason.
I think most coach retirements, regardless of timing, are contradictions of previous promises to coach longer. No coach could recruit if he stated honestly that he expected to be gone in a year.
These guys would throw a fit if one of their players did the same thing.
I am not sure what “the same thing” is, as applied to a player, since 20-year-olds don’t retire to pave the way for a hand-picked successor. Barring injury, college players generally don’t retire unless they aren’t playing. Coaches don’t usually throw fits in such cases.
Coaches have a lot more options than players, because there are fewer restrictions on their movements. It is certainly common for coaches to leave, after having assured players that they were staying. Michigan’s DJ Durkin was obviously negotiating with Maryland while preparing his team for the Ohio State game. Might the distraction have contributed to Michigan’s defense playing its worst game of the year? Perhaps.
If the rules allowed players to move as freely as coaches, I am sure they would.
LikeLike
I guess that I have no real issue with Bo Ryan’s actions here. He had already made it known that he was going to retire before this year. Why is this leaving Wisconsin in any different of a position than Steve Spurrier left South Carolina? Either Wisconsin keeps his assistant on or it’s an open job after this year (which is exactly what would have happened with Ryan staying the full year, anyway).
Now, by the same token, Barry Alvarez has no obligation to keep Ryan’s old assistant permanently. He could very well be correct that Wisconsin can get a higher profile replacement. Of course, Alvarez has lost two football coaches in the last 3 years to athletic departments with a lot less success and lower revenue, so he has no reason to be cocky in this process.
Both Ryan and Alvarez have valid interests. I just don’t see one having some type of moral high ground over the other.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Why is this leaving Wisconsin in any different of a position than Steve Spurrier left South Carolina?”
It isn’t, which is why I complained about both (“I hate to see another prominent coach quit in midseason.”). It might be less offensive to me if they didn’t both jump ship during bad seasons.
“Either Wisconsin keeps his assistant on or it’s an open job after this year (which is exactly what would have happened with Ryan staying the full year, anyway).”
I also said my issue is with how the players are treated, not the school. Ryan’s motivations are worse since he did this partially just to mess with an AD who wouldn’t kowtow to his demands to pick his successor.
“Both Ryan and Alvarez have valid interests. I just don’t see one having some type of moral high ground over the other.”
Since Alvarez didn’t do anything, I think he gets the high ground by default since Ryan quit in part to force his assistant on Alvarez.
LikeLike
Players do retire on occasion (academics, health, other interest), or leave to play elsewhere. 5th year grad transfers, move down a division, or sit a year and play D1 elsewhere. aTm is short a couple talented QB’s currently. U of Nike just got their second grad transfer QB in as many years.
It is a bit disruptive when a coach leaves mid season, but life throws occasional change ups. Pretend college sports are an educational experience and learn lessons in dealing with adversity.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think most coach retirements, regardless of timing, are contradictions of previous promises to coach longer. No coach could recruit if he stated honestly that he expected to be gone in a year.”
That’s a little different from saying in the summer you plan to coach one final year when you know all along you intend to quit midseason.
“I am not sure what “the same thing” is, as applied to a player,”
Quitting midseason to focus on something else (academics, their girlfriend, whatever) would be the most direct parallel.
“Barring injury, college players generally don’t retire unless they aren’t playing. Coaches don’t usually throw fits in such cases.”
Let’s take transferring as a player equivalent. Look at how some coaches, including Ryan, react – barring long lists of schools as possible transfer sites, refusing to release players from their scholarships or even badmouthing the player.
LikeLike
That’s a little different from saying in the summer you plan to coach one final year when you know all along you intend to quit midseason.
I think it’s pretty common for coaches to say, “I’m going to be here,” when the coach knows he is very seriously considering not being there. We could talk about the culture that produces this behavior, but it’s practically universal.
Quitting midseason to focus on something else (academics, their girlfriend, whatever) would be the most direct parallel.
Usually, the quitting player is a minimal contributor or non-contributor. The coach doesn’t usually throw a fit in such cases. In fact, if the player is not a senior, the coach might be happy to have the scholarship back.
Let’s take transferring as a player equivalent. Look at how some coaches, including Ryan, react – barring long lists of schools as possible transfer sites, refusing to release players from their scholarships or even badmouthing the player.
Yeah, and most of those same coaches have at some point in their careers run out on a contract, or would again, when a better deal at another school comes along. Most, I think, impose minimal transfer restrictions (future opponents) or none at all, but a few do behave spitefully. I can’t see any good defense for that behavior, nor any good reason for the rule granting them the power to do so.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I think it’s pretty common for coaches to say, “I’m going to be here,” when the coach knows he is very seriously considering not being there.”
For guys taking better jobs, sure. Not for guys saying I’m going to retire at the end of next season when they fully intend to quit midseason.
“Yeah, and most of those same coaches have at some point in their careers run out on a contract, or would again, when a better deal at another school comes along. Most, I think, impose minimal transfer restrictions (future opponents) or none at all, but a few do behave spitefully. I can’t see any good defense for that behavior, nor any good reason for the rule granting them the power to do so.”
My point is that Ryan is one of those coaches that has screwed players, so I think it’s fair to complain about him quitting on his team.
LikeLike
Coaches may be able to influence, but it’s the school (AD) that may or may not grant, restrict, or deny releases to students.
LikeLike
That may be the letter of the law, but it is not true in practice. Look at the Ryan/Uthoff history. Look at Kingsbury/Mayfield. The schools are wrong to not overrule them, but coaches get their way. Even the faculty boards don’t overturn the decisions of the coaches.
LikeLike
Zalesky had to fight hard to get Iowa to honor his promise to Steven Mocco that if he signed and after a couple years wanted to transfer, he would be released. Mocco wound up at OkSU and with the team title, which probably would have been Iowa’s had he stayed. Couple years later Bowlsby forced to fire Zalesky, which he does and then leaves for Stanford.
I know of several cases where wrestlers wanted to follow coach. Those still with RS were released. Those who had burned it weren’t, leaving them to sacrifice a year or stay. One case wrestler only had one year left.
LikeLike
“Quitting midseason to focus on something else (academics, their girlfriend, whatever) would be the most direct parallel.”
At least in Northwestern football, if a player wants to go another direction and retire from football for whatever reason, the coaches have nothing but good things to say and thank him for his contributions. They certainly don’t throw a hissy fit like you’re doing. In fact, if it’s for medical reasons, they still try to make the kid a part of the team.
LikeLike
1. Medical reasons wouldn’t be quitting.
2. We were only discussing quitting during the season, not between seasons.
3. Yes, making a comment on a topical discussion site is clearly throwing a hissy fit.
LikeLike
Venric Mark transferred from NU a few days before the first game last year. Relations remained amicable with the coaching staff and he has nothing but good things to say about the program (and came back to finish his degree). Coaching staff never slagged him either.
Most people aren’t as bitter and mean as you, you know, Brian.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14384781/ken-niumatalolo-staying-navy-considering-byu
Navy’s coach says no to BYU.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14399087/byu-cougars-close-agreement-kalani-sitake-become-next-head-coach
Sources say BYU will hire the OrSU defensive coordinator, Kalani Sitake.
Sitake, 40, played four years at BYU as a fullback and graduated in 2000. He spent the past year as Oregon State’s defensive coordinator after serving as an assistant at Utah from 2005 to 2014.
Oregon State struggled defensively this season under Sitake, ranking 116th out of 128 FBS teams in total defense.
Not really the resume you’d hope for if you’re BYU.
LikeLike
Who else do you want them to get?
Keep in mind that he has to be a Mormon.
LikeLike
They wanted a successful head coach based on their attempts at Wittingham and Niumatalolo. Settling for a guy with a few years of DC experience is clearly not the resume they’d hoped for. It doesn’t mean it won’t work out.
As for other options, it’s not my job to know people’s religion. There are lots of former BYU players and assistant coaches out there, but they aren’t all LDS.
LikeLike
Have they ever hired a head coach before? I read they had not.
LikeLike
Evidently the head coach of BYU has to be Mormon.
So with that criteria, who else do you think would have been better who BYU had a shot at?
LikeLike
And all twelve top church leaders (apostles?) spread around the world have to unanimously approve. If one dissent they have a whole new discussion before a re vote. Primary focus is not on X’s and O’s, or defensive philosophy…
LikeLike
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-martin-shkreli-securities-fraud/
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14390558/quarterback-kyler-murray-transferring-texas-aggies
What’s going on at TAMU? 2 starting QBs have decided to transfer out in the past week or so. Sumlin has gone 11-2, 9-4, 8-5 and 8-4 so far. Is he under pressure?
Uncertainty with the direction of Texas A&M’s offense, the future of the offensive coaching staff, trust issues between the quarterbacks and coaches and how the quarterbacks were utilized were among the concerns that led to both Murray’s and Allen’s transfers, sources indicated to ESPN.com. The Aggies had their worst offensive season statistically since coach Kevin Sumlin’s debut in College Station in 2012, ranking 48th nationally in yards per game (423), 63rd in yards per play (5.64), 69th in scoring (28.3 points per game), 81st in yards per pass attempt (6.46) and 97th in red zone efficiency (54.9 percent).
No decisions have been made regarding the future of offensive coordinator Jake Spavital — who was the primary recruiter for both Allen and Murray — or any of the other offensive coaches, Sumlin said Wednesday. Sumlin indicated that no decisions will be made until after the Aggies’ game against Louisville in the Franklin American Mortgage Music City Bowl on Dec. 30.
This could be an opportunity for UT to get back on top in the state.
LikeLike
Minnesota loses to Texas, but Nebraska defeats Kansas. Texas vs. Nebraska in Omaha Saturday for the NCAA volleyball title.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/12/18/ryan-cubit-illinois-offensive-coordinator
Bill Cubit has promoted his son to OC for Illinois but Bill will still call the plays. Iowa went through this recently with Brian Ferentz – does Illinois have a nepotism policy?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25418087/college-football-attendance-drops-for-fifth-straight-year-but-at-slower-rate
CFB attendance was down again, but not by much.
Among the top 25 attendance leaders, the biggest declines were experienced by UCLA (13 percent), Florida State (11 percent), LSU (8 percent) and Iowa (6 percent). Before the Hawkeyes went 12-0 in the regular season, they lost many season ticket-holders who were disappointed with the team’s performance in previous years.
…
The biggest increases among Power Five schools: Pittsburgh (17 percent), Virginia (10 percent), Minnesota (9 percent), Iowa State (8 percent), Kentucky (6 percent), Indiana (6 percent) and Purdue (6 percent). Pittsburgh and Virginia benefitted by each playing a home game against Notre Dame.
…
Big Ten: Average attendance was 65,998, down from 66,939 in 2014 and 70,431 in 2013 (prior to Rutgers and Maryland joining the conference). Nine of the 14 Big Ten schools saw smaller crowds this year, including a 14-percent decline by Northwestern, which went 10-2.
LikeLike
I’d like to see the numbers adjusted for the new members of I-A. I know the trend would be the same, but adding lots of schools with small stadiums obviously hurts the per game numbers. In addition, I’d like to see the neutral site game attendance included. That’s become a significant number of games for big schools.
Stadium capacity for the past decade’s additions:
Charlotte – 15,300
UMass – 17,000
FIU – 20,000
ODU – 20,118
WKU – 22,113
App St – 24,050
GA So – 25,000
FAU – 29,419
TX St – 30,000
So AL – 40,646
UTSA – 65,000 (Alamodome)
GA St – 71,228 (GA Dome)
How attendance doing for the longterm members of I-A? That seems more relevant as a measure. Or perhaps look at attendance in terms of capacity filled.
LikeLike
2009-2014 without the 9 newest members-UTSA, TX St, USA, GSU, GSU, App St., ODU, Charlotte, UMass
2009 43,742
2010 44,401
2011 43,953
2012 43,864
2013 44,098
2014 43,986
So basically flat. I don’t have this year’s numbers put together, but the decline is basically the new schools.
LikeLike
Do you include the neutral site games in your numbers?
LikeLike
No (except for games like Army/Navy).
LikeLike
Did the South Carolina game count in LSU’s numbers?
Because of the weather moving the game to LSU the numbers were terrible by LSU standards. I think all the regular scheduled LSU games were over 100K so being down almost 10% seems pretty impossible unless they are counting the South Carolina game or somehow factoring in the cancelled game with McNeese State.
LikeLike
The NCAA did count that game for LSU. They average 102,004 in 6 games without it and 93,440 with it due to only getting 42,058 for that game.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25417211/inside-college-sports-sec-big-ten-dominate-100m-revenue-club
Some interesting numbers:
In recent court filings, the NCAA said 25 percent of responding FBS schools to a survey have awarded multiyear scholarships to incoming football players since 2012, and just 6 percent by FCS schools. At schools that generally offer multiyear scholarships, only between 8 percent and 11 percent of FBS football players received multiyear scholarships. The NCAA cited an expert for Rock, Daniel Rascher, who projected that about 15 percent of all possible FBS football scholarships in 2016-17 will be for multiple years.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/128667/big-ten-bowl-season-has-never-been-bigger-than-right-now
Is this the best B10 bowl season ever?
Pros:
* The B10 has teams in the CFP, Rose Bowl and Fiesta Bowl.
* B10 teams face a lot of major brands – ND, AL, UF, TN, UGA, USC, UCLA, Stanford (also face Duke and CMU).
* 10 B10 teams made bowls.
* No games before 12/26 and none after 1/2 unless MSU makes the NCG.
Cons:
* Still have 3 games at once on 1/1 (12, 1 and 1 starts) but no other games overlap.
* The B10 champion isn’t in the Rose Bowl
* 2 5-7 teams made bowls (not a con for everyone)
* The CFP semifinal for the B10 is on 12/31
* The B10 is predicted to go 4-6 by Vegas lines while the SEC goes 9-1 and the P12 8-2. The B10 is expected to go 1-3 vs the SEC and 0-3 vs the P12.
LikeLike
The B1G “champ” pre CCG is in the Rose Bowl…
LikeLike
Related to the title of this post:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2015/12/18/star-wars-force-awakens-blasts-100-million-friday-record/77585940/
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I’ve got my Star Wars tickets for Sunday with the wife and kids. My wife is only going to humor me, but my son and I are pumped beyond relief, especially with the positive reviews. I’m on a self-enforced social media embargo until then in order to avoid all spoilers.
LikeLike
I think I’ll wait until January and let the crowds die down.
LikeLike
The expectations are for Episode VII to break all the box office records. Of course, part of that is due to the ever-increasing prices of tickets.
LikeLike
Nebraska claims the NCAA Volleyball national championship.
LikeLike
Good day for B10 sports in general.
If it wasn’t for PU losing to Butler, the B10 would have had a clean sweep of all the men’s basketball games (including OSU’s huge upset of UK).
LikeLike
I guess Chewy could be an Illinois fan. He always seems to be in the middle of chaos. I don’t agree with you on the 3rd of the trilogies. I thought those were the weak links. Other than that I agree with your order. I’d put Empire 4th and Sith 7th.
Star Wars IS back, but there were a couple things that bothered me. ***This isn’t a spoiler***, but nobody asks the obvious questions. 1) Who is she? and 2) Why is there a map?
Harrison Ford did look like a 72-73 year old who had just broken his leg in 2 places. I think his action film days are over.
LikeLike
Correction-Jedi was the 3rd of the trilogy-so I agree with them as #4, but I would put Empire 2nd or 3rd instead of 1st.
LikeLike
I thought he filmed his scenes BEFORE the crash. He would look even worse if it was afterwards. Luke looks like a love child of Sean Payton and Rob Ryan. I expected Hamill to be the old wizened one.
LikeLike
LOL. I don’t know what he filmed before and after, but they did have to delay filming 8 weeks after his injury.
LikeLike
Rather interesting that the newbies have done well. Appalachian St. and Western Kentucky are the only two loss teams outside of the AAC and P5. Georgia Southern has done well. Meanwhile ULL, ULM, Troy St. in the Sun Belt and some of the longer term FBS schools in CUSA lag in the standings. Will they continue to do well or will they fade when they can’t use transfers and don’t have the big success they had in FCS?
LikeLike
Just like with every other program, it depends on recruiting and how well they’re able to replace coaches after they’re hired away after several years of success.
App State’s coach wasn’t a hot candidate this year after turning a 1-5 2014 start into a 6-0 finish, followed by an 11-2 season this year. It’s only a matter of time, though, barring a dramatic reversal of fortune. App can only afford so much, and Satterfield will be in demand if he continues to succeed. The key, as with most other programs, will be hiring the next diamond in the rough.
LikeLike
Stick the landing = $50+ million savings
Fuel costs: 200k
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/22/a-day-after-spacex-sticks-its-landing-elon-musk-talks-about-a-city-on-mars/
LikeLike
It’s an encouraging development, but I want to see how reusable things really turn out to be. How many times can you reuse that first stage and what are the rehab costs between uses?
Blue Origin did a lesser version of the same thing a month ago, so it’s nice to see two different groups accomplish this. That bodes well.
LikeLike
It’s an encouraging development, but I want to see how reusable things really turn out to be. How many times can you reuse that first stage and what are the rehab costs between uses?
Even Elon Musk has admitted that he is not sure when one of these will be re-used in an actual mission. It should save some money (against the base case of a throw-away rocket), but is it worth it if a client’s payload goes up in smoke?
It’s worth noting that the Space Shuttle program originally had a design objective that the orbiters would be ready for re-use after about 2 weeks. In fact, it generally took months — one of the many reasons why the Shuttle never achieved its cost targets.
LikeLike
Not sure I’d bet against Musk doing it in the next couple years.
Missions are insured. I’m sure the potential insurence increase and booster cost savings balance will be worked out.
LikeLike
Or perhaps sooner?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/01/technology/elon-musk-spacex-falcon-9/
LikeLike
I used the 50M figure because no one knows the refurbishing cost. Maybe a total tear down, or maybe “check the oil and fill her up.” Even only having a single reuse still cuts launch vehicle booster costs nearly in half. We may not get a sense of reuse time/cost from this one. Read where Musk may museum piece this booster.
Bezos’ accomplishment was great, but in an experimental setting. SpaceX’s Grasshopper did a number of proof of concept takeoff and vertical landings several years ago, but to nowhere as high an altitude. Yesterday was an actual mission (with a fifteen storie tall booster!).
LikeLike
Yep, that’s why I called it a lesser version. Space X did a real mission while Blue Origins did a suborbital flight. Long term I think those two would be better off combining rather than fighting each other plus Orbital, Boeing and Lockheed.
LikeLike
Forbes ranks the top 20 most valuable football teams.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/12/22/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams-2015-texas-notre-dame-and-tennessee/
By conference:
SEC (9): #3 Tennessee, #4 LSU, #6 Georgia, #8 Alabama, #10 Auburn, #12 Arkansas, #15 Florida, #16 Texas A&M, #18 South Carolina
B1G (4): #5 Michigan, #7 Ohio State, #11 Penn State, #19 Mich State
Pac-12 (3): #13 Washington, #14 Oregon, #20 USC
Big-12 (2): #1 Texas, #9 Oklahoma
Ind: #2 Notre Dame
ACC: #17 Florida State
LikeLike
Tennessee?
LikeLike
Their formula is based heavily on profit margin and doesn’t correct for conference members splitting a very big check equally (or close to it) despite some programs doing more to earn that money for the conference than others.
The Volunteers have been far from successful on the field in their three seasons under Butch Jones, posting just 20 wins and beating only two ranked teams.
Yet, as we’ll get into below, our valuation methodology relies heavily on team earnings directed toward academics and other athletic programs. And while most SEC teams saw a sizable boost in revenue this year, none were as good as Tennessee at maximizing their bottom line and filling their athletic department’s coffers (only Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State spent less than the Vols). The Volunteers had a profit margin of 74% of revenue last year, second only to Texas. Just seven other teams in the nation earned more than 60% of revenue.
…
The Volunteers have been far from successful on the field in their three seasons under Butch Jones, posting just 20 wins and beating only two ranked teams.
Yet, as we’ll get into below, our valuation methodology relies heavily on team earnings directed toward academics and other athletic programs. And while most SEC teams saw a sizable boost in revenue this year, none were as good as Tennessee at maximizing their bottom line and filling their athletic department’s coffers (only Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt and Mississippi State spent less than the Vols). The Volunteers had a profit margin of 74% of revenue last year, second only to Texas. Just seven other teams in the nation earned more than 60% of revenue.
LikeLike
Which schools are currently considered true kings? Some are obvious: USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, Alabama, LSU, Florida. How about Georgia? Clemson? Tennessee? Is Nebraska still a king? Who is now but perhaps won’t be in 20 years? Could Oregon or VT ever reach that level? Washington? Miami?
LikeLike
I had a list of tiers of schools by most likely to win the national title 2 years ago. I’ll revisit that in detail, but this is how I see it now:
Super-kings (great money, brand, and recruiting grounds): Texas, UF, ‘Bama, OSU, LSU, UGa, USC, FSU
Kings (great money and brand; near great recruiting but still need to win a lot of OOS recruiting battles): PSU, OU, UMich, ND, Tennessee
Low King/High Prince: UNL, Miami, A&M, UCLA
Auburn and Clemson are between that tier and the regular princes.
Oregon, VT (and MSU and Wisconsin and about 6-8 others) are princes.
UDub (and Iowa) are between the princes and the hoi polloi.
LikeLike
John S,
“Which schools are currently considered true kings?”
Everyone’s list is a little different.
“Some are obvious: USC, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Florida State, Alabama, LSU, Florida.”
I’d say that list is too inclusive (NE – not anymore, LSU – not quite).
“How about Georgia? Clemson? Tennessee? Is Nebraska still a king?”
UGA and Clemson haven’t sustained elite status for prolonged periods yet. TN was on the way to kingdom until they dropped Fulmer. NE’s past 20 years has also dropped them down a level to me.
“Who is now but perhaps won’t be in 20 years?”
It depends who you include in the list. A bad enough 20 years can drop almost anyone off the list (ND is seemingly immune). Will FSU sustain success or fall off post-Bowden? PSU could also run that risk post-Paterno.
“Could Oregon or VT ever reach that level? Washington? Miami?”
OR or VT could get there if they win some titles, but VT will have to prove it’s more than Beamer. OR will have to show prolonged elite success post-Kelly. UW was closer 20 years ago than they are now. Miami used to be on the list for many people and could get there again.
LikeLike
I can’t believe we missed this article over the Summer regarding most valuable sports conferences.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2015/07/20/the-sec-is-finally-the-most-valuable-conference-in-college-sports/
LikeLike
Notably, the B10 is second and the only P5 conference that could still increase its revenues substantially in the short-term (unless you think that the ACC will start its own network and it will be as successful as the SECN and BTN rather than the PTN). A conservative $10M year-over-year bump would put the B10 in a tier with the SEC (actually slightly above the SEC) and above everyone else. That $44.5M projection would blow everyone away. Delany was saying $50M/year in TV payout, though who knows if he’s talking about total TV payout or for the tier 1 deal and average payout or what.
Also not sure if that chart is showing 2013-2014 or 2014-2015 figures for the B10. Purdue received $32M in conference distributions in 2014-2015 and $27M in conference distributions in 2013-2014
LikeLike
They only count 3 revenue streams for this – NCAA tournament money (B10 > SEC), bowl/CFP money (SEC got an extra $2M per team from the Orange, otherwise B10 ~ SEC) and conference TV deals (SEC > B10 – for now at least). I don’t know if BTN profit sharing counts since that comes from owning the network, not from the rights contract. There are presumably some other revenue streams that aren’t counted as well.
They also don’t factor in money the conference keeps for itself, just dividing the total by the number of teams. Their total should be higher than what the conference actually pays out based on those 3 revenue streams.
LikeLike
Though in their chart (which purportedly are their estimates for 2014-2015), Forbes says B10 schools got something like $27M on average.
The B10 does engage in ticket revenue sharing, but that doesn’t amount to much over $1M for PU (net).
The B10 does have the football CCG and basketball tourney ticket revenue. BTN profit from the profit-sharing is now something like $2M/school, I think (though this article says $1M: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/18/big-ten-revenue-shares-jump-to-32-million-per-school/).
But yeah, the B10 central office has to be funded somehow. I don’t think they get one share like the SEC central office does, but there has to be some money going there.
So I still don’t know how to reconcile Forbes numbers with the $32M that PU actually got from the B10 in 2014-2015.
LikeLike
The conference takes an equal share of the bowl revenue per published reports, but that in-itself isn’t enough fund it.
And yes his numbers are off from what Big Ten schools actually reported.
LikeLike
Note the tail end of the article Alan linked to: “Maryland and Rutgers (and Nebraska) are not eligible for full shares of the Big Ten revenue pie.
Nebraska is scheduled to receive its first full revenue share in 2018. Maryland and Rutgers will be eligible for a full share in 2021.”
So $32m to Purdue, minus whatever income Forbes is missing, would be higher than an average share, as you have 11 full shares, a 12th almost full share and two smaller shares.
LikeLike
Maryland and Rutgers are getting more money up front (essentially full shares) that they’ll back pay around the time the new tv contract kicks in. Nebraska gets a full share in what most people would call the 2017 season (2017-2018 academic year) not 2018.
LikeLike
Maryland is.
Rutgers not so much.
UMD got an interest-free loan, essentially, but the “buy-in” is suppose to be about equal for all 3 schools.
LikeLike
“UMD got an interest-free loan, essentially, but the “buy-in” is suppose to be about equal for all 3 schools.”
And being a loan, as far as cash flow goes, it seems like it likely be coming out of the conference’s retained earnings, but as far as a revenue share, its an advance on future distributions, not a share of current year income.
If Forbes is missing $3m in revenues / school, then the balance for Purdue being ~$2m higher than the simple 14 school average seems like it’s in the realm of the possible.
So, could Forbes be missing $3m/school revenues ($42m)? I dunno. If they focused on the main media contracts and overlooked BTN revenues (there is both a license and a profit share component), if there is any Big Ten merch in addition to individual school merch? Maybe … a million dollars here, and a million dollars there, and pretty soon you are talking real money.{*}
{* To paraphrase … it’s “billion” in the original, which is from the Halls of Congress.}
LikeLike
Where is the incentive to tackle correctly when replay won’t correct an egregious targeting call. May as well hit high and hard and take your chances that they can’t call all of them (theory of holding or subtle pass interference).
Just get rid of replay! It doesn’t even get the most important safety issue call correct…
LikeLike
Where is the incentive to tackle correctly when replay won’t correct an egregious targeting call. May as well hit high and hard and take your chances that they can’t call all of them (theory of holding or subtle pass interference).
Just get rid of replay! It doesn’t even get the most important safety issue call correct…
Not sure which game you were watching…but replay cannot impose a targeting penalty that lthe field officials failed to notice. It’s like every other penalty: the booth can’t throw a flag.
The replay official can “pick up” a targeting flag, if he deems the call invalid. I believe it’s the only penalty that can be negated on review. (If you think games are too slow now, just imagine how they’d drag on if the booth could review ordinary penalties.)
I think there’s a pretty strong incentive to avoid head-to-head tackles. The rule states that, when in doubt, it’s targeting. On the whole, I think I’ve seen borderline targeting calls imposed more often than blatant targeting calls missed—though both happen.
All players know that there is a chance that illegal conduct won’t get called. But I’ve got to think that this rule has altered conduct to some extent, given the severity of the penalty if it IS called. No one wants to be ejected.
I feel reasonably sure the targeting rule will be re-evaluated over the next year or two. All officiating is subject to human error, but targeting enforcement has been far too inconsistent. I doubt they’d drop the rule entirely, but it needs to be clarified somehow.
LikeLike
The Nebraska guy initiated contact facemask to facemask, so I don’t find the call egregious. He had a 10 yard run to line up the guy, and came in negligently high.
I do think they need to drop the automatic ejection for targeting. I don’t like adding too much subjectivity to the rules, but I’d like the refs to have the option of ejecting for egregious targeting.
LikeLike
Hit looked clean to me.
http://collegespun.com/big-ten/nebraska-big-ten/video-nebraska-safety-nate-gerry-ejected-after-extremely-controversial-targeting-call
LikeLike
That’s the one. He had head up (no crown hit), he did not launch to create high impact, he moved face over shoulder (face to face contact is not dangerous) and there was incidental helmet contact of the kind helmets were designed for, and he wrapped up and ran through to tackle. I can somewhat forgive the on field game speed flag. But that is my point, why have replay if nearly everyone but the replay ref sees the effort made to not just deliver a ball separating impact, but make a chest to chest wrap up tackle. And he didn’t even just say the call stands but said confirmed!
OU/Oregon onsides kick review?
LikeLike
“And he didn’t even just say the call stands but said confirmed!”
Maybe, just maybe, two trained professionals understand the rule much more precisely than you do.
—
http://www.afca.com/article/article.php?id=2342
Defenseless player—a player not in position to defend himself.
A receiver attempting to catch a pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a ball carrier.
No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)
HINTS FOR PLAYERS
Lower your target–don’t go for the head or neck area with anything
—
Initiating contact to the head or neck area with the helmet is a foul. Facemask to facemask is initiating contact to the head with the helmet.
LikeLike
The tackle was shoulder to chest, head up and to the side. The wrap up was around the upper arms below the shoulder pads. Helmets had incidental contact – no more than what old school leather helmets would have easily protected. It was a text book how not to target. I guess he could have lowered his head (and more likely be using the crown) in order to deliver a ball separating hit…but what if defenders first step isn’t foreword? Or he ducks as he turns upfield (crown hit)?
Look, I had no real vested interest in the game outcome. It just seems a kid didn’t just get flagged but got ejected while intentionally not delivering anything close to the blow that until the last couple years would have been expected (and that I’m sure he has done many times in the past).
Guess we need to use the old grade school flags on the hips.
LikeLike
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-are-the-playoff-semifinals-on-new-year-s-eve-again-053757483-ncaaf.html
Not sure how it all went down, but at this point, I agree with Wetzel. Holding the semifinals on NYE (when the Rose and Sugar aren’t semifinals) rather than the first Saturday of the year is borderline asinine.
LikeLike
Caveat: Unless NYE falls on a Saturday (and maybe Friday as well), in which case NYE would be fine.
The latest the semifinals would go would still be the 5th.
LikeLike
Well written article about the upcoming meetings that will affect Big 12 Expansion.
http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-conference-questions-future-expansion-1528668401.html
IF things don’t fall their way during the meetings and they decide to invite the 2 front runners of BYU and Cincy, who replaces the Bearcats in the AAC? Army??
LikeLike
IF things don’t fall their way during the meetings and they decide to invite the 2 front runners of BYU and Cincy, who replaces the Bearcats in the AAC? Army??
I’m sure the AAC would love to have Army. But the Cadets have resisted joining a conference because they are by far the weakest of the three academies. As an independent, they are able to control their schedule—and even then, they lose big.
(Army hasn’t won the Commander in Chief’s Trophy since 1996; since then, they’re 2-17 vs. Air Force and 2-17 vs. Navy. Even with a soft schedule, they went just 2-10 this year, including a loss to Fordham. Their only FBS win was over 1-11 Eastern Michigan.)
If they can’t get Army, I’m sure the AAC would follow their tried-and-true strategy of replenishing from the leagues below them. They’d probably consider the likes of Western Kentucky, Southern Miss., Marshall, or the newly independent UMass.
LikeLike
Penn State Danny,
“Well written article about the upcoming meetings that will affect Big 12 Expansion.”
Right now, it appears the Big Ten and SEC would vote against the Big 12’s initial proposal (before the Big Ten amendment), while the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC would probably vote for it. (Considering how important this issue is to the Big 12’s future, there has been surprisingly little creative thought behind it). The support for Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany’s amendment isn’t as clear, although the Pac-12 would likely be in favor of it to promote conformity.
The Power Five votes count for twice as much as the Group of Five’s, but the smaller leagues could ultimately decide whether the legislation and amendment are passed.
Here’s the prevailing thought around the Big 12: If its legislation proposal gets shot down, there’s a roughly 70% chance the league will expand during the next year or two in order to get a title game. If the legislation passes, there’s less than a 50% chance of imminent change in the form of the Big 12 adding new members. There are many other variables in play, but this is arguably the biggest.
That’s news to me about the SEC voting no on the original CCG proposal.
LikeLike
Lot of truth in this.
Its their arrogance. Its that same mentality that got them in such trouble with all these lawsuits. It would be good if their ratings bomb.
Its also not real good for the NYD games. It will tend to reduce interest with the playoff already having happened. It would be like having the warmup band perform after the main attraction.
LikeLike
Though the title game is still to come, as it was in the BCS era, so I am not sure it will have that dramatic an effect upon the NYD games.
LikeLike
They thought the BCS games’ ratings would go up, if they were spread out over several weeknight evenings after New Year’s Day. We all know that flopped, so now they’re trying something else.
I don’t root for other people to fail, but I agree with Wetzel that this does not seem to be the best idea.
LikeLike
I guess concentrating the games that are now on NYE on a Saturday is too much out of the box to ask from people.
Granted, you have to see when the NFL wildcard round falls, but the Saturday of the last NFL regular season weekend is always open.
LikeLike
And here’s the thing:
They’d already tried having a major bowl game on NYE (back in the Bowl Alliance days), and the ratings were as bad or worse than the BCS bowls held after NYD.
In fact, from 2002-2003 to 2010-2011, in 6 out of those 9 years, the bowl with the worst TV ratings was the non-Rose NYD bowl and in none of those years did the non-Rose NYD bowl have the top ratings of BCS bowls, which means that holding bowls after NYD actually isn’t so bad, considering that none of them are the Rose Bowl.
And last year, just as we could have all predicted, the NYE bowls got horrible ratings. Has any major bowl on the level of the BCS bowls ever drawn as low as a 3.4 before?
LikeLike
Richard,
I fully agree that the NY6 schedule this year was idiotic. The move to 1/2 was obvious but CFB has a big ego and thinks it can change behavior in the future. Maybe they’re right in the long run since people used to worry weeknight games wouldn’t work even for the NFL. In the short term they are going to suffer before people adjust to watching CFB on NYE.
“And last year, just as we could have all predicted, the NYE bowls got horrible ratings. Has any major bowl on the level of the BCS bowls ever drawn as low as a 3.4 before?”
If it counts, the 2004 Cotton Bowl drew a 2.6. 2007 pulled a 3.5. 2005 and 2006 drew 3.7s. None of those were BCS games, obviously, but the Cotton was a major name.
The 2011 Citrus Bowl drew a 2.9. The 2010 drew a 3.7.
The worst BCS numbers that I have plus the lowest number for each game:
2011 Orange – 4.6 (WV vs Clemson)
2008 Orange – 5.4 (VT vs UC)
2012 Orange – 6.1 (FSU vs NIU)
2011 Sugar – 6.1 (VT vs MI)
2012 Sugar – 6.2 (UF vs UL)
2010 Fiesta – 6.2 (OU vs UConn)
2009 Orange – 6.8 (IA vs GT)
2010 Orange – 6.8 (Stanford vs VT)
2004 Orange – 7.0 (UL vs WF)
2007 Sugar – 7.0 (UGA vs HI)
2012 Rose – 9.4 (Stanford vs WI)
2011 NCG – 14 (AL vs LSU)
LikeLike
@Brian – Here’s the thing for me: I just don’t believe that adjustment that the powers that be is hoping is ever coming. There is no conditioning of people to start staying home to watch football on the biggest going out evening of the year (or even for those staying home to not watch the coverage from Times Square). The NFL showing games on weeknights was simply a matter of having people turn the channel on a night that they’re already home, anyway. The thought of people en masse changing their New Year’s Eve plans to watch college football has always been insane. (And when I say “people”, I mean the casual viewers that ESPN is paying billions of dollars for as opposed to the hard core college football fan.)
Just using me as an anecdote, I always have people over on New Year’s Eve with our kids. I’m a college football blogger that loves college football, and even with the games on the TV, I probably actually watched around 20 minutes of any of the games. I’d occasionally look up if there was a big play, but otherwise, New Year’s Eve is inherently a night for socializing. And I was one of the people that even bothered to turn on the games!
There’s already a day that everyone in America is conditioned to watch college football: it’s called New Year’s Day. The more I think about the scheduling, I get more and more agitated about the ability of college football’s leaders to see even the most basic issues.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Here’s the thing for me: I just don’t believe that adjustment that the powers that be is hoping is ever coming.”
I don’t either, but maybe the media “experts” told them it would work.
“There is no conditioning of people to start staying home to watch football on the biggest going out evening of the year (or even for those staying home to not watch the coverage from Times Square).”
I think a lot of people could be conditioned to leave a TV tuned to the semis during a party (fall weddings usually manage it for the reception).
“The thought of people en masse changing their New Year’s Eve plans to watch college football has always been insane.”
For younger people, maybe. There are millions of older people with little to no interest in fancy NYD parties (where a TV isn’t available) or Ryan Seacrest’s ball drop coverage.
“Just using me as an anecdote, I always have people over on New Year’s Eve with our kids. I’m a college football blogger that loves college football, and even with the games on the TV, I probably actually watched around 20 minutes of any of the games. I’d occasionally look up if there was a big play, but otherwise, New Year’s Eve is inherently a night for socializing. And I was one of the people that even bothered to turn on the games!”
But you count in the ratings which is all they need.
“The more I think about the scheduling, I get more and more agitated about the ability of college football’s leaders to see even the most basic issues.”
The ego that led to this decision is the same one that led to the BTN. Sometimes they’re right, sometimes they aren’t. Only time will tell on this one.
LikeLike
Selling ads is what ultimately drives this model, and a few glances here and there isn’t going to do as good a job for marketing and sales.
LikeLike
They have no way of knowing how intently someone is watching. Besides, maybe the semis will become like the Super Bowl and the ads will become the focus for many viewers.
LikeLike
Very unlikely, considering that they haven’t yet.
Companies aren’t going to invest in more scintillating ads for a smaller audience.
LikeLike
B1G still needs to add two schools…should have taken Mizzou …grab Kansas and UNC and quit scheduling the Irish in all sports!
LikeLike
Gordon Gee was right. Kansas and Missouri are the only schools that meet B1G’s criteria. I’m not sure either is available, even if the GORs and other entanglements lapse. No east coast school, especially southern schools like UNC, are acceptable.
LikeLike
B1G still needs to add two schools…should have taken Mizzou …grab Kansas and UNC and quit scheduling the Irish in all sports!
In what way do they need two schools? They’d go to 16 for the right opportunity, but need? I’m not even sure they needed 14. Anyhow, Kansas and UNC won’t be available for another 10 years, or so.
The decision to pass on Mizzou will be debated for years. Obviously, #16 would have had to be Rutgers, so it comes down to whether Mizzou > Maryland, given the criteria that university presidents care about.
As far as I can tell, NO university president has the animosity for Notre Dame that some of the opposing fans do. To the contrary, schools generally like scheduling Notre Dame. Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue, and Ohio State, all have future football dates with the Irish, and apparently Michigan is open to reviving their series if the logistics can be worked out.
Gordon Gee was right. Kansas and Missouri are the only schools that meet B1G’s criteria. I’m not sure either is available, even if the GORs and other entanglements lapse. No east coast school, especially southern schools like UNC, are acceptable.
Did Gee ever say that those were the only schools that met the B1G’s criteria? I don’t recall him ever saying precisely that. UNC is “unacceptable”? Now, that’s a laugh.
Missouri has no GOR or other entanglement with the SEC. They could leave tomorrow. The likelihood of that is only slightly less than me being the next King of England.
Once the Big XII GOR expires, I think Kansas would accept a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat, though I doubt it is forthcoming, unless a bigger fish comes along for the ride.
LikeLike
PU, MSU, NW and MI all have rivalries/history with ND. OSU has only played 4 regular season games with ND, 2 in the 30s and 2 in the 90s and I doubt we’d be playing them even now if our AD wasn’t an alum.
LikeLike
Frank:
Been following your Twitter exchanges.
Agree that the SEC and B10 would take Duke in a heartbeat.
Disagree that the Dookies can deliver NC for cable by themselves, though.
They very much are like the basketball version of ND, so great for national TV (in so far as bball can be great) but not for delivering a state).
LikeLike
You’re probably right that Duke can’t deliver the state of NC by themselves. Historically, their football brand value is in the same class as that of Indiana or Kentucky: very close to the bottom of the Power Five.
Anyhow, if Duke leaves the ACC (however unlikely that may be), they’re almost certainly bringing friends with them. So the question will be not the value of Duke alone, but the value of Duke plus whoever else comes along for the ride.
Personally, I see Duke in the Big Ten only if it’s part of a quartet of schools that also includes UVA and UNC, with GT as the most likely fourth school (but others are possible).
LikeLike
Duke delivers the state of North Carolina. Duke basketball is so important to them that they pony up for it. Duke is one of the few universities where their basketball is so valuable that it more than makes up for any football shortcomings.
That said, Duke and North Carolina are bound for the SEC if alumni and fans have a say. North Carolina is still very southern in culture and have more ties to the SEC (South Carolina rivalry, formerly in Southern conference). Plus I see IF they move anywhere, they’ll move together as a package deal.
State of Virginia however I sense more interest from them in joining a ‘Midwest’ conference. I have family in Northern Virginia and it’s turning into more and more of a ‘northern’ state.
LikeLike
Duke delivers the state of North Carolina. Duke basketball is so important to them that they pony up for it. Duke is one of the few universities where their basketball is so valuable that it more than makes up for any football shortcomings.
Just as a corrective to that…Duke’s football bowl game against Indiana had higher TV ratings than Duke’s most recent basketball game vs. UNC.
So no….I still disagree….valuable as Duke basketball is, a conference needs more than that. And of course, they’d get more: Duke isn’t going to leave the ACC without at least one partner.
LikeLike
1. It was a bowl game, not a regular season match-up.
2. Two, it was a primetime 3:30pm Saturday time slot. People were going to be watching regardless of who was playing and there was little competition in the time slot.
3. It was a very close game, going back-and-forth and an overtime.
LikeLike
But Marc, you aren’t allowing for the drawing power of Hoosier football. Their brands draws tens of fans.
LikeLike
Frank, I also saw the twitter posts. Would the Big10 try and do any additions before the new contracts are negotiated?
LikeLike
How would that even happen with GORs everywhere?
LikeLike
If the B1G intends to expand, it’ll certainly be in every media contract they sign.
LikeLike
If the B1G intends to expand, it’ll certainly be in every media contract they sign.
I think it’s standard in every media contract, and has been for a long time, that the deal is subject to a look-in if the composition of the conference changes. The presence of such a clause would tell you nothing about their intentions.
LikeLike
Just need to complain a bit.
How neat – the arguably best (Pac vs B1G) bowl game today starts at 10:30pm eastern time.
Isn’t the Cotton usually mid day and the Orange evening? Why is swapping those required? Because it’s not NYD?
LikeLike
@ccrider55 – I’m pretty sure that the Cotton Bowl is at night this year because ESPN wants that matchup (Big Ten vs. SEC) in prime time. The New Years Eve time slots are flexible, whereas the Rose Bowl (afternoon) and Sugar Bowl (prime time) are locked in on New Years Day.
LikeLike
Yeah, I guessed that. But my point was that not just date and participants have been sacrificed to the invitational tournament…err, playoff semi’s. How often has the Orange not been the evening game? It’s like they are intentionally trying to damage the bowl brand and make it merely a qualifier in identity.
We may be on our way to recreating basketball where only March Madness has huge value. Mistake, in my opinion.
LikeLike
Other than the Rose, most of the the other bowls don’t have much brand equity now anyway.
The Rose is the only bowl now that large numbers of people will watch even if there are mediocre teams in it (so long as it’s a traditional B10-Pac matchup).
LikeLike
To comment again on Frank’s Twitter exchanges:
The Rose Parade draws more TV viewers than any American non-NFL sporting event. Actually, that understates it; it gets about as many viewers as the NFC and AFC title games and it blows away any and all American non-NFL sporting event. That’s includes the CFB Final Four games, the NCAAMB Final Four games, every single NBA game ever played, and every World Series game for the past few decades.
I don’t know who monetizes that and how much, but the Rose Parade and Rose Bowl have to stay on NYD.
The Sugar is on NYD because Slive and SEC wanted something akin to the Rose Bowl for the SEC and flexed their muscle to make it so.
Also, does USC play their fight song after every positive-yardage play?
LikeLike
The Sugar is on NYD because Slive and SEC wanted something akin to the Rose Bowl for the SEC and flexed their muscle to make it so.
Ultimately, what the SEC generally wants is to make as much as they can, within the allowed number of games. If they conclude they’re leaving money on the table by forcing most years’ semi-finals onto New Year’s Eve, then they’ll change.
LikeLike
The way the NY6 is currently structured actually makes the SEC the most money.
That is because the SEC keeps half of the Sugar’s $80M but the money for the playoff (excluding the Rose and Sugar) is split 5+ ways.
LikeLike
Also, the CFP money is locked in for 12 years so they don’t lose a penny when the games crash and burn this time around. Let’s see if ESPN forces some structural changes during the negotiations next time around.
LikeLike
Also, the CFP money is locked in for 12 years so they don’t lose a penny when the games crash and burn this time around. Let’s see if ESPN forces some structural changes during the negotiations next time around.
This is absolutely true, but university presidents and conference commissioners are long-term thinkers. They are always positioning for the next deal, even if that deal is many years in the future.
ESPN can’t force them to do anything. (If it were entirely up to TV executives, there’d be an 8-team playoff right now.) But if 12 years of evidence show the NYE playoff games consistently under-performing the NYD ones, that fact will obviously be considered in the next round of negotiations.
LikeLike
As the B12 said after last season, 1 year doesn’t establish a trend. TPTB in CFB will want to see at least 3 more years of NYE semis (halfway through the deal) before they decide on the future. If it hasn’t caught on by then, I think they’ll take these concerns more seriously. They knew going in it would be an uphill battle.
LikeLike
It makes the Big 12 the most money per school. Big 12, SEC, Pac 12 and Big 10 all get $40 million for their bowl. ACC gets $27.5 million. SEC, Big 10 and Notre Dame split the other $27.5 from the Orange Bowl. Since the Big 12 splits 10 ways instead of 12 or 14, it makes the most per school. Pac 12 comes in slightly ahead of the SEC and Big 10, who are tied. ACC is well back.
LikeLike
They also play it after every tackle.
LikeLike
Is that Fight On or Conquest? I like the latter a lot.
LikeLike
Happy New Year!
With 7 games left, here’s the conference bowl win-loss records.
SEC: 5-2 with 4 left
P-12: 5-2 with 3 left
B1G: 5-3 with 2 left
CUSA: 3-2
MWC: 4-4
Sunbelt: 2-2
MAC: 3-4
B-12: 1-2 with 4 left
ACC: 3-5 with 1 left
AAC: 2-6
Ind: 0-2
LikeLike
The Vegas lines provide some context. The SEC was expected to go 9-1 (now 10-1), for example.
Better than expected:
B10: 5-4 (4-5); IN upset, NE and WI upset winners
On par:
ACC: 3-5 (3-5); Miami upset, Clemson upset winner
Slightly disappointing:
SEC: 6-2 (7-1 expected so far); TAMU upset
P12: 6-2 (7-1); USC and UCLA upset, WSU upset winner
B12: 1-3 (2-2); OU upset
LikeLike
Correction:
On par:
ACC: 4-5 (4-5); Miami upset, Clemson upset winner
LikeLike
The pairings this year were pretty good for both the Pac 12 and SEC.
LikeLike
ACC: 4-5 with 1 Left to Play.
Duke, VT, Louisville and Clemson won their bowls. Miami, Pitt, UNC, NCST,and FSU lost their bowl games.
LikeLike
Updated conference bowl win-loss records with only the CFP CG left.
SEC: 8-2 with 1 game remaining. (SEC breaks its old all-conference record of 7 bowl wins)
SEC West: 6-1 with 1 GR (My Tigers score more points in its bowl game than any other P-5 team)
SEC East: 2-1. (Mizzou could have played in a bowl but chose not to participate due to its losing record)
Pac-12: 6-4
P12 North: 4-1
P12 South: 2-3
B1G: 5-5
B1G East: 2-3
B1G West: 3-2
ACC: 4-5 with 1 GR
ACC Atl: 2-2
ACC Cstl: 2-3 (I had to look these nonsensical divisions up)
Big XII: 3-4 (Congrats to TCU for a great come from behind victory in one of the best bowl games I’ve ever seen)
CUSA: 3-2
MWC: 4-4
SunBelt: 2-2
MAC: 3-4
AAC: 2-6
Ind: 0-2
LikeLike
Overnight ratings from NYE games.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/01/college-football-playoff-ratings-down-new-years-eve-espn-overnights-alabama-msu-clemson-oklahoma/
9.9 for Bama/Mich St
9.7 for Clemson/Oklahoma
For comparison, last year’s semis pulled in a 15.5 for FSU/Oregon and a 15.3 for OhSU/Bama.
LikeLike
@Alan from Baton Rouge – Maybe this will finally jar the tunnel vision of the powers that be in college football that New Year’s Eve games are a bad idea. Going down by a third in ratings is *horrible* and isn’t just explained by blowouts. I know I was shocked that they wanted New Year’s Eve playoff games. ESPN certainly didn’t want them. Even dolts like Clay Travis knew this would tank. Heck, many of the same college sports leaders that put together the CFP knew enough to not out BCS bowl games on New Year’s Eve in the old system.
It’s crazy that many fans complain about how much college sports are revolving around maximizing revenue and placating TV interests, but very one thing where the interests of fans, making the most revenue and being best for TV align – the CFP – the powers that be suddenly care more about “establishing a new tradition”.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Maybe this will finally jar the tunnel vision of the powers that be in college football that New Year’s Eve games are a bad idea. Going down by a third in ratings is *horrible* and isn’t just explained by blowouts.”
I think they’ll rationalize this:
1. The NYE semis are a new thing and it’ll take time for people to adjust.
2. The games were ugly blowouts.
3. The brand power was down a little (MSU vs OSU).
4. The CFP isn’t a brand new thing this year – the first one was special.
5. It’s better than the Cotton or Cap 1 ever did in the BCS era.
6. It’s probably the best NYE bowl game numbers ever.
7. According to their release, they were the #5t and #7 non-championship CFB games for ESPN since 2000 (about 1350 games).
Other numbers from their release:
Peach – 4.0 (up 21% over last year)
NYE tripleheader average – 7.7 (up 79% from last year)
The other important note is that streaming was big and that isn’t reflected in the ratings.
Digitally, the Cotton Bowl and Orange Bowl become the second and third most-streamed games for any sport, excluding the World Cup, in the history of WatchESPN based on average minute impressions, with the Cotton Bowl adding 318,000 average minute impressions to its TV audience and the Orange Bowl adding 300,000 average minute impressions to its TV audience. Last year’s College Football Playoff National Championship (Jan 12, 2015) is the only game to top the New Year’s Eve semifinals.
Additionally, the Sooners-Tigers matchup had 1,188,000 unique viewers, the second most-ever viewers for any sporting event, excluding the World Cup, on WatchESPN. The Spartans-Crimson Tide game had 1,047,000 unique viewers, ranking fourth on that same list.
LikeLike
If you believe NYE playoff games are a good idea, one data point isn’t going to change your mind. The contracts are locked in for 12 years. After about 10 years (when the re-negotiation posturing begins in earnest), they’ll have enough experience to know for sure.
Remember, these are the same people who came up with weeknight BCS bowl games. Sooner or later, enough data accumulates that you simply have to admit you were wrong.
Bill Hancock is paid to make the best case he can for the system in place. He insisted for years that a playoff would be awful, only to become the guy in charge of it once the university presidents changed their minds.
LikeLike
As I showed above, weeknight BCS games didn’t do badly in viewership.
Compared to NYE semifinals, weeknight BCS games are an awesome idea.
LikeLike
As I showed above, weeknight BCS games didn’t do badly in viewership.
Compared to NYE semifinals, weeknight BCS games are an awesome idea.
But weeknight BCS games didn’t do as well as their NYD counterparts, which was why they didn’t continue scheduling them that way.
Part of the marketing spin of the New Year’s Six bowls was, “We want to reclaim New Year’s Day.” They then screwed the pooch by putting the best games on NYE four years out of every six.
LikeLike
“But weeknight BCS games didn’t do as well as their NYD counterparts, which was why they didn’t continue scheduling them that way.”
Nope, not true. As I posted above:
In fact, from 2002-2003 to 2010-2011, in 6 out of those 9 years, the BCS bowl with the worst TV ratings was the non-Rose NYD bowl and in none of those years did the non-Rose NYD bowl have the top ratings of BCS bowls, which means that holding bowls after NYD actually isn’t so bad, considering that none of them are the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
I’m not as pessimistic on these rankings as other because of the BCS weekday games. The thinking there was short term. Over the short term, those games would get the best ratings on their own prime time night. Long term though, their value declined as the specialness of New Years Day didn’t transfer.
The idea here is to have a larger event. Yes New Years Eve will always mean lower ratings, but it also creates an event that will continue to generate excitement and will allows for the New Years Day bowls to remain big in traditional start times.
Now it certainly can be argued putting the games on a rotating day after New Years (for the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta/Orange) would be better, but even though I didn’t watch these games as closely because of the day, I still didn’t hate the move.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The specialness of NYD isn’t transferring to NYE either.
And considering that NYE already has its own extremely entrenched social significance, there’s no way to spin this as anything but an eff-up of the highest order.
Putting semifinals on NYE is almost as boneheaded as putting the semifinals on Christmas.
If they wanted to make another day special for CFB, why not 1/2 instead?
LikeLike
I was surprised the 4:00 game did as well as it did. Many people are still working in that time frame, especially in the western half of the country.
LikeLike
It is easy enough to put a playoff game in the noon slot on NYD. The difficulty will be getting the Rose or Sugar to move. But then maybe those ratings on NYD will convince them. ESPN owns all the rights so they don’t have to be convinced to do something that maximizes their ratings.
LikeLike
Yep. The Rose is contractually tied to the NYD afternoon slot and the Sugar is contractually tied to the NYD primetime slot.
Personally, I believe that when the semis are not at the Rose & Sugar, holding them on the Saturday of the last NFL weekend (when there are no NFL games) makes the most sense.
LikeLike
Of course, an 8 team playoff solves the NYD issue. You put 3 of the 4 playoff games on then.
LikeLike
NYE is about women
NYD is about men
The drop in ratings should remind those making decisions that next to Valentines Day, New Years eve may be the second biggest date – or hope of a date – night of the year. You may get lucky and find a woman who will sit through 4 hours of football prior getting busy but I am guessing the majority want dinner and dancing in that 4 hours instead before giving up the booty.
They can talk about “establishing a new tradition” all they want but this is one time when women will want to maintain thousands of years of hardwiring to not make it happen.
LikeLike
Good grief…
Iowa is down 28 already…
LikeLike
LSU just hired Dave Aranda, formerly of Wisconsin, as its new DC.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/lsu/14452000-128/wisconsins-dave-aranda-named-lsus-new-defensive-coordinator
Should make the LSU/Wisconsin opener in Green Bay a little more interesting.
LikeLike
A lot of DC talent has left the B10 recently – Ash, Durkin, Aranda. I’m curious to see how their replacements do. And will Alvarez ever tap into his horde of cash to pay the assistants at WI or is he content to keep screwing over his successors? If WI wants to compete at the top level, that has to include salaries.
LikeLike
Actually, Ash and Durkin stayed in the B10, albeit with Rutgers and Maryland
LikeLike
But not as DCs, which was my point.
LikeLike
It’s not Alvarez, it’s the administration running the school. They would rather de-emphasize athletics. They hate that these coaches make more than the chemistry prof. Lack of admin support was the main reason UW athletics was bottom of the barrel for 3 decades. Barry’s hands are tied. The UW athletic department contributes nearly 10 million each year to the academic side. The AD is also helping to build/fund a student recreation facility.
Hard to compete when the school is siphoning AD revenues. They’ll likely kill the golden goose if they continue to push for more. Wisconsin has top 10 AD revenue but spends in the 60’s.
LikeLike
UW-Madison does benefit from being the only major football program (literally only FBS program) in a mid-sized state that doesn’t get recruited that heavily for football. That means that you folks get a bunch of walk-ons who turn out to be terrific FBS football players. Alex Erickson, Joe Schobert, Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, JJ Watt.
It’s frankly ridiculous. At one point this season, Bucky’s leading passer, rusher, receiver, tackler, and sacker were all former walk-ons (http://www.scout.com/college/wisconsin/forums/2560-football-board/14090773-walk-ons-lead-in-passing-rushing-receiving-tackles-sacks).
I’d say that those under-recruited walk-ons are worth an extra 2 4-5 star players each recruiting class and I believe is a major reason why Wisconsin leads the country in overperformance on the football field compared to how they recruit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/after-signing-day-wisconsin-makes-the-best-of-its-recruits/
Note that Mizzou (another program that is the only major program in a mid-sized state that isn’t known to be a recruiting hotbed is also top 3 in overperformance.
The other reason is that O-Linemen are the toughest recruits to project, so you don’t need a ton of 4/5-stars to build a good O-Line.
LikeLike
So, remember when I said I wasn’t thrilled about the NY6 match-ups this year for various reasons?
6 blowouts later and after experiencing NYE semifinals, I think a lot more people agree with me now.
LikeLike
Nonsense. Seeing ND get beat down is more fun than watching ND in a tight game.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/01/college-football-bowl-ratings-rose-sugar-down-fiesta-new-years-six/
And the numbers are in. The CFP (and lack of brands) are killing the Rose and Sugar.
Rose – 7.9
The 7.9 overnight is the lowest for the Rose Bowl since at least 2001, and likely ever.
It’s worst BCS rating was a 9.4 and it averaged almost a 12. I guess brands mean a little more to the Rose than some people thought.
Sugar – 5.3
Mississippi’s blowout win earned the lowest Sugar Bowl overnight since before the formation of the BCS, and the lowest overnight for any New Year’s night bowl game over the same span.
Fiesta – 6.2
Bucking the trend of declines was the Ohio State/Notre Dame Fiesta Bowl, which had a 6.2 overnight in the early afternoon window — up 35% from Boise State/Arizona on New Year’s Eve last year (4.6), but down 14% from UCF/Baylor on New Year’s night in 2014 (7.2).
It’s on par with the worst rating for any BCS Fiesta Bowl.
LikeLike
It’s worst BCS rating was a 9.4 and it averaged almost a 12. I guess brands mean a little more to the Rose than some people thought.
Yep. Four years out of every six, the Rose Bowl is going to be a consolation game for at least one, if not both, of the participants.
Having said that, ordinarily #5 vs. #6 is a pretty good match-up (on paper, if not in reality). Even under the former system, there were times they didn’t get a game that good. You have to think the ratings would’ve been better if #5 and #6 were Ohio State and USC.
This bowl season was a big victory for advanced stats. The metrics said that Stanford vs. Iowa shouldn’t be close—and it wasn’t.
LikeLike
To be fair, many/most fans didn’t think it would be close either. Only the rankings did.
LikeLike
I think it is a bit unfair to compare the ratings of this last weekend to the “BCS era.” Prior to 2010 or so, most of the “good bowls” were broadcast over the air. Since about 2010, all of them are on cable (ESPN). It seems more fair to compare apples-to-apples.
Rose Bowl for example: Here’s a link to the pre-2011 ratings. The Rose Bowl was on ABC and others (over-the-air) through 2009 season (the Jan. 1, 2010 game). After that, it’s been on ESPN. Cable ratings are always significantly lower. The rating for that last game (OhioSt vs. OR) was 13.1.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2010/01/rose-bowl-draws-239-million-viewers/
so since then:
Jan 1 2011 (TCU – Wis): 11.3 rating
2012 (Or – Wis): 10.2
2013 (Stan – Wis): 9.4
2014 (Stan – MSU): 10.2
2015 (semi-final; Or – FlorSt): 15.5
2016 (Stan – Iowa): 7.9
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/01/college-football-playoff-ratings-sugar-rose-most-watched-cable-programs-ever-oregon-ohio-state-alabama-fsu/
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/01/bcs-rose-bowl-tv-rating-hits-all-time-record-low-again/
I am not sure what to make of those numbers.
From Brian’s link above: “The full New Year’s Six averaged a 7.1 overnight rating, down 13% from last year’s 8.2.”
What’s the explanation? blow out scores? Stanford being up 28 to nothing before the end of the 1st quarter? MSU getting a bagel? Lack of brand names? Bowl fatigue? Just one of those years? The Playoff effect (i.e., ave. fan not all that interested unless his/her team is playing for the Nat. Champ.)? SEC fatigue? ‘Bama fatigue? the 1st year effect (i.e., last year’s ratings are anomalies because it was the first year of the CFP)?
As for the NYE vs NYD, there is this from Brian’s link: “[the non-playoff] games averaged a 5.8 overnight — up 26% from last year’s non-playoff slate. Keep in mind that three of last year’s four non-playoff bowls aired on New Year’s Eve, while three of this year’s four aired on New Year’s Day.”
note that last sentence: so going from NYE last year to NYD this year = 26% increase.
We know the NYE’s playoff games were down 36%: so going from NYD last year to NYE this year = 36% decline.
I will be interested to see the ratings for next Monday. my guess is that the ratings will be off 30-40% Last year’s NCG had a 18.6 rating. I am going to guess something between 12 and 13.0.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2015/01/ohio-state-oregon-ratings-college-football-championship-most-watched-cable-program-ever-trails-usc-texas-espn/
LikeLike
Buckeyebeau,
“I think it is a bit unfair to compare the ratings of this last weekend to the “BCS era.””
A little bit, but it’s the only data we have generally.
“Prior to 2010 or so, most of the “good bowls” were broadcast over the air. Since about 2010, all of them are on cable (ESPN).”
That’s roughly a 10% effect.
“Rose Bowl for example: Here’s a link to the pre-2011 ratings. The Rose Bowl was on ABC and others (over-the-air) through 2009 season (the Jan. 1, 2010 game). After that, it’s been on ESPN. Cable ratings are always significantly lower. The rating for that last game (OhioSt vs. OR) was 13.1.”
The BCS era had about a 12 average.* Apply the 10% reduction and you get 10.8.
* – This is removing the years it was the NCG, and starting with the 2002 season.
“Jan 1 2011 (TCU – Wis): 11.3 rating
2012 (Or – Wis): 10.2
2013 (Stan – Wis): 9.4
2014 (Stan – MSU): 10.2”
Average = 10.3, pretty close to that 10.8 from above. And that’s with an nontraditional match-up and no top brands.
“2015 (semi-final; Or – FlorSt): 15.5
2016 (Stan – Iowa): 7.9”
15.5 + 7.9 + 7.9 => 10.4 average over the CFP cycle
“From Brian’s link above: “The full New Year’s Six averaged a 7.1 overnight rating, down 13% from last year’s 8.2.”
What’s the explanation? blow out scores? Stanford being up 28 to nothing before the end of the 1st quarter? MSU getting a bagel? Lack of brand names? Bowl fatigue? Just one of those years? The Playoff effect (i.e., ave. fan not all that interested unless his/her team is playing for the Nat. Champ.)? SEC fatigue? ‘Bama fatigue? the 1st year effect (i.e., last year’s ratings are anomalies because it was the first year of the CFP)?”
It’s probably a bit of everything. I said last year that the 2015 playoff was an almost perfect storm in terms of brands. MSU instead of OSU is a drop. Stanford vs Iowa is a drop. All the blowouts hurt. Playing bowls after the semis instead of before probably hurt.
“As for the NYE vs NYD, there is this from Brian’s link: “[the non-playoff] games averaged a 5.8 overnight — up 26% from last year’s non-playoff slate. Keep in mind that three of last year’s four non-playoff bowls aired on New Year’s Eve, while three of this year’s four aired on New Year’s Day.”
note that last sentence: so going from NYE last year to NYD this year = 26% increase.
We know the NYE’s playoff games were down 36%: so going from NYD last year to NYE this year = 36% decline.”
Two years of data isn’t sufficient to determine the impact of NYE vs NYD, but I don’t think anyone would be shocked if it was a 25-33% effect.
“I will be interested to see the ratings for next Monday. my guess is that the ratings will be off 30-40% Last year’s NCG had a 18.6 rating. I am going to guess something between 12 and 13.0.”
Why would it drop so much?
LikeLike
Including a semifinal isn’t comparing apples to apples and you know it (and we know it), Brian.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Including a semifinal isn’t comparing apples to apples and you know it (and we know it), Brian.”
I have to include it to see how the Rose is doing in the CFP era. They get one semi every 3 years. I doubled up the non-semi to see what the Rose is on pace to average in the CFP era.
There’s no other way to compare the average ratings for the bowl over time.
LikeLike
Well, if you do that, then you have to count the national title game when the Rose hosts that as well during the BCS era. They were part of the 4-year rotation for that too.
Or you can use common sense and simply compare the Rose Bowls that aren’t in the playoff under both formats. Not sure why you don’t deem that possible.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Well, if you do that, then you have to count the national title game when the Rose hosts that as well during the BCS era.”
I don’t have to do anything. I leave it out because I don’t have data for all the BCS years. The lack of info for those years would skew the data as well. I choose to include none of those games and indicate that rather than include only half of them. Especially since the 1 Rose NCG in this case was the highly anomalous USC/UT game. It drew a 21.7 and no other NCG in my data set (2002-2012) topped 17.4.
“Or you can use common sense and simply compare the Rose Bowls that aren’t in the playoff under both formats. Not sure why you don’t deem that possible.”
Even you can manage to compare those numbers without my help since there’s been 1 of each.
I’m providing the next level of comparison which is how the Rose projects to do over time and how that compares between the BCS and CFP eras.
Adding in the data from beau’s link:
1995-1997 (pre-BCS): 17.8
1998-2013 (BCS): 12.9
BCS minus NCGs: 12.2
BCS NCG in Rose: 17.8
2014-2015 (CFP): 10.4*
Add the ESPN adjustment for 2010-2015 to level the playing field:
1995-1997 (pre-BCS): 17.8**
1998-2013 (BCS): 13.1***
BCS minus NCGs: 12.5***
BCS NCG in Rose: 17.8
2014-2015 (CFP): 11.6***
* Average assumes 2016 = 2015 for ratings.
** Those pre-BCS games might misrepresent the old average since 2 of the years had national title implications and the third was NW’s run to the Rose.
*** 2010-2015 games ratings bumped up 11.1% to better match the larger available audience on ABC. In the earlier post I reduced the old ratings by 10% to better match ESPN’s smaller audience. Same principle (100 * 0.9 = 90; 90 * 1.111 = 99.9).
LikeLike
i am bored this Sunday morning, so I am curious to see how all the bowls did in ratings.
Bottom line: who the hell knows.
I will take most of this from the sportsmediawatch website. I am just going to click on the “CFB” option and peruse the articles. Note: sometimes the article doesn’t give a rating, just the number of viewers. Also, unless otherwise stated, the games are airing on cable (ESPN or one of its sisters).
Another bottom line: through Wednesday, 12/30/15, ESPN aired 23 games. Only 6 were up. Of the 17 declining, 6 declined by more than 1/3rd. And we know what happened on NYE and NYD.
las vegas — ABC 2.2 rating (up 50%)
celebration – ABC 2.0 (new bowl)
new mex. bowl – 1.4 (up from 1.3 last year)
camiella bowl – 1.4 (up 133%)
new orleans bowl – 0.95 rating (down 41%) — six year low
miami beach – 1.2 million (down 13% from 1.3 million)
potato bowl – 1.1 million (down from 1.3 million viewers) — 8 year low
boca raton – 2.0 million (down 13% from 2.2 million)
Pointsettia – 1.4 million (down 44% from 2.5) — 9 year low
GoDaddy – 2.5 million (up 72%) – 3 year high
Sun Bowl – CBS 3.1 rating (up 31%) – highest since 2009
Pinstripe – ABC 2.5 rating (down from 2.6 rating last year)
San Fransisco Bowl – 2.3 rating on ESPN (4.0 million viewers up 25%) – 6 year high
Independence Bowl – 2.1 rating (down 16%)
St. Petersburg – 2.4 million (down 27%)
Heart of Dallas – 2.6 million (up 12%) — best ever for this bowl
Bahamas – 2.3 million viewers (up 43%)
Hawaii – 1.6 million (down 16%) – worst in 10 years
Detroit — 1.5 million (down 45%)
Military — 2.2 million (down 25%)
Texas — 5.0 million viewers (down 14%)
Russell Athletic — 4.2 million (down 14%)
Armed Forces — 1.9 million (down 10%)
Music city – 5.4 million (up 2%)
Holiday — 4.2 million (down 38%)
Birmingham Bowl — 2.4 million (down 46%)
Belk — 3.5 million (down 45%)
Cotton — 9.9 rating (18.6 million viewers (down 34% viewership from last year’s CFP 2/3 game)
Orange — 9.7 rating (15.6 million (down 45% viewership from last year’s CFP 1/4 game))
Rose — 7.9 rating (down 30% from the most recent non-playoff version of the game)
Sugar — 5.3 rating (down 43% from the most recent non-playoff version)
Fiesta — 6.2 rating (up 35%)
Outback (TN & NW) — could not find rating/viewership
Citrus (BWW) (MI & FL) — could not find
Peach (FLSt & Houston) — 4.0 overnight rating (up 21%)
Liberty (yesterday)
Tax slayer gator (yesterday)
Cactus bowl (yesterday)
Alamo Bowl (yesterday)
Cure Bowl (non-Neilson rated CBS Sports0 — could not find
LikeLike
Its the NYE hubris. The games on NYD are afterthoughts. They had the right idea with stopping later bowl games, but then the decided the world would drop all its NYE traditions and start watching college football. They managed to mess up both the playoff viewership AND NYD viewership. The bowls need to lead up to the playoffs.
LikeLike
Hmm. You have a point.
So the non-Rose/Sugar semifinals probably should be held on 1/2 (or a Saturday after NYD if it is the last NFL weekend of he year).
LikeLike
Actually, NYE if it is a Saturday would be fine. So if I was in charge, the non-Rose-Sugar semis would be on
1/2/2016 (Sat)
12/31/2016 (Sat)
1/2/2019 (Wed)
1/2/2020 (Thur)
1/3//2022 (Mon)
12/31/2022 (Sat)
1/2/2025 (Thur)
1/2/2026 (Fri)
LikeLike
Totally agree. While I watched most of the NYD bowls it wasn’t the same with the semi’s already finished. I consider myself a diehard CFB fan and I only casually caught parts of the semi-finals as I had another family over that evening.
LikeLike
Pretty similar for me.
LikeLike
The Rose still gets the highest TV ratings of any non-semifinal bowl. in the NY6 era, so it gets an extra boost despite the lack of brands. The Fiesta has the best brands possible this year and still can’t draw as well as the Rose.
LikeLike
The Fiesta has become the extreme worst example of “Studio Football”. it would be a better visual spectacle if it played (fully, as opposed to hole-in-sky) outdoors again at Sun Devil Stadium.
LikeLike
Why would ASU outbid U of Phoenix for me the privilege? What if unusual cold hit? It snowed horizontally during the Sun Bowl…
LikeLike
(response to CC Rider)…That was actual snow? I thought a trailer scraped its roof off at Customs.
LikeLike
😂
LikeLike
Looks like TCU really misses Boyken anchoring the defense. Oh wait…
LikeLike
Second half, sub Oregon and Adams…
The Valero Attrition Bowl.
LikeLike
Mark Helferich is a bad coach. He had 3 months to figure out how to mount an offense without Vernon Adams.
LikeLike
Naw. He recognizes his QB’s limitations and went and got a grad transfer – Adams. And he’s got another one coming in winter term (6 months earlier than Adams did last year). What he needs is a HS prospect that works out. But that didn’t seem to be any bigger a problem today than losing his grad transfer center. Not having a backup that can shotgun snap consistently is a bigger coaching problem.
LikeLike
Mark Helferich is a bad coach. He had 3 months to figure out how to mount an offense without Vernon Adams.
This is the same Mark Helfrich who coordinated Chip Kelly’s offense for four years, and then went 24-4 in his first two seasons in charge. I think he can coach. He certainly wouldn’t be the first guy whose team was screwed when its starting QB went down.
Having said that, it’s a recruiting fail when you’ve been there six years, and have to bring in a grad transfer to start at QB. You expect a drop-off when the Heisman Trophy winner leaves, but to have no one in the pipeline is hard to comprehend.
LikeLike
“This is the same Mark Helfrich who coordinated Chip Kelly’s offense for four years,”
That’s like saying that Buddy Teevens, that HC renowned for his success at Stanford and Dartmouth, was Steve Spurrier’s OC.
LikeLike
Except that Oregon has been pretty darn good with Helfrich as HC.
LikeLike
So, you think Kelly had Helfrich on the payroll to do….nothing?
(And anyhow, it seems you have no explanation for his continued success for two years after Kelly left, if it were true that he is “a bad coach”.)
LikeLike
On the issue of an expanded playoff, I truly believe putting in conference champs automatically will seriously impact the regular season over the long haul.
Right now, it literally is the case that games in September or October feel like do or die games. This gives that college football, despite being an inherently regional game, has a huge game almost every week that feels like national title eliminator game (or very close to it). That means a casual fan in Iowa sees a bigger impact of an early game like LSU vs. Oregon (random example). You have a game or several games like that every single week as even smaller teams can have a huge impact on the national title picture.
All of that goes away for most the season with automatic bids. If an ACC team is in the playoff regardless, I can about guarantee right now, I will be paying very little attention to the conference until November and I am close to a die hard. I will pay more attention in the Big Ten and I assume everyone else for their own conferences, but that will very much regionalize the game more so for the first 2 and half months of the year. That is pretty much what happened to college basketball (with a few other things knocking basketball too though). That is not good if what you want are national audiences for these games (including conference games).
LikeLike
There is no provably correct answer, but the points you’ve made defy rational logic in all sorts of ways.
In the past 60 years, just two Big Ten teams have won an AP national championship, and only Ohio State has done it more than once.(*) You cannot possibly believe that, with NC’s being so rare, teams were consistently selling tickets on the belief that each contest was a national championship elimination game. Fans are dumb sometimes, but they’re not that dumb.
[* Penn State won AP NCs in 1982 and 1986, but not as a member of the Big Ten.]
If your reasoning applied to the typical fan, then we ought to see a material decrease in each team’s support, as soon as that team is eliminated from NC contention, which for most occurs quite early in the season. And yet, this is not the case, because NC qualification is not the only reason, or even the primary reason, why they watch.
Basketball isn’t an apt comparison. With 68 teams making the NCAA tournament, much of the regular season doesn’t matter very much. With an 8-team football playoff, only five of 64 power five teams would have auto-bids. The rest would be competing against the mid-majors and independents for three scarce at-large bids, for which the non-conference resume would be crucial.
In September, your average Iowa fan isn’t going to say: “I know we’re going to win the Big Ten, and get an auto-bid, so those non-conference games are irrelevant to me.”
Last year, it so happened that Iowa went 12-0 in the regular season. In that rare circumstance, with an 8-team playoff, Iowa would’ve gone into the Big Ten championship game knowing that a loss would not end their NC hopes, since even at 12-1 the Hawkeyes were almost certainly going to be in the top eight. But how often do the Hawkeyes go 12-0? You could look that up.
By the way, I am not arguing for an expansion to 8 teams. But there are better arguments both for and against it.
LikeLike
Mark, Eric is talking about TV viewership, not butts in the seats. The folks who attend the actual games tend to be diehards, but big TV ratings are driven by casual fans, and what he said is absolutely true when it comes to TV ratings. A team in the top 5 vs. a random opponent doesn’t draw a little better than a team of roughly the same brand value but ranked #6-10 vs. a random opponent; it draws a ton better.
And when a team drops out of playoff contention (especially if they are not a king brand), their TV viewership numbers absolutely drop.
Just compare the TV ratings for Oregon games this year vs. last year.
LikeLike
What do tv ratings mean to over 100 schools if they are deemed irrelevant a couple weeks in (or during spring practice). They have significant interest in boosting contact, interest, visibility, among their fans that aren’t able to attend. What happens to donation levels when visibility increases vs decreases? That, and promotion/recruitment of donors of the future is where the real value to universities lie. It’s not maximizing ESPN’s short term profit by nationalizing a regional sport at long term cost, even if it is not cash but is opportunity cost.
LikeLike
ccrider, we aren’t going to agree here, but here is a few example of weeks where the current system makes people watch that will be lost with an expanded playoff.
Examples (some made up so I don’t have to look up actual games, but realistic type senarios):
Week 1: Northwestern vs. Stanford: Real game here. We all know watching this Stanford probably needed to win get a national title. They lost. Even being week 1 and a game that did not involve a king level program at all, this game mattered and if you are a casual fan, it was worth turning to see the outcome of a close game.
Week 5: #3 USC vs. Oregon State: Why should most the country care about this game given it is against a bottom feeder. Well if it is a blow out people don’t, but if it looks remotely close for awhile people will tune in as this will shake up the national title picture. USC will be hurt bad and others will be helped. This is far, far less relevant if the PAC-12 champ is in automatically.
Week 8: #1 LSU vs. #6 Alabama: The winner here is highly likely to make the playoff and the looser is likely out. That is a lot bigger than playing for an SEC West spot.
My counter example to all of these is basketball. I read yesterday there was a great game among top teams. I sadly, don’t care. I might have watched if I was home and channel searching, but I never would have made time for it as the game has zero impact on the rest of the season. Both teams will be top tournament teams and either could win next time.
Also, want to add that college football is unique in that there are many huge goals outside the national title. Everytime we add more teams to a playoff though, those other goals get reduced in prestige. Winning conferences and major bowl games matters more in football than similar level achievements in most sports and I don’t want to see those accomplishments diminished just so a few more teams play for a national title (with all but 1 still loosing).
We won’t agree here, but that is where I am coming from.
LikeLike
As for attending games and the like, I don’t think a larger playoff helps that either. Most teams will not be competing for a national title most years (not with 120+ teams) and if you diminish the other prizes (conference titles and major bowls), there is less reason to attend if the national title is the whole focus.
LikeLike
Eric:
You’re correct, we don’t agree.
Who would have cared more (or less) about a week one non conference game? Stanford wasn’t eliminated by that game.they were by being a conf champ, although with additional conference loss.
A USC loss to OrSU doesn’t hurt them in conference standings? As an aside a Oregonian friend likes to point out to me that OrSU is third in Pac wins over the last decade. Not sure that still true after this last winless conference season. Point is regional folk less likely to attribute bottom or king status based on vague, distant, out of date impressions.
LSU/Alabama winner gets into CCG and can then qualify. Both games become equally important, and the opponents games retain similar importance because…win and you’re in.
P.S. B1G/Pac Rose Bowl should always be champs. Screw the playoffs unless they want to treat it as a permanent semi (no arbitrary seeding).
LikeLike
Eric: you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
If you’re going to count games that (purportedly) become less compelling, because they’re no longer elimination games; then you have to count games that become more compelling because teams remain in the hunt for a NC later in the season.
If that’s what you’re trying to count — not that you’ve even made the case that that’s the right metric — then you need to tally both sides of the ledger.
And your examples don’t even stand for what you say they do. For example, Stanford’s loss to Northwestern in week 1 didn’t knock them out of playoff contention. Even with that loss and a late-season loss to Oregon, they were still 6th in the final committee ranking. Beat Oregon, and it is entirely possible that they are in the top 4.
My counter example to all of these is basketball. I read yesterday there was a great game among top teams. I sadly, don’t care. I might have watched if I was home and channel searching, but I never would have made time for it as the game has zero impact on the rest of the season. Both teams will be top tournament teams and either could win next time.
Basketball is different. Kansas and Oklahoma can punch their NCAA ticket now. There is practically no believable scenario where they’re not both tourney teams. An eight-team football playoff wouldn’t be like that. If you don’t win your conference, then you’re competing with 60 other power five teams, the independents, and the mid-majors, for just three at-large bids. That leaves very little margin for error.
It also means that every P5 team in the country has a path to the championship that doesn’t depend on a committee vote. By losing to Oregon in November, Stanford made the committee’s job easy. But suppose Stanford wins that game? Then you’ve got one undefeated P5 champs and four 1-loss P5 champs, with nothing but a vote of bureaucrats to determine which one is denied the chance to prove it on the field.
LikeLike
And if they are still in contention, then those ratings should stay up. One early loss doesn’t kill ratings for that team if they are considered a conference contender.
LikeLike
The point is though that those games are less national if a loss is not killer. If a team lossing doesn’t really matter or seem like it will, the stakes are far smaller than if a lose matters. The regular season has a lot of games that feel like do or die games and they aren’t just among teams hoping to just make the playoff. Those games legitimately knock out the best teams in the country. That puts a stake in them that you just don’t get elsewhere and everyone is watching everyone else.
LikeLike
FB needs stronger regional emphasis. Pandering to national brings in pandering to soccer mom and the casual, barely interested viewer (don’t even want to call them fans).
LikeLike
… when a team drops out of playoff contention (especially if they are not a king brand), their TV viewership numbers absolutely drop.
This seems to be an argument for keeping teams in playoff contention longer, exactly what an 8-team playoff format would do.
Yes, of course, individual teams are going to be bigger draws when they are having better seasons. But we are talking about the aggregate, not one team.
Just compare the TV ratings for Oregon games this year vs. last year.
You would expect a team that had the Heisman Trophy winner and advanced to the national championship game to have more of a following than a team that didn’t even win its division. This would be true regardless of the playoff format in place.
LikeLike
Again, but then you might need another 1 or 3 “connector” schools in the vector from east Texas to NYC metro area to make it work.
http://www.theuconnblog.com/2016/1/4/10682504/on-potential-big-12-expansion-and-what-it-would-mean-for-uconn
LikeLike
For me, UConn is in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” category.
LikeLike
Thought I would share this-Mack Brown’s atypical post game speech 10 years ago, after the greatest game ever played:
http://www.expressnews.com/sports/college_sports/longhorns/article/Ten-years-later-a-championship-speech-resonates-6734219.php?t=85551af545a2c336e3&cmpid=twitter-premium
A little reminiscing on the Texas board. That game had 64 players taken in the NFL draft, 30 in the first two rounds.
LikeLike
Also one of the more popular games ever played. Iowa-Stanford not so much. Lowest rated Rose Bowl ever at 7.4. Previous low was 9.4 2013 Stanford-Wisconsin. High was UT-USC 21.7.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/01/rose-bowl-ratings-lowest-ever-espn-stanford-iowa-viewership-college-football/
Sugar was the lowest rated in 25 years.
LikeLike
Take it for what it’s worth but fever pitch over at Mgoblog and a couple Michigan pay sites about the B1G expanding to 16 or even 18. The reason it is being taken seriously is because the guy who tweeted it has indeed been very accurate/prescient on Athletic department issues in the past. And a second, fairly reliable source has second it on a pay site. That fact is appears to be only UofM people chatter makes me less confident. I figured it would be the talk of the town here.
LikeLike
The B10 may be exploring it, but unless Texas has a change of heart or something even more outlandish, I don’t really see anything happening soon.
LikeLike
The person you are referring to does indeed have a pretty good track record of knowing insider-y things at Michigan athletics. Anyone he is talking to about expansion is probably 2–3 times removed from the coal face: there’s probably some smoke, but too soon to call it a fire.
LikeLike
Here’s a link to the MGoBlog discussion in case anyone wanted it.
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/b1g-expansion-18-teams-rumor
The basic rumor:
* B10 may expand to 18 with 2 divisions of 9
* He’s hearing OU but not KU
* Want big markets – TX (UT), DC (UVA? – UMD is already in DC) and/or Atlanta (GT)
So basically OU, UT, UVA and GT
I don’t see how the GoRs would allow this without some major shakeups, but let’s ignore that and go pure fantasy mode.
Divisions:
West: UT, OU, NE, IA, WI, MN, NW, IL, PU
East: OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, IN, RU, UMD, UVA, GT
Better balance than now in terms of brands.
Schedule:
9 games = 8 in division + 1 crossover (unless the RR is dropped)
10 games = 8 in division + 2 crossovers
That’s not enough games against the other division, though.
I’d rather try 3 divisions of 6 with the top 2 division champs meeting in the CCG.
By region:
W – UT, OU, NE, IA, WI, MN
N – MI, MSU, NW, IL, IN, PU
E – OSU, PSU, RU, UMD, UVA, GT
You’d have to lock a bunch of other games and they aren’t very balanced. Swapping NW and IL for WI and MN would help.
LikeLike
I think that 2 divisions can sill work with 16 school (you’d play teams in the other division twice in 8 years with no protected matchups, so at least still every school in the B10 once in a 4-year collegiate career.
With 18 schools, you might as well get rid of divisions and go with either 5 protected matchups (playing the other 12 schools every 3 years, like teams do now with schools in the other division that they aren’t tied to) or 3 protected matchups (playing the other 14 schools 3/7th of the time).
LikeLike
That’d be my preference as well, but I did divisions here because that was part of the rumor. Straying to 3 divisions rather than 2 was as far as I went.
LikeLike
Baseball season is getting closer…
LikeLike
Speaking of which, jumping in on the Twitter discussion, Edmonds was a great ballplayer and better than Edmonds, but Edmonds actually wasn’t that far off. In fact, while Griffey had some monstrous seasons with Seattle, after 30/in this millenium/with their second teams, Edmonds was definitely the better ball player. A lot of that came down to aspects that casual fans don’t appreciate as much: defense and walks. Edmonds got on base more often, and despite looking athletic, Griffey was a subpar fielder for most of his career (thanks to poor jumps on flyballs) while Edmonds was superb in the outfield. Junior was flashy and exuded star power, but was over-hyped while Edmonds was and still is underrated.
LikeLike
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/867237-ken-griffey-jr-where-does-he-rank-among-all-time-centerfielders
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/griffke02.shtml
Over-hyped might be an exaggeration. Advanced stats rate him as the #6 CF of all time, granted more for his offense than defense. And I don’t dispute he peaked in Seattle. But the hype was based on his time in Seattle and he was still a 3-time All-Star in Cincinnati. He was also injured a lot in his time in Cincinnati, so he was never the same player physically.
ESPN over-hyped his defensive prowess, but that’s what they do.
LikeLike
And Griffey becomes the first player to ever break 99% at baseball’s HOF, but still comes up short of being unanimous.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14517514/ken-griffey-jr-mike-piazza-voted-cooperstown-baseball-hall-famers
Mike Piazza is also, quite deservedly elected.
LikeLike
Griffey has “some” star power?????
Bonds was the best player in baseball before he started taking steroids. Clemens was dominant for a very long time.
Saw an article supporting the idea that Curt Schilling was losing votes because of his outspoken conservative politics.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Bonds was the best player in baseball before he started taking steroids. Clemens was dominant for a very long time.”
Too bad they chose to cheat. They still went up 7-8%, most likely because the new voting rules eliminated some of the oldest voters.
“Saw an article supporting the idea that Curt Schilling was losing votes because of his outspoken conservative politics.”
He was up 13% this year. He only went down from 2013 to 2014. He was up in 2015 and again this year.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/schilcu01.shtml
His regular season numbers weren’t always that special, partially because he played on some bad teams. He was “only” a 6-time All-Star.
LikeLike
Technically, neither Bonds nor Clemens was proven to have cheated, although they are widely suspected of having done so. Then there is the issue of “cheating.” MLB didn’t have drug policy for much of the time they played, so although they are accused of was illegal by federal law it was not illegal by MLBA rules.
The number of individuals who used PEDs during baseball’s steroid era is very large, maybe a majority of the stars did so. You will never know who did or didn’t. The only solution is to let all the stars in and simply note they played during the steroid era.
I’d let Pete Rose in, too.
LikeLike
Except that the rules against gambling on MLB games were very clear (and had been on the books for a long time) when Rose played. And nobody disputes that he gambled on baseball.
LikeLike
And nobody who ever watched him play thinks he ever gave anything less than 110%.
LikeLike
There’s a difference between letting him have a decision making role him baseball while he undoubtedly still has a gambling addiction and letting him be in the Hall of Fame.
LikeLike
I’m much more open to letting alleged PED user like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame since they had never been confirmed users and they were still Hall of Fame-level players even before their alleged use took place.
However, Pete Rose committed the cardinal sin in baseball regarding gambling. It doesn’t matter how great of a player he was (and he was certainly an unbelievable player). There is nothing more dangerous to a sport than those involved (whether players, managers or coaches) having a gambling interest on the outcome. What separates sports from the WWE is the fact that the fix is NOT in – if fans don’t have faith that the outcome is legitimate, then they will ultimately stop watching. Steroid usage and labor wars were speed bumps for baseball compared to the Black Sox scandal. The powers that be in baseball should always take a hardline against gambling and I fully support it.
I have no idea whether any of the rules put into place regarding PEDs and how Bonds, Clemens and their peers have been treated will be an effective long-term deterrent to future players trying to push the limits. However, I believe that the fact that Pete Rose isn’t in the Hall of Fame has been the ultimate deterrent to gambling in baseball. It shows that you can’t argue the fact that you never were proven to have gambled in your playing career ought to absolve you from being punished for gambling during your managerial career. Don’t let our nation’s general acceptance of gambling on sports and its variants (like fantasy sports) fool anyone into thinking that gambling *within* a sport ought to have more leniency. Pete Rose should NEVER be allowed into the Hall of Fame. In the context of professional sports, he committed the single greatest crime (as gambling directly puts into the question of the legitimacy of games themselves, which is what kills sports entirely more than any other type of scandal if they’re allowed to continue).
LikeLike
Further to the last point, the questions surrounding Bonds and Clemens are more about numbers inflation – how much did their PED use inflate their statistical numbers compared to their peers? That seems to be a more nuanced and difficult discussion as to whether they ought to be in the Hall of Fame.
In the case of Pete Rose, though, gambling is a strict liability issue (as it should be). If baseball starts making exceptions to gambling (even for post-playing day accolades like the Hall of Fame), then it completely undermines how seriously it takes it as a black-and-white issue. The only justification for letting Rose into the Hall is if MLB decides separately that it wants to relent on its stance on gambling as a whole and doesn’t consider it to be a critical issue anymore. Barring that, though, MLB should not be making exceptions whatsoever. The gambling rule is an issue where context is truly irrelevant and it’s a black-and-white application of a strict liability rule (unlike the steroids issue).
LikeLike
Not arguing for Pete’s inclusion, but just noting MLB and HOF are separate entities. MLB’s anti gambling stance wouldn’t/wasn’t effected by HOF regs any more than it is by myriad internet best of all time lists qualification standards.
LikeLike
Exactly. And interestingly, the HOF seems to take a harder line than MLB. MLB has been willing to consider reinstating him.
Pete Rose never threatened the integrity of the sport. He wasn’t the most talented, but he was the greatest competitor in the game. He didn’t get the nickname Charley Hustle because he ever dogged it. Reggie Jackson is probably the only other player as important to the sport during that late 60s to early 80s era.
The Black Sox threatened the integrity. Pete Rose broke a rule without threatening the integrity. Leaving him out of the HOF is just one of those ridiculous, mindless zero tolerance rules. Again, being involved with the game and the HOF are two different things.
LikeLike
“Pete Rose never threatened the integrity of the sport.”
He was managing a Major League Baseball team while betting on his team’s games. Some games he bet on, some games he didn’t. Some games he bet a lot, some games a little. His player usage in those games is questionable. He lied for years about betting on baseball, he lied that he didn’t bet on Reds games, he lied about everything, and only admitted the truth when he was publishing a book. He met with the commissioner in the past year, and initially lied and said he no longer bet on baseball, and then later in the interview he changed course and admitted he is still betting on baseball.
Some day, its practically guaranteed that he will admit he bet against the Reds while managing the team. But only if he is being paid to admit it.
During this time, he not only did he bet on MLB and on Reds games, but he lived with a steroid and coke dealer.
You have to be willingly ignorant to give Rose ANY benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
@greg
Also, keep in mind that even after he admitted to betting while he was managing the Reds, he always maintained that he never bet when he was playing only to have someone look over his tax records a few months back and discover that he did in fact bet when he was a player.
LikeLike
Although the HOF is technically separate, and can make its own rules, I have to agree that Rose should be permanently banned. At this point, there is nothing he could say to rehabilitate himself: he has lied too many times. Gambling on the sport you play (or manage/coach) has to be the one sin for which there is no tolerance.
LikeLike
Bullet:
It seems to me that the enticement of potential money through appeasing popularly held opinion that Pete was only a little pregnant was causing MLB to consider reinstatement. There was never any evidence against Shoeless Joe, except the coerced signing of a document he couldn’t read and that he was told would allow him to play again. He’s still out.
Pete is the greatest hitter/competitor we’ve seen, and he can lead any list of great players people want to put together. But he absolutely was the greatest threat to the game precisely because MLB wavered. I would have less of a problem if it was reversed and the HOF wavered. It seems the HOF is a better protector of the game than those actually entrusted with that charge.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“Technically, neither Bonds nor Clemens was proven to have cheated, although they are widely suspected of having done so.”
Bonds admitted to using the cream and the clear. He just denied knowingly taking PEDs. Multiple people close to Clemens say he did it. He admitted taking “B-12” shots which people have said is the code name for steroids. His wife claims the trainer injected her with all that HGH, as if she couldn’t have gotten it in a doctor’s office.
“MLB didn’t have drug policy for much of the time they played, so although they are accused of was illegal by federal law it was not illegal by MLBA rules.”
The BWAA writers seem to have decided it was cheating and only their opinions matter.
“The only solution is to let all the stars in and simply note they played during the steroid era.”
That is far from the only solution.
“I’d let Pete Rose in, too.”
He agreed to a lifetime ban. I personally think no person should be permanently ineligible for the HoF, but I can understand putting them in posthumously. There are 29 people permanently banned right now I believe, all of them for gambling or game fixing reasons.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I’m much more open to letting alleged PED user like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens into the Hall of Fame since they had never been confirmed users and they were still Hall of Fame-level players even before their alleged use took place.”
And Rose was a HoF player before any game he gambled on. The earliest accusations of him betting on baseball only go back to 1984. I get why MLB has to be staunchly anti-gambling, but the HoF doesn’t.
LikeLike
The BWAA writers seem to have decided it was cheating and only their opinions matter.
The BWAA writers are channeling widespread consensus of “what constitutes a hall-of-fame career.” They are not entirely deaf to wider commentary about who should/shoudn’t be in the Hall. Over the years, many people have lobbied for/against certain players, even if they lacked the formal power to decide. Collectively, that lobbying does have an effect, even though any one opinion matters very little.
LikeLike
Rose was a HoF player before any game he gambled on. The earliest accusations of him betting on baseball only go back to 1984.
That’s the gambling we know about. It would be surprising if we really know the full extent of what he did. At every turn, Rose has lied and denied the extent of his gambling before being confronted with the evidence. He is still doing it. It seems rather unlikely that someone who was practically addicted to illegal gambling starting in 1984, was squeaky clean before that.
LikeLike
He agreed to a lifetime ban.
Perhaps someone can explain this. I am aware that Rose signed a piece of paper agreeing to a lifetime ban. But the rules of baseball already called for a lifetime ban in that situation. So what exactly was he “agreeing” to, that wasn’t going to happen regardless?
LikeLike
In the original agreement with Rose, MLB made no formal finding in regards to gambling. Rose took the ban with the idea of being able to apply for reinstatement after a year, which would be possible since he was wasn’t officially found to have bet on baseball.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“That’s the gambling we know about. It would be surprising if we really know the full extent of what he did. At every turn, Rose has lied and denied the extent of his gambling before being confronted with the evidence. He is still doing it. It seems rather unlikely that someone who was practically addicted to illegal gambling starting in 1984, was squeaky clean before that.”
I didn’t say he started gambling in 1984. I said that’s the earliest any evidence or accusation from anyone claims he bet on baseball. He freely admits to betting on other things before that.
LikeLike
Greg
You have to be ignorant of Pete Rose to think he would put ANYTHING above winning. That’s not the benefit of a doubt. That’s years of watching him play from the time I started watching baseball in 1967 and hearing him over the years.
He’s a compulsive gambler now. We don’t know when he started. He shouldn’t be in any decision making position in baseball. But the Hall of Fame is not decision making. And there is not even an accusation after all these years of him gambling on baseball before he was a manager.
LikeLike
Also Greg, talking about him living with a coke and steroid dealer is a moral issue. It seems inappropriate. There are a lot of lowlifes in the hall of fame. OJ Simpson is in the pro football hall of fame.
Pete Rose is a gambling addict who was found guilty of tax evasion and hung out with some seedy people. So what? A Hall of Fame without Pete Rose has a huge hole in it and is just a hall.
Same goes for a hall without Barry Bonds. McGuire and Sosa who were prominent just because of home run hitting sprees during a relatively short period leave lots of grounds for doubt. Everyone knows when Bonds bulked up and he had HOF numbers before that.
LikeLike
You have to be ignorant of Pete Rose to think he would put ANYTHING above winning. That’s not the benefit of a doubt. That’s years of watching him play from the time I started watching baseball in 1967 and hearing him over the years.
If someone had asked you in 1985 whether you thought it possible that Pete Rose was gambling on baseball, I’m guessing you would’ve said no. Even what we now know he did goes against quite a bit of what we thought we knew about Pete Rose when we were growing up.
John Dowd, who investigated Rose for MLB, has said he had circumstantial evidence that Rose sometimes bet on the Reds to lose. He wasn’t able to prove it with sufficient reliability, and therefore that allegation didn’t make it into the formal report. As I said upthread, I would regard it as a practical certainty that Rose did more than what ultimately was established. After all, he has repeatedly denied every allegation until presented with more-or-less irrefutable evidence, and sometimes even then.
And certainly there must be questions about his in-game strategy and usage of particular players, given that he did not bet on every Reds game, and didn’t bet the same amount each time.
A Hall of Fame without Pete Rose has a huge hole in it and is just a hall.
As I understand, a number of Rose’s individual accomplishments are in the Hall. If the proverbial man from Mars visited the Hall, having known nothing before hand, it’s not as if he’d leave without having ever known Rose existed. They are simply denying him the formal honor of a plaque, which seems appropriate for a man that has not behaved honorably.
I realize that O.J. Simpson is in the pro football HOF, but 100% of his dishonorable behavior came after he had left the sport.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I realize that O.J. Simpson is in the pro football HOF, but 100% of his dishonorable behavior came after he had left the sport.”
And Ray Lewis will get in once he’s eligible in 2018 despite being involved in 2 murders. The NFL HoF is only about on the field performance while the baseball HoF looks at a slightly bigger picture. The NFL doesn’t generally give lifetime bans for gambling with only 3 people ever getting lifetime bans, all for fixing games. The closest was Art Schlichter, but he wasn’t officially given a lifetime ban. Pete Rozelle just refused to let him sign with yet another team (and denied one bid for reinstatement), but he was cut in preseason the year before so it’s not like anyone wanted him. He did go on to play in the CFL briefly and then the AFL.
LikeLike
“Mike Piazza is also, quite deservedly elected.”
Not bad for a final round (62?) selection Lasorda made as friendly gesture, picking a friends son.
Heard Griffey is the first #1 overall pick to get in on first ballot.
Bullet: if Griffey had been almost anywhere but Seattle Bonds might not have more MVPs.
LikeLike
In fact, although nine had been inducted those banned by MLB were eligible…until Rose. From wiki: “Following the banning of Pete Rose from MLB, the selection rules for the Baseball Hall of Fame were modified to prevent the induction of anyone on Baseball’s permanent suspension list, such as Rose or Shoeless Joe Jackson. Many others have been barred from participation in MLB, but none have Hall of Fame qualifications on the level of Jackson or Rose.”
LikeLike
nine = none
Makes a difference…
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose
In 1991, the Baseball Hall of Fame formally voted to ban those on the “permanently ineligible” list from induction, after previously excluding such players by informal agreement among voters.
They were technically eligible but had been blackballed. There was 0% chance of them actually getting voted in. They just formalized it as they recognized the potential for lawsuits and the pressure for putting in certain people.
LikeLike
My opinion on Rose: when he finally passes away he should be inducted with Shoeless Joe. A lifetime ban should be enough.
LikeLike
Maybe they need a small “Niche of Infamy” within the HoF for the disgraced people that still deserve entry like Shoeless Joe, Rose, Bonds, etc.
LikeLike
Brian – I visited the Baseball Hall of Fame last September after the LSU/Syracuse game. The Rose and Bonds records are recognized at the Hall. The Black Sox scandal and Shoeless Joe are also featured.
LikeLike
I know they are, but I still personally think the players should be in too. Posthumously so they can’t profit from HoF status, but the all-time leaders in hits and HRs should be in the hall. I’m fine with denoting their disgraced status on their plaques and/or by location. I think trying to be the moral police is the wrong choice for a HoF. PEDs keep you out but being known for doctoring the ball is fine? Gambling gets you banned but intentionally injuring other players is fine? What about off the field issues? Which ones are too serious to ignore?
I think they’re better off making a Hall of Greatness and ignoring all the side issues. Of course, I also don’t think a player should get 10 years on the ballot or that a person’s vote should change. A player either deserves HoF status or he doesn’t. Let the veterans committee consider anyone who earns fresh consideration later. Plus anyone who didn’t vote for a player like Griffey shouldn’t have a vote.
I’m not up in arms about it or anything. Baseball can do what they want and it doesn’t bother me. I just happen to disagree with their HoF policies a little.
LikeLike
I have no problem with Shoeless Joe. No evidence he ever gambled, took money, or did anything but try to win the series in question (and had a very good series, individually).
LikeLike
“No evidence he ever gambled, took money,”
Most of what I’ve read stressed that he did accept money to throw the series, but there wasn’t any evidence of throwing the series. Accepting money from gamblers with the explicit instructions to throw a World Series is a pretty big deal. You can still hit .375 and strike out at a key moment. His involvement, as maybe the best guy on the team, probably emboldened other players who may have not gone along with the fix if Joe wasn’t involved.
Some people want to portray Joe as a country bumpkin who didn’t understand what he was getting into, but he owned two successful businesses at the time of the fix and continued to be a successful businessman for the rest of his life.
I’ll trust SABR’s take over anything else on the internet:
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/7afaa6b2
Late in the season, first baseman Chick Gandil, the leader of the first group, concocted a plan to fix the coming World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. Jackson, according to his own later admissions, rebuffed Gandil’s first offer to throw the Series for $10,000 but he later agreed to participate after Gandil upped the offer to $20,000 – an amount more than three times his annual salary.18 Jackson had nothing to do with the planning of the fix; unlike Gandil, he had no contacts in the netherworld of gambling and nightlife. Joe’s participation consisted solely of trusting Gandil, a stunning amount of faith in a man whom he didn’t know very well. It was an incredible lapse of judgment, as well as a failure of character, on Jackson’s part.
Jackson, who ultimately received only $5,000, batted .375 against the Reds but failed to drive in a run in the first five games, four of which the White Sox lost (it was a best-of-nine Series that year). Chicago won the sixth and seventh games, but fell behind quickly in the eighth contest. Jackson belted a homer, the only one of the Series, and drove in three runs in Game Eight, but his production came too late. Cincinnati defeated the favored White Sox by a 10-5 score and won its first World Series title. Jackson tied a record with his 12 hits in the Series, but eight of the 12 came during the four games the White Sox tried to win. In Chicago’s first four losses, Jackson went 4-for-16.
Before going home for the winter, Jackson went to Comiskey’s office in the ballpark and waited to see the Old Roman. Jackson wanted to tell Comiskey about the fix and possibly to return the money he had received. He stayed for several hours, but Comiskey holed up in his office and Jackson eventually left without talking to the White Sox owner.
In February 1920 team secretary Harry Grabiner traveled to Jackson’s home in Savannah and signed him to a substantial raise, a three-year deal for $8,000 per year. Jackson operated a successful poolroom there and a dry-cleaning business that employed more than 20 people. He and Katie used the money he had received for fixing the World Series to pay for his ill sister Gertrude’s hospital bills.
LikeLike
Agreed. I was wrong.
He should stay out.
LikeLike
Rice and LSU adding another game to the series. In Baton Rouge 2018. This will be the 56th meeting.
http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/010716aac.html
LikeLike
Loki – Bring it on!
You’re more than welcome at my tailgate party.
LikeLike
We’re putting a travelling party together. We’ll talk again in eighteen months or so!
LikeLike
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/currency/media-buyers-espn-negotiating-20m-bowl-game-ad-makegoods/146777
Link related to Frank’s tweet and the money NYE games cost ESPN.
LikeLike
I find it hard to feel sorry for either side here. Why did ESPN promise such high ratings? They knew the games were moving to NYE and that the novelty factor was gone. ESPN hedged a bit by not selling out all their ad slots for the NCG and this weekend’s NFL playoff game (so they can give away those slots to makeup for not hitting the targets in the smeis), so clearly they knew underachieving was likely. They could’ve just lowered the ad rates and set lower ratings guarantees, but they didn’t.
Why did buyers expect a repeat of last year’s ratings? As people in the business, it should’ve been obvious to them that the ratings would drop, too.
Then there were some things in that article that seem clueless.
However, advertisers are concerned about next season’s potential audience levels for the games, which will also be televised on New Year’s Eve. Even if the ratings guarantees by ESPN are set lower, advertisers would prefer the games be moved to New Year’s Day or even on consecutive primetime nights, exclusive of New Year’s Eve, when more people would likely watch.
They’d rather go up against the NFL? They think that would get them more eyeballs? The BCS tried the weeknight thing and it didn’t go well as far as TPTB in CFB were concerned. They aren’t going to spread the semis over 2 weeknights, giving one team an extra day to prepare
and defeating the whole plan of taking back NYD.
Back to poor ESPN:
So ESPN is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, it has to keep its mouth shut and parrot the CFP’s belief that ratings will get better in subsequent New Year’s Eve telecasts, even though privately they believe that to be nonsense. It can’t been seen criticizing its long-term partner publicly. On the other hand, ESPN has to hear the wrath of its advertisers who saw their ad dollars spent on the severe under-delivery of the guaranteed audience for the two games.
There’d be less wrath if ESPN lowered the ad rates by 25-30% and set reasonable expectations.
And then there’s the NCG:
Fast forward to Monday night’s college football championship game with many buyers not sure that the ratings will match last year’s record numbers. This time, unlike the New Year’s Eve debacle, it would not be because of when the game is airing, but because of the two teams participating.
They might not be as high. That’s the risk you take. Don’t buy if the ads are too expensive.
But buyers are still concerned that shelling out as much as $1.3 million per 30 second spot might not get them the ratings they were guaranteed. And much like for the two semi-final games, ESPN did not leave much money on the table.
Last year’s game drew 33.4 million viewers and an 18.2 household rating, making it the most watched program in the history of cable. Buyers say in order for ESPN to bump up its asking price from $1 million per 30 for last year’s championship game to $1.3 million this year, it had to sizably increase its ratings guarantees.
That’s either ESPN getting greedy or recognizing that they vastly under-predicted the ratings for last year.
Media buyers are sympathetic to ESPN’s situation and are also appalled and angry at the attitude of the NCAA and the College Football Playoff committee and the public comments being made by their executives.
The buyers should learn that the NCAA has absolutely nothing to do with any of this and also should stop sympathizing with ESPN. Nobody forced ESPN to set the ratings guarantees and ad rates where they did. The CFP committee is who they are and ESPN knew who they were dealing with when they signed the contract.
The CFP’s Hancock told The New York Times this week, “We don’t make decisions based on television numbers. I don’t have a TV number that influences my measurable for success.”
I bet that sentiment changes a little when we near the next negotiation with TV. 7 more years like this past one will really hurt the bidding for the next deal.
LikeLike
The CFP’s Hancock told The New York Times this week, “We don’t make decisions based on television numbers. I don’t have a TV number that influences my measurable for success.”
I don’t doubt he said that. I am hard pressed to imagine that he actually believes it.
LikeLike
I think the CFP is in a tough spot because of all their various constituents. I think they are right not to want to push later in January because the NFL playoffs dominate all sports talk and coverage. Going earlier devalues games. The ideal time would be what they get 1/3 of the time now – NYD in late afternoon and at night.
Unfortunately, the Rose won’t move off of it’s slot at 5pm ET because the parade (2011 got 47M viewers in the US + 28M internationally) is a fixture on 1/1. Some people have suggested that the CFP should just play at the same time to kill the Rose Bowl, but the B10 and P12 would never support that and probably not the B12 and SEC either (to protect the Sugar Bowl). Likewise, I don’t think the Rose would give up it’s traditional match-up to become a permanent semifinal. The Sugar has less need to be in it’s time slot except the B12 an SEC want to keep their version of what the B10 and P12 have in the Rose Bowl.
However, the ratings this year for the Rose and Sugar may start to persuade TPTB that something needs to change. Blowouts being played after the semifinals aren’t attractive.
In a nutshell, the problem is that their are 4 prominent games to fit into NYD but only 3 normal TV windows and 2 are locked up exclusively.
Some options:
1. Go to 4 TV windows on NYD with some game overlap.
2. Stop using bowls and stage the Semifinals at 4pm and 8pm on 1/1 and let the Rose and Sugar adjust to it.
3. Stop using bowls and stage the Semifinals on the best day in the calendar (the NFL week 17 Saturday or whenever). Put all the major bowls on NYD to still own the day.
4. Play the semis earlier and put the NCG on NYD.
LikeLike
5. Use NFL Week 17 Saturday when its not the Sugar Bowl / Rose Bowl, and NYD when it is. And shuffle the rotation if need be to make sure the year that NYD is on Saturday, the Sugar Bowl / Rose Bowl has the semi-finals.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14530019/national-association-coaching-equity-development-proposes-eddie-robinson-rule-requiring-interviews-minority-candidates
The NAFCED (replaced the BCA) is asking NCAA schools to adopt an equivalent of the NFL’s Rooney Rule requiring a minority candidate to be interviewed for all HC and executive administrative positions (president and AD).
LikeLike
Prediction thread:
Way up above, I threw out a thought on what the ratings would be for Monday’s CFB NC game.
I said:
“I will be interested to see the ratings for next Monday. my guess is that the ratings will be off 30-40% Last year’s NCG had a 18.6 rating. I am going to guess something between 12 and 13.0.”
Brian responded and asked:
“Why would it drop so much?”
In response, I say that I honestly have no inside information. It is just a gut feeling.
My gut says there was 2-3 rating points in last year’s viewership that was based on novelty. There was also 1-2 extra points in the B1G and PAC12 matchup, in the brands involved and in the fact that no SEC team was involved. That last point is not a negative; just my sense that SEC fans will watch ANY football, whereas non-SEC fans won’t at least not to the same degree. So, a non-SEC NCG will get an extra point or two from the SEC fanbase. I could be wrong. I have no way to prove that; just my feeling.
Add to that my view the Clemson just doesn’t move the needle as they say.
Finally, we have the entire CFB post-season which has been down significantly.
I’ll stand on my prediction of Monday getting somewhere between a 12.0 and 13.0 rating.
LikeLike
I agree it’ll be down, I just don’t think it’ll drop that much. I’ll guess it pulls around a 15.7 assuming a competitive game.
LikeLike
Mr Rose wants to know if there is any action on these predictions, and can he get in on it.
LikeLike
But he’s just asking for a friend, right?
LikeLike
I’m feeling a little more optimistic today, so I’ll bump my guess up to 16.5 if it’s a good game.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14531081/bill-hancock-cfp-executive-director-foresee-semifinal-games-being-moved-new-year-eve
“I was surprised,” Hancock said on Friday. “We thought they might be down a little bit, but they were down more than I anticipated. But we have to remember that we had those noncompetitive games. We know what the factors were. … We got a little unlucky with the noncompetitive nature of the games. We’re just going to have to look at it over the months ahead, but we just don’t anticipate any changes.”
…
“I’m confident we’re right to get the games back into the holiday period,” Hancock said. “That was a good move for us. We heard from people in the BCS. January 2, 3, 4, 5 just wasn’t working. I think we were on the right track for that. We’re just going to have to look and see about New Year’s Eve.”
Hancock said one year doesn’t make a trend and that the ratings plunge would not prompt the CFP to consider expanding the bracket from four teams to eight.
“I don’t want you to read too much into the numbers,” Hancock said. “We’re not going to. We are not making decisions based on the numbers, and we’re not making decisions based on one year.”
…
“I absolutely understand every fan who was unable to see the games,” Hancock said. “What we don’t know is how many people were unable, how many people tuned in and then tuned out when the games were not competitive, and how many people chose to do something else.”
…
“We are embedded in the bowl system,” Hancock said. “We believe the bowls are good for college football, and we wanted the semifinals to be a part of the bowls. We had a conversation early on when we were thinking about the playoff about whether we could have the semifinals outside the bowl system, but intentionally kept it in the bowl system.”
I do think the numbers would’ve been better if the games were close. Look at the crappy Rose Bowl number. Especially on NYE, people will tune out if the game isn’t compelling.
LikeLike
TPTB in CFB decided on NYE instead of after NYD for the non-Rose&Sugar semifinals because they are arrogant doofuses who don’t even bother to look at history (Bowl Coalition bowls on NYE didn’t draw that well and also had trouble selling out).
Ratings for the BCS games after NYD were oftentimes better than the primetime NYD BCS game.
It’s possible that selling tickets to the non-semifinal NY6/BCS games if held after NYD would be tougher than on NYE, but 5K extra tickets sold does not outweigh several million less viewers.
LikeLike
Richard,
“It’s possible that selling tickets to the non-semifinal NY6/BCS games if held after NYD would be tougher than on NYE, but 5K extra tickets sold does not outweigh several million less viewers.”
That depends on who you ask. The bowls care about butts in seats more than eyeballs. ESPN cares about eyeballs over butts in seats. The CFP committee seems to agree more with the bowls than with ESPN.
LikeLike
Which is idiotic.
Which brings in the schools more money?
LikeLike
Doesn’t the Rose Bowl payout swamp the CFP payout, even in non semi years? I’d stick with the bowls interest anyway, but that’s just me.
LikeLike
The size of the Rose payout is also due mostly to TV rights, not ticket sales, however.
LikeLike
Significant, yes. But mostly due to TV? Each $10 of ticket price is worth about $1M. Plus Rose Bowl mugs, hats, shirts, jackets, seat cushions, whatever other collectible game paraphernalia. Plus parking and concessions. Isn’t it the Rose Bowl that gets paid naming rights (The Rose Bowl, presented by [your name here]? What kind of cut do they get from official sponsors and lodging?
Even if TV is a majority, that’s between the RB and ESPN. Though the B1G and PAC I’m sure are closely consulted the CFP cannot dictate to the RB. And apparently they haven’t made in a financial incentive worth disrupting the entire Tournament of Roses set up.
LikeLike
ESPN is paying $80M to show the Rose Bowl every year. Do Rose Bowl tickets average $800 face value? And there are significant expenditures that come with dealing with a huge crowd as well. I believe OSU and UMich net close to $10M/home game, and they have stadiums just as large as the Rose Bowl.
In any case, why are you bringing up the Rose Bowl? The discussion is whether the non-Rose/Sugar bowls should be on NYE or after NYD and you haven’t shown how prioritizing a few thousand more ticket sales instead of a few million more TV viewers for those bowls is not short-sighted, arrogant, and asinine.
LikeLike
Also, those naming rights are valuable _because_of_TV_.
If those games aren’t shown on TV, those naming rights would be worth significantly less.
LikeLike
I agree NYE is a poor choice for viewership, especially when it’s not on a weekend. However, this was all predictable (note the thousands of “I told you so’s.”) and was, or should have been anticipated.
CFP isn’t obligated to maximize ESPN’s revenue. There was a deal made and ESPN can bid differently next time the deal comes up, if they so choose. For viewership, this year was disappointing. But maybe it served non monetary or viewership related goals that average fans and other non school presidents/chancellors don’t understand or value.
LikeLike
There are other things of value besides money.
LikeLike
This.
LikeLike
So what would those inportant things be that would justify semifinals on NYE rather than after NYD?
What are these magical non-monetary goals that average fans don’t understand?
Do either of you understand them?
Have they been articulated by TPTB? Presumably if they are important to TPTB, they would be articulated through their spokesman Hancock, no? If not, why not? Would they have good reason to hide their true motives?
LikeLike
There are other things of value besides money.
This is entirely true, but in this case I am pretty sure TPTB were trying to maximize revenue. Post-NYD bowls had already been judged a failure, and there weren’t enough time slots on NYD itself (assuming the Sugar and Rose are protected), so they said, “Let’s try NYE.”
So what would those inportant things be that would justify semifinals on NYE rather than after NYD?
In addition, I do think that they wanted dates more convenient for fans who would attend the games in person. And they wanted each semi-final winner to have the same number of days to prepare for the final.
LikeLike
Richard,
“So what would those inportant things be that would justify semifinals on NYE rather than after NYD?
What are these magical non-monetary goals that average fans don’t understand?”
Tradition, preserving the bowl games, the relationships with the bowls, fans who actually attend the bowl games, …
“Do either of you understand them?”
Only TPTB can answer that.
“Have they been articulated by TPTB?”
Yes.
“Presumably if they are important to TPTB, they would be articulated through their spokesman Hancock, no? If not, why not? Would they have good reason to hide their true motives?”
They aren’t obligated to explain themselves to you, but they said why they did it when they made the decision.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“This is entirely true, but in this case I am pretty sure TPTB were trying to maximize revenue.”
They’ve put way too much effort into preserving the bowl system to be trying to maximize revenue.
“Post-NYD bowls had already been judged a failure, and there weren’t enough time slots on NYD itself (assuming the Sugar and Rose are protected), so they said, “Let’s try NYE.””
If they wanted maximum revenue, the 2 semifinals would always be the last 2 games on NYD. Letting the Rose and Sugar lock down those spots show they had a different priority in mind.
LikeLike
If they wanted maximum revenue, the 2 semifinals would always be the last 2 games on NYD. Letting the Rose and Sugar lock down those spots show they had a different priority in mind.
The Rose and Sugar are worth far more than any other bowls. Since the Rose/Sugar participants comprise four of the five P5 conferences, no one was going to get anything would put those two bowls at a disadvantage.
The ACC and G5 leagues might have chosen a different schedule, if they could, but they didn’t have the power to override the B1G, P12, SEC, and B12, as long as those four stayed together.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The Rose and Sugar are worth far more than any other bowls. Since the Rose/Sugar participants comprise four of the five P5 conferences, no one was going to get anything would put those two bowls at a disadvantage.
The ACC and G5 leagues might have chosen a different schedule, if they could, but they didn’t have the power to override the B1G, P12, SEC, and B12, as long as those four stayed together.”
Which just reinforces my point. TPTB aren’t trying to maximize the CFP revenues so much as promote their own best interests, whatever they think those are, and then make some accommodations for increasing revenue.
They could’ve gone to 8 if they really wanted maximum revenue, but they didn’t. They could have worked outside of the bowl system, but they didn’t. They could’ve let TV dictate the game times and dates, but they didn’t. Maximum CFP revenue is not their motivating factor.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Tradition”
You mean the 3 year tradition of having major bowl games on NYE back in the ’90’s (vs. the tradition of a couple decades or so of major bowl games after NYD)? That’s poor reasoning.
“Preserving the bowl games”
They were preserved even when they were played after NYD.
“The relationships with the bowls”
The bowls are dependent on college football. Not the other way around.
“Fans who actually attend the bowl games”
The difference between NYE and 1/2 is 2 days.
They aren’t obligated to explain themselves to you”
Sure, if they want to be seen as clueless arrogant nitwits.
LikeLike
“If they wanted maximum revenue, the 2 semifinals would always be the last 2 games on NYD.”
However, even if there are good reasons to not hold the semifinals on NYD, 1/2 would still be a far better choice than NYE.
LikeLike
“TPTB aren’t trying to maximize the CFP revenues so much as promote their own best interests, whatever they think those are, and then make some accommodations for increasing revenue.”
Or they are clueless arrogant nitwits who misjudged and actually didn’t end up maximizing their top interests.
Not sure why you’re so unwilling to accept that as a possibility.
BTW, an 8 team playoff wouldn’t bring such a big windfall. They’d probably draw as well as the non-semifinal NYD games do now, and those would be cannibalized.
LikeLike
To reinforce that last point, holding the semifinals on NYE also dampened interest in the NYD games, as Bullet said. I think you’ll agree that the TPTB did not have that as one of their goals.
LikeLike
Joe Nocera of The New York Times has a proposal for paying college athletes, a revision of an idea he wrote about four years ago.
My posting it here is not an endorsement: indeed, I think quite a bit of it is ridiculous, although there are a number of components to his proposal, and some are better than others. I do believe that college athletes ought to be allowed to hire agents and profit from their likeness, autographs, and such.
But the ridiculousness starts right at the very start, with the caption under the lead photo: “Power 5 programs like Michigan’s, where Coach Jim Harbaugh made $7 million this season, could easily afford a combined salary cap of $3.65 million for men’s basketball and football teams.”
The salary for the head coach at Michigan is obviously not indicative of what every Power 5 program could afford. (Also, I am pretty sure Harbaugh’s salary included a signing bonus that he isn’t going to get every year, although it is still a lot of money, even if you exclude that.)
LikeLike
Some other parts of his plan:
* Partial anti-trust exemption (needed for salary capping)
* Cut football down to 60 scholarships (more people have to play hurt and fewer people get scholarships)
* $25k minimum salaries = half of the cap, the rest is free market
* Unionized players
* Olympic model applies, too
* Players also get a share of all TV and marketing money (10% at first then escalating) that will fund lifetime health care coverage for all of them
* Eligibility stays at 4 years but players get 8 years to graduate (they essentially are just pro players and then they get free school later)
* Assume litigation will negate Title IX from applying
LikeLike
* Cut football down to 60 scholarships (more people have to play hurt and fewer people get scholarships).
One of his worst ideas. He thinks it’s okay, because 60 is closer to the size of an NFL roster. But NFL teams are allowed to fill roster gaps by trading with other teams or signing free agents, something that schools can’t do. (If he’s proposing to change that, he doesn’t say so.)
I think the outcome of such a rule is not necessarily guys playing hurt (maybe some of that), but rather, a lot of guys playing who just aren’t very good: walk-ons, true freshmen, and bench warmers. The worst guy on an NFL roster is still a lot better than most college teams’ 60th-best player.
LikeLike
Walk-ons. Every school has some. Big schools usually have 25-30.
I think they should drop to 75. The only reason to have more than 60 is to allow the powers to have more certainty about being good. If you have 60, there would be more equality as injuries, grades, etc. would reduce the consistency of the advantages of the biggest programs. And it would also force schools to reduce their number of grade risks. That is a very good thing. Ask North Carolina.
LikeLike
Your proposed 60 is lower than even FCS. Once it comes to that, why have athletic scholarships at all? The Ivies and all of Division III don’t give athletic scholarships, and they still play the game.
LikeLike
I remember when the pros had 40 man rosters.
When the NCAA used to limit teams to 60 man traveling squads.
60 players is enough for 2 full teams of offense and defense, 2 kickers and 14 extras for injuries and grades. And that doesn’t count walk-ons. There is ZERO need for more than 60. Its nice to have, but absolutely not necessary.
And actually FCS has 85 players too, they just spread their 63 scholarships over 85.
LikeLike
I remember when the pros had 40 man rosters.
The pros can sign free agents at any time. Colleges can’t.
When the NCAA used to limit teams to 60 man traveling squads.
That was 60 for any given travel game, not 60 for the whole season.
There is ZERO need for more than 60. Its nice to have, but absolutely not necessary.
There is zero need for athletic scholarships at all.
LikeLike
I don’t think you understand how much college faculty and administrators are committed to the student/athlete myth. Then there is the fact that most athletic departments in Division I lose money. Even many football programs lose money. Open professionalization would lead many major (a la Ohio State, Notre Dame, et al) to drop intercollegiate sports.
LikeLike
I don’t think you understand how much college faculty and administrators are committed to the student/athlete myth.
Why do you think we don’t understand that?
Then there is the fact that most athletic departments in Division I lose money. Even many football programs lose money. Open professionalization would lead many major (a la Ohio State, Notre Dame, et al) to drop intercollegiate sports.
Yes, that is the fatal flaw in his proposal. I think Ohio State and Notre Dame would still find ways to field football teams. But I’m not sure Wake Forest would.
As I mentioned, he takes what Michigan can afford as a proxy for what everyone can afford, which is silly.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“I don’t think you understand how much college faculty and administrators are committed to the student/athlete myth.”
Who is that directed towards? None of us supported his plan. I think it’s so ludicrous I didn’t even bother to comment it on it beyond bullet pointing his silly ideas.
“Open professionalization would lead many major (a la Ohio State, Notre Dame, et al) to drop intercollegiate sports.”
If push came to shove, I really wonder how many schools would actually drop top level athletics. They have an awful lot of debt to service in most ADs and CFB and MBB are what provide the resources to pay off that debt. And what do you do with a giant football stadium if you drop down? They cost millions to maintain but some of the older ones are historical buildings so you can’t just knock them down.
LikeLike
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBC_PLAYOFF_TRAVEL_AND_TICKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-09-18-33-05
I will just put this here and reference my prediction above concerning the ratings for Monday’s NCG.
LikeLike
Expensive flights mean more people at home to watch. It’s no shock that AL fans aren’t thrilled about a $1500 flight for yet another NCG.
LikeLike
When you put forth a rebuttal like that, it makes me question your IQ, Brian. Even if every single person who goes to a stadium to watch stays at home to watch it on TV, it would not move the TV viewership needle.
LikeLike
It wasn’t a rebuttal. I already agreed with him up above.
LikeLike
Most interesting moment of today’s press conferences.
Stewart Mandel added,
Dan Wolken @DanWolken Nick Saban, Dabo Swinney call for changes to NFL draft process http://usat.ly/1P05FMq via @usatoday
Stewart Mandel @slmandel · 1h1 hour ago
Greg Sankey mostly deflected questions about NYE playoff games. But he did reiterate that the SEC-Big 12 Jan 1 Sugar Bowl’s not moving.
Stewart Mandel @slmandel · 1h1 hour ago
For those hoping for Big 12 expansion … Next week’s NCAA convention just got very interesting.
Stewart Mandel @slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
John Swofford on conference title game deregulation: “A year ago I thought that would have passed easily. Now we’ll have to see.”
Stewart Mandel @slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
Sankey: The SEC Big 12 prime time Sugar Bowl is important to them. “We will protect that.” No talk of moving it so playoff not on NYE.
Stewart Mandel @slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
Sankey said there is an “openness” to explore options for Big 12 to host a title game with 10 teams, but they are happy with status quo.
Stewart Mandel @slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey just said he will not support ACC/big 12 title game deregulation as originally proposed. Vote is next week.
LikeLike
And the B12 is really being helpful.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/big-12-championship-game-expansion-bob-bowlsby-sec-greg-sankey-ncaa-rule-change-vote-011016
Reached by phone Sunday morning, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said: “We continue to support full deregulation and believe conferences should have full prerogative on how they conduct competition. Having stated our first preference, I believe we can find a compromise that will work.”
Asked if that compromise could include two divisions, Bowlsby said: “We do not want to add members or be forced to play two divisions. Any compromise would have to consider those two provisions.”
So they’re willing to compromise, they just refuse to expand or make divisions. They might consider some lesser restriction.
That sort of attitude is what leads to rules working against you.
LikeLike
I’m sure the Big 12 would find a compromise. They’ll expand if the Big 10 sends Nebraska back. They’d find a #12. And the Big 10 could give UConn a home.
LikeLike
This seems just as likely:
B12 adds UConn, USF, SDSU, and Boise St. They rename themselves the FCC – the Four Corners Conference (ironically with no schools in any of the four corner states).
LikeLike
If they did go with the Four Corners Conference, replete with a snappy new logo, would former Chicago Police Department personnel be up in arms as they were with the earlier drafts of ASU/Sparky redesign and with the city sticker design of few years ago?
LikeLike
bullet,
“I’m sure the Big 12 would find a compromise.”
They haven’t so far. In fact, they are refusing the compromise the others are offering (you have to form divisions to have a CCG). I have yet to hear any counteroffer from the B12 that is a compromise, just statements that they want it all their way.
The B12 has 5 choices so far:
1. Keep the status quo.
2. Expand to 12+ and get the option for a CCG.
3. Accept the proposed compromise and split into divisions to stage a CCG.
4. Negotiate a different compromise.
5. Bitch and moan about how mean everyone else is for not giving them what they want.
So far they have chosen option 5. I’d suggest that options 1, 3 and 4 all make more sense for them depending on how badly they want a CCG, and option 2 might depending on the numbers.
LikeLike
So they’re willing to compromise, they just refuse to expand or make divisions. They might consider some lesser restriction.
That sort of attitude is what leads to rules working against you.
Why should he bend over to get spanked by Jim Delany? That might be the probable result in the end, but why do it voluntarily? Expansion, of course, is an option he’s had all along, so that isn’t any kind of compromise at all.
Divisions are fairly transparently meaningless in a 10-team league that plays 9 conference games. We’ll never know for sure, but I think even Jim Delany knows they’re meaningless. Delany knows he lucked into a rules structure that puts Bowlsby at a permanent disadvantage, and he doesn’t want to give that up. Passing a rules so stupid that no one is likely to exploit it, is one way of going about it.
LikeLike
A CCG in a full RR league is also meaningless, except for creating an extra data point. The “stupid” rule is what he has proposed amending. Allow the thirteenth data point for small conferences that don’t require a CCG, but don’t allow it to become an invitational subject to opinion, polls, or eyeball tests.
Anarchy is not necessarily a virtue. Or even a system, let alone a consistent method of arriving creating apples to apples comparisons.
LikeLike
A CCG in a full RR league is also meaningless, except for creating an extra data point.
You are absolutely correct. That “extra data point” is all that Bowlsby wants…no more and no less. I don’t think he has claimed otherwise, so he is at least consistent. What he seeks is the same number of data points that his competitors have, not any more.
Allow the thirteenth data point for small conferences that don’t require a CCG, but don’t allow it to become an invitational subject to opinion, polls, or eyeball tests.
Has anyone proposed that? Not that I recall. I think a “compromise” which prohibits selecting the two teams based on “opinion, polls, or eyeball tests” is probably the sort of compromise that Bowlsby would gladly accept, assuming that’s what Jim Delany is worried about (which I don’t believe it is).
I would note that even the Big Ten uses the CFB committee ranking as a tie-breaker in certain cases. It’s not the first tie-breaker, but it could apply in some situations. So apparently Jim Delany doesn’t oppose using “opinion, polls, or eyeball tests” to choose CCG participants, if other (more conventional) measures fail to produce a clear division champion.
LikeLike
“…but don’t allow it to become an invitational subject to opinion, polls, or eyeball tests.
Has anyone proposed that? Not that I recall.”
In the absence of prohibition no proposal is required.
“I think a “compromise” which prohibits selecting the two teams based on “opinion, polls, or eyeball tests” is probably the sort of compromise that Bowlsby would gladly accept,…”
Apparently not gladly, as that is precisely what the divisions required provides.
“I would note that even the Big Ten uses the CFB committee ranking as a tie-breaker in certain cases.”
Are you suggesting we need an additional (14th) game exception in order to break division ties? Or perhaps have the conference season incorporate a full single elimination bracket?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Has anyone proposed that? Not that I recall.”
That is an inherent part of a proposal for complete deregulation. It allows for people to select teams in any manner they wish, be they objective or subjective criteria. An early Delany comment mentioned that he wanted the B12 to declare how they would choose teams if they had a CCG with 10 teams, something the B12 has declined to do. That is part of what led to the B10’s proposed amendment.
“I think a “compromise” which prohibits selecting the two teams based on “opinion, polls, or eyeball tests” is probably the sort of compromise that Bowlsby would gladly accept, assuming that’s what Jim Delany is worried about (which I don’t believe it is).”
It’s exactly what we’ve talked about before – wanting to be able to pick the two highest ranked teams in the CFP poll to maximize the odds of the winner getting a CFP spot.
Would declaring that it had to be the two best conference records be an acceptable compromise to both sides? I don’t know. I doubt it from the B10/P12/SEC side.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Why should he bend over to get spanked by Jim Delany?”
Don’t blame just Delany. Scott and Sankey are supporting him. That’s all 3 P5 conferences that didn’t sponsor the original rule change. Maybe you should rephrase that as why should the rest of the P5 bend over to get spanked by Bowlsby?
“Divisions are fairly transparently meaningless in a 10-team league that plays 9 conference games.”
That’s complete BS. Divisions are very meaningful in that scenario as the two division winners would advance to the CCG. That’s the whole point of a CCG, to match the two division winners and thus find the conference champion.
LikeLike
Maybe you should rephrase that as why should the rest of the P5 bend over to get spanked by Bowlsby?
Except that all Bowlsby wants is to be able to stage the same number of games as the others do. He is not asking for an advantage; he’s asking for a disadvantage to be removed.
“Divisions are fairly transparently meaningless in a 10-team league that plays 9 conference games.”
That’s complete BS. Divisions are very meaningful in that scenario as the two division winners would advance to the CCG. That’s the whole point of a CCG, to match the two division winners and thus find the conference champion.
In every sport I’ve ever heard of with divisions, you play the teams in your own division more often than you play the teams outside of it. If you are playing every opponent with equal frequency, the divisional structure is meaningless.
Usually, divisions are chosen for geography, to preserve rivalries, or both. These two factors are irrelevant if everyone plays everyone. In fact, it’s hard to think of a principled basis for splitting a 10-team league into divisions, if they are going to play 9 conference games.
What I imagine they’d do, is try to make the divisions of equal strength, to maximize the probability that the two division champions are good teams. This amounts to guessing the season’s outcome in advance, rather than the usual way, which is to play the games, and then choose the two best teams based on their records. That’s how sports usually works.
Given yesterday’s news, it seems that even Jim Delany was forced to concede the stupidity of forcing a 10-team league to split into divisions, in order to get the benefit of playing the extra game. The master swindler found a swindle he could not pull off.
LikeLike
Marc:
I disagree. My bet is the Pac16 possibility is what Delany is avoiding by not requiring divisions. He isn’t admiting OU, and the Tech problem still exists. Having OU and UT in the same division would be preferred in the P16. And the academic neighborhood would be dramatically improved. How else can Delaney diminish his he possibility of pushing Texas away? And it doesn’t deny the ACC anything they currently have (the 13th data point).
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Except that all Bowlsby wants is to be able to stage the same number of games as the others do. He is not asking for an advantage; he’s asking for a disadvantage to be removed.”
That’s completely untrue. He wants that extra game but under very different rules than the others had to follow. He wants an advantage (the ability to always pit his 2 best teams for the title rather than 2 division winners).
“In every sport I’ve ever heard of with divisions, you play the teams in your own division more often than you play the teams outside of it. If you are playing every opponent with equal frequency, the divisional structure is meaningless.”
1. Obviously untrue. You’ve clearly heard of college football.
2. Teams do play division mates more often than others – every season versus only in certain seasons. The B12 would be the limit of this as they choose to play a full round robin due to their smaller size. It just reinforces how silly it is for them to get to stage a CCG with 10 teams.
3. The frequency of games is irrelevant. A division is a subset of teams that play to determine a winner. The same is true of a conference, but not all conference members play each other necessarily.
4. NFL – division games = 38% of season, MLB – 47%, NBA – 20% (and you play several non-division teams just as much as those in your division), NHL – 37%, CFL – 44-56% depending on your division (play other teams just as much as most division foes but over time you play division foes more often).
CFB – 42-50% and play other teams just as much as your division foes
CFB isn’t that different from several pro sports leagues.
5. CFB only has a 12 game season and larger divisions than most pro sports. There is no way to play division foes more often than other opponents in the same season.
“Usually, divisions are chosen for geography, to preserve rivalries, or both.”
The specific team/school selections are done that way, but the decision to use divisions is not. In general, the goal is to have division winners that can play to determine conference winners who can then play to determine the overall winner. In CFB, division are used to reconcile the number of teams in the subset to the number of available games in the season.
“In fact, it’s hard to think of a principled basis for splitting a 10-team league into divisions, if they are going to play 9 conference games.”
1. It’s hard to think of a principled basis for said 10-team league to play a CCG.
2. The basis for divisions would be to have two subsets that teams can win in order to earn their way into said CCG.
“What I imagine they’d do, is try to make the divisions of equal strength, to maximize the probability that the two division champions are good teams. This amounts to guessing the season’s outcome in advance, rather than the usual way, which is to play the games, and then choose the two best teams based on their records. That’s how sports usually works.”
So you mean they’d do what the B10 did the first time? And the ACC? And really the SEC and B12 thought they’d be balanced, too. So everyone does it but it’s an issue if the B12 does it again? You’re guessing what the B12 would do and then complaining about that choice?
“Given yesterday’s news, it seems that even Jim Delany was forced to concede the stupidity of forcing a 10-team league to split into divisions, in order to get the benefit of playing the extra game.”
It was such a terrible idea that 2 of the other P5 conferences supported it while the other 2 sponsored the original rule change.
LikeLike
“In every sport I’ve ever heard of with divisions, you play the teams in your own division more often than you play the teams outside of it. If you are playing every opponent with equal frequency, the divisional structure is meaningless.”
1. Obviously untrue. You’ve clearly heard of college football.
You think college football teams in leagues with divisions play every conference opponent with equal frequency? Really???
Your other examples counted percentages of games in/out of division, not games against individual opponents. Yes, an NBA or MLB team has more total games outside the division than in it. However, divisional opponents are always the most common opponents, over time (spanning multiple seasons).
You didn’t give an example of a sport with divisions where you play everyone the same amount, because there isn’t any.
LikeLike
The AL for a period of time, I believe (when they had 14 teams?).
Teams played the teams outside their division about as often as the teams inside their division. I want to say they played interdivisional foes 12 times and intradivisional foes 13 times (2 visits to and from each opponent, roughly). Frank, being a Sox fan, may remember the details better.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“You think college football teams in leagues with divisions play every conference opponent with equal frequency? Really???”
It depends how you meant your frequency comment, as I spelled out in my response. If you refer to playing division foes x times per year and others less often (see the NFL and all other pro sports), then yes CFB plays all opponents once which is equal frequency. If you look over time, then of course not which is why I said so.
“Your other examples counted percentages of games in/out of division, not games against individual opponents.”
I did both. That’s why I pointed out two sports where you don’t play division opponents any more than certain other teams in that season.
NBA – You play all division foes 4 times each. You also play 6 of the other teams from the other 2 divisions in your conference 4 times each and the other 4 team 3 times each). In 10 years you play a division foe 40 times and the other teams 36 times. That is a negligible difference over time, too.
CFL – You play 2 division foes 3 times and all 6 other teams 2 times. The divisions are different sizes so the total numbers vary over time. Over 10 years it may be 25 games versus 20 or it may be as many as 27 games versus 20.
“You didn’t give an example of a sport with divisions where you play everyone the same amount, because there isn’t any.”
It’s impossible to prove the negative, but the NBA is damn close to equal playing time within the division and within the conference. Generally the point of divisions is to play each other more often as the schedule allows. CFB has a very limited schedule length and the B12 is just the right size to fit a full round robin in that schedule. That obviates the need for a CCG, but they wanted one anyway. Having two divisions to win is a logical approach to a CCG regardless of the frequency of games played versus division mates and other conference foes.
Besides, the other side of the coin isn’t true. Conferences without divisions often don’t play all the other conference foes equally either. Even ignoring locked rivalries there is often still an imbalance. Does that somehow magically create divisions because the schedule is unbalanced?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/129555/defensive-raid-shows-why-big-ten-still-looking-up-to-sec
ESPN looks into the loss of DC talent in the B10 this offseason after WI and PSU both lost their DCs to SEC schools (LSU and TN respectively).
Money is one issue:
Aranda nearly tripled his salary by going to LSU, where he reportedly received a three-year guaranteed contract with a starting salary of $1.3 million, and he’ll get to work with unlimited blue-chippers. Shoop agreed in principle over the weekend to join Butch Jones at Tennessee for a reported $1.15 million.
SEC teams have shown no qualms about paying assistant coaches more than $1 million per season, while the Big Ten — even though it is equally swimming in riches — has been more reluctant to go there. According to the most recent USA Today salary database, six SEC assistant coaches were paid in the seven figures during the 2015 season, while Maryland’s Mike Locksley was the highest-paid Big Ten assistant at just less than $900,000.
As I mentioned a few days ago, the MI and OSU also lost their DCs (but they at least stayed in conference as they both took HC jobs). That brings us to the other issue, where the replacements coaches are coming from:
Michigan, which lured away highly respected defensive coordinator Don Brown from Boston College this offseason, and Ohio State, which snagged Greg Schiano as its new defensive boss, each have the financial muscle and commitment to swim in the big-boy waters. Michigan State has taken a slightly different approach by emphasizing staff continuity. But the Spartans did step up and pay Pat Narduzzi more than $900,000 to keep him as defensive coordinator as long as they reasonably could until he took the head job at Pittsburgh last year.
But look at where some of the many other Big Ten coordinator hires came from this offseason: Louisiana-Lafayette (Minnesota, offense), Fordham (Penn State, offense), internally (Purdue and Illinois, offense), Northern Illinois (Rutgers, defense), Arkansas State (Maryland, offense) and even a coach who was out of football for a year (Purdue, defense). Maybe those moves will work out brilliantly, but they hardly bring the sizzle that Tennessee and LSU acquired.
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/129535/bob-shoops-surprise-move-to-tennessee-puts-defense-at-disadvantage
It’s not clear yet why Shoop left PSU for TN since he didn’t get a huge raise and had recently said he hoped to stay at PSU for a very long time.
“I don’t plan on going anywhere. … I hope Penn State will have me forever and ever and ever,” Shoop said, days before the TaxSlayer Bowl. “I love being a part of Coach [James] Franklin’s program, I love what we’re building here, and I’ve said this millions of times — I think we’re a 30 for 30 story ready to rock ‘n’ roll. It’s just a matter of time before we get this thing rolling.”
What impact will losing 4 of the top DCs in the B10 all in one year have? Will the B10 eventually have to match the SEC salary structure to stay competitive? Will the B10’s new TV deal end the financial excuse for not paying assistant coaches more in the revenue sports?
LikeLike
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-much-is-your-favorite-college-football-team-worth-1452473476
WSJ ranks teams by their value:
1. OSU – $947M
2. UT – $885M
3. MI – $811M
4. ND – $724M
5. AL – $695M
6. OU – $674M
7. UF – $671M
8. UGA – $636M
9. LSU – $612M
10. PSU – $481M
B10:
11. NE – $444M
12. IA – $440M
17. WI – $353M
28. MSU – $247M
36. MN – $195M
45. NW – $150M
46. IN – $143M
47. PU – $132M
54. UMD – $100M
55. IL – $99.6M
67. RU – $59.3M
Some expansion candidates:
41. GT
43. UVA
50. UNC
56. BYU
58. UCF
59. USF
61. UConn
71. Duke
75. UC
79. UH
LikeLike
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/wolverines/2016/01/10/michigan-wolverines-spring-practice/78600198/
MI wants to open a new can of worms by staging part of spring practice in FL this year.
The issues would be the location and the amount of practice time. The NCAA spring practice rules (bylaw 17.10.6.4) govern how often a team can practice (15 times) and the span (34 calendar days not counting schools vacations) and how much contact there can be (only in 12 of the 15 practices). There is nothing noted about the location.
…
It’s unclear whether U-M could use this year’s [spring] break — Feb. 27-March 6, avoiding a potential conflict with classes — as a time for this possible trip and practice through the break.
The rules state it still would have to mirror the in-school rules: “Any such practice sessions held during vacation days may not be of longer duration than those normally held when academic classes are in session.”
One potential complication, if the Big Ten or NCAA nix the idea. Despite no apparent roadblocks in the bylaws, the conference and national organization likely would have to clear it before the Wolverines followed through.
…
While that break is a quiet period in recruiting, where there can be limited contact with a prospect, it would be an obviously appealing idea to appeal to warm weather kids about taking that trip each spring.
LikeLike
I personally see nothing wrong with that.
UMich has a lot of fans and some players from there. I’m sure a lot of UMich students go down to FL for spring break as well.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14548807/ticket-prices-falling-college-football-playoff-title-game-alabama-crimson-tide-clemson-tigers
Tickets are “cheap” for the NCG.
Tickets to Monday’s national title game will be the cheapest in a decade.
StubHub officials said Monday that the average price paid on its secondary ticketing site for the College Football Playoff National Championship presented by AT&T between Alabama and Clemson was $675. That’s the lowest average price paid for a title game since StubHub started collecting data 10 years ago.
That’s despite the fact that the College Football Playoff raised prices for tickets compared to games played under the BCS system. The highest-priced face value for the final BCS title game in 2014 was $385. The lowest-priced ticket that fans could buy from the schools for Monday night’s game was $450.
…
Prior to this game, StubHub’s cheapest national championship game, by average price paid, was 2009 when Oklahoma played Florida ($684 average). The most expensive was 2012 between Alabama and LSU ($1,808), as the New Orleans location made it a reasonable drive for both fan bases.
…
As of 1 p.m. ET, the cheapest ticket to the game was $185, but there were still more than 3,000 tickets up for sale on StubHub, which is a considerable number with kickoff less than eight hours away.
LikeLike
60/40 Clemson per TV. Alabama has been there too much.
LikeLike
Thought the announcers said 60/40 in favor of ‘Bama.
LikeLike
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/01/11/Colleges/CFP-ratings.aspx
Sponsors aren’t happy with the CFP ratings this year (we already knew this for advertisers, so no shock). That said, they knew what they were getting into when they agreed to the sponsorship. If they signed a bad contract, that’s their own responsibility. They have enough good lawyers to know better.
Marketers with deep investments in the CFP — $20 million to $30 million annually for title sponsors — say scheduling the semifinals on New Year’s Eve needs to be seriously re-examined.
“The big story going forward is whether the CFP sponsors will step up and put enough pressure on to get the semifinals off New Year’s Eve in the future,” said Larry Mann at Chicago-based Revolution, the agency that represents Northwestern Mutual, presenting sponsor of the Rose Bowl. “The millions of dollars at stake are too great. This is going to continue to be a big story.”
…
Sponsors were mostly measured in their reaction to a 40 percent decline in TV viewership for the two semifinal games, compared to last season’s inaugural semifinals on New Year’s Day. The TV audience is just one of many metrics they use over the course of the college football season.
“I don’t want to be dismissive about it. Absolutely, we’d like to see better ratings,” said Jim Trebilcock, executive vice president of marketing for the Dr Pepper Snapple Group. “But we’re not necessarily dependent on it. The property is bigger than the ratings. There’s going to be an ebb and flow each year based on the matchups.”
…
Much of the reaction about New Year’s Eve has turned to next season, when Dec. 31 falls on a Saturday. Marketers were split on whether New Year’s Eve games on a weekend would lead to better ratings.
Steve Robinson, the longtime Chick-fil-A chief marketer who retired at the end of 2015, said the New Year’s Eve semifinals on Saturday allows the CFP “to dodge a bullet.”
Webber said Saturday games do not solve the issue.
“It’s not a weekday or weekend issue as much as it’s a holiday issue,” he said.
The CFP’s insistence on playing its semifinals on New Year’s Eve — and a pair of uninteresting blowouts — blew the bottom out of the TV audience. In addition to the 40 percent decline in viewers for the semifinals, the New Year’s Six bowl games on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1 combined were down 19 percent (see chart).
…
The CFP’s highest-level sponsors, like Allstate, Capital One, Goodyear, Northwestern Mutual, Dr Pepper, AT&T and Chick-fil-A, have an advertising presence across all of the New Year’s Six bowl games. There are 16 CFP sponsors in all. ESPN sells the deals and most of the sponsors also have seasonlong ad buys on the network.
…
With 10 years left on a $7.3 billion contract, seven of the future semifinals are planned for New Year’s Eve — 2016 (Saturday), 2018 (Monday), 2019 (Tuesday), 2021 (Friday), 2022 (Saturday), 2024 (Tuesday) and 2025 (Wednesday).
Moving the semifinals off Dec. 31 likely would mean also shifting the New Year’s Day lineup, which includes the Sugar and Rose bowls. Those games are contractually set for Jan. 1.
“There’s not going to be a knee-jerk reaction, and I get it,” said Mike Boykin at Bespoke Sports & Entertainment. “But you’re not going to change traditions on New Year’s Eve, and the NFL is always going to play on Sunday. That means you have to change something fundamental to satisfy fans and, therefore, the marketers.
…
Chick-fil-A has a deeper relationship with New Year’s Eve than other bowls. Its Chick-fil-A Bowl in the years before the playoffs was played annually on Dec. 31 and the brand thought that unopposed time slot was an advantage, even though that wasn’t the case with the CFP semifinals. Of course, Chick-fil-A had a different set of expectations back then, when it paid $5 million a year for the title.
“We found it a great place for our game,” said John Mattioli, a nine-year veteran on Chick-fil-A’s partnership and activation team. “TV ratings are one measure, but we really look at the bigger picture and how we can add value across the college football landscape.”
The noise that bubbles up from sponsors in the coming months will be one way to gauge whether the CFP might consider a schedule change.
“I’d be shocked if they don’t go back to the drawing board on this one, regardless of contractual terms,” said Jason Banks, managing director for KBS Sports & Entertainment. “It’s in the best interest of all involved: the property, broadcaster, advertisers and fans.”
I see them rehashing the same old problems, but I don’t hear any good solutions. TPTB didn’t like the outcome of weeknight BCS games because you can’t stage 6 major games on weeknights in a compact schedule. We know 3 games will be on 1/1 (or 1/2) no matter what (Rose, Sugar and 1 other). I could still see putting 1 on 12/31 at 7 or 8pm. Then just the two semis would be left 2/3 of the time. Maybe TPTB can be talked into moving those to a Saturday or a Monday double header (the NFL does it but their games are shorter). Maybe one Monday and one Tuesday would work. When the Rose and Sugar are semis the 2 extra games will have to be played before 1/1, so presumably 12/31 like last year.
LikeLike
One key difference with this particular complaint: sponsors have a LOT of influence with the bowls themselves. The college football powers that be placed these games on New Year’s Eve to help out those bowls. However, if those bowls’ sponsors (who are committed to buy an extremely large number of ads during the CFP) start complaining that they’re not getting a good ROI due to the poor time slot, then that’s a different story. They have leverage over the bowl leaders even more than ESPN.
It’s easy enough to say that ESPN and the sponsors signed a bad contract that they’re stuck with for the next 12 years. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone starts talking about contract extensions about halfway through, and if there are several years of subpar ratings, the college sports’ leaders are going to be leaving a ton of money on the table much sooner than a decade from now.
LikeLike
Yep.
Clueless arrogant nitwits.
Semifinals on NYE was an even worse decision than Legends and Leaders, and that was an awful call.
LikeLike
Evil Empire wins again.
In the 8 years since 2008, the national title has been won by Nick Saban (4), Urban Meyer (2), and 2 teams with a #1 overall draft pick at QB.
Of the 14 teams to win or share the national title since 2003, the only national title that was not won by Saban (4.5), Meyer (3), or the 5 teams who had a QB who was a top 10 overall NFL draft pick was the 2007 LSU team in that freak year when they managed to win the national title with 2 losses.
LikeLike
No Cincerellas, alas.
I’m sick of SEC dominance, but if it means having to pay coordinators million-dollar contracts (e.g., Wisconsin to LSU), I hope the B1G bows out and lets those backward southerners run roughshod. It’s not worth it.
LikeLike
Personally, I think that assistant coaches are underpaid compared to head coaches at most P5 programs. People are simply use to head coaches being overpaid, but except for a handful of the very elite HC’s, I think that there is more value in paying assistants than the HC.
And I want the B10 to compete. The B10 has the revenues. There is no reason why the top of the B10 should not be able to compete with the top of the SEC.
LikeLike
Sorry, but I think the college athletics “arms race” has gone insane.
LikeLike
It went insane when head coaches started making more than university presidents.
Not sure why you’d suddenly draw the line now.
LikeLike
Here’s an idea (that may actually come about):
Semifinals and 2 other NY6 bowls on NYD.
So when the Rose and Sugar are the semifinals, they are where they are now in the late afternoon and primetime with the other 2 bowls starting at 1:15PM Eastern.
When those 2 aren’t semifinals, then a semifinal at 1:15PM, the Rose and Sugar both in the 5PM slot, and the other semifinal at 8:45.
Citrus would have to move to another day (possibly the first Saturday after NYD in the early afternoon before the NFL playoff games). Outback could be moved to a very early time slot (like 10AM Eastern).
Right now, the NY6 game on early afternoon NYE is getting awful ratings and so are the semifinals when on NYE.
LikeLike
I don’t think you are going to see the Rose or Sugar agree to that (and with them, the 4 conferences involved). I don’t think either will give up their time slots.
If New Years Eve ends up being too horrible for ratings to keep up, I vote the following. Keep New Years the same with 3 NY6 bowls. Also keep one of the NY6 bowls as the primetime game on New Years Eve (not a semi-final).
For the other 2 (semi-finals in all years that the Rose/Sugar aren’t), there are a lot of options. You could put them a rotation to either the Saturday before or after New Years (whichever is closer) or if they are unwilling to play while their NFL games, always the Saturday after. If they don’t want to go either of those, either put them both on the 2nd or accept that they aren’t going to be on the same night (just don’t let them get more than a day apart and leave plenty of time).
LikeLike
Probably 1/2, then.
And the NFL occupies Saturdays when the playoffs start but not on week 17, which would usually be before NYD. But that would dampen interest in bowls after the semis.
LikeLike
Anyone else wish the Big Ten was taking the opposite approach on the CCG de-regulation and pushing for rules to allow no divisions?
It’s not going to happen for a variety of reasons, but I hate seeing it getting argued against from the Big Ten while I imagine a divionsless Big Ten (lock 3 opponents a piece, other 6 game rotate among the other 10). Wish this discussion had happen 10 years ago so the conference might have adopted it.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t have prevented expansion to 14 or adding Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers, if that’s your beef.
LikeLike
Eric,
Many of us would prefer a regular season schedule without divisions, but a CCG is silly if there are no divisions. I’d rather see CCGs eliminated entirely than completely deregulated.
LikeLike
and the ratings are in: 16.0 overnight.
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/01/college-football-national-championship-ratings-espn-alabama-clemson-overnights-down/
I was way wrong. This crow is delicious. Pass the hot sauce.
LikeLike
By sheer luck I was in the right ballpark.
The 16.0 overnight is the third-highest for any program in the history of ESPN, behind Ohio State/Oregon last year and the 2011 Auburn/Oregon title game on ESPN alone (16.1). Among college football championship games, however, it ranks just 11th out of the 18 since the formation of the BCS.
Compared to other sports, Alabama’s coronation ranked behind last year’s Duke/Wisconsin college basketball championship on CBS (17.1) but edged last year’s top NBA Finals game on ABC (15.9) and the Women’s World Cup final on FOX (15.2).
Birmingham led all markets with a 59.2 rating, up 6% from Auburn’s loss to FSU in 2014 (55.8) and up 7% from Alabama’s win over Notre Dame in 2013 (55.1). Greenville, NC ranked second (39.0), followed by Atlanta (30.1), Nashville (29.1) and Knoxville (28.4).
LikeLike
If college football increasingly is perceived as a southern sport, its future is doomed.
LikeLike
That’s rather silly.
On the one hand, a southern school has won or shared the national title in 11 of the past 13 years.
However, a Midwestern school won or shared the national title in 10 of the 12 years from 1946-1957, and college football wasn’t doomed then either.
Over a 45 year span (in the current era), I do expect the following distribution of national titles, though:
SEC: 16.75
Big10: 9.25
Pac: 5.75
ACC: 5.75
B12: 5.5
ND: 2
Superkings (3 expected national titles in 45 years): Texas, UF, ‘Bama, LSU, UGa, OSU, USC, FSU
Kings (2 expected national titles in 45 years): UMich, PSU, ND, OU, Tenn
Low Kings (1 expected national titles in 45 years): UNL, Miami, TAMU, UCLA
High Princes (0.75 national titles in 45 years): Auburn, Clemson
Princes: Wisconsin, MSU, VTech, UNC, SCarolina, Arkansas, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, OK St. (last 2 only because of one super-rich donor).
Low Princes (0.25 national titles in 45 years): Iowa, UDub
South: 25.5
Midwest: 11.75
West: 5.75
Northeast: 2 (PSU)
For everyone from “low king” and below to win a national title, they’d need a super QB; a guy who will be a top 10 overall NFL draft pick (and preferably a #1 overall draft pick at QB).
LikeLike
Superkings (3 expected national titles in 45 years): Texas, UF, ‘Bama, LSU, UGa, OSU, USC, FSU
I know you love the Bulldogs, but Georgia isn’t a superking. In the last 70 years, they have one AP national championship: the same number as Maryland, Michigan State, Clemson, Colorado, Texas A&M, Pitt, Syracuse, and BYU.
LikeLike
Among all groups, there’s over and underperformance. ‘Bama has overperformed while UGa has underperformed. If you look at resources, recruiting grounds and brand, there’s no reason for UGa to have fewer national titles than LSU, UF, or FSU, but they do.
LikeLike
Among all groups, there’s over and underperformance. ‘Bama has overperformed while UGa has underperformed. If you look at resources, recruiting grounds and brand, there’s no reason for UGa to have fewer national titles than LSU, UF, or FSU, but they do.
On the other hand, when the purported under-performance has gone on for multiple generations, you have to wonder if perhaps it’s actually the expected performance.
My hypothesis is that king/super-king status is, to a great extent, self-reinforcing. It’s a lot easier to maintain what you have than to create it. That’s why the kings tend to return to that status, even after a few down years; and why the non-kings seldom attain that status, even after a few great years.
It may seem tautological, but Alabama is a super-king because they’re a super-king. Georgia is not one, because they’re not one. There’s no logical reason for Michigan to be a king, and Michigan State a prince. They just are.
The roster of kings/super-kings does change periodically, but it’s a rare event. There is no particular reason to think that Georgia is going to make the big leap, all of a sudden, when in the last 70 years they’ve never managed it (other than the Herschel Walker year).
You’d probably be better off if you re-run the math, based on programs’ demonstrated performance. Although it’s pretty likely that some team will over-achieve their historical norm, it’s hard to say which team it’ll be. There’s a program that has a transformative leader, like a young Bobby Bowden or a young Joe Paterno, but you can’t predict where they’ll land.
LikeLike
Marc, if we follow your logic, UMich isn’t a king either as they’ve won even fewer national titles than UGa in the past 65 years (half of one in 1997).
Or you can accept that there is over and under-performance given a program’s resources, recruiting grounds, and brand.
It is true that it is rare for schools to become kings. Between the pre-WWII period and post-WWII “golden age” (which I’m defining to run from 1946 until the start of the BCS, so 1997), the only change in the composition of kings (if you exclude the Ivies, who were self-selecting themselves out of national relevance in football post-WWII) is that UIUC and Pitt dropped out of those ranks and OU elevated (thanks mostly to Wilkinson’s insanely successful run in the ’50’s). BTW, PSU was already in the top 10/15 in wins pre-WWII.
The lineup of kings in the golden age was dominated by Midwestern teams: OSU, UMich, ND, OU, UNL, PSU, ‘Bama, Tennessee, Texas, USC is what I have as kings in that era. Half of them are Midwestern.
Since then, UF, LSU, UGa, FSU, and (maybe, probably not) Miami have joined them while UNL is pretty close to dropping out.
Certainly, UGa would have to win at least 1 national title by about 2040 or so (so in the next 25 years) to justify any sort of king status, but the same holds true for UMich, ND, and PSU, who also haven’t won a national title since the BCS era started.
LikeLike
BTW, by success in the current (BCS) era, UGa outranks UMich in both this ranking (http://oklahoma.247sports.com/Board/86/Contents/25-most-successful-programs-of-BCS-era-OU-1-26092246) and this ranking (https://thisyearman.wordpress.com/2014/01/08/top-25-college-football-programs-of-the-bcs-era/). #9 to #15 and #13 to #16, respectively.
LikeLike
Richard,
Actually your counterpoint is meaningless and somewhat silly. I’m with VP to some degree.
You can’t cite a long ago era when the Midwest or BIG dominated the sport. Segregation was alive and well back then & there was no cable tv or Internet to instantly bring the game to the rest of the country like today.
I’ve noticed a lot of empty seats throughout the CF landscape and perhaps those arguing that there is a cable bubble may be right. Lastly, I’m not sure what to think of the concussion issue, but it isn’t going away & youth football is diminishing amongst the middle class & non-Sun Belt states.
I simply know one fact: my friends and family, me, we watch far less CF compared to 5 years ago. Albeit, most of us loathed the BCS system so we lost track especially during this phony era. But the CFP is seems underpinned by an elitist backroom process as well & there still aren’t enough slots for the power conferences.
LikeLike
gfunk,
“But the CFP is seems underpinned by an elitist backroom process as well”
So you also hate the NCAA tourney and it’s “elitist backroom process” which the CFP copies?
LikeLike
I’d like to see a regional breakdown of the ratings. Obviously it did well in the SE, but how did the top 50 markets all do compared to last year? Was it a drop in the west without a P12 team? Did the midwest tune out?
Was it the NYE semis or AL fatigue? Was it the all-southern matchup?
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy
Brett McMurphy – Verified account @McMurphyESPN
Arkansas AD Jeff Long will not be chairman of @CFBPlayoff Selection Committee next season
10:13 AM – 12 Jan 2016
206 RETWEETS142 LIKES
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/1/11/10749534/big-12-expansion-byu-cincinnati-houston-deregulation-proposals
It sounds like the B10 and everyone else are caving in to the B12. The only restriction will be that a single-division conference with a full round robin must pair the top 2 teams in the CCG. That’s not a compromise, it’s giving the B12 exactly what they want. But even with that, the B12 isn’t happy.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25446855/ncaa-convention-preview-concern-over-players-profiting-off-their-names
This week, the Big Ten submitted a second amendment. It would allow conferences with less than 12 teams and that play a round-robin schedule to pair their two best teams as opposed to division champions meeting. That obviously benefits the Big 12, which is the smallest FBS conference (10 members). Bowlsby said the second amendment was crafted after consultation with the Big Ten. “It gets us most of the way we need to go,” Bowlsby told CBS Sports’ Dennis Dodd. “I’d prefer total deregulation but we can live with it.”
According to Bowlsby, deregulation could go into effect as soon as it is adopted on Wednesday with the NCAA Council, with Power Five conferences getting two votes each and the rest of the FBS conferences having one vote each. The answer to this issue could impact whether the Big 12 expands its membership. The Pac-12 wants the 10-member Big 12 to stage a championship game. The SEC said it will vote against the first two proposals, but appears open to the latest Big Ten amendment: allowing a 10-team conference with round-robin play to stage a championship.
It’s so nice to hear Bowlsby can live with getting everything they really wanted with no sacrifice on their part at all.
LikeLike
As some people have noted, the B10 and SEC were most concerned with what the ACC would finagle together with full deregulation rather than anything the round-robin B12 wanted the whole time.
Personally, I think that the B10 should support full deregulation. That would be to their advantage once they are the Big 20 (and the SEC is a 16-school league).
LikeLike
Personally, I think that the B10 should support full deregulation. That would be to their advantage once they are the Big 20 (and the SEC is a 16-school league).
Jim Delany is caught between two competing goals. On the one hand, he wants to get to 16–20 teams. On the other hand, he can’t get there unless the leagues those teams would come from are fatally weakened.
Since the teams he covets most are in the ACC, they’re the ones who are about to get screwed. The Big Ten can always come back later with Round 2 of CCG de-regulation. Right now, weakening the ACC is more important.
LikeLike
Unless you think B12 defections to the ACC were probable, this takes away nothing from the ACC that they don’t currently have. It’s more a gift to the B12. Puzzle is figuring out the quid pro quo.
LikeLike
My takeaway is that the B10 doesn’t want to elevate Cincy to a P5-level.
OH is the B10’s most fertile state for football recruiting.
OSU would win any recruiting battle with Cincy regardless (same with UMich and, these days, probably MSU), but IU, PU, UIUC, etc. would much rather compete with a G5 Cincy than a P5 Cincy for OH recruits.
LikeLike
My takeaway is that the B10 doesn’t want to elevate Cincy to a P5-level.
I get this sense as well. Indiana via Louisville and Ohio State via Cincinnati probably felt very safe if both of these were AAC schools. This must have changed when Louisville made the ACC. At that point stopping Cincinnati from Power 5 status must have been all but certain.
LikeLike
My takeaway is that the B10 doesn’t want to elevate Cincy to a P5-level.
I think you are spot on Richard
Louisville to the ACC elevated them to Power 5, if Cincinnati did as well it would get a slice of Ohio more than if it remained trapped in the AAC forever.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“Jim Delany is caught between two competing goals. On the one hand, he wants to get to 16–20 teams.”
He does? Based on what evidence? Some presidents have advocated further expansion but I don’t recall Delany saying anything. And has anyone but fans supported 20?
“Since the teams he covets most are in the ACC, they’re the ones who are about to get screwed.”
How is having to follow the same rules as everyone else, which were in place long ago, “getting screwed”?
LikeLike
Jim Delany is caught between two competing goals. On the one hand, he wants to get to 16–20 teams.”
He does? Based on what evidence? Some presidents have advocated further expansion but I don’t recall Delany saying anything. And has anyone but fans supported 20?
I can’t prove it to you, the way I can prove the quadratic formula. But numerous Big Ten insiders (coaches, ADs, even a president or two) have said publicly that they don’t think expansion is done. These are folks who could be fairly presumed to be familiar with the league’s thinking at the highest levels.
Do you really, seriously believe, that Jim Delany’s ambition was to expand to New Jersey and Maryland, and then stop?
“Since the teams he covets most are in the ACC, they’re the ones who are about to get screwed.”
How is having to follow the same rules as everyone else, which were in place long ago, “getting screwed”?
The CCG rule originally was intended to limit the extra game to leagues that could not crown a champion via a full round robin. They did that because football in excess was thought to be harmful, so there was a desire to limit that extra game to situations where it was truly needed. The new rule clearly does not have that purpose, since they are now allowing a 10-team league to play the extra game.
So what purpose, exactly, DOES the new rule serve?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I can’t prove it to you, the way I can prove the quadratic formula.”
Because you pulled it out of thin air.
“But numerous Big Ten insiders (coaches, ADs, even a president or two) have said publicly that they don’t think expansion is done.”
Which says absolutely nothing about what Delany wants.
“These are folks who could be fairly presumed to be familiar with the league’s thinking at the highest levels.”
Not thinking it is done doesn’t automatically mean the B10 will expand more, nor does it set a range of 16-20.
“Do you really, seriously believe, that Jim Delany’s ambition was to expand to New Jersey and Maryland, and then stop?”
I think he did what he was told. I have no reason to know his personal feelings about expansion beyond his very limited comments.
“The CCG rule originally was intended to limit the extra game to leagues that could not crown a champion via a full round robin. They did that because football in excess was thought to be harmful, so there was a desire to limit that extra game to situations where it was truly needed. The new rule clearly does not have that purpose, since they are now allowing a 10-team league to play the extra game.”
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim of the ACC getting screwed. It’s a nice diversion, but completely irrelevant to the point under discussion.
“So what purpose, exactly, DOES the new rule serve?”
To give the B12 what they want and make things more similar for the committee. What part of that is hard to understand?
LikeLike
I agree. Comments I had seen somewhere strongly suggested to me that the Big Ten’s issues were never with the Big 12, but the ACC. The Big 12 at 10 is (unfortunately) it’s own unique thing anymore (for a power conference anyway). The ACC though could theoretically set up a non-divisional system which had better chances of getting teams to the playoff and that would require the other 3 12/14 team conferences to consider changing their own structures.
LikeLike
Richard,
“As some people have noted, the B10 and SEC were most concerned with what the ACC would finagle together with full deregulation rather than anything the round-robin B12 wanted the whole time.”
I am one of those “some people” as I noted on here a while ago that the amendment seemed more directed at the ACC than the B12. That doesn’t mean I support capitulating to the B12 for no good reason. This rule unnecessarily gives them an advantage over everyone else at no cost to them.
“Personally, I think that the B10 should support full deregulation.”
It makes no sense for the B10 to support it now.
“That would be to their advantage once they are the Big 20 (and the SEC is a 16-school league).”
1. There is no evidence the B10 or the SEC will ever reach those sizes, or even that they really want to be that big. And if the B10 really does hit 20, what are the odds the SEC is content to stay at 16?
2. After reaching such a size they could support further deregulation. I doubt they’ll ever support full deregulation as long as ND is independent but ACC-affiliated.
LikeLike
The B20 and 16-school SEC would lead to the dissolution of one or both of the ACC and B12.
Likely a combination of the leftovers. I forecast the leftover 7 in the B12 + Houston, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn/Cincy.
BC and Wake left out in the cold.
LikeLike
That doesn’t mean I support capitulating to the B12 for no good reason. This rule unnecessarily gives them an advantage over everyone else at no cost to them.
I can’t really see what advantage the B12 gets out of this. What they get, is the removal of a disadvantage.
(If you’re referring to the fact that the B12 is the only league not compelled to split into divisions…well, the remaining leagues had the option to drop that requirement, and chose not to.)
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I can’t really see what advantage the B12 gets out of this.”
Being willfully blind will do that to you. Getting to stage a CCG without expanding to 12 is an advantage nobody else was ever allowed. Getting to put the top 2 teams into the CCG every season is a clear advantage for playoff access now.
“What they get, is the removal of a disadvantage.”
No, the B10’s original amendment offered that. This version gives them an advantage.
LikeLike
1. There is no evidence the B10 or the SEC will ever reach those sizes, or even that they really want to be that big. And if the B10 really does hit 20, what are the odds the SEC is content to stay at 16?
I certainly think there is evidence, from various insiders’ comments, that the other leagues have designs on numbers >14, if the right schools become available. That doesn’t mean it’ll happen, or even that it’s likely but you couldn’t possibly believe they aren’t open to it.
If the ACC falls seriously behind in the revenue game, and UNC/UVA come calling, do you really believe Delany (or his successor) would say, “Thanks anyway, but Rutgers and Maryland were our endgame, and we aren’t interested”?
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“I certainly think there is evidence, from various insiders’ comments, that the other leagues have designs on numbers >14, if the right schools become available.”
They have plans and wishes, sure. But when push comes to shove do they really want to expand to those sizes? Do they want the ACC and/or B12 to fail? The SEC won’t even go to 9 games in football and they want 8-team divisions?
“That doesn’t mean it’ll happen, or even that it’s likely”
Which is what I said (especially in reference to the B10 hitting 20).
“but you couldn’t possibly believe they aren’t open to it.”
Which I didn’t say.
But you also neglected the other part of my statement, where I mentioned the odds of the SEC letting the B10 be that much bigger than them. 16 and 16 is very different from 16 and 20.
“If the ACC falls seriously behind in the revenue game, and UNC/UVA come calling, do you really believe Delany (or his successor) would say, “Thanks anyway, but Rutgers and Maryland were our endgame, and we aren’t interested”?”
I’d like to hope they’d trade them. But going to 16 and to 20 are very different things and 20 was part of the original statement.
LikeLike
Brian, it’s not so much whether the SEC is willing to “let the B10 become so much bigger than them” than whether they could still find 4 more atttractive candidates in my hypothetical scenario.
In that scenario, I have OU, KU, Texas, UVa, and Duke going to the B10 because they prefer the B10 to the SEC as well as GTech because the SEC has no reason to take them while the B10 would see value in GTech.
The 4 I have going to the SEC are UNC, NCSU, VTech, and FSU.
So what other 4 schools would the SEC want to add?
Small-state Clemson?
3 other TX schools?
This isn’t a penis-waving contest; conferences don’t add schools just so they can be the same size as the Jones.
The current B12 has stayed considerably smaller than the B10, SEC, and ACC even though those conferences are up to 14 now.
The B10 and Pac both stayed smaller when the SEC, ACC, and B12 were up to 12 and that was with the inducement of the riches of a CCG (and the B10 could have added UNL at any time; the Huskers wanted in way back in the ’90’s right after the B10 added PSU.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, it’s not so much whether the SEC is willing to “let the B10 become so much bigger than them” than whether they could still find 4 more atttractive candidates in my hypothetical scenario.”
Well, you didn’t detail your scenario so I could only comment on the final numbers. I find it hard to believe the B10 would “win” expansion 6-2 over the SEC since they have so many target schools in common.
“In that scenario, I have OU, KU, Texas, UVa, and Duke going to the B10 because they prefer the B10 to the SEC as well as GTech because the SEC has no reason to take them while the B10 would see value in GTech.
The 4 I have going to the SEC are UNC, NCSU, VTech, and FSU.”
What is the precipitating factor? The ACC and B12 schools just get tired of lagging financially and refuse to renew their GoR? UT seems happy in the B12 and the rest besides OU and KU know they can’t do any better. Will the politicians not care about OkSU and KSU getting screwed as the big brothers join the B10 when the perfectly viable B12 is still there? And if UNC goes south, why wouldn’t Duke follow? And wouldn’t UVA prefer to be with UNC and VT (and potentially Duke)? How sure is it that UT and OU and even KU would prefer the B10 to the SEC with MO and TAMU? I can understand GT not having a choice in that scenario. And if the B10 is really going to 20 would UConn get a look to lock up the eastern corridor?
In other words, I find your scenario possible but far from probable just because there are so many moving pieces.
“So what other 4 schools would the SEC want to add?”
They’d fight for UVA, UT, OU, KU and maybe Duke. But if all your moves happen, they’d still have Miami (good school, solidifies that market, adds another brand), Clemson (keeps others out of the SE), TCU/TT (aim for more control of TX since the B10 has UT, help in Dallas market), WV and Pitt (payback for GT by splitting PA) to consider.
“This isn’t a penis-waving contest; conferences don’t add schools just so they can be the same size as the Jones.”
They kind of do sometimes. The B10 talked to PSU and then the SEC suddenly needed AR and SC. The SEC hit 12 and a CCG and suddenly the B12 needed to form. The B10 was looking at #12 and suddenly the P10 needed to hit 12+ and the SEC wanted 14. Then the ACC wanted 14, and magically so did the B10. There were lots of reasons behind all of those moves, but one of them was keeping up with the Joneses.
“The current B12 has stayed considerably smaller than the B10, SEC, and ACC even though those conferences are up to 14 now.”
1. They have had no solid options to grow.
2. They’ve thought really hard about expanding anyway and some members believe they’ll always be at a disadvantage until they expand regardless of adding a CCG.
“The B10 and Pac both stayed smaller when the SEC, ACC, and B12 were up to 12 and that was with the inducement of the riches of a CCG”
The B10 was hoping for ND and held out as long as they could. Once the B12 started to show cracks, the chance at NE was too good to pass up. The P12 was very complacent until Scott showed up and agitated for change. Besides, they didn’t have many candidates either until the B12 looked shaky.
“(and the B10 could have added UNL at any time; the Huskers wanted in way back in the ’90’s right after the B10 added PSU.”
The B10 also turned down UT back then. But the B10 wanted ND and was never predatory towards another conference until the B12 faltered and seemed to be dying no matter what.
Besides, the B10 acting that way doesn’t mean the SEC would do the same thing.
LikeLike
Brian:
Obviously, this is all conjecture, but to address your points:
1. The success of the LHN is . . . underwhelming, let’s say. OU and KU definitely believe that they can do better but have been thwarted up to now. So yes, Texas would have to want to move. So what if the B10 bring in more TV money for Purdue than Texas does with the LHN and B12 TV deals? Texas may be temped to move. Note that Texas has a completely new president and AD pair now, and they may view things differently than the pair around during the last round of realignment.
2. If the politicians have a choice of KU/KSU & OU/OSU in a B12-type conference or big brother in a top-2 conference and little brother in a B12-type conference that would still be close to par with the Pac, which would they choose? Note that in my scenario, I have the B12 eating up the remnants of the ACC and some others (adding Clemson, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and 2 of Houston/Cincy/UConn), so still forming a league that would be part of the P4. Would they hold big brother back? So far in conference realignment, when a school really wanted to leave, a “brother” hadn’t been able to hold them back (look at A&M).
3. Duke is a much more northern school than UNC (really, you should know that, Brian). Also, I believe that the SEC will only take 2 NC schools at most, and UNC would rather try to get NCSU (which shares the same board as UNC) in to the SEC rather than Duke.
4. Don’t forget that UVa also has a rivalry with UMD and they lived fine without being in the same conference as VTech for a very long time. Personally, I believe that the B10 and SEC would arrange for season-ending interconference rivalry games between Texas/A&M, KU/Mizzou, UVa/VTech, and GTech/UGa as that would be mutually beneficial (also UNC/Duke & UNC/UVa while arrangements may well be worked out for KU/KSU, Bedlam, and the existing Iowa/ISU to continue as well. It would be lucrative for all sides.
“How sure is it that UT and OU and even KU would prefer the B10 to the SEC with MO and TAMU?”
It’s pretty clear that OU and KU prefer the B10 to the SEC, all else being equal (so did Mizzou). Texas is the big question mark, but the big trump card that the B10 holds is the new tier 1&2 TV deal. As Frank said, you should not underestimate the appeal of academic prestige.
“And if the B10 is really going to 20 would UConn get a look to lock up the eastern corridor?”
Not if the B10 gets the 6 schools I listed. I have UConn as borderline to get in to even the gutted/amalgamated new 12/14-school B12. UConn just doesn’t deliver that much. CT is a small state with the same poor low-growth as the original B10 country & no football talent, and Storrs is in the middle of nowhere; definitely not by an urban center with a lot of B10 alums.
“They’d fight for UVA, UT, OU, KU and maybe Duke. But if all your moves happen, they’d still have Miami (good school, solidifies that market, adds another brand), Clemson (keeps others out of the SE), TCU/TT (aim for more control of TX since the B10 has UT, help in Dallas market), WV and Pitt (payback for GT by splitting PA) to consider.”
I only see TTech and Pitt as possibilities. So yes, the SEC could expand to 18. OK, maaaybe WVU & Syracuse (but I doubt it; WV is too small & poor and has a tiny recruiting pool and ‘Cuse is too far north and has a tiny recruiting pool). And none of these places have good demographics. Not Upstate NY or Western PA or WV or Western TX.
Note that not a single conference has added a school within their own existing footprint in the most recent round of realignment. You already concede that the SEC would not add GTech and I doubt you think that the B10 would add Pitt or ISU (even though Pitt would be a perfect addition in the eyes of the B10 if they were located in DC or near NYC or some other East Coast city outside the original B10 footprint).
So why do you think that they would add another school in small-population SC or a small private school that has trouble getting even half their stadium filled in a state where they would have the 2 biggest schools (with the addition of FSU)? Heck, I see FSU as barely getting in to the SEC (they’ve been rebuffed previously) and only in if they are put in the SEC West and they are a king in a huge state with a ton of football talent.
The SEC is about as likely to add Clemson or Miami (or even Baylor or TCU, whom A&M would be sure to object to; they’d probably even object to TTech) in order to “lock down the Southeast” as the B10 is to add Cincy/ISU/Pitt to lock down the Midwest/Rust Belt. After all, they’ve done fine for decades now while sharing their biggest southeastern states with a major conference (the ACC).
“There were lots of reasons behind all of those moves, but one of them was keeping up with the Joneses.”
There is a little of that, which is why I see the SEC finally adding FSU even though the ‘Noles have wanted in for decades now. But nope, not a school in a small state they’re already in or a bunch of small private schools.
“They have had no solid options to grow.”
Which will be the situation the SEC will be in if the B10 gets the schools I listed and the SEC gets to 16/18.
Actually, they _could_ add Pitt and Cincy to get to 18.
That would lead to some pretty awesome B10-SEC series in football and a B10-SEC Challenge in basketball.
It would be in the interests of both the SEC and Big 20 to set such things up
B12 would then be
West
TTech
TCU
Baylor
OK St.
KSU
ISU
East
Miami
Clemson
Louisville
WVU
Syracuse
UConn.
B12-Pac Challenge in basketball would come in to being.
LikeLike
Though in that case, the new(est) B12 without Pitt & Cincy very well may add both UCF & USF to get to 14 and 3 schools in both TX and FL (Louisville gets shuttled to the western division; if they even still keep divisions).
LikeLike
Actually, I miscounted. SEC + UNC + NCSU + VTech + FSU would already take them to 18.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Obviously, this is all conjecture, but to address your points:”
I understand. And that’s why I said your plan was possible. It just isn’t probable since so many other outcomes are also possible.
“1. The success of the LHN is . . . underwhelming, let’s say. OU and KU definitely believe that they can do better but have been thwarted up to now. So yes, Texas would have to want to move. So what if the B10 bring in more TV money for Purdue than Texas does with the LHN and B12 TV deals? Texas may be temped to move. Note that Texas has a completely new president and AD pair now, and they may view things differently than the pair around during the last round of realignment.”
I think it would take UT lagging multiple kings by a considerable amount in total AD revenue to motivate them to leave for financial reasons. They don’t care about PU, but if OSU and MI and PSU are making $10M more per year in total revenue than UT they might care.
“2. If the politicians have a choice of KU/KSU & OU/OSU in a B12-type conference or big brother in a top-2 conference and little brother in a B12-type conference that would still be close to par with the Pac, which would they choose? Note that in my scenario, I have the B12 eating up the remnants of the ACC and some others (adding Clemson, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and 2 of Houston/Cincy/UConn), so still forming a league that would be part of the P4. Would they hold big brother back? So far in conference realignment, when a school really wanted to leave, a “brother” hadn’t been able to hold them back (look at A&M).”
I have no idea what politicians might do. I do remember that OU got held back by OkSU (P12 wouldn’t take both) and UT had a “Tech problem.”
“3. Duke is a much more northern school than UNC (really, you should know that, Brian).”
I know it is, but their connection to UNC is incredibly strong. The hoops rivalry is extremely valuable but it applies to all sports. They are so rich that the money means nothing to them, so I think it’ll be hard to pry them away from UNC if Duke has a choice in the matter. Likewise, I think UNC would fight to bring Duke with them if they ever left the ACC.
“Also, I believe that the SEC will only take 2 NC schools at most, and UNC would rather try to get NCSU (which shares the same board as UNC) in to the SEC rather than Duke.”
Maybe, but Duke brings more value to the SEC. UNC would get the SECN statewide while Duke would add hoops fans outside the footprint and another major brand.
“4. Don’t forget that UVa also has a rivalry with UMD and they lived fine without being in the same conference as VTech for a very long time.”
They do, but UVA values their UNC rivalry much more than they did their UMD rivalry (Terp fans will back me up on that). I agree they don’t much care about VT but if VT is already there it would increase their comfort level.
“Personally, I believe that the B10 and SEC would arrange for season-ending interconference rivalry games between Texas/A&M, KU/Mizzou, UVa/VTech, and GTech/UGa as that would be mutually beneficial (also UNC/Duke & UNC/UVa while arrangements may well be worked out for KU/KSU, Bedlam, and the existing Iowa/ISU to continue as well. It would be lucrative for all sides.”
I agree they wouldn’t try to eliminate those games. They wouldn’t try to move them off the last week if that was the tradition, either (I’d expect the schools to demand that as part of joining). I don’t think they’d force UT/TAMU and KU/MO to resume unless the schools agreed, though.
“It’s pretty clear that OU and KU prefer the B10 to the SEC, all else being equal (so did Mizzou). Texas is the big question mark, but the big trump card that the B10 holds is the new tier 1&2 TV deal. As Frank said, you should not underestimate the appeal of academic prestige.”
It seems that way, but TAMU preferred the SEC. You just never know what fan bases might force.
“Not if the B10 gets the 6 schools I listed. I have UConn as borderline to get in to even the gutted/amalgamated new 12/14-school B12. UConn just doesn’t deliver that much. CT is a small state with the same poor low-growth as the original B10 country & no football talent, and Storrs is in the middle of nowhere; definitely not by an urban center with a lot of B10 alums.”
It would be more NYC access, especially for MBB. I’m not big on UConn either, but I just wonder if the criteria the COP/C look at change as the conference approaches that size.
“I only see TTech and Pitt as possibilities. So yes, the SEC could expand to 18. OK, maaaybe WVU & Syracuse (but I doubt it; WV is too small & poor and has a tiny recruiting pool and ‘Cuse is too far north and has a tiny recruiting pool). And none of these places have good demographics. Not Upstate NY or Western PA or WV or Western TX.”
It’s not like the SEC has demographic issues. They have FL and TX in their footprint plus the best per capita FB recruiting in smaller states like LA and MS. Expansion would be an attempt to get the SECN in more states, and PA and NY are large states.
“Note that not a single conference has added a school within their own existing footprint in the most recent round of realignment. You already concede that the SEC would not add GTech and I doubt you think that the B10 would add Pitt or ISU (even though Pitt would be a perfect addition in the eyes of the B10 if they were located in DC or near NYC or some other East Coast city outside the original B10 footprint).”
There is value in just being bigger for leverage. As such, what was true before won’t necessarily always be true. You have the SEC adding FSU, for example.
“So why do you think that they would add another school in small-population SC or a small private school that has trouble getting even half their stadium filled in a state where they would have the 2 biggest schools (with the addition of FSU)? Heck, I see FSU as barely getting in to the SEC (they’ve been rebuffed previously) and only in if they are put in the SEC West and they are a king in a huge state with a ton of football talent.”
Because they don’t want Clemson in another power conference. It’s too big of a brand and has recruiting power in the SE. As for Miami, it’s because it’s a major metro area that they’d like to keep another power conference out of. Also because they believe the SEC brand would help rebuild the program at Miami and then they get a great brand, too.
“The SEC is about as likely to add Clemson or Miami (or even Baylor or TCU, whom A&M would be sure to object to; they’d probably even object to TTech) in order to “lock down the Southeast” as the B10 is to add Cincy/ISU/Pitt to lock down the Midwest/Rust Belt. After all, they’ve done fine for decades now while sharing their biggest southeastern states with a major conference (the ACC).”
Sharing with the current ACC is much different from sharing with a 20-member B10.
“Which will be the situation the SEC will be in if the B10 gets the schools I listed and the SEC gets to 16/18.”
That’s a big if is all I’m saying.
LikeLike
It sounds like the B10 and everyone else are caving in to the B12.
It’s exactly as I called it 2–3 years ago (or as long as we’ve been discussing it here). No one wants to cast the vote that, in effect, prompts further dismemberment of the mid-majors.
That’s not a compromise, it’s giving the B12 exactly what they want. But even with that, the B12 isn’t happy. . . . It’s so nice to hear Bowlsby can live with getting everything they really wanted with no sacrifice on their part at all.
Unlike Jim Delany, it seems that Bowlsby is a man of principle. He recognizes that there is no legitimate regulatory purpose for the rule Delany is now proposing, except to stick a shiv in the side of John Swofford.
Although the new proposal does indeed give Bowlsby everything he needs, he’s standing up for something broader than his narrow self-interest. Good for him!
LikeLike
Bob Bowl$by. The only prin$iple on a champion$hip game with le$$ than 12 team$ is the greenback$. Other than that you are adding a game in a sport which deliberately ha$ a relatively low number of conte$t$ allowed solely for the Benjamin$ with no competitive purpo$e.
In ca$e I haven’t been clear, it$ about generating more money off the “$student-athlete$” with no benefit to them. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
LikeLike
You can’t seriously believe there is no legitimate reason for regulation? It is that creating a thirteenth data point for the B12 (perhaps forestalling realignment near term) that has prompted a need to alter those regulations.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“No one wants to cast the vote that, in effect, prompts further dismemberment of the mid-majors.”
The B10’s first amendment would have done no such thing. It would’ve made the B12 choose between forming divisions and not having a CCG.
“Unlike Jim Delany, it seems that Bowlsby is a man of principle.”
What a load of biased bullshit. Could you even keep a straight face while typing that nonsense?
“except to stick a shiv in the side of John Swofford.”
Yes, expecting the ACC to follow the same rules as everyone else, rules which have existed for quite a while, is clearly equivalent to a prison murder. Good call.
LikeLike
“No one wants to cast the vote that, in effect, prompts further dismemberment of the mid-majors.”
The B10’s first amendment would have done no such thing. It would’ve made the B12 choose between forming divisions and not having a CCG.
See the words, “in effect”. Quite obviously, passage of the Delany amendment in its original form would have made it so useless that Bowlsby’s only realistic options would be to expand or to accept permanently the disadvantage of not having the extra game to state his league’s case.
As far as I can tell, every journalist covering the sport believes that was the practical consequence of this decision. Perhaps they all coincidentally got it wrong, but I don’t think so.
…“except to stick a shiv in the side of John Swofford.”
Yes, expecting the ACC to follow the same rules as everyone else, rules which have existed for quite a while, is clearly equivalent to a prison murder. Good call.
They are not expecting the ACC to “follow…rules which have existed for quite a while.” They’ve written a brand new rule, and crafted it exquisitely to screw one, and only one, party.
As I have noted above, this new rule takes the CCG far afield of its original purpose, which I think invites the question of what the new purpose might be?
LikeLike
I checked in on a couple OU and UT forums. The overwhelming fan sentiment is for divisions. They think this is stupid and potentially diminishing. The difference is OU fans want expansion (in the a sense of leaving). Many UT fans would like to exit also. Why expand into mediocrity when better options are available.
I know, it’s fan talk and not presidents. But it seems this rule isn’t making many others happy.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“See the words, “in effect”.”
You claiming it doesn’t make it so. The B12 has continuously rejected expansion just to get a CCG. The first amendment offered them a CCG without expansion. There is zero way in which that amendment would “in effect” force expansion. Forming divisions isn’t an onerous requirement.
“Quite obviously, passage of the Delany amendment in its original form would have made it so useless that Bowlsby’s only realistic options would be to expand or to accept permanently the disadvantage of not having the extra game to state his league’s case.”
Yes, because splitting into 2 divisions is such a Herculean task. How could a conference ever be expected to manage that?
“As far as I can tell, every journalist covering the sport believes that was the practical consequence of this decision.”
I don’t recall any of them saying that. Please quote/link 10 of them saying that the original amendment would force the B12 to expand (not lead to expansion, that’s a completely different statement). Plenty of them said they thought the B12 would expand eventually, but I don’t recall any saying that the amendment would force it to happen.
“They are not expecting the ACC to “follow…rules which have existed for quite a while.””
Yes, they are.
“They’ve written a brand new rule,”
Which doesn’t apply to conferences of the size of the ACC, just like the old one didn’t apply to conference of the B12’s size.
“and crafted it exquisitely to screw one, and only one, party.”
Which part adversely impacts the ACC any more than the P12, B10 and SEC? They all have to have divisions and play a round robin in the division and put the two division champions into the CCG. How is the ACC singled out for punishment?
“As I have noted above, this new rule takes the CCG far afield of its original purpose, which I think invites the question of what the new purpose might be?”
CCGs have always had 1 purpose – $$$$$$$$$$$. This rule is designed to give the B12 equal access to that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I checked in on a couple OU and UT forums. The overwhelming fan sentiment is for divisions.”
Because they realize that is the most sensible way for the B12 to stage a CCG. Probably also because they figure OU and UT will be split and could rematch in the CCG a lot.
“They think this is stupid and potentially diminishing.”
It is.
“I know, it’s fan talk and not presidents. But it seems this rule isn’t making many others happy.”
Good. Bad rules should upset people.
LikeLike
Brian:
No, I think they assume OU and UT would be in the same division thereby avoiding a RRRRepeat. They want divisions. They think guaranteed replays is dumb. Unavoidable rematches in larger conferences are unfortunate, but at least not guaranteed.
LikeLike
Brian has a good point; how does the latest proposal screw the ACC more than the B10, SEC, or Pac?
They all would have to follow the same rule.
LikeLike
“As I have noted above, this new rule takes the CCG far afield of its original purpose, which I think invites the question of what the new purpose might be?”
CCGs have always had 1 purpose – $$$$$$$$$$$. This rule is designed to give the B12 equal access to that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Incorrect. CCGs were devised to identify the champion who would get the playoff auto-bid in large FCS conferences. That was why the option was limited to 12-team (or greater) conferences that could not stage a round-robin.
Everyone agrees that the SEC hijacked this rule in a way not intended when it was written. Of course, once the SEC paved the way, others followed suit, but we all know that wasn’t the original idea.
Once you concede, as you’ve now done, that the rule has a brand new purpose—to make money—the question must be asked: why the Delany version(*), and not the ACC version? Generally, leagues have unlimited latitude to schedule their games as they see fit, subject only to not exceeding the allowed duration of the season. The regulator doesn’t decide what constitutes a good schedule, or a bad one. Leagues are free to screw it up any way they want.
Now that anyone can play a CCG for cash, whether they needed it or not, there is no legitimate regulatory purpose for further constraining who gets to play. There is an illegitimate purpose: to screw the ACC.
LikeLike
Brian has a good point; how does the latest proposal screw the ACC more than the B10, SEC, or Pac?
In the last round of expansion, the B10, SEC, and Pac were the aggressors. The Big 12 and the ACC were, and they remain, the two weakest Power 5 leagues. They are the ones seriously at risk of getting poached again. Indeed, they are likely the only ones at risk: no one has suggested a believable scenario where the B10, SEC, or Pac would lose teams.
The ACC and the B12 suggested a rule change that would give them more scheduling flexibility, which (they hope) will make them stronger, and less likely to lose members. After much back and forth, the rule adopted gave the B12 everything it wanted, while giving the ACC nothing it wanted.
The CCG rule was devised originally for student welfare—to limit the number of games played, beyond what is considered to be both safe and necessary. Once you concede that any league may play that game for money, regardless of size or need, there is no legitimate reason to deny each league the right to schedule it as they see fit.
You would have to be awfully naïve NOT to believe that Delany and Sankey are motivated primarily by the hope that their leagues will ultimately profit from the ACC’s weakness. This is pretty far afield from the NCAA’s core (claimed) purpose of protecting amateurism and student–athlete welfare.
LikeLike
I guess black is white and up is down…
No point arguing this any more.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“CCGs were devised to identify the champion who would get the playoff auto-bid in large FCS conferences.”
http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/05/16/conference-championship-games-rule-origin
Incorrect. The rule was originally written for a 14 member D-II conference (they never ended up having an exempt CCG as it turns out) and then another one that had 12 members asked to be included so the rule was rewritten before submittal. Two largish low level conferences that had divisions wanted a way to determine their champion without wasting the final week of the season for everyone else. That was the whole idea behind it. There was no grand purpose beyond that.
It wasn’t about protecting players from extra games. It wasn’t about making the playoff (neither conference had a playoff autobid). In fact, the original conference wanted it in part because their winner didn’t always make the playoff and they wanted a special experience for them no matter what (sort of like a bowl game).
“Everyone agrees that the SEC hijacked this rule in a way not intended when it was written.”
And why did they do it? For $$$$$$$$$, as I said. That’s always been the real purpose for CCGs in I-A which is the only set of CCGs we’re really talking about.
“Of course, once the SEC paved the way, others followed suit, but we all know that wasn’t the original idea.”
You asked about the purpose of the games, not the purpose of the rule. Those are two different things.
“Once you concede, as you’ve now done, that the rule has a brand new purpose—to make money—”
I’ve conceded no such thing. I said that was the purpose of the games, not the purpose of the rule. The purpose of this new rule is to level the playing field for the B12 is what I said.
“the question must be asked: why the Delany version(*), and not the ACC version?”
Because their is no benefit in total deregulation as the rule has already been abused. Why make it even easier to abuse unnecessarily?
“Now that anyone can play a CCG for cash”
Untrue. They still have to play a full round robin or split into divisions. The pre-2011 B10 wouldn’t have been able to stage a CCG without forming divisions (except 1983 and 1984), the same requirement that the B12 found so onerous.
“there is no legitimate regulatory purpose for further constraining who gets to play.”
According to you and only you.
“There is an illegitimate purpose: to screw the ACC.”
You still have yet to explain how the ACC is screwed by a rule the impacts the B10 and SEC equally (all have 14 teams) and the P12 almost equally.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
The ACC being weak is orthogonal to the ACC getting screwed. The rule is the same for them as everyone else. The ACC is weak because the ACC is weak. The rule doesn’t change that in any way.
“The CCG rule was devised originally for student welfare”
No, it wasn’t. You’re just making stuff up.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“I guess black is white and up is down…
No point arguing this any more.”
Hear, hear.
I’m being reminded of a certain MO alumnus.
LikeLike
“The CCG rule was devised originally for student welfare”
No, it wasn’t. You’re just making stuff up.
Of course it was. I am amazed you would even argue this.
You need to be able to follow a syllogism, but I know you can do it.
Why is the regular season limited? Why can’t Alabama schedule 16 games, just like the NFL? I’m sure they’d have no trouble getting people to watch.
The answer is, that the NCAA members agree to limit the length of the season, so that athletes will still have time to be students. In addition, it gives their bodies time to recover from the physical demands of a tough sport.
The limit in football is 12 regular-season games. The 13th game (the CCG) was originally considered an exception to that limit, and only for leagues that truly needed it, because they could not crown a champion via a full round-robin.
This was because, in the ordinary course of events, the wise regulators thought that 12 regular-season games was enough. (This was after they thought 11 was enough, which was after they thought 10 was enough, but that’s another issue.)
So yeah, it was absolutely a student welfare issue, in the sense that ALL limits on the number of games are a student welfare issue. They don’t write that phrase into every rule about length of the season, but it is the animating purpose behind such rules.
“there is no legitimate regulatory purpose for further constraining who gets to play.”
According to you and only you.
You don’t think Bob Bowlsby, John Swofford, and all their constituent schools, agree with me? We can start there.
LikeLike
I doubt it is caving; probably just the realization that Bowlsby has the votes needed from the Group of 5. I do not believe the SEC/B10/P12 want the B12/ACC to owe any favors to the Go5.
LikeLike
I believe the following is inevitable:
1)Playoff will expand to eight teams.
2)the first two rounds will played on higher seeded team’s campus. Ticket sales split between CFP and hosting team.
3) # of bowls will be reduced GREATLY
LikeLike
Eight teams I’m all for — as long as all four (or five) “major” conference champions get automatic bids, even if they’re the “wrong” teams (think Wake Forest in 2006). You win a P5 (or P4) conference, you’re in, even if you’re not a “brand name.” ESPN and fans of kings won’t like it, but screw them.
LikeLike
This is what confuses me about the proposed CCG deregulation. Why does the non OU/UT/FSU/Clemson schools feel this solution is not going to hurt them? Is the selection committee ranking going to value a non king with similar resume equally? Is best marketing practice for ESPN aligned with interests of the majority of schools? We already have an four team invitational nationally. Now we’re expanding it to conference level (and that decision won’t be conference controlled.
LikeLike
Tyson,
“I believe the following is inevitable:”
My list would be this:
1. Death
2. Taxes
Everything else is merely possible or probable.
“1)Playoff will expand to eight teams.”
It probably will eventually, unfortunately.
“2)the first two rounds will played on higher seeded team’s campus. Ticket sales split between CFP and hosting team.”
Neither part of that is inevitable, especially the revenue split.
“3) # of bowls will be reduced GREATLY”
ESPN makes money from bowls. Why would they go away? What else is there to watch in late December? Why should the NCAA make them go away?
LikeLike
Why shouldn’t conference champs get automatic bids in an 8-team playoff? Because it would dilute the power of “kings” if they are upset in a CCG?
LikeLike
vp19,
“Why shouldn’t conference champs get automatic bids in an 8-team playoff?”
1. Because there shouldn’t be a playoff at all.
2. Because there shouldn’t be an 8-team playoff more specifically. There has never been a season with 8 truly deserving competitors for the status of best team that season.
3. Because the goal of a playoff is to determine the National Champion. Most consider that a goal of determining the best team. There is no necessary link between winning your conference and being one of the 8 best teams in the country.
4. The entire schedule should matter equally for a National Champion. Conference champions aren’t generally evaluated on their OOC games but those should be a significant factor for the national champion.
5. Past history shows plenty of undeserving conference champions. 1982 MI is a perfect example. They went 8-1 in the B10 to win it over 7-1 OSU despite OSU beating MI head to head (getting an extra B10 game won them the title). Unfortunately MI went 0-2 OOC so they were 8-3 overall and #19 before losing the Rose Bowl. That sort of team deserves a shot at the national tile? I don’t think so. 1981 had the same issue. IA and OSU were co-champs and didn’t play each other, both finished 8-3, 6-2 with losses to mediocre OOC foes. Neither team was top 10 before the Rose Bowl. Why should either of them get a title shot? 1990 IA (8-3, 6-2, won 4 way tie). 2000 PU (8-3, 6-2, 3 way co-champ). 2004 MI (9-2, #13). 2012 WI (7-5 for cripes sake). That just the most glaring cases from the B10 in the past 35 years. Other conferences have similar lists. Winning a conference isn’t the same thing as being worthy of national title consideration.
LikeLike
You’re not putting thr genie back in thr bottle, Brian. And automatic conference champions (with several at-large berths in am 8-page setup) eliminates the “beauty contest” aspect of the BCS and 4-team playoff format. As things stand now, a non-marketable name from a P5 program finds it infinitely more difficult to make a playoff than a “king” if both have equal records. But as an Ohio State fan, I don’t think you get that.
LikeLike
vp19,
“You’re not putting thr genie back in thr bottle, Brian.”
No, but I can still wish it was in and not support letting it farther out.
“And automatic conference champions (with several at-large berths in am 8-page setup) eliminates the “beauty contest” aspect of the BCS and 4-team playoff format.”
No it doesn’t. You still have at-larges. And ranking-based tiebreakers. And autobids only for some conferences, meaning many schools have no access to them (even ND).
Besides, it also lets in lots of completely unworthy teams. That’s not a net positive to me.
It’s one thing to say that only conference champions and independents should make the final 4. It’s another to say all P5 champs deserve a spot no matter what. History shows that plenty of P5 champs do not deserve access to an 8-team playoff.
“As things stand now, a non-marketable name from a P5 program finds it infinitely more difficult to make a playoff than a “king” if both have equal records.”
Do they? Where is the actual evidence for that in the CFP? And how often have these supposedly better but less marketable P5 teams proven in the postseason that they really were better? Rankings aren’t perfect, but teams like 2006 WF have no business playing for a title.
LikeLike
Autobids allow any P5 team to play their way in. Which was what was meant by the “beauty contest” remark, even if it still exists.
LikeLike
He said it eliminates it, and it doesn’t. I pointed out multiple areas where the beauty contest would still exist. Besides, he hasn’t explained why a multi-loss, low ranking conference champion should have a spot other than he doesn’t like the beauty contest. That’s not a reason to keep out better teams if the point of a playoff is to find the best team. The current system values conference titles but also values the OOC schedule. Any system of selecting postseason teams that completely ignores 25-33% of the schedule and also doesn’t care how good the actual team has been all season is fatally flawed in my opinion.
LikeLike
Under the current system, an Iowa State or Wake Forest have to work twice as hard to get half as far. It’s virtually impossible for a non-name school to qualify for the playoff.
LikeLike
Brian:
25-33% is enough to negate 67-75% ? Last year “obviously” Oregon and tOSU had no business being included in the championship game…until they won their way in.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Under the current system, an Iowa State or Wake Forest have to work twice as hard to get half as far. It’s virtually impossible for a non-name school to qualify for the playoff.”
What a load. When has WF or ISU won the 11+ games needed to begin to qualify? ISU has never won more than 9 games. WF only won more than 9 games in 2006. 2006 WF was 11-2 in the regular season with losses to #19 (final AP poll) VT and NR Clemson. They beat #20 BC and NR GT (ACC CG). They had 5 1-possession wins while all 3 losses (including the bowl) were by double digits.
It’s hard for non-name schools to qualify because it’s hard for anyone to qualify. Only 3% of teams make it each year.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“25-33% is enough to negate 67-75%?”
It could be. At the least it provides context. Why would you willing use less than the full set of data when evaluating teams with such a short season? A team that is winless in OOC play can still win their conference (see 1982 MI as 1 example). Why would you ignore those losses?
“Last year “obviously” Oregon and tOSU had no business being included in the championship game…until they won their way in.”
Last year there was no BCS and thus no selection of teams for the CCG. Last year nobody was ignoring their OOC schedules or OSU would’ve been an easy choice. Both years conference champion status was needed to get in. But needing to be a champ to get in is very different from saying all champs should get in.
LikeLike
Also, while the Big 10 is a beast right now, I still think that the “final” round of conference realignment will place Texas in the ACC (or possibly the PAC 12). This article points out well established trends that would validate Texas’ move East or West, rather than North
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-22/new-census-tells-us-where-americans-are-moving
LikeLike
Texas doesn’t need to jump to a conference for demographic reasons (as that article shows).
However, the B10 with its new tier 1&2 TV contract could bring in significantly more TV money than any of the ACC, B12, or Pac starting soon.
Ironically, the migration from B10 states actually helps the B10 in that regard. Team loyalties are often formed in early adulthood and may be passed down from generation to generation. All that outmigration means that there are now a lot of B10 fans in places like CA, FL, and AZ, making the B10 the most national college conference.
LikeLike
The demographic reasons are precisely the ones that will drive any Texas move to a new conference, and it will be with an eye on the next 50 years as opposed to the next 10…this is where things will get difficult for the Big 10. Who could have imagined in 1965 that Detroit would look as it does today? The forces at work across the rust belt will take years to fully develop. The Big 12 will not survive because of demographics. Texas could opt for independence, but I think the long play is to head to the ACC. And don’t be surprised if the Big 10’s next TV deals aren’t the monumental sums that have been predicted–we may actually have seen rights fees peak already
LikeLike
Actually, they haven’t. People keep saying that TV rights fees have peaked, but if you look at the TV rights deals the NBA and various MLB teams have signed recently, they keep blowing past expectations.
LikeLike
And the problem with the ACC is that while their footprint includes some states with great demographics (for now; global warming will devastate FL), they really only own NC, VA, and NYS (and really only upstate NYS). (Yes, they “own” Boston/MA as well; in the sense that the Columbus Crew “owns” OH; BC is probably the 5th/6th most popular team there). And in the states that they share, they are usually not the dominant brand (only Clemson in SC could realistically make that claim).
LikeLike
Tyson,
“The demographic reasons are precisely the ones that will drive any Texas move to a new conference, and it will be with an eye on the next 50 years as opposed to the next 10…this is where things will get difficult for the Big 10. Who could have imagined in 1965 that Detroit would look as it does today?”
If you want to talk about 50 year issues, let’s bring global warming into the discussion. How many more years of drought can the west take before needing to stop growing? How much sea level rise can FL take? How many days in the 100s will it take to drive people out of the south? The midwest has plenty of water, is well above sea level and is much cooler. As the power of unions die in the midwest, it’ll become a better choice for labor as well due to its higher education levels than the south.
There is no way to know what things will look like in 2065.
LikeLike
Global warming?? Are you serious? Florida’s coast will look just like it does now, for all intents and purposes in 50 years, and that topic will have been completely debunked
LikeLike
Believe that if you like.
You’ll be proven wrong, though.
The whole southeast and southwest will be severely affected (Northeast coast as well).
LikeLike
Tyson,
Being a political topic I won’t get into a deep argument about it here. If you choose to remain ignorant, so be it. Please invest all your savings in FL beachfront property and prove me wrong.
LikeLike
Tyson,
The demographics argument is total bs and overstatement. You’re painfully and ignorantly assuming kids want to grow up and play football thus stacking the rosters of Sun Belt teams in the process. Who really cares in the grand scheme of things.
I’ll just make an argument that’s hard to top. Football has been better in the Southeast & Southwest for a long time due to cultural reasons. De-segregation wasn’t even finalized in the Southeast until the early 70s. Until then, the Midwest absolutely capitalized on this fact.
Pro football continues to succeed in the North & that’s where the real money is.
But the fans still show up in the Midwest, higher learning is fine up here.
Plenty of Midwestern states grow fast enough & none are shrinking in overall population. Some of the best economies in the US are in the Midwest as well, and certainly the most stable environments.
As for your dismissive climate change argument – man you better wake up. It’s not a regional thing baby, it’s a national and global concern & it is the Sun Belt that will be in huge trouble as the issues continue, especially the West and Florida & perhaps much of Texas. I think much of the Southeast will be fine, outside the coastal regions. The Northeast is at risk, and some of the drier states of the Midwest are at risk as well. Really, we’re all at risk because it will take a national effort to diminish the impact of climate change. CF will be unimportant when if the above manifests, thus this blog.
LikeLike
On the compromise that would allow conference with less than 12 schools to hold title game if it plays round-robin….
LikeLike
One obvious takeaway from all this: Big 12 isn’t thrilled with idea of expansion.
I think expansion presents them with three problems.
1) There isn’t any obvious sexy candidate out there, and there certainly aren’t two.
2) After expansion, the non-Texas schools would be spending less time in Texas, and more time in places they really don’t care to play.
3) Under the existing CCG rules, it’s hard to come up with balanced divisions that makes much sense.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14563798/missouri-tigers-forced-vacate-all-wins-2013-14-investigation-shows-major-violations
MO’s MBB has been busted by the school for major violations. All wins from 2013-4 will be vacated, 2 scholarships cut, and a fine. This all happened under former coach Frank Haith who was also punished for incidents at Miami while he coached there. Who would have thought that a dirty coach would get busted again?
LikeLike
http://www.oudaily.com/sports/oklahoma-football-president-david-boren-calls-big-disadvantaged-again-after/article_c280b8d2-ba4e-11e5-8fb3-2f2e14dc08bc.html
OU still isn’t happy.
“The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference,” the statement read.
They can fix another one whenever they choose. There are plenty of willing candidates to join. The third issue is their own fault for not forming one or at least reserving the rights to do so before the LHN started. There’s no fixing that without someone else paying UT the money.
LikeLike
Eh. We know that OU wants out of the B12 if the B10 or Pac would take them (they may even be amenable to the SEC by this point). They just can’t escape because of OKSt. and possibly other factors.
LikeLike
I don’t really get Boren making these comments. OU had a chance with the PAC-12 and couldn’t get in with Oklahoma State in tow. They aren’t going anywhere with the grant of rights for years even if there is an offer (which there probably wouldn’t be today, not one that involved the Cowboys anyway). I guess maybe he hopes to push the other Big 12 schools, but my guess is that if most are anti-expansion, he’s more likely to push them away with these types of comments than convince them to join him (and by all accounts many more are anti-expansion than pro).
I really think 10 is the way to go for the conference regardless. They will add a CCG (I would love it if they didn’t, but I don’t buy they won’t for a second). The system will be different than other conferences, but it keeps everyone very interconnected (good for the conference) and will set them apart a little (good for keeping attention) while still getting the 13th game and the money from it. None of the expansion candidates really adds enough to make up for loosing those advantages and having to deal with a messy divisional discussion.
LikeLike
I can see the logic.
Boren wants to blow up the B12, which would entail Texas moving, which would give OU the political cover to ditch OK St., and OU by itself is certain to land somewhere good if they didn’t have to bring along OK St. as well.
LikeLike
OU by itself is certain to land somewhere good if they didn’t have to bring along OK St. as well.
This makes very good sense
Going back to the summer of 2010 it was stated that Slive had gone to Oklahoma to pair the Sooners with Texas A&M to join the SEC. The implied response was Oklahoma would only go to the SEC with Oklahoma State so when the move happened Missouri became Texas A&M’s partner. When Oklahoma tested the PAC it seems again Oklahoma State was a required part of the deal and the PAC said no to the pair.
While I can see Oklahoma in the B1G, PAC, or SEC, I just can’t see any of the 3 saying yes to Oklahoma State or the move would already have happened. The difference is now, Boren knows Oklahoma State is a non starter and if they move, it must be with many to the PAC or by itself to the B1G or SEC. If that option does not exist right now it makes sense he would push for expansion right now.
LikeLike
They aren’t going anywhere with the grant of rights for years even if there is an offer (which there probably wouldn’t be today, not one that involved the Cowboys anyway).
He is playing a long game, which can be hard for fans to relate to. He knows this isn’t getting solved this year, or the next, or the year after that.
LikeLike
Maybe. I am more inclined to think he’s just saying his feelings (easy to do even if not smart). If he is playing a game, I just don’t think it’s necessarily good moves on his part.
Further thought (not on Boren): The way this came about is probably actually the worst way it could of if you a Cincinnati or someone looking to get in. I didn’t understand the Big 12 saying it preferred the original plan (outside of trying to help the ACC which had helped it out) before, but in retrospect, that kept it’s options open.
If the Big 12 had gone to 12, with 9 conference games, they could have easily remained division-less. You would only be missing 2 opponents a year which the Big Ten did for years and you could easily make it so no 2 teams missed the same 2 teams (no more than 2 undefeated under any circumstances). For a conference which would have messy divisional issues, that would have been a good move.
Now though with the proposal as is, the only way they keep no divisions is if they stick to 10. While I think that was definitely the preference of most anyway, I think makes deciding to expand a bit harder.
LikeLike
I didn’t understand the Big 12 saying it preferred the original plan (outside of trying to help the ACC which had helped it out) before, but in retrospect, that kept it’s options open.
For a 10-team Big 12, the proposal as approved gives them everything they want.
I agree, they might very well have chosen to go division-less after the expand, had the revised rule permitted this. It’s always nice to have options in your hip pocket. And yeah, Bowlsby didn’t want to leave his ACC colleagues out in the cold..
Bowlsby has said, he fundamentally believes that CCG structure is no longer a proper subject for regulation. The original purpose of the rule was to preserve the balance of student-athlete welfare, with the need to determine a clear champion for FCS leagues with playoff auto-bids.
Once you concede—as you must—that it’s now more about money and impressing the committee, then it ought to be up to each league to decide how best they want to do that.
LikeLike
@Marc Shepherd – I am generally more in favor of a laissez faire approach for conference championship games and would have been fine with complete deregulation. That being said, there is a logical competitive reason for the compromise rule: each participant in a conference championship game has to play a round robin schedule at *some* level (whether it’s a full conference slate for a 10-team league or a divisional schedule for larger conferences with divisions). It’s a legitimate concern that conferences could manipulate their schedules to prop up their conference championship games. You could argue that divisional alignments can be manipulated, but the round-robin-within-a-division requirement still provides a checkpoint against leagues for going too far off the reservation.
Like I’ve said, I don’t necessarily agree with Delany and you might be right that the primary purpose was to stick it to the ACC, but I think there are legit competitive reasons for the compromise rule beyond putting the ACC at a disadvantage.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The original purpose of the rule was to preserve the balance of student-athlete welfare, with the need to determine a clear champion for FCS leagues with playoff auto-bids.”
Factually incorrect on multiple points.
LikeLike
He is playing a long game, which can be hard for fans to relate to. He knows this isn’t getting solved this year, or the next, or the year after that.
He’s 74. He can’t play too long of a game.
LikeLike
Yes, but he’s fighting the good fight (in terms of furthering OU’s interests). OU may not reach its goals before he dies (though I’m sure that Boren would like to be around to see OU in the Big20 or Pac), but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try.
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/david-boren-would-like-to-end-the-longhorn-network/article/5472488
David Boren has his sights set on something bigger than conference expansion or a Big 12 title game. The OU president is focused on what started this whole “psychologically disadvantaged” Big 12 in the first place.
The Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
Yes, I think this explains his actions more clearly. He wants to eliminate the advantage UT has over OU in the LHN. It’s about ego, not about leaving the B12. I think he’d be happy in a 10-team B12 with a B12N and no LHN.
LikeLike
Note that this is all Berry Trammel’s interpretation. Boren says nothing of the sort. Boren isn’t really so stupid that he thinks UT will give up the LHN before 2032. Berry is.
LikeLike
Boren said they need to fix the problem of not having a B12N at the same time. There’s no fix for that without ending the LHN and folding it into the B12N.
LikeLike
Bullet:
So you think that Texas wouldn’t give up the LHN even if another combination of TV deals nets them more money?
LikeLike
Narcissists don’t like to share the spotlight.
I’d like to say I’m kidding…
LikeLike
LHN is about exposure for the university. They were going to do it if it cost them money.
They sure aren’t going to give up the $15 million a year just when it is turning profitable. Texas also has a 70% equity kicker if it achieves certain financial goals.
The rest of the Big 12 wasn’t interested in a network. Texas and Nebraska jointly funded a study because the rest, including Texas A&M, Missouri and Colorado, had zero interest. Texas invested a lot in getting this started. They aren’t going to let OU ride on all their work when OU had their chance. Boren is basically saying, “You didn’t build that.”
And you don’t need Texas to start a network. Just to make it more profitable.
LikeLike
He does have a point. (h/t Matt Sarz)
LikeLike
It isn’t the surfs in the B12 kingdom stirring things publicly. It’s the ones that aren’t actually in any peril.
LikeLike
Well, they have options. The serfs don’t want to upset the apple cart because the apples will fall on their head if they do.
LikeLike
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nike-reaches-252-million-deal-to-extend-sponsorship-at-ohio-state-1452811305
Nike just signed a $252M deal with OSU for another 15 years.
LikeLike
http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/johnehoover/john-e-hoover-david-boren-tired-of-big-s-little/article_cd7816c7-5571-5ebe-9392-3911e9337f83.html?mode=jqm
Found this elsewhere. Good interview with Boren. Lots of information. Doesn’t name any names, but says a lot.
LikeLike
Full transcript of Boren’s interview. Good read on realignment.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/sports/johnehoover/q-a-with-ou-president-david-boren/article_d5e9b844-5fa0-5f4c-98f6-357abd37e19e.html
LikeLike
@bullet – Yes, I also posted this interview on Twitter. It’s a must read for everyone here.
LikeLike
This is the first I have heard of Oklahoma’s standing invite to the B1G. What are your sources telling you Frank?
LikeLike
Very interesting. I initially read quotes from it on Boren saying there was support from “most” on expansion and dismissed it. It’s didn’t seem to fit with everything else we’ve seen from credible sources, especially right after the Big 12 won on adding a CCG.
It does make more sense about the Big 12 not being happy the original proposal didn’t pass now though. If they were definitely staying at 10, that result was perfect, but if they are considering 12, they’d probably still want the option to be divisionless.
LikeLike
Yes, the Big12 has a structural 6-school division problem, since all four OK/KS-U/St’s want to be in the same division as their in-state school and the central Texas schools. Twelve schools divisionless with five locked games and six alternating two-on, two-off allows much more flexibility to give each of those four a locked game with a pair of TX/Baylor/TCU as well as their in-state rival.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Re: BYU
IMO, no.
The folks who run the show there believe that they are on a mission from God.
Literally.
LikeLike
This.
Others may treat FB, BB, etc. like a religion. At BYU they actually serve as an arm of the religious organization the school is.
LikeLike
Expanding on the Big 20 idea above:
It’s clear that OU and KU are willing to jump to a more stable league right now even if the money is the same. If Texas doesn’t move, though, it’s hard for them to justify leaving little brother behind and fighting the B12 GOR (if Texas is willing to move, they can justify jumping a sinking ship, but Texas may not want to give up the LHN and has money up the wazoo anyway).
In the ACC, the bonds between UVa, NCSU, Duke, and UNC are tight. UNC holds that conference together. But what if, with the next TV deal, each B10 school makes twice as much money as each ACC school?
There is an argument for the B10 to make an offer to 6 ACC schools together. I had been looking back on Patrick’s TV revenue analysis from about 6 years ago, and on there, Pitt would still be a net positive (and that was with the tier 1 deal remaining static, which it won’t be soon). Pitt is already a terrific fit in all respects but footprint (helping to solidify the NYC market a bit as well), but with the next big money coming from the national tier 1 deal, footprint isn’t such a concern. And if the B10 is eyeing GTech, it has to be aware that Pitt would be attractive to the SEC (barely outside the edge of southern culture, but MO is only partially on the edge with large parts that aren’t southern at all.
So the B10 could offer Pitt, UVa, UNC, Duke, NCSU (not AAU yet, but by the research metrics the AAU considers important, NCSU is closer to an AAU school than Mizzou, KU, OU, and UNL), and GTech.
Of these schools, UNC and NCSU could very well prefer the SEC. I don’t think UNC would allow NCSU to go to the SEC and not go themselves.
I believe the SEC would definitely take VTech and FSU in that case. They may win UNC+NCSU as well. That would put both conferences at 18 each (or 20 and 16).
Both want OU+KU. I think that just as the SEC has the edge with the NC publics, the B10 has the edge with the Plains schools.
If, after the dust settles (and Texas decides not to move forever), the SEC stays smaller than the B20, they may add 2 more to get to 20: TTech and Cincy.
LikeLike
Why settle for 6 ACC schools? Go for 10 and have a B1G 10+14!
On a halfway serious note if you want to jointly consume the ACC with the SEC:
Big 10 Great Lakes-Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois,
Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Penn St.
Big 10 Atlantic Coast-Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, UConn and Notre Dame. Leave FSU, VT, Clemson, NCSU, Louisville and Wake for SEC-some tempting schools.
LikeLike
Now, who would be paying so much TV money to B20 schools, you may ask.
Wouldn’t they be cannabalizing themselves?
Note, however, that the ACC is an ESPN-only property and because they only have Pac and B12 games now, Fox has no presence in the southeast in college sports (and no chance of getting in there any time soon). But what if they are able to offer enough to the B10 to entice away many of the valuable parts of the ACC?
Then Fox is a player on par with the WWL with the same scope of regional coverage.
Fox and FS1 current show a total of a little over 3 Pac & B12 games a week some of them, especially OOC, are dreck, though (like SF Austin @ TCU and UTSA @ OK St.). Fox would have 3 slots most Saturdays and FS1 would have 4 (the late night slot).
With 20 teams, the Big 20 would have 90 conference games. 8 conference games a week for 11 weeks (so in seasons with 13 weeks, that means that an OOC game, likely against a MACrifice team, has to be fit in to 1 of the 2 bye weeks like in the days when the B10 played 12 straight weeks in a row and had 11 schools). 2 on Black Friday.
One Big20 game-of-the-week on primetime Fox (picked before the season). Another B20 game each week on BTN primetime (also set before the season starts). Then the Big 20 would still want a presence on ESPN/ABC, so $150M for first pick of what’s left each week (that the WWL can show in the afternoon time slot). A little less than 3 more B20 games each week (so a total of a little less than 4 B20 games each week) on Fox&FS1 with those shown in the morning or afternoon. Fox pays a total of $450 for football.
BTN gets another 2 daytime conference games (so 3 conference games each Saturday).
the WWL and Fox split up B20 basketball for $100M.
Total of $700M/year split by 20 schools = $35M/school just from the first&second tier contracts. BTN will generate another $15M or so per school for a total of $50M/year/school in total TV money.
OU&KU may replace UNC&NCSU. For that matter, ‘Cuse _could_ replace Pitt.
LikeLike
Another reason why Fox may overpay the B10 so much to entice over a bunch of ACC schools: the BTN. Fox is a 51% owner. That’s a good amount of potential profit there with expansion.
LikeLike
Fox is a 51% owner of the garbage after Tier I takes the best games. People overstate the value of owning Tier III. It makes money now, but the big ratings are Tier I.
LikeLike
Basically true, but not all conferences put only garbage on Tier 3. The P12N and SECN get some good games. The BTN could follow suit at some point.
LikeLike
??? The BTN definitely has good games ( and has among the most watched games in its market some weekends).
There’s a big bump in carriage fees from putting a state in the footprint ( which is how Rutgers managed to pay for itself).
LikeLike
Richard,
“??? The BTN definitely has good games ( and has among the most watched games in its market some weekends).”
The others have put big games on (TAMU @ SC opener, LSU @ UF, GT @ UGA, …). I don’t recall BTN doing that.
“There’s a big bump in carriage fees from putting a state in the footprint ( which is how Rutgers managed to pay for itself).”
I didn’t argue the financial side.
LikeLike
Brian, on 10/10/15, the BTN had 3 games featuring 4 teams in the top 20: http://btn.com/2015/10/12/btn-shatters-viewership-mark-with-record-saturday/
Did the SECN or PTN ever have a day like that?
And the carriage stuff was in response to Bullet, not you.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, on 10/10/15, the BTN had 3 games featuring 4 teams in the top 20”
That wasn’t their expectation when they made the schedule. The picked OSU/UMD, MSU/RU and MI/NW. They picked 3 games that were big brands (highly ranked king, king and highly ranked prince) versus smaller brands (2 newbies and NW). Both MI and NW were exceeding expectations at that point in the season IIRC.
None of those games are LSU vs UF. That’s all I was saying. Frankly, I think the BTN takes the correct path by letting ABC and ESPN have the better games. They pay for the privilege of showing those games. If they don’t offer enough for the new TV deal, then I might suggest looking at moving some better games to BTN.
“Did the SECN or PTN ever have a day like that?”
I don’t know or care.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14577913/lloyd-carr-former-michigan-wolverines-coach-final-candidate-college-football-playoff-selection-committee
The CFP committee needs to replace 4 people (Tranghese, Osborne, Haden and Gould) by February. Lloyd Carr is one of the 6-8 finalists for the positions.
LikeLike
So I live in DC and on MASN there is a 30 minute show about Penn State basketball followed by a 30 minute show about Rutgers basketball. I had seen shows focused on UVA, VA Tech, and the ACC but nothing B1G-centric on MASN until now. Now, I moved here the same time that Maryland and Rutgers were added to the league so I can’t say whether MASN featured PSU or RU pre-expansion, but I thought it was more evidence of the B1G’s growing presence in DC and the mid-Atlantic.
LikeLike
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/college/iowa/basketball-men/2016/01/16/how-big-ten-basketball-schedule-comes-together-no-saturday-home-games/78862278/
For those of you who think 16 or 18 or 20 is a good idea, this article talks about the difficulties just scheduling basketball with 14.
LikeLike
The scheduling difficulties don’t actually increase, though, when you go from 14 to 18/20 teams. And the disparities actually decrease. With 14 teams, you could have an case where, for instance, Iowa plays all its neighbors only once in a certain year while Michigan plays all its neighbors twice. At 18/20, everybody is playing everybody else (besides maybe one locked in rival) once a year.
The biggest problem I have with the scheduling principles laid out is that they are too coach-centric and not student-centric enough. Of course coaches want 2 days to prep, but the NCAA tourney doesn’t give you 2 days to prep. Bunching travel dates Th-Sat, F-Sun, Sat-Mon, and Sun-Tues seems like it would be less disruptive to classes than having midweek travel dates and weekend travel dates that could cause missing M and F classes.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25449937/crowds-up-for-returning-bowls-but-down-overall-for-sixth-straight-year
Bowl attendance was up this year for returning games.
Thanks to the Alabama-Michigan State semifinal, the Cotton Bowl had the second-largest crowd this bowl season (82,812). That was a 16-percent increase from Baylor-Michigan State last year.
• The Orange Bowl was up 16 percent to 67,615 by getting the Clemson-Oklahoma semifinal. The Orange said it achieved a sellout after failing to do so in four of the previous six games. The Orange was below 68,000 for the fifth time in seven years after averaging 75,673 from 2001-09, but the recent renovation at Sun Life Stadium reduced the capacity to slightly more than 65,000.
• Even without the SEC or Big 12 champion in its game, the Sugar Bowl averaged 72,117 for Ole Miss-Oklahoma State. That’s down only 3 percent from Alabama-Ohio State in a national semifinal last season. Three years ago for Florida-Louisville, the Sugar had its smallest crowd since 1939.
• The Rose Bowl was the complete opposite of the Sugar Bowl and is usually better off with a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup. A year after hosting a Florida State-Oregon semifinal, it was up 3 percent for Iowa-Stanford.
• The Fiesta Bowl got a 6-percent spike for Ohio State-Notre Dame after having Boise State-Arizona a year ago. This year’s game (71,123) was the largest since Boise State-TCU in 2010.
• The Peach Bowl snapped a streak of three straight years under 69,000 by drawing 71,007 for Florida State-Houston. Attendance was up 8 percent for a game that averaged 73,359 from 2006-11.
As you can see, the NY6 did well.
LikeLike
Not on TV, where they did horribly.
Anybody willing to trade several millions of TV viewers for a few thousand more butts in the seats is an imbecile.
LikeLike
Nobody was talking about TV. That was discussed to death days ago. Why bring up an irrelevant point that nobody is arguing against?
“Anybody willing to trade several millions of TV viewers for a few thousand more butts in the seats is an imbecile.”
Or they value the bowls more than TV. Only a tiny number of people benefit from that TV money while a lot benefit from fans attending the bowl games.
LikeLike
A ton more people benefit from being able to watch important games when they are shown at convenient times (rather than one of the most inconvenient times in the whole year) compared to the people who go to bowl games, and you know that, Brian.
I’m probably in the top 10 percent of football fans when it comes to dedication, and I couldn’t watch any of the OU-Clemson semifinal because of the time it was held.
Prioritizing the interests of the bowls over fans shows how arrogant, out of touch, and moronic TPTB are.
LikeLike
I’m not talking fans, I’m talking people who live in those cities. A major bowl brings in millions to the community so all those residents have a vested interest in the bowl doing well. The benefits to them are much more important than whether it’s convenient for you to watch the game live or not. You can DVR a game you’ll miss. They can’t DVR the spending from fans who don’t attend the bowl game. And there are tons more people that live in those cities than PTB in CFB which is why you can’t say that anyone who supports the bowls over TV is an imbecile..
LikeLike
Actually, I can.
1. A few thousand more fans isn’t going to make an appreciable economic impact on a city of millions. Saying that millions of people are going to be affected by a few thousand more fans showing up is ludicrous.
2. Why should colleges prioritize the interests of bowl cities over the interests of their own fans?
3. As someone who’s from a place that doesn’t have any bowls and sends lots of fans to bowls, why exactly do you think that it’s a good thing that those people spend money at bowl cities rather then in their home state, Brian?
LikeLike
1. It does for people who work in businesses dependent on that game, and their prosperity spreads the money around.
2. I never said they should. I said some people rightly could.
3. I didn’t say it is good for you. Why should the people in those cities give a rat’s ass about what’s good for you if you aren’t going to their game?
LikeLike
Brian: If colleges shouldn’t prioritize the interests of bowl cities over their own fans, yet they do so, then they are imbeciles, no?
On question 3, I’m not sure if you are deliberately dense or just are. I did not talk about me. I directly asked you: why do you think it’s better for people from the state you are from to spend money at bowl cities rather than their own state, Brian? Answer the question rather than acting like a politician and saying something offtopic.
LikeLike
Richard: do you want to be associated with the bowl in Pasadena, or the one in Boise? All teams fans benefit by retaining the better bowl association, whether it’s directly by qualifying or indirectly by sharing through conference disbursement.
LikeLike
I’d rather be associated with the Bowl in Pasadena than the one in Boise.
LikeLike
Ccrider, I fail to see how that question is germane to the issue of whether the semifinals, when not at the Rose/Sugar, should be on NYE or after NYD.
Also, does the Rose want to be associated with the Pac/B10 or not?
It seems that you don’t understand which way power flows.
Without college football, the bowls do not exist. Without the bowls, college football would still exist.
LikeLike
I’m not an insider, but apparently power still rests to a significant extent in the major bowls. Otherwise what you propose would have been implemented. Doesn’t power create/influence action (or inaction)?
LikeLike
Ccrider:
Only if/because TPTB are short-term-focused imbeciles who prioritize the bowls over their own fans.
The bowls only have the power that the schools let them have.
You saw this when the B12 and SEC banded together to form a Rose-equivalent and then went shopping for a bowl.
LikeLike
Its not their job to maximize convenience for every casual armchair fan. It’s to do what benefits their school and conference most. Apparently these “imbeciles” that run multi billion dollar a year institutions see (or saw, perhaps they will reevaluate) more benefit with the current set up.
I agree in a sports fan only set up it’s not ideal, but it’s not a professional sports league. I may prefer a different arrangement but I also don’t primarily have the job of running a top university. There may be factors I don’t understand, and I’m willing to make the best of what is available (although a bit of bitching may occasionally occur).
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian: If colleges shouldn’t prioritize the interests of bowl cities over their own fans, yet they do so, then they are imbeciles, no?”
No. You’re big on calling people names, but your disagreement with them on this one decision doesn’t earn them a derogatory term from me. Whether or not I agree with their position on this, I still wouldn’t call them imbeciles. These are all very intelligent people that run multi-million or billion dollar enterprises. I’d love to have an in-depth discussion with them about it and hear their reasoning, but that’ll never happen and I’m OK with that.
“On question 3, I’m not sure if you are deliberately dense or just are. I did not talk about me.”
You described yourself (and a lot of other people):
As someone who’s from a place that doesn’t have any bowls and sends lots of fans to bowls,
At first your grammar make it sound like it’s describing me, but the description actually is of you and other non-Detroit northerners. Thus my answer is directed to you.
“why exactly do you think that it’s a good thing that those people spend money at bowl cities rather then in their home state, Brian?
Feel free to quote me where I said that was a good thing necessarily. Or ask some economics professor to do a detailed study of the overall value to the US economy of one over the other.
If some people want to take a winter vacation to a bowl city and attend a bowl game, I fully support that. If other people want to sit home and watch bowl games on TV, I fully support that (as I’m in that group).
“I directly asked you:”
And I directly answered. I don’t know how to make it any simpler for you than copying your question and putting my response right below it.
“why do you think it’s better for people from the state you are from to spend money at bowl cities rather than their own state, Brian?”
People in my state get more money from bowl visitors than they spend at other bowls most likely, so that question is moot.
Why are you so insistent on calling everyone who disagrees with you on such a minor issue derogatory names?
LikeLike
I think the disconnect is that many fans complain that college sports leaders look to maximize every dollar at every opportunity. Yet, in the case of the playoff games on New Year’s Eve, it’s the one instance where choosing *not* to maximize every dollar is actually detrimental to the average TV viewing fan.
Now, I understand the desire to protect the bowls. That’s why pretty much every hypothetical playoff proposal that I’ve written over the years (whether a plus one, 4-team playoff or 8-team playoff) assumes that the bowls will be incorporated. I don’t have an issue with protecting the bowls as a concept.
However, a few thousand more tickets sold does NOT justify losing over 10 million TV viewers. If it was merely trading off a small drop in TV viewers in exchange for much better bowl ticket sales, it would be one thing, but this was massive with a huge financial impact. I know that the powers that be will try to argue every single possible argument to explain or mitigate the playoff viewership outside of the fact that New Year’s Eve is a terrible time slot for TV regardless of whether it’s a close game or a blowout because they have had such tunnel vision on this subject that they can’t admit failure at this point. At the same time, though, it’s too easy to say that the powers that be will get their money for the next decade regardless of the ratings. The ratings certainly matter when the rights for this playoff comes up for extension talks that will come much sooner than a decade. Maybe more importantly in the short-term, the ratings certainly matter to the sponsors of the bowls themselves since they are committed to buying a ton of TV ads on ESPN and aren’t seeing a good ROI.
Indeed, the sponsors are really the ones that get the attention of the bowls. If Capital One or Chick-Fil-A look at what they’re paying for a bowl sponsorship (where the value is much more in the TV exposure than the physical location of the game itself) and decide that the value isn’t worth as much, then selling a few extra thousand tickets isn’t worth it in the interest of the BOWLS themselves. For whatever reason, the powers that be have chosen to ignore ESPN (despite the fact that this event is largely possible due to ESPN’s funding). However, I don’t think that they can ignore bowl sponsors anywhere near as easily. Those sponsors fund a ton of money for bowls, but they’re doing it based on the assumption that they’re getting a ton of TV ad value in return. If the bowl sponsors start complaining about the ratings (and reports have shown that they have done so already), then you’ll get the attention of the powers that be. The bowls can impose whatever they want on ESPN, but they NEED the sponsors to be happy.
LikeLike
Brian, are you not from OH? Did you not grow up there?
And I get worked up about this because it’s symptomatic of arrogance, short-term thinking, and sheer idiocy. If they couldn’t get this issue right, just imagine how much they are screwing up on much more important affairs.
And read interviews; TPTB were surprised that the NYE bowl TV ratings were so bad when any of a number of people could have (and did) predict that. It shows how out of touch (and/or possibly corrupt) these people are. It shows that the emperor wears no clothes, and it shouldn’t be those who don’t give them the benefit of doubt who should be treated with skepticism but those who do who should be.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, are you not from OH? Did you not grow up there?”
I left OH after 3rd grade. Other than during college I never lived there again. I’ve lived in GA longer than I lived in OH. There’s no obvious way your description applies to me. Perhaps you meant it to, but from my end there was no way to know that.
“And I get worked up about this because it’s symptomatic of arrogance, short-term thinking, and sheer idiocy.”
“If they couldn’t get this issue right, just imagine how much they are screwing up on much more important affairs.”
1. It remains to be proven that they aren’t right. All we know so far is that you disagree with them and that the year 2 of the CFP didn’t go well in terms of TV ratings.
2. There is no inherent link between this issue and “much more important affairs.”
3. I think the issue is having university presidents making decisions about the business of athletics since they are not experts on either topic. However, they have to have the final say.
“And read interviews; TPTB were surprised that the NYE bowl TV ratings were so bad when any of a number of people could have (and did) predict that.”
They knew they’d be down. They were a little surprised at the magnitude of the drop according to their comments.
But we only have 1 year in each scenario so far. Maybe year 1 was unusually high in ratings so year 2 will turn out not to be that bad. Maybe they’ll be right about building a tradition and NYE audiences will grow over time. Maybe NYE games are much more sensitive to blowouts dropping the ratings since people have more options that night and close will prove to do well. Maybe every NYE will go like this past one. Only time will tell.
“It shows how out of touch (and/or possibly corrupt) these people are.”
You have no idea what they were told by their media consultants. Maybe they were given bad advice. Maybe the guessed wrong about how people would respond to NYE games. TPTB constantly get criticized for being too conservative, but when they take a chance and try something new they get lambasted if it isn’t a home run. Not every decision works out perfectly.
“it shouldn’t be those who don’t give them the benefit of doubt who should be treated with skepticism but those who do who should be.”
Says someone who doesn’t give them the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“I think the disconnect is that many fans complain that college sports leaders look to maximize every dollar at every opportunity. Yet, in the case of the playoff games on New Year’s Eve, it’s the one instance where choosing *not* to maximize every dollar is actually detrimental to the average TV viewing fan.”
It’s not inherently detrimental to the average fan to play the games on NYE. And this view fails to account for whether or not there is a greater good for the sport in not chasing every last dollar but actually choosing tradition instead for once. If this helps the long term health of the sport, isn’t that good for the average fan? I’m not saying that is true, but the other view ignores the possibility.
So millions of casual fans didn’t watch the games this year. More streamed them than ever before (bad for ratings). Lots of people probably watched at parties (bad for ratings). The games weren’t competitive (bad for ratings). This was the first time for doing this so the habit isn’t ingrained in fans yet (bad for ratings).
One year is not sufficient to determine the trend.
“However, a few thousand more tickets sold does NOT justify losing over 10 million TV viewers.”
1. Why do we assume 2014 is the correct baseline? How do we know those numbers weren’t anomalously high due to it being the first playoff and the teams involved?
2. We know they expected a drop, but not one this large. They didn’t make the decision thinking 10M viewers was a fair trade for better ticket sales.
“but this was massive with a huge financial impact.”
They have no control over the promises ESPN makes to advertisers. I recall reading that ESPN massively increased the cost for ads and clearly made aggressive promises for ratings. They are the experts in sports viewership on cable. Why did they promise such high ratings? If they didn’t know any better, how can you blame TPTB?
“… because they have had such tunnel vision on this subject that they can’t admit failure at this point.”
Why should they admit failure after 1 year? This is the same problem as people demanding the B12 expand after missing the CFP once. You need data to determine what’s going on. One year of games isn’t enough to predict the future accurately.
“The ratings certainly matter when the rights for this playoff comes up for extension talks that will come much sooner than a decade.”
In 8 or 9 years versus 10? Sure. But by then they’ll have a lot more data and may have chosen to make some changes. I just think demanding major changes after 1 year is a mistake. They will at least wait until after 2 more years of the playoff (a second year of NYE semis plus a second year of NYD semis) to give some context.
“For whatever reason, the powers that be have chosen to ignore ESPN (despite the fact that this event is largely possible due to ESPN’s funding).”
I don’t think they’ve ignored them, they just haven’t agreed with them. They probably also recognize the large profit margins of ESPN and so don’t feel bad when ESPN overpromises ratings and then can’t deliver. We don’t even know that ESPN lost money on this playoff. They had to makeup for some ads, but how much did they make off ad sales to begin with? How many people kept their cable account because ESPN had the CFP? How many people watched other ESPN programming because of the CFP, and how much did they make from those ad sales?
LikeLike
“In 8 or 9 years versus 10? Sure. But by then they’ll have a lot more data and may have chosen to make some changes. I just think demanding major changes after 1 year is a mistake. They will at least wait until after 2 more years of the playoff (a second year of NYE semis plus a second year of NYD semis) to give some context.”
It seems like six years … after two full rotations through the bowl rotation … is the most natural time to make substantial changes, and then years 4 and 5 … after one full rotation … a natural time frame to be hammering them out.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“It seems like six years … after two full rotations through the bowl rotation … is the most natural time to make substantial changes, and then years 4 and 5 … after one full rotation … a natural time frame to be hammering them out.”
Agreed. 4 years gives them enough data to start to make conclusions. They can talk to all the stakeholders and make plans for whatever changes they can agree upon. Then Year 5 provides a chance to confirm their impressions and finalize plans for the changes. Year 6 would have to be a shocking change from the previous years to upset those plans.
LikeLike
Years 3 and 4 of the CFP won’t shed any new light on NYE issue. NYE is a Saturday in 2016, and Year 4 has the semis back to Rose/Sugar. It will be interesting to see what happens in Year 5.
LikeLike
greg,
“Years 3 and 4 of the CFP won’t shed any new light on NYE issue. NYE is a Saturday in 2016, and Year 4 has the semis back to Rose/Sugar. It will be interesting to see what happens in Year 5.”
I think you can still learn a lot from those years:
1. Year 3 (2016) should be the ceiling for NYE games. If they can’t pull solid ratings then, NYE is doomed. NYD games will move to 1/2 as always.
2. Year 4 (2017) provides a comparison to Year 1 without the newness factor. It also has NYE on a Sunday so we can see how they deal with the NFL. Do the games move to 12/30 or 1/2? I can’t find any of the 4 games that list their date for the 2017 season right now.
3. Year 5 (2018) has NYE on Monday so it is a workday but many people will have that day off. What impact does that have on numbers?
From looking at the schedule, the calendar clearly had a lot to do with their original plan. The current schedule never has semis set for Sunday as those years when NYE is on Sunday have NYD semis instead.
LikeLike
“It’s not inherently detrimental to the average fan to play the games on NYE.”
You may not have a social life, Brian, but most people do.
“And this view fails to account for whether or not there is a greater good for the sport in not chasing every last dollar but actually choosing tradition instead for once.”
What grand college football tradition is there of playing the most important bowl games on NYE?
LikeLike
And as a general comment, I don’t insult most people I disgaree with. Have you noticed that it’s mostly you, Brian? Doesn’t that make you wonder if it’s you, not me (as most people also find you annoying to debate as well).
Don’t you realize that it’s because you’re disingenuous and intellectually dishonest so often?
For example, you say that you don’t necessarily believe that it’s better for people to go to bowl games than not, yet you trot out the economic impact of bowls being a reason why the NY6 is a success.
That’s intellectually dishonest, Brian.
Another example of intellectual dishonesty:
You said “It remains to be proven that they aren’t right . . .only time will tell” because we only have one year of data. Yet you are willing to say “As you can see, the NY6 did well” just because ticket sales went up a bit even though there were millions less viewers. Also on one year of data. Do you note an inconsistency there, Brian?
You also lie. For example, here is one exchange:
Brian: “A major bowl brings in millions to the community so all those residents have a vested interest in the bowl doing well. The benefits to them are much more important than whether it’s convenient for you to watch the game live or not.”
Me: “Why should colleges prioritize the interests of bowl cities over the interests of their own fans?”
Brian: “I never said they should. I said some people rightly could.”
As anyone can see, you never said that some people rightly could decide that the interests of bowl cities are more important than the interests of their own fans. Rather, you made an explicit value judgement. You said “benefits to them are much more important than whether it’s convenient for you to watch the game live or not”.
LikeLike
It’s not inherently detrimental to the average fan to miss watching the games on NYE because they’re otherwise occupied. You can watch it live, DVR it, or decide other things are more important and not watch. None of those is inherently detrimental to an average fan because CFB just isn’t that important to their lives.
and
The major bowls all have a long history of being played within 1 day of 1/1. They also have a long history of being the most important postseason games in CFB. The Rose and Sugar have long traditions of being 1/1 bowls stayed there. The Peach has been a 12/31 bowl for a long time and stayed there. The others were kept as close to NYD as possible. The CFP did their best to maintain the bowl tradition while not overlapping the 6 games and needing to have a NCG. They could’ve taken more lucrative approaches but opted not to.
LikeLike
You’ve been calling a group of complete strangers (and non-participants in the discussion) names for days solely because you disagree with a decision they made. You don’t even know why they made the choice that they did, but you see fit to call them names for it.
“For example, you say that you don’t necessarily believe that it’s better for people to go to bowl games than not, yet you trot out the economic impact of bowls being a reason why the NY6 is a success.”
I’ve never claimed the NY6 was a success. I’ve said some people could see the local economic impact as a better thing for them than the lower TV ratings are a negative to them. Not everyone has the same interests or the same priorities.
“You said “It remains to be proven that they aren’t right . . .only time will tell” because we only have one year of data. Yet you are willing to say “As you can see, the NY6 did well” just because ticket sales went up a bit even though there were millions less viewers. Also on one year of data. Do you note an inconsistency there, Brian?”
It does remain to be seen how the CFP will do in it’s current form. We all said “it did well” when looking at the TV ratings last year and “it didn’t do well” when looking at this year’s ratings. That’s because we were discussing the performance of a single instance of the CFP and had all the relevant data. You seem confused about the difference between discussing the CFP in general and a specific year of it.
You conveniently left out all context for my bowl attendance comment which is typical of you. For those who don’t remember:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25449937/crowds-up-for-returning-bowls-but-down-overall-for-sixth-straight-year
Bowl attendance was up this year for returning games.
Thanks to the Alabama-Michigan State semifinal, the Cotton Bowl had the second-largest crowd this bowl season (82,812). That was a 16-percent increase from Baylor-Michigan State last year.
• The Orange Bowl was up 16 percent to 67,615 by getting the Clemson-Oklahoma semifinal. The Orange said it achieved a sellout after failing to do so in four of the previous six games. The Orange was below 68,000 for the fifth time in seven years after averaging 75,673 from 2001-09, but the recent renovation at Sun Life Stadium reduced the capacity to slightly more than 65,000.
• Even without the SEC or Big 12 champion in its game, the Sugar Bowl averaged 72,117 for Ole Miss-Oklahoma State. That’s down only 3 percent from Alabama-Ohio State in a national semifinal last season. Three years ago for Florida-Louisville, the Sugar had its smallest crowd since 1939.
• The Rose Bowl was the complete opposite of the Sugar Bowl and is usually better off with a Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup. A year after hosting a Florida State-Oregon semifinal, it was up 3 percent for Iowa-Stanford.
• The Fiesta Bowl got a 6-percent spike for Ohio State-Notre Dame after having Boise State-Arizona a year ago. This year’s game (71,123) was the largest since Boise State-TCU in 2010.
• The Peach Bowl snapped a streak of three straight years under 69,000 by drawing 71,007 for Florida State-Houston. Attendance was up 8 percent for a game that averaged 73,359 from 2006-11.
As you can see, the NY6 did well.
1. My comment began with a link to an article discussing the bowl attendance for the 2015 season. The article had the headline “Crowds up for returning bowls but down overall for sixth straight year.”
2. My first line of text was “Bowl attendance was up this year for returning games.” I assume everyone here is aware that the NY6 are among the returning bowl games.
3. I then quoted the part of the article that discussed each of the NY6 bowl games in bullet point format.
4. I finished by with the line that you quoted, “As you can see, the NY6 did well.”
5. Neither the article nor I discussed the CFP overall, just the ticket sales for the 2015 season games themselves. The 2015 NY6 games all did well in ticket sales and I said so. Only you could possibly confuse that with a comment on big picture of the CFP overall. It’s especially amusing to me because you should remember that I’m completely anti-CFP and always have been.
“You also lie.”
No, you just can’t read.
“For example, here is one exchange:”
Again you cherry-picked lines and removed all context. I’m shocked.
“Brian: “A major bowl brings in millions to the community so all those residents have a vested interest in the bowl doing well. The benefits to them are much more important than whether it’s convenient for you to watch the game live or not.””
Me: “Why should colleges prioritize the interests of bowl cities over the interests of their own fans?”
Brian: “I never said they should. I said some people rightly could.”
“As anyone can see, you never said that some people rightly could decide that the interests of bowl cities are more important than the interests of their own fans. Rather, you made an explicit value judgement. You said “benefits to them are much more important than whether it’s convenient for you to watch the game live or not”.”
Let’s go back to the beginning of the conversation, first. I posted the above quoted comment about bowl attendance and mentioned that the NY6 did well. You responded:
Not on TV, where they did horribly.
Anybody willing to trade several millions of TV viewers for a few thousand more butts in the seats is an imbecile.
I pointed out that not every single person who was willing to make that trade was necessarily an imbecile. People who valued the bowl over TV money could wisely make that trade.
You responded about how many more fans TV helped (which is irrelevant since I didn’t claim more people were helped by the bowls, just that some were).
I responded that I wasn’t talking about fans but about local residents who got direct economic benefits from bowls. This is the start of the comment you picked 1 line from.
me:
I’m not talking fans, I’m talking people who live in those cities. A major bowl brings in millions to the community so all those residents have a vested interest in the bowl doing well. The benefits to them are much more important than whether it’s convenient for you to watch the game live or not. You can DVR a game you’ll miss. They can’t DVR the spending from fans who don’t attend the bowl game. And there are tons more people that live in those cities than PTB in CFB which is why you can’t say that anyone who supports the bowls over TV is an imbecile..
As the context makes clear, I’m discussing the value judgment they could make as someone getting economic benefit from the game (hotel or restaurant worker, perhaps) versus inconvenience to a complete stranger.
you:
2. Why should colleges prioritize the interests of bowl cities over the interests of their own fans?
I clipped your opening line and 2 other questions since they aren’t relevant here (hence the #2).
This is a complete non sequitur to anything that I wrote. I explicitly described who I was talking about. I never mentioned colleges or the fans of teams. Yet for some reason you ask me that question. But I answered it anyway.
me:
2. I never said they should. I said some people rightly could.
Where is the lie? I never said colleges should do anything. All I ever claimed was that there is at least some set of people that could favor the bowls over TV ratings without being imbeciles.
I’ve since pointed out that I wouldn’t call TPTB imbeciles either, not because I necessarily agree with their decision but because they have proven throughout their lives to be very intelligent people. You should note that I never objected when you called them arrogant and short-sighted, only when you called every single person that disagrees with you (no matter what their reason) a derogatory name.
LikeLike
With all the comments about Boren’s statements, Austin finally speaks…sort of.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/college/bohls-texas-clout-bold-big-12-thinking-essential/np6YY/
I kinda liked this: “The University of Texas is a proud member of the Big 12,” Fenves said.”
Where have we heard that before?
Just kidding.
LikeLike
one source told me the LHN could be folded into a B12 Network if Texas agreed. (Not likely.)
LikeLike
I could date a super model.
The odds are power ballish though…
LikeLike
We sort of knew this generally, but it puts some numbers to the assumptions.
http://m.omaha.com/huskers/nebraska-on-track-for-big-payday-in-maryland-s-larger/article_48adc24b-44f6-5bd8-ae62-3affc90e4c86.html?mode=jqm
LikeLike
Don’t think Donald Trump would think much of Pearlman’s negotiating ability. Considering the $9 million exit fee and assuming a mere $3 million a year Tier III, Nebraska would be $41 million ahead if they had stayed in the Big 12 these last 4 years. In other words, they have been averaging $10 million a year less than Iowa St.
So much for all for one and all this sharing stuff.
LikeLike
Have to “buy in” in to the BTN, bullet.
And with the new B10 tier 1 deal, unless the payouts are shockingly below expectations, UNL will be making up what they would have gotten very fast. A decade or so after they joined, they’ll have made up all the deficit and be making a fair amount more than B12 schools going forward and also own a share of a network that will be throwing off millions in profit per school each year for at least another decade (and likely another generation).
Also, UNL couldn’t really have waited as they were losing AAU status, they aren’t Texas (nobody else in the B12 is close), and they aren’t even OU (less recent success, farther from rich recruiting grounds, and in a state with roughly half the population of OK).
LikeLike
Obviously there is a buy-in, but I would be surprised if the original schools had $40 million held out. And its not an asset you can ever cash in.
If I were president, I would at least be talking to them about re-working the deal to reflect more of what the Big 12 actually made, especially with the deal Maryland got. Nebraska is making $5-$10 million less than any other P5 school that was a P5 member in 2010. They’re making less than WVU and TCU now in media money and those 2 are still in their buy-in period. I think only Utah, Rutgers and possibly Louisville are making less. And Nebraska is not Rutgers.
LikeLike
1. Had UNL not left the B12 wouldn’t have had a smaller number to divide the existing contract among.
2. B12 has no network to have equity in (add their buy in to their B1G distribution).
3. They may never have lost the CCG, but wouldn’t have been paid for a game that didn’t exist.
UNL no longer dependent on the whims of one or two other schools for the stability, or even the continuation of their conference. That’s worth a bunch (ask the non texahoma schools, privately). They are far better off now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stable conference, CIC, equity in the BTN – people in Nebraska seem to be pretty happy with the Big Ten. Nothing comes without cost, but the payoff for UNL is extraordinarily good.
LikeLike
@bullet
Obviously there is a buy-in, but I would be surprised if the original schools had $40 million held out. And its not an asset you can ever cash in.
It can be cashed in. The Yankees did.
http://www.pinstripealley.com/2014/1/25/5343706/yankees-yes-network-fox-majority-share
LikeLike
If I were president, I would at least be talking to them about re-working the deal to reflect more of what the Big 12 actually made, especially with the deal Maryland got. Nebraska is making $5-$10 million less than any other P5 school that was a P5 member in 2010. They’re making less than WVU and TCU now in media money and those 2 are still in their buy-in period. I think only Utah, Rutgers and possibly Louisville are making less. And Nebraska is not Rutgers.
IMHO – the absolute *last* thing Nebraska will do is complain publicly about the deal they got from the Big Ten. Nebraska spent too much goodwill on the Big Ten move can’t afford being perceived as anything other than a proud member of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Also, if you’re UNL, I’m not sure why you’d want your deal to match the UMD deal. Get a bigger payout now under the crappy old tier 1 deal but get a reduced payout when the big tier 1 deal kicks in? You must discount the future extremely heavily, Bullet.
And heck, if you’re talking about who has a worse deal, RU is already bringing in enough to justify a full payout just in the BTN carriage fee bump.
UNL brings in NE, where the BTN can charge high rates, but NE is a really small state. And UNL also increased ticket sales at some schools. But the big financial impact of UNL would be on the tier 1 deal.
LikeLike
Nebraska paid way more than they should have. They are in a worse position financially than any other school in the P5 other those moving up-Utah and Rutgers. Maryland! got a better deal than Nebraska. Maryland is getting $24.5 million BEFORE the loan in their very first year, while Nebraska is at 18.7 several years in.
A&M and Missouri got full distribution (except for some minor items-not sure what, but it was only about $1-$2 million only for the first year) right away in the SEC.
As for selling it, the B1G is not the NY Yankees. They aren’t selling their interest.
Its been 5 years. Nebraska doesn’t seem to be getting any better deal. Maybe he is complaining privately, but there’s no indication of it.
Brian-the Big 12 might be earning less if Nebraska had stayed? If you don’t have any valid point, don’t make yourself look silly just to add a line to your argument.
The Big 12 had a pretty good idea of what they would get 4 days after he moved to the Big 10. He certainly should have written the contract with some flexibility. It was intended to keep Nebraska whole based on what they would have earned in the Big 12. Instead, the contract used fixed numbers that ended up violating the intent.
The idea that Nebraska had to pay more because they weren’t as highly rated academically as Maryland is the specious argument. No FBS conference would take Maryland over Nebraska.
LikeLike
@bullet –
Nebraska paid way more than they should have. They are in a worse position financially than any other school in the P5 other those moving up-Utah and Rutgers.
Nebraska runs their AD in the black. Since Joining the Big Ten, nearly every varsity sport has had a facility upgrade. Yes, Nebraska is receiving less money from the Big Ten, but overall are in a *better* financial position than most other P5 schools.
A&M and Missouri got full distribution (except for some minor items-not sure what, but it was only about $1-$2 million only for the first year) right away in the SEC.
We all know why. Do we really have to rehash it?
As for selling it, the B1G is not the NY Yankees. They aren’t selling their interest.
Why not? Isn’t it possible that the Big Ten at some point may decide it doesn’t want run a network anymore? Is it possible that Fox could make the Big Ten a godfather offer?
Its been 5 years. Nebraska doesn’t seem to be getting any better deal. Maybe he is complaining privately, but there’s no indication of it.
It was a six year deal. When the new Big Ten media deal is announced, I’ll bet the ten year numbers will look much better.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Nebraska paid way more than they should have.”
Based on what? Show me the calculations that back that statement up.
“They are in a worse position financially than any other school in the P5 other those moving up-Utah and Rutgers.”
Not even remotely true. NE had $95M in AD revenue in 2014, #26 in the nation, and almost $4M in profit.
“Maryland! got a better deal than Nebraska.”
No, they got the same deal – 6 years being paid what your former conference would’ve paid you under the contract in place at the time you left.
“Maryland is getting $24.5 million BEFORE the loan in their very first year, while Nebraska is at 18.7 several years in.”
And when the new TV deal starts in 2017 NE will get a full share (estimated to be around $45M) while UMD will still be getting something like $28M. That means NE will earn something like $50M more than UMD in those last 3 years.
Math:
NE’s buy in (see my earlier comment) ~ $70M
UMD’s buy in ~ 3 * (32-24.5) + 50 = $72.5M
Allowing for the errors in the numbers, that looks like roughly the same amount for both schools.
“A&M and Missouri got full distribution (except for some minor items-not sure what, but it was only about $1-$2 million only for the first year) right away in the SEC.”
Because they had no SECN ownership to buy into.
“As for selling it, the B1G is not the NY Yankees. They aren’t selling their interest.”
Probably not, but it’s still an asset they own and could take loans against.
“Its been 5 years. Nebraska doesn’t seem to be getting any better deal.”
The B10 guy explained that the deals explicitly say there is no adjustment for your former conference signing a new and improved deal. That money would have to come from somewhere.
“Brian-the Big 12 might be earning less if Nebraska had stayed? If you don’t have any valid point, don’t make yourself look silly just to add a line to your argument.”
Less per school than now? It’s entirely possible. At that point only CO had left. Who knows what else might change from there? Maybe NE joins the group the P10 wants to add and the P16 (or P14) does form. Maybe NE goes to the SEC with TAMU the next year. Maybe Beebe doesn’t have the magic to save the B12 in this alternate history. There is no way of knowing. Without the fear of the B12 collapsing, do the networks throw as much money at the B12? If the B12 did collapse, what then?
“The Big 12 had a pretty good idea of what they would get 4 days after he moved to the Big 10.”
You are conveniently leaving out the little part about UT and friends deciding not to leave for the P10 on that fourth day. NE faced potentially being left out in the cold and no certain knowledge of what a depleted B12 would get from TV.
“He certainly should have written the contract with some flexibility.”
Maybe he should have, but he had no leverage. Maybe he wasn’t allowed to.
“It was intended to keep Nebraska whole based on what they would have earned in the Big 12.”
No, it was intended to keep NE whole based on their current deal at the time they left. Maybe you wish the intent was different, but the B10 guy was very clear about it.
“The idea that Nebraska had to pay more because they weren’t as highly rated academically as Maryland is the specious argument. No FBS conference would take Maryland over Nebraska.”
The ACC would. The B10 might have. As my math above shows NE isn’t actually paying more than UMD. The idea that they should have to pay something for the chance to upgrade their academic neighborhood when they had no leverage isn’t outlandish, though. UMD had leverage and got the same basic cost as NE.
LikeLike
“Because they had no SECN ownership to buy into.”
And they still have no equity. Same for UT and LHN.
LikeLike
@bullet “They are in a worse position financially than any other school in the P5 other those moving up-Utah and Rutgers”
Nice hyperbole there. Their expenditures are still in the Top 25 in the country.
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/
LikeLike
Nostradamus and Brian-you two are really playing dumb today.
You know we are talking about conference distributions, not the whole athletic department.
The evidence is obvious. Texas A&M, Missouri, TCU, West Virginia and Maryland have gotten better deals than Nebraska who is a far more valuable brand. Haven’t seen anything definitive, but Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville appear to have gotten better deals as well.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You know we are talking about conference distributions, not the whole athletic department.”
Unfortunately that isn’t what you said (as evidenced by 2 of us responding the same way). You said “They are in a worse position financially than any other school in the P5 other those moving up”. Their financial position is a big picture issue that encompasses much more than just their annual distribution. It’s the sheer magnitude of their other revenue streams that made their B10 deal possible.
Nobody would argue the fact that they have a lower conference payout than the other P5 teams, but that isn’t what you said and it isn’t the whole picture.
“Texas A&M, Missouri, TCU, West Virginia and Maryland have gotten better deals than Nebraska”
Only 2 of those have bought equity in a conference network. The other 3 are irrelevant comparisons since you refuse to apply any value to BTN ownership.
As for UMD, as my math showed they got basically the same deal over time but with a different structure. Both will end up paying $70-75M for BTN ownership.
“who is a far more valuable brand.”
Are they? I bet TAMU would’ve made more money for the B10 via the BTN in TX. UMD probably makes more for the B10 via BTN too. NE is a bigger brand nationally but is it big enough to increase the tier 1 deal enough to make up for the lack of BTN value?
“Haven’t seen anything definitive, but Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville appear to have gotten better deals as well.”
Get back to me in a few years when they are still in the ACC and NE is getting a full B10 payout.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Don’t think Donald Trump would think much of Pearlman’s negotiating ability.”
I doubt anyone cares what Trump thinks.
“Considering the $9 million exit fee and assuming a mere $3 million a year Tier III, Nebraska would be $41 million ahead if they had stayed in the Big 12 these last 4 years. In other words, they have been averaging $10 million a year less than Iowa St.”
1. You’re assuming the future would’ve been the exact same but with NE still in the B12. How on earth can you possibly know that? If NE doesn’t leave, what other changes might there be from our reality?
2. You expect Perlman to see the future? He saw the B12 potentially crumbling and managed to move to a P5 conference with a much better academic reputation and one of the two financial kings. How much value is there in those advantages?
3. I don’t think short term math is applicable here. ISU may be up tens of millions over NE in conference payout but I bet they’d trade places in a heart beat. That tells you something. Also, you conveniently cutoff the comparison before NE ever gets their full share B10 payout and without giving their BTN share any value. That’s disingenuous. It’s like considering mortgage payments completed wasted money.
“So much for all for one and all this sharing stuff.”
So the B10 should just give out BTN shares for free? All the costs of building it up and building the B10 brand have no value? All 3 newbies have 6 years worth of buy-in. UMD took money early to cover their penalty but will pay for it later with reduced payouts.
Did NE get screwed by the timing of things? Maybe. The B10 gave them all the same deal – a continuation of what they would’ve made in their old conference deal at the time they left for 6 years. The B12 made a big jump when they renegotiated their TV deal just after NE left, so NE doesn’t get that. But NE is the only non-AAU school in the B10 and they get the academic bump of being in the CIC with the B10 schools. They also are a tiny state getting BTN money from big states like OH, NJ, MD, PA and IL. Over time I think they’ll decide it was more than worth it.
Likewise, RU gets the athletic bump of being in a P5 conference at the cost of AAC-level payments for 6 years. UMD has a smaller relative buy-in because they were an academic and athletic peer that the B10 sought rather than the others who asked the B10.
LikeLike
As for the “short term math,” that remains to be seen how much the Big 10 makes on their new contract. And we will never know how much Nebraska would have made on their own Tier III. If they equaled OU, they would be down around $60 million instead of $40 million.
With the time value of money, you have to earn a lot more quickly to ever catch up.
LikeLike
Except that interest rates and inflation have been very low since the financial crisis, so the discount rate for the time value of money has also been low.
Also, don’t count on the B10 not selling their interest and even if they don’t, that doesn’t make the interest worthless. That interest represents a cash flow of several million a year for likely at least another generation.
And yes, we don’t know what the new B10 deal will be, but unless it is well below what everyone seems to be expecting, I think that UNL will make up their deficit in about a decade after joining, and after that point, they’ll be bringing in significantly more in TV money than any B12 school besides Texas (only a bit more than Texas).
Finally, joining the B10 has helped UNL a fair amount on the non-athletic side. More kids applying from traditional B10 country than ever before (not a small issue for a state school in a really small state that really could use OOS tuition dollars).
And A&M and Mizzou were fortunate to get in on the ground floor of a startup, you could say.
A&M brings a lot to the table, though. Mizzou just got lucky (right place, right time).
LikeLike
Perlman was selling in a buyer’s market. Would Nebraska have been better off if he had allowed Missouri to underbid him for the B1G slot? A lot of B12 schools were looking to bail at that time. Since Perlman is still in charge you can hardly expect him to complain in public about how bad a deal he made. If he complained privately the rest of the B1G told him to suck it up. Looking at the percentage of distribution withheld, every other school got a better deal except Rutgers. Just looking at $$ paid assumes that the BTN did not increase in value over the past 4 years. Maryland got a better deal because they had more negotiating power than either Nebraska or Rutgers. However, Rutgers is still better off than being in the AAC, and long term Nebraska is better off than it would have been in the B12. Short term, Nebraska did not need the extra $40M over the last 4 years since it is doing quite well from non-media revenue sources.
LikeLike
Nebraska is the biggest short term financial loser from realignment, but they are easily the biggest long term academic winner. They are the lowest ranked of the P5 movers and joined their dream conference, at a time when their AAU status was questionable. Perlman probably thinks the deal was an absolute steal. Why would he complain?
LikeLike
Mack,
Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland all got basically the same deal. That equity stake is a set number.* Maryland’s deal may be better in terms that they’re getting more money up front, but they will still effectively be paying the same entry fee on the back-end.
*The valuation may have changed slightly in between Nebraska joining and Maryland and Rutgers acceptance.
LikeLike
Some of those numbers (for those not inclined to read the whole article) plus some useful quotes:
2014-2015 payouts:
UMD – $36.1M ($11.6M as an advance on future payouts = $24.5M really this year)
NE – $18.7M
RU – $10M
Other B10 – $32M
NE’s B10 payouts by year:
1. $14M for 2011-2012
2. $15.4M
3. $16.9M
4. $18.7M
5. ~$22M for 2015-2016
http://www.jconline.com/story/sports/college/purdue/football/2014/04/25/big-ten-schools-expecting-big-payouts-continue/8187133/
PU payouts for those same years for comparison:
1. $24.7M
2. $25.4M
3. $27M
4. $32M
5. ~$35M
Thus NE has paid about $44M (10.7 + 10 + 10.1 + 13.3) to buy into the BTN so far. Add in 2 more years of $13M each and you get $70M. That would value the B10’s 49% of the BTN at just under $1B. Since half of the YES network was worth almost $600M a few years ago, that seems plausible.
Despite that discrepancy, Big Ten officials say the basic financial terms on which Nebraska, Maryland and other league newcomer Rutgers joined the Big Ten were essentially the same.
…
“There was a considerable difference in negotiating leverage between Nebraska and Maryland,” Perlman said. “While we brought a better athletic reputation, they brought considerably more financial opportunity for the conference — opportunity that Nebraska will share in the years ahead.”
…
Not only is the $36 million the largest payment to any Big Ten school, it also appears by far to be the largest payment a school has ever received from a league. That’s largely because no other league rewards its members like the Big Ten.
Federal tax filings for 2013-14, the most recent available for all five of college football’s power conferences, show the Big Ten offered standard shares to its longtime members that year of $28 million. All the other four major conferences offered top payments of about $21 million.
…
Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were all given six-year terms to transition to a full Big Ten share. Payments from the league were then set at what the schools were projected to receive from their old leagues during those years at the time of negotiations — 2010 for Nebraska and 2013 for Maryland and Rutgers.
…
Traviolia said terms for entering schools do not call for adjusting payments even if actual payouts in their old leagues turn out to be different.
…
Far bigger rewards appear ahead for Nebraska beginning in July 2017, when the school becomes a fully vested member of the league. Not only will the school be eligible for a full share, the league will also be entering a new network television contract that year. Annual payments to league schools are expected to top $40 million, and some have suggested they could reach $50 million.
The Big Ten will soon enter a window of exclusive negotiations with its current TV rights holder, the ESPN cable network and network affiliate ABC. Some have suggested declining viewership on ESPN as consumers increasingly cut the cable could put a damper on the Big Ten’s contract position. But Traviolia remains optimistic.
“We’re very bullish,” he said. “We think we will be very successful. We need to be successful. Our programs depend on this revenue for their broad sponsorship of sports.”
…
Perlman expresses no misgivings about how Nebraska’s transition is turning out, relative to Maryland, its former Big 12 partners or any other school.
Nebraska’s entry into the Big Ten came at a time the Big 12 appeared to be falling apart, with as many as seven other members rumored to be leaving. In addition to Nebraska, three others did depart.
“There was a real risk that the Big 12 would disappear and that we would be without a major conference,” Perlman said. “Certainly, the Big Ten understood that.”
Not only was Maryland actively sought by the Big Ten, it was well-situated financially in the ACC and had to be compensated for the huge financial penalty it faced if it was going to leave. Under contract terms, the school owed a whopping $52 million penalty, ultimately negotiating it down to $31 million.
Perlman pointed out that when Nebraska begins receiving its full share in July 2017, its payments will far exceed those of Maryland, which will still be transitioning and still facing future repayment of the dollars it was advanced by the league.
“I am confident that the accounting completed at the end of Maryland’s transition will show that Nebraska came out pretty well,” Perlman said. “I don’t get a lot of folks telling me they wish we were back in the Big 12.”
LikeLike
Cost of attendance getting to be an issue in SEC. Article in print edition of Atlanta paper this morning. Tennessee and Auburn are 1 and 2 in nation. Hard to believe those are the most expensive places to go to school.
Tennessee $5,666
Auburn 5,586
Alabama 5,386 (up considerably over last year)
Miss. St. 5,156
Miss. 4,890
Arkansas 4,500
Missouri 4,290
S. Carolina 4,201
Florida 3,830
LSU 3,800
Georgia 3,746
Kentucky 3,598
Texas A&M 3,528
Vanderbilt-did not provide
Other school mentioned-Louisville 5,202 (50% more to be in Louisville than Lexington?).
LikeLike
Well, you know everyone lumps Manhattan, San Francisco, Knoxville and Auburn together as the most expensive cities in America.
LikeLike
Academics matters in conference realignment
http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-conference-realignment/article/5473247?custom_click=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
1. The Big 12’s academic standing is worse than I thought. And that’s no small matter. That kind of stuff absolutely matters to decision-makers. The Big 12 went from 58 percent AAU membership to 30 percent AAU membership. I don’t claim to know the legitimacy of academic rankings. But I know they have standing within campuses. The Big 12 is not just the shakiest power conference on the football field. It’s the shakiest power conference in academia.
2. OU’s Big Ten hopes aren’t strong. I don’t see the Big Ten inviting a school that is not an AAU member. If it happens, great. And if the Big Ten were to relax its requirements, it would seem to do so only for Notre Dame.
3. Interesting about the “growth tracks” toward AAU membership. Who knew the Florida schools or Colorado State were held in such high regard. Or Houston U., for that matter.
4. My source didn’t mention Cincinnati. Probably an oversight. But for the record, Cincinnati is a Carnegie I school but is not in the AAU.
LikeLike
And the stats from before your quote.
“Just read your article on the Big 12 that mentioned AAU membership. Here’s some background that may be useful to you. AAU membership and “Carnegie Classification” are the two best-known indications of elite academic status. There are 62 AAU members and 108 “Carnegie I” universities (all AAU members also are Carnegie I). Here’s how the Power 5 conferences compare by those two criteria:
“Big 10: 14 members, 14 Carnegie I, 13 AAU
“PAC 10: 12 members, 12 Carnegie I, 8 AAU
“ACC: 15 members (including Notre Dame), 11 Carnegie I, 5 AAU
“SEC: 14 members, 11 Carnegie I, 4 AAU
“Big 12: 10 members, 4 Carnegie I, 3 AAU.
“The Big 12 is the only Power 5 conference with a majority of non-elite university members, which gives it an academic profile more similar to the various mid-major conferences.
…
“In thinking about new Big 12 schools, Houston, Colorado State, South Florida, Central Florida, New Mexico and Connecticut all are Carnegie I universities. In particular, Colorado State, South Florida, Central Florida and UConn are on growth curves that conceivably could lead to AAU membership at some point.
“In contrast, BYU, SMU, Memphis and Boise State are not Carnegie I and are unlikely to become such.
“OU is unlikely to become an AAU member, as it would have to at least double its current annual research expenditures from nationally competitive grants and currently has no National Academy of Sciences members (most AAU members have at least 10 NAS members and many have significantly more — none has fewer than five NAS members). That kind of change would require at least a decade to accomplish before being considered for AAU (which then has further political barriers to admission).
But OU supposedly has a standing invitation thanks to their CFB brand (and relationship with UT if I had to guess).
LikeLike
The B10 may find adding OU+KU hard to justify but will be able to justify Texas+OU(+KU). Especially if they add a bunch of academically elite east coast schools as well.
LikeLike
Also note that Boren didn’t answer the “standing invitation” question directly. Instead, he gave the impression that OU has one without answering either way, but it’s in his interest to give that impression.
LikeLike
Also, that article references this previous article about expansion.
http://newsok.com/does-ou-want-the-big-12-to-survive/article/5472760
I’m skipping some questions shortening all the answers unless the whole thing is needed. Check the article for the rest.
DOES OU WANT THE BIG 12 TO SURVIVE?
Yes, conditionally. …
…
COULD SCHOOLS BOLT THE BIG 12 SOON?
Not likely. The grant-of-rights … lasts another nine seasons. Many have speculated that such an agreement wouldn’t hold up in court. But that would be a protracted court case. With a huge financial risk for both the school and the school’s new conference.
COULD OU AND OSU EVENTUALLY SPLIT UP?
… Politically, it would be difficult for OU to move on if there was not a good option for OSU. But if both landed in elite conferences, there would be little pressure from the statehouse to stick together.
DOES OU WANT TO SPLIT FROM OSU?
Oh, some school officials do, but Boren does not. And he’s the one who matters.
WOULD OU BE INTERESTED IN THE SEC AND VICE VERSA?
The SEC absolutely would be interested in adding the Sooners. But I never have detected any interest in the SEC from anyone official at OU. …
WOULD OU BE INTERESTED IN THE BIG TEN AND VICE VERSA?
The Big Ten would love to add OU. But there’s a huge catch. The Big Ten only admits schools who are in the Association of American Universities. The AAU is a prestigious group of schools that was founded by 14 universities and now numbers 60. The organization’s goal is to develop institutional and national policies that promote strong academic research and scholarship. In other words, it’s a Superiority Complex Club. But it’s incredibly prestigious, and Boren has worked for years, long before conference realignment was a gleam in anyone’s eye, to get OU admitted to the AAU.
It’s difficult to see OU invited to the Big Ten without AAU membership. Nebraska was an AAU member when invited to the Big Ten but was recently voted out of the AAU because of some research issue I didn’t really understand.
If OU ever was invited to the Big Ten, the answer would almost surely be yes, even if the Big 12 was shining like the sun. Big Ten admission if an academic boon to any university, athletics completely aside.
…
WHO WOULD JOIN OU IN THE BIG TEN?
Kansas in the school most often mentioned. That would create a Big Ten West Division of OU, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern. Texas long has been mentioned as a Big Ten candidate, but if the Longhorns hold on to the Longhorn Network, they’re not going anywhere. Drop the Longhorn Network, and the Big 12 could survive.
WHAT WOULD OSU DO IF OU JOINED THE BIG TEN?
The SEC and Pac-12 could be options. Both have expressed interest in the past in getting more into the Southwest. …
ARE THERE ANY PAC-12 LEANINGS BY OU?
Some, on the academic side, who were intrigued about being in a conference that included Stanford, Cal-Berkeley and UCLA. The athletic side became less and less enamored with the Pac-12 possibility, mostly because of travel. …
CAN THE BIG 12 FIND CONSENSUS ON EXPANSION?
Probably. Boren believes he has enough support to get expansion passed.
IF THE BIG 12 CAN FIND CONSENSUS ON EXPANSION?, WHO ARE THE EXPANSION POSSIBILITIES?
The usual suspects. … the [UH] Cougars are a political no-go. The Big 12’s Texas schools do not want to add another Texas school to the mix, for recruiting and political reasons. …
IS THERE CONSENSUS ON THE CANDIDATES?
No. That’s the problem. …
IS FOLDING THE LONGHORN NETWORK EASY EVEN IF TEXAS AGREES?
No. …
WHAT’S THE MOST LIKELY RESULT?
The most likely result is status quo. …
LikeLike
Here’s the issue: So long as Texas has the LHN, OU would be looking to leave.
But if Texas drops the LHN, they might as well join the B10.
LikeLike
“But if Texas drops the LHN, they might as well join the B10.”
And if Texas was willing to join the Big Ten, they could well be a shiny enough bauble for the Presidents to get OU in without excessive fuss, if Texas and OU was presented as a package deal. If the Presidents were to start selling it to their academic snobs, the fact that the Big Ten would remain all Carnegie Classification Highest Research Activity schools, like the PAC-12 and unlike the SEC, ACC or Big12, would likely come up in the sales pitch.
But there would be the fallback of Texas and Kansas if a minority can block a majority that wants to add Texas and OU.
LikeLike
What majority? I’m pretty sure there isn’t more than one or two that might overlook OU’s academics (they aren’t close to aau) even if for Texas.
LikeLike
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/01/14/college-football-top-non-conference-games-for-2016/
The best games in 2016 by week.
Sept. 3
USC vs. Alabama in Arlington.
UCLA at Texas A&M
Oklahoma vs. Houston
Notre Dame at Texas
Clemson at Auburn
Sept. 10
Washington State at Boise State
Arkansas at TCU
Sept. 17
Michigan State at Notre Dame
Ohio State at Oklahoma
USC at Stanford
Oregon at Nebraska
Sept. 24
Florida at Tennessee
Oklahoma State at Baylor
Oct. 1
Oregon at Washington State
Oklahoma at TCU
Oct. 8
LSU at Florida
Texas vs. Oklahoma
Washington at Oregon
Oct. 15
Alabama at Tennessee
UCLA at Washington State
Stanford at Notre Dame
Oct. 22
Ohio State at Penn State
Mississippi at LSU
Oct. 29
Miami at Notre Dame
Michigan at Michigan State
Nov. 5
Alabama at LSU
TCU at Baylor
Oregon at USC
Nov. 12
Clemson at Florida State
Baylor at Oklahoma
Michigan at Iowa
Nov. 19
Louisville at Houston
USC at UCLA
Ohio State at Michigan State
Nov. 26
Michigan at Ohio State
Notre Dame at USC
LikeLike
Confession time – I checked in on the dude.
If Boren wanted the big east he should have just joined when it existed. Reconstituting it seems to be so much more work, and they’d have been tickled to let OkSU come too.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25453428/nfl-draft-deadline-tracker-list-of-early-entrants-by-school
A record-setting 101 players (from 53 schools) have declared early for the NFL draft as of Monday morning. The old record was 98. The NFL will release the official list on Friday.
Most players leaving early:
OSU – 9
Clemson – 7
UCLA – 6
ND, UF – 5
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25453509/near-disasterous-number-of-underclassmen-declaring-for-2016-nfl-draft
That’s because 100 underclassmen are way more than the system can absorb. Slightly more than 18 months ago, out of the record 98 underclassmen who declared early for the draft in 2014, another record of 36 did not get selected. That’s a failure rate of nearly 40 percent.
Only 256 total players are drafted (not counting supplemental picks) each year. It would be unheard of for 100 of those 256 (39 percent) to be underclassmen.
…
Beginning in 2015, the 21-year-old draft evaluation process was refined to include only three simpler draft categories — first round, second round and stay in school (third round or lower).
…
Statistically, issues emerge after the second round. In the last three years, 56 of the 63 players given a first- or second-round grade by the committee were drafted in those rounds (89 percent).
“I think all of these guys are better [off] staying in school, especially offensive and defensive linemen,” Brandt said. “They think they’re strong, but they’re not. They don’t know how strong the guys that are playing [in the NFL].”
Of the 98 underclassmen currently listed as declared on NFL.com, 31 are either offensive or defensive linemen. The next largest position groups are receivers and defensive backs (16 each). Four quarterbacks have declared — Hackenberg, Cal’s Jared Goff, Ohio State’s Cardale Jones and Memphis’ Paxton Lynch.
LikeLike
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/article/20160118/GZ02/160119481
Gordon Gee speaks.
“I think [the remarks] are fairly consistent with the thinking in the Big 12,” he said. “It’s nothing new. I’m in favor of expansion. I think he’s expressing what we’ve been thinking.”
Those words are significant. And so is this from Gee, a member of the Big 12’s expansion committee: “I think the notion of going to 12 [schools] is most likely.”
“Some of these issues will be discussed and resolved in February,” Gee added. “It’s all part of a package.”
More significant yet. The league presidents and chancellors will meet Feb. 4-5.
LikeLike
@ Frank
“Some of these issues will be discussed and resolved in February,” Gee added. “It’s all part of a package.”
More significant yet. The league presidents and chancellors will meet Feb. 4-5.
Are you waiting to put up a new post till after this meeting or will you put one up leading into the meeting?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25454840/sec-rakes-in-5274-million-in-first-year-of-cfp-and-sec-network
SEC financial numbers for 2014-2015 (first year of CFP and SECN):
The SEC reported $527.4 million in revenue during the first year of the College Football Playoff and the SEC Network in 2014-15, a 62-percent increase from the previous year.
…
The SEC distributed $457.8 million to its 14 members, an average of $32.7 million per school. That’s up from $21 million per school in 2013-14. As recently as 2008-09, SEC members got $13.1 million per year from the conference distribution. The SEC’s revenue increased by 222 percent between 2008-09 and 2014-15 when factoring inflation.
…
On the SEC’s 990 form, TV/radio rights fees for 2014-15 were reported as $311.8 million, up from $210.4 million in 2013-14. The tax return doesn’t specify the revenue sources from TV and radio. Postseason revenue for the SEC increased from $98.6 million in 2013-14 to $162.8 million in 2014-15.
LikeLike
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/football/maybe-college-football-has-peaked.html
Has CFB peaked?
College football has always been a regional, if not a local, game. The sport thrives because of its roots in communities and cultures.
The promise of more money from FOX and ESPN has left college football’s shot-callers pursuing broad-based, national business strategies to court larger audiences and “grow the game,” whatever that means. It’s why we’re seeing conference networks and realignment.
A playoff is consistent with that orientation towards mass consumption. Yet, college football isn’t the NFL, and it never will be.
Every single eyeball in Birmingham might be glued to the TV when the Crimson Tide and Tigers are playing. However, there’s little evidence to suggest that Vinnie from Parsippany and Sully from South Boston will ever truly get invested in a game between teams from Alabama and South Carolina, even if they’re playing for the national championship.
So what if the sport’s incessant push for more viewers and greater revenue streams has nowhere left to go? Jim Delany, Larry Scott, et al. might want to at least consider that possibility as they ponder college football’s future.
Perhaps a bit of the NASCAR effect?
LikeLike
Eh.
Birmingham, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Greenville, and Atlanta were among the 10 highest rated TV markets for the OSU-Oregon national title game that featured 2 teams from nowhere close to those markets. That shows that college football fans still watch even when their team isn’t playing.
His example doesn’t show much of anything. Joe Bob from Mobile wouldn’t care if the Rangers are playing the Avalanche for the Stanley Cup, but that wouldn’t mean that the NHL’s popularity has peaked.
LikeLike
And Columbus was among the top 10 rated markets for this year’s CF national title game featuring 2 teams from nowhere near Columbus.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Birmingham, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Greenville, and Atlanta were among the 10 highest rated TV markets for the OSU-Oregon national title game that featured 2 teams from nowhere close to those markets.”
And then from your followup:
“And Columbus was among the top 10 rated markets for this year’s CF national title game featuring 2 teams from nowhere near Columbus.”
Then back to your original comment:
“That shows that college football fans still watch even when their team isn’t playing.”
Those are all cities in the hotbed of CFB. They are full of diehard CFB fans that will watch no matter what, so they’ll be in the top markets all the time probably. The question is if they hurt their ratings in those markets in their desire to chase national numbers. It’s much too early to tell, so below is just some data relevant to the topic. It’s not intended to argue for or against any particular point. I only posted his blog post as something to think about, not a proved point.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2015/01/college-football-playoff-national-championship-espn/
2014:
national = 18.2
In the primary home markets of the two schools, the telecast delivered a 51.2 in Columbus, the No. 1 overall market, and a 37.6 in Portland, fourth overall. The top 10 metered markets (in addition to those of the competing teams) are the following: Columbus, Dayton (43.8), Cleveland (41.3), Portland, Birmingham (36.1), Cincinnati (26.5), Jacksonville (25.7), Knoxville (25.5), Greenville (24.1) and Atlanta (23.0).
In all, the National Championship set overnight post season college football records in 22 metered markets: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Dayton, Denver, Ft. Myers, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, Norfolk, Philadelphia, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Richmond, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2016/01/college-football-playoff-national-championship-espns-third-highest-overnight-ever-across-all-sports-watchespn-sets-new-records/
2015:
national = 15.8 (16.0 for the megacast)
* Birmingham was the No. 1 local market, earning a 59.2 overnight, the market’s third best overnight for a post season college football game on ESPN. Greenville was the second highest local market, achieving a 39.0, the market’s best overnight ever for a post season college football game on ESPN.
* Including Greenville, six markets set a new ESPN post season college football record high: Atlanta (30.1), Charlotte (22.8), Nashville (29.1), Raleigh-Durham (20.2) and Norfolk (18.4)
* The top 10 metered markets: Birmingham (59.2), Greenville (39.0), Atlanta (30.1), Nashville (29.1), Knoxville (28.4), New Orleans (25.6), Jacksonville (24.8), Columbus (23.0), Charlotte (22.8) and West Palm Beach (20.3).
Some obvious conclusions:
1. The home markets do the best.
2. Regional markets also do quite well.
3. Year 1 set records nationwide.
4. Year 2 was all regional for records.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2014/12/espns-record-setting-college-football-coverage-garners-millions-of-viewers/
Top 25 Markets for 2014 (2013 numbers)
No. 1 Birmingham: 9.2 rating (#1, 9.2)
No. 2 New Orleans: 4.2 rating (#4, 4.3)
No. 3 Knoxville: 4.1 rating (#3, 4.4)
Greenville: 4.1 rating (#2, 4.9)
No. 5 Memphis: 3.8 rating (#5, 3.3)
Atlanta: 3.8 rating (#9, 3.2)
No. 7 Jacksonville: 3.5 rating (#5, 3.3)
No. 8 Oklahoma City: 3.4 rating (#12, 2.8)
No. 9 Tulsa: 3.1 rating (#14, 2.6)
No. 10 Nashville: 2.9 rating (#5, 3.3)
Columbus: 2.9 rating (#5, 3.3)
No. 12 Louisville: 2.7 rating (#9, 3.2)
The top CFB markets are pretty consistent and so are their numbers. The only truly western market to make the top 25 in both years was Las Vegas (2013 #25, 2.0, 2014 #17, 2.4).
Having a local team in the NCG boosted cities by:
Columbus – 51.2/2.9 = 17.7, 51.2-2.9 = 48.3
Portland – 37.6/2.4 = 15.7, 37.6-2.4 = 35.2
Birmingham – 59.1/9.2 = 6.4, 59.1-9.2 = 49.9
Greenville – 39.0/4.9 = 8.0, 39-4.9 = 34.1
A non-regional NCG boosted:
Columbus – 23.0/2.9 = 7.9, 23.0-2.9 = 20.1
West Palm Beach – 20.3/2.4 = 8.5, 20.3-2.4 = 17.9
So about 8.2 times or +19 rating points.
ABC national averages for 2014:
All – 3.2 (3.0 in 2013)
Primetime – 3.8 (3.5 in 2013)
NCG vs ABC:
All – 17/3.1 = 5.5, 17-3.1 = 13.9
Primetime = 17/3.7 = 4.6, 17-3.7 = 13.3
LikeLike
Off the wall idea:
Is there any chance TPTB (or some of them, anyway) in CFB went into this knowing that NYE probably wouldn’t really work but felt (or were convinced/coerced) they owed it to the bowls to give them a shot to have it their way? If/when the numbers turn out not to support keeping NYE semis they then feel free to move to more profitable game times, perhaps not in bowls other than the Rose and Sugar if the bowls won’t move, having given their longterm partners a good faith opportunity.
LikeLike
TPTB chose the Rose/Sugar on NYD for their own selfish reasons. They didn’t do it to placate the bowls; in the B1G/PAC case, they co-own the bowl. The B1G/SEC/P12/B12 guaranteed themselves an appearance in the most marque time slots of the year.
The playoff is a crapshoot, and there is no guarantee they’ll receive a berth, as we’ve already seen the PAC and B12 miss a year. They chose to guarantee themselves maximum exposure instead of maximizing revenue or CFP ratings.
LikeLike
Tournament of Roses owns the RB, not the conference’s.
LikeLike
“Tournament of Roses owns the RB, not the conference’s.”
I’ve seen claims it is owned, or maybe “owned”, by the three. ToR, B1G, PAC.
LikeLike
The “Champions bowl” concept was claimed to be owned by the SEC and the Big 12, perhaps that is what you remember. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/11/sugar_bowl_is_awarded_sec_vs_b.html
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8601209/sugar-bowl-new-orleans-site-marquee-big-12-sec-game
LikeLike
National Signing Day is coming up in 2 weeks (2/3).
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
Consensus B10 class rankings for verbal commitments so far:
1. OSU – 21: 5* – 1, 4* – 15, 3* – 5
3. MI – 23: 4* – 14, 3* – 9
12. PSU – 18: 5* – 1, 4* – 8, 3* – 9
14. MSU – 19: 4* – 10, 3* – 9
28. WI – 23: 4* – 3, 3* – 19
35. NE – 15: 4* – 3, 3* – 12
42. MN – 18: 4* – 1, 3* – 17
44. IA – 24: 3* – 24
46. NW – 20: 3* – 20
58. IL – 20: 3* – 16
66. UMD – 10: 4* – 3, 3* – 7
71. RU – 12: 3* – 12
72. PU – 17: 3* – 11
76. IN – 12: 3* – 12
Obviously a lot will change in the next 2 weeks, but the West needs to step up their game if they want to keep up. You can’t find that many diamonds in the rough.
LikeLike
…but the West is strong in linemen, whereas the East is strong in the skill positions and the West may become the better prepping ground for the next level.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/1/19/10330430/big-ten-expansion-spread-pro-style-offenses
LikeLike
urbanleftbehind,
“…but the West is strong in linemen, whereas the East is strong in the skill positions and the West may become the better prepping ground for the next level.”
WI and IA outperform their recruiting in the NFL draft, especially at OL, but the numbers still show schools like OSU topping them overall. Besides, MI is as pro-style as it gets under Harbaugh as is MSU. PSU has also been pro style. Plenty of NFL prep is happening in the East.
That article shows the dearth of skill players in the western B10 states, but they don’t show total numbers. The eastern B10 states produce so many more top players that they also produce more linemen, it’s just a lower percentage of their total.
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
Look at the 2016 class for example. 247Sports lists 2998 players. The West has 194.5 and the East 403.5 (I split the 45 in IN). They list 338 4* or higher players nationally (W = 11, E = 50).
West:
OL – 6
DL – 4
TE – 0
LB – 1
Other – 0
East:
OL – 9
DL – 8
TE – 5
LB – 5
Other – 23
As for better NFL prep:
http://www.ncaa.com/ncaa-football-nfl
Most current NFL players by B10 school:
West (99)
IA, WI – 22
NE – 21
PU – 12
IL – 9
MN – 8
NW – 5
East (123):
OSU – 26
PSU – 25
MI – 20
MSU, RU -16
UMD – 14
IN – 6
With OSU about to start sending Meyer’s players, PSU getting back to a full roster and MI having an NFL coach, these numbers will likely increase in the East.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25453428/nfl-draft-deadline-tracker-list-of-early-entrants-by-school
2016 early entries:
East – 9+2+2+2+1+1+1 = 18 (1 OL, 4 DT, 1 DE)
West – 2+0+0+0+0+0+0 = 2 (2 DT)
The West does a solid job with non-skill players, no question. But so does the East. The East also produces skill players.
LikeLike
Brian, as you well know, the East both has and is closer to fertile recruiting grounds than the West schools, so schools like Wisconsin pretty much never will have a recruiting class as good as UMich/OSU. However, that doesn’t mean that they can’t keep up (with at least UMich) via other strategies (like finding diamonds in the rough). Wisconsin has made a living from doing that, and they are actually well-situated for doing so, being the only DivI program in a underrecruited mid-sized state. The number of walk-ons they’ve had who’ve turned in to impact players is mindblowing.
LikeLike
In fact, I posted about this exactly in thread:
UW-Madison does benefit from being the only major football program (literally only FBS program) in a mid-sized state that doesn’t get recruited that heavily for football. That means that you folks get a bunch of walk-ons who turn out to be terrific FBS football players. Alex Erickson, Joe Schobert, Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, JJ Watt.
It’s frankly ridiculous. At one point this season, Bucky’s leading passer, rusher, receiver, tackler, and sacker were all former walk-ons (http://www.scout.com/college/wisconsin/forums/2560-football-board/14090773-walk-ons-lead-in-passing-rushing-receiving-tackles-sacks).
I’d say that those under-recruited walk-ons are worth an extra 2 4-5 star players each recruiting class and I believe is a major reason why Wisconsin leads the country in overperformance on the football field compared to how they recruit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/after-signing-day-wisconsin-makes-the-best-of-its-recruits/
Note that Mizzou (another program that is the only major program in a mid-sized state that isn’t known to be a recruiting hotbed is also top 3 in overperformance.
The other reason is that O-Linemen are the toughest recruits to project, so you don’t need a ton of 4/5-stars to build a good O-Line.”
LikeLike
Richard,
“UW-Madison does benefit from being the only major football program (literally only FBS program) in a mid-sized state that doesn’t get recruited that heavily for football. That means that you folks get a bunch of walk-ons who turn out to be terrific FBS football players. Alex Erickson, Joe Schobert, Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, JJ Watt.
It’s frankly ridiculous. At one point this season, Bucky’s leading passer, rusher, receiver, tackler, and sacker were all former walk-ons”
That also says their coaches struggle to figure out who will pan out or else they would’ve gotten offers instead of the people they passed on the depth chart.
“I’d say that those under-recruited walk-ons are worth an extra 2 4-5 star players each recruiting class”
Other schools have good walk-ons, too. They just aren’t as often good enough to beat out the others to become starters.
“and I believe is a major reason why Wisconsin leads the country in overperformance on the football field compared to how they recruit: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/after-signing-day-wisconsin-makes-the-best-of-its-recruits/”
Part of that is playing a fairly unique offensive system that can turn less athletic players (a big part of recruit rankings) into CFB stars.
“Note that Mizzou (another program that is the only major program in a mid-sized state that isn’t known to be a recruiting hotbed is also top 3 in overperformance.”
So is OR, a school far from great recruiting. But they tap into CA just as the B10 West should tap into OH.
“The other reason is that O-Linemen are the toughest recruits to project, so you don’t need a ton of 4/5-stars to build a good O-Line.”
Yes, OL is very finicky. And you can be less athletic and still be a great road grader for a power running scheme like WI uses. Look what happened when they briefly had a new OL coach that tried to introduce a different blocking scheme, though.
LikeLike
“Other schools have good walk-ons, too. They just aren’t as often good enough to beat out the others to become starters.”
How many other schools have had as many walk-ons as good as Alex Erickson, Joe Schobert, Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, and JJ Watt?
Your retort is that some other schools’ starters are better, but how many schools have starters as good as Alex Erickson, Joe Schobert, Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, and JJ Watt? Only a handful of schools can claim that.
LikeLike
Also,
1. Wisconsin’s offense is about as unique as ‘Bama’s/LSU’s/UMich’s/Stanford’s/half the top 10’s or so.
2. Oregon is adjacent to CA. No B10W state besides IN is adjacent to OH. Distance matters in recruiting (and it matters less in the West, where schools are so spread out).
3. OH isn’t nearly as rich in recruits as CA/TX/FL, so B10W schools can’t draw as deeply on OH recruits as Oregon can in CA.
LikeLike
Richard,
“How many other schools have had as many walk-ons as good as Alex Erickson, Joe Schobert, Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, and JJ Watt?”
NE was famous for them. BYU has produced a bunch, too. USC had some really good ones. Since I don’t track the scholarships for every team, it’s a little tough to compare 65 P5 schools on this.
Leonhard was over 10 years ago, though. With 20 walk-ons per year, that’s over 200 walk-on years ago or over 50 walk-ons ago.
And how many of these walk-ons had only 1 great year in college (Erickson, Schobert)? Scholarship players are more likely to give you multiple good years.
“Your retort is that some other schools’ starters are better, but how many schools have starters as good as Alex Erickson,”
At least 3 this year since he was 2nd team all-B10. And plenty of others could compare with him over their careers (he has 6 career TDs, for example). Michael Thomas has 18 and a higher ypc.
“Joe Schobert,”
He had a great year for TFL and sacks. But in 2 years Raekwon McMillan already has more career tackles than Schobert got in 3 years. Darron Lee has similar career numbers across the board as Schobert and also has only played 2 years. Josh Perry basically played 3 years and has almost double the tackles of Schobert.
“Jared Abbrederis, Jim Leonhard, and JJ Watt?”
These guys were more special. Abbrederis had one more solid season than Erickson and was more explosive. He wasn’t an All-American or anything though.
Leonhard had 1 ridiculous year for interceptions (11) and then got 4 fewer each succeeding year. He was also a solid punt returner. But as I mentioned, he left after 2004. Also not an All-American except PFW.
Watt had 2 really strong years with TFL numbers almost as good as Bosa’s over the past 2 years, but fewer sacks (just context for those who mostly remember his pro success). He also wasn’t an All-American except PFW.
Over that past 12 years or so:
PU – Watt/Kerrigan, Abby/Stubblefield, Leonhard/Schweigert, Schobert/Spencer, Erickson/Keller
IL – Watt/Mercilus, Abby/Jenkins, Leonhard/Davis, Schobert/Leman, Erickson/Benn
I could do it with several more B10 teams, too (OSU, MI, MSU, PSU, …).
Now, again, that was comparing any starters to walk-ons you named and I’m not saying others have produced as many walk-ons that became that good. But you stretch your point when you ask who else even has starters as good as those guys. If 2 of the worst B10 teams do, a lot of teams do.
LikeLike
Richard,
“1. Wisconsin’s offense is about as unique as ‘Bama’s/LSU’s/UMich’s/Stanford’s/half the top 10’s or so.”
WI is a little unique in the size of OL they prefer, the size of RB they choose (been changing lately) and the use of TEs relative to WRs in the passing game. And the number of teams sticking to a pro-style has really been dropping lately.
“2. Oregon is adjacent to CA. No B10W state besides IN is adjacent to OH. Distance matters in recruiting (and it matters less in the West, where schools are so spread out).”
OR to Los Angeles = 858 miles, OR to SF = 530 miles
Columbus OH to PU = 238 miles, IL = 292 miles, NW = 367 miles, WI = 505 miles, IA = 536 miles, MN = 766 miles
Sharing a border isn’t everything. Actual distance matters.
“3. OH isn’t nearly as rich in recruits as CA/TX/FL, so B10W schools can’t draw as deeply on OH recruits as Oregon can in CA.”
No, but there’s also more national recruiting in CA, TX and FL than in OH. Plus the B10W can also tap into those 3 states. The B10 East footprint has more recruits than CA does (and I didn’t include DC or northern VA). That means plenty of leftovers for the West to chase.
LikeLike
Brian, have you looked at the size of ‘Bama’s O-Line? And Harbaugh loves to use his TEs. All offenses will be slightly different from each other, but there’s nothing about Wisconsin’s pro-style offense that makes them very distinct from other pro-style offenses.
On your other points, UNL is also in the B10W. Still doesn’t negate the point that teams like Wisconsin can utilize other strategies to a greater extent than some other schools to make up for lackluster recruiting prowess (so they don’t need to recruit as well as the Eastern powers in order to be good).
And the B10E territory has more football powers in and around there than does CA (3 kings in the B10E + an MSU that has been very successful recently + UTenn not far from OH vs. USC, a low king/high prince in UCLA and 2 maybe princes in CA). That makes it tougher for a Wisconsin to pull top recruits from the B10E than it does Oregon from CA.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, have you looked at the size of ‘Bama’s O-Line?”
It was slightly smaller than WI’s this year when they played and AL is practically an NFL team when it comes to recruiting. They are big but more athletic than most OL that size.
“And Harbaugh loves to use his TEs.”
He does and always has. But not in the way WI was famous for using them.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/sports/college/football/badgers-football-tight-ends-expect-more-passes-to-come-their/article_7f8511b6-44ae-5c3b-ae48-69907f3df60c.html
In fact, there might not have been a position group more excited by the hire of UW coach Paul Chryst than the tight ends.
One look at the rich history at that position during Chryst’s time as offensive coordinator with the Badgers suggests Traylor and sophomore tight end Troy Fumagalli will become significant targets for quarterback Joel Stave.
…
From 2006-11, UW’s top tight end finished with at least 30 receptions and five touchdowns. Tight ends led the team in receptions in four of those six seasons, with Travis Beckum and Lance Kendricks each earning All-American honors and Garrett Graham being named first-team All-Big Ten in back-to-back seasons.
…
“When you look in the tight end room and you see all those plaques for All-Americans, one thing in common is they came from coach Chryst,” Fumagalli said. “That’s something that just didn’t happen. He takes a lot of pride in that position group, he uses them very well. And he also expects a lot out of our group.”
Stanford under Harbaugh:
2007 – WRs were top 3 (top TE had 27 catches)
2008 – WRs were top 2 (top TE had 17 catches)
2009 – WRs were top 2 (top TE had 21 catches)
2010 – WRs were top 2 (top TE was converted WR and had 28 catches same as RB)
WI had TE with at least 30 catches for 6 straight years under Chryst and Stanford never did that under Harbaugh.
“All offenses will be slightly different from each other, but there’s nothing about Wisconsin’s pro-style offense that makes them very distinct from other pro-style offenses.”
Let’s just say they’re far out on the bell curve for pro-style offenses.
“Still doesn’t negate the point that teams like Wisconsin can utilize other strategies to a greater extent than some other schools to make up for lackluster recruiting prowess (so they don’t need to recruit as well as the Eastern powers in order to be good).”
They can, but they shouldn’t be too reliant on it is my point. They should increase their recruiting effort as well. If nothing else, they can try to outwork IA, MN and NE in recruiting the same set of players. It is an advantage that they recruit differently from OSU, chasing a type of OH player OSU doesn’t always chase. Also OSU and MI are recruiting more nationally than they were before, leaving more midwestern players available. WI needs to capitalize on that.
Another factor we need to mention again is that because WI wants a slightly different set of players, the people they want aren’t always as highly rated by the recruiting services. Their recruiting may be better than the numbers show for certain positions.
“And the B10E territory has more football powers in and around there than does CA (3 kings in the B10E + an MSU that has been very successful recently + UTenn not far from OH vs. USC, a low king/high prince in UCLA and 2 maybe princes in CA). That makes it tougher for a Wisconsin to pull top recruits from the B10E than it does Oregon from CA.”
Conversely TN is in another conference and OH players tend to prefer to stay in the B10. And don’t neglect the fact that every western school recruits CA (especially all the P12 schools + BYU) just like all the plains states recruit TX and all the eastern schools recruit FL. Anymore, all the good recruiting areas are picked over about equally. I was just pointing out that every power conference has a big pool of recruits in their footprint now. The B10 West is a little distant from the best areas but more recruits travel than ever before and a WI offer is better than a G5/low P5 offer closer to home for many players.
LikeLike
Brian, the numbers do not support your contention that OH recruits (at least elite ones) prefer to stay in the B10 enough to pick a non-adjacent non-king B10 school over a non-king non-B10 school.
In 2014 and 2015, 1 OH 4-star went to each of Wisconsin and Iowa. In that same time span, 6 OH 4-stars went to UK and one each went to Pitt and UVa. One also went to Tenn.
LikeLike
Also, conversely, it’s to Wisconsin’s disadvantage that UMich and MSU run a very similar type of offense. The 2 MI schools are also closer to OH and have more cachet and/or recent success. They’re going to win the vast majority of head-to-head battles for OH kids with Bucky.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, the numbers do not support your contention that OH recruits (at least elite ones) prefer to stay in the B10 enough to pick a non-adjacent non-king B10 school over a non-king non-B10 school.
In 2014 and 2015, 1 OH 4-star went to each of Wisconsin and Iowa. In that same time span, 6 OH 4-stars went to UK and one each went to Pitt and UVa. One also went to Tenn.”
1. I didn’t specify anything about elite versus non-elite. You chose to cherrypick data.
2. Where they went doesn’t prove your case. What B10 offers did they have and were they the right type of players for WI/IA?
http://wisconsin.247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/Offers
That’s a list of everyone WI offered so far for the 2016 class. Of the 266 offers, only 14 went to Ohio players. They offered more from CA (21), FL (58), GA (30), MD (15) and TX (36). They offered at least 10 each in NJ, PA and VA. Are CA, GA and TX players more likely to want to go to WI than OH players? Those numbers tell me that they aren’t recruiting OH very hard. You can’t reap what you don’t sow.
Breakdown of the 14:
WI – 2
OSU – 2
NW – 2
PSU – 1
MSU – 1
IN – 1
Pitt – 1
BC – 1
Undecided – 3
That’s 9 of 11 staying in the B10 with 1 more likely headed to OSU, another to MSU or RU and the third to UC.
UK has 13 commits from OH players right now (all 3*), 10 just verbals. Of those 13, WI offered none of them. UK did offer one of the OH players that is committed to WI, though.
“Also, conversely, it’s to Wisconsin’s disadvantage that UMich and MSU run a very similar type of offense. The 2 MI schools are also closer to OH and have more cachet and/or recent success. They’re going to win the vast majority of head-to-head battles for OH kids with Bucky.”
MSU didn’t have more cachet and/or recent success until very recently.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian, as you well know, the East both has and is closer to fertile recruiting grounds than the West schools,”
Other than the decent states of IL and MN, yes. It’s one of many reasons many people worried about the East/West split. but due to that overabundance of talent in the East there are plenty of players for West teams to poach. OSU and MI can’t take everyone.
“so schools like Wisconsin pretty much never will have a recruiting class as good as UMich/OSU.”
That’s not just about location. That’s also brand/status. But it’s not that they need to be just as good so much as not too far behind.
“However, that doesn’t mean that they can’t keep up (with at least UMich) via other strategies (like finding diamonds in the rough).”
I think MI under Harbaugh is going to be a fixture in the top 10. WI should be able to keep up with MSU, though. But MSU is way ahead of them. Which will help MSU keep winning more, perpetuating the cycle.
“The number of walk-ons they’ve had who’ve turned in to impact players is mindblowing.”
Part of that is finding those diamonds, but the other part is not recruiting better players in front of them. And why are these guys being walk-ons instead of getting offers from WI? Even the WI coaches didn’t know they’d be good. That sort of luck doesn’t always work.
LikeLike
It’s not just luck, though, but systemic, which was my point.
As you know, with any level of recruits, it’s a probability game. Even 4-stars may not produce.
However, Wisconsin benefits from being the sole power program (by far) in an underrecruited midsized state, so they likely get higher quality walk-ons than most other schools.
LikeLike
Richard,
“It’s not just luck, though, but systemic, which was my point.”
Agreed, it’s not all luck. But I’d put more faith in it being a systemic skill of the staff to find diamonds in the rough if WI’s coaches gave these guys offers rather than had them walk-on. Sometimes you just get a late bloomer or luck into the undersized guy who is quick enough to get away with it.
“As you know, with any level of recruits, it’s a probability game. Even 4-stars may not produce.”
Very true. But the odds are better the higher the player is ranked (more so for athletic positions than OL, though).
“However, Wisconsin benefits from being the sole power program (by far) in an underrecruited midsized state, so they likely get higher quality walk-ons than most other schools.”
How do you decide WI is under-recruited? What metric are you using? Many walk-ons at OSU, for example, turn down other offers to play at the in-state school. Presumably this happens to WI as well. Are those players under-recruited? Is every All-American that isn’t playing for a king under-recruited? WI didn’t even get JJ Watt out of high school. He played TE at CMU for 1 year first before transferring.
LikeLike
My metric is the number of Wisconsin walk-ons who have become terrific college football players.
Where are all these OSU walk-ons who manage to make first or second team all-B10?
And you keep missing my point, Brian.
The systemic part isn’t the coaching staff, but Wisconsin’s natural advantage allowing it to get high-quality walk-ons.
A 2-star can still play in OH at a MAC school or Cincy. WI 2-stars, if they want to play in-state, may choose to walk-on at Wisconsin instead. They don’t have another in-state option.
LikeLike
And every walk-on who makes first or second team all-conference was underrecruited.
I’m interested to see numbers.
LikeLike
Richard: “The systemic part isn’t the coaching staff, but Wisconsin’s natural advantage allowing it to get high-quality walk-ons.”
Oh, THAT kind of systemic. Especially since Wisconsin is a “system” program, in part due to a recruiting handicap for the least academically able of good HS FB players, it seems natural to read “systemic” as being about the Badger’s system in place.
Some would call their (quite real) advantage due to being the only FBS school in the state as “structural” advantage, in an effort to distinguish it from the system the Badgers have in place.
LikeLike
Richard,
“My metric is the number of Wisconsin walk-ons who have become terrific college football players.”
That says nothing about how recruited the state of WI is or isn’t. It says the coaches are missing some of the WI players. Every state produces some players like that. Being wrong is different from not recruiting. How many recruited WI players don’t pan out?
“Where are all these OSU walk-ons who manage to make first or second team all-B10?”
They’d have to become starters first. Walk-ons at OSU tend to be special teams stars but not quite athletic enough to displace the starters at their positions (undersized LBs, etc) or are pure ST players (LS, K, P). The recruited starters in front of them are busy making 1st and 2nd string All-B10 so the walk-ons don’t get the chance.
“The systemic part isn’t the coaching staff, but Wisconsin’s natural advantage allowing it to get high-quality walk-ons.
A 2-star can still play in OH at a MAC school or Cincy. WI 2-stars, if they want to play in-state, may choose to walk-on at Wisconsin instead. They don’t have another in-state option.”
I know what your point is, but:
1. I don’t believe in it like you do. OSU gets walk-ons that turn down those in-state options regularly. So do other schools. Plus MN and NE are in the same boat and close by. And ISU barely counts as P5. There isn’t this major advantage WI has.
2. It isn’t a system if the WI staff have nothing to do with it, and thus there is no systemic effect.
3. You ignore the flip side of the coin which is that UW is under-recruiting WI just as much as anyone else or these wouldn’t be walk-ons. It’s dumb luck if someone else doesn’t steal these diamonds in the rough from them (MN or IA for example).
4. If no catching staff can see that these guys have a strong CFB future, then it isn’t under-recruiting. It’s just a natural failure of human trying to predict the future.
“And every walk-on who makes first or second team all-conference was underrecruited.”
I couldn’t disagree more. Under-recruiting implies that coaches didn’t look at them. Some players show no real evidence in HS of what they’ll become in college because they mature later or had other issues in HS (limited access to quality coaches or weight training, etc).
“I’m interested to see numbers.”
The internet is full of them. Help yourself. I’ve thrown plenty of numbers around.
LikeLike
As a side note, this would be another good reason for the B10 to drop divisions. A more fair schedule would result, allowing the 2 truly best teams to make the CCG more often. That’s good for everyone in many ways.
LikeLike
I didn’t see this article when it was written in October, but it’s not past its freshness date …
Bob Hunter commentary | Penn State is still Big Ten’s best expansion move
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2015/10/17/gameday/gd-hunter-column.html
LikeLike
While it may be a tad unfair to compare Penn State’s 22 years in the conference with recent expansion efforts that brought Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland into the Big Ten Network’s cable family, I can’t shake the feeling that Penn State might end up being seen as the only one of the four where the Big Ten got this expansion business right.
…
Unfortunately, none of three schools that have been added to the Big Ten in the last five years — Nebraska (2011), Maryland (2014) and Rutgers (2014) — appear likely to deliver that kind of value in the long term. The latter two probably wouldn’t even try to deny it; both came to the Big Ten because they saw it as a chance to improve their financial condition and looked to the league to help elevate their football programs.
Nebraska is much closer to the Penn State model than the other two — in Rutgers and Maryland, Big Ten executives recruited the New York and Washington television markets — but not as closely as it looks.
Nebraska has a strong football tradition, but it has been a while since we’ve seen any real evidence of it.
…
The Cornhuskers could make it back, of course, but the accumulating evidence hints that it might not happen. And if Nebraska becomes the equivalent of say, Iowa, a good program but one that doesn’t have the pull of a traditional power such as Penn State, then the recent expansion efforts look increasingly weak.
He’s right that it is unfair, but he’s also right about how many people feel about B10 expansion. PSU is clearly the best of the bunch as it brought football, academics and a big addition to the footprint. On the other hand, NE + UMD + RU brings the same package just split over multiple schools.
Demographics:
PA = 12.8M with 0.5-1% growth (2010-2013)
NE+NJ+MD = 16.9M with ~ 2% growth
Brands:
PSU football + wrestling + WVB
NE football + UMD MBB + UMD WBB + NE WVB + RU WBB
Academics:
All AAU
PSU = #47 USNWR (not a great ranking system, but the most well known to most people)
NE + RU + UMD = #77 on average
Cost:
PSU = 1 share
NE + RU + UMD = 3 shares
I think the benefits of the second group clearly trump PSU’s, but not by nearly as much as they cost. On the other hand, we don’t have access to all the information the COP/C has about demographics for future students and how important that makes NJ and MD for the future of the universities in the B10. I also didn’t include the border areas of DC, northern VA and NYC in the demographics but clearly they bring numbers for students and TV.
Even if television is at the heart of everything, my guess is that a lot more people in New York and Washington will watch Ohio State-Penn State tonight than will even consider tuning into OSU-Rutgers next week.
I don’t have local ratings, but …
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
OSU/PSU – 3.3, 5.87M
OSU/RU – 3.0, 5.29M
Both were ABC primetime games and both were OSU blowouts (38-10 and 49-7) but the PSU game stayed closer for longer.
This probably says more about the popularity of OSU and primetime CFB than about PSU versus RU.
LikeLike
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4374309/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/first-michigan-wolverine-spotted-years/#.VqE4IM_2Z9A
I guess he’s down for a recruiting visit.
LikeLike
Harbaugh knew climbing that tree would work.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14618561/lloyd-carr-rob-mullens-jeff-bower-herb-deromedi-named-college-football-playoff-selection-committee
4 new CFP committee members:
Lloyd Carr – former MI coach
Rob Mullens – OR AD
Jeff Bower – former USM coach
Herb Deromedi – former CMU coach
Members lost:
Tom Osborne – former NE coach and NE AD
Pat Haden – USC AD
Mike Gould – former AF superintendent and Lt. General
Mike Tranghese – former BE commissioner
Basically replacing same with same (P12 AD for P12 AD, B10 coach for B10 coach, G5 for G5)
LikeLike
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZMCQ12VIAMgbXS.png:large
Where all the 4* and 5* recruits in 2014 and 2015 came from and who they signed with.
LikeLike
As I (and probably others) have noted before, almost all the elite HS football talent in this country (outside of the talent-rich Southland and Bay Area in CA and less dense talent in the Great Lakes region) resides in 2 bands: the I-95 states from NJ on south and the band of states that include I-10 & I-20 from TX on east.
LikeLike
I think there are several factors that correlate and cause this.
1. Local interest in HS football.
2. Year-round football in the south leads to more developed players.
3. Greater recruiting interest in the south leads to higher recruit ratings in the south.
4. Percentage of black people (http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html).
LikeLike
Few people consider the I-95 corridor between NYC and DC “the South”.
LikeLike
First, here’s hoping everyone is safe out there (especially in the DC/NYC corridor). My parents had gotten 33″ with more falling as of early afternoon.
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2016/01/michigan_state_would_be_appreh.html
MSU’s AD wants no part of hosting MI at night.
Based on what Hollis said he saw during a 2014 home night game against Ohio State, Hollis would prefer to keep the Michigan game in the afternoon.
“The number of bottles and the behavior at that (Ohio State) game was about as bad as I’ve ever seen at Michigan State, and that’s not an environment that we condone,” Hollis said. “The folks dropping bottles weren’t 20 year olds, they were much older.
“You want people to be able to come and be able to enjoy themselves, but you want them to be at something that takes place in a healthy environment. It’s not an open invitation to a drunk fest — it’s a tailgate, and it’s a football game, and it’s how can we get the behaviors that would allow us to have more opportunities that people want.”
…
Hollis said there weren’t any notable problems on the Michigan State campus when the Spartans hosted Oregon last season.
Rivalry games and contests with in-state ties, however, have been a different story.
“There’s the matter of the intensity of the game, I think, and that’s where you pause,” Hollis said. “Our games with Western (Michigan) and Central are always challenges. Some are people that go to the game, and some are people that come to the city. This is bigger than a student problem.”
Hollis said banning alcohol in parking lots and shutting down tailgates in lots are provisions other schools have used to control university settings.
Will these sorts of concerns lead to a limit in the number of night games in the B10 if not more generally? Are all the big games going to end up being off limits?
LikeLike
There is more intensity at night. LSU typically plays night games and its always loud there. Texas fans generally say there are 3 games in competition for the loudest home games-the A&M game where Ricky Williams broke the all time rushing record and two night games from the 90s-a win over Texas Tech in 1995 known for a Tony Brackens hit on a kicker doing a fake and a win over the unbeaten Run ‘n Shoot Houston Cougars in 1990.
Of course, my wife said the later the UGA-GT games got, the more fights there were, especially in Atlanta where the number of fans on each side was more even. Those GT fraternities start drinking early in the morning on game days.
LikeLike
It is definitely more intense at night, but B10 ADs/Presidents are notoriously conservative about things like this. Neither MSU nor OSU want to play MI at night for these reasons. MI has said the same thing about OSU and MSU before. On the other hand, OSU/PSU has frequently been a night game with no major complaints.
Perhaps it’s the lateness of the date that caused problems for OSU/MSU. It was a November game. Maybe the days are too short and too cold to let people tailgate all day before attending a high intensity game then.
LikeLike
Often when we’ve discussed expansion issues, one thing that has come up has been the number of B10 alumni in various places. Unfortunately that data can be challenging to find. The most recent OSU alumni magazine gave a breakdown by state (only the lower 48) for OSU alumni, so I’d thought I’d share it. Perhaps others can report similar data for their schools until we have small database of this sort of information.
Total – over 525k
Lower 48 combined – 469k (89%)
OH – 291k (55%)
B10 footprint – 52.0k (9.9%)
IL – 10.3k (8.6k in Chicago – #3 city outside OH)
PA – 9.2k
MI – 8.4k
MD – 6.3k
IN – 6.1k
NJ – 4.8k
WI – 2.8k
MN – 2.4k
IA – 1.0k
NE – 0.6k
Northeast – 18.5k (3.5%)
NY – 9.6k (9.1k in NYC – #2 city outside OH)
MA – 4.2k
CT – 2.2k
NH – 0.9k
ME – 0.7k
VT – 0.5k
RI – 0.6k
Mid-Atlantic/ACCish – 20.3k (3.9%)
VA – 8.9k
NC – 8.6k
WV – 1.6k
DE – 0.6k
DC – 0.5k or more (9.4k in DC+NoVA – #1 city outside OH)
SEC – 42.4k (8.1%)
FL – 18.4k
GA – 7.0k
SC – 3.8k
TN – 3.7k
KY – 3.7k
MO – 2.4k
AL – 1.5k
LA – 0.9k
AR – 0.6k
MS – 0.4k
Plains/B12ish – 13.5k (2.6%)
TX – 11.3k (7.9k in eastern TX including Dallas/Austin/Houston – #4 area outside OH)
KS – 1.0k
OK – 0.8k
SD – 0.2k
ND – 0.2k
Mountains – 16.8k (3.2%)
CO – 6.0k
AZ – 5.6k
NV – 1.4k
NM – 1.2k
UT – 1.1k
ID – 0.6k
MT – 0.5k
WY – 0.3k
Pacific – 27.8k (5.3%)
CA – 20.8k (6.8k – #5 city outside OH)
WA – 4.6k
OR – 2.4k
LikeLike
http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/5/7/5690888/where-do-big-ten-graduates-live-could-columbus-host-a-b1g-tournament
Here’s some data someone pulled from LinkedIn. It breaks down alumni by all 14 B10 schools for 7 cities. Obviously using LinkedIn will undercount people, but hopefully that ratio is similar enough from school to school to be of some use.
I won’t even try to reproduce the 14×7 table, so I’ll just pull the Chicago numbers as an example:
Illinois – 77,838
Northwestern – 37,326
Purdue – 24,395
Indiana – 22,060
Wisconsin – 17,669
Iowa – 15,930
Michigan State – 14,525
Michigan – 14,167
Ohio State – 5,481
Minnesota – 3,975
Penn State – 3,167
Nebraska – 1,800
Maryland – 1,590
Rutgers – 1,319
Notes:
* You can clearly see several tiers: in-state, border states+MI, other midwest B10, eastern newbies. Indianapolis is more balanced except for the in-state schools just FYI.
* Based on my last post, 5481/8582 = 64% of OSU alumni have LinkedIn accounts. Really? LinkedIn may be using broader metro area designations than OSU did.
* You can understand why MSU values Chicago access
And your totals:
Chicago: 241,242
New York: 216,065
Washington D.C.: 140,146
Columbus: 88,842
Philadelphia: 80,564
Indianapolis: 63,383
Cleveland: 25,589
If you adjust for the 64% ratio above:
Chicago: 377k
New York: 338k
Washington D.C.: 219k
Philadelphia: 126k
Indianapolis: 99k
LikeLike
Interesting that the 2nd and 3rd largest areas are NY and DC. Obviously that includes RU and UMD alums but still, Chicago, NY and DC are in a tier by themselves.
This also further confirms my belief that major events (football championship and mens basketball tournament) should be played in these three cities.
LikeLike
The Chicago, NJ, and MD NFL stadiums are all open-air. That seems to be a problem for many people.
Rotating the basketball tournament between Chicago, NYC, and DC makes sense.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Interesting that the 2nd and 3rd largest areas are NY and DC. Obviously that includes RU and UMD alums but still, Chicago, NY and DC are in a tier by themselves.”
It is interesting, but also remember that the writer chose which cities to present. Not all the major cities in the footprint were checked. I’d be curious to see info for St. Louis, MSP, Detroit and a few other cities, too.
“This also further confirms my belief that major events (football championship and mens basketball tournament) should be played in these three cities.”
They’re good host cities, sure. But another useful metric might be the number of alumni in driving distance. Another important factor is the distribution of alumni in the city. You don’t want to give too much of a home field/court advantage to one school. Also, travel concerns become important for cities on the edges of the footprint (NYC, DC, MSP). For football, weather concerns factor in as well.
Indy is centrally located and has a roof. It’s also known to be good at hosting major events with hotels and restaurants in walking distance of the stadium. The lack of a roof is a major hurdle for Chicago, NYC and DC. The lack of centrality hurts Detroit and MSP although I think MSP deserves a shot with their new stadium.
I could see Indy hosting fewer MBB tournaments but they’ve done pretty well with that over the years, too. I do understand the desire to move it around more and I agree with it to an extent. Most tournaments seem to do better if they basically have a single home, though. Personally, I think that home should be in the midwest where most of the B10 schools are with occasional trips to the perimeter and other major cities (NYC, Philly, DC, St. Louis, MSP, Detroit).
LikeLike
Note that the LinkedIn totals also count grad school alums.
That’s how the NU Chicagoland numbers are so high. I’ve heard that we actually have the least undergrad alums in Chicagoland of the original 10 B10 schools (though I’m not sure how true that is; we likely outnumber OSU and Minny alums in Chicagoland), but NU has more grad students than undergrads (with many in PT grad programs; Kellogg’s PT MBA program is huge for a b-school, for instance), and many of those folks stay local.
LikeLike
Really interesting analysis.
It’s been over ten years since I’ve lived in Indy, but I distinctly remember at the time there were 100K grads in the greater Indy area between IU/PU and IU had roughly 75% of them. It may include graduates of IUPUI, which are typically IU degrees but may not have been counted in the LinkedIn survey.
When I lived in Houston (05-12), Houston was the second largest alumni group outside of Indiana after Chicago.
I will always have a soft spot for Indy and I would be disappointed to see it lose any rotational frequency in BB or CFB championships. No city hosts large sporting events better but rotating around the league seems fair as long as it regularly comes back “home”.
LikeLike
I know I shouldn’t have, but out of concern following the big snow I checked in on the Dude to see if he was alright. I think all that shoveling may have caused a problem. Among his ramblings about how the B1G isn’t going to get much boost in the new media contract was this:
“Christopher Lambert @theDudeofWV
Finally. I’m making a prediction for 2025. The B12 adds 6: Arizona, Colorado & BYU in the west. FSU, Clemson & Miami in the east.”
… or maybe he’s unchanged …
LikeLike
That didn’t last long! He gave up on twitter and said he told his wife to change his password. Next day there was one tweet about the Big 12 and Pac 12 merging. It appears today his “diet” is over.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/01/25/florida-state-settles-title-ix-lawsuit-erica-kinsman-jameis-winston/79299304/
FSU pays 950k to settle Winston case. They are still under Title IX investigation by the federal government.
LikeLike
FSU agreed to pay Kinsman $950,000 – an amount that includes attorney’s fees – as well as make a five-year commitment to awareness, prevention and training programs. The lump sum is the largest settlement for Title IX claims regarding indifference to a student’s reported sexual assault.
…
FSU did not admit to liability in the settlement, which university president John Thrasher said the school agreed to in order to avoid additional litigation expenses.
…
The settlement does not affect an ongoing Title IX investigation by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Kinsman filed a complaint with the agency in early 2014 and it opened an investigation in April of that year.
John Clune, one of Kinsman’s attorneys, said not withdrawing her OCR complaint was critical for Kinsman in agreeing to the settlement.
In her lawsuit, which was settled in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Kinsman
…
As part of the settlement, FSU agreed to publish annual reports of its programs for the next five years.
In September 2014, FSU created the “kNOw MORE” campaign, seeking to educate students, faculty and staff about the meaning of consent, prevention, intervention and provide resources for sexual assault victims. The school has also hired a new Title IX coordinator, added six positions related to on-campus safety and published a Victims’ Rights and Resources handbook, among other initiatives.
…
FSU had previously tried to have Kinsman’s lawsuit dismissed, but Judge Mark E. Walker ruled in August that it could go forward.
FSU had argued that an “appropriate person” was not aware of the harassment Kinsman alleged and could not take corrective action.
The school had previously admitted that senior associate athletics director Monk Bonasorte and football coach Jimbo Fisher were aware of the rape allegation in January 2013, a month after Kinsman first reported to police, but did not notify the Title IX coordinator or the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities.
Before the lawsuit was settled, it was proceeding through discovery with both parties taking depositions and gathering evidence.
In a Sept. 22 deposition, which was obtained by USA TODAY Sports, Fisher said that he was not aware of FSU’s policy about sexual battery around the time the allegation against Winston was first reported to police and initially investigated.
In a deposition previously released to USA TODAY Sports, Tallahassee police detective Scott Angulo admitted to missteps and other investigative steps that could have been taken in the early days of the criminal investigation when Kinsman first deported in December 2012.
FSU is alleging the money is split $250k for her and $700k for the lawyers but one of the lawyers has denied that.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25461088/super-bowl-50-ohio-state-sec-lead-with-most-players-on-rosters
CBS breaks down the Super Bowl rosters by conference and school.
1. SEC — 24
2. Big Ten — 18
3. Pac-12 — 16
4. ACC — 14
5. Big 12 — 10
5. Mountain West — 10
7. AAC — 7
8. Sun Belt — 5
9. Independents — 3
10. Conference USA — 2
11. MAC — 0
Schools from the FCS or lower divisions account for 14 players on both rosters.
…
Ohio State – 6 players
Georgia Tech – 4
Tennessee – 4
Alabama – 3
Arizona State – 3
Auburn – 3
Florida – 3
Georgia – 3
Notre Dame – 3
Oklahoma – 3
Oregon – 3
Oregon State – 3
They also list all the schools with 2 players. There are 77 schools with at least 1 player on a roster.
LikeLike
http://chronicle.com/article/As-Sports-Programs-Get-Richer/235026/
A look at how much ADs give back to their schools. Out of over 40 schools that reported giving money from the AD to the school, only 10 gave more than they received in subsidies.
Totals for 2011-2014 (schools gave no subsidy):
UT – $37.1M
OSU – $36.3M
LSU – $19.2M
OU – $11.1M
NE – $9.72M
PU – $4.11M
Net totals for 2011-2014 (donation – subsidy):
UF – $7.31M (25.2-17.9)
MI – $6.17M (7.2-1.1)
UK – $4.71M (8.2-3.4)
AL – $2.38M (25.4-23.0)
LikeLike
http://thecomeback.com/thestudentsection/basketball/what-does-northwestern-need-to-make-the-ncaa-tournament.html
What does NW need to do to make the NCAA tourney this year? This article was written 2 games ago (before the UMD game), just FYI.
Northwestern has 12 games left. There is a lot of opportunity in those 12 games, but the margin for error is getting thin. Three of those 12 games are against objectively bad teams. The remaining games against Minnesota (February 4th), Rutgers (February 27th), and Nebraska (March 6th) are probably must-wins. Unless the Wildcats win a bunch of big games the rest of the way, they cannot afford a bad loss on this resume. Assuming nothing crazy happens between now and March, though, they need to win these three.
… A win over one out of the Maryland/Iowa/Michigan State trio plus one win over either Michigan or Purdue will give this resume a little meat. On top of that, Northwestern will need to add wins over Illinois and Penn State, and one out of Ohio State and Indiana.
That is how it is shaping up for Northwestern to need to feel safe. Going 8-4 from here on out, with wins over their five worst remaining opponents included in that record, would likely give the Wildcats 5-6 top 100 wins to end the year, including 2-3 top 50 wins. That should be enough to bring Northwestern’s RPI numbers into a bid-worthy range and should be enough to counteract the atrocious nonconference schedule. Add a second win over the Iowa/Maryland/Michigan State trio and we will probably be able to make Northwestern a lock.
Anything short of 8-4 is trouble, though. Maybe Northwestern can take a bad loss if they make up for it by adding a good win. Without that it will be tough. The Wildcats’ RPI will probably be around 60 at best, and lower if they can’t win eight games from here. That RPI, combined with a middling SOS, will need good wins to put Northwestern in consideration. The Wildcats won’t get it at all without either that one top-end win or without a significant number of top 50 wins. There just aren’t many opportunities for those on this schedule. 7-5 with wins over Indiana, Ohio State, and either Purdue or Michigan would put Northwestern on the bubble, but no team on the bubble can expect a bid with a sub-300 nonconference SOS.
It would be great to see NW finally make it, but I’m not convinced this is the year. Losses to UMD and IN since the article was written mean they need to go 8-2 the rest of the way now and their next 2 games are versus MSU and at IA. After that they still will have 4 road games left including at #21 PU and they will likely need to finish 8-0.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football-recruiting/2016/01/67005/the-business-of-recruiting-and-college-football-ugly-doesnt-have-to-be-dishonest
Some suggested ways to clean up the uglier aspects of recruiting.
“EARLY SIGNING PERIOD
…
WRITTEN OFFERS ONLY AND WHENEVER YOU DECIDE TO OFFER IT
…
OFFICIAL VISITS START IN SPRING OF JUNIOR YEAR
…
PAID VISITS FOR JUNIORS
…
AN OUT FOR PLAYERS WHO HAVE COACHES LEAVE AFTER SIGNING DAY
…
ALLOW COACHES TO EVALUATE AT THIRD-PARTY CAMPS
…
ONE SET OF RULES, NO VARIATION BETWEEN CONFERENCES”
LikeLike
Frank tweeted this link:
http://collegesports.blog.statesman.com/2016/01/26/bob-bowlsby-big-12-has-no-imperative-to-expand/
Bowlsby is still saying that the B12 doesn’t need to expand. No shock there, but the article has some good information.
1. The B12 needs 8 votes to expand.
2. No CCG in 2016 for logistical reasons.
3. The LHN is preventing a B12 network. They’d have to have UT on board.
4. Tier 1 money will become an issue for the B12 going forward.
“We don’t have any imperative for getting larger,” he said. “We haven’t really spent any time thinking about who the candidates are, if there are any candidates. But there has been media speculation about it. It doesn’t take any genius to look around and see where there may be prospects.”
Asked whether Oklahoma or West Virginia could ever leave the Big 12, Bowlsby said, “There are always those possibilities. … Right now, we’re distributing more on an individual level than any other conference.”
…
Bowlsby has said previously that Longhorn Network was a “boulder in the road” to having a Big 12 network, like the Big 10, Pac-12 or SEC has. The Longhorns get approximately $15 million annually from ESPN.
“I don’t think we could enter into a network without the University of Texas participating,” Bowlsby said. “They’re a flagship program within our conference and they’re always going to be. But there are things in place that are, well, I wouldn’t say longstanding at this point — they’re four years into a 20-year contact, so there’s a long term commitment. But we need to keep everybody at the table talking and discussing to see how all the boats can rise.
“We’re smaller, we don’t have a championship game, we don’t have a network,” he added. “Right now, our Tier 1 media (rights) is slightly undervalued. Over the next 15 years, the delta between us and the other major conferences is going to get large.”
On the College Football Playoff, Bowlsby indicated he likes the four-team format.
…
Bowlsby also touched on a number of other topics, including whether athlete should be paid, the growing time demands on athletes and Title IX. The commissioner said he’d like to add men’s soccer league wide if ever possible. “It’s just a glaring omission for us,” he said.
LikeLike
B12 tier one contract undervalued compared to what?
If you compare the tier1 payouts with viewership numbers, the SEC and B10 tier1 contracts now are undervalued (though the B10 will get a new tier1 contract soon). If anything, by viewership numbers, the B12 and Pac tier1 contracts are overvalued. If the B12 tier1 contract is undervalued, the B10 should expect a huge payout (and the SEC tier1 deal would be extremely undervalued).
LikeLike
I found that comment interesting as well.
LikeLike
Very interesting if they need 8 to expand. I was leaning on them not getting a majority and 8 will be exceptionally tough. Truth be told though, I think the conference is stronger at 10, with round robin play, and a CCG than with 12 and divisions.
I am surprised about no CCG in 2016 (happy though as I like the traditional college football conference format). I figured they could redo the schedules enough to get it going and jump at it.
LikeLike
Not enough time to get the stadium and TV deal in place, probably. Not sure why you think they’d have to redo the schedule at all.
LikeLike
Those are certainly issues too. I think they could find an NFL stadium with an away game for a one year deal easily enough and a TV Network would certainly buy, but they would be rushing.
The scheduling I’d think would be a bit more complicated to deal with still. They have had several games scheduled the final week of the season the last couple of years. All of those would have to be moved to earlier weeks and would have to replace a bye week on everyone’s schedule. Coordinating that would be a difficult as the teams with games currently scheduled that week probably do not have the same bye weeks. The conference can rearrange things certainly, but the schools are pretty far into this with already haven know the schedule and scheduled other things around.
Granted, I don’t think any of this means it would be impossible and I’m surprised we don’t see one this year,
LikeLike
I don’t think the logistics are as simple as you think they are.
LikeLike
The logistics on the game are not simple. Its not just the stadium, but sponsors, hotels, TV contracts….
The logistics of the scheduling aren’t that hard. They designed it with a ccg in mind, so it won’t be hard to move games around.
LikeLike
Since men’s soccer was mentioned in these convos, why not borrow an element of the international professional leagues to make add intrigue to the football CCG.
Add cumulative points as the true tiebreaker? It would reduce the effect of recency bias in the event that #2 (however that team is determined, record or national rank) upset #1 – not only would #2 need to beat #1, but if the previous regular season game was #1 blowing out #2, #2 would need to be even more devastating to #1 the 2nd time around. While a crippled champion not worthy of the semifinals may emerge if say Oklahoma beat Baylor 49-35 in the regular season but lost to Baylor 42-49 in the CCG, it would still reward Oklahoma for being undefeated (or 1 loss) in the round robin with an advantageous NYE slot.
LikeLike
That isn’t exactly what he said.
3. He said UT needed to participate for a Big 12 network to exist. Participating doesn’t mean the LHN has to go away. It can take various forms. Perhaps as simple as allowing conference road games to occasionally appear on the network.
4. Being an “issue” doesn’t mean being a “problem.” . He said they were undervalued. That could mean everyone is undervalued. It could also mean they are undervalued relative to the re-worked SEC contract (which we don’t know exactly how much it is) or to the Pac 12 and ACC contracts.
How well the Big 12 is doing now is a point that is little understood. The Big 12 distributed more per school on average in 2014 than the SEC did. Without the BTN revenues (or adding in the Tier III media for the Big 12 schools), the Big 12 is undoubtedly still ahead of the Big 10. That will change with the new Big 10 contract. And he clearly believes that conference networks will continue to be profitable for a while with his comment about paying more individually but expecting to fall behind over the next 15 years.
LikeLike
bullet,
“That isn’t exactly what he said.”
It’s pretty darn close.
“3. He said UT needed to participate for a Big 12 network to exist. Participating doesn’t mean the LHN has to go away.”
Realistically, yes it does mean that. He previously said the LHN was a “boulder in the road” to a B12N. This time he said UT needed to participate. Unless you honestly believe UT would accept a greatly reduced LHN (no FB, fewer BB and baseball/softball games, etc), the the LHN has to go in order for the B12N to exist and thrive. If UT is OK with the LHN only showing minor sports and coaches shows, then I agree it can remain. The B12N only makes money if it is widely distributed in TX for a decent price. If the LHN still has the rights to a UT home game plus multiple MBB games and baseball/softball games, there won’t be much left for the B12N from UT.
“4. Being an “issue” doesn’t mean being a “problem.””
I didn’t say it was a problem, but he basically did when he said “Over the next 15 years, the delta between us and the other major conferences is going to get large.”
“How well the Big 12 is doing now is a point that is little understood.”
I assume Bowlsby is aware of it. In fact, I assume he knows more than you about how it is doing. And he thinks the LHN is an impediment to the B12N and that the tier 1 deal will lead to a large gap to other P5 conference payouts.
LikeLike
You didn’t read what I said. Its possible Texas can have road games on the Big 12 network while keeping the LHN as it is. It complicates things. It doesn’t make it impossible.
He didn’t say Tier I & II was a problem which you implied. He said overall the difference would get large. The implication was that it was the conference networks and Tier III. He has said several times recently that he thinks not having a conference network puts the conference at a disadvantage.
Again, not sure what you are reading. Bowlsby said it. I’m not talking about Bowlsby understanding it obviously. I’m talking about media and fans around the country.
So no, he didn’t say the LHN prevented a conference network. He didn’t say Tier I would lead to a large gap.
LikeLike
bullet,
“You didn’t read what I said.”
I read it, I just don’t buy it.
“Its possible Texas can have road games on the Big 12 network while keeping the LHN as it is.”
From UT’s POV, sure. UT has never had any control over where their road games appear and never will. But it’s not plausible from the B12 POV for the LHN to keep UT home games and have a viable B12N. They need the UT games to force UT fans to demand the B12N.
“It complicates things. It doesn’t make it impossible.”
Very few things are impossible, but Bowlsby has said it about as plainly as he could.
“He didn’t say Tier I & II was a problem which you implied. He said overall the difference would get large. The implication was that it was the conference networks and Tier III.”
He talked about the tier 1 deal being undervalued in the very sentence before saying the gap to other conferences would grow wide over the next 15 years. As you often remind people, the B12 schools do all get significant tier 3 amounts (the low is about $3M IIRC) including a huge sum for UT, so it’s hard to see why in the next sentence he feels that is the major source of the gap and not the undervalued TV deal he just mentioned. The context says he was talking at least in part about the tier 1 deal. He may well be thinking about the total package, but the tier 1 deal has to be a significant part of his point or he wouldn’t have mentioned it right before warning of a growing gap.
“Again, not sure what you are reading. Bowlsby said it. I’m not talking about Bowlsby understanding it obviously.”
Actually, that’s not obvious since the article is about Bowlsby’s opinions. You seem to make some unusual interpretations of his quotes (no, he’s not saying the LHN needs to go; he might mean all CFB deals are undervalued). You interpretations are possible but they don’t seem like the most obvious ones.
“So no, he didn’t say the LHN prevented a conference network.”
Right, he just blatantly implied it.; And the writer added to that implication by adding a previous quote from him on the subject. Perhaps the author was trying to distort Bowlsby’s opinion, but he was the one there to hear Bowlsby as he said it.
“He didn’t say Tier I would lead to a large gap.”
Right, he just happened to mentioned an undervalued tier 1 deal immediately before saying a large gap would develop in the future. I’m sure those are completely unrelated ideas.
LikeLike
“You didn’t read what I said. Its possible Texas can have road games on the Big 12 network while keeping the LHN as it is. It complicates things. It doesn’t make it impossible.”
If that’s not enough UT content to drive Longhorns fans to switch from a provider that does not offer the network to one that does, then it would make the B12N commercially infeasible.
And given access to Texas home games on a competing channel … and the fact that in FB power programs play more games at home than away … it doesn’t seem like it would be enough content for that.
LikeLike
Um, Texas has a network with one school. There would be plenty of content with 9 to 11 schools. The Big 10 did it with 11 schools for many years.
Texas is important for getting carriage in Texas. I’ve wondered if the rumors that OU wanted Houston was, if true, partly motivated by getting carriage in Houston without UT.
Bowlsby has developed some talking points over the last few months. Without a ccg, without 12 teams, without a conference network, the Big 12 is at a disadvantage. Clearly he and Boren think a conference network is the way to go. I don’t see how they can pay Texas and still generate enough for everyone else. If they really want one, it would seem the best way would be to do it without UT. UT isn’t giving up the LHN at this point in time.
LikeLike
“Um, Texas has a network with one school.”
Umm, ESPN has a network for which they overpay for minimal T3 content.
“There would be plenty of content with 9 to 11 schools. The Big 10 did it with 11 schools for many years.”
B1G didn’t do it missing a king or two in the only population area of any significance.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Um, Texas has a network with one school.”
It really has a 1 school charity network because ESPN didn’t want the B12 to fall apart.
“There would be plenty of content with 9 to 11 schools. The Big 10 did it with 11 schools for many years.”
1. Many? BTN launched in 2007 and NE joined the B10 in 2011. I’m not sure 4 counts as many.
2. They didn’t do it with OSU having it’s own network keeping the most valuable state less interested in the conference network. The B12 has it even worse with the value of TX compared to the rest of the footprint.
“Texas is important for getting carriage in Texas.”
Obviously.
“I’ve wondered if the rumors that OU wanted Houston was, if true, partly motivated by getting carriage in Houston without UT.”
That and perhaps better recruiting access with TAMU gone to the SEC.
“I don’t see how they can pay Texas and still generate enough for everyone else.”
He presumable has better access to the numbers than we do. As you’ve pointed out multiple times, though, all the B12 schools are already making money from tier 3. Some schools, like OU and KU, make big money on tier 3. That money should only increase when multiple schools are combined. I think there would be more than enough to cover UT’s LHN payment. The question is what would the payment to everyone else be. Over time I’d bet they think they could get everyone close to the UT number as the network gains traction.
“If they really want one, it would seem the best way would be to do it without UT.”
It seems that way to UT fans, at least. Everyone else in the B12 seems pretty clear that it just isn’t feasible to do it that way. I’ve got to believe they have some media experts telling them the numbers don’t work without UT to bring TX.
“UT isn’t giving up the LHN at this point in time.”
That seems pretty clear. They could keep the LHN if they gave the B12N first dibs at all events. The B12N would have to pay most of the money ESPN is currently paying UT, obviously, but it could be negotiated.
LikeLike
Boren is saying today that media consultants are telling him that its all or none, that they have to have all 10 schools.
LikeLike
Are you surprised by that? Nobody else is. It’s what we’ve been telling you.
LikeLike
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-president-david-boren-doesnt-expect-a-vote-next-week-on-adding-a-big-12-title-game/article/5475314
More from Boren.
The third piece to Boren’s plan for enhancing the Big 12 is a conference television network. The Big 12 is the only Power Five league without one.
“We’re probably losing $4 or $5 million, $6 million — there are various estimates a year — by not having a Big 12 network,” Boren said. “Per school.”
…
Any conference network would probably have to include Texas. Boren said that, to help UT offset the money it would lose without the Longhorn Network, other schools could agree to work that into the Big 12 network distribution for a few years.
“I’m not out to embarrass Texas,” Boren said. “I’m not out to make them financially worse off. I’m not out to do any of those things. This isn’t any kind of motivation to do anything to Texas that makes them worse off.
“I just think we’ve got to think about ways to transition away from that, that will keep them whole, and be fair with them.”
So they estimate they’re losing $4-6M per school per year without a B12N. I assume that’s an average since their tier 3 deals vary considerably.
Now, let’s go back and examine an earlier comment from bullet:
“How well the Big 12 is doing now is a point that is little understood. The Big 12 distributed more per school on average in 2014 than the SEC did. Without the BTN revenues (or adding in the Tier III media for the Big 12 schools), the Big 12 is undoubtedly still ahead of the Big 10.”
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesheadlines/2015/05/29/carlton-big-12-posts-record-breaking-revenue-shares-still-outdone-by-sec
Big 12 schools also have a greater opportunity to take advantage of their third-tier rights than other conferences. Texas has parlayed that into the Longhorn Network partnership with ESPN, worth $15 million annually before a percentage to IMG and the academic side at Texas. Oklahoma, West Virginia and Kansas all are reported to have significant third-tier deals ranging from $7 to $10 million.
Bowlsby said “a couple of our schools” are above the SEC per school total and “several others” are close.
UT = 15
OU, WV, KU = 8
Other 6 = 3.5 on average (pure guesstimate)
Average = $6M
2014-2015 distributions per school:
B12 – $25.2M
SEC – $31.2M
B10 – $32M
If tier 3 is worth $6M per school per year that becomes:
B12 – $31.2M
SEC – $31.2M
B10 – $32M
Are some schools ahead? Sure. But WV isn’t getting a full distribution yet and is one of the top tier 3 recipients. That leaves UT, OU and KU as the only ones potentially ahead. And the B10 schools are also developing equity in a major asset while getting this payout.
And Bowlsby’s quote says my guesstimate is probably generous.
Also:
Bowlsby noted the Big 12 is expected to make a similar-sized jump in revenue next year and eventually top out at about $44 million per school before its current TV contracts end in 2024-25.
The B10 is expecting that sort of payout in 2017-2018. Add in the typical growth of $2M per year that the B10 has seen lately and that’s $58M in 2024-2025.
LikeLike
ESPN isn’t overpaying for LHN. They will start making money next year now that DTV is on board. The mistakes they learned from while rolling out the LHN probably made them tens of millions on the SECN
LikeLike
I guess ESPN could break even some day. They are probably 50-100M in the hole right now. I’m sure that was the plan…
We’re just going to have to live in different realities. You, in one where eventually breaking even with 95+% of income from in state subs (and simultaneously handicapping the rest of the conference) is a success. Me, in one where the LHN is P16 prevention insurence wherein ESPN pays far less overall – to all conferences – because the bar has been prevented from rising without the mothership’s permission.
LikeLike
Its 4 years into a 20 year deal. Its going to make money next year. They’ve got plenty of time to make up the losses the first 4 years. They just didn’t market it right at first. They needed to launch it when they could tie it to ESPN renewals and systems were ready to talk.
They always knew most of the income was going to be from one state. BTN gets vast majority of its revenue from Big 10 states.
LikeLike
As in not marketing it, just hold other channels hostage? What a popular channel…
I resent the $0.25 a year it costs me.
Just kidding…sorta.
LikeLike
Everyone is hostage under our current cable system.
LikeLike
Perhaps the biggest obstacle is how they vote
80% is almost impossible especially if Texas is opposed
60% seems more reasonable and would allow better progress
I can see the final vote being near unanimous but it seems as it stands now it assures no progress at all as the threshold is to difficult to overcome.
Interesting about the soccer comment as that would mean greater importance to conferences in the P5 not named SEC.
LikeLike
Last I remember, UK and S. Carolina played men’s soccer in the MAC. Don’t know if any Big 12 schools play men’s soccer.
LikeLike
AFAIU, Kentucky & South Carolina play Men’s Soccer in CUSA. It’s Mizzou that is a MAC affiliate, and that is in wrestling (as frequently mentioned in this comment threads during the wrestling season).
LikeLike
UK and South Carolina are in CUSA now. It was just UK who used to be in the MAC for men’s soccer. Now WVU is in the MAC for men’s soccer.
LikeLike
Love Saturday’s MSG hoops/hockey doubleheader with Penn State and Michigan, and hope next year’s Super Saturday is Maryland/Rutgers men’s and women’s basketball day/night twin bill.
Speaking of Terp women’s hoops, their snowed-out home game vs. Michigan State has been rescheduled for 7 p.m. Feb. 5, three days after Maryland’s showdown at Purdue.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/130021/recruiting-numbers-show-effects-of-big-tens-eastward-expansion
The impact of expansion on B10 recruiting. ESPN looks at recruits from NY, NJ, MD and DC since 2006.
2006-2013:
63 recruits
ACC – 20 = 32%
SEC – 12 = 19%
B10 – 12 = 19%
2006-2013 = 8 years / 63 top 300 recruits = 8 per year
2014-2016:
51 recruits
B10 – 25 = 49%
SEC – 10 = 20%
ACC – 6 = 12%
ND – 3
2014-2016 = 3 years / 51 top 300 recruits = 17 per year
Why did this area double in terms of top 300 prospects in that period? It makes me suspicious of ESPN’s ranking system (and they are the least respected recruiting service).
How has it impacted UMD and RU?
MD + DC:
2006-2013: UMD got 5 of 27 top 300 recruits
2014-2016: UMD got 5 of 26 top 300 recruits
Again, the number of recruits in the area more than doubled.
NJ + NY:
2006-2013: RU got 4 top 300 recruits (they got 0 from other states)
2014-2016: RU got 0 top 300 recruits (they got 1 from FL, though)
Which schools have benefited the most?
2006-2013: MI got 1 from NJ
2014-2016: MI got 6 from NJ (includes 4 of the 8 from NJ this year)
Penn State is also recruiting the new footprint well.
Beginning with the class of 2014, the Nittany Lions as of Sunday have commitments from more ESPN 300 prospects from New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington D.C., than any other school.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25464320/potential-big-12-football-title-game-vote-next-week-no-better-than-50-50
More on the B12 CCG odds for 2016 from Bowlsby.
“I think it’s no better than 50-50 that we’ll have a vote.”
It is believed only Oklahoma president David Boren has been publicly in favor of implementing a league title game.
Perhaps more importantly, the Big 12 has engaged in a data analysis of its chances of getting into the playoff by playing a 13th game.
“What is the likelihood of having that yield a team that was a one-loss or no loss?” Bowlsby explained as to the general query of the analysis. “Is our chance of getting a team enhanced or diminished by getting the 13th data point?”
…
A decision to implement a championship game would require only a simple majority (six schools), Bowlsby added, though it would be better if there were unanimity.
The conference has left a spot left on its schedule to play the game this year whether it be on campus or a neutral site. But logistical issues continue to mount for this year, Bowlsby said.
The conference has not reserved a venue. The most discussed site is AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas.
“There are a lot of issues with hotel rooms and staging space,” Bowlsby said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they [the ADs and presidents] just said, ‘We’re going to do this but we’re not going to do this until ’17.'”
LikeLike
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/sec/university-of-missouri/article56836933.html
Interesting article on Missouri fiasco:
Two months after his resignation, former University of Missouri System President Tim Wolfe is not happy. And part of his anger is directed at the football team’s strike last year.
In an email obtained by The Star through a public-records request, Wolfe said political pressure led to his decision to step down Nov. 9 after weeks of student protests that eventually involved the football team. The email, dated Jan. 19 and labeled confidential, was addressed to prominent supporters and forwarded to administration officials two days later. The Columbia Tribune first obtained the email.
One of six bullet-point sections in the email was titled MU Football Team Strike and read:
“The football team’s decision to strike is what actually brought most of the national attention to our university. In hindsight, the $1 million penalty associated with forfeiting the game against BYU would have paled in comparison to the more than $25 million in lost tuition and fees MU will realize with reduced enrollment this Fall. It’s also a pittance of the threatened loss of state funding that could be as much as $500 million. Unfortunately, MU Athletic Director Mack Rhoades, Coach (Gary) Pinkel and (MU Chancellor) Bowen Loftin all failed to communicate with system officials on this matter. The football team’s actions were the equivalent of throwing gasoline on a small fire. Coach Pinkel missed an important opportunity to teach his players a valuable life lesson. The end result could be a financial catastrophe for our university.”
….
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/sec/university-of-missouri/article56836933.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
What’s the reduced enrollment and would they not have reduced if the football team had not threatened to strike.
LikeLike
This goes even more into his e-mails. Extremely negative comments on the curators and bowtie (Loftin).
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/tim-wolfe-s-letter-seeking-support-in-negotiation/article_14ff10fe-e4ae-5bb6-8705-56a43299c834.html
LikeLike
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/fewer-freshmen-apply-to-mu-officials-expect-enrollment-decrease/article_85bdd638-1982-54e3-9c7c-1c04bd81cf9a.html
Fewer freshmen have applied to the University of Missouri compared to this time last year, and the university expects a drop in enrollment, according to an internal MU memo dated Jan. 4.
However, officials cautioned “there is no way to accurately forecast our fall enrollment at this time.”
So far, 18,377 freshmen have applied to attend MU this fall. This time last year, MU had received 19,318 applications. While MU has received 941 fewer applications than January 2015, it has received 123 more compared to January 2014.
MU Director of Admissions Chuck May said in an email that controversy on campus this fall contributed to the decrease.
“While we don’t have any clear data, we know that the events this past fall have had an impact, and we are answering any questions that parents and students have about those events,” May said.
…
Graduate student applications are down 19 percent compared to 2015. MU spokeswoman Mary Jo Banken said academic units recruit graduate students, making it harder to identify reasons for the drop. Banken said fewer people are going to graduate school nationally as the economy improves.
…
This year’s decrease comes entirely from nonresidents. May said applications from Missouri residents are even with last year.
…
MU’s goal is to increase its enrollment to 38,000 students from its current enrollment of about 35,000. In a November interview, interim UM System President Mike Middleton said he does not think current plans for continued growth on MU’s campus need to be modified.
“There are some parents who are reluctant to send their kids here” after events this fall. “I think the Columbia campus might experience less growth in the immediate future than they had projected,” Middleton said. “But I don’t think it’s going to be a dramatic drop.”
Freshmen applications are down 5% (roughly 18.3k versus 19.3k).
Graduate student applications are down 19%
Black student applications are down 3%
http://www.abc17news.com/news/mizzou-fall-enrollment-down-since-last-year/37297852
This article has a more detailed demographic breakdown.
Here’s a breakdown of what demographics saw decreases in applications:
* High ability (ACT of 30 or higher) decreased by 7.7%
* African American applications decreased by 78 from last year, a 19% decrease
* Hispanic applications down by 1
* Transfer students decreased by 94 applications since last year
* International applications decreased by 6
* Graduate applications decreased by 19% and decreased 552 compared to 2 years ago
* Non-Missouri resident applications decreased by 948 and non-resident deposits dropped by 25% since last year
* Illinois applications have decreased by 7%, and deposits decreased by 31%
Missouri resident applications increased by 21, but deposits have decreased by almost 10%.
LikeLike
Unmentioned about Mizzou’s applicants is that applications are fairly highly correlated to football and basketball success. Their football team went 1-7 in conference and their coach retired, while their basketball program is basically in its worst state ever.
LikeLike
Does Mizzou take in every applicant that meets their bare minimum standards?
A college that has a good number more qualified applicants than spots would not see a decrease in enrollment.
LikeLike
1000
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/01/mercer-play-at-alabama-2017-2021/
AL has scheduled 2 future games against I-AA Mercer, in 2017 and 2021. Not only are they I-AA, Mercer dropped football in 1942 and didn’t restart it until 2013.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/01/nebraska-oklahoma-add-two-games-future-football-series/
NE and OU have announced another 2 game series in 2029-2030 (2021-2022 is already on the schedules). Great to see an old rivalry get played again. It’s too bad they can’t play even more often but 9 game schedules make it tough.
LikeLike
Brian –
1. Re Mercer, they seem to be setting up to be in the post-GOR Magnolia League that awaits the private leave-behinds.
2. NE and OU, well that’s just good planning for the future – thats one less B10 game to have to find space for.
LikeLike
Good for Mercer for getting the paychecks but I hate to think of the physical abuse their players will take against AL. In this age of safer football, physical mismatches like this should be avoided. You’d think AL could at least play a strong I-AA team.
LikeLike
They did the same thing with Georgia St., playing them the first year they started football, telling them they would never get another chance if they didn’t play them that year.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/big-ten-recruiting-jim-harbaugh-michigan-wolverines-urban-meyer-ohio-state-buckeyes-012716
How B10 recruiting has changed since OSU hired Urban Meyer. I disagree with several of Mandel’s points but it’s a solid article otherwise.
For many years the league’s collective recruiting efforts lagged far behind the SEC’s, if not others. But for 2016, Ohio State is in position to land the conference’s first consensus No. 1 class of the Internet era. Archrival Michigan will likely join it in the Top 5, while Michigan State (No. 7) and Penn State (No. 11) are in or near the Top 10 on Scout.com. That’s quite a departure from just two years ago, when No. 5 Ohio State was the lone Big Ten school higher than 19th.
But all that newfound success comes with a cost that most Big Ten fans won’t readily admit to — which is, they can no longer claim moral superiority over the SEC or any other league when it comes to shady recruiting practices. The conference that once prided itself on so-called gentlemen’s agreements and honoring commitments is no different from anybody else.
1. I never heard of that gentlemen’s agreement until Bielema complained the year before he left for AR. B10 schools had been flipping recruits long before then though, so I think the GA was largely in his head.
2. B10 fans complained about oversigning more than anything else and the SEC West still does more of it than anyone else. The newer rules have limited how much they can oversign but the practice hasn’t gone away. The B10’s self-imposed restrictions all but prevent it in the B10.
3. Yes, there is more “roster management” in the B10 than ever before. That’s not a good thing but it has helped the B10 be more competitive so it’s a necessary evil in a world with 4 playoff spots and 5 major conferences.
4. I believe there are shades of gray here. Yes Harbaugh has dropped commitments and run off some players, but that’s typical for a new coach anywhere. I’ll believe it’s become a normal practice when he’s still doing it 4+ years from now. Nobody in the B10 can compare to AL in terms of medical exemption abuse.
Five years later, Michigan itself is expected to sign as many as 30 players this recruiting class, which means it, too, will need to clear room.
Umm, no. NCAA rules restrict them to 25 in this class. They may back count some early enrollees to last year, but those guys are already at MI taking classes.
And taking 30 doesn’t mean they need to clear room. How many people were left on scholarship after subtracting early NFL entries, transfers to other schools, medical exemptions and seniors? If that number is 55 or less, MI has room for everyone. One way or another they have to be at 85 by fall so the truth will come out in due time.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25465110/the-big-12s-biggest-concern-should-be-its-football-talent-drain
Jon Solomon thinks the B12 should worry about losing talent.
Dig deeper, though, and there’s a much more important issue that has set Big 12 football back — talent. Where have all the players gone for the Big 12?
In 2010, the Big 12 made history by becoming the first conference in the history of the NFL common draft to have the first four players selected. The day represented a remarkable achievement for the Big 12, which ended up having five of the first six draft picks.
These are the tallies for first- and second-round NFL picks by conference in the past two years: SEC — 34, Pac-12 — 24, Big Ten — 23, ACC — 21, Big 12 — 6.
Six? Do you know who else has six picks in the first two rounds since 2014? The American Athletic Conference and Mountain West, that’s who. (CBS Sports currently projects two Big 12 first-round picks for the NFL Draft this season, both by Baylor later in the first round.)
1st and 2nd round draft picks per school by conference for 2014-2015:
SEC – 2.4
Pac-12 – 2.0
Big Ten – 1.6
ACC – 1.5
Big 12 – 0.6
As more outsiders compete for recruits in Texas — we’re looking at you, SEC — the Big 12 talent drain is happening again in this year’s recruiting classes. Currently, the highest-ranked Big 12 school in 247Sports Composite rankings is No. 13 Baylor, followed by No. 18 TCU, No. 26 Oklahoma and No. 37 Texas.
The Longhorns and Sooners are still in play for several high-profile recruits that could boost their rankings before National Signing Day on Feb. 3. But these are programs that traditionally hover around the top 10 one week out, not trying to crack the top 25. From 2002-10, Texas and Oklahoma both had top-10 classes at the same time in seven of those nine years. Next week could mark the third time in four years they are both outside the top 10.
For the first time on record in 247Sports’ rankings (dating to 2000), someone other than Texas or Oklahoma could be ranked as the Big 12’s best class. The Big 12 talent could certainly return if those programs consistently win big again. But this talent drain is something to consider when examining Big 12 expansion. Getting into new states opens the door to access for new recruits.
So what’s going on with the Big 12?
Focus on the state of Texas, because that’s the heart of Big 12 football and a huge source of talent.
…
How good has the Lone Star State been to the SEC? Take the Aggies out of the conversation for this next stat. Over the past three years, including recruits committed for 2016, the SEC minus the Aggies has landed more top-10 Texas players (nine) than the Big 12 (seven). That’s staggering.
Top 10 TX recruits signed by B12 schools in 2011-2013/2014-2016:
UT – 12/3
OU – 3/0
BU – 2/4
TT – 1/0
TCU – 1/0
OkSU – 1/0
When the Longhorns reached their last national championship game in 2009, they signed 14 top-10 players from Texas between 2007-09. They have three top-10 Texas players signed or committed from 2014-16. Right now, Tom Herman has more top-10 Texas players committed to Houston this year than the Longhorns and Sooners have combined. Six SEC classes are currently ranked higher than the Big 12’s top team.
…
Recruiting rankings aren’t the end-all, be-all, of course. Oklahoma certainly has talent or it wouldn’t have reached the College Football Playoff this season before losing to Clemson in the semifinals. The Sooners could be headed to their sixth straight class ranked outside the top 10 after finishing in the top 10 in nine of the previous 10 years.
The Sooners have had only one NFL first-round pick in the past five years after producing 12 first-rounders from 2000-10. Bob Stoops significantly reshuffled his coaching staff last offseason. Massive coaching changes can often impact recruiting.
Big 12 recruiting classes in the 247Sports Composite
Team – 2010 / 2011 / 2012 / 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016
UT – 2nd / 3rd / 2nd / 20th / 20th / 10th / 37th
OU – 4th / 16th / 12th / 13th / 11th / 14th / 26th
BU – 40th / 50th / 25th / 25th / 27th / 36th / 13th
TCU – 55th / 29th / 29th / 34th / 48th / 42nd / 18th
Obviously winning has a big impact on recruiting and some of the talent is just moving to schools other than UT and OU for a change, but the overall drop in top recruits should be concerning for B12 fans.
LikeLike
Bob Stoops and his staff have been getting complacent. That’s been a pretty common refrain the last 2-3 years. Mack Brown was already complacent. Charlie Strong hasn’t hit his stride yet (not that it is certain he will, but there’s been some articles talking about how Texas could still have a top 10 class this year-we’ll see on Wednesday).
As for the SEC, there hasn’t been much change except that Nick Saban has come in and taken the top player in the state the last two years. But he also got the top player in Ohio last year. LSU has always picked up a few. Saw a list of the top 100 in Texas the other day. Nothing atypical so far relative to which conferences pick up players other than Houston getting 6 and Ole Miss (who is having another inexplicably great year nationally) getting 4 and Sooners and Cowboys getting about 10 less than usual. Still 18 uncommitted.
LikeLike
“As for the SEC, there hasn’t been much change except that Nick Saban has come in and taken the top player in the state the last two years. But he also got the top player in Ohio last year.”
-What year and player would that be? AFAIK they didn’t sign any players from Ohio in ’15. Trey DePriest was in the ’11 class.
LikeLike
I saw it reported with the February 2014 signing. Maybe it was a commitment that ended up not signing, but I thought the report was after NSD.
LikeLike
They signed Derek Kief in 2014. Arguable Top 10 in the State but definitely not #1.
LikeLike
Well Ole Miss may have some trouble holding onto their currently ranked top 5 recruiting class. Probation seems to be on the way:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources–ncaa-to-formally-charge-mississippi-with-rules-violations-193911274.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
LikeLike
Seems like history is repeating itself. If I recall, a big reason why the Southwest Conference folded was that the top talent in Texas was not staying in the league, gradually leading to its diminished standing relative to the other major conferences.
LikeLike
http://atlallday.com/2015/03/11/brian-gregory-georgia-tech-cant-afford-to-fire-him/
A look at GT’s finances from almost 1 year ago.
Georgia Tech’s finances aren’t great. As a CPA I can tell you that when you read their 2013 Form 990, which is the most recent tax form you file as a non-profit entity, I can see how things went horribly wrong.
2014 Forms won’t be filed for another month or so, but that will give us even more insight into the program. In the meantime, let’s just compare the two big programs in the state.
Georgia Tech’s expenses in 2013 outstripped their revenues to the tune of $13M, and in 2012, they overspent by $7M. Put simply, if you look at it from a business standpoint, the program isn’t “making money” on operations.
Georgia Tech’s total equity has dwindled to $68M, which sounds like a lot of money until you realize that it was $83M two years ago. Even worse, they have $223M in tax-exempt debt which they have to pay off.
The smart part about the debt at the time was that Georgia Tech got their bonds for 1.25%, which is absurdly low in comparative interest rates. The bad news is they still have to pay it off at some point. So while the interest on the books is only half a million dollars, they had to pay over $700,000 in principle as well.
That’s $1.2M of the budgeted revenues going to debt payments. Also the revenues from sports for Georgia Tech last year were $51M across both tickets and broadcasting. Donations were only $3.8M
…
Why bring that up? Because donor rates aren’t just about alumni bases, they are about confidence. In 2011, Georgia Tech’s contributions were $19M. Now they are below $4M. That’s your swing. That’s the difference.
Georgia Tech was on par with Georgia in donations until these last couple years when they dried up. That’s why Georgia Tech can’t afford to continue buying out coaches. Brian Gregory’s buyout would likely cost another $3M as he’s contract through 2018. No business advisor would tell Tech to eat that money.
GT is an athletic department that could use a boost in revenue. I’m sure the recent success in CFB will help short term but this is the one reason they might consider a B10 offer in the future.
LikeLike
Problem won’t be getting GTech to join.
Problem would be pulling away another school desired by the B10 to partner with GTech.
LikeLike
I’ll 2nd Frank. Challenger RIP.
Wow 2nd grade. I was working at a Big 8 (then there were 8) accounting firm in Houston. Probably 20 of us were just transfixed in front of the television in the training room as they were trying to figure out what had just happened. Those disasters hit pretty close in Houston.
LikeLike
Warde Manuel hired as Michigan AD after four years at Connecticut and seven at Buffalo (he had previously been UM’s assistant and associate AD). At the press conference in Ann Arbor, he called for UConn to join a Power 5 conference, but I certainly don’t see it in the B1G. Connecticut might have a chance for the ACC or Big 12, but only after other conference changes and, in the case of the latter, only after it beefs up its football program.
LikeLike
B12 decides to expand and/or ACC gets raided.
LikeLike
A little off-topic history in the Rice/A&m rivalry:
99 years ago today, 17 Rice students raided the U.S. Armory in College Station to retrieve their stolen mascot
LikeLike
Ha!
That deserves permanent P5 inclusion.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14669152/oakland-raiders-owner-mark-davis-meet-las-vegas-officials-regarding-potential-stadium-sites
Las Vegas Sands CEO Sheldon Adelson is looking to build a $1B domed football stadium seating 65,000 right by the LV airport on UNLV land. He is also meeting with the owner of the Raiders today to discuss the stadium project.
UNLV is looking for a new home for its football program, which has played at 35,500-seat Sam Boyd Stadium some nine miles from campus on the eastern edge of the city since 1971.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Los Angeles-based Majestic Realty Co. and UNLV are involved in the conceptual plans, and Las Vegas Sands senior vice president of government relations and community development Andy Abboud said the project would be a “public-private” partnership, with the Sands or the Adelson family contributing a large portion of the financing.
“He said the casino company, which operates the Venetian and Palazzo [casinos], as well as casinos in Macau, Singapore and Pennsylvania, could also raise financing for the project,” the Review-Journal reported.
…
The NFL has had a hard line against Las Vegas, and it is hard to see the league signing off on allowing a team to relocate to the gambling capital of the country. The NFL did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Las Vegas has chased a major league franchise for almost two decades, including MLB and NBA teams. The city appears close to getting an NHL team in under-construction T-Mobile Arena between the New York-New York and Monte Carlo casinos. The ambitious 20,000-seat T-Mobile Arena, set to open in April, was privately funded by casino company MGM, a Las Vegas Sands competitor.
What would it take for the NFL to ever let a team move to Las Vegas? Would they say yes if Mark Davis agrees to sell the team as a condition of them moving to LV (by all accounts the NFL hates Davis)?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25466117/infographic-colleges-that-produce-the-most-super-bowl-players
A breakdown of Super Bowl appearances by school.
1. Miami – 117
2. USC – 116
3. UCLA – 108
4t. MI, PSU – 104
6. ND – 101
7. TN – 96
8. NE – 91
9. CO – 90
10t. OSU, UGA – 87
12. LSU
13. FSU
14. AL
15. Cal
16t. OU, UF
18. Stanford
19t. MSU, ASU
26t. IL
28t. PU
31. MN
34. IA
37. WI
43. UMD
63. RU
69t. NW
78t. IN
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25466228/graphic-changes-to-colleges-producing-super-bowl-players-over-50-years
How it’s changed over time. The most appearances in SB 1-10 versus in 41-50. Schools on both lists in bold.
1-10:
Michigan State 27
Minnesota 22
Notre Dame 21
USC 20
Iowa 17
Michigan 16
Georgia 15
Auburn 14
LSU 14
Alabama 13
Grambling State 13
Kentucky 13
Ohio State 13
Florida A&M 12
TCU 12
West Texas 12
41-50:
Miami 31
Michigan 30
LSU 29
Tennessee 28
Florida 27
Georgia 24
Ohio State 23
Texas 23
Alabama 21
USC 20
Arizona State 19
Notre Dame 19
Penn State 19
Georgia Tech 18
Illinois 18
Oregon 18
LikeLike
Interesting, UCLA is # 3 for all 50 SBs, but does not appear in the rankings for 1-10 or 41-50. Corresponds to the Vermeil and much more notably the Donahue era.
LSU inherited the Grambling #s to nearly double its haul (same might be said for Gators/FAMU). Minny and MSU were also alternatives to the HBCU programss for southern blacks, particularly in the early to mid-60s.
LikeLike
Interesting. While in a different order, the top 17 correspond to my list of superkings+kings+low kings with 2 notable exceptions: Colorado and Cal are in while Texas and A&M are not.
LikeLike
UT is #23 and TAMU #21.
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/1/22/10805972/2016-nfl-draft-top-100-big-board
One guy’s list of the top 100 players in the draft.
B10 – 23
B10 East – 21
OSU – 11
PSU – 4
MSU – 3
IN – 2
RU – 1
B10 West – 2
IL, NE – 1
LikeLike
Will the B1G ever do a “Super Saturday” day-night promotion with men’s and women’s basketball? Like it or not, women’s hoops is bigger than men’s hockey, though the game’s competitive imbalance works against it.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Will the B1G ever do a “Super Saturday” day-night promotion with men’s and women’s basketball? Like it or not, women’s hoops is bigger than men’s hockey, though the game’s competitive imbalance works against it.”
Bigger depends on where you are or what metric you choose.
Total revenue for the 6 B10 hockey teams was $19.8M in 2014 compared to $14.9M for 14 WBB teams.
http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2014-2015/
Average attendance (MH):
2. WI – 10,931
3. MN – 9982
7. PSU – 6030
8. MSU – 5733
9. MI – 5516
15. OSU – 4836
Average = 7171
Click to access 15att.pdf
Average attendance (WBB):
9. PU – 6279
10. MSU – 6119
11. NE – 5857
14. IA – 5301
15. UMD – 5236
18. PSU – 4858
19. OSU – 4779
23. WI – 4126
25. MN – 3846
46. IN – 2617
RU – 2409
MI – 2213
IL – 1912
NW – 1346
Average = 4108
LikeLike
And that is with Bucky’s hockey team being atrocious in recent years.
LikeLike
To answer your question, I’m not sure. The B10 is trying to grow B10 hockey so events like this will be used. Also, I’m not sure a B10 WBB conference game would regularly draw well enough to justify being held in MSG.
Future Super Saturday schedule:
2017: WI vs RU in MBB, WI vs OSU in MH
2018: OSU vs MN in MBB, MN vs MSU in MH
2019: IL vs UMD in MBB, TBA in MH
It’s odd they didn’t choose OSU/MN in hockey as well as hoops. You’d think they’d prefer the same schools playing in both games like this year.
LikeLike
In case anyone is curious:
Super Saturday attendance 2016:
MBB – 12,108 (19,812 capacity)
MH – 13,479 (18,006 capacity)
Both teams were unranked in MBB while both were ranked in MH (#6 vs #15).
LikeLike
UC Berkley admits liability.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/UC-admits-liability-in-2014-death-of-Cal-football-6794170.php?t=12bf85228a&cmpid=fb-premium
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14675790/baylor-officials-accused-failing-investigate-sexual-assaults-fully-adequately-providing-support-alleged-victims
Baylor is accused of ignoring sexual assault victims, especially if they made complaints against athletes.
Schools really need to get ahead of this issue. No amount of athletic success is worth tolerating rapists.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25467346/beware-football-recruits-your-coach-likely-wont-stay-four-years
This is why people tell recruits to choose a school not a coach.
Of the 650 head coaches and assistants who were coaching at current Power Five schools in 2011, 66 percent of them left the staff by 2015, according to a CBS Sports analysis of team rosters. Northwestern is the only Power Five team to keep its entire coaching staff intact from 2011-15, a period that represents the typical length of a college player’s career.
Forty-two percent of Power Five head coaches changed jobs within those four years. For the head coaches who stayed in place between 2011-15, 48 percent of their assistants left during that period.
…
Not surprisingly, the SEC — with its enormous salaries and expectations — had the largest turnover among all head coaches and assistants (72 percent) between 2011 and 2015. ACC schools changed 69 percent of their coaches, followed by the Big 12 (67 percent), Big Ten (61 percent) and Pac-12 (60 percent).
…
In a recent NCAA survey, 58 percent of Division I football players agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: “I would have attended this college even if a different coach was here.” That’s still a high number — 42 percent — not agreeing with that statement, though not as high as in men’s basketball (59 percent) and women’s basketball (58 percent).
The NCAA survey also asked players if they agree or strongly agree with the statement: “If my current coach left this school, I would consider transferring.” Thirty-seven percent of Division I football players agreed or strongly agreed they would consider leaving. The numbers for other sports: 46 percent in men’s basketball, 23 percent in baseball, 20 percent in women’s basketball, 20 percent for all other men’s sports, and 11 percent for all other women’s sports.
LikeLike
Continuity is a selling point if few other programs exhibit it. Something that the armchair AD’s in fanbase should heed.
LikeLike
But the armchair AD’s “know” that it’s accepting mediocrity if you aren’t demanding championships and at least 9-10 win seasons. And that’s the non king fan bases. Realism and fan(atic) rarely coexist.
LikeLike
By mathematical necessity, the average record is 6 and 6 (baring rare ties)
LikeLike
All true fans know their team is from Lake Wobegon where the teams are always above average.
LikeLike
Ccrider55 was making the point that too many fans are unrealistic.
LikeLike
Richard:
I believe Brian was reiterating that in a humors way.
LikeLike
Replying to Bob.
Also, it seems to me that the unrealistic expectations are getting worse and worse (same with coaches’ salaries, though).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25468989/why-the-rush-to-extend-ncaa-prez-when-emmert-has-so-much-baggage
Mark Emmert was given an extension through 2020 by a unanimous vote.
LikeLike
Related to the original topic of this FtT post:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/star-wars-makes-disney-the-galaxys-most-powerful-brand-2016-02-01?siteid=yhoof2
LikeLike
Someone said sports rights had peaked? NBC joins CBS in paying 45M/game for a few Thursday night games over the next two years.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/02/01/thursday-night-football-nbc-cbs-nfl-network-2016-2017/79647926/
LikeLike
And it expands Thursday night games to 10 weeks from 8, further killing Thursday night CFB.
LikeLike
I watch the college games, unless they are blowouts. Then I may check the NFL game.
LikeLike
If the dollars/viewer of the new B10 tier 1 deal(s) is anywhere close to that (or even half that), the monetary amount will be insane.
LikeLike
http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketball-news/4693363-big-12-conference-expansion-meetings-schedule
Frank tweeted this link. Sporting News claims the B12 will discuss expansion at their conference meetings later this week.
Here is what a source close to the situation has told Sporting News about possible expansion:
BYU might stand as the most attractive potential partner because of its large following, excellent facilities and considerable wealth, but the challenges of adding a partner that declines to participate in Sunday competition is among the obstacles that appear to be too considerable.
That leaves three possible scenarios for the expansion issue.
1. The Big 12 could choose to move east to add Cincinnati and Connecticut. Cincinnati has developed the most consistent football program of potential expansion candidates and is located in a major media market. UConn is four-time NCAA champion in men’s basketball and also adds the cachet of the dynastic women’s basketball program.
2. For football recruiting purposes and long-term potential, the Big 12 could advance into Florida by adding Central Florida and South Florida.
3. The Big 12 could decide not to expand at all.
LikeLike
Sounds like a WV source. Who is dismissed or not mentioned at all? The 3 westernmost candidates-BYU, Houston and Memphis.
LikeLike
Colo St, Boise St and SDSU ?
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/signing-day-recruiting-rankings-5-stars-rashan-gary-derrick-brown-demetris-robertson-020116
Stewart Mandel debunks 3 myths about signing day.
1. Team rankings don’t matter
2. Star rankings don’t matter
3. Half these guys will be busts anyway
There are outliers, obviously, but statistical analysis validates recruiting rankings.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/130232/win-signing-day-win-the-title-11-contenders-for-next-season
National title winners recruited well in the previous years.
Every national champion going back to Florida in 2006 had at least one top-six recruiting class in the three signing periods before winning the national title.
In fact, seven of the last eight champions had at least two top-six classes in the three-year span leading to the title, and each of the last eight champions had a top-four class within two years of winning the title.
…
What does that mean for the 2016 season? It likely means your 2016 national champion will come from this group of 11 teams: Alabama, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Michigan, Ohio State, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Texas A&M and USC.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/recruiting/2016/02/01/big-12-football-recruiting-texas-oklahoma-baylor-tcu/79643502/
Another report that the B12 is being hurt by the SEC stealing top TX recruits.
On signing day in 2010, a few months before Colorado and Nebraska accepted invitations to other leagues, the Big 12 boasted five of Rivals.com’s top-25 classes, headlined by Texas at No. 3 and Oklahoma at No. 7. That put it on par with the Pac 12 and well ahead of the Big Ten and ACC.
But the Big 12’s recruiting prowess has steadily declined since. Last year, the Big 12 had just a pair of top-25 classes in Texas (No. 12) and Oklahoma (No. 14). And as the league heads toward the wire for 2016, it’s quite possible it will go a second consecutive year without a top-10 class as Baylor sits at No. 11, TCU at No. 16, Oklahoma at No. 23 and Texas at No. 42 in the Rivals rankings, although the Longhorns are expected to add some high-profile prospects by Wednesday.
…
On signing day in 2010, a few months before Colorado and Nebraska accepted invitations to other leagues, the Big 12 boasted five of Rivals.com’s top-25 classes, headlined by Texas at No. 3 and Oklahoma at No. 7. That put it on par with the Pac 12 and well ahead of the Big Ten and ACC.
But the Big 12’s recruiting prowess has steadily declined since. Last year, the Big 12 had just a pair of top-25 classes in Texas (No. 12) and Oklahoma (No. 14). And as the league heads toward the wire for 2016, it’s quite possible it will go a second consecutive year without a top-10 class as Baylor sits at No. 11, TCU at No. 16, Oklahoma at No. 23 and Texas at No. 42 in the Rivals rankings, although the Longhorns are expected to add some high-profile prospects by Wednesday.
Since Texas A&M joined the SEC, LSU has more consistently recruited top players in Texas, Alabama (which wasn’t a factor at all) has come in to grab elite players, and even Ole Miss has made its presence known.
As of Monday, 40 of the top 50 Texas players in this class were verbally committed, with 19 headed to Big 12 schools and 15 going to the SEC.
…
“Realignment hurt them, and there’s a perception being sold by other coaches that you have less of a path to a national championship in the Big 12 based on what happened a couple years ago,” Farrell said. “Negative recruiting occurs all the time, so it’s just something to point out. You lose Texas A&M to the SEC, so now kids have that on their mind in Texas. You see a Greg Little going to Ole Miss or A’Shawn Robinson going to Alabama and you’re a 10-team league with no championship game, all of those factors really work against the Big 12.”
…
Texas A&M, in fact, often struggled to get top-50 Texas players, signing a combined 23 between 2007 and 2011. After the SEC move was announced, the Aggies signed nine in 2012 and then 13 in 2013, the year after Johnny Manziel came onto the scene.
…
In the five years prior to realignment, the SEC pulled an average of 5.6 players out of Texas’ top 50 recruits. Since then, that number has more than tripled to 17.3.
The B12 needs UT to get back to dominating in-state recruiting.
LikeLike
Rivals top 100:
Texas 17
Baylor 13
Texas A&M 13
TCU 9
Houston 6
Texas Tech 4
Other Texas 3
Big 12 non-Texas 4
Neighbors 5
(LSU,Arkansas,Tulsa,New Mexico,etc.)
Other SEC 10
Pac 12 10
ACC 3
Big 10 1
MWC 1
Uncommitted 1
LikeLike
Historical comparison based on today’s memberships of Texas top 100 recruits:
2015-2014-2008-2007
Big 12 TX 43-35-25-37
Big 12 non-TX 4-16-19-17
SEC TX 13-13-15-12
Other SEC 15-10-9-13
Pac 12 10-11-9-4
Big 10 1-4-13-8
ACC 3-1-3-2
Other TX 9-2-3-4
Other 1-4-3-2
Uncommitted 1-4-1-1
Main change seems to be OU and Oklahoma St. getting beat by TCU, Baylor and Houston for players and Pac 12 picking up some players while Big 10 declines.
Alabama and Ole Miss each got 4 instead of their typical 1, but LSU only got 3 instead of 4 or 5. Arkansas got 2, Florida 1 and Missouri 1 as well. When the SEC got 13 in 2007, it was 5 LSU, 3 Arkansas, 2 Tennessee, 2 Missouri and 1 Alabama. So the idea of an SEC takeover of Texas recruiting is way overblown. Ole Miss did have a really good year (everywhere, not just TX), but patterns are pretty similar to the past.
When that article was written, UT was 32 in the ESPN rankings, but mopped up on NSD and moved up to #10, flipping one LSU commit.
LikeLike
Note that Texas also pulled 4 recruits out of Louisiana. While the SEC dominated Louisiana, that still was only 28 out of the Louisiana top 55 per rivals (15 LSU), while the Big 12 got 12:
Texas #3, 34, 40, 46
OU #4, 27
TCU #18, 24, 55
Ok. St. #43, 51
Texas Tech #52
LikeLike
Responding to the tweets: SLU, Dayton, Richmond, and Davidson are all BE candidates, but SLU and Davidson are in much bigger markets than Dayton or Richmond.
LikeLike
The drawback is that Davidson is a tiny school in a city with both an NBA team and better-supported public and a state dominated by college bluebloods.
LikeLike
Is the BE better off waiting for Wake (post-GOR and B5 to B4 consoldiation) if it wants into North Carolina or will Wake continue in high level football?
LikeLike
Dayton is a catholic school and always though they would be an easy Big East invite.
Butler University | Indianapolis, IN | Private/Non-sectarian
Creighton University | Omaha, NE | Private/Catholic
DePaul University | Chicago, IL | Private/Catholic
Georgetown University | Washington, D.C. | Private/Catholic
Marquette University | Milwaukee, WI | Private/Catholic
Providence College | Providence, RI | Private/Catholic
St. John’s University | New York, NY | Private/Catholic
Seton Hall University | South Orange, NJ | Private/Catholic
Villanova University | Villanova, PA | Private/Catholic
Xavier University | Cincinnati, OH | Private/Catholic
LikeLike
Is this a “which of these is not like the others” quiz?
LikeLike
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/2016/02/03/what-uc-hiding-big-12-conference/79713442/
Big 12 meeting tomorrow and Friday and this hit the Cincinnati paper. Is Boren pushing the Bearcats after not getting his way on Louisville?
One way to view this is Bearcats to the Big 12 but another way to view this is Boren asking for immediate action means the ACC may be about to take Cincinnati?
LikeLike
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings
With only a couple of major recruits left out there, here are the “final” class rankings using a composite of all 4 recruiting sites.
1. AL – 24
2. FSU – 25
3. LSU – 24
4. OSU – 25
5. MI – 29**
6. MS – 24
7. UGA – 20
8. Auburn – 21
9. Clemson – 20
10. UT – 24*
* – #11 USC is the likely destination for the #51 recruit so they’d move to #10
** – The top 4 are also the top 4 by average rating per recruit. MI would drop to about #10 by that metric
Other B10 schools:
19. PSU – 20
21. MSU – 19
24. NE – 21
32. WI – 26
42. UMD – 21
45. IA – 25
47. MN – 20
50. NW – 20
55. IN – 21
69. IL – 24
73. RU – 17
81. PU – 19
Top 25 by conference:
SEC – 9 (64%)
B12 – 4 (40%)
B10 – 5 (36%)
P12 – 3 (25%)
ACC – 3 (21%)
ND was the other one.
LikeLike
Big 12 talks start today, any wagers on what the results will be?
LikeLike
Nothing will happen. But there will be lots of rumors.
LikeLike
Sounds about right. But with some tantalizing quotes from Boren thrown into the mix.
LikeLike
We’re all proud members…
We’re doing research…
We’re forming committees…
We’re as strong as the MAC/BEast/SWC ever was…
Okay, the last is just humor…sorta.
Bottom line – even if UT was willing to transform LHN, would the mothership allow it? Could this be the play, assure momentum toward eight team playoff by assure a conf champ excluded each year by maintaining five?
LikeLike
Though the 10-team no CCG game having conference would be the odds on “excludee” each season, could not the the excluded one “rotate” between the conferences?
Dont knock the MAC because at the end of the day its usually only the east flank that changes. I have heard the phrase “gap between Iowa State and West Virginia” mentioned as much as “bridge to West Virginia”. That takes in Cincy, but as far as a gap out to Ames, I can think of one school that sits about 4 hours from Ames and 6 hours from UC.
LikeLike
“Bowlsby: “A lot of smart people… laying their cards on the table and talking about what will make the conference stronger going forward.”
I was wrong. They were playing cards.
LikeLike
Wonder if it was Texas hold’em?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/14713083/recruit-shavar-manuel-flip-florida-state-seminoles-florida-gators-planned-assistant-coach-boasts
This is where recruiting really crosses the line. An FSU assistant says he told a recruit to pretend to be committed to UF for the last 2 weeks before flipping on signing day.
The 6-foot-4, 280-pound four-star recruit from IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida, had been told, according to defensive ends coach Brad Lawing — who coached at Florida in 2013 and 2014 — to “play the game” and “tell the damn Gators anything they want to hear.”
It’s one thing to flip a recruit, but telling him to lie to other schools so they have no chance to replace him when he signs elsewhere is too much to me.
LikeLike
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/03/iowa-bill-targets-stanford-marching-band-incident/79783788/
Some people in IA are still mad about the Stanford band’s performance.
Iowa’s three state universities would be prohibited from cooperating with Stanford University until Stanford officials publicly apologize to Iowans for “unsporting behavior” by the school’s marching band during the Jan. 1 Rose Bowl football game under a bill introduced Wednesday in the Iowa Senate.
Stanford’s football team defeated the University of Iowa 45-16 in the game. In addition, the Stanford band, which has a history of irreverent performances, poked fun during the halftime show with a dancing cow, a frowning farmer formation and other tongue-in-cheek gestures that upset some Iowans. ESPN, which televised the game, cut away from the band’s performance.
State Sen. Mark Chelgren, R-Ottumwa, told The Des Moines Register at the Iowa Capitol on Wednesday that he introduced Senate File 2081 because he believes Stanford officials have condoned improper behavior by the marching band.
“I think it’s unfortunate because here in Iowa we try to teach sportsmanship,” Chelgren said. “We try to teach courtesy, and when someone behaves in a way that is contrary to that, we need to point it out.”
Stanford University spokesman Brad Hayward issued a statement in response to Chelgren’s proposal: “The Band’s halftime show has provoked a variety of reactions. The performance was intended to be irreverent fun, given Iowa’s connection to farming and Stanford’s historical nickname “The Farm.” The script posted on the Band’s Facebook page provides fuller context. We understand that some viewers took offense at the performance, which we regret and which will be the subject of further discussion with the Band’s leadership”
The bill is unlikely to pass, obviously.
LikeLike
I’m just glad Mark Chelgren is focusing on the really important things during his tenure as a public servant.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/02/04/ncaa-targeting-rule-instant-replay-changes-review
The NCAA Football Rules Committee will discuss health and safety and potential changes to the instant replay/targeting rule when it meets Feb. 9–11, the NCAA announced Thursday.
…
Committee members will potentially grant the instant-replay officials added judgmental flexibility on targeting fouls, and also give them the power to stop the game if they spot a targeting foul that the on-field crew missed.
Also under review will be the experimental rule allowing medical spotters in the press box. That rule, after being tested in the Big Ten and SEC this past season, will be up for permanent approval. The spotter’s role is to look out for player injuries that on-field crew and team personnel might miss, in the interest of player safety. The medical observer has the ability to contact referees and stop the game on players’ behalf.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/video/2016/02/03/2016-national-signing-day-ohio-state-buckeyes-urban-meyer
A video interview of Urban Meyer, mostly only of interest to OSU fans. But at 3:50 or so he’s asked about how the B10 has changed in terms of recruiting since he arrived. He talks about it for the next 50 seconds or so. Some words he uses – bizarre, nonsense, all afternoon games.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/14714784/roger-goodell-says-nfl-establish-rooney-rule-women-executive-positions
The NFL is instituting a Rooney Rule for women in regards to all executive positions.
LikeLike
Chris Fowler (@cbfowler) tweeted this:
A Signing Day takeaway: #BigTen cleaned up in 2 “expansion” states. 15 of the 18 recruits in Top300 from NJ, MD went to B1G. (none to RUT)
247 has similar numbers:
The B10 got 6 of 9 (UMD – 2, PSU – 2, OSU – 2, B12 – 1, P12 – 1, SEC – 1).
The B10 got 7 of 8 from NJ (MI – 5, MSU – 1, OSU – 1, SEC – 1).
That’s 13 of 17.
Footprint:
IN: 3 of 3
IL: 3 of 3
IA: 1 of 1
MN: 1 of 1
MI: 6 of 9 (ND – 1, ACC – 1)
NE: 0 of 0
OH: 6 of 11 (ND – 2, ACC – 1, B12 – 1, SEC – 1)
PA: 3 of 8 (Pitt – 1, Temple – 1, other ACC – 1, P12 – 1, SEC – 1)
23 of 36 in the footprint with 6 more staying the footprint at non-B10 schools (ND, Pitt, Temple).
Neighbors:
MO: 1 of 1
SD: 1 of 1
CO, DE, NY, WV, WY: 0 of 0
DC: 0 of 3 (SEC – 2, ACC – 1)
VA: 0 of 5 (ACC – 3, P12 – 1, CUSA – 1)
KY: 0 of 2 (SEC – 2)
KS: 0 of 2 (ACC – 1, B12 – 1)
2 of 14 in neighboring areas.
Fowler also tweeted this:
Also this from @ESPNStatsInfo – of 10 ESPN300 prospects from NC, none picked an in-state school, despite aggressive work by UNC, NCST
The ACC got 7 of the top 13 from NC according to 247’s top 300 with 3 for FSU and 4 for Clemson (SEC – 3, B10 – 1, B12 – 1, ND – 1).
LikeLike
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-sports/collegesports/2016/02/04/carlton-big-12-taking-deep-dive-analytics-deciding-title-game-conference-tv-network
The Big 12 is taking a hard statistical look at its future in ways that will impact the return of a football title game, possible expansion and a conference television network. The goal: having the information to take the next step in making a decision.
The conference is hopeful about receiving the information in time for its spring meetings, May 31-June 3 in Irving. Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby called it a “bit of stake in the ground.”
…
“I expect that will be a big data dump for us, and also a big discussion on a variety of topics,” Bowlsby said. “You all know what those topics are, and as we’ve said before, I think they are interwoven in ways that are inseparable. You’re dealing with one, you’re dealing with all.”
Very little concrete happened Thursday. Bowlsby acknowledged that it was very unlikely but not impossible for the Big 12 to reinstate a football title game for 2016. Whether one returns for 2017 might be the verdict of Chicago-based numbers crunchers Navigate Research and media consultants Bevilacqua Helfant Ventures (BHV).
Navigate Research ran a variety of scenarios of schedules and conference alignments, offering percentages of how that would affect the conference’s chances of reaching the College Football Playoff.
“A deep dive,” Bowlsby said, in might have been an understatement. The numbers included all kinds of head-spinning possibilities: eight conference games, nine conference games, title game, no title game, current membership, two more members, and four more members. Variations involved provisions for traditional rivals. ADs suggested even more. Bowlsby wouldn’t reveal which scenario so far is the best roadmap to the CFP. So far the Big 12 is one for two, having missed in 2014 and reached it this past season with Oklahoma.
BHV will explore all kinds of options on a title game, including how much revenue would it produce. Estimates have ranged from $20 million annually to upwards of $35 million. The research could open the door to discussions of a conference network.
Bowlsby declined to say if the Big 12 has talked with broadcast partners ESPN or Fox Sports about a network, but called it “an enormously complex process.” He pointed out that all 10 schools have third-tier rights deals with different providers. It’s not just Texas and the Longhorn Network, identified by Boren as a key stumbling block.
…
Bowlsby didn’t promise hard-and-fast decisions by June, only that the Big 12 is moving in that direction.
“I think we’ve got to have processes that have a beginning, middle and an end,” Bowlsby said.
LikeLike
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/data-viz/national-signing-day-2016/2016/02/67502/ohio-state-footballs-2016-recruiting-class-had-the-least-ohio-flavor-ever
A breakdown of OSU’s recruiting history that has several points that might be of interest for non-OSU fans.
1. There’s a chart showing the growth in average weight for recruits since 1970.
2. There’s a chart showing the growth in average height for recruits since 1970.
3. There’s a chart showing the percentage of a class’s recruits from OH since 1970.
The first 2 probably apply about equally to all schools.
The last one is of interest because Meyer is recruiting fewer OH players than OSU ever has before, meaning more OH players available for other B10 schools. Otherwise, it’s only very slowly trended down from about 65% in 1970 to 55% in 2010. The last 4 classes have been well below 50%, though, with an all-time low of 36% this year.
LikeLike
Saw this by a poster on the WV Scout board:
Big 10 recruits:
43 Florida (13.7%)
39 Ohio
24 Maryland
22 Illinois, New Jersey
16 Michigan, Texas
14 Indiana
13 Georgia
12 California, Minnesota
9 Pennsylvania
8 Wisconsin
7 Iowa
6 Alabama, Missouri
5 New York
4 Arizona, Colorado, Virginia
3 Lousiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska
18 from other states with 2 or less
LikeLike
Same source showed detail from all P5 conferences.
Pac 12’s top 3 were California 107 (39.9%), Texas 21, Florida 19
Big 12’s top 3 were Texas 95 (42.4%), Louisiana 15, Florida & Oklahoma 13
ACC’s top 3 were Florida 63 (20.7%), Georgia 51, Virginia 38
SEC’s top 3 were Georgia! 48 (15.7%), Florida 44 (1 more than B1G), Texas 36
LikeLike
3 things stand out from this weeks Big 12 meetings
1) After 5 years they are just now hiring the consultants to vet expansion schools
2) All votes must be 10-0 and late May and early June will be earliest response
3) Boren and Oklahoma may be gone in a year or two if nothing changes in May
LikeLike
I think you’re exaggerating their position on unanimity. They’ve agreed to let Bowlsby speak for them publicly and to try to reach unanimity on major issues, but I don’t think they’d let 1 school hold the whole conference hostage.
LikeLike
“…but I don’t think they’d let 1 school hold the whole conference hostage.”
Has there been a fundamental change? Isn’t that a significant reason the four schools left?
LikeLike
I don’t believe UT has literally held the B12 hostage so far. Other schools have been ambivalent at best about a B12N (KU at least, others before the LHN existed) or expansion (several).
LikeLike
Then they can pass a rule that says all media rights reside with the conference. In the absence of a conference network the right to strike a separate deal remains with the schools, however at the expiration of current deals (or if buy back provisions are exercised) any future deals will be shared by all conference members.
Slightly different than the recent rule instituted to institutionalize individual school networks.
LikeLike
They could pass such a rule if 9 schools wanted it. I have yet to see evidence that 9 schools want that, though.
LikeLike
Brian:
Who would be least likely to benefit (aside from UT)? Apparently OU (and WV) wants a conf network. Perhaps Kansas?
You may be right, though. Perhaps the lesser members see the LHN as the one strong incentive for UT to stay. With it gone the prior P16 offer may look like a big missed opportunity for OU/UT, and more so for little brothers. They might try to revisit it.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Who would be least likely to benefit (aside from UT)? Apparently OU (and WV) wants a conf network. Perhaps Kansas?”
Yep. They supposedly make about $8M per year in their tier 3 deal. Can a B12N make enough to pay UT their $15 and the other 9 $8M or more each? And if the B12N can’t help them a lot, does KU see a benefit in helping the other B12 schools compete with them?
“You may be right, though. Perhaps the lesser members see the LHN as the one strong incentive for UT to stay. With it gone the prior P16 offer may look like a big missed opportunity for OU/UT, and more so for little brothers. They might try to revisit it.”
It may be a factor, yes.
LikeLike
Kind of difficult rule to pass when one school is under a 20 year contract with one of your major media partners. Changing the rules after the fact is not very “collegial.”
LikeLike
bullet,
“Kind of difficult rule to pass when one school is under a 20 year contract with one of your major media partners. Changing the rules after the fact is not very “collegial.””
The rule wouldn’t kick in for UT until the LHN deal ended. It would be changing the rules going forward which is no different from agreeing to a GOR.
LikeLike
No, its not why they left as has been pointed out repeatedly with articles by the school presidents involved.
But if there is one school holding the conference hostage, its the one with the outspoken politician running it.
LikeLike
I don’t see WV as having the power to hold the B12 hostage.
LikeLike
I think you’re exaggerating their position on unanimity.
I am not exaggerating it at all. It was in the news reports that issues brought up in the past by Boren will have to get 100% of the votes. 10-0 or nothing happens and they stay the way they are, which is why I said Oklahoma may have a foot out the door. 100% seems unlikely in a conference where they seem to have difficulty just getting to 50%.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“I am not exaggerating it at all. It was in the news reports that issues brought up in the past by Boren will have to get 100% of the votes.”
Link some then because I haven’t seen a single report make that claim.
To the contrary, I’ve seen multiple reports that nothing got voted on. Above you can find a link to the report that the current rules don’t require a unanimous vote. How could the voting rules be changed without anybody voting to make such a change? And if such a change was made, was isn’t it big news? None of the national sites say anything about this that I can see.
The closest report I can see to what you claim is this:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article58718638.html
Schulz said Big 12 leaders are open to exploring all options. They want to work together.
“There are still a diversity of opinions on lots of issues that you all are most interested in,” Schulz said. “Size, championship game and network opportunities, and all those sorts of things. I feel we are converging and I feel we are getting really excellent data and information from some of the very best consultants out there.
“We are taking our time so that at the end of the day, when we are done with whatever the package of things look like, we want there to be a 10-0 vote and for all institutions to say, ‘We think this is the best for us.’ That takes a little time to get there. But that’s the direction we are moving in.”
Wanting a unanimous vote is different from needing one. Instead, he’s saying that the B12 members are trying to get better aligned so that they agree on these sorts of issues before they vote.
LikeLike
If the B12 ever decides to expand it will be on a 10-0 vote, just like the decisions to invite Maryland and Rutgers were 12-0 votes in the B1G. Once a straw vote produces enough support to win (8 for the B12) everyone will be in favor on the official vote. Just standard college politics.
I think Boron is trying to smoke out the opposition to see who he needs to work on about expansion and a championship game. If the B12 had any expansion options that would put more $$$ in the current member’s pockets Boron will get 8 votes. I doubt there are 2 Go5 schools that can generate the $$ necessary to keep the current 10 whole especially now that the B12 can claim the CCG $$ without expanding.
A B12N is more of a long term deal. All B12 schools have tier 3 deals and most of them are with Fox, so it will not be cheap to fold all of these in a single network, and I doubt ESPN will release TX to allow a partnership with Fox like the B1G has. OUs Fox deal runs another 7 years. The best that can be done now is to put rules in place to enable the formation of a B12N 5+ years from now when the buyouts will be a lot lower.
LikeLike
Wanting a unanimous vote is different from needing one. Instead, he’s saying that the B12 members are trying to get better aligned so that they agree on these sorts of issues before they vote.
I read it as just the opposite. They muzzled Boren and now weaken his position further by saying it will be 10-0 or nothing. While you may view it one way, I view it as this is the reality going forward. Texas has won and Oklahoma is now looking at exit options. looking at where other schools wound up the PAC has Colorado to speak for them. B1G has Nebraska and putting that game back on the schedule to speak for them. SEC has Arkansas, Missouri, and probably Texas A&M in their corner.
LikeLike
Duffman,
“I read it as just the opposite.”
And I’m fine with us reading it differently. From your earlier comment I thought you were claiming the B12 had explicitly stated that things needed a 10-0 vote, and that’s what I hadn’t seen anywhere.
“They muzzled Boren and now weaken his position further by saying it will be 10-0 or nothing.”
All the quotes also indicate they are now on board with putting the B12 before their individual school interests. So if the facts support expansion or a CCG or a B12N, they’ll all line up behind it.
“Texas has won and Oklahoma is now looking at exit options.”
We’ll see. Every quote from Boren has indicated that OU would much rather make the B12 work than leave. Maybe the B10’s new TV deal will give him the leverage to change things, but for now OU isn’t really suffering.
LikeLike
How long did it take the Big 10 to expand after Penn St.? And it was 11 years between the time Notre Dame stood them up at the alter and Nebraska. What happened in college football from 2010-2012 was the aberration, not the norm.
LikeLike
I think the reverse is true. The B1G waited on Notre Dame to join with Penn State and that left 11 as the number as long as it did. After a decade of waiting the B1G was looking at 16 instead of 12 in 2010.
LikeLike
bullet,
“How long did it take the Big 10 to expand after Penn St.? And it was 11 years between the time Notre Dame stood them up at the alter and Nebraska.”
I’m not sure the B10 is a good example.
1. The B10 has been the most stable of all the P5 conferences in terms of membership.
2. The B10 has been notoriously slow to make changes.
3. The B10 had a chance to expand right after adding PSU but self-imposed a 5 year ban on expansion. Otherwise UT might be in the B10 already.
4. The B10 was hyper-picky about expansion partners in the 90s and 00s. Until ND said no for good, a place was being saved for them.
5. The B10 didn’t generally look to expand. They waited for people to ask to join.
6. How long did it take the B10 to go from 12 to 14?
“What happened in college football from 2010-2012 was the aberration, not the norm.”
Very true. But it also means we live in a different world now. Conference ties aren’t as strong as they used to be and money keeps growing in importance.
LikeLike
“But it also means we live in a different world now.”
BCS/CFP and the ESPNization of the bowls/post season has introduced a 500lb gorilla into the direction/control of college FB.
“Conference ties aren’t as strong as they used to be and money keeps growing in importance.”
In what way are conference ties less strong than 20, 50, or 80 years ago? Realignment is an ongoing evolution, and isn’t new. And since when has money not been important in College FB? Remember Schwitzer saying they couldn’t compete with the amount of under the table spending in the SEC? Did Michigan and tOSU build enormous stadiums to charge more people lower admission, or to increase revenue?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“In what way are conference ties less strong than 20, 50, or 80 years ago?”
Expansion has lead to conferences without the commonality of region/culture, where money trumped historic ties, where more schools than ever are in a fairly new conference, where more conferences are talked about as possibly being scavenged, etc.
“And since when has money not been important in College FB?”
That’s not what I said. I said it’s importance is growing. Schools used to receive a lot more state funding and the costs of running an AD were much lower. Now ADs are being asked to make an order of magnitude more than they used to and even help fund the academic side of things.
LikeLike
Agree with the first part, although noting that we he even become a much more mobile society – communication and transportation advances have made the country much “smaller.”
As to the second point, that’s more a change in priorities and/or allocations than an increase in value of money. You could say it’s an increase in the value of FB/BB media that allows reduction and reallocation away from the ADs. Sorta a chicken or egg question, at least for the major powers.
LikeLike
@ Frank
The more posts on a single thread bogs loading time. Starts happening around 600 posts and goes slower as more posts added. Any chance of putting up a new thread anytime soon?
LikeLike
After 400 or so posts it’s a pain to scroll down to read latest posts on a mobile smartphone. Could there also be a newest post toggle?
LikeLike
I use the view full site function, at the bottom of the page. It puts the links to the newest ten posts on the left near the top. But it does load very much slower when post count gets near 1k.
LikeLike
I use my browser’s search function to look for the date (“February 7”), but then I’m using a computer.
LikeLike
Sign up
Log in
Fake Bo Pelini
Fake Bo Pelini – @FauxPelini
OK who forgot to give Cam’s dad $200,000
7:12 PM – 7 Feb 2016
1,200 RETWEETS1,549 LIKES
LikeLike
SIAP – but Matt Sarz has an interesting post about the future Big Ten TV contract.
Michigan IAD Jim Hackett said this:
“Starting in 2017, all the television broadcasts of a Michigan game at home or any time we play a Big Ten team are sold by the Big Ten Network. Now, the Big Ten network doesn’t televise all of them. ESPN will televise, Fox will televise, but in 2017 this contract starts to deliver our content. For example, in 2017 we play Florida in Texas at Jerry Jones Stadium down there, (and) we wouldn’t be able to see that in the future under this agreement. We could still go down there probably if we worked something out. In ’17 you could have NBC a player in both of our camps but we don’t know because the contracts aren’t settled.”
What Sarz thinks it means:
To be clear, Hackett’s discussion of the Big Ten and future TV rights was part of a discussion involving getting Notre Dame back on the schedule. But that part in bold is extremely interesting, because it sounds like a new agreement has already been crafted. A few things run through my head:
1) Jim Hackett is conflating Big Ten, the conference, with Big Ten Network LLC, the joint partnership between FOX (51%) and the conference (49%) that runs the Big Ten Network. This is what I would like to believe he’s doing. But that’s no fun and it wouldn’t allow me to write point #2.
2) The Big Ten Network, through Big Ten Network LLC, is going to either bid on or assume all TV rights going forward, then act as a re-seller to ESPN, ABC, FOX, CBS, whomever wants a game. Its a fascinating way to go about future rights, because you’re essentially auctioning off games or a weekly selection order. Do you want Ohio St. vs. Michigan? You’ll might need to pay a little extra compared to Rutgers vs. Purdue (no offense intended towards any school).
LikeLike
Here’s a link to the Sarz post:
http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2016/02/did-future-big-ten-tv-strategy-get.html
Picking up where Mike left off:
But this isn’t new. Not by a longshot, if you remember how the ACC’s men’s basketball rights were administered before ESPN took over all rights to the conference. Raycom Sports used to be the sole rightsholder for ACC basketball and would then sell games to ESPN, CBS, FOX Sports Net nationally and regionally and kept some games for themselves to syndicate to local stations. …
What would be a bit interesting about this is FOX has the majority ownership in the LLC, so would there be a priority towards FOX, FS1 and BTN?
Matthew brought up a second part though, and this might be why they’re going this route:
Tweet from Matthew Herek @mherek:
“@mattsarz pretend it’s true for a second. I have to think it means the B1G is planning something over the top.”
That would be a big (no pun intended) step, but again, if Hackett had diarrhea of the mouth, that would be a gamechanger because the LLC would be the distributor and middle man for all TV. I’m not sure how copyrights would work for digital vs. TV. I believe the conference already retains the copyright to their games, which is why you see them on BTN from multiple networks as replays, similar to the SEC retaining copyright for their games and showing replays of games from multiple networks not only on SEC Network, but CBS Sports Network, ESPNU, etc.
LikeLike
@Brian – thanks for posting the link, I can’t believe I forgot to do that.
LikeLike
Fox may do it.
I’m sure the B10 would do it for an insane deal ($700M/year or $50M/school for all TV rights to BTN). Fox would be taking on all the risk but could get immense upside as well. They’d get first pick of games in both football and basketball, and could play a role in negotiating attractive OOC matchups (just like the WWL does now when arranging a bunch of OOC games). Fox being a partner of both the B12 and Pac, you may see some B10 games vs. schools in those leagues in the future.
The B10, ND, and NBC may be interested in putting together matchups as well.
LikeLike
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/2016/02/05/hackett/79869742/
The source of Sarz’s post was this article where Jim Hackett discusses all things MI.
About playing OSU and MSU at home in the same season:
“We need a slide rule to go through this because I was so surprised when I got into the job, of course I knew about the issue as a fan, season-ticket holder and so many people had written about this paradox,” Hackett said. “The simple insight is that when they were solving for two things, it causes problems.
“The two things they were solving for was, A, you have to build these new divisions and create matchups and then, B, in doing that you don’t want to destroy really important rivalries and maybe even a C, we want to play Ohio State at the last game of the season. That seems less vital but what happens when you do the equals on your spreadsheet to those three variables you ended up with Michigan State up there in East Lansing two years in a row. I was so frustrated when that happened. Deep down inside, that program’s done really done well and we want every advantage we can get. And so, no, the only way that gets solved is if one of those variables changes, and that’s not going to be the case.”
About scheduling:
“With Warde, with coach, we’re going to sit down and talk about our long-term schedule. I would say fans (should) expect some changes. There were some decisions made a few years ago that for whatever reason made sense then. I don’t know that they make sense today. For example in the future because of the nine-game Big Ten season, we’re going to have to have an early Big Ten game as the season opens. All the Big Ten teams have agreed to start reconfiguring schedules to allow for that. And then there are some cool surprises maybe that will come. We’re working hard on some things can’t announce yet that I’m excited about.”
Hackett was asked about resurrecting the Michigan-Notre Dame series, which is on hiatus for the foreseeable future. The teams last played each other in 2014. Notre Dame coach Brian Kelly last year, however, suggested there is strong interest from Notre Dame to revive the rivalry, and Harbaugh has said he would be in favor of it.
“Notre Dame is complicated by a different set of challenges,” Hackett told the “Michigan Insider” show. “One is the respective teams have different television arrangements. It didn’t use to be an issue, and this has been good for Michigan and good for Notre Dame is that we sell the rights ahead of the schedule
…
Hackett has said he would like to host a night game this fall at Michigan Stadium and has sounded more positive regarding that situation than he did on Friday. He reiterated that prime-time games do get three times the viewership numbers than games held at noon.
“The night game thing is also related to this 2017 line in the sand,” Hackett said. “What happens in ’17, we have to start accommodating more night games and that’s a challenge at Michigan for a bunch of reasons. I’ve been trying to think of a way to get (night games) on a regular cadence. On the other hand, as Bo said toe to leather, playing that game at noon has a lot of attraction for the traditionalists, so I don’t know yet. I don’t know if we’re going to have a night game this coming year. Working on it but not settled.”
Just as a comparison, OSU has been playing at least 3 night games per season for a while with the goal being 2 home conference games every season.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14739220/usc-trojans-oklahoma-sooners-toughest-2016-nonconference-schedules
Toughest OOC schedules for 2016:
1. USC Trojans
Sept. 3: vs. Alabama in Arlington, Texas
Sept. 10: Utah State
Nov. 26: Notre Dame
2. Oklahoma Sooners
Sept. 3: at Houston in NRG Stadium
Sept. 10: Louisiana-Monroe
Sept. 17: Ohio State
3. Florida State Seminoles
Sept. 5: Ole Miss in Orlando, Florida
Sept. 10: Charleston Southern
Sept. 24: at South Florida
Nov. 26: Florida
4. Virginia Tech Hokies
Sept. 3: Liberty
Sept. 10: vs. Tennessee in Bristol, Tennessee
Sept. 24: East Carolina
Nov. 19: at Notre Dame
5. Pitt Panthers
Sept. 3: Villanova
Sept. 10: Penn State
Sept. 17: at Oklahoma State
Oct. 1: Marshall
6.Duke Blue Devils
Sept. 3: North Carolina Central
Sept. 17: at Northwestern
Sept. 24: at Notre Dame
Oct. 8: Army
7. UCLA Bruins
Sept. 3: at Texas A&M
Sept. 10: UNLV
Sept. 17: at BYU
8. Stanford Cardinal
Sept. 2: Kansas State
Oct. 15: at Notre Dame
Nov. 26: Rice
9. Michigan State Spartans
Sept. 3: Furman
Sept. 17: at Notre Dame
Oct. 8: BYU
10. Colorado Buffaloes
Sept. 2: vs. Colorado State in Denver
Sept. 10: Idaho State
Sept. 17: at Michigan
By conference:
P12 – 4
ACC – 4
B10 – 1
B12 – 1
SEC – 0
LikeLike
That Duke schedule is pretty sad for a #6.
But that game on November 26th is EPIC!!!! M.O.B. vs. Stanford band. Nobody is safe from insult!
LikeLike
Yeah, I assume it’s the 2 road games versus P5 opponents plus facing an option team mid-season.
LikeLike
2 10-win P5 teams on Duke’s OOC slate. How many other schools (listed below #6 or not listed) can say that?
LikeLike
I really wanted to go to that Stanford/Rice game. But then they moved it from the start of the season to Thanksgiving week.
LikeLike
Also interesting to note:
* 6 of the 10 teams have 9 conference games
* 2 of the other 10 have an ACC/ND game to essentially give them 9 conference games
* 1 of the others has an annual OOC rivalry, essentially giving them 9 conference games
Will teams with only 8 conference games start to feel pressure to keep up? 36 of the 65 P5 teams now have 9 conference games and 4 ACC teams have their locked SEC rivalry, plus 5 ACC teams get that ND game each year. That’s 44-49 teams with essentially 9 conference games. You can add ND to that list as they play 9 P5 teams every year.
Then look at the OOC schedules of those 40+ teams and see how many play at least 1 more P5 team OOC as well (10+ total):
ACC – 5/9 (3/4 with SEC rivals, 2/5 with ND)
B10 – 12/14 (UMD, PU)
B12 – 8/10 (BU, KU)
P12 – 12/12 if you count BYU and Boise (UA, Utah, WSU)
SEC – 1/4 (UGA)
ND – 0/1
That’s 35-38 teams playing at least 10 P5 opponents. Now what about those with 8 conference games:
ACC – 2/5 (UNC, Pitt)
SEC – 0/10
That’s 2 more, so 40 out of 65 teams play 10 P5 opponents. 24 play 9 (if you count BYU). Only BC has 8 (also MS St if you don’t count BYU).
Will the 60% playing 10+ P5 foes start to pressure the other 40% to get on board, especially the normally highly ranked ones (AL, AU, Baylor, UF, LSU)? Will the committee start holding it against them more strongly?
LikeLike
They should, but don’t count on it. Saban has hit on a winning formula (exploiting a loophole, almost): Play only 1 P5 opponent OOC and that only in a neutral site game, but make sure it’s a respectable opponent.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14742276/alabama-crimson-tide-moves-top-post-signing-day-way-too-early-top-25
A post-NSD top 25:
1. AL – 14 returning starters (out of 24)
2. FSU – 18
3. MI – 15
4. Baylor – 12
5. Clemson – 13
6. LSU – 19
7. OU – 16
8. Stanford – 13
9. ND – 12
10. OSU – 8
14. MSU – 11
17. IA – 14
Also:
11. UH – 13
25. Boise – 17
LikeLike
http://campusinsiders.com/news/big-ten-football-schedule-2016-ranking-every-game-02-08-2016
A B10 composite schedule for 2016 with the games for each week ranked in order of how good the match-up looks right now.
Overall:
Top 10 OOC games:
1. Ohio State at Oklahoma, Sept. 17
2. LSU at Wisconsin, Sept. 3
3. Michigan State at Notre Dame, Sept. 17
4. Oregon at Nebraska, Sept. 17
5. BYU at Michigan State. Oct. 8
6. Temple at Penn State, Sept. 17
7. Penn State at Pitt, Sept. 10
8. Duke at Northwestern, Sept. 17
9. North Carolina at Illinois, Sept. 10
10. Iowa State at Iowa, Sept. 10
Top 10 B10 games:
1. Michigan at Ohio State, Nov. 26
2. Ohio State at Michigan State, Nov. 19
3. Michigan at Michigan State, Oct. 29
4. Ohio State at Wisconsin, Oct. 15
5. Wisconsin at Michigan, Oct. 1
6. Wisconsin at Iowa, Oct. 22
7. Nebraska at Wisconsin, Oct. 29
8. Michigan at Iowa, Nov. 12
9. Wisconsin at Michigan State, Sept. 24
10. Nebraska at Ohio State, Nov. 5
Best game of each week (best true home game):
9/3 – LSU vs WI (BGSU @ OSU)
9/10 – PSU @ Pitt (UNC @ IL)
9/17 – OSU @ OU (OR @ NE)
9/24 – WI @ MSU
10/1 – WI @ MI
10/8 – IA @ MN
10/15 – OSU @ WI
10/22 – WI @ IA
10/29 – MI @ MSU
11/5 – NE @ OSU
11/12 – MI @ IA
11/19 – OSU @ MSU
11/26 – MI @ OSU
LikeLike
I’d move MSU@ND and UO@UNL above LSU in Green Bay. Also Duke@NU above the 2 PSU games.
UNL@OSU is also far too low. That should be 4th among conference games.
LikeLike
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
I agree on dropping Temple @ PSU lower, but Pitt/PSU has the rivalry angle that makes it more interesting to me. Plus the Massey composite for the final rankings last year make Pitt/PSU a more competitive game. Temple/PSU is also a more competitive game but it lacks the rivalry to make up for being a P5/G5 game. Of course, PSU is looking for revenge so that will add some spice.
Temple – 41
Pitt – 44
PSU – 49
NW – 30
Duke – 60
I think similar reasoning is why LSU @ WI is so high. I’d agree on moving MSU @ ND up, though. I think the relative novelty of a power SEC team coming to B10 country was part of it.
LSU – 10
WI – 21
MSU – 7
ND – 11
OR – 23
NE – 50
Personally I agree with NE @ OSU being where it is. NE wasn’t very good last year. Now I know every year is different and OSU certainly loses a lot of experience, but I’m guessing NE being #50 is a big part of it being the #10 game.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25478600/sec-looking-to-block-michigan-from-holding-spring-practice-in-florida
The SEC wants the NCAA to prevent MI from having spring break practices in FL. They say it’s due to the time demands on athletes and spring break normally being a week off for them. That may not be their real motivation but it’s a damn good reason to stop the practice (I think it’s too late to do anything about MI’s trip this year, though).
The SEC has asked the NCAA to prohibit college football teams from holding spring practice during spring break, commissioner Greg Sankey told CBS Sports on Tuesday.
The move is obviously a direct response to Michigan’s recent announcement that it would conduct part of its spring practice at IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida.
…
One high-ranking source told CBS Sports that an effort similar to Michigan’s will most likely be prohibited in the near future but a decision is not expected to be handed down in time to prevent the planned trip to Florida.
“Our primary reaction [is] that, in the face of the time-demand conversations, we’ve got one program taking what has been ‘free time’ away,” Sankey said. “Let’s draw a line and say, ‘That’s not appropriate.'”
…
In general, FBS players are allowed a maximum of four weeks off per year when they aren’t accountable to the program. Going to Florida would account for one of those weeks. Preliminary indications are that Michigan would conduct its four practices at IMG on Feb. 29, March 1 and March 3-4.
Essentially, the SEC is saying spring break should be considered spring break. Some athletes choose to spend their time doing mission trips to other countries. Others prefer to take the traditional spring break vacation and unwind. Enduring point: It’s their time.
“This seems completely counter to the dialogue,” Sankey said. “We have work to do on [giving athletes a] day off. We have work to do on, how do you provide a postseason break? It seems where this is one where reasonable people could say we just shouldn’t be in this space.”
At the time of Sankey’s comments, CBS Sports had responses from 81 of the 128 FBS programs. None conducted spring practice during spring break.
…
Michigan traveling to Florida could also be perceived as another incursion on SEC recruiting territory. The SEC and ACC have sponsored pending legislation that would ban so-called offseason “satellite camps.” Harbaugh caused a stir when he took over at Michigan as he appeared at several of those camps deep in SEC recruiting territory.
“The net of that is to say the Southeastern Conference is not going to be outpaced in recruiting,” Sankey said. “If the national approach is that we want to have more aggressive summer camps and coaches touring around all summer, then we will not only engage in that behavior, we will certainly engage in that behavior more actively — probably more effectively than others.”
Sankey is also concerned Michigan would be at a “site full of prospects run by a business enterprise that has a lot of interests — but one of those is sports agents. It seems like very much the wrong tone.”
…
Chairman of that NCAA Oversight Committee, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, did not have comment. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Michigan deferred comment until the point there is a formal NCAA proposal, according to spokesman Dave Ablauf.
LikeLike
LOLOLOLOL
Such sanctimonious arrogance.
I am all for Harbaugh’s moves.
The SEC truly thinks that they could do satellite camps and touring more effectively than others, then they should welcome these developments with open arms.
LikeLike
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/college/msu/football/2016/02/11/dantonio-open-idea-out–state-spring-practice/80262166/
Mark Dantonio is open to the idea.
LikeLike
http://www.uscho.com/2016/02/10/big-tens-traviolia-weighs-in-on-fan-frustrations-attendance-leagues-future-plans/
An interview with the B10’s Brad Traviola about B10 hockey.
“We’re in this for the long haul,” said Traviolia, who oversees hockey for the conference. “I think we’ve learned a lot in the first two years about what made our schools successful in their previous leagues.”
Traviolia said that the conference has a “two-fold goal.” One is to help and assist its six schools — Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State — toward being successful. The other is to help college hockey as a whole grow.
When Penn State announced that it was elevating its hockey program to the Division I level and the Big Ten hockey conference was announced, there was grumbling around college hockey from fans of schools that were entering the new conference and those from the conferences that said teams were leaving.
…
One theory for the lack of attendance is that fans simply aren’t intrigued enough with the new conference foes to make the effort to actually go to games. Traviolia, who recently took over the position that involves men’s ice hockey at the conference but has been with the Big Ten for more than 19 years, doesn’t necessarily buy that notion.
“Coming from a non-hockey background, it’s kind of hard for me to imagine a fan in the state of Minnesota who wouldn’t be excited to see a Michigan or a Michigan State come in to play,” he said. “I recognize and acknowledge that significant rivalries developed over the years in the previous leagues, and that’s fine.
“Many of our schools have scheduling opportunities to honor those rivalries and to continue them the best they can. So it’s a matter of getting familiar with your new league opponents and as those meaningful series come down the stretch and the winners are advancing and the losers are going home, I think the new rivalries within the conference will develop over time.”
…
Attendance has also been an issue at the Big Ten’s postseason tournament. The Big Ten had a five-session total of 42,610 fans (8,522 per session) show up to the 2014 tournament at St. Paul’s Xcel Energy Center and had a total attendance of just 16,144 over three sessions (5,381 per session) last year at Detroit’s Joe Louis Arena. By comparison, the 2013 WCHA Final Five had an announced five-session attendance of 87,295 (17,459 per session).
…
Traviolia said he is careful not make too much of a judgment after two years, but added that nothing is off the table concerning the future of the tournament.
After the deal with St. Paul and Detroit runs out after the conclusion of the 2017 tournament, the Big Ten could go multiple ways, including continuing the rotation with those two cities, permanently placing it somewhere, having a preliminary round to the playoffs or holding the entire tournament at campus sites over multiple weekends.
There is also the option of partnering with another conference or multiple conferences to hold a super tournament, so to speak.
…
Traviolia said that one of the first things he did when he moved into his new position last summer was travel to all six schools and talk to the head coaches to pick their brains. Multiple coaches said that the conference having only six teams wasn’t ideal, but they also realized that there wasn’t another Big Ten team, like Penn State was, waiting in the wings.
With Arizona State elevating its club hockey team to the Division I level this season, there has been a lot of speculation surrounding which conference the Sun Devils will join. Historically, the Big Ten didn’t enter into affiliate membership agreements with other schools on a single-sport basis until Johns Hopkins recently joined its men’s lacrosse conference.
“We did somewhat break the seal a couple years ago with men’s lacrosse and Johns Hopkins, that was the first time ever that we had entered into an affiliate membership agreement with a single sport,” Traviolia said. “Affiliate membership for hockey is an option. I wouldn’t say it’s the only option or it’s the inevitable option, but it’s something that the conference is willing to consider since we’ve somewhat opened that door with lacrosse.”
…
• On hockey’s exposure on the Big Ten Network: “I think that the fact that there’s only six playing schools versus 14, I don’t know that that’s a huge impact in terms of time that’s dedicated to hockey on the network. In fact, it may benefit our schools because BTN is able to commit X number of hours to hockey and it’s just being divided by the six schools instead of 14, so I think on a per-school basis our schools might be better off.
“I would say that going into year one of Big Ten ice hockey, the network had high expectations, in terms of ratings. We had high expectations in terms of the tournament, in terms of television ratings and in terms of what BTN felt was successful programing. We fell a little short in year one and again we didn’t hit the attendance that we hoped at the tournament. We were really trying to figure out what we could do differently, whether it’s the schedule, whether it’s the format of the tournament, whether it’s a different way of packaging or presenting the game. We’re going to sit down with our partners at BTN and see what we can do to enhance the package of Big Ten hockey.”
LikeLike
People of an age will remember when B1G women had a separate conference. It was absorbed into the men’s B1G structure more or less against the will of the women’s coaches, who liked their independence, but no one is complaining today. A few more hockey teams in the B1G, either regular members or affiliates, will shut down the lingering complaints.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“People of an age will remember when B1G women had a separate conference. It was absorbed into the men’s B1G structure more or less against the will of the women’s coaches, who liked their independence, but no one is complaining today. A few more hockey teams in the B1G, either regular members or affiliates, will shut down the lingering complaints.”
As you probably noticed, it’s mostly MN fans complaining. They’re used to being on the receiving end of compromises in the B10 designed to help other programs (like gate sharing in football or equal TV revenue splits) and don’t appreciate the sacrifices others have made over the years in the all for one spirit of the B10. Now it’s hitting their favorite sport and they don’t enjoy being the one to make a sacrifice for everyone else. It’s also been unfortunate timing as several teams are at a historical low and correlation is being portrayed as causation.
They may have a fair complaint about having someone with no hockey background running B10 hockey. And the B10 tourney certainly hasn’t caught on yet with fans. I think it should probably stay in MSP in the future with occasional trips elsewhere (Chicago, Detroit). Playing the same time as the first weekend of the NCAA MBB tourney doesn’t help. Many of the schools will also have a team in that tournament, splitting the fan base. Maybe they could move the tournament up a week? Maybe play it in the same city as the B10 hoops tournament so fans could see both (Chicago, MSP and Detroit all could).
LikeLike
So where would Chicago’s 2nd indoor venue be if it hosts both MBB and Hockey – Allstate or UIC Pavilion?
LikeLike
I don’t know enough about Chicago’s venues to know which is available and the best choice. I’m assuming they’d prefer AllState for the size, but maybe not.
LikeLike
Once it’s completed, the new DePaul/McCormick Place arena in the South Loop would be perfect size-wise (around 12,000 seats) and as a location, although it’s not clear to me whether it would have ice-making capabilities.
LikeLike
Also, I promise that I’m working on a new post soon. I know the loading has been slow and I’m very appreciative of the continuous great comments here.
LikeLike
http://www.thedailygopher.com/2016/2/10/10961370/b1g-idiot
Here’s a MN reaction piece to the interview. The post is bad enough but the comments are really impressive. I especially liked this one:
I have often wondering in the realm of craziness and insanity and …
thought about the notion of the University of Minnesota completely pulling out of the Big Ten and either being independent or joining another (more enlightened and less corrupt (and less biased idiot) conference. I would bet that after 4 to 5 years you would see a completely new and better athletic department and overall success. I bet Northwestern (if they can withstand the BT’s Chicago machine’s pressure) and Purdue pull out as well and the Big Ten would begin to shrivel. I would LOVE that!
by GopherinSoCal on Feb 10, 2016 | 6:47 PM
I’d love to see how leaving the B10 and CIC worked out for MN. The B12 would presumably snap them up as by far the best option out there for them. Assuming the NCHC took them for hockey they’d still have lost every rival in other sports. I’m hard pressed to see NW or PU willingly following them out of the B10.
But with the B10 down to 13, who would they get to fill that 14th spot?
LikeLike
All three schools are charter members of the B1G and aren’t going anywhere ever.
PS. The CIC is a lobbying group. It has no money. It doesn’t even have its own offices; it uses the B1G office space. All, as in all, research money at every, as in every, university is generated by individual faculty who write grant proposals to various agencies. I was on tOSU’s faculty for 35 years. I only heard about the CIC towards the end of my career, and neither I nor any of my colleagues ever had any dealings with it.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t call the CIC a lobbying group. If I had to describe it, I’d say it is the sharing of operational knowledge in running a large R1 university. It has more to do with the administrative side than the academic side.
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“All three schools are charter members of the B1G and aren’t going anywhere ever.”
Obviously.
“PS. The CIC is a lobbying group.”
No, it isn’t just that.
“It has no money.”
Actually it does have some money, but it’s certainly not a primary source of research funding.
“It doesn’t even have its own offices; it uses the B1G office space.”
The CIC’s offices are in Champaign, IL.
“I only heard about the CIC towards the end of my career, and neither I nor any of my colleagues ever had any dealings with it.”
It’s a shame you didn’t pay closer attention as the CIC offers multiple benefits for professors and students. It’s more helpful in some fields than others, obviously.
LikeLike
Bob:
Here’s a history…written in ’67. Probably something you should have been at least aware of. It’s an institution that doesn’t bestow benefits, but is a great benefit to be associated with. If that makes sense.
LikeLike
Link…
http://www.cic.net/docs/default-source/news-pub/historyofcic.pdf?sfvrsn=0
LikeLike
Re: “thedailygopher” post for B1G hockey…
I think you have to look past some of the material/posts. It is a blog that is part of SB Nation–some stuff is well done and reputable, some is strictly crazy and/or misguided. There are, after all, many that have opinions. It is not uncommon that opinions can be “slightly” off-base. This depends on the level of actual intelligence/understanding, or lack there-of, that said poster has applied.
Minnesota is not called “The State of Hockey” without reason. It is a religion here, probably akin to football in Texas and basketball in Indiana. The big ten conference could have, and should have very well left hockey alone. Hockey is truly a regional sport with regional hot-beds. Minnesota alone sports 5 of the 64 D-1A hockey teams. Penn State’s hockey program could easily have stayed out east in CCHA, Hockey East, … The B1G by-laws state something to the effect that a sport needs a minimum of 6 teams to compete as a conference affiliated sport. Look no further than John Hopkins addition for Lacrosse.
This is not just about Minnesota hockey, it’s about college hockey in general. The big ten conference’s leadership did themselves and college hockey NO favors when they elected to start the men’s hockey league with 6 teams that really never had a lot of historic rivalries across the board. Rivalries ARE the lifeblood of sport, without them, ’tis hard to have a true passionate interest. By causing the breakup and nearly wholesale changes in some of the collegiate hockey conferences, many of the long-time traditional hockey rivalries were broken up. The balance of power has changed.
There is no turning back at this point, but, the B1G truly needs a “hockey” guy to run the hockey show, because that current leader clearly does not understand. Playing hockey at MSG in New York City is not going to grow hockey in Ohio or Illinois. And, it’s going to detract from the hot-beds that exist in Minnesota, Michigan, and PA.
Ohio State fans could probably give a rip about playing the Gophers in football. Same can be said in return regarding hockey, only in reverse.
This poster understands that in the big picture, hockey is small potatoes. I also understand that as a founding member of the Big Ten conference, Minnesota is not going anywhere, in regards to conference affiliation. That would be Ludicrous. I understand that the revenue sharing can be a benefit/loss for some schools in the B1G conference, but strengthens the conference as a whole. Please spare the Buckeye arrogance… Thank you…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
“I think you have to look past some of the material/posts. It is a blog that is part of SB Nation–some stuff is well done and reputable, some is strictly crazy and/or misguided. There are, after all, many that have opinions. It is not uncommon that opinions can be “slightly” off-base. This depends on the level of actual intelligence/understanding, or lack there-of, that said poster has applied.”
I fully understand it’s a fan written blog and should be treated as such. I just wanted to point out to people some of the reactions out there. I’m not claiming that’s representative of the entire MN hockey fan base.
“The big ten conference could have, and should have very well left hockey alone.”
This I disagree with. I think the B10 is almost obligated to sponsor a sport when it has enough teams to do so. We’re a conference for better or worse and we share things equally. If different sports stay in other conferences, the logical extension is to not have all 14 teams in the same football or basketball conference either. That would be better for the big brands in those sports after all.
“Hockey is truly a regional sport with regional hot-beds.”
But it’s trying to grow to become more national. The NHL has spread beyond the traditional region and more and more youth hockey is being played in the south and west. The B10 is in or near the traditional hockey region and they can’t band together for it?
“Minnesota alone sports 5 of the 64 D-1A hockey teams.”
B10 hockey states:
MI – 7 D-I teams
MN – 5
OH – 3
PA – 3
WI – 1
Other B10 states:
IL – 0
IN – 1 (ND)
IA – 0
MD – 0
NE – 1 (Omaha)
NJ – 1 (Princeton)
The B10 hockey conference brings together the top hockey states in the footprint rather than splitting them as before. It also might gradually encourage other B10 schools to add the sport. If treated properly, BTN could be a boon to growing the sport.
And Ohio has 8 of the 128 I-A football teams. Does that mean B10 football should drop schools like MN because football isn’t as big there? Of course not.
Lacrosse is just as regional as hockey and the B10 added an affiliate member just so the B10 could sponsor the sport. Why does hockey deserve special treatment? Because that’s the one sport MN is still a king in?
“Penn State’s hockey program could easily have stayed out east in CCHA, Hockey East, …”
Yes, not forming the B10 for hockey would’ve been easy. That’s not an argument for not forming it, though.
“The B1G by-laws state something to the effect that a sport needs a minimum of 6 teams to compete as a conference affiliated sport. Look no further than John Hopkins addition for Lacrosse.”
Yes, and there are 6 hockey teams in the B10. I think everyone agrees it would be better to have more teams, so much so that they might even add ASU as a hockey-only member.
“This is not just about Minnesota hockey, it’s about college hockey in general. The big ten conference’s leadership did themselves and college hockey NO favors when they elected to start the men’s hockey league with 6 teams that really never had a lot of historic rivalries across the board. Rivalries ARE the lifeblood of sport, without them, ’tis hard to have a true passionate interest. By causing the breakup and nearly wholesale changes in some of the collegiate hockey conferences, many of the long-time traditional hockey rivalries were broken up. The balance of power has changed.”
I don’t see forming B10 hockey as a bad thing in and of itself. Rivalries form over time and they will in the new conference alignment as well. It’s only been a couple of years. And I have less sympathy for broken rivalries in a sport with a ton of OOC games during the season (so far most B10 teams have played about 15 OOC games versus 14 B10 games).
“There is no turning back at this point, but, the B1G truly needs a “hockey” guy to run the hockey show, because that current leader clearly does not understand. Playing hockey at MSG in New York City is not going to grow hockey in Ohio or Illinois. And, it’s going to detract from the hot-beds that exist in Minnesota, Michigan, and PA.”
I think most people agree the people in charge haven’t done a great job of running B10 hockey so far. On the other hand, my guess is they have different goals in mind than hotbed hockey fans do. Playing at MSG was probably part of building the B10 brand in NYC more than any concern for hockey itself. But a few prominent games like that can attract some new fans to a sport. And rabid fans will suck it up and watch anyway, just like in any sport.
“Ohio State fans could probably give a rip about playing the Gophers in football. Same can be said in return regarding hockey, only in reverse.”
True, but that’s mostly because of the disparity in team success. If OSU made the NCAAs 5 of the next 7 years I bet MN fans would start to care more when OSU came to town. OSU fans care more about playing MSU in football now than they did 10 years ago, for example.
“This poster understands that in the big picture, hockey is small potatoes. I also understand that as a founding member of the Big Ten conference, Minnesota is not going anywhere, in regards to conference affiliation. That would be Ludicrous. I understand that the revenue sharing can be a benefit/loss for some schools in the B1G conference, but strengthens the conference as a whole. Please spare the Buckeye arrogance… Thank you…”
I would counter that by saying the arrogance is MN hockey fans claiming their sport should be exempt while everyone else should share equally for better or for worse. You aren’t a B10 member only when it helps you out. As a whole, the B10 members felt it was best to form B10 hockey rather than stay split into 3 conferences. Maybe the ADs know something the fans don’t about what’s good for the sport and the conference and maybe they don’t. But considering the millions of dollars OSU and MI and PSU and MSU have sent to MN over the years in revenue sharing and TV money, I doubt they are thrilled to be told MN hockey shouldn’t have to stoop to sharing a conference with them.
LikeLike
One small thing I’d like to add is that I sympathize with the MN hockey fans that want the WCHA back. I understand where they’re coming from emotionally and I agree it was a better conference.
Despite that, I think the B10 had to add hockey once PSU added a team. B10 hockey has potential to be really good if it is well managed and it grows to 8+ teams. Whether either of those things ever happen is the big question.
LikeLike
“Playing the same time as the first weekend of the NCAA MBB tourney doesn’t help.”
This is my biggest beef with the NCAA wrestling championships. Going against 48 games that first four day “weekend” as opposed to 12 the second, or 3 the third.
LikeLike
I hate hate hate that the wrestling tournament coincides with the opening weekend of the hoops tourney.
LikeLike
Some Pat Haden/USC news.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sn-usc-pat-haden-20160210-story.html
LikeLike
Rice continues to upgrade the OOC schedule. Three more games with the Longhorns.
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2016/2/10/10963890/texas-longhorns-rice-owl-football-series
LikeLike
http://ohiostate.247sports.com/Bolt/Buckeyes-set-record-sending-14-to-NFL-Combine-43642237
OSU set a record by getting 14 players invited to the NFL combine this year.
Top schools for 2016 invitees:
OSU – 14
ND – 10
AL, AU, UCLA – 9
UF, UGA, Clemson, OU – 8
MSU was #2 in the B10 with 7.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2016/02/ohio_state_buckeyes_lead_the_w_1.html
Combine invitees from B10 schools:
14 – OSU
7 – MSU
5 – PSU
4 – IA, IN, UMD, NE
3 – MN, IL, WI
2 – MI, RU, NW
1 – PU
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/nfl-scouting-combine-notre-dame-fighting-irish-ohio-state-buckeyes-021116
The Fiesta Bowl had the most combine invitees of any game this season with 24.
Fiesta – 24
Iron Bowl – 18
NCG, SECCG – 17
Cotton, Cocktail Party, The Game – 16
Orange – 15
Rose, Sugar – 10
Peach – 8
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfl-draft-scout/25481108/nfl-combine-snubs-and-surprises
Combine invitees snubs (6 per position) and surprises (1).
Last year, 41 players were drafted who did not participate at the 2015 NFL Combine, including three players drafted as high as the fourth round. Meanwhile, 108 players who were invited went undrafted in the 2015 NFL Draft.
B10 snubs:
QB – Jake Rudock
WR – KJ Maye
TE – Kyle Carter, Derek Watt
OL – Chase Farris, Ted Karras
DE – Theiren Cockran
LB – Desmond Morgan
S – Clayton Fejedelem, RJ Williamson, Michael Caputo
B10 surprises:
TE – Andy Janovich
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/130524/where-the-2016-big-ten-signees-came-from
Where the B10’s 2016 recruits came from.
T-1. Ohio: 41
T-1: Florida: 41
3. Maryland: 27
T-4. Illinois: 20
T-4. New Jersey: 20
6. Michigan: 19
T-7: Minnesota: 15
T-7. Texas: 15
9. Georgia: 14
T-10. Indiana: 10
T-10: Wisconsin: 10
…
Is there any question why the Big Ten wanted to expand into Maryland and New Jersey? Counting Maryland, Virginia and Washington D.C., Big Ten schools grabbed 30 total prospects from the DMV area. Meanwhile, New Jersey and New York combined to contribute 25 recruits. Michigan cleaned up in New Jersey, while Ohio State enjoyed raiding Maryland for a few top prospects, including quarterback Dwayne Haskins Jr.
If Illinois could ever figure out a way to keep most of its top prospects home, it could take a major step forward. Then again, many of the recruits in the Chicago area don’t identify strongly with the Illini, and several other Big Ten schools recruit the state well, including Michigan State (five Illinois recruits in the 2016 class).
It was an unusually strong year for the state of Minnesota. The Golden Gophers signed 11 homegrown players (including a couple of natives who moved out of state for a year or two). That Minnesota produced as many Big Ten signees as Texas is surprising and probably out of the ordinary.
Noticeably absent from this list: Pennsylvania. That state, which used to be such a fertile recruiting ground, produced nine Big Ten signees in 2016, including only four who went somewhere besides Penn State — or as many non-Nittany Lions signees the league got from Arizona. That’s kind of hard to believe.
Leaving Indiana and its split allegiances out of things, here are the total number of recruits from Big Ten East states vs. Big Ten West ones. East (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland): 116. West: (Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota): 55. Even if you were to split Indiana’s 10 signees evenly between the division, you can see the East has a massive advantage in the available local talent.
LikeLike
The decline in HS football in Pennsylvania is startling. Not sure what is going on in that state. Population hasn’t declined. I know Western PA isn’t producing the players like in the past. Perhaps the decline in Steel Mill labor or other factors.
LikeLike
Pennsylvania has aged dramatically. Doesn’t matter with the same population if they are all over 50. I remember reading about 5 years ago that Ohio’s HS population had dropped 25% from 1980. And Ohio has increased in population better than Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
The US is getting older with the later baby boomers and early boomers’ kids.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
The largest 5 year age groups in the US:
45-49 – 7.4% = 22.7M
50-54 – 7.2% = 22.3M – the group in high school in 1980
15-19 – 7.1% = 22.0M
20-24 – 7.0% = 21.6M
The smallest group under age 55:
30-34 – 6.5% = 20.2M
PA is not that much older than other states.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html
People under 18 (2014 estimate based on 2010 census):
US – 23.1%
PA – 21.1% = 2.7M people
People under 5:
US – 6.2%
PA – 5.6%
Median age:
US – 37.2
PA – 40.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania#Demographics
However, a lot of PA’s growth is coming from Hispanics (increased by 82.6% from 2000 to 2010) and Asians (up almost 60%) with Black/African American up 13% and Whites declining slightly (<1%). That impacts the interest in football to some extent. In addition, most of the Hispanic and Asian immigrants are in the Philly area, not western PA where football is more culturally important. As the steel industry died back, I'm guessing the balance of population in PA shifted towards the east significantly while western PA is the area where football is king.
LikeLike
http://www.statista.com/statistics/208048/median-age-of-population-in-the-usa-by-state/
Pennsylvania is the 6th oldest in the nation and Florida, the retirement haven, is one of them. Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and W. Virginia are 1-4.
LikeLike
Yes, but the difference between #1 (Maine) and #6 (PA) is the same as the gap from #6 (PA) to #35 (AZ). Ordinal rankings aren’t super useful for something that is normally distributed. PA isn’t that much older than the average, but it is near the old end of the spectrum.
LikeLike
I’m not sure state age is much of a factor in recruits. Florida is older than Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
It’s not directly a factor, no. But bullet was using it as one explanation for why PA’s recruiting has dropped so far. An older median age generally means fewer teenagers than that size of the state would typically indicate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/04/teenagers-have-never-been-a-smaller-portion-of-our-population/
The number of US teens has vacillated between 24M and about 31M since 1965, with peaks in 1976 and 2008 and valleys in 1965 (start of the data set) and 1991. The total number of teens is barely growing overall and so the percentage of the population that are teens is dropping. In fact it is at an all-time low right now and trending down.
Further on in the article is map showing the teen density by state, though. It is color coded from 10.5% in 7 colors (10.5).
10.5 – UT
Most of the country, including the entire B10 footprint is in the middle ranges. CA and TX are higher but FL is much lower. That means the age issue isn’t really mapping well to the recruiting issue.
But the issue is real. I took the 2015 population estimate for each state and looked at the number of rated 2016 recruits by each state. Ideally you’d get the same percentage for each state in both. Obviously that isn’t true, though. I’m guessing that you need to factor in the teen density above as well as racial information and local interest in football to fully explain the results.
Ratio of the percentage of recruits to the percentage of total population:
Mississippi – 3.68
Louisiana – 2.66
Alabama – 2.62
Kansas – 2.61
Georgia – 2.48
Florida – 1.94
Texas – 1.63
District of Columbia – 1.46
Hawaii – 1.25
Oklahoma – 1.24
Tennessee – 1.21
Utah – 1.21
South Carolina – 1.14
Arkansas – 1.13
California – 1.00
Virginia – 0.91
Arizona – 0.90
Ohio – 0.90
North Carolina – 0.88
Iowa – 0.84
Minnesota – 0.82
Maryland – 0.82
North Dakota – 0.74
New Jersey – 0.69
Michigan – 0.68
Indiana – 0.60
Pennsylvania – 0.56
Washington – 0.49
Nevada – 0.48
Kentucky – 0.48
Illinois – 0.47
Missouri – 0.45
Delaware – 0.44
Nebraska – 0.43
Connecticut – 0.43
Wisconsin – 0.35
Oregon – 0.33
New Mexico – 0.31
West Virginia – 0.31
Wyoming – 0.28
Colorado – 0.26
Rhode Island – 0.23
New York – 0.22
Massachusetts – 0.17
Idaho – 0.15
South Dakota – 0.09
Montana – 0.08
New Hampshire – 0.06
Alaska – 0.00
Maine – 0.00
Vermont – 0.00
The whole B10 is lower than 1, but there are clear tiers:
OH
IA, MN, MD
NJ, MI
IN, PA
IL, NE
WI
This is where I get back to my prior comment about PA’s growth coming mostly in immigrants, largely in the Philly area, less enthusiastic about football than the traditional western PA steelworker’s son of the 70s and 80s that built PA’s reputation in recruiting.
LikeLike
Florida has a disproportionate number of retirees, so their high median age impacts them differently.
LikeLike
Illinois is in many ways similar to Pennsylvania – aging, growth coming from Hispanics + Asians (although there is a larger “legacy” Latino pop in parts of Illinois, that is not averse to playing football). The suburbs of Chicago and one would presume Philadelphia (and even the increasingly knowledge-economy influenced Pittsburgh area) are where concussion concern is taking a big bite out of football participation. Also, Philly, like Chicago, is a basketball town that can produce a great football player from time to time.
LikeLike
Allan:
I’m unfamiliar with the political machinations of Louisiana. Is this just leveraging and bluster, or is it possible?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14764642/louisiana-gov-john-bel-edwards-threatens-future-lsu-tigers-football-tax-proposals-passed
LikeLike
cc – here’s a link to an article that provides a little more detail.
http://blogs.theadvocate.com/politicsblog/2016/02/12/say-farewell-to-college-football-gov-john-bel-edwards-says-but-heres-why-you-shouldnt-tear-up-those-tickets/
I’m right in the middle of all this right now, but I’ll try to give you my take later this evening.
LikeLike
If it’s possible, does Leonard Fournette and other underclassmen with pro potential make a case for suppleental draft inclusion?
LikeLike
Click to access Carnegie-Commission-1929-excerpts.pdf
The more things change …
LikeLike
Very little is ever new, except for the people – who don’t have the memory of what came before. (The individual people are new, not the phenomenon of history “beginning” with individuals memory.)
LikeLike
You see that with discredited political ideas. They come back when most people who remember the problems are gone. You see that with the economy. Depression era people never let anything go. People in Texas didn’t allow over-exuberance in real estate (it happened there in the 80s) while the rest of the nation went way up and crashed hard in 2008-9. There was a bumper sticker in Texas in the late 80s-“Lord if you ever give me another oil boom, I promise not to p___ this one away”
LikeLike
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/sports/college/msu/baseball/2016/02/12/heated-fields-game-changer-msu-baseball-softball/80253554/
MSU is the first school in the country to install electric heating under their baseball and softball infields. The same company did the heating under MN’s football field but that was with hot water pipes. Will this help level the baseball playing field?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfrecruiting/on-the-trail/insider/post/_/id/75572/more-aggressive-big-ten-recruiting-helping-to-shrink-gap-behind-sec
More aggressive B10 recruiting is helping close the gap to the SEC on the field.
“People asked about this when was I hired, and it was like people assaulted me at those meetings,” Meyer said. “I was like, ‘Where is this coming from?’ I’ve recruited for 25 years, I’ve never heard someone say some Ohio kid wants to come to Ohio State, don’t take him [because he committed elsewhere]. Are you nuts?
“So, recruiting has been amped up in the Big Ten. It has been. Everybody has, and you have to. As a result, the Big Ten Conference went like this [on an upward trend]. You can have a gentlemen’s agreement — but first of all, there wasn’t one, because I asked. I was like, ‘What are you guys talking about?’ One guy said that to some writer.”
…
“In 2012, I was kind of shocked,” Meyer said. “I came from the SEC, where it was very aggressive recruiting. When I say aggressive recruiting, I’m not saying rules violations. I’m not saying that. Your job as the football coach at Ohio State University is to go represent Ohio State with class, integrity and get the best football players in the country. What’s happened, you see in the Big Ten right now, everything from stadium atmospheres to money being spent on coaching staffs, as a result you’re seeing some excellent football teams competing at the highest level. Is that good for the Big Ten? Go ask [commissioner Jim] Delany how it’s going. It’s going pretty well; we have great football programs in the Big Ten Conference.”
At the top, there’s no really no doubt about that anymore after a national championship in 2014 from Ohio State and three bids to the New Year’s Six from the Big Ten in 2015.
The next step, though, is building more depth behind the conference elite if it’s going to truly stack up with the SEC.
“The top of the league, it’s a street fight,” Meyer said. “It’s a street fight. It’s not quite top-to-bottom yet, but they’re coming. I can’t talk about the Pac-12 because I wasn’t in that league, and I understand the Big 12 and the ACC are all very good.
“But right now it’s still the SEC, and I think top to bottom, we’re not where the SEC is yet. However, the top is pretty close.”
The gap appears to be shrinking, but there’s still plenty of work to be done to erase it. And more often than not, that process starts on the recruiting trail. It obviously doesn’t include gentlemen’s agreements.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14766790/records-show-jim-harbaugh-michigan-wolverines-spent-nearly-136k-2015-recruiting-trips
On that note, Harbaugh/MI spent $136,000 in just 12 days on private plane usage for recruiting his first year.
According to university records acquired by USA Today, Harbaugh and his recruiting staff used a private jet from Jan. 19 to Jan. 30, 2015, and averaged more than $10,000 per day in travel expenses.
Harbaugh’s contract at Michigan provides for the use of a private jet for recruiting purposes. Records show that Harbaugh, traveling either alone or with assistant coaches, made 18 trips on the jet during the 12-day stretch leading up to national signing day.
LikeLike
http://www.foxsports.com/other/story/iowa-hawkeyes-athletics-federal-investigation-equal-opportunity-females-gender-bias-021216
The University of Iowa is facing a wide-ranging federal civil rights investigation into allegations that its athletics department does not provide equal opportunities for female athletes, correspondence obtained by The Associated Press shows.
The Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education is looking into gender bias allegations in 13 areas, including how the department counts participation levels, awards scholarships, schedules practices and games and delivers services such as tutoring, medical attention, housing and dining. A team of investigators will visit the Iowa City campus in April, according to documents released Thursday under the open records law.
The department’s equipment, locker rooms and facilities are also part of the review, which comes as its men’s basketball and football teams have been enjoying high national rankings.
If discrimination is found, the investigation could result in a settlement requiring the university to change policies, spend more money on women’s athletics or even add another women’s sport. But the review could take years, and a school lawyer told the federal agency in December that she believes an investigation will show Iowa “strives to provide male and female students an equal opportunity to participate.”
At least one other Big Ten school, Minnesota, is facing a similar investigation by the civil rights office, which enforces the law known as Title IX that bars sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal aid.
As the costs to stay competitive in CFB and MBB keep rising, will this be a problem more schools face?
LikeLike
You just make sure similar facilities are available to all athletes. Texas, which had one of the top women’s programs in the country, got sued in the early 90s.
LikeLike
Schools like UT and OSU can afford that, but will some of the others feel the pressure to cut a few corners?
LikeLike
The unanticipated danger of stifling Boren. Pent up energy will find release…
http://m.decaturdaily.com/news/other_news/national/and-magnitude-earthquakes-recorded-in-oklahoma/article_77d9f365-3a6f-543f-be49-96f446fec64b.html?mode=jqm
LikeLike
Oklahoma’s stronger and more frequent earthquakes have been linked to the injection of the briny wastewater left over from oil and gas production underground. Regulators have recommended reducing the volume or shutting down some of the disposal wells. Oil and gas operators in Oklahoma, where the industry is a major economic and political force, have resisted cutting back on their injections of wastewater.
The hundreds of quakes have been mostly small to medium sized, and have caused limited damage. But a quake did knock out power in parts of an Oklahoma City suburb several weeks ago, and last month about 200 unhappy residents packed a forum at the state capitol convened by critics of the state’s response.
Gov. Mary Fallin last month approved the use of nearly $1.4 million in state emergency funds for state agencies working to reduce the number of earthquakes linked to the wastewater disposal.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011066
Oklahoma is the #1 state for earthquakes now. They had 100 in 2013 but this water pumping jumped that to 580 (magnitude 3.0 or higher) in 2014.
From 1975 to 2008, Oklahoma averaged one to three quakes of magnitude 3 or greater a year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Then the number began to rise. There were 20 such quakes in 2009.
LikeLike
A few weeks ago I read that Kansas had instituted a limit on how quickly the waste water can be reinfected into the ground. It looks like they have greatly reduced the number and size of well related quakes compared to Oklahoma where injection happens rapidly.
Is the Pac the only potential new home for OU? Student/athlete safety concerns wouldn’t be increased, compared to similar risk at a significant number of their member schools, by visiting quake prone areas.
I kid.
LikeLike
Sorry if this is a duplication, but this article from the Cincinnati Enquirer today details the rather extensive machinations by the UC president to get them into the B12.
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/02/13/inside-ucs-bid-join-big-12/80280488/
LikeLike
The USA Today carried the same article (they have the same owners). It’s based on the public records request that UC had been dragging their feet on. Most of the communication is from 2014 and early 2015.
The highlights:
1.) University of Oklahoma President David Boren appears to really like Ono and UC.
…
2.) Fortune 500 executives have helped promote UC to top Big 12 leaders.
…
3.) Former Kansas State president Jon Wefald has advised Ono, but says UC may have to take a financial “haircut.”
Wefald, who retired in 2009, was K-State’s president when the Big 12 formed in 1996. He sent several emails to Ono and his staff in December 2014 and January 2015, some of which give insight to the enormous amount of television money involved in major-college sports and the possibility UC might have to settle for a smaller share initially if it were to change conferences.
…
“David is impressed with Cincinnati,” Wefald told Ono. “He knows that UC is a big-time school. … Now, I did not talk to him about the revenues that each school gets. I doubt that he would be enthused about any kind of a ‘major haircut.’”
Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”
Wefald continued: “The emphasis of UC right now should be this: Get into the Big 12 and worry about equal revenues later. So get in now and tell the other 10 universities that you and the second school will take the haircut.”
…
Texas’ Powers “likes the idea of 10 schools,” Wefald told Ono. Powers resigned from Texas in June.
4.) Ono has traveled to meet with Big 12 leaders.
…
5.) UC has produced data comparing it to Big 12 schools.
Boulder, Colorado-based Pacey Economics and UC officials analyzed athletic budget, fundraising, academic research, enrollment and TV market data to see how the university stacked up against current Big 12 members.
In a splashy brochure dated November 2014, UC shows how it compares to the Big 12 schools in 10 categories – including annual giving, National Merit Scholars, total research expenditures, enrollment and endowment assets. Cincinnati would rank in the conference’s top 5 in each category listed, except the U.S. News & World Report rankings, which would put UC seventh.
Pacey’s research, completed in late 2014, looked at athletic budgets, football and basketball success, academics and TV market size. UC’s annual athletics budget ($27.7 million in 2015) would be the lowest in the Big 12, but Pacey pointed out that would be expected to increase in a conference where the athletic department could make more money.
If UC joined the Big 12, it would put the conference in Ohio, a state with 4.5 million TV households, according to Pacey research. Only Texas – where four Big 12 schools are based – has more TV households among states where the conference has members.
“In terms of statistics that matter, Cincinnati stacked up favorably,” firm owner Patricia Pacey told The Enquirer. Her firm performed the work for no cost at the request of UC Athletic Director Mike Bohn, who had developed a relationship with Pacey Economics when he was the AD at the University of Colorado.
Move could generate extra $20 million per year
…
Most of the records provided were dated late 2014 and early 2015. Very few records were provided from the second half of 2015. Nonetheless, Ono’s statement to The Enquirer indicates the university’s efforts are ongoing.
…
Expansion dependent on TV money
…
“It’s all about TV,” said Lee Igel, a sports business expert and co-director of New York University’s Sports & Society program.
And TV money seems to be a major reason the Big 12 has not been in a hurry to expand since losing Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A&M and Colorado, starting in 2011.
“The problem with the glut of unattractive candidates is there’s a concern the league won’t be able to keep the same share of television money if it expands,” Sport Illustrated’s Pete Thamel recently wrote. “The general thought in the conference is that adding two teams would get the Big 12 close to where it is now revenue wise.”
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/15/nippert-expansion-possible-if-uc-joins-big-12/80405222/#
More from UC today. UC is looking to upgrade their hoops arena and would expand the football stadium again if the B12 invited them.
“If it happens, we would consider expanding Nippert again … make the other side taller and bigger,” Ono told reporters and editors in a wide-ranging interview. “Then you are in the size range of others.”
UC finished an $86 million renovation of Nippert Stadium before the start of the 2015 football season, adding new state-of-the-art luxury suites, a press box, club seating and a party deck to the west side of the on-campus stadium. The project increased Nippert’s capacity to 40,000 seats, which still would make it the smallest stadium in the Big 12.
The university could look to add another deck of seats onto the east side of the stadium to increase capacity to between 50,000 and 55,000. Baylor and TCU currently play in the Big 12’s smallest stadiums, both seating 45,000.
Ono did not say where UC could get money to expand Nippert Stadium.
…
As for the basketball facility, Ono said UC is close to raising $25 million – a threshold for moving forward with an $87 million plan to overhaul Fifth Third Arena. He believes that also could help UC’s chances of moving to the Big 12.
“We’ll soon have one of the best basketball arenas in the country,” Ono said.
He added: “I don’t think there is any issue with our facilities. There are some upgrades that might have to occur.”
…
Ono downplayed the notion that UC would have to take a big financial hit. He mentioned that UC could join the Big 12 under a similar financial agreement that TCU and West Virginia had when those schools moved to the conference in 2012.
TCU and West Virginia agreed to a tiered, financial “phase-in” that called for the schools to receive less money than the other Big 12 members over their first four years in the conference. For example, TCU and West Virginia each reportedly received $23 million in league revenues in 2015, some 84 percent of what the other Big 12 schools took home ($25.6 million).
That was up from TCU and West Virginia each receiving a 67 percent share of the league money in 2014. This year, TCU and West Virginia are set to have equal revenue-sharing with all other Big 12 schools.
Despite not making as much money as its rivals, West Virginia still received 4 percent more money in its first year in the Big 12 than it did in its last season in the Big East, according to Forbes.
UC also almost certainly would have to pay an exit fee from the American Athletic Conference. In recent years, Rutgers and Louisville each had to pay around $11 million to leave the league, formerly known as the Big East.
If revenue-sharing were equal, UC would have made around $20 million more last year in the Big 12 than it did in the AAC. Over the long haul, UC would stand to make millions more than it currently does.
“An unqualified yes,” Ono said when asked if moving to the Big 12 would be worth it.
In 2015, UC used $27.7 million from its general fund to run its sports programs, and Ono said moving to the Big 12 “would put us in a much stronger position to reduce or eliminate the subsidy that goes to athletics.”
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/130687/a-look-at-the-toughest-big-ten-nonconference-schedules-in-2016
Toughest OOC schedules in the B10 this season:
1. Ohio State (opposing team’s record last season in parentheses)
Sept. 3: vs. Bowling Green (10-4)
Sept. 10: vs. Tulsa (6-7)
Sept. 17: at Oklahoma (11-2)
…
2. Michigan State
Sept. 2: vs. Furman (4-7)
Sept. 17: at Notre Dame (10-3)
Oct. 8: vs. BYU (9-4)
…
3. Wisconsin
Sept. 3: vs. LSU (9-3), Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin
Sept. 10: vs. Akron (8-5)
Sept. 17: vs. Georgia State (6-7)
…
4. Northwestern
Sept. 3: vs. Western Michigan (8-5)
Sept. 10: vs. Illinois State (10-3)
Sept. 17: vs. Duke (8-5)
…
5. Penn State
Sept. 3: vs. Kent State (3-9)
Sept. 10: at Pitt (8-5)
Sept. 17: vs. Temple (10-4)
…
6. Illinois
Sept. 3: vs. Murray State (3-8)
Sept. 10: vs. North Carolina (11-3)
Sept. 17: vs. Western Michigan (8-5)
…
7. Rutgers
Sept. 3: at Washington (7-6)
Sept. 10: vs. Howard (1-10)
Sept. 17: vs. New Mexico (7-6)
LikeLike
Michigan’s is unfortunate this year.
Hawaii, UCF, and Colorado. I suppose it could be worse, but Hawaii is always bad, UCF was terrible this past season, and Colorado was only 4-9 this past season (they played @Hawaii).
Michigan has typically done a pretty good job scheduling, especially the past few years. I think this was ultimately just a year where the combination of moving to a 9-game conference schedule, and ND having moved off the schedule at relatively short notice, put Michigan in a tough spot to find someone appropriate.
LikeLike
Several teams have multiple OOC games against B10 foes:
Howard – RU, UMD
UCF – MI, UMD
FIU (2 home games) – IN, UMD
LikeLike
ESPN’s Phil Steele has predicted the AP pre-season top ten each February for the last seven years. He’s correctly picked 66 of the 70 teams, though not necessarily in the correct order. It’s behind the paywall as an ESPN Insider article, but here’s his prediction for the 2016 season.
1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Oklahoma
4. Florida State
5. LSU
6. Ohio State
7. Michigan
8. Baylor
9. Stanford
10. Tennessee
11. Notre Dame
LikeLike
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/2/10/10939292/signing-day-2016-ncaa-recruiting-big-ten-sec-acc
A look at the imbalance of recruiting at a divisional level (top 25 recruits from the whole division). The biggest disparity is in the B10 (average of 4.7 stars for the East to 4.0 stars for the West) with 12 individual schools topping the B10 West’s all-star team.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/recruiting/story/_/id/14766049/diversified-landscape-makes-recruiting-state-texas-crazier-ever
Recruiting in TX is harder than ever. How did it change from the old days?
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25485320/encouraging-signs-ncaa-will-roll-dice-on-championships-in-las-vegas
This spring the NCAA will consider whether to allow NV to host championship events. Currently they can’t because NV allows gambling on games.
LikeLike
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2016/the-year-in-sports-media-report-2015.html
Nielson’s year in sports media is out. Lots here.
LikeLike
Big Ten leads in viewership over the SEC is a bit of a surprise (Ohio St and Michigan being good probably helped that number).
LikeLike
Note what it is measuring-the top 10 regular season games for each conference.
It is not measuring all games, only the very top.
LikeLike
SEC East struggling made a difference too. Sagarin had SEC East rated 9th of the 9 P5 divisions.
LikeLike
Bullet:
On an obliquely related TV subject, is ESPN/UT ready to give up on single school network and spin the LHN into the B12-4+2+?N? I thought UT was willing to lose money for the individual spotlight…when it was being considered. Strongly enough to be the reason to scuttle the P16 at the last second…
Now they will ride with potentially six replacements. Reminds me of a movie of the same name.
LikeLike
…Except that movie was originally broadcast on NBC and involved cities in the northeast, not the mid-south and gulf coast.
LikeLike
They might add UConn and Cincinnati…
LikeLike
If Powers and Dodds were still there the odds of Texas giving up the LHN before 2032 would be zero (or less). I don’t think the odds of Fenves and Perrin giving it up is much higher.
If there is a Big 12 network in the next 15 years, they probably have to do it without Texas home games.
For all the talk about the money, that is far from the biggest obstacle. Dodd$ once said about the SECN, “they are going to make a lot of money, but they are only getting 1/14th of a network,” The ability to be on almost all the time is viewed as very valuable. A conference network ends that and there is no way to replace that, except with a Pac 12 type deal. And I don’t hear anyone discussing having 2 school sub-networks. That’s also probably a lot harder to do now than even a couple of years ago.
From the financial side, I find it hard to believe they could make UT whole and still generate better dollars for themselves than under their current individual model. The Big 12 doesn’t have as many people in its area as the Big 10 and SEC and there is no way to change that with G5 schools. And with declining cable coverage, the peak $ for conference networks have passed.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Thanks. That’s what I kinda thought, but not as hooked into the area/attitude as you are. There seem to be those who believe UT post Powers and Dodds is now a one for all and all for one institution – that whatever it takes to expand and get a true B12N will be agreed to. Count me as a doubter.
LikeLike
CFB relevant points:
The Crimson Tide won their fourth College Football title under Nick Saban, but unfortunately, not as many fans tuned in to see the Tide roll to another championship. In their infinite wisdom to move the semifinal games to December 31st instead of January 1st, the College Football Playoff Committee lost plenty of casual college football fans to New Year’s Eve festivities. While the Orange and Cotton Bowls still drew strong viewership numbers when compared to the major bowl games of the BCS era, viewership was down 45% and 34% from their respective semifinal games last season.
…
Over the last 10 years, the media market has undergone a drastic transformation, which has positively affected sports on TV. There is an enormous amount of sports content to choose from and a shocking amount of hours viewed. In 2015, there were more than 127,000 hours of sports programming available on broadcast and cable TV and more than 31 billion hours spent viewing sports, which is up 160% and 41%, respectively, from 2005.
…
THE COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO
HAVE THE SEMIFINAL MATCHUPS PLAYED ON NEW YEAR’S EVE
in lieu of the traditional January 1 slot appears, upon further review, to have been a scheduling “fumble.” Tune in for the Clemson – Oklahoma Orange Bowl dropped 45% compared to last year’s Rose Bowl, and the Michigan State – Alabama Cotton Bowl had 34% less viewers than last year’s Sugar Bowl. While the College Football Playoff National Championship saw a similar dip, averaging only 25.7 million viewers, down 23% from the inaugural playoff finale, the high-scoring, down to the wire action capped off an excitement filled season.
…
Just two years ago, the SEC was the king of power conferences in terms of average viewership.
However, recent outside conference national victories (Florida State and Ohio State) have
toppled its crown. Since Ohio State’s win in the first ever College Football Playoff, the BIG10 has gained the lead in for most viewed college football games of the 2014-15 season. On average, 8.5 million viewers tuned in for the BIG10’s top ten nationally televised regular season games. The SEC came in just shy of that with 8.1 million viewers. The strength of these conferences seemed to influence viewership of the ACC and Pac-12, as 6 out of the top ten ACC games and 5 out of the top ten Pac-12 games were against out of conference opponents. Strong viewership for these conferences aligns with the percentage of college football fans in each market. According to Nielsen Scarborough, the highest percentage of college football fans lie in the Southeast and Midwest (SEC and BIG10), specifically in Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Northern Florida, Iowa and Louisiana. The Northeast and Southwest have an expectedly lower college football fan penetration.
I also thought the global information was interesting. The most watched event in France was men’s handball. In Russia it was the hockey world championship (Russia vs Canada) while the Super Bowl was tops in Canada. A Pacquiao fight was best in the Phillipines while it was rugby in Australia. It was a marathon relay race in Japan. Everywhere else they listed (UK, Germany, Spain, Thailand, South Korea, Venezuela) it was some soccer match.
LikeLike
“Strong viewership for these conferences aligns with the percentage of college football fans in each market. According to Nielsen Scarborough, the highest percentage of college football fans lie in the Southeast and Midwest (SEC and BIG10), specifically in Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Northern Florida, Iowa and Louisiana. The Northeast and Southwest have an expectedly lower college football fan penetration.”
However, if you look at Nielsen’s map, for some reason, they don’t have almost all of Nebraska as part of any market that they measured. Actually, their map excludes big chunks of the US.
If you look at this NYT/Facebook map (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/upshot/the-places-in-america-where-college-football-means-the-most.html), you’d see that there is most intense college football interest in AL, NE (not mentioned by Nielsen), and OK.
Also AR (not mentioned by Nielsen), IA, SC (not mentioned by Nielsen), OH, northern FL, KY (not mentioned by Nielsen) and parts of LA, MS (not mentioned by Nielsen),TN, MI (not mentioned by Nielsen), WI (not mentioned by Nielsen), OR (not mentioned by Nielsen), and where PSU, UGa, and TTech are centered.
In other words, almost all the SEC, big chunks of the B10 + OK, OR, and a handful of places in TX around college campuses.
LikeLike
I think Nielsen’s map is based on the top X (maybe 50) markets so there are big holes in it.
LikeLike
Someone got the gag out of his mouth.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14789697/david-boren-oklahoma-sooners-president-says-vote-major-big-12-issues-likely-summer
LikeLike
If Cincy wants in, it had better find a partner acceptable to Austin (U. of Houston?).
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25486513/big-12-schools-made-9-million-less-than-sec-counterparts-in-2014-15
The Big 12’s average payout to its full-sharing members in 2014-15 was $23.3 million, which was $9.4 million less than what SEC schools received from their conference.
The latest Big 12 tax return provided Wednesday to CBS Sports reflects the growing gap between the SEC and Big Ten compared to every other major conference. Not long ago, the SEC and Big 12 provided nearly identical payouts to their schools, past tax records show.
…
Also, the SEC Network started printing millions of dollars for the SEC — a revenue source that the Big 12 as a whole doesn’t have. Individual Big 12 schools make additional money through third-tier media rights that aren’t reflected in the Big 12 tax form. For instance, Texas reportedly received about $15 million from the Longhorn Network, and Kansas got more than $6 million and Kansas State about $4 million from their third-tier rights.
Even when factoring in these rights, most Big 12 schools are seeing a growing gap with SEC schools in revenue. The SEC pools most of those rights together for the SEC Network.
“We’re going to do everything we can to compete,” Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said about the growing gap. “That would certainly include financially.”
LikeLike
These numbers aren’t consistent with what has been previously reported (and announced by the conferences-SEC and Big 12 are the only two who are public about distributions). Having looked at the ACC 990, it can be difficult to find the relevant numbers. Here are the previously reported figures:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/campus-corner/article22613511.html
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12977114/big-12-schools-split-record-252-million-revenue
Year Average Conference distributions
2011-12 B12 $19.0 SEC $20.3
2012-13 B12 $19.8 SEC $20.7
2013-14 B12 $21.2 SEC $20.9
2014-15 B12 $25.2 SEC $31.2
LikeLike
This is another report that agrees with Solomon. Maybe your links are looking at a slightly different number in terms of what’s included.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2016/02/17/big-12-record-revenue-trails-other-conferences-bob-bowlsby/80514948/
The Big 12 Conference had almost $268 million in total revenue for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2015, a record sum for the league but one that trails at least one Power Five conference peer.
…
Although the 10-team Big 12 prospered during its 2015 fiscal year, its total revenue and per-school revenue lagged far behind that of the 14-team Southeastern Conference, which has reported more than $527 million in total revenue for fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2015.
…
The Big 12’s eight member schools other than relative newcomers West Virginia and Texas Christian received revenue shares ranging from $22.9 million to $23.8 million, according to the return.
TCU received $20.4 million, West Virginia $20.3 million. During the conference’s 2014 fiscal year, TCU got $14.3 million, West Virginia $14.2 million.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25486307/maction-on-the-diamond-first-football-game-set-for-white-sox-stadium
Wrigley has some competition. US Cellular Field will host the NIU-Toledo game this year.
LikeLike
Toledo fans will be good sports. Miami (OH) fans would crap their pants on the way in and out. Looking forward to the Bullpen Bar Dive.
LikeLike
Is the Big 12 following the B1G plan of 2010?
Around bowl season B1G announced studying plans to expand
Around end of fiscal year (may and june) announced target schools
Around July 1st in subsequent years added target schools
Around fall of actual admittance started playing football as new conference member
LikeLike
What’s the reaction to the new IL AD?
LikeLike
Some Awful Announcing articles about FS1 lately.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/how-can-fs1-recover-and-right-the-ship-by-focusing-on-the-long-game.html
How can FS1 right the ship?
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/why-ive-given-up-hope-for-fs1.html
Why the author has given up on FS1.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2016/why-ive-given-up-hope-for-fs1.html
A glimpse at the “ratings” for FS1 and NBCSN
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14800411/a-roundtable-big-12-big-summer-hey-florida-state
A roundtable discussion about the B12 and its future.
LikeLike
Bla, bla, bla…
Don’t think there was anything informative in that. And a fair amount that displayed discouraging ignorance.
LikeLike
There were a couple of bits where they cited their sources in the B12 that might be of interest. Otherwise I thought it was decent at showing the general thought pattern out there.
LikeLike
College baseball season begins today.
LikeLike
http://www.bigten.org/sports/w-softbl/spec-rel/021816aab.html
As does the inaugural B10/ACC Softball Challenge.
The 2016 ACC/Big Ten Softball Challenge is set to begin on Friday, February 19, with eight Big Ten teams traveling to four Atlantic Coast Conference campus sites.
The inaugural Challenge, which will continue through Sunday, February 21, features eight schools from each conference, with each team playing four games against the opposing conference schools.
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue and Wisconsin will represent the Big Ten, while Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State and North Carolina will serve as host sites. In addition to the host institutions, Boston College, Louisville, Syracuse and Virginia Tech will compete in the Challenge for the ACC.
Nine games can be viewed live on ESPN3, including Friday’s games of Nebraska at NC State, Michigan at Florida State and Ohio State at Georgia Tech. Saturday’s ESPN3 lineup includes Michigan at Florida State, Nebraska at NC State, Minnesota at Florida State and Wisconsin at NC State. Sunday’s games on ESPN3 are Minnesota at Florida State and Wisconsin at NC State.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25488707/as-gap-between-haves-have-nots-widens-college-football-teams-become-copycats
Dennis Dodd examines the gap between P5 and G5 schools, and even amongst the P5 schools.
“I think it’s making it much more difficult for us to compete,” said the crusty 66-year-old Long, who is entering his 17th year as a head coach. “I don’t think our fan bases realize the enormous difference between what they have as resources and what we have as resources.
“It’s always been there, but in the past, you actually had a fighting chance. Now I can’t even come close.”
This from the coach of the school that produced Pro Football Hall of Famer Marshall Faulk. Long’s team plays in an NFL stadium and just won 11 games on its way to a conference title. Long’s program resides in a modern 130,000 square-foot facility. SDSU is the home of the third-largest athletic budget ($19 million) in the 12-team MWC.
…
Texas has a larger athletic budget — No. 1 nationally at $179 million — than the entire Mountain West combined. Nick Saban makes more per year than the lower-resource Mid-America Conference gets in network media rights. Two of the MAC’s head coaches have left their jobs in the last two years to become coordinators at major-conference schools.
Since 2009, 42 stadiums that house FBS teams have been built or significantly renovated. That’s approximately one-third of the Football Bowl Subdivision.
Twenty-five of those are Power Five facilities — almost 39 percent of the 65 schools in the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, ACC and SEC. That doesn’t count broad build-outs being planned at Syracuse, Oklahoma and Notre Dame.
…
Meanwhile, Long says he lost a recruit to Utah State because the school paid $150 more a month in cost of attendance. He doesn’t take recruits to the gameday locker room cross-town at Qualcomm Stadium because it is so sub-par.
“It’s terrible. The stadium is terrible,” Long said bitterly.
And yet, San Diego State is in the same NCAA division as Alabama. Last year, the Aztecs made $850,000 in TV revenue, Long said. As an SEC member, Saban’s program hauled in almost $33 million.
…
What has emerged since then is a smaller super-class of programs within that Power Five.
Since 2000, only 15 schools have played for a national championship. That is out of 36 available slots in the BCS and CFP. Fourteen of those 36 slots have been filled by three teams — Oklahoma, Alabama and Ohio State.
“One has to wonder what’s the world going to look like 10 years from now?” said one Power Five athletic director who did not want to be identified. “That’s a fascinating conversation. If we don’t care [about the smaller schools], we might be needing to prepare to play each other.”
Most experts agree at the moment a separation of the haves and have-nots — on the field — is not likely to happen. Those 65 Power Five schools need the Group of Five to fill out their schedules, if nothing else.
…
Oregon remains the envy of modern college athletics — a top program surrounded by top-notch facilities. It’s hard to believe the Ducks used to be one of those outsiders, once speculated to drop out of the old Pac-10. Now, its Hatfield-Dowlin athletic complex is considered an industry standard with custom weight-room wood that neither burns nor floats. A 40-yard, laser-equipped track is one of the few of its kind in the world.
“We have relied heavily on innovation and culture,” Oregon AD Rob Mullens said.
…
“You know what makes football better? Better players,” Long said. “If the facilities attract better players, it makes the football better.”
And yet Mullens’ department isn’t in the top 20 nationally where it sometimes counts most for those in his position — budget. The schools with the nation’s top 20 budgets have an average stadium size of 85,000. Autzen Stadium seats 54,000.
Despite that limitation, Oregon has become a national program having been to four BCS bowls and a playoff since 2009. Marcus Mariota put a bow on it winning the 2014 Heisman.
Mullens has been able to hold the line the last three years on ticket increases. But for how long?
“We’re the equivalent of a small-market professional franchise,” Mullens said.
No one is shedding tears for Oregon, but all that Nike money goes only so far. Phil Knight donated the land for Hatfield-Dowlin. There still has to be a way to pay for the lights to remain on.
LikeLike
Dodd: What you don’t (but need to) know about Big 12 conference realignment
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25491425/what-you-dont-but-need-to-know-about-big-12-conference-realignment
Nothing new here, but a nice primer.
LikeLike
Disagree on “nice primer.” It contains a number of misperceptions, or at least questionable assumptions.
LikeLike
129 College football programs as pokemon. Some gems in here.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/2/22/10996954/college-football-programs-as-pokemon-this-is-fun
Hoothoot
LikeLike
Like Stanford needs more money. I guess there is never too much…
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/business/philip-knight-of-nike-to-give-400-million-to-stanford-scholars.html?_r=0&referer=http://apple.com/spotlight-suggestion
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14825886/why-diversity-challenge-not-top-priority-cfp-committee
The challenge of diversity for the CFP at all levels (Board of Managers, management committee, selection committee).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14839413/butch-jones-told-tennessee-wr-betrayed-team-helping-alleged-assault-victim
This TN case is getting really ugly. 2 more women joined the case and a former CFB player made allegations against the coach and his teammates.
When will schools learn to take sexual assault complaints seriously?
LikeLike
Only when the coach of the team in question hasn’t posted a strong enough record to keep his job. That’s clearly not the case here.
LikeLike
Jones is only 21-17 at TN. They’ve improved by 2 wins each season, so there are high hopes for the future, but he’s barely above 0.500 so far.
LikeLike
But the folks in Vol country like the direction of the program…and UTenn could be the preseason favorite to win the SEC East (in recent years, e admittedly equivalent to being the tallest of dwarfs).
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14838409/two-members-british-parliament-urge-nfl-change-washington-name
The NFL could be facing a sticky situation. The Washington Racial Slurs are one of the teams scheduled to play in London this season but the staunch anti-racism laws in the UK may prove problematic. 2 members of parliament have asked the NFL to change the team’s name or send a different team.
No nation has stricter anti-racism laws in sports, due in part to disturbing incidents encountered by black soccer players over the years, including having banana peels and monkey chants hurled at them during matches. Clubs at every level can be heavily fined or banished from their respective leagues for any violation.
In their letter, Smeeth and Austin also mention the site of the October game, Wembley Stadium, having its own anti-racism charter, including the banishment of “racial, homophobic or discriminatory abuse, chanting or harassment,” in accordance with the Football (Offences) Act of 1991. Wembley also hosted the launch of one of the two major international campaigns launched against racism in sports, including Kick It Out, a partnership with FIFA.
A Wembley spokesperson confirmed Tuesday the issue over Washington’s name is now being discussed internally.
Another hurdle the NFL has to clear is the British Broadcasting Corporation, the publicly owned network that broadcasts the game in the United Kingdom.
“Given it’s taxpayer-funded, if we believe it’s a racial slur, then that means problems for the BBC in terms of coverage of the event,” Smeeth said. “There is going to come a pressure point. The last thing the NFL wants — after putting so much behind its brand in the UK — is a good number of us to begin putting pressure on the BBC in terms of what they’re showing and how they’re showing it. This is not the image the NFL wants portrayed in the UK. ”
A BBC spokesperson, via email, reiterated the network’s long-held stance, “is to refer to a sports team by their officially-sanctioned name.” Mindful of the growing controversy, though, the network also left itself wiggle room: “Editorial planning for the game in October has not started.”
Meantime, British journalists have already campaigned against Washington coming to the U.K. to play.
Is this the publicity the NFL wants as they try to build a fan base and eventually put a franchise in London?
LikeLike
Though I agree with the sentiment, it is I think too late for logistical reasons to switch teams. The Redskins should play in their 30’s era throwback which I believe is just a plain burgundy helmet with plain burgundy top and old gold pants. The warmups, jackets, etc. could either be unadorned team colors or just “NFL” .
LikeLike
Or be the Redcoats! as a way of honoring thy colonial father.
LikeLike
The Bengals host two NFC East teams in 2016. Who’s the other one coming to Cincy? Remember, the entire schedule isn’t cemented yet, so that other team could be slipped in.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25492619/more-bowl-games-austin-charleston-interested-as-ncaa-tries-to-fix-broken-system
A look at the broken bowl system as even more new bowls try to get added.
LikeLike
The system isn’t broken if more bowls are trying to get in. That just means they think there’s a lot more money to be made, and there will be plenty of schools willing to play in the new bowls. I expect the rule about minimum wins to be vacated.
LikeLike
The system is broken as more bowls get approved than there can possibly be eligible teams. It also forced a conference game in one bowl. Besides, I’m not the one that termed the system broken. MWC commish Craig Thompson did in the article.
And they know there isn’t money to be made with the bowl itself, but may be in the big picture (tourism money, etc).
As for waiving the eligibility rule:
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby desperately wants to stop new bowl games from being created. “If you have any ideas, I’m all ears,” said Bowlsby, who’s chairing an NCAA working group examining the proliferation of bowls.
It doesn’t sound like they are leaning that way.
LikeLike
You just buck up and make eligibility absolutely final. No exceptions (other than the odd year when losing a CCG makes a 6-6 team 6-7)If there aren’t enough teams eligible then bottom level bowl game(s) doesn’t happen. Are new bowls and broadcasters willing to take that risk?
LikeLike
ccrider, nearly all bowl games are carried by one of the ESPN networks. Tightening eligibility would be biting the hand that feeds college sports.
LikeLike
So you’re saying we have to cede control of CFB to the mothership? We are quite a way down that path…remember that the E in ESPN stands for entertainment (Entertainment and Sports Programing Network), and perhaps not coincidentally comes before sports.
LikeLike
Uh, Bob, it appears one of the new games would be held in the hometown of your conference’s most powerful member. Like to see you try to stop that.
LikeLike
“And they know there isn’t money to be made with the bowl itself, but may be in the big picture (tourism money, etc).”
Well obviously it is the whole package that counts. As long as cities believe that the whole package turns a profit for someone (not necessarily the city government), there will be support for more bowls. In fact, a fairly large number of bowls would have to lose money regularly to stop the expansion. You might recall how many cities have subsidized professional sports stadiums that lose money.
As to eligibility, I can see a system where every Division I school and some lower Division schools goes to a bowl. It will be treated as a treat for the athletes, coaches, faculty and boosters.
These arguments against bowl expansion are a lot like the moaning about letting Rutgers into the B1G. The argument from money trumped all the others. Rutgers appears to be making money for the BTN. And at least Purdue can look forward to beating them.
LikeLike
But someone has to be willing to fund the losses of the bowl each year and taxpayers don’t always want to do it. These new bowls often can’t even average 20,000 people in attendance, and many of those are probably locals meaning very little outside money is being made to offset the bowl’s losses. They also have the problem of no useful conference tie-ins available.
Bowlsby sounds like he wants to draw a line in the sand at 6-6. I think they’d be better off offering bad teams the same number of bowl practices (nobody needs the extra work more) without getting a game. The team can travel for those practices if the school can afford it.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14855388/ncaa-conducting-demands-survey-all-division-athletes
The NCAA is surveying all D-I athletes about the time demands of their sport.
Athletes in every Division I sport will be asked to provide feedback in the survey, distributed Monday by the NCAA. The Power 5 conferences, the NCAA Division I council and the Division I student-athlete advisory committee formulated the survey. Results are due March 21 and will be relayed to the Division I council, which will meet in April.
A “massive legislative package” regarding time demands will be introduced by September, according to Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips, chair of the council. After several months of review, a proposed policy will go to a vote at the NCAA convention in January 2017.
…
Each Division I athletic director has been asked to administer the survey and meet with each team to discuss time demands. Phillips expects up to 100,000 responses in a survey he called the biggest ever regarding a policy affecting Division I athletes. Coaches, faculty representatives and administrators also will be surveyed, but the athletes’ responses will most influence a future proposal.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25496418/study-how-the-big-ten-struggled-recruiting-against-power-5-conferences
The B10 never won more head-to-head recruiting battles than they lost against another P5 conference from 2007-2014.
SEC vs B10 – 62/38
ACC vs B10 – 55/45
P12 vs B10 – 52/48
B12 vs B10 – 50/50
The SEC beat all other conferences by at least 57/43.
Also:
Alabama’s athletic department reported $35 million in media rights revenue for 2014-15, a new category the NCAA requires schools to identify on their annual financial report. To put that in perspective, Clemson — the runner-up to Alabama in college football’s championship game last season — received $15.4 million for media rights.
The NCAA’s new reporting system provides a better glimpse of how much athletic departments now rely on TV money. Media rights accounted for 23 percent of Alabama’s total athletic revenue last year, more than donations (20 percent) and slightly less than ticket sales (25 percent), according to the university’s latest financial report to the NCAA.
To put it another way: If Alabama paid for every athletic scholarship from media rights money, it would still have $14.2 million left.
…
The NCAA’s new media rights category for financial reporting includes all revenue received for radio, television, Internet, digital and e-commerce rights, including the portion of conference distributions tied to media rights. Last year marked the debuts of the College Football Playoff and the SEC Network.
Alabama attributed $20 million of its media rights revenue to football, $7.4 million to men’s basketball and $7.6 million not related to specific teams. Clemson attributed $11.5 million of its media rights revenue to football and $3.8 million to men’s basketball.
LikeLike
However, I’d wager that there were more recruiting battles in the home region of the other conferences than there were in B10 country. Given that, drawing near even/even with the B12 and Pac isn’t bad.
Also, there has been a definite uptick in B10 recruiting since Urban joined OSU, Harbaugh joined UMich, MSU became good, and PSU exited the JoePa and sanctions eras, so I’d be interested to see the split of more recent years vs. the past.
Finally, the quality of recruits is what matters. Average star ratings would be more informative.
LikeLike
Richard,
“However, I’d wager that there were more recruiting battles in the home region of the other conferences than there were in B10 country. Given that, drawing near even/even with the B12 and Pac isn’t bad.”
They discuss that a little in the article as well.
In an expert report for the NCAA, Stiroh wrote that from 2007-14, SEC schools made 15 percent of their offers to in-state recruits and 81 percent of their offers to in-region recruits. Meanwhile, the Big Ten had offers of 9 percent for in-state players and 37 percent to in-region players. The South, of course, produces a larger number of football players with offers.
Also they mention that the number of battles varied considerably.
During the eight-year period Rascher studied, the Big Ten and SEC made offers to more than 1,500 of the same players. … (Mutual losses for both conferences were excluded from the data.)
…
Given its geography, the Pac-12 had by far the least recorded competitions with other Power Five conferences (3,960 instances). Every other Power Five conference had at least 4,700.
“Also, there has been a definite uptick in B10 recruiting since Urban joined OSU, Harbaugh joined UMich, MSU became good, and PSU exited the JoePa and sanctions eras, so I’d be interested to see the split of more recent years vs. the past.”
Agreed, that was pretty much the worst period for the B10.
“Finally, the quality of recruits is what matters. Average star ratings would be more informative.”
Perhaps. I think knowing which schools were competing would be more important. AL beating PU for a recruit in FL is meaningless. Likewise, OSU beating Vandy for a recruit is meaningless.
LikeLike
The Terrapin community wishes to thank Michigan State’s women for its 107-105 triple-OT victory over Ohio State today (a gem of a game), giving Maryland the opportunity to win the B1G title and top seed in next week’s tourney by beating Minnesota at home Sunday (ESPN2, 5 p.m. ET). Never thought this would happen after OSU swept the Terps, but losses at Indiana and MSU provided the opening. I know many of you don’t care for women’s basketball, but it’s become an integral part of the Maryland culture…and College Park should be rocking.
LikeLike
I suppose you’d vote against admitting UConn?
LikeLike
To the B12East? I wouldn’t object, they can have them.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25496607/look-the-most-hated-college-football-team-in-each-of-the-50-states
The updated reddit “most-hated CFB team by state” map is out. They had almost 5000 votes.
Most hated nationally:
1. OSU – 11.4%
2. AL, MI – 9.2%
4. UT – 6.3%
5. UF – 5.9% (but not #1 in any state)
Most states/areas to be #1:
1. OSU (7) – DC, IL, MA, ME, MI, NY, WI
2. AL (6) – AK, CA, LA, SD, TN, VT
3t. MI, Texas (4)
5t. Auburn, BYU, PSU, UW (2)
Flagships that are #1 in their home state:
UNC, UVA, UGA, SC, Ole MIss, AZ, Texas
The northeast is very weird, presumable due to low vote totals in many states:
ME – OSU
NH – Auburn
VT – AL
MA – OSU
RI – Texas
CT – BC
NY – OSU
NJ – PSU
PA – PSU
DE – ND
I assume MI (and some PSU) grads in Boston and NYC explain MA and NY going for OSU.
B10 footprint:
NE – Texas
IA – ISU
MN – WI
WI – OSU
IL – OSU
MI – OSU
IN – MI
OH – MI
The actual reddit post is here:
It has a link to more in-depth voting results including the top 3 in the 15 states with more than 100 voters (AL, FL, GA, SC, TN, VA, PA, OH, MI, IL, NE, OK, TX, CA, WA).
LikeLike
‘Bama is most-hated in NV, not CA (where USC is) and PSU is also most hated in their own state.
A lot of those hated-most-in-own-state flagships make sense. All of them have at least one other P5 school, and in the case of PSU and UGa, I’m sure that Pitt and GTech hate them more than vice versa.
LikeLike
Correct. Writing CA instead of NV was a mistake on my part. I intentionally didn’t include PSU for several reasons but they also fit the list.
I agree that many of them make perfect sense. I just thought it might be an interesting set of data to some people.
LikeLike
?ref_src=twsrctfw
The Combine medal count is official. OSU won (having the most invitees certainly helps), but what really impressed me was Harvard finishing tied for 4th with 1 gold, 4 silvers and 1 bronze. That’s better than any SEC team did. Also, NDSU tied for 6th with Auburn and UW.
LikeLike
The SEC leads the nation (again) in football attendance.
https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/sec-sets-conference-football-attendance-mark
“The Southeastern Conference drew an average of 78,630 fans per home game during the 2015 football season to set an all-time conference attendance record.
It marked the 18th consecutive season in which the SEC led the nation in average football attendance, and the average surpassed the previous record of 77,694 that was set in 2014. The SEC drew more than 7.7 million fans to its games in 2015.
The Big Ten (66,008), Big 12 (57,347) Pac-12 (51,880) and Atlantic Coast (49,033) conferences rounded out the top five conferences in attendance.
The average attendance in all Football Bowl Subdivision games, however, dropped slightly to 43,933 when compared to the average attendance of 44,603 in 2014.”
Top Ten Schools.
1. Michigan 110,168
2. Ohio State 107,244
3. Texas A&M 103,622
4. LSU 102,004
5. Alabama 101,112
6. Tennessee 100,584
7. Penn State 99,799
8. Georgia 92,746
9. Florida 90,065
10. Texas 90,035
LikeLike
Alan,
I think the SEC can safely just lock up that trophy in the basement somewhere because barring mass death penalties in the SEC there is no way anybody will ever top them again. Expansion basically guaranteed that with the B10 shrinking by adding UMD and RU while the SEC got TAMU and MO.
Further expansion is highly unlikely to change it. Even if the B10 added UT and OU we’d still be below 69,000 on average. I don’t foresee any way enough B10 middle tier schools expand stadiums sufficiently to match the SEC. The local interest just isn’t sufficient.
LikeLike
It’s official, NMSU and Idaho are out of the Sun Belt after 2017. Idaho is considering an invitation from the Big Sky for 2018.
LikeLike
Email from Idaho President:
The University of Idaho is analyzing its options for football affiliation following the Sun Belt Conference’s decision today to move forward with a 10-team league after the 2017 football season.
We are disappointed by the Sun Belt’s decision. But we are optimistic about the options before us and we are continuing to diligently consider our future affiliation as an opportunity to find the stability and full participation we have not experienced in the Sun Belt. We will make a decision in the coming months.
This decision comes from the Sun Belt 10 days before its previously announced deadline of March 10, when it said league presidents would vote to determine whether or not to keep UI in the conference. UI made a presentation to the Sun Belt in mid-February, at the conference’s request, to outline UI’s value to the conference.
UI will now evaluate whether to play an independent schedule or accept an invitation from the Big Sky Conference for the fall 2018 season.
The University of Idaho will continue to assess how to provide the best experience for our student-athletes and fans. Football is an important part of the college experience. A strong, stable athletic program complements the university’s great academic programs, enhances the student experience and engages our alumni and fans.
LikeLike
Dave Southorn
@IDS_Southorn
Big Sky invitation to Idaho is through May 4. Staben says decision on 2018 will be made by then.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25501000/idaho-new-mexico-to-be-dropped-from-sun-belt-after-2017-season
And here come some unintended consequences of the new CCG rule. The Sun Belt will drop Idaho and NMSU after the 2017 season and may stage a CCG with just 10 teams.
The NCAA’s deregulation of conference championship games figured into the Sun Belt’s decision according to commissioner Karl Benson. The Sun Belt can now proceed with a league championship game — if it prefers — with 10 teams.
…
“This will bring it to a head …,” Benson said of the championship game decision.
The Sun Belt added football in 2001, taking on New Mexico State, Middle Tennessee State, Louisiana-Monroe and Idaho as football-only members.
Idaho and New Mexico State departed for the WAC in 2005, only to return to the Sun Belt in 2013. During the upheaval of conference realignment, both the Vandals and Aggies played as independents in 2012.
Coastal Carolina joins the Sun Belt as a full member on July 1.
Will Idaho and NMSU go independent or drop to I-AA?
LikeLike
Perhaps the B12 (orACC) will offer…?
LikeLike
The Ivy League is dropping full-contact hitting from all regular season practices. Dartmouth started doing it back in 2010.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25500677/cincinnati-used-firm-with-big-12-ties-to-analyze-chances-of-joining-big-12
A small expansion tidbit. The firm UC got free advice from is run by the wife of Chuck Neinas, former interim B12 commissioner.
Cincinnati is among a number of schools mentioned for possible Big 12 expansion. Brigham Young, Central Florida, Connecticut and Memphis are some others.
BYU is the only independent in that group. School officials have been vocal about their desire to join a conference. The Mormon Church’s BYUtv network, which televises several Cougars sports, could easily be folded into the Big 12’s television package, CBS Sports has learned.
A BYU source said Monday the school is not necessarily concerned with the Neinas-Bohn relationship giving Cincinnati an advantage in expansion.
LikeLike
Jon Wilner on the P12N:
http://intermatwrestle.com/articles/16015
Before we get to all that, however, let’s quickly address an issue that fans have raised on my Twitter feed: The reduced access to men’s basketball games on the Pac-12 Networks.
…
The issue addressed here is significant but limited in scope:
You might have notice that the Pac12Nets are providing more local content over the six regional feeds. No longer does Pac-12/Washington show 99% of the same material as Pac-12/Mountain and Pac-12/Arizona and Pac-12/Bay Area, etc.
…
Regionalized content has been a part of the Pac12Nets’ grand plan since inception; it just took a few years to build the library to make it work.
And in the larger sense, this is a sign of progress … of an improved capability to reach specific audiences with meaningful content.
But it also means that live events — let’s use a Washington-Oregon basketball game as an example — won’t be shown on all six regional feeds. It would be shown only on the Pac-12/Washington/Oregon/National feeds.
That wouldn’t be an issue for Husky or Duck fans living in, say, California. They could simply watch the game on the National feed, which is offered almost everywhere in the footprint.
Almost everywhere.
There is one major carrier within the footprint that does not offer the National feed on basic or sports tier: Cox, on its systems in Southern California and Arizona.
Cox subscribers in those areas only have access to their regional feed. And because of the push to regionalized content, not every game is on every feed.
So some fans now have access to fewer games.
Again, it’s a small percentage. But it’s unfortunate.
That’s just poor negotiation. How do you not get your national feed on everywhere in the footprint?
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/02/23/pac-12-affairs-losing-ground-in-the-revenue-game/
The reports also spurred me to take an updated look at annual revenue for the Pac-12 and its peers. The topic was addressed here in June, and the numbers haven’t changed much … except for the FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN MILLION.
Yes, we track the money here on the Hotline, devoting a few posts each year to the topic.
Why? Because it’s all about the money …
Pac-12 expansion: All about the money.
College Football Playoff: All about the money.
Pac-12 Tier 1 deal with ESPN/Fox: The money.
Pac-12 push into Asia: Money.
Expansion of March Madness to 68 teams: Money.
Pac-12 football championship game: Money.
Pac-12 Friday football games: Money.
Pac-12 Wednesday basketball games: Money.
Pac-12 Networks business model (i.e., full ownership): Money.
…
Because the major conferences work on different timetables, and report their taxes on different schedules, great effort is made here to keep the comparisons at an apples-to-apples level.
The Pac-12, for instance, won’t report its FY15 data until May, and the Ten has yet to sign its a new Tier 1 TV agreement — its version of the deal the Pac-12 signed years ago.
So my numbers for the Pac-12 are approximate; the numbers for the Big Ten aren’t what they will be in two years; and the numbers for the SEC and Big 12 are real.
(Note: The revenue figures listed below don’t include income from multimedia rights, like sponsorships, ads, radio deals, etc., which are generated at the campus level and differ widely.)
Here we go for 2015:
SEC (per tax filings, via USA Today)
Total revenue: $527.4 million
Per school: $31.2 million
Big Ten (per projections)
Total revenue:
Per school: $30.9 million
Big 12 (per tax filings, via CBSSports.com)
Total revenue: $268 million
Per school: $27.3 million (includes $4 million in Tier 3 income; see note below)
Pac-12 (my projections)
Total revenue: $430 million
Per school: 25.1 million
(*** Big 12 note: The Pac-12 and SEC pool TV rights and include all the income in their distributions. The Big 12 does not pool Tier 3 rights like the Longhorn Network — that windfall is not included in the league’s distributions.
(The average payout for the Big 12’s continuing members was $23.3 million without the Tier 3 income. Kansas State’s Tier 3 deal was $4 million, per CBSSports. To make the income consistent with the other leagues, I have added Tier 3 money to the total above.
(KSU’s figure was selected because it seemed like a reasonable midpoint. It’s not nothing, but it’s not Texas or Oklahoma money, either.)
…
The SEC and Big Ten have a substantial lead, and it’s only going to expand — for the Big Ten when its new Tier 1 deal kicks in, for the SEC when the SEC Network fully matures.
Why does it matter?
Because a decided edge in revenue translates to a competitive advantage in all sports in regard to hiring coaches and funding recruiting budgets and building facilities and managing cost-of-attendance and handling any other expenses that surface from the legal challenges facing college sports.
The Pac-12’s biggest problem is no secret: The conference’s TV network is lagging its SEC and B1G counterparts in subscriber base and annual revenue, generating a mere $1 million (approx) per school per year.
And finally:
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/02/24/pac-12-networks-whats-next-as-att-de-emphasizes-u-verse/
As one analyst put it, via Bloomberg: “AT&T is going to actively get out of the U-verse business.”
If you’re a U-verse subscriber who watches the Pac-12 Networks – count me in that group – then the development is cause for, if not concern, then at least curiosity.
If you have a vested interest in the future success of the Pac12Nets — everyone at the conference office and on the campuses — then the development is also cause for, if not concern, then at least curiosity.
I’ve attempted to gain some clarity on the situation. Not surprisingly, there’s a considerable amount of nuance.
We’ll start with the bottom line: The situation isn’t awful for the Pac-12 in the near term, but it’s not good.
Not. Good. At. All.
Critical point: U-verse subscribers need not panic. AT&T isn’t pulling the U-verse plug in a few weeks or months (and maybe not in a few years).
Instead, it’s de-emphasizing U-verse, as one industry source put it, and pushing both current and potential customers to DirecTV.
According to a statement from AT&T:
“To realize the many benefits of our DirecTV acquisition, we are leading our video marketing approach with DirecTV. However, our first priority is to listen to our customers and meet their needs, and if we determine a customer will be better served with the U-verse product, we offer attractive and compelling options.”
…
Obviously, the situation isn’t good for the conference: AT&T is pushing potential subscribers away from a Pac12Nets carrier (U-verse) to a Pac12Nets non-carrier (DTV).
And what of the economic component? Here’s my sense:
There are roughly 12 million subscribers to the Pac12Nets. The U-verse contingent is in the 800,000 – 900,000 range.
If we assume 90 percent of the U-verse subscribers are in-market paying 80 cents per month and 10 percent are out-market paying 25 cents, then U-verse accounts for $8 million (approx) annually for the Pac12Nets.
That’s less than 10 percent of the total annual revenue, but it’s not an insignificant amount for an entity that’s sending just $1 million (approx) back to the campuses.
…
It strikes me that in order for AT&T to lure customers to DTV, it will have to drop the price. After all, AT&T is now seeking subscribers for DTV who have already chosen a different carrier.
Maybe I’m dead wrong, but what better way to compel that pool of consumers to make the switch than by dropping the price?
And if the price of DTV drops for customers, it stands to reason that the potential profit from a DTV carriage deal for the Pac12Nets would also … um … drop.
The carriage the conference desperately needs in order to ramp up income for the campuses might not be as lucrative as everyone had hoped — if it ever happens in the first place.
Again, I’m hardly an expert on such matters, and there could very well be a flaw in the reasoning
LikeLike
With multiple regional and the national channel it makes some sense to have the regional be in the base package. All the folks with little sports interest would be more accepting of a channel that carries more of the schools they are familiar with from local evening/night news broadcasts and local radio shows.
Plus, if you get any, you have streaming access to all of them (and streams provided by the schools themselves). HDMI cable is your friend 😀.
LikeLike
Money matters, but a few million a year? Eh.
Texas mints more money than anyone and look what that’s got them.
Granted, a $50M/year/school B10 TV deal would be a game-changer.
LikeLike
I think Wilner’s point is that it’s $5-6M (20%) now and could grow to $10M+ (40%+) very soon. That’s a huge gap.
LikeLike
Especially to a school like Virginia, if it realizes by 2023 what Maryland previously did: The ACC is the bailiwick of the N.C. “big four,” particularly the nlue meaniies of Chapel Hill and Durham.
LikeLike
Frank like that White on the Illini women — she could contribute to any team in the B1G, including my Terps (who recovered from an awful first quarter to again beat Iowa by 20) — but what’s going on with the UIUC women’s program? Why were there so many roster shakeups? Will the new AD pursue a new coach? That really should be a better program than it is.
LikeLike
There was a whole big to-do about a former assistant – verbal abuse, playing through injuries, racist comments, segregating practices. I wonder if Chatrice White was the old favored guard (face with the name kind of surprised me). Just one of many concerns which led to the firing of Mike Thomas as AD.
LikeLike
I see Wisconsin sacked its women’s coach — once the Lovey Smith hiring is settled down (I can only imagine the reax at Maryland if Anderson had hired him), might the new Illini AD do likewise? It appears several B1G schools make only half-hearted efforts to be competitive in women’s basketball.
LikeLike
B1G wrestling tournament starting in just over an hour. Heading to hotel shuttle.
LikeLike
What’s it like to watch an undersized but supremely talented HWT like Snyder attack non-stop? It’s just so weird to me to see a 26-11 tech fall at HWT.
LikeLike
I saw 195 lb Howard Harris win the NCAA heavy wt 1980 (unlimited at the time – several 350-400 lbers in the bracket). It is proof technique and speed can overcome size. And yes, it is fun to watch! We’ll see how it goes as the competition gets tougher.
LikeLike
Looked real good in semi’s. Now a step up in Michigan’s Coon. Much bigger and lots of international experience too. Jr world medalist at hwt. a couple years ago.
LikeLike
Yeah, 50-20 (and almost all of those 20 are intentional releases after a takedown) in 2 matches. It’s just bizarre to see against reasonably talented opponents at HWT. Coon is certainly a tougher test, but Snyder is the 97kg (215 lb) World Champion for a reason. He can’t afford to get caught by Coon and have to deal with his power, though. Coon wrestled at 120 kg (265 lb) internationally so he’s got a major size and power advantage. I hope both do well at the NCAAs.
LikeLike
Snyder easily handled Coon. A betting guy might put a bit on him to win NCAA’s. Only question now is how he handles those bigger guys that are also very active. Gwiz, Dhesi, and a couple others. From what I saw it’s going to take a big mistake for him to get beat. But my opinion and $5 gets you a coffee.
LikeLike
ESPN Insiders Travis Haney and Adam Rittenburg have been going through their annual exercise of creating content on the CFB website in the time between NSD and Spring drills. Their ranking of most desirable coaching jobs is fairly entertaining, but its behind ESPN’s pay wall.
Here’s the writers’ explanation of how they came up with these rankings:
“We took the following question — If every FBS job in America opened today, which would be the most desirable and least desirable? — and considered several factors to compile the master list. Criteria included location and access to talent, facilities, financial backing, administrative stability, community/booster support, recent and historic performance, and ability to win the league.
We took into account input that coaches, agents, administrators and our ESPN colleagues gave for the initial rankings.
While recognizing the gulf between the Power 5 and Group of 5 — largely financial but also in fan support, historic performance and other areas — there are Group of 5 jobs better than those in the Power 5. It’s why coaches like Tom Herman and Scott Frost, who likely could have gone from Power 5 coordinators to Power 5 head coaches, took jobs at Houston and UCF, respectively.
We identified 12 Group of 5 jobs that are better than at least one Power 5 job. Three G5 jobs rank in the revised top 50, and five others rank in the revised top 65.”
Here’s the P5 rankings by conference, the G5 schools that beat out some P5 schools, and the top ranked G5 school from the rest of the conferences.
SEC: #1 Alabama, #6 Florida, #7 LSU, #9 Georgia, #14 A&M, #15 Auburn, #16 Tennessee, #24 Arkansas, #26 Ole Miss, #31 South Carolina, #36 Miss State, #40 Mizzou, #56 Kentucky & #72 Vandy.
B1G: #2 Ohio State, #12 Michigan, #17 Mich State, #19 Penn State, #23 Wisconsin, #29 Nebraska, #33 Iowa, #49 Maryland, #51 Minnesota, #59 Northwestern, #61 Illinois, #62 Rutgers, #67 Indiana & #73 Purdue.
B-12: #3 Texas, #8 Oklahoma, #22 Baylor, #25 TCU, #30 OK State, #38 West VA, #48 TX Tech, #53 K-State, #76 Iowa State & #77 Kansas.
P-12: #4 USC, #13 Oregon, #18 UCLA, #20 Stanford, #27 Washington, #34 Ariz State, #37 Arizona, #42 Utah, #46 Cal, #57 Ore State, #58 Colorado & #70 Wash State.
ACC: #5 Fla State, #10 Clemson, #21 Miami, #28 VA Tech, #32 Louisville, #35 UNC, #39 NC State, #41 Pitt, #43 GA Tech, #52 Duke, #54 UVA, #66 BC, #69 Syracuse & #75 Wake Forest.
IND: #11 Notre Dame & #55 BYU.
AAC: #44 UCF, #47 Houston, #50 Cincy, #60 USF, #63 Memphis, #65 Memphis & #74 SMU.
MWC: #45 Boise State, #64 Col State & #71 San Diego State
CUSA: #68 Marshall
MAC: #81 No. Illinois
Sunbelt: #89 ULL
LikeLike
Condensed to their top 10:
1. AL
2. OSU
3. UT
4. USC
5. FSU
6. UF
7. LSU
8. OU
9. UGA
10. Clemson
Their methods seem inconsistent. Clemson has only been really good recently, but recent success is the only explanation for putting OSU above UT. MI seems undervalued based on access to recruits when recruiting results show they can still pull top 10 classes pretty easily (Hoke did it, Harbaugh did it). It also seems hard to have 4 SEC teams in the top 10 (including 2 that are locked crossover “rivals”) when ability to win the league is a factor. History shows that UGA hasn’t achieved like a top 10 program.
All that said, this sort of list is impossible to make accurately and their list isn’t bad. I’d swap UT and OSU and probably put LSU a little lower since they face AL and UF every year. I’d consider moving MI up a little.
“B1G: #2 Ohio State, #12 Michigan, #17 Mich State, #19 Penn State, #23 Wisconsin, #29 Nebraska, #33 Iowa, #49 Maryland, #51 Minnesota, #59 Northwestern, #61 Illinois, #62 Rutgers, #67 Indiana & #73 Purdue.”
With PSU coming off of sanctions I’d move them above MSU, but that’s certainly debatable with MSU’s greater success lately.
LikeLike
As I’ve shown before, UGa has accomplished more than UMich in recent decades.
LikeLike
That really depends on how you weigh things.
MI won a national title much more recently than UGA, and UGA is in the conference that won most of the BCS titles. When 5 other conference teams (plus 3 others in the region) have won titles recently and you haven’t, that impacts your standing.
UGA has won 2 SEC titles and lost 3 SECCG since the SEC expanded to 12 in 1992, MI has 2 outright and 3 split B10 titles since PSU joined in 1993 (and that’s a lucky cut off for UGA because MI dominated the B10 in the late 80s and early 90s).
MI is a bigger brand with a broader fan base which is why it can recover so quickly after hiring a competent coach.
LikeLike
Balanced against that brand difference, there are a ton of blue-chippers located close to UGa. UMich is located near a decent amount of talent, but not nearly as much.
And UGa is actually in the easier division.
LikeLike
Too much recency bias. In other words, Ole Miss too high and PSU and Miami too low.
And PSU above MSU. Dantonio doing an awesome job doesn’t mean that PSU doesn’t have more built in advantages.
LikeLike
http://www.fbschedules.com/2016/03/future-byu-notre-dame-football-series-trimmed-one-game/
ND has dropped 3 of their planned 6 games against BYU. The third game of the first 2 for 1 is on hold as BYU waits for ND to find a slot for it. BYU has some contractual protection is ND ends of cancelling that game as well. ND’s move to the ACC is what is preventing them from continuing to play BYU.
LikeLike
Their partial membership in the ACC has ended many of their longest rivalries. It looks like a strategic blunder, all in the name of football “independence.”
LikeLike
The Notre Dame partial ACC membership still looks like a home run to me. They still get to choose opponents for 7 games per year, eliminated late season football scheduling issues, and eliminated all issues with MBB and Olympic sports. The cost: playing 2 more ACC teams per year, and letting the league chose all 5 opponents. If ND had joined the B1G they would only have 3 games to schedule, and due to demands for home dates 2 of those would need to be pay games.
As far as dropping B1G opponents increasing restrictions from the B1G were going to kill those anyway. With the B1G moving to a 9 game schedule and MI/MSU requiring 7 home games there is no room for annual ND games. Requiring all these games to be scheduled before October also does not fit with what ND required.
LikeLike
Mack,
“As far as dropping B1G opponents increasing restrictions from the B1G were going to kill those anyway. With the B1G moving to a 9 game schedule and MI/MSU requiring 7 home games there is no room for annual ND games.”
I don’t buy that. There’s room for one of them to play ND every year. It just needs to be at home when they have 4 home B10 games (odd years) and on the road when they have 5 home B10 games (even years).
“Requiring all these games to be scheduled before October also does not fit with what ND required.”
That’s also no longer true. With the move to 9 games, several B10 games will be forced into September leaving BYEs later. For example, in 2019 MSU has 11/2 open while MI has 11/9 open.
LikeLike
USC, Navy and Purdue were the only long time rivalries. Michigan was more recent. Stanford was more recent-and they are continuing that one along with USC and Navy. It seems like they are strategically preferring to play on the east coast instead of the upper Midwest.
LikeLike
Did USC and Stanford open east coast campuses?
LikeLike
You forgot MSU and Pitt in your list of longtime rivalries.
Games vs ND:
USC – 89
Navy – 87
PU – 83
MSU – 71
Pitt – 67
Army – 50
NW – 46
MI – 36
GT – 35
Stanford – 30
LikeLike
They had already dropped Pitt. They quit playing them every year in the 80s. And Pitt is in the ACC, so they still get them every 3rd year.
I did forget Michigan St. That one had been played for a long time. Northwestern got dropped about the same time as Pitt and when they started playing Michigan and BC.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has a game against the B1G in 11 of the next 12 years. Eight of these are against MSU and Purdue and all are early in the year except for the return game at Northwestern in November (maybe NW was worried about being hung out to dry like BYU).
In effect ND traded the MI game for one against either VT, Clemson, or Louisville; the Purdue game for one against Duke, Wake Forest, or VA; and cut the MSU game to about 50% of the time to allow it to play Purdue or other B1G teams (OSU on schedule 2 years, has rarely played the Irish). It also allows MSU to schedule other teams H&H now that the B1G is going to 9 conference games.
Except for NCSU, ND has some history against the rest of the ACC, so there will be more games against FSU, Miami, and NC and less with Boston College.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-bill-cubit-fired-illinois-football-coach-20160305-story.html
In your U of Illinois being U of Illinois news, the new AD has fired Bill Cubit 2 months after he lost his interim tag and signed a 2-year deal. It’ll cost UofI $985,000 and spring practice is now on hold until a new coach can be found.
In addition, the AD gave MBB coach John Groce the dreaded vote of confidence and promised he’ll coach next season. This as the MBB program misses the tourney for a 3rd straight year (longest drought since 1978-80) and has a losing season (first since 2007-2008).
LikeLike
It looks like it will cost them closer to $1.4M to be rid of Cubit, but more importantly the rumors all say Lovie Smith has agreed to take the job. Most IL fans seem thrilled, but I’m not sure why. Bears and Bucs fans didn’t like Smith and he hasn’t coached in college for 20 years. He should at least be able to make them decent but I don’t know how much beyond that is reasonable to expect.
LikeLike
@Brian – Re: why we are thrilled as Illini fans: Have you seen our realistic options?! We were having a hard time getting interest from coaches with winning records in the MAC, much less winning records in the NFL with a Super Bowl appearance. I don’t know if Lovie Smith is going to work out at Illinois, but I do know that the same small-minded thinking (like extending Bill Cubit in the first place) wasn’t going to work or just result in the same old 4/5/6-win seasons. At the very worst, Lovie is a defensive genius (great enough that it carried Rex Grossman to the Super Bowl at starting QB). This is about as great of a coaching pedigree that we could have possibly expected at Illinois at this juncture. Otherwise, we’d just be looking at the same old G5 retreads (or guys like Lane Kiffin), which is the last thing Illinois needs. We’ve been down that road too many times before.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“Re: why we are thrilled as Illini fans: Have you seen our realistic options?! We were having a hard time getting interest from coaches with winning records in the MAC, much less winning records in the NFL with a Super Bowl appearance.”
I know this off-season was a tough time to hire someone with all the other schools looking, but hiring in the traditional CFB time period would have made more CFB coach options available. By doing this now he almost had to hire an NFL guy or someone out of work. It just seems like an odd choice to eliminate much of the candidate pool via timing of the hire when it didn’t have to be this way. I do understand the counter-argument of not wanting to waste a year under Cubit if you don’t want him going forward, but he just signed a recruiting class and you just dumped a bunch of ACs with no jobs available.
As for Smith’s record, he’s barely a 0.500 coach in the NFL at 89-87 with 5 losing seasons in 11 years. He only made the playoffs once in the 8 seasons after his Super Bowl loss. He’s not a terrible coach, but he wasn’t that good either. On top of that, he’s been away from the college game for 20 years. How well can he recruit? Does he know any college ACs? Having an NFL pedigree helps, but recruiting is a skill.
“I don’t know if Lovie Smith is going to work out at Illinois, but I do know that the same small-minded thinking (like extending Bill Cubit in the first place) wasn’t going to work or just result in the same old 4/5/6-win seasons.”
I don’t think you can blame the interim AD for keeping Cubit. He (and any coach he hired) knew the new AD would want to pick his own coach and there were no can’t-miss options looking at the IL job. Cubit even did a decent job this year considering the mess he was handed.
“This is about as great of a coaching pedigree that we could have possibly expected at Illinois at this juncture.”
I guess it depends on how much you value recent college experience versus NFL and HC experience. Do you expect Smith to want to stay in CFB for a while or will he jump the minute a decent NFL job opens up?
“Otherwise, we’d just be looking at the same old G5 retreads (or guys like Lane Kiffin), which is the last thing Illinois needs. We’ve been down that road too many times before.”
There are always some up and coming ACs you could try or one of the G5 HC stars.
My point isn’t that Smith was a bad hire, just that I don’t see any cause for celebration either.
LikeLike
The Smith hire reminds me of when Minnesota hired Tubby Smith. I think it’s a good hire for Illinois in that they are flat on their back currently and need to create some buzz. I have to imagine the talent in that program is dismal with their recent situation.
Lovie will likely improve recruiting due to his NFL experience similar to Jim Mora JR but don’t think he makes Illinois into a Big Ten West power.
LikeLike
Brian: The new Illinois AD had to do something. Either hire or extend Cubit.
Recruiting for 2017 has already started and many recruits commit the summer after junior year. Keep Cubit as a lame duck and the Illini would be looking at another MAC-level recruiting class.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian: The new Illinois AD had to do something. Either hire or extend Cubit.”
He didn’t have to do anything, but it would’ve been easy enough to extend Cubit 2 more years with a very cheap buyout.
“Recruiting for 2017 has already started and many recruits commit the summer after junior year.”
Recruiting for 2019 has already started. OSU already has 13 verbals for 2017 and IL has 2 for the #48 class so far. They haven’t fallen behind as most schools have 5 or fewer with many having 0.
LikeLike
It’s not the number, but the quality. Again, I don’t see how another MAC-level recruiting class is in their interest.
Also, all coaching contracts I know of are guaranteed with a firing.
So pay him 2 years to get one more year? When you’ve already decided to go in another direction?
Yeah, I wouldn’t do that.
LikeLike
Richard,
“It’s not the number, but the quality.”
Which is why I pointed out they were #48, well above some other schools with 2 verbals.
SC has 3 and is at #52
BC has 3 and is at #57
AR has 2 and is at at #60
WMU has 6 and is at #69
IL is 8th in the B10 right now, ahead of even MSU.
IL has an average of 83.23, which is very close to overall #38 WV got (IL was 81.41 last year).
“Again, I don’t see how another MAC-level recruiting class is in their interest.”
They don’t currently have a MAC-level class. They didn’t last year either, really, topping all but WMU (they basically tied at 81.56 vs 81.41). CMU was the only other MAC team to hit 80. The MAC average was 78.75. IL topped PU last year and are currently ahead of where RU finished last year. They are right behind where IN finished last year.
In other words, they are recruiting like a bad B10 team which is exactly what they are. There is no evidence Cubit would have done worse this year than last year.
“Also, all coaching contracts I know of are guaranteed with a firing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2015/12/05/detailing-new-maryland-football-coach-dj-durkins-contract/
That’s nice, but not all such contracts are. Some only guarantee a percentage of the remaining base pay. DJ Durkin only gets 65% for example.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/terrapins-insider/wp/2015/06/30/randy-edsall-signs-three-year-contract-extension-to-coach-maryland-football/
Other contracts just give a reduced number. Randy Edsall’s extension got him $500k if fired between 1/16/2017 and 1/15/2018 and nothing if fired after that (extension went through the 2019 season).
The point is that there are precedents for giving extensions with low buyouts and IL could have done that.
LikeLike
2 is an insignificant sample size.
And yes, Illinois could have done many things, but for the future growth of the program, the only smart options were either a long-term extension for Cubit (not just 2 years) or canning him to go another direction now. Dragging it out (with another bad B10 recruiting class, even if above most MAC teams) does not strike me as a wise path to take.
LikeLike
Richard,
“2 is an insignificant sample size.”
2 is enough to prove my point, since you claimed that all contracts are fully guaranteed. Feel free to check out every other coaching contract ever if you want to see how many are not fully guaranteed. Besides, I know I looked at about 5 contracts to get those 2.
“And yes, Illinois could have done many things, but for the future growth of the program, the only smart options were either”
Because you have a crystal ball that let’s you know exactly what will happen in the future so you can clearly eliminate all other options. Gotcha.
“a long-term extension for Cubit (not just 2 years)”
The number of years is unimportant to me. It could be 5 if they don’t guarantee too much of the salary. The point is to give him at least 1 full year to prove himself or show that he should be fired. It also puts IL on the normal timetable for hiring a CFB coach.
“or canning him to go another direction now.”
Which always has a decent chance of failing miserably.
LikeLike
@Brian – I don’t know if you quite understand simply how much the Illini football fan base has been beaten down. Sure, it would be great if Illinois could find that up-and-coming young assistant unicorn that can outrecruit Harbaugh and Meyer, but the problems are (a) we don’t know if that unicorn exists and (b) even if that unicorn existed, we don’t know if he’d even give Illinois a second look. We can’t attract coaches that went .500 in the MAC right now, so the fact that we got a coach that was over .500 in the NFL is a coup for Illinois.
I don’t know if Lovie will work, but it was clear that Bill Cubit had zero chance at being a long-term solution. The only reason that he was retained was that there was an interim AD in place at the time that simply couldn’t realistically make a hiring/firing decision. (What coaching candidate worth anything in December would have even considered Illinois with an interim AD?)
Look – I’ve watched virtually every single Bears game that Lovie Smith coached. I’m as much of a Bears fan as I’m an Illinois fan. I certainly had plenty of issues with Lovie’s coaching of the Bears over the years. However, I can separate that Bears experience in my mind and be ecstatic that he is the new Illinois coach.
Bottom line: this is the best coach that Illinois could have reasonably expected to hire… BY FAR. That’s not a guarantee that it will work, but what I know for sure is that the same old conservative philosophy before certainly has proven not to work at all for the past 20 years at Illinois.
LikeLike
Brian: the 2 was in reference to the size of the recruiting class. No one who understands statistics would use average ratings of a class with 2 recruits to make a point.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“@Brian – I don’t know if you quite understand simply how much the Illini football fan base has been beaten down.”
I think I do. I have family that are PU alumni and fans. That has to be in the same ballpark.
“Sure, it would be great if Illinois could find that up-and-coming young assistant unicorn that can outrecruit Harbaugh and Meyer, but the problems are (a) we don’t know if that unicorn exists and (b) even if that unicorn existed, we don’t know if he’d even give Illinois a second look. We can’t attract coaches that went .500 in the MAC right now, so the fact that we got a coach that was over .500 in the NFL is a coup for Illinois.”
You don’t need a unicorn. Someone that can compete with Ferentz, Riley, Claeys and Hazell is all you need and much easier to find. And if IL was ready to spend this kind of money and seriously commit to CFB, a lot more coaches would’ve looked at the IL job last time.
“I don’t know if Lovie will work, but it was clear that Bill Cubit had zero chance at being a long-term solution.”
Clear from a 5-7 season on 5 days notice to be HC and the resulting recruiting class? Cubit would never be anything special, but he might have stabilized IL as a bowl team regularly.
“The only reason that he was retained was that there was an interim AD in place at the time that simply couldn’t realistically make a hiring/firing decision. (What coaching candidate worth anything in December would have even considered Illinois with an interim AD?)”
I’ve said the same before.
“Bottom line: this is the best coach that Illinois could have reasonably expected to hire… BY FAR.”
This is the part I struggle with. If IL was willing to pay $5M per year and another $4M for assistants, I think the available coaching pool is much larger if you just wait until the normal hiring time. IL hasn’t shown that level of commitment to CFB in a long time and candidates would notice that. The previous coaching hires were based on a fraction of that pay and you got what you were willing to pay for.
I’m not claiming Smith is a bad coach or won’t work. Certainly his NFL experience will mean more in IL than anywhere else. But he lacks recent CFB experience and that is a drawback. I think IL might have gained by waiting to see who was available in November-January.
“That’s not a guarantee that it will work, but what I know for sure is that the same old conservative philosophy before certainly has proven not to work at all for the past 20 years at Illinois.”
Whitman made clear this hire was different just by the salary he was offering. I don’t think he also had to use unconventional timing to get a good coach.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Brian: the 2 was in reference to the size of the recruiting class.”
Then you shouldn’t have talked about sample size as that was not a sample. It’s the entire class as of now.
“No one who understands statistics would use average ratings of a class with 2 recruits to make a point.”
When it is the only relevant data, there is no choice but to use it. I didn’t claim it was an accurate predictor of the final class. But it is a solid representation of the current class and a comparison of that class to other current classes is relevant when you claim he was recruiting at a MAC-like level. He didn’t last year and he wasn’t so far this year.
LikeLike
I want to see who the new Illinois basketball coach will be. I assume the AD’s vote of confidence is only good through the end of this season. There should be lots of options for that position.
LikeLike
We’ll see. He said Groce will be there next year. Apparently IL returns most of its roster so next year may be his last chance.
LikeLike
And look – I’m a huge Bears fan that witnessed every moment of the Lovie Smith era. Ultimately, the guy was a good football coach that engendered fierce loyalty in his players. The only coaches with more wins in Bears history are George Halas and Mike Ditka. Like I’ve said – going after the same old pool of college coaches just hasn’t been doing it for Illinois. This program needed a serious change in direction and this is the type of move that could *potentially* do it. We’ll see how it goes, but this is about as excited as I’ve been about Illinois football since we made it to the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
As a Bears’ I never really detected a lot of dislike for Smith (though some would argue the Bears underperformed) but given that the Bears have not had a winning season since firing Smith coming off a 10-6 year I think most fans would agree the Bears made a big mistake getting rid of him.
As an Illini fan I am pretty psyched about this news.
LikeLike
I think Lovie like/dislike tracks closely to Cubs/Sox preference. He will have an easier time in the living rooms of potential recruits in the north suburban areas plus obviously in the south side/burbs. He will get side-eye from old-school CCL, DPV, and Southwest Suburban conference players/families.
LikeLike
An IN fan chimes in on the upcoming B10 tv deal in a 2-part series.
http://www.crimsonquarry.com/2016/2/24/11096606/big-ten-tv-rights-fox-espn-btn
Part 1: Why Big Ten fans might feel reluctant to continue watching games on ESPN after recent programming and marketing decisions in MBB. Will this help push the B10 elsewhere for CFB?
http://www.crimsonquarry.com/2016/2/25/11105490/if-espn-isnt-the-answer-should-the-big-ten-leave-for-fox-sports-in
Part 2: If ESPN isn’t the right answer, what is?
LikeLike
Learfield and IMG have a new competitor-Fox Sports:
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/auburn-football/tigers-ink-deal-with-fox-sports/
Fox Sports signed Auburn for $120 million over 10 years.
LikeLike
CFP acknowledges defeat by NYE celebrations:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2016/03/07/college-football-playoff-shifts-kickoffs-orange-bowl-date/81425522/
Small changes, but seems they have a dose of humility. Starting 1 hour earlier (and on a Saturday) and moving the Orange Bowl totally off NYE day.
LikeLike
It’s not like they had any choice about it being on Saturday. The only concessions they made were starting 1 hour earlier and only playing 2 games on NYE. I think the Orange would’ve been fine either way since 12/31 is a Saturday, but primetime on 12/30 should work.
Starting earlier is fine for a Saturday but what happens when NYE is on a weekday again? A 3pm start is still problematic for many workers.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/25507811/the-big-12-has-to-do-something-soon–or-else-seven-things-to-know
Dennis Dodd of CBS does yet another hit piece on the Big 12. Kind of like reading the NYT on Republican candidates. But you understand where the NYT is coming from. Not sure about Dodd.
Some interesting numbers on the value of football and basketball games. Some wrong numbers on LHN and SEC vs. Big 12 (LHN will make money this year-SEC-Big 12 gap was $6 million last year and that didn’t factor in Big 12 Tier 3 TV revenue).
Notable though is that he is frequently quoting Bob Bowlsby in this “sky is falling” article. Makes it seem that Bowlsby has fully bought into OU president’s belief that the Big 12 must expand.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Dennis Dodd of CBS does yet another hit piece on the Big 12.”
How is it a hit piece? He’s referencing sources and quoting the B12 commissioner. Bowlsby might be wrong, but a journalist has to publish quotes like this from someone like him.
“Some interesting numbers on the value of football and basketball games.”
CFB games worth about $4M each, MBB worth less than $600k each.
“Some wrong numbers on LHN and SEC vs. Big 12”
You keep claiming every number someone puts out there is wrong. Don’t you start to wonder if you’re looking at something different from them?
LHN, to this point, has been a financial failure, losing a total of $48 million, according to the San Antonio Express-News. A source told CBS Sports that the network continues to lose single-digit millions.
“(LHN will make money this year”
According to whom? Dodd claims a source. What’s your basis? And are you sure you aren’t doing different accounting from them?
Bowlsby summed it up this way when asked the financial gap between his league and the SEC, a number that currently stands at about $9 million per year in rights fee revenue.
“If we do nothing, 12 years from now, we’ll be $20 million per school behind the SEC and the Big Ten,” he said.
“-SEC-Big 12 gap was $6 million last year and that didn’t factor in Big 12 Tier 3 TV revenue).”
Multiple people have estimated average Tier 3 numbers for the B12 and they aren’t $6M (more like $3.5-4M). Besides, do you have any evidence to prove Bowlsby wrong?
“Notable though is that he is frequently quoting Bob Bowlsby in this “sky is falling” article.”
It’;s the B12 commish saying things about the future of the B12. Of course he quotes him as much as he can.
LikeLike
This is mostly a Dodd piece. He throws in Bowlsby now and then. He doesn’t make clear what is his opinion and what is Bowlsby.
The LHN will make money according to the very newspaper article that Dodd referred to in his article. The idea that it will “continue to lose 18-20 million” just doesn’t make sense considering how many new providers got signed up in the past year. The LHN was on AT&T, Verizon FIOS and a few smaller ones before. Last year they signed DirectTV, DISH, Charter, Time Warner and a number of others.
As for the numbers this year, the SEC made $31.2 average and the Big 12 $25.2 average. That was in press releases by both conferences and numerous other articles that have been linked on here before. Dodd also in his previous hit article last week had numbers for prior years that not only didn’t agree to previously reported numbers, they didn’t make sense (big ups and downs). He just had a clearly sloppy article with typical lazy sportswriter reporting.
The only numbers I’m saying are wrong are the Dennis Dodd numbers. I’m not posting on here often enough recently to be “claiming every number someone puts out there is wrong.”
That $25.2 million doesn’t include ANY Big 12 Tier III media revenue. So the gap is less than $6 million. If everybody but UT made zero, that would still lower the difference to about Four and a half million. I don’t know what you are arguing there (“and they aren’t $6M (more like $3.5-4M”).
LikeLike
bullet,
“This is mostly a Dodd piece. He throws in Bowlsby now and then. He doesn’t make clear what is his opinion and what is Bowlsby.”
I assume things that aren’t quoted or referred to as coming from a source are Dodd. But it’s reasonable to build an opinion piece based on things people in the know have said. If nothing else, those sourced statements have to be published. The only question is how to package them.
“The LHN will make money according to the very newspaper article that Dodd referred to in his article.”
You mean the article he linked to show that the LHN had lost money in the past? He said a source told him that the LHN would keep losing money.
“The idea that it will “continue to lose 18-20 million” just doesn’t make sense considering how many new providers got signed up in the past year.”
Where are you getting that quoted part from? I didn’t say that and neither did Dodd.
“The only numbers I’m saying are wrong are the Dennis Dodd numbers. I’m not posting on here often enough recently to be “claiming every number someone puts out there is wrong.””
You’ve made a claim against 3 articles in the comments on this post of Frank’s.
1. About Jon Solomon’s numbers
February 17, 2016 at 7:09 pm
2. I posted a follow up the next day from USA Today that also disagreed with your numbers. You didn’t respond to that piece but it agreed with Solomon and not you.
3. This time
As I said before, I get the feeling that the writers are looking at a slightly different number from you rather than being wrong every time.
“That $25.2 million doesn’t include ANY Big 12 Tier III media revenue. So the gap is less than $6 million.”
And both Dodd and Bowlsby know that. And yet Bowlsby said they be $20M behind in 12 years if things didn’t change. Is Tier 3 going to make up that difference for the B12?
LikeLike
Actually Dodd did say the LHN would “continue to lose $18-20 million.” He has updated his article and it no longer says that. Its says “single digit” millions.
Well what I said was significant about the article was Bowlsby’s comments that they would be $20 million behind. That is new here. Tier 3 even with a network isn’t going to make that up for the Big 12. The structure of the Big 12 will not allow them to have a network as profitable as the BTN or SECN even if they were able to add FSU and Clemson.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Actually Dodd did say the LHN would “continue to lose $18-20 million.” He has updated his article and it no longer says that. Its says “single digit” millions.”
I’ll take your word for it. I went back to re-read the article after you wrote that and it was changed already, thus my confusion. I don’t know where he would’ve gotten a number that large either. That would be a worthless source.
“Well what I said was significant about the article was Bowlsby’s comments that they would be $20 million behind. That is new here. Tier 3 even with a network isn’t going to make that up for the Big 12. The structure of the Big 12 will not allow them to have a network as profitable as the BTN or SECN even if they were able to add FSU and Clemson.”
They might not match BTN and SECN, but they could do pretty well if UT was on board. TX is such a huge market that it makes up for IA and WV. Having MBB and baseball as major sports would help, too. No network would make up $20M, though.
LikeLike
Interesting read on ratings by major network (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) and by conference this past year.
http://big12fanatics.com/media-matters-tier-one-analysis/
LikeLike
See the article for the tables and graphs.
One thing that stands out when looking at the numbers, is that out of conference games, while valuable, are nowhere near as valuable as conference games. This is why the Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac 12 have moved to nine conference games; they have more premium inventory to sell. While ABC shows a slightly larger average for out of conference that is due to three big games, two of them in the first two weeks.
Ohio State at Virginia Tech not only had the highest out of conference audience of the year, with 10.5 million viewers, but it was also the only out of conference game to eclipse the 10 million mark. Surprisingly, it was also on ESPN, which is not a Tier One channel. Three out of conference games had an audience around seven million, while the rest were under five million. CBS showed a 28% increase in viewership during conference season while Fox jumped a stunning 41% between the two parts of the regular season.
…
Another aspect that shows up in the numbers is that games are more valuable as the season progresses. While some games stand out early, like Notre Dame at Clemson in Week Six this year, most of the major games occur in the final four weeks of the season. Very few conference games occur in the first few weeks of the season, but those that do have very little relevance to conference championship races as the field has not solidified yet. By the end of the season, as teams are jockeying for final position, be it first or third, interest in the games elevates by nearly two million viewers per game, as indicated by the red trend line in the graph above.
…
The other reason why out of conference games are so difficult to put a lot of value on is they are not consistent. Media contracts only buy home games and intra-conference games can switch back and forth year over year as “home and homes” are played. For instance, USC vs Notre Dame will show up on NBC one year, and the Pac 12’s media deal the next year. Judging the Pac 12 for this yearly ebb and flow over decades for a short term sound bite is poor analysis. Generally speaking, out of conference games are bonuses to the contract, not something heavily valued prior.
LikeLike
http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2016/03/which_state_has_provided_the_m.html
Which states provided the current B10 starters in MBB?
1. IN – 11
2t. OH, MI – 6
4t. IL, TX – 5
6t. IA, VA – 4
8t. PA, WI, NY – 3
11t. MD, MN, NJ, FL, KS, MA – 2
17t. NE, CA, GA, NH, NC, Mali, New Zealand, Romania – 1
Footprint – 45 (64%)
Other – 25 (36%)
This uses the projected starters for the B10 tourney, so OH doesn’t get to count Caris LeVert or Jae’Sean Tate for example.
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
For perspective, here’s a breakdown of the top 383 MBB recruits for 2016 by state (the number after that is the ratio of B10 starters to 2016 recruits from that state):
MI (5) – 1.200
IN (13) – 0.846
IA (5) – 0.800
WI (5) – 0.600
IL (10) – 0.500
MN (4) – 0.500
PA (8) – 0.375
OH (19) – 0.316
MD (8) – 0.250
NJ (13) – 0.154
Footprint – 90
Other – 293
It will take time for the B10 to get more NJ and MD recruits, so that’s not a big deal yet. The big problem seems to be retaining talent from OH and PA while we’re great at keeping MI, IN and IA players.
LikeLike
PA is a struggle because the B1G has the historically weak sauce program in a state that has the Philly Big 5 and a lot of history sending kids to blue blood programs (Pitt also a big factor).
LikeLike
http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Rick-Neuheisel-The-Illinois-change-makes-you-question-the-coaching-profession
Rick Neuheisel on what the IL hire of Lovie Smith in March means for the profession.
Rick Neuheisel says the coaching change at Illinois makes him question if people should get into coaching.
…
“If Illinois thinks this is a way to get better, then have at it,” Neuheisel said on SiriusXM College Sports Nation. “I just think it really is hard to tell your kids to get into the world of coaching. Think about these assistant coaches that signed up to stay with Bill Cubit. They’re gone. There’s a staff there, but that’s not who (Lovie Smith) going to hire. He’s going to move on to guys he’s comfortable with, brand new guys in, all excited, but these guys are out, and they’re out in March, where there’s no jobs.
“I don’t know if the contracts protect them for a year. Some do, some don’t. This is where the coaching profession gets very cruel.”
…
Neuheisel also questioned the hire of Lovie Smith a bit, saying Illinois could have paid less than $3.5 million average annually and noting his lack of recent college experience. Of course, Neuheisel was replaced by an NFL head coach at UCLA in Jim Mora, and Mora has found success, despite a lack of college experience.
“To me, if you’re making moves for the splash, you’ve gotta be real careful,” Neuheisel said. “The splash doesn’t last long. It has to be somebody substantive and gets the job done. Lovie Smith, having not coached in college football since 1995 has a got a lot of work to do. I know he’s up to the task, but I’m going to wait and see.”
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25510456/credit-illinois-football-for-starting-to-spend-money-like-a-contender
As a counterbalance, here’s an article praising IL for finally spending money like a school trying to contend.
What we do know, however, is that for the first time in school history, Whitman and Illinois are making the investment financially that says they want to be a real contender in the Big Ten. We’ll start with the contract Smith received. Over the course of his six-year deal, Lovie Smith will be paid $21 million — $3.5 million per year.
…
When Illinois hired Tim Beckman — the coach Smith is essentially replacing — before the 2012 season, it gave him $9 million over five years ($1.8 million per). Smith will be making nearly twice as much annually.
And then there’s the money Illinois is giving Smith to put together his coaching staff. Smith has been given $4 million to work with on his staff, and he’s already started putting that money to use, reportedly hiring Garrick McGee away from Louisville to be his offensive coordinator and pulling other coaches from NFL jobs to join him in Champaign.
Last year’s Illinois staff under Bill Cubit cost the school $2.011 million, the lowest of the Big Ten schools, per USA Today database (Northwestern and Penn State’s staffs are not included). But while $4 million is a huge step up at Illinois, how does it compare to the rest of the country?
In 2015, there were nine schools in the country that spent $4 million or more on assistants, with LSU leading the way at $5.471 million. Five of the schools in the top nine were SEC schools with Clemson and Florida State joining from the ACC, and Ohio State and Michigan from the Big Ten.
That’s right. The only two schools in the Big Ten that spent more on their assistant coaches last season than Illinois will in 2016 were Ohio State and Michigan.
If that doesn’t send a message to the kind of success Whitman and Illinois are looking to achieve under Smith, I don’t know what does.
More importantly for Illinois, Ohio State and Michigan play in a different division. Among schools in the Big Ten West, where Illinois resides, Nebraska ranked the highest in assistant salaries at $3.45 million. Without having to compete against the big dogs of the Big Ten annually for a division title, dollars spent in the West will go a bit further than they do in the East, and Illinois is obviously trying to take advantage of that.
Maybe the increased AC pay will spur the rest of the West to do more (looking at you, WI).
LikeLike
Wisconsin is never going to be in the top tier in assistant coaching pay. The university and faculty are comprised of far left loons that would prefer to see the athletic department diminish its stature.
LikeLike
@Kevin – To be fair, the leadership and faculty at *every* Big Ten school is going to be extremely liberal. Wisconsin isn’t spending because Barry Alvarez doesn’t want to spend – it has little to do with the faculty (who you’ll find complaining about big-time athletics at nearly every school).
LikeLike
Having served on a B1G faculty for 35 years (and having had season football tickets for 38), the faculty have more influence on athletic spending than you think. Every president, vice president and dean was originally a faculty member (and still is officially), and shares faculty attitudes and prejudices. Football and basketball players will not become paid employees, because the faculties and administrators will not permit it. Kevin is right. Faculties would rather shut down college athletics rather than professionalize it.
LikeLike
Frank’s point, though, is that faculty influence is there as well at other schools with Wisconsin’s revenue who spend more.
Does faculty influence make Wisconsin care more about nonrevenue sports than upping AC salaries?
LikeLike
Kevin,
It seems more like WI is just cheap. It’s the same reason they don’t sponsor baseball despite having a huge athletic budget. I think Alvarez remembers the days of WI struggling financially before he rebuilt the FB program and he’s running in the AD in that mode despite the new financial situation.
LikeLike
Wisconsin sends around $15 million per year back to the academic side. The chancellor recently increased its money grab this year from the AD to deal with budget cuts. Madison is Berkley in the Midwest from a culture standpoint.
Are there some cheap people at the school, sure, but if Barry wanted to pay coaches top dollar he would be fired.
Regarding baseball, Wisconsin could certainly afford to invest but there is little interest. They would have to build a stadium since they don’t currently have one. Likely a $30 million project plus fund the sport annually and an equivalent women’s team. Bud Selig is a UW graduate and avid donor and if he can’t make that happen no one will.
I think Barry and others would rather invest their budget in current sports/facilities rather than spread that money across more sports.
LikeLike
Kevin,
Wisconsin sends around $15 million per year back to the academic side. The chancellor recently increased its money grab this year from the AD to deal with budget cuts. Madison is Berkley in the Midwest from a culture standpoint.
Are there some cheap people at the school, sure, but if Barry wanted to pay coaches top dollar he would be fired.
“Regarding baseball, Wisconsin could certainly afford to invest but there is little interest. They would have to build a stadium since they don’t currently have one. Likely a $30 million project plus fund the sport annually and an equivalent women’s team. Bud Selig is a UW graduate and avid donor and if he can’t make that happen no one will.”
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/hockey/badgers-sports-bringing-back-dormant-baseball-program-unlikely/article_23cd6962-1770-5e32-a622-0c3ff5008789.html
A persistent question for University of Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez over the years has been whether baseball will ever be reinstated at the school.
UW dropped the sport — as well as men’s and women’s fencing and men’s and women’s gymnastics — in 1991 to help address a $2.1 million budget shortfall in the athletic department.
…
Alvarez was the UW football coach when those sports were dropped. He was the full-time AD in 2006 when he said he directed a senior staff member to put together a spreadsheet on how much it would cost to bring baseball back.
The report showed an annual operating budget of $1.5 million and $250,000 for a coaching staff. That didn’t include money for a facility — UW doesn’t have a baseball stadium on campus — or support personnel for academics, administration and sports medicine.
Nor did it include comparable funding for a women’s sport to satisfy Title IX requirements.
…
Alvarez mentioned that he was approached years ago by parties who spoke of possibly endowing scholarships for baseball — the count is 11.7 — to get the sport back up to speed at UW.
…
Alvarez said the $113 million operating budget for UW Athletics in 2015-16 is enough to ensure that all its sports are competitive at the NCAA level.
“You cut into it with two more new sports, and something’s got to give,” he said.
If the question is so persistent, then there is at least some interest. As for cost, PU just built a new baseball stadium for $21M. If donors could be found to build the stadium, the ongoing costs aren’t very high even after including a Title IX sport.
“I think Barry and others would rather invest their budget in current sports/facilities rather than spread that money across more sports.”
Of course they would, but the B10 generally prides itself on broad athletics programs. Not having one of the most prominent sports is a little embarrassing.
LikeLike
Wisconsin just spent $35 million building a state of the art hockey facility for the ladies. There are only 6 schools that sponsor hockey and PSU was totally endowed. Also, there is little interest in baseball in Madison given the timing of the season. You still have snow on the ground in late March and often April.
It’s very rare for schools to bring back sports that were cut at one point. Especially 25 years later.
I think there are very few folks in Madison that are embarrassed they don’t field a baseball team. Baseball is just not a prominent sport in the Big Ten. The schools are really not competitive with our southern neighbors.
LikeLike
“Baseball is just not a prominent sport in the Big Ten.”
Twice as many schools field baseball teams as do hockey.
“The schools are really not competitive with our southern neighbors.”
Things have improved recently, inspite of this attitude.
LikeLike
Did you see how Georgia is spending? Haven’t readily found the article on line yet, but it was in this mornings Atlanta Journal Constitution. UGA now has 37 people on the football support staff (including the 10 coaches) and has 50 listed in their media guide (some help other than just football). Mark Richt added a few in the last couple years and Kirby Smart is copying Nick Saban now that he is there. UGA is spending $5.6 million. It includes a “director of player wellness” making 125k and a “director of player development” making 211.5 k. There is a director of football operations making 180k. All 3 of those have had very large raises in the last couple of years (41k, 136k, 55k).
LikeLike
I wonder if a lot of the inflation in salaries of support staff, ACs and HCs even is pass-through money that is expected to and actually will end up in the hands of athletes and their parent/guardian/finder.
LikeLike
UGA is going to have to spend like that to compete in the SEC. It’s a shame that CFB has gotten to that point but UF and TN are going to do it and AL has been for years, so UGA has to do it to compete.
LikeLike
To be fair, PJ Fleck could not find a more perfect likeness to express his disappointment then Rick Neuheisel.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/14942702/ivy-league-adds-four-team-conference-tournament-2017-automatic-ncaa-tournament-bid
The Ivy League has finally caved and will start having a hoops tourney to decide their NCAA rep. It will be a 4-team tournament and the regular season will be shortened by 1 game to limit the time demands.
LikeLike
And on the realignment front:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/college-gridiron-365/os-aac-commissioner-expects-big-12-expansion-to-be-settled-soon-20160310-story.html
LikeLike
“I think if we lose a school would we add one? In all likelihood we probably would. You don’t want to be 11 in football, but on the other hand you could do it. If we lost two, which would probably be the worst-case scenario … we could stay at 10. With the new legislation, we could easily stay at 10, play a championship game, have 5 team divisions and have an eight-game [conference] schedule. We could do that if we wanted to.”
I believe they have to play a full round robin to stage a CCG with only 10 schools.
He thinks the league is in a much better situation than in years past thanks, in part, to the growth of members like Houston, Memphis, Navy and Temple.
“We changed the narrative enormously this year,” he said. “I’m saying that we’re going to be a strong conference going forward,” he said, adding that while the one thing he doesn’t want to see happen is for the league to add a new member out of haste.
“The one thing we won’t do is dilute our brand.”
Is it possible for the AAC to dilute their CFB brand? They’re brand new and not thought of all that highly in CFB.
LikeLike
With the leveling off of Boise State and less-than-stellar performances of other Mountain West teams and MAC not quite at that level (NIU notwithstanding), there is some truth to the AAC having become the Best of the Rest this past season.
Unfortunately, they will dilute the brand in the short term either way should they expand. A key question is whether they go for “markets” (UMASS, ODU, UNC-Cha, Coastal C, GaState, WKU, even NIU) or for reunification with old CUSA members (USM, Marshall, restored UAB) in a next-man-up way.
LikeLike
Yes, but that was just 1 season. I think they need to keep doing it for several years before that really becomes part of their brand. Navy doesn’t consistently perform at that level and Temple has only recently stopped being terrible. UH should be good under Herman, but what happens when he leaves?
The only reason I wondered about diluting their brand is that I’m not sure they have a brand yet. They formed in 2013 and had major membership changes in 2014. Can you form a brand as a conference in less than 2 years?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14950798/which-conference-best-head-coaches
A roundtable discussion of all things CFB coaching, starting with which conference has the best coaches. All 5 P5 leagues get a mention (which is a good thing, in my opinion).
Basic arguments:
Best top few – B10 (top 3), B12 (top 4), SEC (top 1)
Quality depth – ACC, P12
What do people here think, weighing all coaches equally (1-10 or 12 or 14)?
LikeLike
Not a Boren fan: http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mellinger/article65340322.html
LikeLike
It sounds like a KU fan who got really scared by how unimportant their team turned out to be in the last round of expansion and dreads OU getting upset and leaving the B12 because then UT would also leave and KU would be at risk again (I think the B10 would happily take them as long as KSU isn’t part of the deal).
LikeLike
The problem is there are no good candidates for expansion. The Big 12 is by far the weakest of the P5 academically, and most of the proposed candidates would further weaken it. Memphis? BYU? ECU? Please. UT and KU could not possibly countenance those choices. UConn is somewhat better, but it does nothing to improve Big 12 academics, and it is located somewhere in eastern Europe, maybe the Ukraina.
LikeLike
I don’t think the B12 is all that worried about the academics, but if they are then UC is a decent option (for a league with OkSU, KSU and TT).
LikeLike
But the issue is, Why should academically elite schools like UT and Kansas stay in a conference with the likes of Baylor, TCU and TT? Bringing in more schools like them puts pressure on the academically elite schools to leave. The Big 12 is structurally unstable. If UT and Kansas do leave, is the Big 12 still a P5 conference, or do we now have a G6?
LikeLike
bob sykes,
“But the issue is, Why should academically elite schools like UT and Kansas stay in a conference with the likes of Baylor, TCU and TT?”
I agree it’s an issue, but their history shows they are okay with it. UT was in the SWC with Baylor, UH, SMU, TCU and TT. I don’t recall them threatening to leave over academics. KU was in the Big 8 with OkSU and KSU and seemed happy.
I don’t think they mind a quality private school as much as a bad state school, but overall I think they view the B12 as purely an athletic conference and don’t worry about the academic side as much.
“Bringing in more schools like them puts pressure on the academically elite schools to leave.”
There’s no evidence of that, though. The B10 is the only conference that has talked about that publicly as a major factor in expansion. Boren knows who the candidates are and is clearly still pushing for expansion.
“The Big 12 is structurally unstable.”
Not much more so than the ACC or P12.
“If UT and Kansas do leave, is the Big 12 still a P5 conference, or do we now have a G6?”
Since it would be down to 8, the question is who they backfill with. They could be the weak link of the P5 like the Big East was late in the BCS or they might be the best of the rest.
LikeLike
Brian:
“The B10 is the only conference that has talked about that publicly as a major factor in expansion.”
The mention by Delany of aau being required is the only overt public statement that differentiates B1G from public (non)statements from the PAC regarding membership. “Between the lines” the Pac would have swallowed and accepted OkSU and TT with OU and UT, but apparently not OU and OkSU alone. Not sure if there is similar ACC behavior. Behavior seems more informative than public statements.
““The Big 12 is structurally unstable.”
Not much more so than the ACC or P12.”
The PAC is structurally unsound?
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“The mention by Delany of aau being required is the only overt public statement that differentiates B1G from public (non)statements from the PAC regarding membership. “Between the lines” the Pac would have swallowed and accepted OkSU and TT with OU and UT, but apparently not OU and OkSU alone. Not sure if there is similar ACC behavior. Behavior seems more informative than public statements.”
The B12 formed from teams happy to be in the SWC and Big 8, and added TCU and WV. That behavior tells me academics aren’t a huge concern for them. That was my point. If he was talking about the P12 (and probably the ACC), I’d agree it’s a major issue.
“The PAC is structurally unsound?”
Almost as much as the B12 (which is to say not much at all). The B12 is dependent on UT and OU, but the P12 is almost as dependent on USC and UCLA giving them the LA market. Both are mixes of private and state schools, good academics schools and weak ones. The one huge difference is that geography protects the P12.
My real point is that I don’t agree that the B12 is structurally unsound. Money could tear it apart, but any P5 league is vulnerable to that if the money shifts against them.
LikeLike
Money will follow the population, and population generally located near coasts (Great Lakes providing such in upper Midwest). Texas is the only coast and only growth area in B12, and it is already sufficiently covered.
The Atlantic was seen as a priority for the B1G, and in a contiguous way.
The Pacific is completely covered by the PAC which has one more private than the B1G, and they’re non religious (in spite of USC’s origins) unlike B12.
ACC is totally Atlantic, and with a BB orientation making it less susceptible (not saying impervious) to concerns of those FB centric.
SEC is Atlantic and Gulf Coast, and comfortable/unthreatened enough to have not invited FSU.
The B12 is called the flyover conference for a reason. Dropping an outpost or two in Fla. or New England is unlikely to change regional loyalties and interest.
The only question is what it takes to keep UT in the B12, and whether academic concerns reside in Austin.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Money will follow the population, and population generally located near coasts (Great Lakes providing such in upper Midwest).”
The past doesn’t always predict the future. Outside factors (global warming, labor laws, new boom industries, etc) can have a lot to say about where the money goes. But is can also be as simple as who plays well. The P12 having a really bad decade right before TV negotiations could really hurt them since the networks know they don’t have the same number of diehard fans for CFB.
“The Pacific is completely covered by the PAC which has one more private than the B1G, and they’re non religious (in spite of USC’s origins) unlike B12.”
17% vs 7%. It’s also slightly more important since one of the privates is a linchpin for the conference versus the situation in the B10.
“ACC is totally Atlantic, and with a BB orientation making it less susceptible (not saying impervious) to concerns of those FB centric.”
I think we’ve actually seen the opposite. The CFB/MBB tension is what put them in some jeopardy a few years ago and actually impacted their expansion choices.
“The B12 is called the flyover conference for a reason.”
Most coastal people lump in the old B10 footprint in flyover country. Just saying.
“Dropping an outpost or two in Fla. or New England is unlikely to change regional loyalties and interest.”
I agree 100%.
“The only question is what it takes to keep UT in the B12, and whether academic concerns reside in Austin.”
I disagree that that is the only question. I think you also have to ask what it takes to keep OU in the B12. They are the squeaky wheel at the moment and are valuable enough to be wanted elsewhere unless most of the B12 schools. In fact, I don’t think UT is any risk to leave unless OU goes first.
LikeLike
Where is OU going? Not B1G. Either refused by PAC, or was playing PAC for leverage – not there without UT. ACC? They’re oversized but would probably take OkSU to get OU. SEC ain’t taking OkSU, so unless that’s no longer an issue there’s nowhere to go in power conferences, except maybe ACC (and that’s highly unlikely).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Where is OU going?”
We won’t know until they try.
“Not B1G.”
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on their partner. If OU could bring UT with them, I think the B10 would listen. Others believe OU and KU would be acceptable, but I don’t.
“Either refused by PAC, or was playing PAC for leverage – not there without UT.”
They were locked with OkSU then. What if they were a solo school?
“ACC? They’re oversized but would probably take OkSU to get OU. SEC ain’t taking OkSU, so unless that’s no longer an issue there’s nowhere to go in power conferences, except maybe ACC (and that’s highly unlikely).”
We don’t know if OkSU is a requirement or not. If OU really feels the need to get out of the B12 and the BoR concurs, then maybe OkSU doesn’t have to come along. The P12 feeler was exploratory about a path to improve their situation but OU didn’t seem concerned about staying in the B12. If they don’t like what they hear at the conference meetings about expansion and other things, the attitude at OU may change. Especially if the B10 lands a big TV deal in the near future while SECN revenue keeps climbing.
LikeLike
Brian:
“They were locked with OkSU then.”
Any reason to believe they aren’t still? And by most accounts willingly?
“What if they were a solo school?”
That sounds like ancient astronaut theorists speak. What if OU was suddenly Harvard caliber? AAU? Independent?
You said past doesn’t always predict future. True, but without evidence of changed circumstances the past is the most reliable predictor of future.
LikeLike
crider55,
“Any reason to believe they aren’t still? And by most accounts willingly?
…
You said past doesn’t always predict future. True, but without evidence of changed circumstances the past is the most reliable predictor of future.”
I was thinking this might be considered a different circumstance. Last time OU was fine where they were but was looking into the possibility of upgrading. In that scenario, there’s no justification to leave OkSU behind. This time, Boren is spinning it like the sky is falling for OU in the B12. If he can sell the BoR on that and the fact that nobody else will take OU with OkSU but would take OU alone, then OU might be looking for a solo landing spot. I don’t think he can do it for 2-3 years, when the B10 is on it’s new TV deal and the SECN has ramped up to it’s full potential. Maybe then he could convince the BoR that the money gap is too big for OU to compete. Or maybe OU has never been tied to OkSU at all and can leave them behind at will, and now they have the will.
LikeLike
Brian:
“Last time OU was fine where they were but was looking into the possibility of upgrading.”
No, last time the BoR in fact authorized the exploration of potential change in conference affiliation, and FB coach spoke of potentially no more RRR. And it had momentum up ’til the Pac’s middle of the night statement that they were happy with twelve.
But that’s not the point. Where are they going alone while the B12 is still viable?
B1G? Not ND, so it’s a no.
PAC would take a paired UT/OU, and (offered two more to get them). Why try it solo (with the potential political backlash)?
SEC? They’ve stated in the past: no way. Perhaps that’s changed.
ACC? Why move from a conference with perceived problems to another with some similar ones?
Right now I just don’t see it happening, unless others are moving at the same time creating a situation UT finds unacceptable. But I thought that had already happened…B12 minus 4 AAU (at the time they left) plus a conference gypsy and a BE refugee, and now (?) and (?). Not the neighborhood it was.
LikeLike
The Big 12 and SEC are pretty similar academically. TCU is a very good school, just not a research school. Baylor is also a good school, but also not a major research school.
LikeLike
Yes, I don’t see them being in the B12 as an academic negative. They are different from large state flagships with a research focus but they aren’t bad schools at all.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/14960508/pac-12-announces-policy-banning-student-athlete-transfers-misconduct-history
The P12 has approved a policy banning transfers that are ineligible at a previous school for misconduct from joining teams or getting athletic scholarships.
The policy, announced Saturday by the Pac-12’s presidents and chancellors, prohibits student-athlete transfers from participating in athletics if they are ineligible to re-enroll at any of their previous universities because of misconduct. The policy applies to issues such as assault, harassment and academic fraud but not academic performance unrelated to misconduct.
That makes 2 of the P5 with a similar policy. I expect the others to follow suit quickly and they shuold.
LikeLike
The NCAA wrestling tournament is this weekend at MSG with all matches televised on ESPN3 or better (ESPN will show the finals on Saturday). The B10 will bring 79 wrestlers (out of 330 – 33 at each weight) including 5 of the 10 #1 seeds. NE and RU are sending the maximum 10 wrestlers each. PSU and IA are sending 9. OSU is sending 8 while MI sends 7.
B10 Top 8 Seeds:
125 – 1, 3, 4
133 – 2, 3, 5, 7
141 – 4, 6
149 – 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
157 – 1, 3
165 – 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
174 – 1, 5
184 – 2, 4, 7
197 – 1, 3, 4, 8
285 – 2, 5
National Team Tournament Rankings from InterMat:
1. PSU
4. IA
5. OSU
9. IL
10. MI
11. NE
14. RU
15. WI
16. MN
23t. NW
LikeLike
A few bracket surprises as always. Based on the season it should be a wide open tournament.
Notes:
* Bill Carmody finally made the tourney in his first year at Holy Cross thanks to a hot streak in the conference tournament. This is why tournaments are such a silly way to pick representatives for the NCAA. HC was 5-13 in a weak conference but take a deserving team’s spot.
* Too many mediocre power teams got in at the expense of mid-majors. I’d much rather see regular season conference champs that lost in their tournament (St. Mary’s, Valpo, Monmouth) get those last few slots than a mid-pack power team (Vandy, MI, Syracuse).
* I wish they’d go back to having geographical regions. I think it would add some interest. They already are doing small clusters for the 1st weekend, I’d just expand it to all 16 teams. Yes the seeding would be unfair but it is anyway. It would also reduce lower seeds lucking into home court advantage (#12 Yale vs #5 Baylor in Providence as part of the West region, for example).
LikeLike
Couple things stood out to me:
IU was in the running for a 3, yet fell all the way to a 5, despite winning the B1G by two games. Looks to me like a clear instance of the NCAA trying to force a favored matchup with UK. I thought both should be 4 seeds, making a game between them highly unlikely.
A&M getting a 3 is ludicrous; their resume does not stack up.
MSU should have been a 1, though they still ended up with a nice draw in Chicago as the 2.
Curious as to why Xavier and Villanova weren’t flipped, given that Xavier will now be playing in Philly and Nova in Louisville.
LikeLike
Pac-12 television deal makes it look like the “Conference of Chumps”
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2016/03/canzano_pac-12_television_deal.html
LikeLike
This touches on something I brought up recently. The P12N’s recent switch to purely regional coverage rather than national (except on the national feed) means lots of fans can’t see games out of their market.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2016/03/09/pac-12-basketball-3/
*** There are small distributors throughout the footprint that don’t carry the National feed:
In Washington: Coast, Fairpoint, Hood Canal, R&R Cable and Localtel Communications.
In Salt Lake City: Beehive Broadband, All West Cable, TDS Telecom, Spanish Fork Community and Veracity.
In Oregon: Beavercreek, Yondoo and Clear Creek.
In California: Galva Cable and Consolidated Communications.
In Arizona: Cable America.
Granted, there aren’t a huge number of subscribers with those system. BUT:
.*** There is one very large distributor that doesn’t carry the National feed: The Cox systems in Arizona and Southern California/San Diego.
If you’re a Cox subscriber in Phoenix or Tucson, good luck watching any of the games on the Pac12Nets this week that don’t involve Arizona or Arizona State. (Good thing nobody cares about Pac-12 hoops in Tucson!)
If you’re a Cox subscriber in Southern California/San Diego — and there are only 1.2 million of ’em — good luck watching any of the Pac12Nets games this week that don’t involve USC or UCLA.
(Of course, DirecTV subscribers can’t see any of the eight games on the Pac12Nets this week. For them, the event might as well not exist until the championship game.)
There’s another issue at play with the Pac12Nets, which should serve to further frustrate fans:
Many cable systems inside the league footprint, including the biggest, Comcast, place the National feed on a sports tier (extra $$$) and only show it in Standard Definition.
In other words, the number of fans who …
1) Don’t have access to all the tournament games and/or
2) Will have to pay to get access to all the games (via the National feed on a sports tier) and/or
3) Won’t see most of the games in HD
FWIW, the P12N is trying to convince carriers with the national feed on a sports tier to swap it with the regional feed (national feed moves to the basic package, regional feed goes to sports tier) but carriers haven’t made the change.
LikeLike
http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/03/14/lovie-smith-hired-illinois-recruiting
An article about IL recruiting and whether Smith will improve it. It details the past 10 classes for IL. Cubit’s 2016 class was the 8th best class by 2 metrics (average star rating and national class ranking). It was within 0.15 star of 4 more classes.
LikeLike
http://gridironnow.com/the-conference-tv-network-as-we-know-it-is-dead/
Frank tweeted this link about the future of conference networks.
The conference TV network as we’ve come to know it is dead. When the SEC Network launched August 14, 2014, it closed the door on an era of sports television. Neither the ACC nor the Big 12 will reopen that door.
What I’ve heard from sports TV executives, college athletics administrators, media accounts, my own research and intuition on the subject essentially was confirmed by ACC play-by-play man Wes Durham during a March 9 interview with Louisville Sports Live.
“If the ACC goes forward with a – quote – network, I don’t think it will be as conventional as Channel 611 or 610 on DirectTV where the SEC and Big Ten are,” Durham said. “I think it’s probably going to be in a multi-platform situation; you might see what I’ve heard to be called ‘cross platform branding,’ which is what the ACC Network would be. Any broadcast that has an ACC production behind it would be known as – quote – the ACC Network. (It) might not be called that, but you get my point.”
…
Important to keep in mind during this conversation is that while the SEC and Big Ten networks have proven fabulously successful and lucrative, the Pac-12 network continues to be plagued by problems. Jon Wilner’s Twitter feed remains the go-to destination for reading about all the money the Pac-12 network isn’t making and all the enemies it is.
Instead of trying to be the last of what was, the ACC and Big 12 should focus on being the first of what’s next, whatever that is. Patience, hard as it may be, could be the best course of action, particularly for the ACC.
“ESPN has a clause in their contract that if they do not offer a network by July 1 of 2016, they owe the ACC – reportedly I should say – a clause in the contract that requires ESPN to pay the ACC $45 million a year to be divided among its schools,” Durham told Louisville Sports Live.
I think $3M per school per year for nothing is a pretty good deal for the ACC. When I first heard rumors of this, I thought it was a one time payment. If they can get it annually, more power to them.
LikeLike
Is $3M for no exposure worth it? Not to this Maryland alum who’s laughing at his school’s former conference. The B1G looks better and better each day.
LikeLike
They still get regional exposure for games via Raycom (or someone similar) which is billed as the ACC Network. They just won’t won’t have a dedicated TV channel. Since the alternative looks to be $0 for no exposure, I think the $3M is a good deal.
LikeLike
I think the B1G and PAC should get a big raise for providing nothing new. B12 got a raise providing less a few years back, but I understand live sports is now losing value (sarcasm). See: SECN, and 45M to ACC for nothing new…
LikeLike
The ACC provided a GOR. It was not new content, but a guarantee of continued content.
LikeLike
As much as I take shots at ESPN I’d be remiss in not giving them props for their increased (beyond my wildest expectations a decade ago) coverage of the NCAA wrestling championships. My only beef, and ESPN doesn’t control dates of championship events, is that it seems more than a reasonable assumption that the coverage would enjoy greater following if it didn’t coincide with the opening of March Maddness. 48 BB games this weekend, vs 12 next, and 3 the following.
http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2016/03/ncaa-division-i-wrestling-championships-live-from-madison-square-garden-for-the-first-time/
LikeLike
There might be a thought that, like collegiate hockey, wrestling might be a form of counter-programming. I do wonder if the state of Illinois’ woes in NCAA basketball participation may lead to a drift of some of its fans to collegiate wrestling/hockey over time.
LikeLike
Won’t women’s basketball be counterprogramming, especially beginning next year when Connecticut comes back to earth and there’s a semblance of genuine competition?
LikeLike
I do appreciate their increased coverage, but I’ll be following on trackwrestling.com and using the PSU wrestling live scoreboard as well (http://www.pennstatewrestlingclub.org/content/tournament_team_score.php?id=16&type=team).
After the first round of matches, the B10 has the top 5 spots:
OSU – 16.5
PSU – 16
NE – 13
IA – 11
MI -10 (tied with MO and OkSU)
LikeLike
After 2 rounds, the B10 has 4 of the top 5:
1. PSU – 27.5
2t. OSU, OkSU – 24.0
4. NE – 20.0
5t. IA, MO, VT – 17.5
LikeLike
PSU finally started to pull away in round 3.
Team scores:
1. PSU – 68.5
2. OSU – 54
3. IA – 47
4. OkSU – 45.5
5. MO – 41.5
Semifinalists:
PSU – 5
OSU, IA – 4
OkSU, MO – 3
Overall the B10 has 21 of the 40 semifinalists.
Round of 12 in consolations:
NE, OkSU – 4 (gives them a chance to score a lot of points)
VT, ISU – 3
MI, IL, OU – 2
B10 has 11 of 40.
LikeLike
The third round of wrestlebacks make only minor changes in the standings.
Team scores:
1. PSU – 68.5
2. OSU – 54
3. IA – 48.5
4. OkSU – 46
5. MO – 42.5
Semifinalists:
PSU – 5
OSU, IA – 4
OkSU, MO – 3
Overall the B10 has 21 of the 40 semifinalists.
Consolation 4th rounders:
NE, VT – 6
OkSU, Lehigh – 5
MI, MO, ISU – 3
B10 has 20 of 80.
Semifinals, wrestlebacks round 4 and wrestlebacks round 5 are tonight at 8pm with the semifinals on ESPN.
Early afternoon on Saturday are the wrestleback semifinals followed by 7th, 5th and 3rd place matches. The championships are Saturday night at 8pm on ESPN.
LikeLike
And the PSU domination continues as they’ve already clinched the team title before the finals tonight. That makes it 10 straight titles for the B10 (PSU – 5, IA – 3, MN and OSU – 1)
Team:
1. PSU – 114 (5 finalists left)
2. OkSU – 89.5 (2)
3. IA – 81 (3)
4. VT – 80 (0)
5. OSU – 78 (2)
6. MO – 70.5 (1)
7. Cornell – 59 (2)
Nobody else has multiple finalists.
The B10 has 13 of the 20 finalists, guaranteeing titles at 125, 149, 157, 174 and no title at 141.
LikeLike
This is why I like going to the B1G tournament. 2 day event that displays majority of top wrestlers. It’s cheaper, and easier for elderly uncle to attend. Then we can watch this tournament on TV and computer.
P.S.: Snyder has looked absolutely amazing. Only made a couple small mistakes…but that is compared to being perfect. Don’t think I saw anything GWiz can game plan. He’ll have to just go hard and hope Snyder makes a bigger mistake.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“This is why I like going to the B1G tournament. 2 day event that displays majority of top wrestlers. It’s cheaper, and easier for elderly uncle to attend. Then we can watch this tournament on TV and computer.”
NCAA is in St. Louis in 2017 so it’s not as bad. But yes, I get your point.
“P.S.: Snyder has looked absolutely amazing. Only made a couple small mistakes…but that is compared to being perfect. Don’t think I saw anything GWiz can game plan. He’ll have to just go hard and hope Snyder makes a bigger mistake.”
Those two put on a pretty good match. Snyder could win a couple of more titles if he stays healthy.
Final team scores (All-Americans):
1. PSU – 123 (6)
2. OkSU – 97.5 (6)
3. OSU – 86 (4)
4. VT – 82 (6)
5. IA – 81 (6)
…
8. NE (3)
9t. MI, IL (3)
15. RU (2)
17. MN (2)
23. WI (1)
28. IN (1)
41t. PU
50t. NW
64. UMD
69. MSU
B10 had 31 of 80 All-Americans
Champs:
PSU, OSU, OkSU, Cornell – 2
IL, MO – 1
The B10 had 5 of 10 champions, going 1-4 in finals against other conferences. 3 of those losses were against the #1 seed, though. The only upset loss was #2 over #1 in a close match. The 1 win was also a #2 over #1 upset to balance that out.
Notes:
* This was PSU’s 5th title in 6 years
* This makes 10 straight titles for the B10
* This was IA’s first finish outside the top 4 since 2007
* 2016 in MSG drew the second-highest attendance ever of 110,194 (2015 drew 113,013 to St. Louis). The finals return to St. Louis in 2017.
LikeLike
Frank, with all the expansion talk in the Big 12 are you hearing anything going on for the BIG10? With their tv rights contract coming up, wouldn’t this be the time to grab some ACC schools to get the most money for their new contract. UVA, NC or Duke, GT?
LikeLike
GOR?
Desire to move?
LikeLike
Try prying them away now. Come 2022 or so, they may see the light, but not at this time.
LikeLike
A non OU voice suggests UT potential instigator of future disruption if they don’t fold the LHN.
Gundy:“If Texas doesn’t [fold LHN] in X number of years, they’re going to be in the Pac-12 or SEC,” Gundy said. “If that’s what they want, keep riding this horse.”
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/dennis-dodd/25526149/mike-gundy-texas-network-a-failure-big-12-needs-it-eliminated
LikeLike
Not what UC, UConn, etc. want to here.
Gundy: “I don’t see anyone coming into this league,” Gundy said. “Who you going to get? You need strong football history, tradition, some type of television market. They want schools that have reputation academically. That market is not out there right now.”
LikeLike
here=hear…
LikeLike
I did see where M. Cronin is feeling out the UNLV vacancy, so maybe thats a tell that things aren’t going to come together for the Bearcats’ efforts to join the B12.
LikeLike
He’s greasing the skids for Bornen
LikeLike
…to go where?
LikeLike
Where ever Boren’s end game is. The more people (especially Oklahomans) believe the Big 12 is disadvantaged the more options Boren will have available (including a divorce from OSU) when the time comes.
LikeLike
Why would Gundy want to help OU divorce from OkSU? That tie is OkSU’s lifeline to a P5 conference. No P5 conference besides the B12 wants OkSU.
LikeLike
@Brian –
Why would Gundy want to help OU divorce from OkSU? That tie is OkSU’s lifeline to a P5 conference. No P5 conference besides the B12 wants OkSU.
I don’t think he is intentionally. Its in OSU’s interest to push for a conference network. However, I don’t think Texas is going to give in. Thus, he becomes another voice in the “disadvantaged” chorus. If Boren does want a divorce, the more Oklahomans who think the Big 12 is disadvantaged the better.
LikeLike
More like G reasing the wheel of blame and turning it to the south.
Not that it will get them anywhere. Where could anyone go now?
It’s the picture of OkSt promoting history, markets, and academics that seems disjointed.
LikeLike
At some point, Texas has to get tired of being labeled the villain.
LikeLike
The only place it could go (assuming A&M can veto UT from the SEC, and I do’t think Texas is interested in that conference anyway) is the Pac,bringing in Texas Tech, OU and Okie State as well. Scott is desperate to do anything right now, and the Pac needs help with its channel.
LikeLike
Mike:
Unless UT just really doesn’t care, which I’m leaning toward.
vp19:
Unless the presidents/chancellors dismiss Scott I’d expect the offer to be at best the same as in ’10.
LikeLike
@vp19 – A ND style deal with the ACC is a possibility as well. They can keep the LHN and still play Texas schools.
LikeLike
Mike:
If UT keeps LHN and joins ACC, the ACC is going to give them an all sports ND exception? All other T1 through T3 is bundled all in and equally distributed, isn’t it?
LikeLike
At the end of the piece, Gun dy very specifically said it was nobody’s fault.
“It’s not working right now, in my opinion,” Gundy said. “It’s nobody’s fault. It’s not the Longhorn Network and it’s not Texas. But who’s going to give in, who is going to make it work?”
LikeLike
@cc –
If UT keeps LHN and joins ACC, the ACC is going to give them an all sports ND exception? All other T1 through T3 is bundled all in and equally distributed, isn’t it?
Here’s what I was thinking would happen if Texas took a ND style deal with the ACC. Texas would secure a deal with ESPN for their 7 FB home games. The games with national interest will be on ABC/ESPN, the lesser games would be on the LHN. ESPN would then use their ACC rights (ESPN would probably need to make a deal with Raycom as well) to air MBB/WBB/Baseball on the LHN. The end result is the LHN ends up with more content, and Texas with more money.
LikeLike
Mike:
And what does the ACC get? Doesn’t seem like there would be anything for them, not even $20 left on the bedside table.
LikeLike
@cc –
And what does the ACC get
The same things that they get from ND
LikeLike
ND to the Big Ten (in Hockey?)
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=13451
The flirtation between Notre Dame and the Big Ten conference has been an ongoing issue for years. But the Irish have maintained their independence in football and hooked up with the most attractive suitors in sports such as basketball and hockey.
[snip]
That apparently will change. Word has it that starting in the 2017-18 hockey season, the Irish will make the move to the Big Ten in hockey, using cheaper travel as a primary reason. An announcement should be made in the next few days.
LikeLike
“…using cheaper travel as a primary reason.”
Riiight…
LikeLike
Tim Staudt
Tim Staudt – @timstaudt10
Inside speculation is Arizona State would be the 8th Big Ten hockey school. Stay tuned.
3:00 PM – 22 Mar 2016
1 RETWEET
So much for staying upper mid west for travel cost concerns…
LikeLike
Having to take one trip to Arizona wouldn’t make the Big ten worse for travel than having to travel to New England for every away game in Hockey East.
LikeLike
Facing 1 western team is a lot better than 11 New England teams (Hockey East is in CT, RI, VT, NH and MA x6).
LikeLike
There’s also a school in ME.
LikeLike
I guess the Johns Hopkins lax deal wasn’t a one time only exception to all or nothing membership requirement.
LikeLike
I think they have to consider the option for niche sports. For things where the regular members can easily supply 8 or more teams, then you don’t need affiliates. But the B10 is better off with lacrosse and hockey as B10 sports rather than having teams spread over 2 or 3 other conferences in each sport. 6 teams is just too few for a hockey conference, and obviously 5 was too few to form a lacrosse conference.
LikeLike
Does this mean that it’s unlikely that any Big 10 schools will add hockey in next 5+ years?
LikeLike
Well, that was already unlikely according to most insiders. I don’t think this hinders any efforts to add hockey, though.
LikeLike
Well, I just threw up.
LikeLike
Does that mean you hate hockey?
LikeLike