Max wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

=but before the Pac 10 became the Pac 12, Arizona State played three non-conference games and then eight conference games every year.

come to think of it, the Big Ten might have had 8 conference games, too, and each year you randomly skipped one team.  except that it seemed as though Michigan and Ohio State always played one another, usually the last game of the season.

Integrity, that's what keeps the college game special.

Yeah, that was back when the Big 10 was really the Big 2 and the Little 8. When I was growing up, there were about five regular season games you never missed - OSU/Michigan, Notre Dame/USC, USC/UCLA, Texas/Oklahoma and Nebraska/Oklahoma.
Notre Dame used to play half the Big 10 (but never Ohio State or Michigan), the service academies and a couple of other assorted cupcakes. The only two games that were really competitive were the USC game and their bowl game.

"I don't know if you are or have ever been a hockey fan, but back when the NHL first expanded from its original 6 teams it set up 2 divisions--one had the original 6 teams and the other had all the expansion teams. One of the expansion teams would make the Stanley Cup Finals and promptly get swept because the disparity of talent was significant."

I think the Flyers won the division with a losing record the first year of expansion. And the notion of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in the Western Division and Chicago, Detroit and Toronto in the Eastern Division was almost as geographically absurd as Arizona in the old NFC East and Atlanta in the NFC West.

The band did not play it.  I want to be ready to go with "Southern Man" if he comes around again.

The thing is, it is the bar in the main business hotel for the county.  So, the bar often has guys who are not local; this fellow clearly wasn't.  Sometimes businesses keep their people around a few days, sometimes a few weeks.  So, it's not inconceivable that he'll be back. 

There was a time when I could enjoy "Sweet Home Alabama", because it has a good hook.  But over time I have found the lyrics to be insufferably offensive, sort of like if "Springtime for Hitler" had not been an intentional parody.  But there you go, I wouldn't walk into a bar in Alabama and call out for "Southern Man".

Last edited by Max (11/08/2012 12:28 am)

"The SEC signed a big TV deal, and with that money presumably made the conference even stronger."

Max, I don't know how closely you follow college football, but I get the sense that a lot of your issues are based on information from the book your reading. Problem is the information is either completely wrong, misleading or dated.

Yes, the SEC signed an "at-the-time" unprecedented TV deal, but 3 years later it isn't unprecedented, nor is it the best deal going.  The Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12 all recently signed new deals that exceed the SEC's current deal.  Moreover, Thompson wants people to believe that the SEC and ESPN are in bed together and undermining the rest of college football.  Problem is, ESPN is in bed with all of the conferences.  Currently, the TV contracts are as follows:

Pac 12- FOX/ESPN--$20.8M per school
Big 10- FOX/ESPN/Big 10 Network--$20.7M per school
Big 12- FOX/ESPN--$20M per school (average)
SEC- CBS/ESPN--$19M per school (the SEC renegotiated its deal after expanding, so the data in the story is inaccurate)
ACC- ESPN--$17.1M

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/49654/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers

Other variables factor into the issue as well.  The Big 10 Network is growing, and it's revenue is ever increasing.  Despite what may be in the TV contract, since the Conference owns the network, its increased revenue benefits all of the member schools.  Similarly, the Pac 12 launched its own network this year. In the Big 12, TV revenues aren't shared equally--the money is tiered based on which schools appear in the most lucrative time slots. So while the conference averages $20M per school, schools like Texas and Oklahoma take a much larger share than does Texas Tech or Iowa State. That was one of the reasons Missouri jumped conferences. Plus Texas recently launched its own Longhorn Network to add additional revenue.

My point being, there are plenty of schools, including many traditional football powerhouses that are receiving more TV revenue than are the SEC schools at present.  Now, there is rampant speculation that the SEC will look to renegotiate its TV deal and there are also rumors that the SEC may launch its own network in 2014. But any suggestion that the SEC's dominance in recent years is the result of greater TV revenue is flat out wrong. The SEC has won largely because of the money being dumped into high school programs in the South and the fact that football has taken center stage in that region ahead of other sports. The Southeastern part of the country is simply producing better yourh football players who then stay home and give the region a significant advantage over the rest of the country.

Last edited by forsberg_us (11/08/2012 10:20 am)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"Plus Texas recently launched its own Longhorn Network to add additional revenue."

A worrisome event that if it develops into a trend is going to permanently skew the playing field in college sports. If USC starts its own network, there won't be much drama left in the Pac 12. Minnows like ASU can barely compete with barracudas like USC now, and it's not going get better if Lane Kiffin gets his very own cable channel.

If I remember correctly, the Longhorn Network was the primary sticking point that prevented Texas and Oklahoma from jumping to the Pac-12 last year.  Texas wasn't willing to share revenues, not was it willing to scuttle its plans.

One of the other huge issues the NCAA had to deal with quickly was programming and ensuring compliance with recruiting rules.  It's my understanding that the early visions of the Longhorn Network included broadcasting high school football games.  Imagine Texas is trying to recruit some top talent and, as a part of their recruiting pitch, they agree to broadcast a couple of the kid's high school games to the rest of the nation (not sure if everyone gets it, but I get the Longhorn Network on my cable package).  The NCAA put the brakes on that idea pretty quickly.

"If I remember correctly, the Longhorn Network was the primary sticking point that prevented Texas and Oklahoma from jumping to the Pac-12 last year.  Texas wasn't willing to share revenues, not was it willing to scuttle its plans"

That was my recollection, but I wasn't confident enough in my memory to post it.

"Imagine Texas is trying to recruit some top talent and, as a part of their recruiting pitch, they agree to broadcast a couple of the kid's high school games to the rest of the nation"

Take it a couple of steps further. The Longhorn Network should start broadcasting youth football games. There are some third graders out there who might be worth recruiting in 10 years.

Well Alabama certainly changed things up a bit.

Still don't bet against them. Notre Dame plays USC in Los Angeles, and that could be a loss, and that means that if Kansas State loses to Texas, or Oregon drops one of their remaining ranked games...

Alabama isn't that far away.

Max wrote:

So, will Notre Dame be #1 now?

Yeah, that's the only easy call. K-State should fall pretty hard losing to an unranked Baylor team. Oregon shouldn't get hurt too bad losing to Stanford, but if Stanford wins next week it plays in the Pac 12 title game which Oregon probably needs to win to get back in the discussion.

Have to assume the top 3 will be Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia. If Notre Dame wins next week at USC, it's in the National Championship game. If Alabama and Georgia win, they'll meet in the SEC Championship with the winner going to the NCG.

But who knows what next week holds. 8 days ago there were 5 unbeaten teams. Now there's 1.

So. Man a missed block, 2 missed field goals, and a whole lot of good Stanford Defense later, and the situation for Oregon looks less than awesome.

They "can" get back in the discussion, but seriously, I think Oregon's hopes are gone after that uninspiring effort.

Some of the following need to happen for Oregon to be considered.

Notre Dame loses to USC (With Barkley out, that doesn't seem likely)
Florida State beating Florida (This I think WILL happen)
Georgia losing to Georgia Tech (I doubt it, but maybe)
Alabama losing to Auburn (no way in hell)

3 of the top 4 teams need to take losses.

Also:
UCLA beating Stanford (Gives us an extra ranked game against UCLA in the PAC-12 title game)
Alabama/Georgia looks to be the SEC title game, and one of them will lose, but that won't be as adversely affecting and may not be a big enough loss to let Oregon jump them.

So yeah. There's an outside chance, but Notre Dame needs to lose to USC primarily. Florida State needs to beat Florida, UCLA needs to beat Stanford, and Oregon needs to pound Oregon State.

That would leave us looking at #3 behind Alabama/Georgia.... That's really the only possibility for us, and it's a big longshot.

Max wrote:

So here's where it gets really squishy.

Why should Oregon's 14-17 loss to Standford (9-2, #8 BCS) be worse than Georgia's 7-35 loss to South Carolina (9-2, #12 BCS)?

If Georgia plays in the NCG, it will have beaten then #2 Florida and then #2 Alabama.

Given that there are something like 120 teams in college football there will always be scheduling inequities.  Even within conferences there are scheduling inequities.  Compare Georgia and Florida.  They're in the same division of the same conference.  Both played the 6 team division schedule.  However, for their two non-division games, Georgia played Ole Miss (5-6, 2-5 in the SEC) and Auburn (3-8, 0-7 in the SEC) whereas Florida played LSU (9-2, 5-2 in the SEC) and Texas A & M (9-2, 5-2 in the SEC).  Georgia has already wrapped up the division crown because of its win over Florida, but it's fair to ask if Georgia would have gone 7-1 in conference if the inter-division games had been as challenging as those played by Florida.

Oregon would have had the opportunity to play a #2 team if USC had actually been as good as expected.  USC opened as the pre-season #1.  As it turned out, USC wasn't that good.

Florida was rated #2 because, at the time, it was undefeated and had beaten then #23 Tennessee, then #4 LSU and then #7 South Carolina.

But there's no question that timing of a loss has always been a factor in the process.  A stupid factor, but a factor nonetheless.

Last edited by forsberg_us (11/19/2012 12:15 pm)

"I wonder if there is a Bob James of college football who has tried to use stats to make one team's wins and losses more statistically comparable to another?"

I assume you're joking ...