Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The WV message boards are on fire this morning. They feel like they got sold a bill of goods and are now stuck on an island until UT decides to do something. They'll have options once something happens, but they're at UT's whim until then.

The WVU message boards are always up in arms about something -- I wouldn't say that they are very representative of the fan base.

I think most WVU fans would rather be in the ACC or Big Ten, but recognize that the Big East was a sinking ship and that the Big 12 threw us a lifesaver.

As mentioned above, the wine and cheese crowd in the ACC had passed us over several times (from the birth of the ACC conference to passing us up in favor of Syracuse last time around) and it was not until after we joined the Big 12 that the more football-centric schools in the conference flexed some muscle and gained leverage that we would have ever been considered (see Louisville getting in over UConn).

Ideally, we would like to have regional partners in the B12, but it appears that the Big 12 is working on a scheduling agreement with the ACC that will allow us to play more regional games (particularly in non-revenue sports). But we still appreciate that we will be making between $20-30M in TV revenue per season and maintain a seat at the big boy table. Having Texas or Oklahoma at home each year gives us a marquee match up, which is something we didn't have in the old Big East (since Miami left).

Overall, I think the ACC GOR is a good thing for college football, as it keeps the Big Ten out of the Southeast and prevents more knee-jerk/reactionary expansion (18 and 20-team conferences had been mentioned). I will not be surprised to hear that the SEC and Big 12 were supportive of the ACC's GOR.

The SEC, in particular, is the big winner here. They get to keep the Big Ten from coming any further south past Maryland, the ACC remains intact as a lower earning buffer zone for them, and they got to dip their toe in Texas while keeping the Big 12 out of the southeast. Notre Dame is obviously the other big winner -- they continue to avoid football affiliation and get to play in an elite all sports conference (and basketball with Duke, UNC, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, etc.) that puts them in a number of important markets.

[Buccaneer]

What did you mean by 'dip their toe in Texas'?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What did you mean by 'dip their toe in Texas'?

Texas A&M in the SEC.

[Buccaneer]

Sorry, I read that as ACC dipping their toes.

[RendeR]

Am I the only one that believes there should be no more than 12 teams in any conference?

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Am I the only one that believes there should be no more than 12 teams in any conference?

How about 10? Gives you a round robin in football and a double round robin in basketball...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wow. Big coup for the SEC. New playoff format will have no limit on how many teams can come from a single conference. Can't see this as a good thing for smaller schools.

[SirFozzie]

Ah, I confused the playoff with the 12 team "major bowl schedule"

That looks to have I think what, six? Seven guaranteed spots?

Big 10
Big 12
SEC
ACC
PAC 12

(Gang of Five): Best ranked from AAC, MWC, CUSA. MAC, Sun Belt

And six at-large teams.. out of which the four College Football Playoff Teams will be selected, right?

[Logan]

If you're going to have a playoff, the only disqualifier should be sheer number of teams. If you're the 5th best team, and there's 4 slots, you're out. To call yourself a playoff and have the 3rd best team out because two of its conference-mates are already in, allowing the 5th best to slide in, defeats the whole purpose.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by Logan

If you're going to have a playoff, the only disqualifier should be sheer number of teams. If you're the 5th best team, and there's 4 slots, you're out. To call yourself a playoff and have the 3rd best team out because two of its conference-mates are already in, allowing the 5th best to slide in, defeats the whole purpose.

I think that's arguable. If a team plays a full conference schedule and isn't in the top 2 of the conference, how do we know they are "really" better than the 4th or 5th overall team - given the 4th or 5th team played different conference schedules? I think an argument can be made that if you are 3rd in your own conference you've had your chance to beat the top two and didn't so someone else should get the chance.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Logan

If you're going to have a playoff, the only disqualifier should be sheer number of teams. If you're the 5th best team, and there's 4 slots, you're out. To call yourself a playoff and have the 3rd best team out because two of its conference-mates are already in, allowing the 5th best to slide in, defeats the whole purpose.

Doesn't the NFL violate this by letting in division winners with poor records over teams in a different division with higher records? But no one seems to have a problem with that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Breeze

I think that's arguable. If a team plays a full conference schedule and isn't in the top 2 of the conference, how do we know they are "really" better than the 4th or 5th overall team - given the 4th or 5th team played different conference schedules? I think an argument can be made that if you are 3rd in your own conference you've had your chance to beat the top two and didn't so someone else should get the chance.

But that's the point of the committee, to decide whether that 3rd team is really better than a 1st place team from somewhere else, maybe they are some years, and maybe they're not. Conferences are getting so big that we could have a situation soon, if we're not there already, where an undefeated team loses a tiebreaker and doesn't play in its conference championship game. Obviously we've already had the situation where one "good" loss can knock you out of a conference championship game. Should that team be automatically be dq'd from consideration, even if they have a ton of good wins and there's no undefeated teams, and no other 1-loss teams?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Breeze

I think that's arguable. If a team plays a full conference schedule and isn't in the top 2 of the conference, how do we know they are "really" better than the 4th or 5th overall team - given the 4th or 5th team played different conference schedules? I think an argument can be made that if you are 3rd in your own conference you've had your chance to beat the top two and didn't so someone else should get the chance.

Hooray! Beauty pageants still decide who is in to this laughably small "playoff".

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Doesn't the NFL violate this by letting in division winners with poor records over teams in a different division with higher records? But no one seems to have a problem with that.

NFL divisions aren't the same as college conferences for a bunch of reasons. It's the NFL as a whole, and not the teams individually, that determine what division teams are in. The AFC East can't get a new big TV contract and steal teams from other divisions. As a result, the NFL divisions are roughly equal in quality over a period of time. So comparing the SEC to CUSA is not at all the same as comparing the AFC North to the AFC East. That's why I always hated the idea of having some kind of automatic qualification for BCS or tournament spots based just on winning your conference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Ah, I confused the playoff with the 12 team "major bowl schedule"

That looks to have I think what, six? Seven guaranteed spots?

Big 10
Big 12
SEC
ACC
PAC 12

(Gang of Five): Best ranked from AAC, MWC, CUSA. MAC, Sun Belt

And six at-large teams.. out of which the four College Football Playoff Teams will be selected, right?

I don't think that's exactly it.

Best I can tell (paraphrasing from several articles, including this one )

1) The semi-finalists/top 4 teams are chosen by the committee & seeded. Those teams are assigned to one of the two semi-final bowls

1 vs 4 and 2 v 3 ... with bowl assignments being made with an eye toward avoiding any geographical advantage to the lower seed (i.e. a #4 LSU won't be going into the Sugar Bowl)

2) The remaining 4 bowls will then get any contracted teams that aren't semifinalists.

When the Rose Bowl does not host a semifinal it will always be Big Ten vs. Pac-12. The Sugar Bowl in years it does not host a semifinal will always be Southeastern Conference vs. Big 12. The Orange Bowl in the years it does not host a semifinal will always be Atlantic Coast Conference vs. either an SEC team, a Big Ten team or Notre Dame.

3) Any "displaced champions" will be put into one of the 3 remaining bowls (Cotton, Fiesta, Peach)

4) The remaining slots in those 3 bowls will be filled by the highest-ranked "Group of Five" champion and as many at-large teams as needed.



In 2014, the semifinals are Rose & Sugar. Using the final BCS rankings (pre-bowl) last year as a hypothetical for those games presents an interesting question right off the bat

Q1: Would it have been #1 Notre Dame vs #4 Oregon in the Rose and #2 Alabama vs #3 Florida in the Sugar (giving the Rose a Pac team, even thought that doesn't seem to be technically required during semi-final years) ... OR would they have flipped the bowl/team pairings in order to avoid an sorta home field advantage for the lower seed (by sending ND halfway across the country to play Oregon in their own time zone)?

Either way, using those BCS ratings as the basis for a hypothetical, you would then get something like this ...
Teams in ranked order that might be considered with guaranteed teams in bold
K-State (displaced champ), Stanford (at-large), UGA (at-large), LSU (at-large), Texas A&M (at-large), South Carolina (at-large), Oklahoma (at-large), FSU (contract), Oregon State (at-large), Clemson (at-large), NIU (Gang of 5), Nebraska (displaced champ)

Then making bowl assignments with an eye toward marquee matchups andgeography.
repaired from originally posted screwup

Orange: FSU (by contract) vs UGA (by contract, highest SEC/B10/ND available plus geography)
Fiesta: Stanford (by geography) vs Nebraska (displaced champ)
Cotton: K-State (by geography) vs Texas A&M (at-large, by geography)
Peach: LSU (by geography) vs NIU (Gang of 5)

So the 6 bowls total would have had
5 SEC
2 Pac 12
1 Big 12
1 Big 10
1 ACC
1 Gang of 5
1 Notre Dame

edit to add: I screwed up the first time -- left out Nebraska & have now corrected that

edit to add #2: I used the highest ranked B10 as "champ" rather than actual champ Wisconsin

[Kodos]

I think the rule should be you have to win your conference championship game to get into the playoff. Nice and simple.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think the rule should be you have to win your conference championship game to get into the playoff. Nice and simple.

Except for the complicating part where no one involved in the decision agreed to that rule.

[Kodos]

I'm just going for my ideal setup. Which those in power couldn't care less about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One of the problems that this new system creates is the committee's need to create "compelling matchups" (not sure if that phrase would be in their final charge but it's frequently mentioned in the articles about the non-semifinal bowls)

The reality is that there's no "compelling matchup" for a lot of the Gang of 5 options (like NIU in this hypothetical scenario). One of the bowls is going to get stuck with a dud no matter what happens.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Was just playing with the hypotheticals some more here. Let's suppose that the selection committee, being coach/AD types most likely, went away from the oh-so-hated complex formula of the BCS and looked like the coaches poll (pre-bowl) instead of the BCS rankings I used earlier. What then?

Semifinals
#1 Notre Dame vs #4 Florida
#2 Alabama vs #3 Oregon

The candidates for the rest
UGA (at-large), K-State (displaced champ), LSU (at-large), Stanford (at-large), Texas A&M (at-large), South Carolina (at-large), Oklahoma (at-large), FSU (contract), Clemson (at-large), Oregon State (at-large), Boise State (Gang of 5), NIU (at-large, since G5 spot is taken), Northwestern (displaced champ),

Orange: FSU(contract) vs UGA (highest SEC/B10/ND)
Fiesta: Stanford (at-large) vs Boise St (Go5 auto-bid/geography)
Cotton: K-State (displaced champ) vs Texas A&M (geography)
Peach: LSU (at-large) vs Northwestern (displaced champ)

The mix is stil 5 SEC, 2 Pac 12, 1 each B12/ACC/B10/Gang5/ND

edit to add: Marginally better than the first set of hypothetical pairings I suppose. Swapping Boise & Northwestern for Nebraska & NIU basically.

Edit to add #2: I used the highest ranked B10 as "champ" rather than actual champ Wisconsin

[JonInMiddleGA]

And taking this crap one step further, what about the other semifinal bowl pairings? Would that have made a big difference?

edit ... screw it, I see that some wiseass at EPSN.com has already done those too

Year Two pairings
Semifinals at Orange, Cotton bowls
No. 1. Notre Dame vs. No. 4 Oregon (I figure Orange by default)
No. 2. Alabama vs. No. 3 Florida (I figure Cotton to avoid #3 at "home")

Rose Bowl
No. 6 Stanford (Pac-12 champ) vs. No. 26 Wisconsin (Big Ten champ)
Sugar Bowl
No. 5 Kansas State (Big 12 champ) vs. No. 7 Georgia (highest-rated SEC team)
Fiesta, Peach bowls
Selection committee pairs the following four teams to the bowls based on geography and other factors:
No. 12 Florida State (ACC champ) (guessing Peach on geography)
No. 15 Northern Illinois (Group of Five highest-rated champ) (guess Fiesta by default)
No. 8 LSU (at-large) (guess Peach on geography/avoiding SEC v SEC bowl game)
No. 9 Texas A&M (at-large) (guessing Fiesta on geography/avoiding SEC v SEC bowl game)
-------------------
Year 3
Semifinals at Fiesta, Peach bowls
No. 1. Notre Dame vs. No. 4 Oregon (I'd think Fiesta by default)
No. 2. Alabama vs. No. 3 Florida (I'd think Peach for geography)
Rose Bowl
No. 6 Stanford (Pac-12 champ) vs. No. 26 Wisconsin (Big Ten champ)
Sugar Bowl
No. 5 Kansas State (Big 12 champ) vs. No. 7 Georgia (highest-rated SEC team)
Orange Bowl
No. 12 Florida State (ACC champ) vs. No. 8 LSU (highest-ranked available team from SEC/Big 10/Notre Dame)
Cotton Bowl
No. 15 Northern Illinois (Group of Five highest-rated champ) vs. No. 9 Texas A&M (at-large)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I think the rule should be you have to win your conference championship game to get into the playoff. Nice and simple.

Just for shits & giggles, I wondered what that would have done to the matchups
(I'll revert to the final BCS poll here, just to stay consistent with the ESPN projected pairings I just posted)

#1 Notre Dame vs #4 Stanford
#2 Alabama vs #3 K-State

The rest of the Year 1 bowls then end up being something like
Orange: FSU (contract) vs Florida (highest rated SEC/B10/ND)
Cotton: Wisconsin (displaced champ) vs Georgia (at large)
Fiesta: Oregon (geography at large) vs Texas A&M (at-large)
Peach: LSU (geography) vs NIU (at-large)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by molson

NFL divisions aren't the same as college conferences for a bunch of reasons. It's the NFL as a whole, and not the teams individually, that determine what division teams are in. The AFC East can't get a new big TV contract and steal teams from other divisions. As a result, the NFL divisions are roughly equal in quality over a period of time. So comparing the SEC to CUSA is not at all the same as comparing the AFC North to the AFC East. That's why I always hated the idea of having some kind of automatic qualification for BCS or tournament spots based just on winning your conference.

Not to mention that you can mathematically resolve a 7th(?) tie-breaker before it becomes a coin toss. In college football, you would be lucky to get beyond the 1st or 2nd tie-breaker. It has to be subjective to a significant degree because of the apples-oranges comparisons.

[cartman]

The Big Ten approves the discussed realignment and renaming plans.

Big Ten schools OK realignment, 9-game schedule - ESPN

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Big Ten approves the discussed realignment and renaming plans.

Big Ten schools OK realignment, 9-game schedule - ESPN

Best sane way to do it although sacrificing balance at least in football.

[tarcone]

Rust Belt Division

Corn Belt Division

[Kodos]

This alignment makes sense, although it makes things harder for Indiana in football.

[RedKingGold]

Slow Division

Slower Division

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Slow Division

Slower Division

Boring Division
and
Snooze Division?

[RedKingGold]

Constipated Division

Cataract Division

[mauchow]

So it definitely sets up well for Wisconsin's continued success of getting to B1G Title Game.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by mauchow

So it definitely sets up well for Wisconsin's continued success of getting to B1G Title Game.

Getting there won't be the issue.

[sovereignstar v2]

Originally Posted by mauchow

So it definitely sets up well for Wisconsin's continued success of getting to B1G Title Game.

Jerry Kill might have something to say about that if he can limit his Big Ten seizures to 1 or 2.

[Kodos]

I'm curious to hear Schmidty's take on the East division, being a MSU guy.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by mauchow

So it definitely sets up well for Wisconsin's continued success of getting to B1G Title Game.

And how!

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm curious to hear Schmidty's take on the East division, being a MSU guy.

In terms of football, it might be 20 more years before they go to the Rose Bowl. OSU and Michigan are doing as well as ever for recruiting. PSU might just need to get past the sanctions if O'Brien is willing to stay. Dantonio can't recruit unless you are practically giving him the recruits. The forthcoming senior class is the last RR related class for State and there's really not much else behind it. After the Juniors went pro, there's not much in the Senior class either.

Related, MSU is already looking at schedule changes for the proper amount of at least 7 home games. Michigan State football may tweak future schedule after Big Ten changes | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

[Young Drachma]

Grain of salt, but some unsubstantiated reports about the Big 12 looking to go to 12 and that UCF and USF being the targets for the expansion.

First one has ever heard of that, but...I suppose it'd make sense in that it'd get them into Florida if nothing else. Cincy would cry hard, but..yeah.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Details on the new SEC network now that it's finally been unveiled.....

SEC Network Unveiled: Our Quick Takes, Our Rapid Responses

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Clay Travis digs deeper into the details of SEC Network.

SEC Network Opens New Era in College Athletics : Outkick The Coverage

[kcchief19]

Travis is pretty close to the mark on most of the details. ESPN may have a fight on its hands, but I think it's winnable.

There have some comparisons to the NFL Network and the fight with cable operators, but that won't be the same fight here. It sounds like ESPN will be offering operators a deal similar to what Fox does with BTN -- you pay a higher rate and must carry on a standard tier in SEC markets, but will pay a lower rate and can offer on a sports tier in non-SEC markets.

No cable operator in the south is going to put a fight. When BTN launched, there was customer outry against carrying the network in BTN country, only people complaining to get it. TWC has footprint in Florida, Texas and Missouri but they carry BTN, so why not SECN?

[kcchief19]

On another note, Travis was on KC radio today and the discussion of conference expansion came up again. He made a reference to the grant of rights in the Big 12 not necessarily being enforceable, and that anybody will still be able to leave for a price.

Made me think of the Big 12 bylaws and how they address the grant of rights. Guess what? They aren't in there. In fact, the Big 12 exit fee and clauses are still in effect from the original agreement. They've updated how revenues are calculated and distribution, but they only amended, not rewrote, the original bylaws.

The Big 12 operated on a five-year agreement, which renewed in 2011. Under the bylaws, if you want to leave you have to give two years notice and sacrifice 50% of shared revenues over two years. However, you can give notice that you will not rejoin at the end of the 5-year term with no penalty.

Big 12 term is up again in 2016. In 2014, a Big 12 team can give notice they will leave in 2016. Expansion hasn't stopped, it's just on hold.

In theory, the only thing holding teams to the Big 12 is the 13-year grant of rights. Everyone says the Big 12 has agreed to it, but has anyone seen proof it has been signed? That should be attainable through a FOIA/Sunshine request.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

In theory, the only thing holding teams to the Big 12 is the 13-year grant of rights. Everyone says the Big 12 has agreed to it, but has anyone seen proof it has been signed? That should be attainable through a FOIA/Sunshine request.

It was part of the TV deal that was signed last year.

Big 12 announces media deal with ABC/ESPN, Fox - ESPN

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The coming divide in college athletics | University of Georgia | Macon.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The coming divide in college athletics | University of Georgia | Macon.com

That last bit - "I think there’s more good than bad in it" - is where me & my across the street neighbor (Adams) disagree.

[cuervo72]

That's what I've been in favor of.

[Swaggs]

This is as good of a place as any to post this, I suppose:USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE | Finances

These are always kind of cool to skim through (particularly for the FOF and the TCY fans). Pretty crazy to see how huge the advantage is for schools like Texas, Ohio State, and Michigan over some of their pretty highly regarded fellow programs.

Good (for me!) to see WVU up in the top 30 of total revenue considering that we only got a half-share of the Big 12 media deal (it progressively turns into a full share over the next few seasons -- I think by 2015 or 2016). Our expenses look horrific ($93M in expenses vs $80M generated), but we paid off the one-time, $20M buyout to the Big East last season, so the financial side of things indicate that the move to the Big 12 was for the best (although I'm sure some of the revenue generated was from donors kicking in to offset the cost).

[Logan]

2nd highest subsidy for Rutgers. Thank you B1G.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

This is as good of a place as any to post this, I suppose:USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE | Finances

These are always kind of cool to skim through (particularly for the FOF and the TCY fans). Pretty crazy to see how huge the advantage is for schools like Texas, Ohio State, and Michigan over some of their pretty highly regarded fellow programs.

Good (for me!) to see WVU up in the top 30 of total revenue considering that we only got a half-share of the Big 12 media deal (it progressively turns into a full share over the next few seasons -- I think by 2015 or 2016). Our expenses look horrific ($93M in expenses vs $80M generated), but we paid off the one-time, $20M buyout to the Big East last season, so the financial side of things indicate that the move to the Big 12 was for the best (although I'm sure some of the revenue generated was from donors kicking in to offset the cost).

Couple of interesting things to note about these numbers.....

1. There are some schools that only count revenue/donations when received, while other schools count pledges as actual revenue. There's no standard in that regard as to how you have to report it.

2. The conference realignment situation has really made a mess of some revenue/expense numbers. Any of the schools that have moved over the last year or two have conference buy-out expenses in their numbers. It can make some fiscally responsible schools look like their program is running a large deficit for a year or two.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

This is as good of a place as any to post this, I suppose:USA Today | Sports | COLLEGE | Finances

These are always kind of cool to skim through (particularly for the FOF and the TCY fans). Pretty crazy to see how huge the advantage is for schools like Texas, Ohio State, and Michigan over some of their pretty highly regarded fellow programs.

Good (for me!) to see WVU up in the top 30 of total revenue considering that we only got a half-share of the Big 12 media deal (it progressively turns into a full share over the next few seasons -- I think by 2015 or 2016). Our expenses look horrific ($93M in expenses vs $80M generated), but we paid off the one-time, $20M buyout to the Big East last season, so the financial side of things indicate that the move to the Big 12 was for the best (although I'm sure some of the revenue generated was from donors kicking in to offset the cost).

Excellent find

SI

[Buccaneer]

It is so sad and tragic that there are those crowing about WVU's athletic revenues and potential profits from the move when the school (including divisional campuses) is facing $13.3 million or 8.9% budget cuts according to wvutoday.wvu.edu.