I have a passion for history. One of my favorite things about history is studying past events and relating them to today. This is my attempt to do that with Big Ten expansion.
One of my favorite era's to study is the time between the end of the Napoleonic Wars and the start of the World War I. After Waterloo there were 6 main powers in Europe - Great Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire. During the first half of the 19th century these countries worked together to keep the peace but as time passed greed and their inherent differences made this difficult. The instigator for much of this was the "Eastern Question" and the fact that the Ottoman Empire was little more than a shell of various nationalities. The Austrian Empire was in a similar situation as they had a solid base but with lots of deep seeded turmoil on the periphery. Everything came to a climax in early 1870s as Prussia invaded Austria and France to create the new nation of Germany and Russia invaded the Ottoman Empire which forced them to give up land in the Balkans and Caucasus. Things settled down and peace settled over Europe. It wasn't over - it was merely an intermission.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Title IX - Curse or Blessing?
Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of the passage of Title IX. As a fan of Ohio State sports I spend 99% of my time on men's football / men's basketball and very little else. I hear about the success of the men's wrestling team or the women's synchronized swimming team but in all honesty I really don't care. And while I am proud that Ohio State is currently ranked 6th in the Director's Cup, I might not even notice if we improved that ranking to 5th or fell to 20th. I would feel much differently if that same happened to men's football or basketball.
I wrote the first paragraph to illustrate the point that Title IX has had very little bearing on my life and the sports I watch. I do know that before this legislation was passed many people believed that not only that women shouldn't participate in sports but that it was physically impossible for them to do so. Title IX has allowed colleges to give women opportunities that never would have existed if it weren't for this legislation. The rule is simple,
I wrote the first paragraph to illustrate the point that Title IX has had very little bearing on my life and the sports I watch. I do know that before this legislation was passed many people believed that not only that women shouldn't participate in sports but that it was physically impossible for them to do so. Title IX has allowed colleges to give women opportunities that never would have existed if it weren't for this legislation. The rule is simple,
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Is it possible for USC to get out of their sanctions?
On the O-zone board someone saw another blog that was discussing the NCAA sanctions on USC. There were a lot of them but mainly it came down to a reduction of scholarships by 10 and a 2 year ban on postseason. This post season ban allows any player junior or senior to transfer without penalty and is making some of the incoming freshman rethink their commitment (see Signing Day Blues for a related discussion). So one of the posters asked the following question:
I came across a long discussion on a USC board (link below), about the eventual outcome of the NCAA sanctions. This particular thread seems quite optimistic about them being cut back dramatically.This got me to thinking about the whole process and how infuriated I got at how USC handled the process. I realized my real anger before the sanction announcement wasn't at USC but at Andy Geiger.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
1996 - The year everything changed for the NBA
In the last few years, being a Buckeye basketball fan meant you were keenly aware that getting the best high school talent meant that you these players would only be around for a few years. There was a time that wasn't so long ago that you could expect a player to be in college for 4 years and then turn pro. At one point it was NBA league policy until the ABA allowed Spencer Haywood to join their league after 2 years of college. When he left the ABA after a year and was picked up by the Seattle Supersonics the NBA tried to stop this action. Spencer Haywood filed an antitrust suit and won a 7-2 decision in the US Supreme Court in 1971. This allowed players with financial hardship to gain early entry into the league. The reality was there was little the NBA could do to stop any player that wanted to leave early. Surprisingly very few players chose this option and the tradition of playing 4 years of college ball continued with the draft being made up of 85% college seniors in the 70s, 84% in the 80s, and 78% from 1990-1995. Then suddenly everything changed. Most people blame Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant for starting the trend but the answer is much deeper than just 2 players. What really happened? The answer has many roots and a few of them may surprise you.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
A Funny thing happened at Oversigning.com
I as wrote in a previous blog entry I really like oversigning.com. He does some really good work on a topic I think is important and I have posted from time to time. His last article has the following quote:
Just thought it was funny and worth a blog post.
As far as we know, academic scholarship recipients are not bumped off of their scholarships simply because the school wants to bring someone else in with a better GPA or a better SAT score. Academic scholarship recipients are given baseline performance metrics by which they are required to perform and if they do they stay on scholarship, and furthermore, the people making the decisions as to whether or not someone stays on academic scholarship HAS NO VESTED INTEREST in whether or not that person remains on scholarship. The problem with athletic scholarships is that they do not have clearly defined baseline metrics for the players to adhere to in order to keep their scholarship - everything is at the discretion of the coach, who has A HUGE VESTED INTEREST in who gets a scholarship and who doesn't, and many times coaches make decisions based on recruiting and who they think they can get to come in or who they have lined up to come in already.Sound familiar? Take a look at my blog post The one year scholarship. This is based on a posting I made on his forums and I want to highlight this part:
A university's main purpose is to educate not to play football. The two people in my example are performing better than the average student but only one was given a scholarship to excel in academics. The other student is on a football scholarship and it is almost impossible to come up with a consistently fair way to judge football skill like a GPA does for academic performance. That means to keep an athletic scholarship you need to keep the coach happy and that is akin to being a job and not a student.He didn't plagiarize me but it is pretty obvious he took my thoughts and put them in a slightly different format. I don't mind at all and in fact I'm a bit flattered. He did make a slightly stronger argument by adding the fact that an educator has no vested interest in whether a student is a successful while a coach has a huge vested interest if a player can produce on the field.
I realize that these students spend a lot more time in the weight room than in the classroom and that college football lost its status as a pure amateur endeavor a long time ago. However, "cutting" players because they aren't playing as well as originally expected is another step towards professionalism that I'd prefer college football not take. I'd prefer to hold on as long as possible to the ideal that these are educational institutions that happen to have a football team and not the other way around.
Just thought it was funny and worth a blog post.
Expansion One Week Later
I think this may be my last expansion post for a bit but I want to quickly look at the aftermath one week since the announcement. The best part of the last week is reading all the comments about the winners and losers and not one of them agreeing with one another. You can read articles that show the Big 12 from an A grade to to D grade and the same goes for every one else. Here is actually what happened:
When grading conferences, the only way to do it is to assume a C grade is average or no improvement. Anything higher means the conference improved itself. Anything lower means a conference is worse off than before.
Pac 10 (B) - The Pac 10 added two teams that have been ranked 46th and 41st over the past decade. The average in the Pac 10 is about 22nd and the median is about 32nd. So these additions will actually decrease the quality of play from a pure football standpoint. I would make the argument that these two schools have shown flashes of greatness in the past so it is possible they will improve by facing superior competition. But the bottom line is that the the Pac 10 actual got worse by adding these two teams (C-). The flip side is there were only two large population centers in the west that the Pac 10 didn't cover - Denver (16th) and Salt Lake City (31st). By adding these two schools Colorado and Utah are now in their footprint if they decide to create a Pac 10 network similar to the Big Ten. This is a very shrewd move from a financial standpoint (A). Looking at the intangibles of the fit from a geographic and support standpoint, I'd give it a B+ making the overall grade a solid B.
Mountain West (D+)- From a football standpoint they added a team ranked 69th over the past decade and lost a team ranked 41st (D). They added the 112th ranked TV market and lost the 31st (D). Intangibly, Boise is only close to Wyoming while the rest of the conference is located much further south. They have set themselves up as the goto conference if the Big 12 ever break up so they do have that on their side (C+)
Big Ten (B+) - Added the 17th best team in the country over the past 10 years which is better than the average team (22nd) and the median (18th) (B+). On the other hand, Nebraska brings the 76th, 107th, and 197th largest television markets which isn't very impressive. The odd thing about Nebraska is they current have the longest string of sellouts in the country in the 16th largest stadium (304 and counting since 1962). They also get much higher TV ratings than their small market would indicate meaning they have the ability to draw a national audience (C). As for fit, I can't think of a school with a better Big Ten type mentality than Nebraska and think they will integrate much easier into the league than Penn State (which still struggles) (A).
Big 12 (D) - Lost the 17th and 46th ranked teams in the country. The average team in the Big 12 is ranked 38th while the median is about 48th. No doubt that the quality of play got worse with these defections (D). The league lost one of national draws (Nebraska) and its biggest market outside of Texas (Denver) (D). The league is now more cohesive in its geography but the way Texas extorted the Big 12 North did little to create a firm foundation for the future (D).
In summary, I feel the Big Ten "won" this round of additions though the Pac 10 was a close second. The Big 12 was the clear loser and are set up for a fall. One comment I haven't seen anywhere is if there is another round of expansion, the Big 12 has much less power than it did before. Since this all centers on Texas let's look at their options:
The next round of expansion will happen when the Big Ten decides on their next teams. I am pretty sure that they want to add Missouri and think they may have made some private assurances to the leadership at that school to that fact. The thing is Missouri is much more effective to help the Big Ten today by not being in the league. There will be continued talks with Texas and Delany will hold the Missouri axe over their head as an incentive that they could drop at any time. Losing Missouri would pretty much kill the league as it would be essentially a Texas only league with little hope for a decent national contract (that is pretty much true today - just more so if Missouri leaves which will lessen the Big 12's hold on the Kansas City/St Louis markets). Unless Texas could create a local network that could support them they will be forced to go to another conference as their league is not very attractive for the national networks.
As for Notre Dame, they know a similar scenario is in play for the Big East. The Big Ten is going to take their time and use continued pressure to get their top targets of Texas and Notre Dame. In a perfect world they'd love to get Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Notre Dame. If Texas decides not to come they will end up with something like Missouri, Notre Dame, and two schools from the East (Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Virginia).
My best guess is Texas will ultimately turn the Big Ten down and go to the Pac 10 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma. Texas A&M will end up in the SEC who will also add a few stragglers from the Big East. The Big Ten will add Missouri, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Pittsburgh. The Big 12 and Big East will cease to exist and the Big 4 BCS conferences will have a "plus one" game at the end of the year to determine the national champion. The non-BCS conferences will be thrown a bone that if they are ranked in the top 4 they will get an invite over the lowest ranked BCS conference champion. Of course due to strength of schedule they will never see an invite but they will get an invite to one of the other BCS bowls as a consolation (which will be little more than a payday).
- Colorado moved from the Big 12 to the Pac 10
- Nebraska moved from the Big 12 to the Big Ten
- Boise State moved from the WAC to the Mountain West
- Utah moved from the Mountain West to the Pac 10
When grading conferences, the only way to do it is to assume a C grade is average or no improvement. Anything higher means the conference improved itself. Anything lower means a conference is worse off than before.
Pac 10 (B) - The Pac 10 added two teams that have been ranked 46th and 41st over the past decade. The average in the Pac 10 is about 22nd and the median is about 32nd. So these additions will actually decrease the quality of play from a pure football standpoint. I would make the argument that these two schools have shown flashes of greatness in the past so it is possible they will improve by facing superior competition. But the bottom line is that the the Pac 10 actual got worse by adding these two teams (C-). The flip side is there were only two large population centers in the west that the Pac 10 didn't cover - Denver (16th) and Salt Lake City (31st). By adding these two schools Colorado and Utah are now in their footprint if they decide to create a Pac 10 network similar to the Big Ten. This is a very shrewd move from a financial standpoint (A). Looking at the intangibles of the fit from a geographic and support standpoint, I'd give it a B+ making the overall grade a solid B.
Mountain West (D+)- From a football standpoint they added a team ranked 69th over the past decade and lost a team ranked 41st (D). They added the 112th ranked TV market and lost the 31st (D). Intangibly, Boise is only close to Wyoming while the rest of the conference is located much further south. They have set themselves up as the goto conference if the Big 12 ever break up so they do have that on their side (C+)
Big Ten (B+) - Added the 17th best team in the country over the past 10 years which is better than the average team (22nd) and the median (18th) (B+). On the other hand, Nebraska brings the 76th, 107th, and 197th largest television markets which isn't very impressive. The odd thing about Nebraska is they current have the longest string of sellouts in the country in the 16th largest stadium (304 and counting since 1962). They also get much higher TV ratings than their small market would indicate meaning they have the ability to draw a national audience (C). As for fit, I can't think of a school with a better Big Ten type mentality than Nebraska and think they will integrate much easier into the league than Penn State (which still struggles) (A).
Big 12 (D) - Lost the 17th and 46th ranked teams in the country. The average team in the Big 12 is ranked 38th while the median is about 48th. No doubt that the quality of play got worse with these defections (D). The league lost one of national draws (Nebraska) and its biggest market outside of Texas (Denver) (D). The league is now more cohesive in its geography but the way Texas extorted the Big 12 North did little to create a firm foundation for the future (D).
In summary, I feel the Big Ten "won" this round of additions though the Pac 10 was a close second. The Big 12 was the clear loser and are set up for a fall. One comment I haven't seen anywhere is if there is another round of expansion, the Big 12 has much less power than it did before. Since this all centers on Texas let's look at their options:
- Pac 10 - The addition of Utah to the Pac 10 means that Texas can only bring 4 teams with it if it decides to go West. That means Oklahoma State or Texas Tech will be left out assuming A&M wants to go west (big assumption).
- Big Ten - If they want to come to the Big Ten, the only possibilities will be with A&M and Missouri.
- SEC - I'd be shocked if this every happened but they would be faced with a similar choice as with Pac 10. This could be complicated as I'd be shocked if the SEC didn't want Missouri in the mix if the Big Ten doesn't take them.
The next round of expansion will happen when the Big Ten decides on their next teams. I am pretty sure that they want to add Missouri and think they may have made some private assurances to the leadership at that school to that fact. The thing is Missouri is much more effective to help the Big Ten today by not being in the league. There will be continued talks with Texas and Delany will hold the Missouri axe over their head as an incentive that they could drop at any time. Losing Missouri would pretty much kill the league as it would be essentially a Texas only league with little hope for a decent national contract (that is pretty much true today - just more so if Missouri leaves which will lessen the Big 12's hold on the Kansas City/St Louis markets). Unless Texas could create a local network that could support them they will be forced to go to another conference as their league is not very attractive for the national networks.
As for Notre Dame, they know a similar scenario is in play for the Big East. The Big Ten is going to take their time and use continued pressure to get their top targets of Texas and Notre Dame. In a perfect world they'd love to get Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Notre Dame. If Texas decides not to come they will end up with something like Missouri, Notre Dame, and two schools from the East (Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Virginia).
My best guess is Texas will ultimately turn the Big Ten down and go to the Pac 10 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma. Texas A&M will end up in the SEC who will also add a few stragglers from the Big East. The Big Ten will add Missouri, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Pittsburgh. The Big 12 and Big East will cease to exist and the Big 4 BCS conferences will have a "plus one" game at the end of the year to determine the national champion. The non-BCS conferences will be thrown a bone that if they are ranked in the top 4 they will get an invite over the lowest ranked BCS conference champion. Of course due to strength of schedule they will never see an invite but they will get an invite to one of the other BCS bowls as a consolation (which will be little more than a payday).
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Expansion Apocalypse - The Aftermath
Last week it appeared the college football world was going to come apart. Now it appears more like the Cuban Missile crisis. We went to the brink but no nukes were fired.
I wrote an article last week that expected a multi part process. I expect Nebraska to goto the Big Ten alone part correct but didn't foresee the Pac 10's invite to Colorado. I also didn't expect Texas A&M to be so opposed to going to the Pac 10. We are now in a situation where the Big 10 has a new member in Nebraska, the Pac 10 has a new member in Colorado, and the Big 12 now is a conference on 10 teams with a new TV deal. Sounds like winners all around.
Not really.
I wrote an article last week that expected a multi part process. I expect Nebraska to goto the Big Ten alone part correct but didn't foresee the Pac 10's invite to Colorado. I also didn't expect Texas A&M to be so opposed to going to the Pac 10. We are now in a situation where the Big 10 has a new member in Nebraska, the Pac 10 has a new member in Colorado, and the Big 12 now is a conference on 10 teams with a new TV deal. Sounds like winners all around.
Not really.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The CIC Factor
One thing I have heard mentioned in the past is that the Big Ten places great value on the CIC to cooperate on research and education. That got me to thinking. How much is spent on research and what is the rank for Universities? This is the annual average spending for research reported to govenment by university from 2001-2006:
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Expansion prediction
Even though the Big Ten has said they don't plan to do anything for another 12 months it seems likely that something is going to happen in the next week. It is looking increasingly likely that the expansion is going to happen in stages instead of one announcement from the Big Ten. This is the timeline I see.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Why is the Pac 10 considering moving to a 16 team conference?
This week the Pac 10 eclipsed the Big Ten in expansion circles with talk that they plan to add 6 teams. The rumors are they would add Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State to form a super conference of 16. This has shaken college football to its core.
Previously the rumors were that the Pac 10 was looking at Utah and Colorado as additions to get to 12 teams. This was a smart move as it adds Salt Lake City and Denver to their television footprint and allows them to add a championship game in football. I think a 12 team conference is about perfect as it allows for a 8 game conference schedule and every school plays one another every 2 years. A 16 team conference is a bit trickier as its size means a less cohesive conference. The Pac 10 has always looked at itself as close knit family so why would they consider doing this?
Previously the rumors were that the Pac 10 was looking at Utah and Colorado as additions to get to 12 teams. This was a smart move as it adds Salt Lake City and Denver to their television footprint and allows them to add a championship game in football. I think a 12 team conference is about perfect as it allows for a 8 game conference schedule and every school plays one another every 2 years. A 16 team conference is a bit trickier as its size means a less cohesive conference. The Pac 10 has always looked at itself as close knit family so why would they consider doing this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)