How does Ohio State rate vs the historical basketball powers?

A little while ago I ranked the top football programs to see if I could identify the "football powerhouses".  It was a lot easier than I figured since stadium size and total wins seemed to have a good correlation and since 80% of the national champions come from this group, it is pretty hard to argue with the list.  This is much harder thing to do with basketball as one individual can change a programs fortunes for a few years only to see it fade into mediocrity once they leave.  A good example of this is Houston during the Akeem/Drexler years and San Francisco during the Bill Russell days.  This is made even tougher as coaches can have the same effect like what has happened at Indiana since Bobby Knight left or UCLA since John Wooden.

Powerhouses should transcend individuals but since there isn't a simple way to do it like in football I decided to instead see what programs have done the best over the last 60 years in the NCAA tournament::

Keep in mind this info is from before this year's tournament as I wanted to see how Ohio State ranked before this year's success. In addition, there is no doubt this graphic includes too many schools but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anyone.  The methodology was pretty simple -- I took all the schools that made at least 3 NCAA Final Fours (plus a few I figured should be on the list) and then listed their number of Championships, Final Fours, Sweet 16s, and tournament appearances for the last 60 years.  Then I created a final column which is simply giving every school 1 pt for an appearance, 2 points for the Sweet 16, 3 points for a Final Four, and 4 points for a championships.  That means if a school won a championship they'd get 10 points that season (1+2+3+4).  It is no doubt arbitrary but it works for my purposes.

Powerhouses
As you can see from the list 5 schools separate themselves on the top - UCLA, Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke, and Kansas.  I don't think you'll get much argument from many that 4 of these are powers every season.  The issue is UCLA.  They've had their ups and downs but most of their rank is due to their success 40 years ago.  They really belong in a third tier group I'll discuss below as they've rarely been dominant in the last 20 years.

Lesser Powerhouses
The lesser powerhouse programs are schools that usually have success with a passionate fanbase but don't quite match the success of the first group.  I include Indiana, Louisville, Syracuse, Michigan State, and Connecticut in this group.  The only issue in this group is that before 2012 Indiana hadn't been to a  sweet 16 since 2002 though they seem to be back on track.  They were a no doubt powerhouse when Bobby Knight was coach.

The rest
I'm sure fans of schools like Arizona and Georgetown might disagree with being included in this grouping but they both benefited from having Hall of Fame coaches in Lute Olsen and John Thompson.  To be a powerhouse you have to do it over a long run and they haven't been able to climb back up to the top since those coaches left.

Ohio State compares favorably in this group especially when you consider there was a period from 1971 to 1992 that they didn't win a conference title.  Since then they've had their ups and downs and Thad Matta has definitely now has them in the conversation of sneaking into the lower group of basketball powers.  One this that could really go a long way to changing that perception is a national championship and Thad has a great opportunity to get one this season.  Even if it doesn't happen this year, if he can stay healthy then it is only a matter of time.

As a side note, I put all the football schools on the list above and highlighted them in RED. Someone noted a few years ago that the money going to the football BCS conferences was ruining college basketball as the smaller schools couldn't compete with the facilities. I'm not sure that is true because while the football powerhouses bring in the most revenue you can see from the chart that most of them struggle on the basketball court. It could be as someone joked that payments to football players leave little to give to the basketball players (just kidding!) but in all seriousness it is more likely that football powerhouses overshadow the basketball program.  Players and coaches have egos so it wouldn't surprise me if the best gravitate to schools that don't focus on football so they can be the BMOC (big man on campus). I don't know if that is true but it certainly makes Thad and the basketball Buckeyes success on the court all that more remarkable.

Notre Dame's increasingly limited bowl options

A poster on the forums linked an interesting article about Notre Dame moving closer to BCS irrelevance.

My response is - As the all the bowls are going to conference tie-ins, it is getting harder for ND to find a place to play in January.

Right now they have a tie in with the Big East so they can take a spot from one of their schools if Notre Dame isn't in the BCS (which is pretty much every year). That makes the Big East a more attractive sell but its not enough to move the needle much. Now that the Big East has lost all the schools that travel well, their options are going to get worse as contracts expire.


It makes sense for the bowls as who would you rather have -- the 7th place B1G vs 7th place SEC - Iowa vs Auburn or the #2s from the Big East and C-USA - Louisville vs Tulsa. It's about filling the stadium and turning on TVs and the Big East/CUSA doesn't do it. With bowls stuck with their guarantees it is only a matter of time before the only choices Notre Dame will have is to make the top 4 in the BCS or find that even with a 10-2 season they can't go anywhere but the Potato Bowl.

I look forward to the day when the Irish come crawling to the Big Ten for entry because it is going to happen. It's their only logical choice. Sure they could join the Big East but I think they are smart enough to realize that doing this will put them on the same path as Army/Navy football (i.e. - dominant powers back in the day). The interesting question is if/when the Irish come calling, how will the B1G respond.  FWIW, my personal preference would be to "encourage" Penn State to join the ACC but that won't happen for financial reasons. I'm sure they will take Notre Dame as they do add value.


Of course this is all specualation but one thing is certain - Notre Dame fans have a lot of crow to eat over the next few years until they join a conference.

The heart of basketball

Every year the media raves about a basketball conference being played and touts them as the best in the country.  The past two seasons it's been the Big East and before that it was usually the ACC.  This season  has touted the Big 12 as the best some gave that honor to the Big Ten.  It was usually said with the caveat that the tournment would be the final arbiter.

It's a fair comment that they were dubious because the tournament hasn't been very kind to the B1G in recent years.  Michigan State has been the most consistent and Wisconsin/Ohio State have had their runs but in most years the league disappoints.  This year the Big Ten has stepped up and so far are exceeding expectations.  Here's the results so far:

9-2
Big Ten
4
11-5
Big East
4
6-4
Big 12
2
5-3
ACC
2

I am definitely happy with the results so far but it's a bit early to say the Big Ten exceeded expectations.  The 6 teams that were put into the tournament were ranked 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, and 10.  Based on the seeding the B1G should have 5 teams make it through the first weekend and be 10-1.  Instead, Michigan's first round loss has the conference at 1 game below the seeding expectations though Purdue almost made up for the Wolverines early exit in their games vs St. Mary's and Kansas.

This weekend is the key for the conference to make a statement as by seeding they should go 2-2 in the Sweet 16, then 1-1 in the Elite 8.  If they can surpass that this will be a season that fans in the Midwest will look back on many years with pride.

Speaking of pride, here's a map of the remaining participants:

There's 2 teams west of the Mississippi, 1in Florida, 2 in North Carolina, 1 in New York and the other 10 in the Midwest.  The midpoint of the Sweet 16 is just off I-75 between Cincinnati and Louisville.  That makes sense as the overwhelming favorite is Kentucky with the upstarts Louisville, Cincinnati, and Xavier nearby.  Add to that Indiana, Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Marquette, and Ohio and its a fair bet the national champion will come from this area.

It should be fun to watch.

Buckeye logjam in the skill positions (and why the Buckeyes offered James Onwualu)

James Onwualu got an offer from Ohio State yesterday which I didn't give too much consideration until I looked at his rankings.  Scout has him ranked as a 3 star and 33rd best wide receiver.  Rivals doesn't have a rank and 247 has him ranked as a 3 star and 50th best wideout.

That made me wonder - Why would Ohio State offer a kid ranked that low?

He currently has offers from Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, and Stanford which is a good sign but after looking into it the love is coming from an Underarmor camp he attended in December.

He got the 2nd highest score at the camp which led to the influx of offers.  Over the weekend he narrowed his list to Notre Dame, Michigan, Stanford, and Minnesota and that forced Ohio State to make an offer.  It wasn't said but I'd guess this was a conditional offer based on Onwualu attending the Ohio State camp over the summer so the coaches can see him up close before making it official.

A post about this on the Ozone forum that was thankful that they were going after him because the Buckeyes need depth got me thinking about the 2013 recruiting strategy at wide receiver.  Here's the current depth chart at wide receiver.

Corey Brown JR
Verlon Reed SO
Chris Fields JR
TY Williams SO
Devin Smith SO
Even Spencer SO
Frank Epitropoulous FR
Ricquan Southward FR
Mike Thomas FR

Note there isn't 1 senior on the team and we currently have 9 scholarship players at wide receiver.  When you consider that Ohio State is serving a 3 scholarship reduction due to Tatgate and the fact they recruited 3 players on special teams, they only have 79 scholarships to give in 2013.  That means without adding a single recruit, wide receivers will take up 11.3% (9/79) percent of the scholarships next year.  In a conventional offense you normally only have 2 wide receivers which means you'd expect wide receivers to have about 9% (2/22) in total but many spread offenses have 3 on the field which would bump that to 13.6% (3/22).  Using that figure instead you get 10.7 so I'd expect the Buckeyes to take 1-2 wide receivers for the 2013 season.

One caveat to this is Ohio State fans are used to recruiting a bunch of running backs for their historical brand of smashmouth football.  If we recruit 3 wide receivers we will need to account for this with fewer running backs.  Here's the depth chart at running back.

Zach Boren SR
Jordan Hall SR
Adam Homan SR
Carlos Hyde JR
Rod Smith SO
Warren Ball FR
Bri'onte Dunn FR

With 3 players graduating it would seem this would be an area of great need but the change in offensive philosophy will probably lessen the demand.  The move to more 1 back offense means we can expect to have about 1.5 recruits out of the 22 on the field or 6.8%.  For the 79 open scholarships this means we should have 5.3 players in this area.  Considering that the Buckeyes already have 4 players on scholarship, this will mean the Buckeyes will take 1-2 running backs at most for 2013.  That also assumes we won't replace either of our graduating fullbacks but my guess is we've seen the last of fullback recruits and they will train their tight ends to move into that spot as needed.

The bottom line is between wide receiver and running back the Buckeyes will probably take 3 wide receivers or running backs.  They could take 4 but at some point it starts cutting into other positions which leads to the situation we saw at offensive line throughout the Tressel regime.

At this point you may be asking yourself what does all this mean when the original question was about a scholarship offer to an unknown kid from Minnesota.  Despite the Ozone poster's concerns, the Buckeyes will be fine at wideout in the next few years as Verlon Reed and Devin Smith are excellent receivers with good hands.  What we don't have is a true running back/wide receiver hybrid and from all indications, James Onwualu excels at both.

Urban Meyer was hoping to get a player like that last year but it didn't work out.  This year I expect 2 of his 3 offensive skill position recruits to fit that mold.  He is scouring the national lists and is trying to get the top recruits into Columbus this summer where he will run them in drills against one another to finalize his priority list.  The problem is Michigan has already gotten many kids to verbally commit and using that fact to pressure other kids into doing the same thing.  The offer from Urban was a preventative measure to slow down Onwualu's decision process so he will at least visit Ohio State before making a final decision.  Let's hope it works.

ESPN's coming apocalypse

One thing many people don't realize is just how much of their cable bill is spent on sports.  The biggest expense to cable companies is ESPN and its sister companies.  The following table is a bit dated but it gives a good idea of how your cable bill is split between the various companies.

This is just an estimate from a company that values entertainment companies but it is close enough to clearly show that sports programming is getting many times what other forms of entertainment receive from basic cable.  When you consider that there's over 100 million subscribers in the US alone those rates are astronomical (100mm x $4 x 12 mo = $4.8 billion annual).  Recent reports state that the ESPNs monthly charge is now over $5.00 with the expectation that it will get near $10.00 by the end of the decade.

Compare their rate to channels that produce quality non-sports television like A&E, FX, USA, TNT, and AMC.  ESPN's charge is about 10 times what these channels are able to demand.  How are they able to do this?  The answer is because there is a perceived value by subscribers of having ESPN on the basic tier of channels.   ESPN was one of the prime drivers that helped put cable into every virtually every home in America.  As cable grew so did ESPN and while at first they only offered sports highlights eventually they bought properties like Monday Night Football and most of college football.  The executives at ESPN have leveraged the fact that cable subscribers would revolt if their channel was moved to a higher tier.  Other channels can't duplicate this because while some people love shows like "Mad Men" and "Justified", it isn't enough to push rates higher (Side note - One of the main reasons for the recent rise of original programming on basic cable is due to the hope that increased ratings will allow for higher subscriber fees).

Subscribers are almost universally ignorant of these facts.  We pay our monthly bills and rely on the cable companies to negotiate the rates with companies like ESPN.  We don't care what they pay but we do care when our cable bills start to increase.  That has started to happen and combined with a recession, the cable companies are being pressured to pay more for content and charge less to consumers.  They have been able to offset this by offering other services like high speed cable but that is causes another problem.

One of the issues with all forms of media is they are easy to duplicate once it has been filmed/recorded/etc.  With the rise of the internet many properties are availble for download within hours of broadcast. This has hurt all media companies but one area that is safe is sports because viewers want to see an event live.  That has only increased sports popularity with advertisers in recent years but the rise of companies like Netflix are increasingly cutting into the profits of the cable companies.  Every year new technology is developed that ultimately will lead to the end of cable's monopoly on content.  This will lessen their ability to pay companies like ESPN and force a reduction in rates.  Ultimately ESPN is destined to end up in a pay tier of some sort and a sign that they know this is last years release of ESPN3 which allows for online streaming of their programming.  It is currently streaming for free to most internet subscribers and is a nice long term hedge depending on what happens with the cable companies.  The issue they will face is ESPN currently has 100 million captive subscribers payiing $4-5 / month.  The question is how many of those 100 million will they be able to keep if it goes to subscription as that will determine the cost they will need to charge to break even.  The rise of league owned networks like BTN and the NFL network combined with increased competition of NBC Sports and Fox means that keeping current content is going to be difficult regardless of what happens to the cable companies.  ESPNs rise was due to leveraging their properties to force higher prices.  If they lose them their fall will be just as drastic.

Bottom line for ESPN is they are in for a very difficult decade but that isn't to say they are doomed.  You can see they have plans in place to deal with today's realities but they rose to prominence on major sports like football and now desperately need to hold on to those properties.  If they don't they will fall just as quick.  The good news for viewers is ultimately the cost for sports shouldn't go up as competition rarely leads to increased prices.  These battles off the field may be as interesting as the ones that occur on it and no doubt will go a long way to determine how we see sports in the future.