2009/10 College Football Thread

[stonyc]

Well crap

I hope the PAC-10 doesn't raid the MWC now with Utah for example

I think they will. Utah had been bandied about repeatedly even pre-B10 expansion talk.

Regarding the impact on basketball and other non-revenues, at least to how it pertains to the Big East. If Big East football implodes (which I think it will), the basketball schools already have an existing clause that allows the non-football schools to exist and share NCAA basketball revenue. Big East basketball won't be going anywhere. I think Frank the Tank's blog has an explanation of this fact (see http://frankthetank.wordpress.com).

Here's the relevant paragraph for those that don't want to click through:

A source with knowledge of the agreement that was entered into by the Big East schools following the ACC raid of 2003 states that in the event that 2 football members leave the conference, the football and non-football members can split the league without any penalty and retain their respective revenues, such as NCAA Tournament distributions. What is surprising is that the Catholic non-football members comprise the faction that is pushing the issue. If you recall, those schools met back in March to discuss “contingency plans”. Apparently, the Catholic schools have decided that they will exercise the split option if 2 Big East schools leave the conference (no matter who they might be) and have informed Big East commissioner John Marinatto as such. Financially, the Catholic schools would actually be in a fine position because they would have a large reserve of NCAA Tournament credits with Georgetown and Villanova having both made it to the Final Four in the last 4 years. There is also the stability and cultural fit standpoint, where the Catholic schools are not enthralled with the “usual suspects” of Big East expansion candidates from Conference USA. (In a side note, FedEx CEO Fred Smith has reportedly offered millions of dollars to a BCS league that would invite Memphis. Someone suggested to me that this type of offer could run afoul of Federal anti-corruption laws for inducing a public official, such as a public university administrator, to perform an official act. If there are attorneys practicing criminal law out there, let me know if that would be the case.) As much as the football members may complain about the hybrid model, the Big East is in a position where it will always need to leverage its basketball league in order to provide coverage for the football side. The Catholic schools are the ones that give the Big East an entryway into New York City, Chicago and Washington, so removing them actually hurts the football members more than the other way around.

Source: see Frank the Tank's blog, see above.

I think the B12/10 should actually look to expand now. They can best maximize their upcoming TV contract talks if they can dangle a conference championship game. If I were Dan Beebe, I would immediately look at schools like TCU, Memphis or even Utah. If they (meaning UT, because they're calling the shots) were looking to add a school that they could have under their thumb but would actually have some nostalgic cachet (and add to the state of Texas cartel)... Southern Methodist. TCU/Memphis/SMU would all jump at the chance to join a BCS conference and with the unequal B12 revenue sharing, wouldn't actually take that much of the pie from UT and the existing upper echelon schools like OU. And they get to dangle a championship game during their TV negotiations.

Media seems to be saying that the B12 staying together has averted a seismic shift in conference expansion... I don't think we've heard the last of it by far.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I think they will. Utah had been bandied about repeatedly even pre-B10 expansion talk.

Regarding the impact on basketball and other non-revenues, at least to how it pertains to the Big East. If Big East football implodes (which I think it will), the basketball schools already have an existing clause that allows the non-football schools to exist and share NCAA basketball revenue. Big East basketball won't be going anywhere. I think Frank the Tank's blog has an explanation of this fact (see http://frankthetank.wordpress.com).

Here's the relevant paragraph for those that don't want to click through:

Source: see Frank the Tank's blog, see above.

I think the B12/10 should actually look to expand now. They can best maximize their upcoming TV contract talks if they can dangle a conference championship game. If I were Dan Beebe, I would immediately look at schools like TCU, Memphis or even Utah. If they (meaning UT, because they're calling the shots) were looking to add a school that they could have under their thumb but would actually have some nostalgic cachet (and add to the state of Texas cartel)... Southern Methodist. TCU/Memphis/SMU would all jump at the chance to join a BCS conference and with the unequal B12 revenue sharing, wouldn't actually take that much of the pie from UT and the existing upper echelon schools like OU. And they get to dangle a championship game during their TV negotiations.

Media seems to be saying that the B12 staying together has averted a seismic shift in conference expansion... I don't think we've heard the last of it by far.

One problem with TCU is how to fit them into the conferences assuming no one else leaves. The problem you will run into is the Big 12 south still has all 6 of its schools. TCU is in Dallas Texas which is right in the heart of the big 12 south. The 2 schools that have left so far are from Big 12 north. They would have to get schools in the north to really fill that gap.

Now one problem I see with the break up is the Texas legislation. They are something like 40+% Baylor grads who have threaten in the past that if it did not get to stay in the big 12 the other 3 Texas schools funding would be threaten. I can easily see them making that threat again to keep them in line. The key player being Texas because the others are pretty much going to follow Texas.

I could see it happening again because Baylor really does not belong in the Big 12. They are a pretty weak Division 1 school

 

[Gregg2]

One problem with TCU is how to fit them into the conferences assuming no one else leaves. The problem you will run into is the Big 12 south still has all 6 of its schools. TCU is in Dallas Texas which is right in the heart of the big 12 south. The 2 schools that have left so far are from Big 12 north. They would have to get schools in the north to really fill that gap.

Simple. OU and OSU move to the North, preserving that rivalry. Now they need another school for the South... SMU perhaps? (as suggested above) Then you get the annual championship game between OU and UT.

 

[stonyc]

Simple. OU and OSU move to the North, preserving that rivalry. Now they need another school for the South... SMU perhaps? (as suggested above) Then you get the annual championship game between OU and UT.

Yep, that's what I was thinking too! You could add SMU and TCU that way and it would end perfectly. Championship game to maximize the TV dollars, UT adds two more Texas schools to its back pocket, and two schools that will be pretty much beholden to Texas for the rest of their existence... all of which equals stability.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Yep, that's what I was thinking too! You could add SMU and TCU that way and it would end perfectly. Championship game to maximize the TV dollars, UT adds two more Texas schools to its back pocket, and two schools that will be pretty much beholden to Texas for the rest of their existence... all of which equals stability.

So basicly the big 12 is Big 12 Texas and Big 12 everyone else.

The other thing you run in to in removing OSU and OU is they do have minor rivalry with some of the the Texas Schools.
I am pretty fond of of the Texas Tech vs OSU game every year but that has more to do with the fact that my dad got his degree from OSU and I got mine from Tech.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Well this sucks. I had really gotten used to the idea of A&M going to the SEC, with the Pac-16 thing as a backup. A Big 12 without CU and Nebraska, regardless of the money involved for the teams, is boring and lame.

Add to that the fact that three schools (UTex, OU, A&M) are getting way more money than the other seven, and we're just going to be facing this same nonsense again a few years down the road. For what it's worth, I've read/heard that there will not be a championship game or further expansion, but that the league will stick at ten teams and play nine conference games (ala the current Pac 10 setup).

Andy Katz has an interesting breakdown of the things that went on this morning to make this lame conference a reality.

I think it's pretty clear that the Pac-10 will take Utah now. I can't imagine who else they'd go for (and be able to get), though I guess until the Big-whatever press conference tomorrow, anything could happen. I bet Larry Scott is pissed right now, and if he has a chance to screw all this up, he just might go and do it.

A Longhorn network doesn't do anything for me either. It'll be wrapped up in some package I'll have to purchase from the cable company, and with it I'll get sixteen other channels worth of women's curling and bass fishing.

You might not be able to get it at all in SoCal. I think the way the Big 10 Network works is that it's only available in the markets controlled by the Big 10. I know I got it on Dish Network as part of my expanded sports package for the first year it was available, but then it disappeared and doesn't even seem to be a subscription option anymore. Texas might be able to swing something different for the 13EV0 Network, but it's hard to say right now.

 

[dukebound85]

Jeebus, PAC-10 please don't kill the MWC

I will be pissed

 

[dmr727]

You might not be able to get it at all in SoCal.

Yeah, that's certainly true. Fortunately there's a very active alumni group here that rents out part of a bar every gameday and has Texas Football on a bunch of screens and Shiner on tap. I can keep going there, but sometimes it's nice to just relax at home with the game on. We'll see what happens.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Yeah, that's certainly true. Fortunately there's a very active alumni group here that rents out part of a bar every gameday and has Texas Football on a bunch of screens and Shiner on tap. I can keep going there, but sometimes it's nice to just relax at home with the game on. We'll see what happens.

BevoNet will mostly be for the smaller sports. I'm pretty sure the way it will work is that the new network will only get to televise the games that aren't picked up as part of the conference television package. So maybe you will have to go to the bar to see UT play Rice or SMU or somebody, but most of the games will be on FSN, ABC or ESPN (or whatever other network is involved in the new TV deal).

Also, what bar? I used to live in Studio City and seem to remember a UT bar in Hollywood, but can't remember the name.

 

[echeck]

Ha Ha Ha!

All I can do is laugh...

So now Boise State has a slightly better conference, no AQ chances whatsoever and a worthless TV contract to boot!

...I already miss the WAC, and we haven't even left yet!

Sorry dmr727, but I REALLY hate Texas right now.

 

[stonyc]

Ha Ha Ha!

All I can do is laugh...

So now Boise State has a slightly better conference, no AQ chances whatsoever and a worthless TV contract to boot!

...I already miss the WAC, and we haven't even left yet!

Sorry dmr727, but I REALLY hate Texas right now.

Really, how can you blame Texas and OU for sticking within a system that they know they can dominate for decades to come? They are looking out for themselves first, which is what all the other major players (B10 and P10 included) were doing in the first place as well. The main problem with the B12 has been where Texas (and to a much smaller degree OU) goes, so goes the rest of the conference... which is also why Nebraska and CU left. Now that the only schools left in the B12 are those schools that are pretty much wholly dependent on Texas/OU, the B12 is and will be just as stable as any other conference out there (especially when they renegotiate their TV contracts).

Where Texas hurts itself however is that they made this decision based on athletic and TV money and not research money. Research monies absolutely dwarf athletic and TV revenues for Tier 1 institutions (case in point, ignoring inflation for the moment, Penn State has more than tripled their research intake since their inception in to the B10). This is where Texas has made a colossal mistake... they let their athletics become the deciding factor in a decision that should have been based on multiple non-AD factors as well. Inclusion in to the CIC (the B10's research consortium) would have vastly improved UT's research capital, and they to some degree could have seen the same effect through formal partnerships and exchanges with the likes of Cal and Stanford.

In the end UT has traded athletic department stability against growing their overall institutional health. They may not regret this decision (not joining the P10 or B10) for 30-40 years, but eventually this could really bite them, hard, down the line.

 

[Gregg2]

I think the way the Big 10 Network works is that it's only available in the markets controlled by the Big 10. I know I got it on Dish Network as part of my expanded sports package for the first year it was available, but then it disappeared and doesn't even seem to be a subscription option anymore.

What Fort are you in? I got BTN that first year also, then it became a premium channel, and I'm in BTC! (B10 Country) I yelled. They listened. It came back as a basic channel a few months later and hasn't been pulled. DISH must've had lots of complaints.

Looks like what the B10 used to be down south. Big 2, little 8 - Big 1, little 9 (or is it Big 1-1/2?)

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

What Fort are you in?

Fort Worth, TX.

Looks like what the B10 used to be down south. Big 2, little 8 - Big 1, little 9 (or is it Big 1-1/2?)

From the preliminary details that have been reported, it's the Big 3 (UT, OU, A&M) and Little 7 in terms of revenue, but the reality is that this deal is exactly what they wanted in Austin: huge revenue, the ability to have their own TV network, and control over the other schools in the conference.

OU didn't have much bargaining power to go elsewhere because it looks like they were tied to Oklahoma State, but A&M had the opportunity to throw a huge wrench into things by going to the SEC. The school's brass, however, took the "safe" route and allowed UT to bring them back into the fold. Sad, really, but the real reality is that it's UT and everyone else now. I'm very disappointed in the leadership of my alma mater. What a bunch of boot-lickers.

 

[steve2112]

Fort Worth, TX.



From the preliminary details that have been reported, it's the Big 3 (UT, OU, A&M) and Little 7 in terms of revenue, but the reality is that this deal is exactly what they wanted in Austin: huge revenue, the ability to have their own TV network, and control over the other schools in the conference.

OU didn't have much bargaining power to go elsewhere because it looks like they were tied to Oklahoma State, but A&M had the opportunity to throw a huge wrench into things by going to the SEC. The school's brass, however, took the "safe" route and allowed UT to bring them back into the fold. Sad, really, but the real reality is that it's UT and everyone else now. I'm very disappointed in the leadership of my alma mater. What a bunch of boot-lickers.

Good way to put it. The B12 North was a distant afterthought in football the past few years. The last North team to win the conference in football was K State in 2003, and the North division only won 4 times total since 1996. Nebraska played in the championship game 5 times since 1996. With them gone, there really isn't much of a challenge anymore. On the football side, it really will be UT, OU, and everyone else. To be fair, A&M did play in the championship twice and win once back in the late 90s, but I really don't see that happening again soon.

I still wonder if they will try to grab two more teams to get that championship game back. That is a huge money maker. It reminds me of the conference basketball tourneys. For years, the Big 10 and Pac 10 didn't have one, until they finally saw how much money they can generate.

I have been wondering about a few other things. Will the Big 12 take the Big 10 approach and not change their name? Will the Big 10 still be called the increasingly incorrect Big 10? Will the Big 10 try to hide a little 12 in their logo now?

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I still wonder if they will try to grab two more teams to get that championship game back. That is a huge money maker. It reminds me of the conference basketball tourneys. For years, the Big 10 and Pac 10 didn't have one, until they finally saw how much money they can generate.

It doesn't look like their will be any attempt to replace Nebraska or Colorado. The most likely scenario I've heard is that the Big-UT will go to a nine-game conference schedule and play everyone, so no championship game is needed. I fail to see how anything things that will generate more revenue for the league, and I still can't imagine why any network would pay out $200M per year to a watered-down Big 12 when they weren't willing to do it for a much stronger one.

I have been wondering about a few other things. Will the Big 12 take the Big 10 approach and not change their name? Will the Big 10 still be called the increasingly incorrect Big 10? Will the Big 10 try to hide a little 12 in their logo now?

No idea on the new name, but I doubt they will keep the "Big 12" monicker, because it doesn't have any history. Can't go back to using the "Big 8" (esp. with Nebraska gone) and I'm sure the conference powers don't want to harken back to the old SWC (which this league now painfully resembles), so who knows? They've got a year to come up with something, and I'm sure they'll overpay some PR company to do it.

In related news, the Utah rivals.com site is now announcing that Utah has told the MWC it is leaving for the Pac-10.

Sources close to UteZone indicate that Utah informed the Mountain West Conference Monday of its intentions to leave the conference. When asked about this report, a representative from the Conference could neither confirm nor deny the alleged report.

 

[steve2112]

It doesn't look like their will be any attempt to replace Nebraska or Colorado. The most likely scenario I've heard is that the Big-UT will go to a nine-game conference schedule and play everyone, so no championship game is needed. I fail to see how anything things that will generate more revenue for the league, and I still can't imagine why any network would pay out $200M per year to a watered-down Big 12 when they weren't willing to do it for a much stronger one.



No idea on the new name, but I doubt they will keep the "Big 12" monicker, because it doesn't have any history. Can't go back to using the "Big 8" (esp. with Nebraska gone) and I'm sure the conference powers don't want to harken back to the old SWC (which this league now painfully resembles), so who knows? They've got a year to come up with something, and I'm sure they'll overpay some PR company to do it.

I kind of like the ScrewYall conference. With Bevo flipping off the other 9 schools. While playing nine conference games will decide a winner, conference championship games have nothing to do with that. A championship game is more TV time, more tickets sold, and more money. Without that extra game, they will lose money. I agree with the TV deals. I can't see that kind of money being shelled out for a watered down conference.

In other news, USC may not be able to play Hawaii this year. It's interesting that the NCAA specifically put in wording preventing them from doing it. I guess Alabama ticked off the NCAA when they did this a few years ago.

 

[dmr727]

I thought this was an interesting read, although I have no idea how accurate it is (and Chip Brown seems to go overboard with fellating himself):

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094753

I do question that Texas cared about being blamed for ripping up the Big 12 - it's not like it's a conference with a rich history, or anything anyone would have an emotional attachment to. I can understand the A&M rivalry angle, but still, the cynic in me thinks that all decisions are ultimately made with only dollar signs in mind - nothing else.

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

I can understand the A&M rivalry angle, but still, the cynic in me thinks that all decisions are ultimately made with only dollar signs in mind - nothing else.

I think it was a combination of things, but the money aspect definitely got the ball rolling (months ago) and also was the major factor in keeping the Big 12 together. Being able to start up the BEVO Network is huge for the 'horns, and after they get it up and running, their eye will probably start to wander again, only this time their TV network comes packaged with them, so someone like the Pac-10 can't refuse it as part of the deal.

As for Chip's article, I have a very, very hard time believing the Pac-10 decided to put the whole thing in jeopardy right at the end by insisting Oklahoma St. (which everyone knows is legislatively attached to OU right now—even more than the Texas schools are—because of the power base OSU has in the OK state legislature right now) be replace with Kansas, especially when it became clear that A&M was not coming, and that they could have both. In fact, a lot of media reports have said that it was UT, not the Pac-10, that began making demands for additional concessions right at the end. Regardless, we won't know all the details for sure for a few years, but we will eventually (just like we know about Ann Richards and company screwing up the last round of conference changes).

On a related note, it looks like Utah is headed to the Pac-10. They've called a press conference for tomorrow, according to reports.

EDIT: And now they have an official invitation. Well, the "new" MWC was strong for about a week. I wonder how Boise State feels right now...

 

[dukebound85]

dang it.....I hate the Pac-10
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5293329

Utah is gone

I hope Utah fails hard now

 

[echeck]

I don't blame Utah one bit for leaving. After the Big 12 offers fell apart it was simply a matter of time.

What I do find quite hilarious though is the fact that Utah officials (University and government) have been so in to breaking down the BCS. Now that they're in a BCS conference will they turn in to hypocrites and stop going after the BCS? I think maybe not at the very beginning simply to save face, but in time we won't hear anything from Utah about the BCS anymore.

Heh heh. I find this little sub-story absolutely hilarious.

Even though I'm bitter, the MWC is still a much better league than the WAC, and it's still a step up for us. I just can't wait for the current TV deal to expire so ESPN can come in with more money and get us real coverage again.

So, back to Utah. All you anti-BCS Utah fans out there..... what say you now??

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

II just can't wait for the current TV deal to expire so ESPN can come in with more money and get us real coverage again.

From a fan's perspective, the MWC actually has a pretty decent TV deal. There's no money in it and the networks they operate on are small, but pretty much every football game—and a ton of baseball games—are on TV. That's more that I can say for the Big 12.

 

[P-Worm]

I hope Utah fails hard now

Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems to me that the best thing to happen is have Utah hit strong right out of the gate. If Utah fails that first season, everyone will use it as evidence that the MWC wasn't so great after all.

P-Worm

 

[Steve Jobs.]

Gotta have that Longhorn pride!

Hook em'

 

[P-Worm]

I don't blame Utah one bit for leaving. After the Big 12 offers fell apart it was simply a matter of time.

What I do find quite hilarious though is the fact that Utah officials (University and government) have been so in to breaking down the BCS. Now that they're in a BCS conference will they turn in to hypocrites and stop going after the BCS? I think maybe not at the very beginning simply to save face, but in time we won't hear anything from Utah about the BCS anymore.

Heh heh. I find this little sub-story absolutely hilarious.

Even though I'm bitter, the MWC is still a much better league than the WAC, and it's still a step up for us. I just can't wait for the current TV deal to expire so ESPN can come in with more money and get us real coverage again.

So, back to Utah. All you anti-BCS Utah fans out there..... what say you now??

Like I said before, the PAC invite is bittersweet. Though I am going to love the regular season games from now on, and the recruiting boost is going to be great, I feel like I'm "sleeping with the enemy." I sincerely hope that the fight against the BCS doesn't end for Utah. In fact, it's my football fantasy for Utah to win a national championship and when the trophy is presented for Kyle Whittingham to completely blast the system and talk about how unfair it is.

P-Worm

 

[IgnatiusTheKing]

Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems to me that the best thing to happen is have Utah hit strong right out of the gate. If Utah fails that first season, everyone will use it as evidence that the MWC wasn't so great after all.

P-Worm

Nice try. Everyone in the MWC will be rooting against you, so you might as well get used to it. But just like when Arkansas ditched the dying SWC for the SEC 20 years ago, Utah needn't look back. They are in a better place now.