Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
Unverified Voracity Goes Ahead And Panics
Filed under:
Whoah… Texas. I'm on druuuugs.
Overtures!!! Everybody PANIC:
A source with ties to the Big Ten said that while most people’s attention has been trained on the conference stealing Missouri, the Big Ten has engaged in “preliminary exchanges” with a much bigger fish from the Big 12.
“There have been preliminary exchanges between the Big Ten and Texas,” the source told the Journal-World on Wednesday. “People will deny that, but it’s accurate.”
Accurate though it may be, "preliminary exchanges" are just folks in suits keeping doors open in case of disaster. Texas to the Big Ten will never ever happen. Reasons:
- The Texas legislature would have the mother of all hissy fits and threaten UT's state funding.
- Texas would go from its usual diet of nummy goo-goo bears plus the occasional big game to a nonconference schedule with mandatory games against A&M and Oklahoma, and that's if Texas isn't forced to play more in-state teams as part of an agreement with the legislature.
- Texas's baseball team, currently a national power, would be playing in the college baseball equivalent of Conference USA.
- Texas has the mojo to have it own damn channel if it wants and won't have to share jack with the other Big Ten teams.
Note that travel costs are omitted, because putting the Big Ten Network on Texas channels means even the crew teams can fly first class. It would be ridiculous. Jim Delany would buy a monocle.
That goes for this Pac-10 expansion, too. I don't buy that adding Colorado and Utah does anything for anyone except bust up the one conference that makes total sense.
Plot against America update. So I toss a link to a USA Today article arguing that adding another 31 teams to the NCAA tournament wouldn't even make much money on mgolicious and the artist formely known as Wonk duly shreds it:
The larger issue here centers on what constitutes “loose change” for the NCAA. Let’s accept that the difference between what a network will pay for a 96-team field and what they’ll lay out for a traditional 65-team version wouldn’t be all that much in percentage terms. Hiestand’s right: The new games would be the least attractive ones and, anyway, they’d represent just 17 percent of the programming “tonnage.” But if you’ve ever bought or sold a house, you’re intimately familiar with the paradox at work here. You negotiate a price and give a few thousand here or take a few thousand there. Then you step away and think: Sweet mother of Ben Bernanke, that right there’s the equivalent of a new car or three years of daycare for your kid, or 50 HDTV’s, etc.
So maybe it's some money up front that's meaningful. Meaningful spread over 340-some D-I teams? Eh… probably not. Meaningful to one organization in Indianapolis? Maybe.
Not that the idea is any less terrible today than it was a few days ago. The proposed expansion would, for all intents and purposes, absorb the entire NIT into the NCAA tournament. Last year's editions of Northwestern, Penn State, Notre Dame (18-14), Nebraska (18-12), Virginia Tech (18-14), and Washington State (17-15) would all have weaseled their way in. That's nine of the Big Ten's eleven teams in the tourney plus an ugly assortment of teams who beat no one and have no chance of winning the tournament. At some point you have to say no.
John Beilein's on the side of justice, FWIW:
"I don't understand right now," he said during his Big Ten teleconference. "The 64 (teams) – I could see adding a couple more 'play-in' games if you have to. But going to 96 may be a hard thing to do. I think it's pretty good right now."
Unsurprisingly, Bo Ryan likes evil and preposterous generalizations:
“To me, it’s foolish for those people who are saying it’s perfect the way it is,” Ryan said Monday. “Obviously, they’ve lived a very shallow life when it comes to looking at change and what change can do and how it can affect things. The history of expansion with the NCAA has been very successful."
Yeah, well, you now, that's just, like, your opinion, man. We have lived a shallow life in which we have never considered how change can affect things.
Yet another way in which college football is like figure skating. Remember some time back when the coaches threw a hissy that people were paying attention to their votes and threatened to take the final coaches' poll private? This was roundly condemned and eventually dropped, but the scars still linger.
If they try it again, opponents should point to what went down when figure skating attempted to beat the corruption out of their judges by making their scores anonymous*:
[Dartmouth economist Eric Zitzewitz] finds that the home-country bias gets even worse when anonymous judges can hide from a scrutinizing press and public, despite the barriers that anonymity may create for effective backroom deal-making. The home-judge advantage under the new system is about 20 percent higher than in the days of full disclosure.
College football coaches already display serious biases when their votes are subject to scrutiny. It would only get worse if they weren't.
*(This seems insane but there is a plausible reason it might be a good idea: it prevents collusion amongst judges. Before there could be backroom deals where a couple countries conspire to rate each other's skaters higher. Now those deals can't be enforced.)
That is more like it. Fred Jackson gives us all hope that Fitzgerald Toussaint is in possession of all his limbs:
"He's as talented as anyone who walked in the door," said Jackson, who has coached Michigan career leading rusher Michael Hart, Chris Perry, Anthony Thomas and Tyrone Wheatley, to name a few.
Jackson said he had never before heard of a player breaking his shoulder blade. But before the injury, Jackson saw budding talent.
"He's got great feet, acceleration, strength, power," Jackson said. "I can compare him to somebody -- he's like a fast Chris Perry. He's going to be very good."
Fitzgerald Toussaint is like a Doak Walker winner who was a first round draft pick… except fast.
Like candy. Touch The Banner breaks down Michigan's offers from the last recruiting class—Florida leads the way with 46—and resulting commitments, where Ohio is an easy winner this year.
Etc.: Basketball recruiting remains dirtier than a dirt sandwich. What's with Ann Arbor as the epicenter of ice dancing? Russians. Obviously. What is the point of this new rule about head coaches in waiting? Manny Harris has never been that efficient in the Big Ten.
If you have a Worst State Ever shirt, wear it everywhere and people will love you. If you don't have one, slap yourself and get one (American Apparel) or two (regular old apparel).
February 11th, 2010 at 2:14 PM | 
I'm with JB
I'm with JB
February 11th, 2010 at 3:32 PM |
I recommend moving to someplace else.
I recommend moving to someplace else.
Michigan is a nice place.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:33 PM |
and I remember
and I remember
the '76 tournament ... but then again if I were just a bit older I would remember '69 as well, and not because of the number of conferences that were represented then. Anyway, '76 was nice, but there was more variety in '89, more good teams with a chance to make a run, more conferences with a chance to win a game or two.
If they insist on expanding the tournament, then do something like this: four four-team play-in brackets, regional if possible. Dump most of the Big Six teams in here ... I like something along the lines of any team beyond 50% of conference membership or X teams overall going into this pool. Move everything back a week or up a week and play this between conference tournaments and the real dance. No one outside fans of the 10th-best team in the Big East wants to see a 10th team from the Big East in the tournament ... save at-large spots for Cinderella conferences.
Sure, it would be nice if Michigan sneaks in as an at-large team, but aside from the actual experience, what would we expect? A crushing loss to an under-seeded 5 or 6? If Michigan got in by knocking off Cincinnati and, I don't know, North Carolina or someone, that would be much more fun.
If it's just outright expansion, then yawn. The tournament needed to expand in the early '70s to let in non-conference champs (obvious) and in the late '70s/early '80s to get a few more solid teams. Getting to 64 made sense for the nice, even numbers ... gambling was much easier to organize with 64. If, of course, gambling were legal. But beyond that, are we letting in interesting teams, or are we just extending the Big Six conference tournaments?
February 11th, 2010 at 2:16 PM |
I will never buy a "Worst State Ever" shirt
I will never buy a "Worst State Ever" shirt
Until Brian gives back the "tWorst State Ever"
CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!
"A house divided against itself cannot stand"
February 11th, 2010 at 2:16 PM |
I for one would totally
I for one would totally
I for one would totally accept the University of Texas playing in the BigTen and the extreme RPI boost made available in all of our sports, particularly baseball.
As a native Texan, to hell with playing Oklahoma, get me more money and give less to OU.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:17 PM |
thing is, sooner or later
thing is, sooner or later
thing is, sooner or later Fred Hyperbole Jackson is going to hit the nail on the head and we're going to have Zeus in our backfield.
"Play hard and with great effort"
February 11th, 2010 at 2:22 PM |
Mark Ingram vs. Fitzgerald Toussaint
Mark Ingram vs. Fitzgerald Toussaint
Mark Ingram, 3-star, No. 58 RB from Flint, MI
Fitzgerald Toussaint, 3-star, No. 49 RB from Youngstown, OH
Ergo bibamus, Mr. Toussaint is on a collision course for Heisman hardware!
February 11th, 2010 at 2:26 PM |
Big Ten in Texas
Big Ten in Texas
I was in Austin a couple weeks ago and noticed some official looking Wisconsin and Michigan polo wearing types hanging out in the airport. Could be a coincidence though...
Excellence is Good
February 11th, 2010 at 2:29 PM |
Love the hype machine that is Fred Jackson
Love the hype machine that is Fred Jackson
Is it safe to say he is our Don King of RB hype?
They mostly come at night... mostly.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:46 PM |
Brian:
What is the point of
Brian:
What is the point of
Brian:
What is the point of this new rule about head coaches in waiting?
All I can think of is, if you're a guy like JoePa is or Bobby Bowden apparently was in his last few years, basically an organizing figurehead who farms out most everything in the realm of Xs and Os and dealing with the kids, you're not really the head coach in a traditional sense.
Now what if you're one of those guys and you also have a publically designated coach in waiting on the staff, who may actually be running the show? Now you've got the figurehead head coach who is subject to the more restrictive rules, and you've got an assistant who is the de facto head coach, who can go into living rooms as much as any other assistant.
Seems to me like the new rule closes a loophole which, though probably not a big deal, is there nonetheless.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:47 PM |
Texas
Texas
I think the idea of two Big 10 Divisions that each contain two of the what would be the Big 4 (Michigan, OSU, Penn State, & Texas) is pretty awesome. That's a whole lot of tradition in one conference. Austin would also be a ridiculously fun road trip for Michigan fans.
February 11th, 2010 at 2:56 PM |
RB
RB
Chris Perry? Meh.
Give me a Biakabutuka clone. "But faster"
And then UofM's piped in music can consist of World Destruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93HWraYnSFc
February 11th, 2010 at 2:57 PM |
So full of win
So full of win
(P)utting the Big Ten Network on Texas channels means even the crew teams can fly first class. It would be ridiculous. Jim Delany would buy a monocle.
And put his pinky to his lips.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:01 PM |
Glad to hear the Fred Jackson
Glad to hear the Fred Jackson
Glad to hear the Fred Jackson "Player X possibly has Unicorn blood" hype machine is back in gear.
February 11th, 2010 at 3:37 PM |
Wait,
Wait,
I thought Missouri was interested in joining the BigTen because Missouri was not getting an even split with schools like Texas. Now you tell me Texas is interested in joining the BigTen?
Hmmmmmmm, either,
A) an equal share of the BigTen+Texas pot is better than an oversized slice of the BigXII pot, or
B) the BigTen is considered non-equal revenue shares.
Since B) goes against everything for I've understood the Big Ten to stand for, these the last 40 years; I must conclude there's a huge pile of money to be equally divided in a BigTen+Texas+TexasA&M+... scenario.
Logic forces me to question the veracity of my premise regarding Missouri's interest in joining the BigTen.
Taking it one week at a time
February 11th, 2010 at 4:11 PM |
The difference
The difference
From what I have read, the Big Ten teams make more than any other team with the B10 network revenue sharing and their ESPN/ABC deal. This is even more than Texas and this is with their uneven revenue sharing. Therefore, this is a win-win for both the Big Ten and Texas as both will profit from the move.
Like a blind man at an orgy, I was going to have to feel my way through
February 11th, 2010 at 3:59 PM |
Texas would be such a HUGE get
Texas would be such a HUGE get
Let's just do the simple math...
If every Texas cable subscriber now got BTN (assuming they didn't before):
88% * 25 Million * $1.10 * 12 months = $290M / year increased revenue
I think that would satisfy the other 11 members of the conference, no? Let's say that B10 schools net 1/3 of that after expenses and double counting of sat TV subscribers that alreay have BTN, you're looking at a near DOUBLING of the avg per BT team take from BTN revenue sources (SportsBuisnessJournal notes that in the News Corp filing, the BT schools would receive an average of $112M annually). Adding Texas would add almost $100/year to that number per the math above.
So for an average school if you use my numbers:
Pre -Texas: $112/11 schools = $10.2M
Post-Texas: [($290M / 3) + $112] / 12 = $17.4M
I think most Big Ten schools would like a $7M jump in revenues EVERY YEAR. And that's not counting the additional value the ABC/ESPN contract would have with Texas.
Add to that, in football specifically, the winner of the New Big Ten would now be considered equally with the SEC champ (especially since the Big XII would take a big hit and a non-galaxy smashing power USC makes the Pac-10 not attractive), and you likely have the conference champ an almost lock to the nat'l title game and a second BCS bowl bid every year.
Academically, UT faculty would turn into zombies after joining the CIC (mmmmm... large endowment research brains.... mmmmm).
THe more I think about this, as long as Texas can swallow some pride entering the Big Ten, this is not just a win-win, but a blowout-blowout for BOTH sides.
- 88% is approximate number of households that have either cable or sat TV, source: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/cable_satellite.html
- 25 Million: approximate population of Texas (2008 census bureau numbers)
- $1.10 monthly for BTN subscription fee (source: www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/111214)
"So I come out of Ohio Stadium after we beat the Buckeyes, and right there on the hood of my friend's car, some one took a dump, in the shape of an 'O'. no shit. Oh, sorry, bad pun."
February 11th, 2010 at 5:46 PM |
It's the number of households
It's the number of households
in Texas, not the population that should be multiplied by your 88% figure. The BTN collects per cable subscriber (household), not for each person in the household.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:25 PM |
I can't speak to the athletic
I can't speak to the athletic
I can't speak to the athletic sides of things, but I work in medical research for Michigan and we have a few joint projects that involve Texas. A lot of the Texas faculty and staff have expressed jealously over the CIC (it's academic prestige, ability to get grants, etc, etc). They'd pretty much kill to get in on this.
It all depends on how this plays out. If the Texas legislature can be placated on the athletic issues via promises to play a lot of Texas (state of) teams for out of conference play and bribed with visions of even more massive research grants coming in via CIC membership, they might jump ship. It all depends if the Texas adminstration focuses on sports or sweet, sweet research dollars.
The other point regarding how much leverage Texas has on the school. At Michigan we get conservative state congresscritters bitching over stem cell research, the fact we give same sex benefits and various other policies at the U. They threaten to cut our funding and the response typically is: "Oooooh cut our funding you say? We're so scared, we're sorry, please don't hurt us. No wait, we're not, we'll just go to the CDC and get another semitruck full of money. Go fuck yourself Senator."
February 11th, 2010 at 4:36 PM |
Fred Jackson
Fred Jackson
Might be the biggest hype machine coach in all of college football. Every year you think we have a running back corps of future Heisman winners.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:36 PM |
I live in Texas
I live in Texas
and I would be willing to guarantee it never happens. I'd kill to catch a Michigan game down here, but the state is so Tex-o-centric and full of themselves, they would never "stoop" to joining a midwest conference (down here, everything north of Oklahoma is Canada). There are still bumper stickers (in the year 2010) pulling for Texas to secede from the United States. Don't get me wrong, I would be thrilled, and as to the Big Ten Network's increased viewership, I pay extra to get it already, so subtract me from the "new viewers" numbers.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:30 PM |
Texas in the Big 10? No way!
Texas in the Big 10? No way!
Living in Texas for the last two years, I have learned one interesting fact. Football is more important than anything, especially in the education system down here.
Football is life, the rest is just details. However, they don't care about anything that is not Texas. A majority of people down here don't even the know the difference between MSU and Michigan. I have to explain it to most people, then stab my brain with a q-tip.
Plus due to the scheduling of the Big 12, Texas plays a maximum of 2 games outside the State. They wouldn't give up that inherent advantage. Plus they would go insane with some of the 11 AM start times locally.
Brian, although, Texas baseball is great. If the move benefited the football team, they wouldn't care if it sent the baseball team playing to division 3. Nothing registers here besides football.
I expect nothing and therefore never disappointed.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:31 PM |
I never realized Bo Ryan was
I never realized Bo Ryan was
I never realized Bo Ryan was 95% of the posts on most message boards across the globe. What an awesome collection of words with virtually no coherent meaning or consistent narrative.
February 11th, 2010 at 5:52 PM |
NCAA tourney expansion
NCAA tourney expansion
I was pleasantly surprised that on College Basketball Game Day on ESPN last weekend, all the talking heads hated the idea of the expansion - Bilas, Digger Phelps, Hubert Davis. Now perhaps the corporate suits told them to criticize it to keep the bidding down to get the rights, but I am not that big of a conspiracy theorist. I think it is good for maintenance of the status quo that the public face of the world wide leader is against the expansion.
I'm with Beilein. I would like to see more 'play in' games, and instead of involving all mid majors, get some of the BCS league schools involved.
If each bracket had, say two play in games among the group of final cuts and final invites, with the winners, say, advancing to the 8/9 games, then maybe thats not a bad idea. For this year, how about play in games with L'Ville vs VCU and St. MAry's vs USF with the winners playing each other in an 8/9 game three days later.
Or somehow doing a bracket buster type of an event between some of the final at large candidates.
The problem is there are so many more teams now than the last time the tournament expanded. I'd be in favor of it, if it guaranteed more Colonial teams, for exmaple. There are 6 teams in that league that can win games in the tourney this year. Except only one will get in. These leagues werent around or, if they were, just a shadow of what they are now the last time the field expanded. Something needs to be done to get them in the field. But, I think major expansion would, as outlined in the post, just allow for 3/4 of the bCS leagues to make the field and that is boring and not worth it.
But, some expansion has to happen. I'm old enough to recall being thrilled by the 1979, 1982 and 1983 tournaments all of which didnt have the magical 64-team bracket. There are a lot more teams to consider now and some reform is in order to allow leagues like the CAA, MWC and Horizon a chance at at large bids.
Also: I live in Ohio. Its not bad. Where would Michigan football be without it? Nowhere, that's where. Hardly the worst state ever in my book. I still think its a funny shirt, however.
Help My Friend Allison Fight ALS
CFB, Week 1 Lines at the