|
PAC10
Sept 27, 2011 8:30:02 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 27, 2011 8:30:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 4, 2011 10:31:05 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Oct 4, 2011 10:31:05 GMT -5
Two quick items:
First, Missouri's board is meeting today. Missouri MIGHT have an offer (an invitation to submit an application) from the SEC. Everyone is watching.
If Mizzou goes to the SEC as the 14th school, it leaves the Big XII and Big East to scramble.
If Mizzou stays in the Big XII as the 9th school, the SEC and Big XII still have odd numbers, and will need to add a team (or three) sooner than later, and the Big East scrambles.
Schools to watch during this scramble: BYU, Louisville, WVU, Boise St, TCU, and Cincinatti, with perhaps Florida State, Clemson, and NC State if the SEC tries to dig into the ACC.
Second, Notre Dame hockey has a press conference tomorrow, where they expect to announce they will be joining Hockey East (with other catholic schools BC, Merrimack, and Providence, and other national powers like BU, Maine, UNH, and Vermont). Based on this, I think ND feels secure that they won't be forced into a football conference any time soon.
BTW, with The Big Ten Hockey Conference and the Big Ten Network moving towards showing college hockey nationally, there has been a small arms race for college hockey on TV. Hockey East has signed a deal with CBS Sports Network, and Notre Dame has signed a deal with NBC Sports (the new Versus) to show all of their home games. NCHC (North Dakota, Miami, Western Michigan, Denver, etc.) is also working on a deal with NBC Sports, too. Finally, The Big Ten is talking to other networks.
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 4, 2011 11:19:35 GMT -5
Post by harlem on Oct 4, 2011 11:19:35 GMT -5
All I know is that this is all havoc on my gambling spreadsheets.
Would BYU join a bigger conference after admitting they do not want to fund their athletic program enough to compete in the Mountain West?
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 4, 2011 21:29:37 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Oct 4, 2011 21:29:37 GMT -5
Would BYU join a bigger conference after admitting they do not want to fund their athletic program enough to compete in the Mountain West? Yes. BYU probably makes an additional $12-$20M per year due to BCS money and the Big XII TV contracts over Mountain West or Independence. depends on a few factors but it's big. EDITED 10/6/11 to add: Interestingly, Big XII took BYU off their board, not sure why (BYU may have made the decision for them). Big XII invites TCU to effectively replace Texas A&M as the tenth school in the conference. TCU will pay the Big East $5M without playing a single game in the conference. Big XII is now waiting on Mizzou to make a decision. If Mizzou leaves, it sounds like the Big XII will invite one more school to get to 10 - either Louisville or West Virginia. They still may decide to go to 12, but in due time. If Missouri stays in the Big XII (or the SEC does not actually invite them), it would appear that the SEC will target an ACC school as #14. Not sure which one, but it could be FSU, Va Tech, Clemson, or maybe NC State.
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 14, 2011 5:58:49 GMT -5
Post by harlem on Oct 14, 2011 5:58:49 GMT -5
Would BYU join a bigger conference after admitting they do not want to fund their athletic program enough to compete in the Mountain West? Yes. BYU probably makes an additional $12-$20M per year due to BCS money and the Big XII TV contracts over Mountain West or Independence. depends on a few factors but it's big. I think you missed my question. I was curious because BYU made the decision a couple of years to downsize their athletic program, but your post was contrary to the BYU decision.
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 14, 2011 10:27:56 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Oct 14, 2011 10:27:56 GMT -5
Sorry. From what I gather, BYU's non-revenue sports are in a tough spot for a series of reasons. One is that they wont play on Sundays. So that screws with Championship tournaments and meets. The downsizing and sending their to the WCC (with other faith-based schools) is a part of that.
Because of the conservative Faith-based issues of the LDS (specifically, funding the anti-gay legislation in California), they've pissed off the liberal California state schools, especially Stanford, so the Pac 12 will never invite BYU into the conference. That only leaves the Big XII (and I suppose the Big East) as the only realistic BCS conferences they might join. Sending non-rev sports to the Big East is probably a non-starter, but the discussions were about sending all BYU sports to the Big XII. I think it would've been based on the money they would recieve, and to keep the Big XII more consistent in all sports, that they would consider reversing course and do it, even if they were bottom feeders in all sports (except maybe men's basketball right now). However talks broke down, so I don't know where things sit. It is possible that BYU goes to the Big XII as a football-only school, and leaves the non-rev sports in the WCC. But that would only be as Team #11 or Team #12. It won't be as Team #10, which is currently Missouri, unless they leave, where it still looks to be Louisville or WVU. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 17, 2011 5:54:57 GMT -5
Post by harlem on Oct 17, 2011 5:54:57 GMT -5
Of course, now the Mountain West is merging with Conference USA to from a 20+ school conference. Albeit sucky schools, but still... that's a lot of logistics.
|
|
|
PAC10
Oct 17, 2011 13:10:19 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Oct 17, 2011 13:10:19 GMT -5
The MWC/C-USA merger is really a strategic alliance for football only. They will keep their regional rivalries the best that they can, and add a championship game.
There are two big benefits.
First, they get a possibly nationally relevant televised game in December. For example, it might give some press to an undefeated Boise State if they play a 10-2, 24th ranked East Carolina or Houston late in the year.
Another big reason is to offer some protection to each other if one or both are raided by the Big East and/or Big XII. The MWC has 8 teams, but TCU is gone, and Boise and Air Force are about to get Big East invites. If they lose some clubs, they don't have to be in full-out scramble mode to get back to 8 teams, because they still have that "championship game". Conference USA also has a number of teams rumored to be targeted by the Big East or perhaps Big XII, including UCF, SMU, Houston. East Carolina, Memphis and Tulane may get invites down the road if/when Louisville, WVU, Rutgers, and/or UCONN leave. It's 22 teams today, but don't be shocked if that drops to 16 real quick.
|
|
|
PAC10
Dec 1, 2011 12:06:52 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Dec 1, 2011 12:06:52 GMT -5
This is admittedly a scatter-shot post.
Drew Sharp tried to stir things up again recently, essentially saying that the Big Ten will never win another national championship again. Whatever. Not an original thought.
Interestingly, Jim Delaney is moving the Big Ten towards making it more difficult to win a national title... but definitely moving the Big Ten towards making more money and having more power. Essentially making it much more difficult for the Boise State's of the world to complete.
After adding Nebraska and adding a Big Ten Championship Game, and then going to 9 games in 2017 essentially adds 1.5 difficult games each year for a Big Ten champion. (Michigan State, for example, already plays 2 of Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Purdue each year. Now they would play 3.). And, they would likely remove a weaker non-conference opponent (MAC or FCS school).
But for the TV package (first and second tier rights), this is huge. It adds a full week of high quality inventory. And with the creative scheduling (having a couple of conference games in week 4 this year, presumably having a couple in week 3 starting in 2017), they essentially add another week of conference games.
So as far as power, the recent proposal by Delaney to use the BCS only for the National Championship Game is actually a big deal. The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta have been stuck with some clunkers, because they get teams that either don't travel, or don't draw TV ratings. Usually these are the non-AQs (Hawaii, Boise, Houston), or Big East or sometimes ACC. But now the Orange or Sugar or Fiesta might be willing to dump those teams that are forced on them, and to take an alternative from the Big Ten.
This year, if the Bowls could take whoever they wanted, Michigan and Nebraska would both be getting BCS-bowl bids. Michigan still looks likely, but what's more appealing to the Bowls and to the TV audience:
Orange: Va Tech v West Virginia Sugar: Michigan v Houston Fiesta: Oklahoma St v Stanford
or, through some horse-trading:
Orange: Nebraska v Oklahoma Sugar: Oklahoma St v Va Tech Fiesta: Michigan v Stanford
And technically, Stanford will get an auto-bid by being #4 in the BCS standings, not by winning their league. They are notorious for not traveling well.
So let's say that MSU beats Wisconsin (who generally travels better than MSU). If Stanford's auto bid is removed, the replacement would likely come down to Wisconsin or Arkansas.
Orange: Nebraska v Oklahoma Sugar: Va Tech v Michigan Fiesta: Oklahoma St v Wisconsin
The point to all this.... Suddenly the Big Ten has 3 or 4 teams playing in the 5 BCS games (albeit, not in the title game). More power, access, and revenue... and the non-AQ's are completely and forever shut out of the Rose Bowl, and now it's much more difficult to get into a "BCS" bowl, which is now a mis-nomer.
Texas, Oklahoma, Va Tech, USC, and Oregon (and maybe Miami/FSU) are absolutely better bets to make the title game, because of easier conference schedules. But very few other schools from those conferences would likely see an at-large BCS bowl bid, when the top 5 programs from the Big Ten or SEC are available.
A few other things:
The Big Ten TV money is being reinvested into the programs.
Northwestern is putting together plans for an impressive football complex (Fitzgerald wants it on the shores of Lake Michigan). For that pool of national players that look at playing at Northwestern, Duke, Wake, Stanford, Rice... this will set them apart. Other schools are adding to their stadiums and practice facilities, etc.
Michigan is paying Greg Mattison ~$1M as an assistant. Urban Meyer and OSU are keeping Luke Fickell on staff as an assistant at his interim head coaching salary ~$775,000. These schools will be able to attract and keep top assistants, and pay them more than they would recieve as a position coach in the NFL; or in some cases, pay the assistants more than a head coach at a non-BCS school.
Finally, of good news to the Big Ten, is that the handling of scholarships and numbers in the SEC is changing.
The SEC will cap the number of players signed to a class. And, they will They liked to "over-sign" players, and then find ways to creatively kick players off the team if they weren't contributing.
Also, there is a law-suit going on to allow for four-year scholarships, not just a "renewable" scholarship, as currently exists. This would be another way that the SEC cannot kick a kid off the team if he isn't performing.
Currently and historically, the Big Ten has honored scholarship offers and honored them for four years, which has of course led to having more upper classmen that don't contribute.
|
|
|
PAC10
Dec 5, 2011 10:47:24 GMT -5
Post by theforty on Dec 5, 2011 10:47:24 GMT -5
The problem with Draw Sharp's argument is the SEC has a championship game and often has difficult schedules, but are turning out national champion candidates just about every year.
The Big Ten isn't winning national championships because the programs aren't national championship caliber, by and large.
Besides, it ain't like the Big 10 were producing national championships regularly since 1980 anyway.
|
|
|
PAC10
Dec 5, 2011 13:46:14 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Dec 5, 2011 13:46:14 GMT -5
... and on that note, the rumor is that Jim Delaney gave Boise State and the non-AQs a nice fat double middle finger by lobbying the Sugar Bowl to skip over Boise State (the highest ranked at large team available to the BCS at #7) for the #11 (and third highest ranked at large team) Virginia Tech. Va Tech will bring more fans to the game than Kansas State or Boise State, but Boise-Michigan may have been the more intriguing game on TV.
I completely give the SEC for having more national-contender programs recently. But it is worth repeating that they have been stacking the deck with regards to scholarship players. That will be changing. Additionally, the cash-cow Big Ten programs are going to have some of their own advantages over all but the biggest programs out there. Northwestern, for example, is going to have a massively greater budget than comparable private school programs like Wake Forest, Duke, BC, Rice, TCU, etc...
My one gripe as a Big Ten fan: Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska are all playing at essentially the same time on Jan 2. I would be interested in at least checking out the start of each game, if not watch the whole thing, for various reasons. But it's not really possible to see more than one game in full. Can't we move the Capital One Bowl to Dec 31 or January 3 or January 6?
|
|
|
PAC10
Jan 11, 2012 7:38:04 GMT -5
Post by harlem on Jan 11, 2012 7:38:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
PAC10
Jan 11, 2012 9:47:21 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Jan 11, 2012 9:47:21 GMT -5
I'm guessing that with the urgency to get an update to the BCS this offseason, that it will slow down the realignment; or at least, that the game of musical chairs at the top will end.
I have no idea what will happen, but my guess is a "Plus One" is the most likely. It won't be an 8 team or a 16 team Playoff. Delaney will keep it slow, and this would allow the Rose Bowl to keep it's place as the #2 bowl behind the National Championship game.
|
|
|
PAC10
Feb 29, 2012 15:04:02 GMT -5
Post by Cliff's Notes on Feb 29, 2012 15:04:02 GMT -5
An interesting release from Nielsen's, regarding TV viewership of sports: www.slideshare.net/ceobroadband/state-of-the-media-2011-year-in-sports-11339432A couple of things relating to college sports: First, Last year the NCAA Men's basketball tournament added a few games and moved away from only CBS into CBS/TBS/Tru, allowing more games to be seen on TV. Ad Revenue jumped from $757.8M to $1.0407B - An increase of 37%! Meanwhile, Bowl Advertising actually dropped from $373.1M to $182.5M, or a decrease of just over 50%! (This is for 2010-11, so the Auburn-Oregon National Championship, not the more recent Alabama-LSU game). I'm not sure why it dropped so much, but I'm going to guess a couple of things. It's basically the same die-hards nationally watching every bowl game between Dec 21 and December 30, and too many of these are mediocre/bad teams. Therefore, you aren't getting any additional advertising penetration. This (combined with lackluster ticket sales) likely explain why the NCAA is no longer allowing 6-6 teams to go to bowls, which will eliminate a few. [edit to add: Also, the bowl season stretching too long after Jan 1. Combined with the major suckitute of one or two BCS bowls, usually the Orange Bowl, that is stuck with the Big East and/or a non-AQ team, which the #2 and #3 Big Ten and SEC teams have more interest but are playing on the afternoon of Jan 1 with too much competition]. The advent of the playoffs is here because of what happened with the NCAA Basketball tourney, and then the revenue drop in football. Playoffs are coming, and they are coming fast. However you want to look at it; whether it's adding the "Plus-One", or it's just adding the two national semi-finals, these extra playoff games, and the added significance of these games should jump start the ratings and ads. It remains to be seen how the "leftover" BCS bowls fare, though... And if this works out financially, and the revenue stays with the power conferences, then I wouldn't be surprised to see the playoffs expand to 8 teams. A few other non-NCAA specific items I found interesting. 95% of all soccer advertising $ in the USA is on Spanish-Language television. Of the 10 biggest advertisers in sports, none are Automotive. Wireless (3), Insurance (2), and beer (2), rounded out by Direct TV, McDonalds, and Southwest Airlines (which is a mid-major airline). I don't understand it, but they list "Most Popular U.S. NHL Team by BuzzMentions", which I believe relates to social media. And the Red Wings rank 16th out of 24. I find that odd on many levels. A super large fanbase, especially of folks that have left the state, who you would think need to use facebook and the internet to follow their team. Wings always have the largest road attendance int he NHL, and I don't think our fanbase skews old... so this seems odd.
|
|