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.

The current state of college football TV deals

The ACC just finalized their television deal with ESPN due to the additions of Syracuse and Pitt.  The Big 12 is in the final stages of their negotiations with ESPN/Fox as they lost aTm/Missouri and added of West Virginia/TCU.  The SEC is in initial talks regarding the addition of aTm/Missouri.  I thought it might be a good time to recap the television deals for college football.




The main motivation that got me to write this was was an article I read that stated that Florida State should leave the ACC and join the Big 12 due to their favorable deal.  The key in that article is that Florida State's athletic department is currently running a $2.4 million deficit and in the Big 12 Florida State would have the ability to create a Seminole Network.  The expectation is that this would bring in at least $5 million which would balance the budget.  I really can't believe Florida State would move for something as risky as that proposition but it has gotten traction over the weekend.  My guess is this is merely posturing to get concessions from the other ACC members at the meetings this week as the numbers don't add up.  There are rumors that ESPN and the Big 12 have agreed to a new deal that would give each team an estimated $20 million per season but I don't think it would be worth it for Florida State to leave for the $2.9 in additional television money when you consider the cost of additional travel.  I guess time will tell.

The other interesting thing about the spreadsheet is that most leagues seem to be happy they are getting Big Ten/SEC money and there is no doubt that ESPN stepped up to the plate and gave huge contracts to the Pac 10/ACC/Big 12.  Honestly when you think about television ratings I really don't think these deals can pay for themselves.  Are we really to believe that games in the ACC are worth $2.3 million?  I really think the key is ESPN is protecting its $5 per basic subscriber by making sure that they have long term college football contracts tied down all over the country so they have to be included on the basic tier.

That brings me to the SEC.  If the ACC is worth $2.3 million a game and the Big 12 is worth almost $2.7 million then what is the SEC worth?  That is where the question of subscriber fees vs ratings is interesting as the SEC's ratings are among the best though they are probably down the list when it comes to cable boxes in their area.  The SEC started their current deal in 2009 before prices really jumped and while their deal goes through 2016, I expect ESPN to cave and give them at least as much as the Big 12 for the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri.  If they don't the SEC could sell those home games to Fox/NBC/CBS for a huge sum and with 2016 not that far away they want to keep the SEC happy.  As you might recall, the Big Ten Network started because an ESPN executive dared Delany to find a better deal.  In the end I'd expect the SEC deal to be extended for at least another 10 years at least $3.0 million per game.

That brings us to the Big Ten.  Their deal is up in 2017 and they are biding their time as these deals have gotten increasingly ridiculous.  Looking at the Pac 12/Big 12, I expect the final deal to be a partnership between the ESPN and Fox for the 45 games   ESPN would prefer to have them all but they only really care that 1-2 games a week are on their station so it will be impossible for Midwest  cable companies to remove them from the basic tier.  That's because their main national competitor (DirectTV) will always have ESPN as basic and that combined with a section of the country that loves college football will make it hard to change.  This protects ESPN's $5/month which is the key.

So how much could the Big Ten get when they renew this contract?  Considering the games they are selling are the 3-4 best matchups every week they will get more than the average as their tier 2 games are shown on BTN.  My best guess would be at least $4 million in today's dollars.  That may seem high but if the Pac 10 can get $2.8 for all it's games then $4.0 million/game for the best Big Ten games seems pretty reasonable.  That's a nice bump from the $2.2 million per game they currently get and add an additional $7 million to each school in the league.

If the SEC and Big Ten get numbers like I expect the revenue per team for the next 15 - 20 years in college football would be as follows: Big Ten 27.7, SEC 23.0, Big 12 20.0, Pac 12 20.1, and ACC 17.1.  The Pac 12 numbers could jump a little if they are able to get their web based Pac 12 Network going for their Tier 3 content (games that Fox/ESPN don't want to run).  The same is true for Texas and the Longhorn Network.

A wildcard in the mix is Notre Dame as they will soon be making less than every other school in the top 5 college football conferences.  Their contract is up in 2015 and there are rumors that NBC may walk away as they are losing money on the current deal.  That's another clue that the real money in these college football deals is in subscriber fees as NBC doesn't get those as they are a broadcast company.  If they walk away then Notre Dame will need to negotiate with ESPN/FOX or possibly CBS/NBC's cable counterparts.  The issue for the Irish is one school isn't enough to motivate people to subscribe to a cable network so they will be negotiating from a position of weakness.  That leaves them with two choices - get the best deal they can from the cable companies to be included with the rest or work with one of them to form the Irish network.  There are undoubtedly thousands of Irish fans that would be happy to pay a premium for this channel.  That actually may be their best choice and one of the reasons for the recent talks with Texas and their Longhorn Network.

Unless they want to join a conference....

Who's got the better coaching - Big Ten or Big 12?

The Sporting New is running a series of articles ranking the best coaches in college football by conference.  These are no doubt arbitrary but a comment in the Big 12 article caught me offguard.  Their claim is that the Big 12 has the best coaching in college football.  I've thought for a while that one of the biggest issues in the B1G is coaching I thought I'd take this opportunity to use the Sporting New article on B1G coaching to see how I think the two conferences compare (Sporting News later released overall rankings which I put after each comparison)



#1 - Stoops vs Meyer (B1G) - I question putting Stoops at the top of the Big 12 and I've thought he's gotten a pass for years.  Meyer has coached fewer years but has done more with his talent. (5 vs 2)



#2 - Patterson vs Bielema (B12) - Despite his ability to continually put his foot in his mouth, Bielema is a good coach.  Patterson is better.  It should be interesting to see how his defensive genius works in the Big 12.  If he can continue this success it should enable him to steal a few recruits from Texas and get to the top of the Big 12 list. (7 vs 12)


#3 - Gundy vs Dantonio (B12) - There probably isn't a starker contrast between two coaches on this list. Gundy is one of the best offensive minds in the game.  Dantonio is old school with his hard hitting defenses and tough running game.  Until Dantonio can get MSU to the next level he's a step behind Gundy. (10 vs 13)


#4 - Snyder vs Hoke (B1G) - Snyder has been a miracle worker and his brief absence showed just how much he means to the university.  Hoke on the other hand barely is over .500 in his career.  You'd think that would mean an easy victory for Snyder but Hoke had an amazing run last season and is poised to make Michigan a perennial top 10 team.  That isn't going to happen at Kansas State no matter what the 72 year old Snyder does. (11 vs 24)

#5 - Brown vs Ferentz (B1G) - Both coaches would have been ranked in the top two of their leagues 3 years ago.  Both have slipped but Ferentz at least has the excuse of poor recruiting.  Brown is a great recruiter that has always gotten the least of his team.  In many ways he's the Ron Zook of the Big 12. (16 vs 33)

#6 - Weis vs Pelini (B1G) - I'm not a big fan of Pelini but Weis is a terrible coach. (40 vs 37)

#7 - Briles vs Fitzgerald (B1G) - Both coaches play at small schools with moderate past football success.  Briles has recently done well on the arm of Robert Griffin while Fitzgerald seems to be able to reinvent his team into contenders every year.  If Briles continues his success in the post Griffin era he may pass Fitzgerald but for now I give the edge to the Big Ten. (41 vs 42)

#8 - Holgorsen vs O'Brien (B12) - This is O'Brien's first year at Penn State so it isn't a fair comparison but Holgorsen is seen as one of the best young coaches in the game.  I'd expect both to be ranked higher than 8th next season.  If that doesn't happen quickly in O'Brien's case I'd expect a quick exit. (44 vs 62)

#9 - Rhoades vs Kill (B12) - Iowa State has gotten quite a few upsets under Rhoades while Kill has a big job ahead of him at Minnesota.  I think Kill has a big upside but it's not enough to give him a better rank than Rhoades past success. (48 vs 64)


#10 - Tuberville vs Beckman (B12) - Tuberville once was considered one of the best coaches in the game.  Now he's struggling to achieve the success of his predecessor at Texas Tech.  Beckman has only coached in the MAC and took the job at Illinois in the off season.  For that reason alone you have to give the nod to Tuberville but I suspect it won't take Beckman long to rocket up this list. (50 vs 69)

#11 & #12 - The Big 12 only has ten teams while the Big Ten has 12 so we can't compare Hope and Wilson vs a counterpart.  FWIW I think it is only a matter of time before Hope is fired at Purdue while I think Wilson has a good shot to bring respectability to Indiana. 92 & 111

I'm sure my rankings are a bit jaded by the fact that I'm a fan of the Big Ten but my rankings has the two leagues tied 5 - 5.  That isn't to say I think the Big Ten has the best coaching in the country but rather that the Sporting News statement that the Big 12 is the best is off the mark.  Just like on the field, the best coaching in America is in the SEC (and it should be considering the money they invest).  FWIW, the later Sporting News ranking gave the Big 12 the nod with only Meyer and Pelini rating better than their Big 12 counterpart.

On a positive note, I've complained a lot in the past about the coaching in the B1G but they've recently made great strides.  In the last 2 years the B1G has brought in Meyer, Beckmann, O'Brien, Kill, and Wilson.  Compare that to the Big 12 and Tuberville, Holgorsen, and Weis.  It's obvious to me that the Big Ten is getting better than their opposition and it is only a matter of time before we see the results on the field.

Hoke's Ohio Gambit

Soon after Brady Hoke took over at Michigan, Ohio State fans started to realize that he wouldn't call the school as Ohio State, THE Ohio State University, or OSU but simply called the school Ohio.  This ploy is reminiscent of Woody Hayes habit of refusing to address Michigan other than as "That School Up North" or as Buckeye fans have grown accustomed, TSUN.  My particular favorite when referring to that school is scUM but most rabid fans have variations on that theme.  In the past I've heard Michigan fans refer to the Buckeyes as O$U or Suckeyes but none of that has raised an eyebrow until Brady started referring to the school as simply Ohio.

In the past 12 months this practice has caused more angst than the actual loss a month ago.  Of course the loss was tempered by the fact that Urban Meyer was hired 3 days later but it continues to amaze me how much this bothers people.

The most ironic thing about this is it was common early in the 20th century to refer to Ohio State as simply Ohio.  If you listen to a radio broadcast from the 60s the announcer doesn't call the school Ohio State but rather Ohio.  Merchandise in that era also typically only used those 4 letters.  Even today if you call out to any Buckeye fan - O-H! and you will almost certainly get an enthusiastic I-O! in return with nary a word about S-T-A-T-E.  The most famous Buckeye tradition is when the band spells out the team name but no one is upset that we only spell out O-h-i-o in script instead of adding the superfluous State.  Everyone knows that when you talk about football in Ohio, you are talking about Ohio State.  In fact, the university would most likely still be referring to themselves by that 4 letter designation if not for a lawsuit brought against them by Ohio Univeristy in the late 20th century as they felt the Buckeyes singular use of the word OHIO was an infringement of their team's copyright.  They won the case and Ohio State could no longer sell merchandise with only those 4 letters.  That infuriated some at the university and that is the reason we now refer to ourselves as THE Ohio State University.  That's because when it comes to most collegiate things in Ohio, it is THE State University.  This was a way to tweak Ohio for their silly lawsuit and it is a tradition that has stuck.  Which is why I find it odd that Buckeye fans are so upset about Hoke's description of the school as simply Ohio.  When he was growing up the school was known as Ohio and he is just returning to the past.

In that way Brady Hoke is a genius and Buckeye fans who dismiss him as a joke are kidding themselves.  He understands the rivalry and what will play to the Wolverine faithful much more than RichRod ever did.  Considering that Rodriguez got 3 years in Ann Arbor, Hoke is setting himself up for a lifetime appointment by playing to the Michigan fans.  The fact that he's a solid recruiter and has surrounded himself with outstanding football minds is icing on the cake.

The golden era of the Ohio State - Michigan rivalry will forever be linked with Woody and Bo but I have a feeling that Hoke and Meyer are about to bring about a 2nd golden age.  The rest of the Big Ten Conference should be worried as I see an era of Big 2, Little 10 on the horizon.

Does it make sense for Penn State to join the ACC?

I've written in the past my feelings about Penn State and I'm quite aware that my feelings about them have gotten increasingly negative over the years.  It hasn't always been that way.  My earliest memories of Penn State is the beating they gave Woody Hayes' last Ohio State team in 1978 and the movie about John Cappiletti and his brother Joey.  In all honesty thought I really never gave them a lot of thought until they joined the league in 1993.  I distinctly remember looking forward to meeting them in our first game and on the day of our first meeting I made a point to go out of my way to meet with Penn State fans to welcome them to the league.  Even though the brass at many of the universities weren't thrilled with the idea, the fans seemed to be excited to be in the league.  I particularly remember sitting with a couple at the Ohio State skull session and figured if they were representatives of the normal Penn State fan that we had done well getting them to join.

Fast forward 18 years and it seems to be a common thought in Happy Valley that they want to leave the league.  Certainly the Sandusky situation didn't help and the Big Ten official resposne just threw gas on the fire. But the feelings go back further than that and I've always felt that the main issue for Penn State is they are just a bad geographic fit with the rest of the league.   It seems odd to say that in a day when Boise State is in the Big East but that is why leagues like the Big East are continually in flux.  A solid league has teams that don't mind looking out for fellow league members and somewhere that went awry in regards to Penn State.

That got me to thinking about their options.  The Big East might have been a good option a year ago but it was aways a long shot as they'd need to get a few ACC teams to create a good league.  The exit of Syracuse and Pitt has weakened the Big East to the point that it is no longer viable.  Contrast that with the ACC.  In the past 10 years they ACC has picked up quality northern teams in Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pitt, and Syracuse. They are currently sitting at 14 teams and while I think 16 is a bit unwieldy, here's how the league would look if you added Penn State and Connecticut

North
Penn State
Connecticut
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech

South
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
North Carolina
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina St.
Georgia Tech

If I were an Penn State/ACC fan, I'd drool at that league and it actually might make more sense than the current 14 teams as it lines up perfectly as two "leagues" of 8.  I could see this league not caring about getting interaction between the Northern and Southern teams so the league games would only be the 7 divisional games leaving schools free to play 5 out of conference or rivalry games.  The two divisional winners would meet in the championship game to represent the league in the BCS.

The problem of course for Penn State is that they'd almost definitely lose money on the sports side of things unless they got some sort of consessions from the league.  That ignores the possibility that the school could lose millions of dollars in grants if they left the Big Ten's academic consortium.  There are other schools that do things because they feel it is right for the university despite monetary loss (Notre Dame).  Is it possible that Penn State could do that as well?  Anything is possible and the fact that the ACC culture would be a better fit for Penn State might mean that the decision makers decide their forturnes are better found elsewhere.