The Confidential

The ACC Sports Blog

Archive for the tag “proposal”

06 Mar 2013
16 Comments

The Case for Navy to the ACC

Look, nobody knows what is going on with the rumors regarding teams leaving the ACC.  Depending on where you choose to read, the ACC may be extremely strong right now or extremely vulnerable.  The Confidential remains of the opinion that the absence of a grant of rights deal confirms that the Conference is at least somewhat vulnerable.  But, assuming it is not, there is still the issue of Notre Dame’s partial membership.  While the Confidential understands the lure of Connecticut and Cincinnati, and maybe even Temple, the Confidential would also like to make the case for Navy as the 16th school.

First, Navy could be considered in the same exact format as Notre Dame–a partial football schedule, with membership in the remaining sports.  Perhaps Notre Dame and Navy could split one share of the revenue somehow unless/until full football membership was resolved.

Picture this for divisions, with cross-over above/below:

Atlantic: Notre Dame, Miami, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Wake Forest

Coastal: Navy, Florida State, Virginia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Clemson, Duke, NC State

If ND and Navy could commit to the 7 division games, plus an 8th game between the two teams, this should make everyone happy and wealthier.  ND would still have 4 more games to spread among its OOC foes, such as USC and various Big 10 schools.  And the ACC Championship game could include Notre Dame.

Frankly, Navy has not been that bad in football anyway.  Credit Paul Johnson for putting them back on the map.  They are not a pushover.

Or, if ND/Navy are reluctant to go that high in terms of # of games, just keep them in parentheses… playing 5 games, plus the 6th game with each other.

Those divisions still work for hoops too.

Second, Navy is a fine academic institution.  There is no downgrade there.

Third, Navy has a lacrosse team, which would give the ACC its 6th lacrosse-playing school.

Fourth, Navy is located in the very place vacated by Maryland.  While Navy does not have the local following that Maryland does, it certainly has the national following.

Fifth, while its basketball team will always be undermanned, is that the worst thing for the conference?  There is already plenty of competition to get to the Big Dance.  And if Navy ever DID make it… they would have the whole country rooting for them.  Needless to say, Navy has not done well outside of the David Robinson era anyway.  So it’s no loss for the institution.

Finally, this keeps the UConn/Cincinnati debate alive should the ACC suffer additional losses.  It is likely that future expansion will be in pairs.  So adding those two teams together remains possible for backfill purposes.

What do you think?  Why yes or no?

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Football, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
04 Mar 2013
5 Comments

Is ESPN’s Greed Causing it to Lose Profit?

Frank the Tank has a new article up on the Catholic 7’s new television deal showing that basketball has more value in expansion than previously thought.  The Confidential does not disagree.  However, with Fox offering big money for a basketball-only product–and taking that product away from ESPN–it is just the latest example of ESPN’s greed causing it to lose profit.  What this also shows is that ESPN made a killing off its undervalued contract with the Big East and is making another killing off of the ACC contract.

Think about it.  If the Catholic 7 collectively have a fair market value of $3M apiece–that is $21M right there.  TCU, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers, and Louisville have values of approximately $18M apiece–given that they were accepted into conferences that needed roughly that (more for TCU/Rutgers/WVU) to break even.  So that is $108M.  Figure ND is worth $6M for its non-football stuff… that is $135M ($21M + $108 + $6M).  And then you still have UConn, USF, and Cincinnati.  Even at $25M total for the three schools, that is $160M.

For that collection of schools, ESPN offered $11M per football school–or $99M/year.  With the hoops schools getting a few million apiece, that is another $20M tops.  So $120M.  $40M less than what the schools ultimately proved to be worth individually.  At the very least.

In the end, ESPN ends up with UConn, USF, Cincinnati, and fodder.  So much for that extra value.  By trying to profit as much as possible off the Big East, ESPN ended up losing most of it.

Sort of.  Some of it went to the ACC, which is also under ESPN’s control.

For now.

Regardless of the veracity of any rumors, there are vultures circling the ACC to see IF it is a carcass.

So the interesting issue is whether ESPN will lose its ACC golden goose also.  Viewed separately, all but a handful of ACC schools are desired by the Big XII, SEC, and Big 10.  Viewed conservatively, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, and Wake Forest are “stuck” in the ACC.  An argument could be made that BC, Pitt, and Syracuse might have value to the Big XII as part of a NE wing with WVU.  Interesting thought.  But let’s assume not.  If conferences making $20M/year (minimum) can find a revenue BOOST in adding the other 10 ACC schools, that must mean that those schools are worth at least $22M apiece or $220M.  Assuming the remaining 4 are worth $11M apiece (50%), that is $264M total.  Minimum.  It is probably much higher.

Well, ESPN is paying an average of $240M per year.  Less extra profit than with the Big East, but still a nice 10% premium above the bare minimum numbers discussed above.

The question this time is whether ESPN will allow the ACC–in its current form–to walk out the door.  For every ACC school that leaves for somewhere other than the SEC, ESPN becomes less relevant and Fox becomes more relevant on the college sports scene.  At some point, ESPN has to protect its place in the college sports game.  It wants to start an SEC Network, not become the SEC Network.  Right?  But, given what has happened at many major corporations, one can never underestimate the stupidity of an organization.  10 years from now ESPN’s college programming might be down to the SEC and 10 different shows where reporters yell at each other about college sports.  Or ESPN could end up overbidding on the Big XII or Big 10 because they put themselves into a desperate situation.  Who knows?

But it does seem like ESPN could save itself a lot of trouble by locking up the ACC.  That gives the network good football and great basketball.  Programming from September to March.  At the very least, something to keep it on pace with Fox.

 

Syracuse, Notre Dame, Pitt, and Louisville fans… get your Big East Conference Tournament tickets here:

Big East Basketball Tournament – All Sessions

ACC fans, get your tournament tickets here:

ACC Basketball Tournament – All Sessions

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Football, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
27 Feb 2013
14 Comments

Conference Realignment–What if the ACC, Big 10, SEC, and Big XII Worked Together?

So far, conference realignment has been about taking… usually in the form of a happy conference (stealing a school), a happy school (happy to be stolen) and–cue the sad trombone–a sad conference (losing a school).  So far, the unhappy conference has usually been the Big East, but the Big XII has lost Missouri, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska, while the ACC has lost Maryland.  Only the Pac-12, SEC, and Big 10 have been exclusively happy.  In the meantime, there are rumors upon rumors of the ACC being carved up, with fewer (but existing) rumors regarding the Big 10 eying more Big XII schools.  But what if the ACC, Big 10, SEC, and Big XII sat down and worked on a plan that would keep each of these conferences roughly happy, while allowing each conference to arguably expand its market base?

Consider that the Big 10 has eyes on the Southeast market, but is leery of alienating its midwestern base/roots.  While some people talk about expanding to 18 or 20, these additions always involve Michigan and/or Ohio State moving to the eastern side.  On the other hand, the Big XII has a grant of rights that makes it more difficult to pry away a school.  But what if everyone sat down and came up with a plan that would kind of/sort of make everyone happier.

First, the Big XII would give up its GOR rights for Kansas, allowing them to slide to the Big 10.  In exchange, the ACC would give up Pitt, who would slide to the Big XII.  The SEC would give up Missouri.  In exchange for Missouri, the ACC would give up North Carolina State.  Missouri would go to the Big 10.  The Big 10 would be at 16, the SEC at 14.  At 10 members, the Big XII would have the option of taking Cincinnati and USF to move into further new markets (Ohio and Florida), while also adding a conference game.  The ACC could take UConn–adding a new market to replace the NC State “market” lost.  The ACC could also take Temple, adding a private school in the Pennsylvania market.

This would result in:

SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky

SEC West: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, Mississippi, Miss State, and Texas A&M.

Big 10 West: Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa

Big 10 East: Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Michigan, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State

Big XII South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Big XII North: West Virginia, Pitt, Cincy, USF, Iowa State, Kansas State

ACC Atlantic: UConn, BC, Temple, Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, (ND)

ACC Coastal: Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Miami, (Navy–same deal as ND, only less money?)

Issues:

Big XII loses Kansas–a major basketball power.  However, Kansas is also terrible at football.  The Big XII stays strong in football at the top by adding Cincy and USF–two beatable teams in great markets for recruiting.  Cincy and USF are on the upswing in hoops too.  Pitt is very established in hoops.  A nice home-and-home pod with Pitt and Cincy for West Virginia.

SEC loses Missouri, but picks up NC State.  A market for market swap that probably hurts the SEC somewhat.  But the SEC adds a school that gives inroads into North Carolina, while further fitting in better on the Eastern side.  If, in 10 years, the SEC and Big 10 decide to carve up the ACC–the SEC has a lure for North Carolina–State is already there.  Meanwhile, NC State is more of an SEC school in terms of football zeal by the fans.  The basketball program could thrive freed from the shadow of Duke and UNC too.

The Big 10 gets a stronger Western flank with Missouri and Kansas.  With both schools freed of games against the powers of the SEC and Big XII, they could thrive.  The divisions finally start to make geographic sense, allowing for a 9 game schedule–7 games inter-division, plus two games against other division.

The ACC loses NC State and Pitt–two decent football programs.  UConn and Temple are a downgrade… but this staves off a loss of the major football powers and the major markets/leaders.

 

Of course, in a perfect world, the existing conferences could sit down and make complete geographic sense.  But that cannot happen.  In the interim, however, the conferences could work to share markets to allow all TV deals to slide upwards.  Although it is will get the most criticism, the Big XII would really be the big winner here.  The adds of Pitt, Cincy, and USF would open up three major recruiting markets, without exactly taking on terrible metro markets (Pitt, Cincy, Tampa).

What do you think?  Even if impossible, does it make sense?

 

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment, Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
24 Nov 2012
22 Comments

ACC Expansion Thoughts: 16 teams?

The message boards are heating up over the idea of the ACC adding Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn to become the first 16-team conference.  Indeed, this was a legitimate enough “rumor” that the well-respected Frank the Tank blog (notwithstanding the Confidential’s recent criticism of some of the comments there), included this quote:

One interesting example of Twitter having fans on edge was a Tweet from Brian Miller, a Tallahassee Democrat reporter that said that the ACC wouldn’t even make a choice between Louisville and UConn, but rather add both of them along with Cincinnati* to create a 16-team conference.  By the time that Tweet spread like wildfire, Miller had removed it from his timeline.  Time will tell whether that was removed because it couldn’t be backed up or the information was too sensitive for the reporter’s source to put it out there for public consumption immediately.  The ACC may very well have the most incentive to grow to 16 first to create a perception of strength in numbers (even if it might not look like the most financially lucrative move).  [Full article here.]

At first glance, the idea of expanding to 16 teams seems counter-intuitive because it would mean 16 teams dividing an already too-small pot for 14 teams.  But there is plenty to discuss about it.  Here are the Confidentials thoughts (albeit with zero predictions).

The recent addition of Maryland to the Big 10 is a benefit to Fox.  While ESPN has a piece of the Big 10, as the Big Ten Network grows, the risk of losing more inventory also grows.  And Fox’s partnership with the Big 10 is one that includes joint ownership of the BTN.  While much is said about ESPN and Fox being cooperative in preventing a third major sports network developing, it cannot be forgotten that ESPN and Fox are not simply dividing the world for mutual benefit.  At some point, they are competitors.  In the same vein, the SEC and Big 10 both covet North Carolina–they may be cooperating to some extent, but they both ultimately have a similar goal.  In any event, if the Big 10 were to take two more ACC schools or if the Big XII were to take a few (or more) ACC schools, then the ACC’s ability to survive would be in jeopardy.  If ESPN profits from the ACC deal, they stand to lose that profit AND suffer the embarrassment of losing ground to Fox.  The Confidential believes that if ESPN wants to have a presence beyond merely the SEC in football and the remnants of the Big East in basketball, it needs to preserve the ACC.  If it wants to do that, it will have to pony up the $$$ to keep the ACC alive.  You know, like it did with the Big XII.

However, ESPN cannot just go around re-negotiating its contracts to pay more money.  It cannot show that little deference to its contracts or otherwise play favorites within the conference scheme.  The loss of Maryland is a one-team change in the conference.  If the ACC were to backfill with UConn or Louisville, ESPN would have to voluntarily renegotiate its contract.  This just cannot happen.

Instead, what needs to happen is that the ACC take on three new teams… such as Louisville, Cincinnati, and UConn.  If that happens, ESPN can renegotiate the TV deal.  It can help narrow the differences with the other conferences, such that the ACC seems less likely to be broken up.  Perhaps it would even be enough to make Florida State happy.  If so, the Big XII would be without effective replacements from the ACC to get to 12 teams.

Now, if the Big XII truly does want 12 teams, suddenly the best options on the table are the Big East schools–with Louisville and Cincinnati perhaps being the best targets, as they would be a nice fit with West Virginia.  Plus, Fox and the Big XII could see taking Louisville and Cincinnati a good measure to block the ACC from getting the revenue increase it needs from ESPN to start evening the balance.  This would make it more likely to eventually land Florida State and Cincinnati.  Indeed, imagine if Cincinnati starts having more TV revenue than Clemson and Florida State.  The pressure on the ACC would be substantial.  It could start to crumble.

On the other hand, the ACC could be pleased to see the Big XII take Louisville and Cincinnati because it would mean less spots available for a future raid of the ACC.  Does the Big XII want Florida State badly enough to go to 14 or 16 teams?  In addition, while Louisville to the ACC makes sense to make Florida State happy, UConn has the location and basketball pedigree to make the hoops schools happy.  In fact, the Big XII does not even need to TAKE Louisville, it just needs to have Louisville sufficiently convinced that the Big XII would take them to defer making a decision.  If Cincinnati is told they are the 16th team, their decision is dependent on both Louisville and UConn accepting.  If UConn accepts first, then it just comes down to whether Louisville is willing to sign on with the ACC or not.  The ACC could end up with UConn, without running the risk of angering Florida State.  After all, the decision was Louisville’s.  It chose the Big XII.

On yet another hand, if you are the Big XII… why care about Louisville and Cincinnati?  The Big XII’s best move would be to take USF with Louisville.  Tampa is a GREAT place for a school.  If the Big 10 can gamble on making Rutgers relevant, why couldn’t the Big XII gamble on USF becoming a clear 4th Florida school?  With Miami down, this is the time to strike.  Of course, USF couldn’t be having a worse year to struggle on the field.  But, from a demographics and recruiting standpoint, this has to be a worthy add.  Or the Big XII could use USF as the partner to try to woo Florida State.  If Clemson is unwilling to abandon the ACC, perhaps USF could do so.  Actually, an argument could be made that the Big XII expanding into Florida by taking BOTH USF and UCF makes some sense.  You get inroads on the Orlando/Tampa markets.  Two HUGE schools.  Again, if the Big 10 is willing to gamble on schools the Big XII.

With more hands than Secretariat, the Confidential has one more.  If the ACC goes to 16 teams, is there room for Notre Dame?  Suddenly, the Fighting Irish are looking at being the 17th school–an unwieldy number.  The ACC may have to move beyond the Fighting Irish at that point.  Maybe drop them down to 4 games per season.  Play each team once every 4 years.  Or this rumor could be a play to get Notre Dame to consider taking Cincinnati’s spot.  Having already sold the alums on the ACC partially, maybe there is a better ability to just bite the bullet and go “all in.”  It’s better than dropping down to the Atlantic-10 or being in the Big XII or Big 10.  For the ACC, if Notre Dame is not going to join now, it is never going to join.  If/when the big money conferences do start poaching the ACC schools, Notre Dame will lose interest.  It’s going to get worse before it gets better.  With ND, perhaps the ACC becomes safe.  Without ND, who knows?

Another hand… if the ACC was smart, it would just negotiate with ESPN to allow Florida State to now keep their Tier III rights.  Allow ND to join the ACC but also keep their Tier III rights.  ND can put theirs on NBC.  Florida State can do whatever it wants with theirs.  Keeping Florida State makes the Southern ACC schools like Clemson and Ga Tech happy.  Getting ND makes everyone happy.  Although ND and FSU would get some extra $$$, is there any doubt that those two schools are, by far, the biggest Kings that the ACC will ever have?  It’s the difference between football relevance and irrelevance.  In 2020’s, the ACC can negotiate something better for Clemson and Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech.  For now, Florida State and Notre Dame can keep those schools in the picture so that their prominence remains stable.

Of course, Occam’s Razor comes into play.  Perhaps the ACC just decided that adding three schools is a good idea.  Or perhaps the rumor is just a rumor.  Who knows anymore?

So, no predictions here… just thoughts.  Feel free to share where you think this is going.

Posted by acaffrey in Conference Realignment and tagged , , , , , , , ,
12 Jan 2012

1,000 Reasons Why It Will Not Work–But Here is a Radical Plan for College Football’s Post-Season

Look, line up to tell the Confidential the reasons why this Radical College Football post-season proposal will not work.  But what proposal WILL work?  What solution will keep the conferences, schools, bowls, NCAA, network and fans happy?  The problem is not that a solution cannot be designed.  The problem is that every “solution” is going to be greeted with some sort of opposition.  The problem is that college football is not basketball AND that you cannot design a plan in advance that will accommodate the unique regular season that is taking place.  Accordingly, the Confidential presents its Radical Plan for College Football’s Postseason (the plan).

Under the plan, there will have to be some significant changes.  Instead of trying to design a strict 2,4, 8, 12, or 16 team playoff, the Championship Committee would be vested with the power to determine exactly how the national championship should be played out.  The emphasis would be on ensuring that all undefeated teams at least have the chance to decide it on the field.  The secondary emphasis would be to ensure that as few games as possible are used to reach a national champion, so as not to devalue the regular season.  The third emphasis would be maintaining the traditional tie-ins to the bowl games to the maximum extent possible.  And that is that.  Nothing more, nothing less.

First, the Championship Game (CCG) should be moved to Martin Luther King Day.  Frank the Tank has a great write up on the logic of using that date.

Second, all the BCS bowls should be moved back to January 1st.  Once upon a time, that was a veritable feast of college football.  A fan would plan on going from Cotton to Rose to Orange to Fiesta throughout the day, with a few other games sprinkled in for good measure.  It is easier to carve out a day than it is to carve out the night for several straight days.  This is just the way things are today.  Plus, think of March Madness.  You don’t plan to watch all day, but you get sucked in by the staggered start times and end up enjoying the finish to multiple games.  The networks can just plan on having more commercial value in the second half of bowl games.

Third, College Football needs a Championship Committee to decide who “gets in.”  Most other sports have one to decide who plays in the post-season tournament.  The problem is that College Football is unique in that every regular season game is an event.  Having an 8, 12, or 16 team playoff WILL detract from that.  It just will.  The beauty of college football is that every game matters.  The goal is to keep that.

Fourth, here is where it gets radical.  The Championship Committee is not going to be limited to just deciding who plays, but deciding HOW it plays out.  The Championship Committee will make the final decisions using the BCS Standings issued immediately after the weekend of the conference championship games to make the final plan.  At its disposal will be all of the bowl games, plus at least two non-BCS bowl games.

For example:

  • If there are two undefeated teams, then the Championship Committee will designate those two teams to play in the CCG.  From there, the other BCS bowls just proceed as in the current format.
  • If there is only one undefeated team, the Championship Committee will designate the next two best teams– using the BCS standings– to play for the right to play the bona fide undefeated team in the CCG.  If the two teams that will play in the preliminary game represent both the Big 10 and the Pac 12, the game is played in the Rose Bowl.  If not, the host bowl game is determined by BCS ranking, with the higher ranked team being the host team based on traditional bowl game tie-ins.  The Big East, Notre Dame, and all other conferences would be considered Cotton Bowl or Fiesta Bowl teams, depending on whether the Big XII wanted the Fiesta Bowl or Cotton Bowl.
  • In other situations, the Championship Committee will really have to earn its work.  It can work within the bowl system to create a 4-team “playoff.”  In all circumstances, any “playoff” will be skewed so that the Rose Bowl features a Big-10/Pac-12 matchup.  Beyond that, the Championship Committee would seek to have the bowls feature their traditional tie-ins to the extent possible.  ANY undefeated teams must be included in the 4-team playoff,regardless of BCS ranking.
  • In the rare scenario where there are 5 or 6 undefeated teams somehow, the Championship Committee would be able to have those teams engage in a pre-preliminary round in December to get down to 4 undefeated teams.
  • One tough situation is what to do with a 13-0 Ball State.  If the only other undefeated team is, say, an SEC school, an argument could be made that the fairest result is to just have those teams play.  If LSU had beaten a 13-0 MAC team this year, would the result have been any less valid?  If Ball State wins, it is the national champion.  It would be the only school to go undefeated AND would have beaten the team that beat Alabama and Arkansas.  Would they be “better” than Alabama?  Probably not.  But was Jim Valvano’s famous North Carolina State team better than Houston?  Were they better than everyone else that year?  No and no.  But it is what it is.
  • A second tough situation is where you have two undefeated teams, but neither are even close to #1.  See 2008.  In that circumstance, a 4-team playoff with the top 2 teams in the BCS standings will solve the problem.
  • The third tough situation is when you have no undefeated teams.  In that scenario, you just have to create a 4-team playoff and hope it works out.

After all, there is no sense in having a 4-team playoff when only 2 or 3 teams have a valid claim to be national champions.  However, a 4-team playoff is not even good enough when there are 5 undefeated teams.  And so on.  The only time when it is clear how many games are required is immediately after the season ends.

In 2011, Alabama would have hosted Oklahoma State in the Sugar Bowl for the right to play LSU.

In 2010, Oregon would have hosted TCU in the Rose Bowl for the right to play Auburn.

In 2009, there were 5 undefeated teams.  Boise State would have played Cincinnati in some December bowl game for the right to play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.  Texas would have hosted TCU in either the Fiesta Bowl or the Cotton Bowl.  The winners of the Sugar Bowl and Fiesta/Cotton Bowl would have played for the national championship.

In 2008, Florida and Oklahoma were the #1 and #2 teams, but not undefeated.  Boise State and Utah were undefeated.  So the Championship Committee would have had Florida host Boise State in the Sugar Bowl.  Oklahoma would have hosted Utah in the Fiesta/Cotton.  And the winners would have played.  While controversy would not have been escaped here, either an undefeated team would have earned the National Championship by beating two very good teams or there would be no undefeated teams left standing.  The best that you can do in some years.

Will it end controversy?  No.  If the Championship Committee is choosing between three 1-loss teams, there are going to be arguments.  But there are always arguments.  In a 4-team playoff, the 5th team is going to complain.  And so on.

What do you think?  What are some of the problems with this plan?

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , ,
10 Jan 2012
1 Comment

ACC Divisional Breakdowns After Expansion

Much has been written or discussed regarding the anticipated divisional breakdowns in the ACC after Syracuse and Pittsburgh are added.  While the Confidential appreciates that the football-elite schools in the Southern portion of the ACC would want to avoid a geographic division, the Confidential believes that there are numerous reasons why a straight geographical breakdown is prudent.

When the Confidential discusses a geographically based breakdown, this is what the Confidential actually envisions:

  • ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Miami
  • ACC South: Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, North Carolina, Clemson, and Florida State.

Inherent in that process is that, for football, the teams would have “locked-in” rivalries against the team directly above/below in the standings.  This would allow Miami to play Florida State every year and maintain the North Carolina-Virginia rivalry.  With a 9-game conference schedule, that would allow 2 other cross-divisional games.  With 8 games, perhaps there could be some rotation of the cross-over game to allow some variety.

The Confidential anticipates that some will argue that these divisions are not adequately balanced.  How so?  Regardless of the pedigree of Clemson and Florida State, it is Virginia Tech that has carried the ACC flag in BCS games.  Moreover, the ACC Championship game will settle it on the field.

Also, who can say what division in a conference is going to be better?  A few years ago, the SEC East was the powerhouse, with Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia.  Now?  It is the West with LSU, Alabama, and Auburn.  These things are cyclical.

More importantly, let’s say the ACC South is way better than the North.  That just means that the winner of the South will have that much better of a strength of schedule and be appropriately battle-tested for its bowl game.  With a 2-15 record in BCS games, the ACC needs to start caring about BCS bowl-performance.

The other good thing about this division is that it is logical.  Miami has terrible attendance anyway and, as a private school, lacks the graduate bank to fill-up road stadiums.  Plus, with its Big East history, games against its former Big East foes will be logical draws.  Plus, the northern schools have ample Florida retirees to contribute to the attendance at Miami games.  And it is a destination.  If you are living in Boston or New York, a road Miami game is a vacation (perhaps even from the snow).  If you live in Atlanta?  Not quite as much.

But above all else, such as division makes logical sense.  A fan in California or Idaho or Minnesota will be able to easily tell which team belongs in what division.  Quick–are Penn State and Michigan in the same Big 10 division?  You don’t know.  Because it is not geographically based.  While ACC fans may be able to remember who is Atlantic or Coastal, the rest of the country cannot and will not keep track of it.  No need to make it confusing.

Such a division also ensures that the neighboring rivalries are preserved.  Why prevent Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College from playing each other every year?  Historically, these teams played each other quite a bit.  You do not need to create these rivalries–merely resurrect them.  And what is more likely–a Pittsburgh fan driving to Syracuse or Maryland… or a Pittsburgh fan driving to North Carolina State?

In any event, the Confidential challenges anyone to explain why this system would not be better than the proposal to just plop Syracuse and Pittsburgh into one of the Atlantic or Coastal divisions already in place.  Go for it.

 

Posted by acaffrey in ACC only, Conference Realignment and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
07 Dec 2011

The College Football Overtime Rules Need to be Revised

With all the other hot topics to discuss, such as alleged molestation and the always-present college football post–season debate, the Confidential is hesitant to start another debate.  But the college football overtime rules stink.  There is no need for the NCAA to continue to use a system that is more “NHL Shootout” than the “Modified Sudden-Death” rules of the NFL during the playoff season.  Let the kids play real football in overtime.

As all college football fans know, the overtime rules allow each team to get one possession at the 25-yard line.  The possession order flips each overtime period.  In the third overtime, teams must go for a 2-point conversion after a touchdown.

The first problem the Confidential has is that the possessions start at the 25-yard line.  For the most part, teams start in field goal position.  If they gain 5 yards, it is a 37-yard field goal.  Even for college kickers, this is not a daunting kick (sorry Boise).  In a game like LSU-Alabama, the defenses came up big all night in denying the opposing offense the opportunity to get into field goal position.  And then in overtime, the rules just gave each team automatic placement there.  It was a field goal contest with LSU winning and Alabama losing.  The result was fair–Alabama has no reason to whine or complain.  But is this really how games should be resolved?  The field goal equivalent to an NHL shootout?  A team does not move the ball, but can win because it has the better kicker?

To be sure, the NFL sudden-death rules are a bit harsh.  The team that wins the coin flip MUST take the ball (ask the Detroit Lions about this) and the majority of time will score via a field goal to end the game.  The other team does not even get the ball.  That seems odd.  Football is not just an offensive sport–it is a game that involves offense, defense, and special teams.  Allowing the recipient to win on a field goal where the opponent does not even get a chance to put its offense on the field against its opponent’s defense diminishes the fairness and reliability of the result.

Even the NFL is moving away from the rule, allowing both teams to at least have possession of the ball in playoff overtime games.  To deprive an overtime game of Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Aaron Rodgers, simply because their teams had the poor fortune of losing a coin flip, was finally deemed insufficient by the NFL.  The college rules, fortunately,  never wavered in recognizing that both teams deserve to put their offenses on the field.

But the NFL does not adopt entirely new rules for overtime, such as having the teams start from the opponent’s 25-yard line. Nor should college football.  Just guarantee each team a chance to possess the ball and be done with it.  Play normal football and see what happens.

The second problem the Confidential has with the rules is that it is as if the goal of the college football game is to end the game as soon as possible.  What’s the hurry?  Baseball doesn’t start extra innings with a runner on third-base.

Even the NHL plays a 5-minute overtime (albeit with 4 on 4) before resorting to the shootout.  And those rules do not apply to NHL playoff games, which just continue indefinitely until there is a winner.    After all, the NHL playoffs are elimination-type games (some are elimination, all count towards determining elimination).

College basketball provides 5 minute overtime period(s) with the same basic rules–regardless of whether the game is played in November or March.  Who can forget the epic six-overtime Syracuse-Connecticut game?   The game ended at 1:22 a.m.  Is there any reason a college football game cannot extend as long as necessary to reach a reliable result?  Absolutely not.  In fact, college basketball features players fouling out and being unable to return in overtime.  Eight players fouled out of the Syracuse-UConn game.  That led to reduced rosters.  In football, most teams travel with at least 65 players and usually quite a bit more.  There is no concern about not being able to field a team.

That being said, the Confidential does understand that college football is grueling.  Players need to be appropriate hydrated wearing all of those pads.  The game is, itself, physical.  So if there is a reason to not drag out the game by having coaches play a very conservative style of overtime and taking three fifteen-minute overtime periods to resolve.  That is understandable.  But that is why a modified form of sudden-death rules is appropriate.

In light of all of this, the Confidential proposes this for a modified, sudden-death overtime:

  • The overtime game begins with the last team to score in regulation receiving the football via kickoff.
  • The first kickoff by any team in overtime cannot be an onside kick.  The kick must travel beyond the 50-yard line or it is a 10-yard penalty–with the receiving team choosing to apply to the recovery or require a re-kick with the penalty yardage.
  • The team that receives the first kickoff can punt, score, or be scored upon.
  • If the team that receives the first kickoff punts, they lose the game if its opponent scores a TD or FG.
  • If the team that receives the first kickoff is scored upon via a safety, defensive touchdown or punt return touchdown, the game ends without any further action.
  • If the team that receives the first kickoff scores, the other team will get one offensive possession.  That team has the one possession to tie the game or win the game.  If they score to take a lead, they win the game.  But, if they tie the game, the overtime shifts to full sudden-death mode.  The next team that scores by any method wins.
  • After each team has one possession, onside kicks are allowed.
  • A fumbled punt return or kickoff return counts as an offensive possession.

With this rule, both teams would have at least one chance to put its special teams and offense on the field.  If the receiving team gets conservative and does not go for it on 4th down or kicks a FG, they run the risk of losing by a FG or TD later.  If the team that gets the ball second chooses to go for the tie, rather than the win… so be it.  Do not complain that you lost in sudden-death when you had the opportunity to win.

The only unfairness possible is if the first team with possession  scores a TD, goes for two, and converts it…. in that instance, the team with the ball second has no chance to win it.  But even then they could decide to kick an onsides kick if they really did not want their opponent’s offense back on the field for a sudden-death chance to win it.  At least there is a chance.

Return to the LSU-Alabama overtime.  By not having both teams start at the 25-yard line, either Alabama or LSU would have to drive the field to score a TD.  Or have their defense make a play to get them in FG range.  Or have a punt return that sets up field position.  In other words, even the FG would require some performance by the three phases of football.  Whomever won that game would have done something other than have a FG kicking contest.  The result would be that much more reliable.

And given that the FBS system is all about the regular season being the playoff, isn’t that all the more important?  Let Oklahoma State play Iowa State in a real overtime to determine if the Cowboys lose control of their own destiny.  Let Alabama and LSU play real football to decide the outcome in overtime.  Overtimes decide hugely important games.  These overtimes would be thoroughly enjoyable for the fans watching in person and on television.  Everyone wins if the NCAA adopts these more reasonable overtime rules.

 

Posted by acaffrey in Football, Uncategorized and tagged , , ,
01 Nov 2011
6 Comments

Proposal to “Cure” the BCS

The BCS annoys many people, but it was designed to ensure that the #1 team and the team #2 team face each other whenever possible.  Before the BCS, the bowl tie-ins created a situation where the #1 team and the #2 team might not play.  In recent years, there has usually been an ability to match the #1 and #2 teams.  The debate has turned to how to decide the #1 and #2 teams, particularly where a Cincinnati, TCU, or Boise St. was left out.  But, for the most part, the BCS has worked.

The problem for the BCS is that it awards money to conferences based on the matchups NOT featuring team #1 and team #2.  The six major conferences get paid no matter what.  This has been unfair to the major conferences when an 8-4 UConn team has gotten to represent the Big East.  This was unfair to the conferences that had 10 win teams placed in inferior bowls or matched up against an inferior foe.  This is also unfair to the lesser conferences, that have watched 10 or 11 win teams miss out while a worse team gets in.

The Confidential has a solution:

  1. The SEC, Big 10, ACC, Big XII, and Pac-12 get AQ bids with a full share payout.
  2. The Big East and MWC-CUSA are “semi-qualified conferences” get AQ bids with a full share payout, except 3, 4, and 5 below.
  3. The BCS representative of the Big East and MWC-CUSA merger must have 2 or fewer losses to participate.
  4. If either or both conferences cannot produce a champion that qualifies, the BCS is free to take a different team.
  5. Where a different team is taken, the conference of that school and the conference that lost its AQ status for that year (and only that year) split a share.
  6. If either of the semi-qualified conferences place a team in a BCS bowl for 5 straight years, the standard will be relaxed to 3 or fewer losses.
  7. If either of the semi-qualified conferences fail to place a team in a BCS bowl for 3 out of any 5 consecutive years, the BCS conferences can–by majority vote–exclude them from semi-qualification.
  8. There is no prohibition against any conference having 3 teams in BCS games in any given year.

This would allow the Big East to stay regional by taking Temple, Navy, East Carolina, UCF, Memphis, SMU, and Houston.  The Big East can decide which ones get full membership vs. football only.

The other conference can have 10-20 teams, led by Boise St., that would anchor the West and Midwest (except SMU/Houston).

The merits of BCS membership would be decided by the teams and conferences and provide for long-term stability.

The 5 BCS conferences will not be stuck with an 8 or 9 win team from the semi-qualified conferences, and will instead get to have its own superior teams placed that year.  Plus, in those circumstances, more money than under current system.

Posted by acaffrey in Football and tagged , , ,

Post Navigation

Newer Entries →