JoePa and the CNN AC360 emails

I've been thinking about writing a followup to the article I wrote last fall when the Grand Jury indicted Jerry Sandusky. A week after I wrote that I predicted riots and a few days later it happened as the fans showed their support for their fallen coach.

I understand supporting a leader of a place you love and since then I've thought many times of doing a followup. I've read all the articles but at some point I just couldn't do it anymore. It was obvious that Sandusky was guilty after the 1st testimony. Dan Wetzel at Yahoo did a great job covering the trial and I'd expect he is still taking a shower to wash off the stench. This was my feeling at the time:

I'm sure I can read his reports anymore as the whole thing makes me so mad and I know the rest of the trial is going to be more of the same. No Buckeye fan wants to give Wetzel props because his article last March that pushed Ohio State into a fiasco of a press conference. Despite that I have to admit he is doing a nice job on the Sandusky trial.
Mike McQueary Testimony
Victim 1 Testimony
Day 1 Recap with Victim 4 Testimony
Opening Statements

The big question in the aftermath was what would happen to Spanier, Curley and Schultz. With JoePa dead there was little that could change the perception as 'dead men tell no tales'.

I made a joke a few weeks back that JoePa's saving grace might be that it was well known at Penn State that he never used a computer or email. Little did I know how wrong that would be. A few days before the trial someone leaked a statement that the prosecution had been given a document that was a clear paper trail that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz knew more than they were saying publicly.

As it turns out, as the DA was finishing up their case against Sandusky, the Penn State Board of Trustees hired former FBI director, Tom Freeh, to lead an independent inquiry to clean up their own mess. That's what was leaked to the press before the trial. Tonight CNN''s Anderson Cooper had a show where they released the 4 incriminating emails.which tell a much different story than we were lead to believe.

CNN doesn't have a summary up of their show but NBC in Philly has a good recap.

Essentially the 4 emails went like this.

• Email 1 - Recapped a meeting from Schultz to Curley had where they confirmed the plan was to contact the 2nd mile organization along with children's services about sandusky. 
• Email 2 - From Curley to President Spanier that said - I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person…tell him about the information we received 
• Email 3 - From Spanier to Schultz - I am supportive. The only downside for us is if the message isn’t “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road. 
• Email 4 - From Schultz to Spanier and Curley stating that he would contact 2nd mile regardless of the conversation with Sandusky. 

Nothing was ever sent to any outside organization.

The 2nd email is the one that is getting all the attention for this quote:



This states in writing that after talking with Joe Paterno, Curley decide not to press the case forward. This is the same Joe Paterno that stated without question that he didn't know anything about the details of this case. Assuming these emails are confirmed by Curley/Schultz, this email proves that JoePa lied. Not only was he involved but he could be viewed as the ringleader of the cover up.

The more troubling part is the quote that isn't included in the picture.

I would be more comfortable meeting with the person…tell him about the information we received…tell him we are aware of the first situation.

The first situation is the 1998 allegations that were dismissed. On a positive note for them, the way this is worded leads me to believe that that Curley and Schultz were unaware of the 1998 investigation before 2001. When exactly did they find out? It's hard to know that until they are questioned and it is proabable we will never know. I do know it would have been easy for Schultz once he was told of the allegations by McQueary since the 1998 investigation was in his department. Another possible source is they found out when Curley/Schultz met with JoePa. When the 3 of them sat down, they realized the PR backlash if this went public so they backed off.

That leads to the last part of President Spanier's quote in the 3rd email.

The only downside for us is if the message isn’t “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it.

At this point they all knew about the 1998 incident. They all knew what McQuerary was alleging in 2001. They decided to do nothing. Spanier. Curley. Schultz. Paterno. They are all guilty and they make the statement that the ONLY downside is if Sandusky doesn't stop molesting kids then they are vulnerable for covering it up.

I got into an argument with a guy on the ESPN forums that claimed this proved nothing. My response was a bit sophomoric but I think it is understandable given this shocking nature of these revelations:

Seriously? You can't be serious.

 I can't believe people are still defending JoePa. He was told that something of a sexual nature occurred. It's in his Grand Jury testamony. He said he did nothing as it was for the higher ups to decide what to do. Now we hear that after talking to "Joe", the higher ups changed their mind about going to Childrens services and doing any type of investigation?

I'm not saying JoePa is evil. More likely he was naive. It doesn't matter as he's at the heart of this mess now and his imagine is forever tarnished. It should. All signs point to him enabling his long time assistant to get away from prosecution from crimes in 2001 and if this would have happened many other kids would have escaped Jerry's clutches.

That's the bottom like. If you read the statement Curley and Schultz recently released:

...if we were going to do this case, we had to have the best possible case to go against somebody like Mr. Sandusky who was…loved by everybody…carried out of the football stadium on the shoulders of his football team…For Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno, the responsible and ‘humane’ thing to do was, like Governor Corbett, to carefully and responsibly assess the best way to handle vague, but troubling allegations. Faced with tough situations, good people try to do their best to make the right decisions.

There are times in life where good men need to stand up or the innocent get hurt. Not one of these men followed up after the events. They didn't want to know the truth. Sandusky molested at least 4 others after 2001. It wouldn't have been that hard for them to see that he hadn't changed his ways. He was doing it on their campus and at their bowl games. They make it sound like they were afraid to proceed because Jerry Sandusky was the most powerful man in Pennsylvania. That was patently false. The most powerful man in Pennsylvania was involved in the case and these emails prove to me that Joe Paterno decided to protect his friend and his university at the expense young children. Frankly at this point its a good thing he's dead because I couldn't handle another set of excuses from a hero of mine that I no longer recognize.

Should Sully have come back for his Junior Year?

Jared Sullinger was one of the most dominant players in the nation his freshman year.  He led the Buckeyes to league title and made it almost to the Final Four before bad luck combined with a hot shooting Kentucky team lead an unexpected exit.  That team should have won the championship but they didn't and Sullinger made Buckeye fans happy when he announced he'd be returning for his sophomore season.

His second year started well as he lost 20 lbs, looked quicker, and extended his range.  It did worry some that the loss of that much weight would take away his best ASSet from his freshman season but overall Ohio State fans were excited.  At the beginning of the season everything looked good but in December Sully sat out a bunch of games.  The reports weren't ever clear but varied from plantar facilitis to a herniated disc in his back.  Three games later, Sully was back but as the Big Ten season started the dominant presence from the prior year was missing.  His numbers were similar but his movements never seemed fluid.

The coaching staff and the Sullingers said little but a few weeks ago it came out that the NBA doctors failed him on their physical and it leaked that the cause was a bulging disc in his back that might need surgery.

This couldn't have been news to the Sullingers.  I'm sure Ohio State did a thorough physical as well as whatever agent/draft prep service they were using.  At some point the family sat down and decided despite that it was in Jared best interest to go pro.

Tonight Jared Sullinger, who was a probable top 5 pick in 2011, was drafted 21st.  The wage scale for rookies was the same in both years so by staying another year Sullinger lost anywhere from $8 - $12 million.



Looking at these numbers I question whether Sullinger should have come out this season.  It is a bit more complex than just the above as the sooner he's in the league the sooner he's an unrestricted free agent and the fact that the wage scale has a 3.5% bump in 2013.

The bottom line is his salary for 2012 is $1,306,920. If he could have gotten healthy and proved he was better than he showed in 2011-2, all he would have needed to do was improve 5 spots to make up that in 4 years of his contract. Of course there is always a risk of further injury but it seems to me a pretty good risk to take.

It seems they made a poor decision but that is easy to say in hindsight. It was possible that the doctors could have missed the injury. It was possible a team could have drafted him sooner despite the injury.

I think the more likely scenario is we are going to find the injury is bad enough that it's going to take major surgery with a long rehab which would have made showing improvement next season almost impossible.  That's the only thing that makes sense to me but time will tell.

Ranking the best college drafts of all time

I've been working on a project for a while and just recently finished it.  The project is essentially a list of every NFL draft from 1968 to the present.  The reason I picked 1968 as the starting point is that is the first year the AFL and NFL had combined drafts consisting of a total of 26 teams.  The reason this is important is the draft is the best value indicator we have of the relative strengths of each college football team.  While it isn't perfect, it's the best tool we have.  The only other option is to use subjective measures or try to use some statistical model which will always have flaws.  The draft is literally the only impartial method as it is in the NFL's best interest to take the best players for their teams.

There are literally hundreds of articles I can create using this tool as a basis and I thought I'd start with the most obvious.

What school had the best draft in history?

It's a pretty simple question with a difficult answer.

My methodology was to give every draft pick a number rating from 0 to 250.  The first draft pick gets 250, the second pick gets 249, until you reach the 250th pick gets a value of 1, and everything else is zero.  It's simple and it equates the different drafts as a 1st round pick in a 26 team league is not worth exactly the same as the 1st round pick in a 32 team league.  The reason I used 250 is since the league went to a 7 round draft in the mid 90s, there are usually around that number of picks.  It wouldn't be fair to those drafts to use a higher number since scouting wasn't as refined in the 1970s and they had 17 rounds (poor scouting is a bit of a problem too but unavoidable).

So what does all that mean?  Here's the top ten drafts in history.

Year
Overall Ranking
Value
AP
2004
Ohio State
1999
4
1981
Pittsburgh
1990
2
1988
Oklahoma
1801
3
2008
USC
1790
3
2006
Ohio State
1779
4
2009
USC
1769
3
2000
Tennessee
1766
8
2006
USC
1755
2
2005
Oklahoma
1744
3
1984
Texas
1743
5


A cynic might note that of that none of these teams actually won a national championship.  My response would be that there are other factors involved which essentially come down to 3 things:  an experienced quarterback, a favorable schedule, and luck.

In the Ohio State examples above, in 2003 (remember the draft is the following year), they played Wisconsin, Michigan, and Penn State on the road then in 2005 played Michigan, Penn State and eventual national champ Texas at home.  2005 was made even more difficult due to inexperience at QB which wasn't an issue by the end of the season.  The 2005 Ohio State team is a perfect example of why a playoff is needed as teams that improve throughout the year still have a chance.  I would have loved to get a 2nd shot at Texas or Penn State (who finished 3rd) that year.

The Pitt Panthers had a similar situation.  They lost an early season game at #11 Florida State.  They were considered by many as the best team in the country at seasons end but no type of playoff existed and they watched helplessly as undefeated Clemson claimed the title.  It would be hard to argue with someone that argued this was the best team of all time.  With a young Dan Marino at quarterback, he was supported by seniors Hugh Green, Mark May, Ricky Jackson, and Russ Grimm.

Considering the number of times USC is on the list from 2006 - 2009, you'd think they would have won multiple championships.  In 2005 they lost to the freakishly talented Vince Young.  In 2006 they were rebuilding but lost at UCLA and at Oregon St to finish 4th.  In 2007, they lost to Stanford in one of the most inexplicable upsets in history only lose at Oregon a few weeks later and put them out of the BCS.  In 2008, they lost on the road to a bad Oregon State team and were never in the running again.  The fact they never won a national championship during that time is amazing considering the talent they had on those squads.

If you look at the next ten you see much better results:



Year
Overall Ranking
Value
AP
2002
Miami (FL)
1731
1
1993
Notre Dame
1694
2
2010
Florida
1693
3
1968
USC
1680
1
1980
USC
1676
2
1988
Miami (FL)
1669
1
1995
Colorado
1654
3
1977
USC
1650
2
1994
Notre Dame
1644
2
1982
Texas
1599
2


Three national champs and no team that finished worse than 3rd.  I think it is safe to say that this rating system, while not perfect, is a pretty good indicator of success (I've actually got a more complex formula that includes underclassmen but that's for another post).

You see the same schools having repeated success in recruiting.  Since 1968, these are the schools that have finished in the top 100 drafts along with the year & number of times it has happened.



Times in Top 100
USC
11
'08
'09
'06
'68
'80
'77
'83
'71
'73
'75
'90
Miami (FL)
11
'02
'88
'06
'04
'93
'03
'91
'87
'01
'11
'97
Ohio State
9
'04
'06
'75
'71
'95
'99
'09
'97
'88
Florida State
7
'01
'95
'98
'06
'05
'00
'97
Notre Dame
7
'93
'94
'72
'78
'90
'91
'69
Oklahoma
7
'88
'05
'79
'10
'80
'73
'76
Penn State
7
'82
'87
'74
'03
'96
'93
'80
Colorado
5
'95
'91
'76
'77
'74
Tennessee
5
'00
'02
'92
'91
'98
Texas
4
'84
'82
'07
'80
Florida
3
'10
'99
'02
Nebraska
3
'73
'97
'80
Arizona State
2
'83
'82
Georgia
2
'01
'05
North Carolina
2
'11
'98
Purdue
2
'73
'04
Washington
2
'98
'92
Alabama
1
'12
Grambling
1
'71
Michigan
1
'72
Mississippi
1
'68
Pittsburgh
1
'81
Texas A&M
1
'87
Texas-El Paso
1
'68
UCLA
1
'74
Virginia
1
'97
Virginia Tech
1
'08
Wisconsin
1
'85


The Big Ten and SEC lead the list with 6 schools each though there is a noticeable absence of southern schools throughout the 60s and 70s.  That's because they tended away from blacks during that time which is why you see teams like Grambling, Tennessee State, and UTEP on the lists.  This reinforces how useful list is can be as while some conferences ignored these players during that period, the NFL was using them to great success.

I am putting the whole ranking list on my Google database and you can find it on the links of the left.

The New College football playoff: Part 3 - How would it look?

Just to see what we might expect, I put together a quick spreadsheet and made a few assumptions.

• I used the last ten years rankings from the BCS 
• All teams are now in their conferences as of 2014 
• Only one team could be a wildcard (non-conference champ) 
• Conference champs were given precidence over other schools 
• The Big 5 conferences were given precidence over the others 

I also made the following assumptions for bowls:

• Rose Bowl will be the site of a semifinal if qualifiers include a B1G and P12 team 
• Cotton Bowl will be the site of a semifinal if qualifiers include a SEC and B12 team 
• Fiesta Bowl is the 1st alternate site for the B1G and P12 
• Sugar Bowl is the 1st alternate site for the SEC and ACC 
• Orange Bowl is the 1st alternate site for the B12 and ACC 

As you can see from the above the SEC has the most appearances followed by the Big 12 then the B1G / Pac 12 and far behind is the ACC.  This seems reasonable based on the results of the past ten years.  I considered putting Notre Dame in for 2005 but think since they aren't in a conference they'd need to finish in the top 4 (Ohio State tronced them in the bowl that year).  The only non BCS team would have been Cincinnati in 2009 (Note: they lost to Florida by 40 in the actual bowl matchup that year).  There were only 12 appearances by non BCS teams in the top 15 with Boise State being 5 of them.

All in all if they go with a system like this I'd like it though as I've said before I'd love an 8 team playoff with the first round on home fields.

The New College football playoff: Part 2 - Money split

One question that has been brought up about the playoff system is how will they split the money.  Estimate are that the payoff will more than double from the $200 million payout of last year.   Like with the bowl matchups there are a few goals here too.

Maximize the money that goes to the conferences that drive the ratings
Don't encourage schools to leave their conference just so they can get additional revenues from the playoff

There won't be a return to the system used in the 70s that the invitees are paid a certain amount as school budgets can't take that kind of uncertainty.  So there will be some sort of guarenteed payout but how to split it and keep most of it from the small guys?

The easy part is already done because they've already eliminated 3 BCS tie in's which will allow the major conferences to be invited to bowls that aren't in the semi's.  For example, I could see something like this:

Rose: Big Ten - Pac 12
Cotton: Big 12 - SEC
Sugar: SEC - ACC
Orange: Big 12 - ACC
Fiesta: Big Ten - Big 12

They could even add bowls to the mix like the Outback with lower payouts with the unwritten rule that if a school outside the top 5 conferences qualify, they'd play there.  That means all the monies from the bowls would be going to the big conferences.

What about the little guys?  They are being paid for their part in the championship process and most importantly the championship game itself.  Let's say of the total $400 million payout that half or $200 is coming from that game.  The question is how do you split that?  One proposal is to use BCS ranking since 1998 as a barometer.



This isn't a bad way but I doubt the Pac 12 / Big Ten will allow a system where they are paid less on a per team basis than their counterparts in the the south.  My guess is they will fix the number on a per team basis for the top 5 conferences for their league size in 2014.  That will discourage anyone from expanding just to expand.  The biggest issue is what to do about leauges like the Big East and Conference USA which shouldn't get a full share.  My suspicion is they will come up with a metric and give percentage based on their alignment in 2014.

A bigger question is BYU.  I'd expect Notre Dame to get something similar to what they get today.  $1-2 million each year plus a full share if they get invited.  BYU is a different case as they don't play well enough to get a full share but the makers of this system don't want to encourage other schools (Boise) to leave their league like BYU just so they get a bigger piece of the pie when the playoff method is finalized.  I'd expect language to fix a school to a conference and for BYU to get something similar to the Big East share.

In the end I'd expect 3 tier system something like this:

Payouts from the 5 bowls: $40 million each / $20 per team invited.
Payout from the Championship:



These are just estimates but it goes where I'd bet they are thinking.  In the end the big conferences end up with almost $360 million of the totall $400 and the small conferences get the scraps.

See what happens small schools when you try to steal the lunch money from a bigger kid?  I wish you luck trying to make it to the playoff as we all know voters are subjective and you know that all ties will favor the big guys.

The New College football playoff: Part 1 - Why?

It has been reported that the college football commissioners have decided a new playoff method and there's a lot of uproar on the interwebs about things that it should be 16, 12 or 8 games but as usual people are missing the point.  This was never about making fans happy or getting a better national champion.  I'm sure the conference commissioners had that somewhere in the back of their mind but moreover they needed a change to the system that would cause 3 things:

• Increase Bowl ratings to make the television networks happy
• Protect them from government interference
• Stop the little conferences from their continued attempts at trying to get more of the BCS money

If fans got a playoff and were happier, that was an ancillary benefit.

In recent years the BCS bowl games have gotten increasingly poor ratings and with matchups like  Cincinnati vs Boise State, is it any wonder?  These teams have complained for years to be included in the BCS but the truth is when they do make it, no one cares.  These schools don't have big alumni or nationwide fan bases and the ratings and attendance for these games show that.  A few years ago UConn had to pay over 1 million dollars to attend the Fiesta bowl because many of their fans didn't buy the 20,000 tickets allotted to them at $100 face value despite it being their first appearance ever in a bowl game.

Money has always made the bowl system work and it works because of the symbiotic nature of a few fans willing to travel to see their teams.  This gives every school with a winning record a nice experience to end the season despite the result on the field.  College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, players, and fans all like the system and despite the clamor for a national playoff, most would hate any system that totally elminated the bowls.

As falling television ratings have shown the BCS to be a failure, what could the conferences commissioners do to make everyone happy.  Their biggest issue is bowls only work for the schools in the major conferences and while many were arguing about different playoff methods, they dealt with this reality.

Their solution is simple in its brilliance.  Get rid of the BCS and return to the 70s with one simple change.  Create a committee that will work with the bowls to place 4 teams with the expectation that the winners would play in the national championship game.

They haven't gone into details but my expectation is certain bowls will be put into the rotation to be included.  Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Rose, and Cotton with the possible addition of the Outback as Orlando has become a major destination since the bowls were first set up.

Think about what that does.  Let's say the top 4 teams are Ohio State, Alabama, Texas, and USC.  The committee could place those 4 into the Rose and Cotton respectively.  What if it were last year's Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma State, and Oregon.  My expectation would have been LSU-Oklahoma St in the Cotton and Alabama-Oregon in the Fiesta/Orange.  Wisconsin would have played Stanford in the Rose Bowl.

The beautiful thing in the above example is that the Rose and Cotton would be included if both the B1G/P12 or B12/SEC both had teams in the top 4.  If one league were excluded then the secondary bowls would be used instead.  If there were a system like proposed they could also avoid a situation where LSU would be forced to play a team they'd already faced like what happened with both Oregon and Alabama last year.  A committee could make sure the matchup is best for TV.

The key is the bowls along with the committee would determine the matchups.  The part that most people are missing is beyond the bowls chosen for the semi's, the bowls are individual organizations and can invite whomever they want.  Since these are individual enterprises they can invite whoever they want and exclude the little guys.  That protects them from government interference and better yet, makes it easier for the big conferences to keep a lion's share of the money.

In the end this system should be great for college football.  It makes the end of the regular season more important, bowl matchups will be better due to going to a system based on people instead of math, and the government/small conferences won't be able to complain.

It's win/win/win as long as you are in a big conference.

The Big Ten, The SEC, and Bowl Posturing

College football playoff conversations are reaching a fever pitch and like usual people are missing the point.  It's not about making the fairest matchup or protecting the student athlete.  College football hasn't ever been about that.  It's about the money.

Someone made this comment on the Ozone forums:

I thought Delaney conceded on the first round playoff games being played at home (which the SEC was fighting), so we could have a playoff with all conference champions. What happened? It appears the SEC is rolling the B1G again.

And got the following response:

Don't do what the Media Fruit Flies are doing. They are taking public statements as something more than...posturing. It isn't. As Delaney said, none of the people commenting and publishing opinions are "in the room."  The Fruit Flies seem to think that the SEC positioning itself for its perceived best interests is somehow superior to the B1G and PAC 12 doing the same thing. 

I agree with that line but went a little further:

I think most of the posturing is the Big 4 masking figuring a way to exclude the rest of the conferences from the system.  Just an example...

Imagine if the B1G/P12 keep pushing to protect the Rose Bowl and a plus 1 system. Wouldn't that "force" the B12/SEC to put their champions in the new bowl they just announced? It's just too bad they 4 couldn't come to some sort of agreement (snicker). Wouldn't the fact that the winners of these games would most likely face each other a week later in the plus 1 game push the tv money for these 2 games into the stratosphere?  Wouldn't it make most of the other bowls pale in comparison? That would expecially be true if Delany "forced" the SEC to agree that only conference champs could play in the plus 1 game. I'm sure there would be years that a team like Florida State, Miami or Notre Dame (j/k) could sneak in but this is about money not making the fans happy. That will only happen (imo) if they ever to an 8 game playoff but Delany isn't interested in that.

In the meantime, the Big 4 will lament that it is too bad they couldn't come to an agreement as they take their piles of money to the bank and the lesser conferences slip into mediocrity.

One thing I didn't say was just how important do you think the conference championship games would be if they were the "quarterfinals" to these games.  Can you imagine if these 4 leagues agreed not to schedule anything opposite each other and the 4 games ended up in prime time the week after Thanksgiving?  Every day the media would focus on each conference game and the nation would tune in. With Super Bowl ads getting $4 million a minute is it unthinkable that the networks could get $1 million for the 60+ minutes of commercials during these game plus more money for the pre and post game coverage?  The money we are talking about could rise into the stratospheric for the 4 leagues.  Everyone else would be left behind.

It's like an argument I got into on the ESPN forums (pointless but silly fun).  Someone said -

B1G you screwed up by not coming out with one voice as a conference. With this confusion in the B1G, lack of solidarity, compared to the Big 12 And SEC, I am now seeing the big 4 as PAC, Big 12, ACC, SEC.

My response was:

This is all posturing. What they are really doing is giving Delany options so he can try to negotiate for the conference. Delany is the one voice for the B1G and the presidents trust him to get the best deal.

Perlman's comments were the best indicator of this when he made the veiled threat if things didn't go the way they wanted they'd walk away entirely and go back to the old BCS system. Don't believe what you read in these articles. Most of what is released is just conference spin and we have no idea what is going on behind closed doors.

Conversations like this make me laugh as most fans don't think like a commissioner or a college president.  The goal here is to maximize money and there are two goals in the playoff talk -

•  improve their product on New Years Day to improve ratings and 
•  keep as much money in the hands of the conferences that drive television ratings (B1G, SEC, B12, and P12).  

Everything else is secondary and while I'm sure the SEC/B1G aren't 100% in line in their thinking they both have these two goals in mind.  The problem is public opinion and more important is doing this in such a way that the government doesn't have a reason to get involved.

Public bickering is a good smoke screen.

Stay tuned.  It should get interesting to see how this all shakes out but anyone that thinks that Delany and the B1G won't end up with the best deal possible is kidding themselves.