Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, November 01, 2012

OT: November College Football Thread.

Alabama Is still Ranked #1.  Will they hold steady to repeat? Make it to the title game?  Or does another team claim the Crystal ball in Miami in January.

odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 01, 2012 at 01:43 PM | 3408 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: college football

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 8 of 35 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
   701. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4306011)
Isn't Syracuse a bigger deal in NYC than Rutgers?

First of all, no.

Second of all, the NY Market is more than NYC. Rutgers is extremely popular in New Jersey, which by itself is a major market.
   702. smileyy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4306012)
UConn for Maryland is a positive swap in basketball.


Presumably, but who knows what will happen post-Jim Calhoun.
   703. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4306014)
No offense to Maryland and Rutgers alum, but I feel like the B1G is diluting its brand with these additions

Yes; how could Rutgers possibly besmirch the conference of Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota and Northwestern.
   704. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4306015)
UConn is a dead ringer for MD. Northeastern school, elite basketball, meh football.
   705. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4306018)
by the way, Rutgers is currently ranked higher than every team in the Big Ten except Nebraska.
   706. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4306023)
WJ, I figured you'd be pretty darn happy.
   707. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4306025)
UConn is a dead ringer for MD. Northeastern school, elite basketball, meh football.

Maryland has a big advantage in academics, which matters for the ACC as well (or did?). Better at fringe sports as well. I'll leave it to others to determine the importance of media markets (Baltimore + DC v. Connecticut + a sliver of NYC, I presume ... I'd naively think that the former is better).

WJ aside, I imagine few would consider Rutgers to be anything but a watering down of the B10 brand.
   708. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4306028)

WJ aside, I imagine few would consider Rutgers to be anything but a watering down of the B10 brand.


Why? "Tradition?"
   709. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4306031)
UConn is a dead ringer for MD. Northeastern school, elite basketball, meh football.


Reunited with the Western Reserve once again!

The B1G has an interesting decision coming. IMO, it makes sense to build a solid block of Eastern schools - the conference that Penn State should've built for itself, but didn't. Do you try to pluck UVA/VaTech? Presume UVA/UNC is out, because UNC isn't coming without State and Wake. What about UVA/UConn? Or if you want to stay to the North, UConn/BC? Lots of options. It seems like Pitt and 'Cuse aren't targets for economic reasons.

With an additional two-team expansion in the East, you start to see a quasi-plausible alignment:

East:
PSU
Maryland
Rutgers
[Eastern School A]
[Eastern School B]

West:
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
NW
Illinois

That leaves five schools over to divvy up between the divions, with arguments pro and con for several splits:
UM
MSU
OSU
IU
Purdue



   710. JJ1986 Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4306042)
Better at fringe sports as well.


I think they have one of the better LaCrosse teams in the country.
   711. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4306043)
I think they have one of the better LaCrosse teams in the country.


La Crosse is a place in Wisconsin. Lacrosse is what obnoxious anti-intellectual suburban bros play. LaCrosse is neither.
   712. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4306047)
WJ aside, I imagine few would consider Rutgers to be anything but a watering down of the B10 brand.
Why? "Tradition?"

Quality of academics, quality of athletics, and size of fanbase. Granted, Rutgers has a higher ceiling than most schools.
   713. DA Baracus Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4306050)
Rutgers and Maryland to the Big Ten, er, Twelve, er, Fourteen. Almost as exciting as an ACC game.

Maryland's AD said the divisions will be:

"Leaders"
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Purdue
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers

"Legends"
Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Minnesota
Northwestern
Iowa
Illinois
   714. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4306054)

Quality of academics, quality of athletics, and size of fanbase. Granted, Rutgers has a higher ceiling than most schools.


Size of the fanbase is valid, sure. The other two? Getting hard to see the difference between a Rutgers and most of the Big 10 in terms of football program quality. Academics? An AAU land grant public research university...fits the profile perfectly.
   715. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4306055)
Thank goodness the Big East died before the idiotic West/East split came about.
   716. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4306059)

Thank goodness the Big East died before the idiotic West/East split came about.


It's not dead yet. A ton of football teams still planning to play there as of yet. We'll see what happens with the five remaining desriable programs: USF, Cincy, Louisville, UConn, and Boise.
   717. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4306060)
Getting hard to see the difference between a Rutgers and most of the Big 10 in terms of football program quality.


Come now, man. Maybe you need a new set of glasses. And I'm a supporter of Rutgers to the B1G.
   718. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4306062)
Damn was hoping Rutgers and Michigan were in the same division. I assume there is only one guaranteed crossover now.
   719. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4306063)
Here' is HALF the Big Ten:

Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern.....

Which of those schools is demonstrably better than Rutgers on the field, today?
   720. madvillain Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4306064)
Come now, man. Maybe you need a new set of glasses. And I'm a supporter of Rutgers to the B1G.


It's going to be the Big 2 and Little 12. Michigan and O$U are recruiting top 5 nationally, no other team is even in the top 20. Not WI, not NU, not MSU, not PSU and not MD and RU.

I don't have any problem with this expansion. It's good for Michigan, I don't give a #### about the rest of the conference. I might miss playing Iowa sometimes but that's about freaking it. Let the money pour in, let Michigan and O$U continue to distance themselves from everyone in football. And oh yea, helluva basketball conference.
   721. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4306065)
Damn was hoping Rutgers and Michigan were in the same division. I assume there is only one guaranteed crossover now.


Agreed, ten thousand times agreed.

I dont get why you pick up Rutgers and then put them in a non-geographically aligned division that doesn't include Michigan, probably the most popular college program in NYC. Unless this is just a place-keeper till further expansion, which is my stong suspicion.
   722. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4306066)

I dont get why you pick up Rutgers and then put them in a non-geographically aligned division that doesn't include Michigan, probably the most popular college program in NYC


Well, they are in a division with Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin...that is a lot of the conference star power. The other division needs somebody...my guess is they didnt want to to split up MSU/UM
   723. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4306067)
It's a reasonable expansion candidate, given that they're going to expand, but not all AAU schools are created equal (sorry Kansas, sorry Nebraska at the time of their admittance to the Big 10).

If you take an university ranking metric, Rutgers will come in well below the Big 10 median. (First one I eyeballed was USN&WR; - Rutgers came in at #260 in the world, between Utah and Hawaii).

As for Rutgers skill at sport:
1) Rutgers, over the last four years, has posted Sagarin rankings around the Big 10 average (Rutgers: 73.88, Big Ten: 74.17). However,
2) football is not the only sport around - and Rutgers is far below the B10 in terms of how well they perform at the other stuff.
   724. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4306069)
Michigan's fanbase skews east more than any other fanbase in the B1G, by leaps and bounds. So what does the B1G do? Puts PSU, Maryland, and Rutgers in the other division.

Idiotic.
   725. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4306071)
It's going to be the Big 2 and Little 12. Michigan and O$U are recruiting top 5 nationally, no other team is even in the top 20. Not WI, not NU, not MSU, not PSU and not MD and RU.

I don't have any problem with this expansion. It's good for Michigan, I don't give a #### about the rest of the conference. I might miss playing Iowa sometimes but that's about freaking it. Let the money pour in, let Michigan and O$U continue to distance themselves from everyone in football. And oh yea, helluva basketball conference


Totally agree, man. As a NYC Michigan fan, I UNDERSTAND why the main body of Michigan fans don't get that the Megalopolis is Michigan's path to continued football relevance as Michigan (as a state) dclines. But I still think it's short-sighted. The NYC area sends tons of kids to Michigan, probably more than to any other traditional football school, and vice-versa with alumni coming to NYC.

The price of "missing" Iowa or Wisconsin is well-worth long-term relevance.

The protected cross-division game with OSU is a bear, though; one day it'll keep UM from winning a championship.
   726. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4306074)
First one I eyeballed was USN&WR;

Research quality has nothing to do with undergraduate education.
   727. madvillain Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4306077)
Unless this is just a place-keeper till further expansion, which is my stong suspicion.


This is probably correct imo. This is a precursor to 16 team super-conferences of which the B1G will be one. The B1G is just covering their bases added RU and MD now. I'm guessing they head west next.
   728. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4306078)
Fair enough - would you care to suggest another rating system?
Alternately, can you find another human being not associated with Rutgers who would make this comparison?
(Note: I've no connection to the Big East or Big Ten. Am a GT fan and lived in 4 ACC markets over the years, but will willingly conceed their not being the top conference at much of anything.)
   729. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4306079)
They really missed there chance by letting ND align its olympic sports with the acc
   730. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4306080)
Which of those schools is demonstrably better than Rutgers on the field, today?

Assuming you mean football field, I would take Northwestern in a heartbeat if they were playing Rutgers. It's hard to make comparisons directly, but Minnesota played a common opponent (a visiting Cuse) just as well, if not better (more yards gained, less allowed, same number of turnovers), and I think that game is a tossup. Rutgers is probably better than the other teams you mentioned, but this is pretty much the best Rutgers squad since 2006.

Thing is, Rutgers hasn't pounded anyone except for Temple and they haven't played a particularly tough schedule. The defense and special teams are really good, but they wouldn't be special in the Big Ten, just good. The offense is bad in the Big East, it will be worse in the Big Ten. To consistently compete or go bowling in the Big Ten, they are going to need to be able to move the ball much better than they have this year.

I think moving to the Big Ten will help Rutgers in recruiting. It will make it easier to get top in-state talent and to expand it's recruiting base out west while strengthening it's appeal in NY and Florida. But Rutgers will have to continue to get better to be successful on the football field in the Big Ten.
   731. madvillain Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4306081)
The NYC area sends tons of kids to Michigan, probably more than to any other traditional football school, and vice-versa with alumni coming to NYC.


I'm a native Michigander that lived in NYC from late '04 to 09. Michigan is the de-facto college football team there, even if cfb is way down on the sports radar for NYC metro, it's still like 12 million potential new fans/customers and you already have a solid base established.

I'd be sorta pissed if I was NU or PSU, but whatever, I'm not.
   732. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4306084)
The Big Ten is more than welcome to take Missouri out of the SEC if they want...
   733. Spivey Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4306087)


The age of the 4 super conferences is rapidly approaching. The Big 10, SEC, and Pac 12 have locked up 3 of the 4 available slots. Now the Big 12 and ACC are in a precarious position. One of them is going to be deprecated and it probably isn't going to be the one who strikes first.


People are saying this but I don't really see it. The Big 12 has a good conference in football and basketball. They have a good TV deal. Their only football deadweight is a basketball power. I think they Big 12 can survive at 10 teams if they want to. It is in no where near the same situation as the ACC. There's also no way that the ACC *can* strike first, because Texas and Oklahoma are never leaving the Big 12 for the AC ####### C.
   734. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4306088)

Which of those schools is demonstrably better than Rutgers on the field, today?


This is a small part of what I'm talking about. I mean, Louisiana Tech could beat Minnesota right now, but that doesn't mean I think Louisiana Tech wouldn't dilute the B1G brand quite a bit.

Rutgers is a good academic school with a historically pretty bad athletic program, not much of a fan base, and a small, usually empty stadium. That's why I think it dilutes the conference.
   735. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4306089)
Research quality has nothing to do with undergraduate education.


Rutgers falls below the bar in research quality as well. E.g.:

NSF Funding, FY 2011:
#1 Illinois
#6 Wisconsin
#8 Michigan
#11 Purdue
#14 Minnesota
#15 Michigan State
[#21 Maryland]
#22 Penn State
[#26 Rutgers]

Those rankings move around a bit over 1-3 year periods b/c of certain big awards (Illinois, e.g., is distorted by Fermilab). So looking at 2008:
#3 Illinois
#5 Wisconsin
#9 Michigan
#12 Minnesota
#16 Michigan State
#17 Penn State
#19 Purdue
#20 Ohio State
[#25 Maryland]
[#29 Rutgers]
   736. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4306090)

Alternately, can you find another human being not associated with Rutgers who would make this comparison?


Sure, USNWR, but not the rankings you're looking at. You should look at graduate rankings of PhD programs, which are far more closely correlated with research excellence. That will answer your question.
   737. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4306091)
The Big 12 would be crazy to stay with 10 teams, it will end up costing them in terms of playing for national titles and money from a potential conference championship games.
   738. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4306092)
Maryland and Rutgers almost right in the middle for USN&WR; US universities:

Northwestern 12
Michigan 29
Wisconsin 41
Illinois 46
Penn State 46
Ohio State 56
Maryland 58
Purdue 58
Rutgers 68
Minnesota 68
Iowa 72
MSU 72
Indiana 83
Nebraska 101

   739. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4306094)

NSF Funding, FY 2011:


Yes, STEM is the only kind of research.
   740. DA Baracus Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4306095)
Well, I would take Northwestern in a heartbeat if they were playing Rutgers.


Same here. And I'll take Iowa going forward, this is a down year for them.
   741. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4306097)
If you think there's a ########'s worth of difference between 68 and 56 in those rankings in terms of actual academic quality, you're mad. I'm not making the case that Rutgers is better than any particular school, just that Rutgers is a match for the Big 10's institutional profile.
   742. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4306098)
Yes, STEM is the only kind of research.


To be fair, its the stronger side of Rutgers graduate programs.
   743. DA Baracus Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4306099)
Am a GT fan and lived in 4 ACC markets over the years


How have you not managed to catch ACC Fever?
   744. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4306100)
Also, Rutgers acquired a medical school today. Yay.
   745. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4306102)
Rutgers and Maryland are slam dunk fits for institutional profile. But I do think they water down the athletic brand a little. 54k and 52k stadiums will do that.

   746. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4306104)
BLB - Below the median and mean. Same is true if you use the WUR, or others metrics.
I'm not saying Rutgers is a bad school but, yes, they water the Big 10 down in pretty much all respects.
   747. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4306106)
Nether school is a terrible fit for the conference but nether really makes a big splash, I think there will be 2 more teams coming by the end of the winter.

The ACC will survive this they go to even numbers in every sport but football.
   748. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4306107)

To be fair, its the stronger side of Rutgers graduate programs.


We're #2 PhD program in the country in Philosophy.
Top 25 in English.
top 20 History.
Top 30 Psychology...

that's just a quick search. Sorry we're not Berkeley.
   749. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4306108)
People are saying this but I don't really see it. The Big 12 has a good conference in football and basketball. They have a good TV deal. Their only football deadweight is a basketball power. I think they Big 12 can survive at 10 teams if they want to. It is in no where near the same situation as the ACC. There's also no way that the ACC *can* strike first, because Texas and Oklahoma are never leaving the Big 12 for the AC ####### C.

With all that being true, I think they would be making a mistake to wait on Louisville. It's a quality basketball program (I think, I don't really have any clue), it has a profitable athletic department and if they move now, the chances of them retaining Strong and becoming a real contributor on the football field for the foreseeable future moves up markedly. It gives WV a regional rival, one with a decent amount of history, and gives them a yearly win over a SEC school. I don't know if there is a 12th that makes sense (BYU?) but Louisville seems like the clear best of the rest.
   750. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4306109)
I'm not making the case that Rutgers is better than any particular school, just that Rutgers is a match for the Big 10's institutional profile.


Jim Rice for the HOF argument. Rutgers isn't the worst UG program in the big ten - its a smidge better than the worst. It's not the worst graduate research institution - but it's smidge better than the worst. The football isn't the worst in the Big Ten - but its in the bottom half. The non-football athletics aren't the worst in the Big Ten - but just a smidge better than NW.

You're straining the argument with "fits the institutional profile". Rutgers is the worst school, taking academics, athletics, etc into account, in the Big Ten the moment they join. It's not a very good school, though it is getting better (and again, I say this as a supporter of the move with several friends who are faculty at Rutgers. None of them have any delusions about the quality, or lack thereof, of the university).

And this doesn't get into the difference in social factors; the quasi-commuter nature of Rutgers, the prevalence of private universities in the east siphoning off students who would otherwise go to the flagship, etc etc. Rutgers is a poor institutional fit, but the addition helps the Big Ten and there's a chance Rutgers could turn into a football power if they catch a few breaks.
   751. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4306110)

BLB - Below the median and mean. Same is true if you use the WUR, or others metrics.


Your slavish devotion to those rankings is ridiculous. They are designed to be in the neighborhood, not to be precise measurements of anything.
   752. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4306112)
I have strenously defended the ACC tournament as the best basketball tournament around here - I've got some fever.
   753. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4306114)
the quasi-commuter nature of Rutgers,

What ####### school are you talking about? Rutgers Newark?
   754. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4306115)
What ####### school are you talking about? Rutgers Newark?


Right, because the social experience of Rutgers is JUST like Ann Arbor. Seriously, you believe this?
   755. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4306116)
BLB - Below the median and mean. Same is true if you use the WUR, or others metrics.

I'm sure the Big Ten schools don't get a prestige bump due to the fact that they're Big Ten schools.
   756. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4306117)
So Ohio State at 56 is the definitive Big 10 school, and Rutgers at 68 is a stain on the conference. Got it.
   757. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4306118)

Right, because the social experience of Rutgers is JUST like Ann Arbor. Seriously, you believe this?


Of course not, but on what planet is it a quasi-commuter school?

   758. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4306119)
that's just a quick search. Sorry we're not Berkeley.

If you weren't good at some things, you'd be a crappy academic school. You're not - you're just not up to average current Big 10 standards.
[/smallhall]

Your slavish devotion to those rankings is ridiculous. They are designed to be in the neighborhood, not to be precise measurements of anything.

Oh, I'm pretty sure my devotion to these rankings is less slavish than yours to your school. Or, to requote:
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
   759. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4306120)
Average or better B10 schools are not on the table. If expansion had to be done (IMO, it didn't have to be done), these schools were good fits. I'd rather we stuck at 12.
   760. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4306121)
Am a GT fan and lived in 4 ACC markets over the years, but will willingly conceed their not being the top conference at much of anything.


Wait a minute. No conference takes a second seat to the ACC when it comes to sending lambs to slaughter in BCS games.
   761. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4306122)
You're not - you're just not up to average current Big 10 standards.

Neither is half the current Big 10. Is that seriously supposed to be an argument? I feel like I'm arguing with Joe Kehoskie all of a sudden.
   762. The Buddy Biancalana Hit Counter Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4306123)
Their only football deadweight is a basketball power.

Kansas did win the Orange Bowl five years ago. Granted, that's about as likely to happen again in the near future as Turner Gill turning out to be the man to make the late Jerry Fallwell's dream of an evangelical Notre Dame come true at Liberty.
   763. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4306125)
And yes, the ACC is the best basketball conference. You may hate Duke and UNC, but they exist.
   764. Spivey Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4306127)
The Big 12 would be crazy to stay with 10 teams, it will end up costing them in terms of playing for national titles and money from a potential conference championship games.

Assuming you're being serious, conference championship games probably cost as much as they make up in terms of eliminating teams from title game and BCS game berths. At the very least, I don't see them as some gigantic cash cow. As for costing them in terms of playing for national titles, I don't see it. If anything, it helps. The main reason why the Big 12 is ranked the best conference this year is because they don't have the really weak bottom of the conference schools. Yes, they have Kansas but all of the other major conferences have multiple awful teams. KSU was ranked above ND and Oregon this year and as long as the conference stays good their undefeated teams are going to be respected.

I don't *mind* Louisville or some of these teams joining. But you look at the schools major conferences have added: Missouri, A&M, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.

A&M is the only big-time addition there IMO. Nebraska is solid at football, but not the power it used to be. It also isn't a good school and isn't good at basketball. On the whole, I think the Big 10 has, gotten worse with its brand. Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland isn't much more than adding conference filler. The Big 10 shouldn't have worried about being taken over, as they are probably the most stable conference out there.

The Pac 10 definitely made their conference worse.
   765. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4306129)
Research rankings:

http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf

Maryland in group 2, with Northwestern, U of Chicago (CIC), Illinois, Iowa. Rutgers in group 3, with Purdue, MSU. Nebraska in group 4.

   766. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4306130)
conference championship games probably cost as much as they make up in terms of eliminating teams from title game and BCS game berths.

They have knocked teams out of the title game, but usually another team in their conference just replaces them in a BCS game.
   767. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4306131)

Neither is half the current Big 10. Is that seriously supposed to be an argument? I feel like I'm arguing with Joe Kehoskie all of a sudden.


Right, but if you add a school that is solidly in the bottom third (to be charitable, more like bottom quarter) of the exiting membership, that is a dilution. In fact, it is the very definition of dilution. Rutgers doesn't need to be a zero to be a dilution, just below average - and it's way below average.

I find the whole fractal nature of school insecurity very interesting. I went to a perfectly cromulent Ivy - it, however, was decidedly not Harvard or Yale. You'd find people who'd swear we were just as good as Harvard or Yale based on XYZ bullshit metric. You go to Michigan, you find people who swear the school is just as good as an Ivy b/c of XYZ bullshit metric. You go to MSU, you find people who swear they're just as good as Michigan because of XYZ bullshit metric. And then you go to Rutgers and you find people who swear they're just as good as MSU because of XYZ bullshit metric.

Spencer Hall had it right - whereever you're from sucks. No matter where it is.
   768. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4306134)
Hey, we're higher than Princeton!

Anyway, I'm a professor at a community college, so they all look good to me.
   769. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4306135)
And then you go to Rutgers and you find people who swear they're just as good as MSU because of XYZ ######## metric.

You are the only one swinging a dick around. I was talking about general institutional profile, not Rutgers' relative standing compared to any other individual school. It's pretty clear that on that broader question, I'm right. It's obvious you went to an Ivy, because you're obsessed with idiotic college rankings.
   770. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4306136)
Or, let me put it more succinctly...pretending there is any REAL difference between two schools because one is "68" and the other is "56" is really giving far too much credit to the precision of these rankings.
   771. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4306137)
Right, but if you add a school that is solidly in the bottom third (to be charitable, more like bottom quarter) of the exiting membership, that is a dilution. In fact, it is the very definition of dilution. Rutgers doesn't need to be a zero to be a dilution, just below average - and it's way below average.

This is a stronger version of what I was trying to say. If I were ranking these schools academically, I'd have Rutgers third from the bottom (ahead of Nebraska and Indiana), but within some range of error of a few other schools. But not at least half of the conference. It won't embarrass the conference or anything, but it's defnitely a watering down.
   772. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4306139)
Wait a minute. No conference takes a second seat to the ACC when it comes to sending lambs to slaughter in BCS games.

Requoted for truth.

(Incidentally, I (briefly) went to UNC and considered Duke - and hate neither school.)
   773. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4306155)
Nebraska is solid at football, but not the power it used to be. It also isn't a good school and isn't good at basketball. On the whole, I think the Big 10 has, gotten worse with its brand. Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland isn't much more than adding conference filler. The Big 10 shouldn't have worried about being taken over, as they are probably the most stable conference out there.


I hate Nebraska, but I have little doubt they added to the B1G brand. They have a great history, fill a big stadium every Saturday, have one of the most rabid fanbases in America, are pretty consistently a top 25 program, could be national title contenders every once in awhile, are better academically than their rep suggests, and are actually quite good at the non-revenue sports (like baseball!)



Assuming you're being serious, conference championship games probably cost as much as they make up in terms of eliminating teams from title game and BCS game berths. At the very least, I don't see them as some gigantic cash cow. As for costing them in terms of playing for national titles, I don't see it. If anything, it helps. The main reason why the Big 12 is ranked the best conference this year is because they don't have the really weak bottom of the conference schools. Yes, they have Kansas but all of the other major conferences have multiple awful teams. KSU was ranked above ND and Oregon this year and as long as the conference stays good their undefeated teams are going to be respected.


OTOH, here is an interesting argument that because the SEC has 14 teams it inflates the records of their top programs, making them seem better than they are, which is why in part people think they're a super-duper conference.

From TFA:

Now remember, this is just the conference schedule, with the SEC championship game figured in as well; to imagine the impact on voters and computers, you can generally just add four wins to each SEC team and three to each Big 12 team. You see the problem, DeLoss and Bob? It's entirely possible that the fifth-best team in the Big 12 could be just as talented and capable as the sixth-place team in the SEC, yet look two games worse... simply because of the schedule. That's ridiculous. I mean, yes, the round-robin is a good thing in a vacuum. There's no denying that. But when it results in the SEC appearing to be vastly overrated in comparison to the Big 12, you've stumbled into a very, very bad idea... one which has impacts far beyond just "whether or not Texas gets to play for a national title". In fact, it's an impact which could prevent a completely deserving Texas team from doing so in the future.



I don't *mind* Louisville or some of these teams joining. But you look at the schools major conferences have added: Missouri, A&M, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.


I think Louisville makes a ton of sense, but they're the only mid-major that does, and if I had my druthers, I'd rather turn my focus on poaching the ACC.
   774. Mike Webber Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4306160)
@764 Spivey wrote
I don't *mind* Louisville or some of these teams joining. But you look at the schools major conferences have added: Missouri, A&M, Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland.

A&M is the only big-time addition there IMO.


I agree with the A&M part, but disagree with Missouri part. It's a got a lot of TV eyeballs, and its the only FBS team in the state.

That is a good get for any conference.

As far as the Big 12 adding teams, I think without adding Notre Dame and/or Florida State, they may as well stay at 10. As I understand it, the additional revenue from a conference championship game divided by 12 is less than the gain (for each individual school) from the current tv deals being divided by 10 rather than being divided by 12.

There would be no gain in TV revenue by adding Louisville, or Cincy, but for Notre Dame and Florida State there would be.
   775. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4306161)
Here's where our provincialism may impact how we view this stuff, AG#1F - I don't think the Big 12 is all that appealing to ACC schools. Best bet is identifying a disgruntled southern program - Florida State being the dream there.
Louisville is a decent get for the Big 12. Not sure how much football money is there, but otherwise...

I don't know about Nebraska's academics being better than their rep, but otherwise agree.
   776. Mike Webber Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4306165)
I'd rather turn my focus on poaching the ACC.

AG#1 - So Florida State and Notre Dame are certainly positive possible teams that could be added - but who else in the ACC is realistic mover and a gain?
Of course I didn't think Maryland was possible mover, so I guess anyone is in play
   777. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4306170)
Why do you think Notre Dame is realistic? They are less locked into the ACC, sure - but I don't see them being interested in the B12 at all.
I'd've said Maryland was the most likely to leave, FSU next. GT (but not for the B12). Um, Clemson?
   778. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4306176)
I don't see why FSU would move to the B12. Lose the academic associations they've longed for in order to gain a slightly more stable football conference that they are an extreme geographic outlier. In the ACC, FSU should consider themselves able to go undefeated and make the national title game.
   779. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4306183)
I'm inclined to agree with you, BLB. They were the only other school to vote against raising the departure fee and no one thinks they'd go to the SEC so... there's that.
   780. Andy H. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4306190)
Um, Clemson?


I could see Clemson to the Big 12. It's been rumored that they would go with Florida St. They've got a strong athletic program and are close to big markets in Atlanta and Charlotte. They might be willing to jump from the ACC in order to improve in prestige/recruiting versus South Carolina.
   781. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4306193)
#735:

Those rankings move around a bit over 1-3 year periods b/c of certain big awards (Illinois, e.g., is distorted by Fermilab).


For the record, Fermilab is run by the University of Chicago.
   782. Spivey Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4306196)
I hate Nebraska, but I have little doubt they added to the B1G brand. They have a great history, fill a big stadium every Saturday, have one of the most rabid fanbases in America, are pretty consistently a top 25 program, could be national title contenders every once in awhile, are better academically than their rep suggests, and are actually quite good at the non-revenue sports (like baseball!)

I agree they help the brand, but I think them *and* the other 2 schools don't, really.

OTOH, here is an interesting argument that because the SEC has 14 teams it inflates the records of their top programs, making them seem better than they are, which is why in part people think they're a super-duper conference.

I don't know about that. This is the first year of 14 and this isn't the first year we've see this phenomenon. The fact is the SEC has won a shitload of BCS championships in a row, generally do well in bowls, and they're going to get the rep they have as a result. Also, this year was a bit "lucky" for the SEC in that pretty much all the good schools dodged each other in the cross over games. I don't think that A&M and Mizzou brought down the level of the play in the conference, so it's not that they were necessarily causing this problem either.

I think Louisville makes a ton of sense, but they're the only mid-major that does, and if I had my druthers, I'd rather turn my focus on poaching the ACC.

I agree that I think FSU and Louisville would be really nice additions. Louisville isn't good enough to justify adding a team like Boise or BYU that doesn't really make sense outside of football, though, like you say.
   783. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4306204)
I actually think BYU to the B12 makes sense for both parties. Boise less so.
   784. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4306205)
Right, because the social experience of Rutgers is JUST like Ann Arbor. Seriously, you believe this?


As an Michigan alum, this is pretty harsh. There are different experiences at differing college towns. New Brunswick is a perfectly fine college town. Its a little too spread out for me, but I don't think it was that much more different, than say, East Lansing.

the quasi-commuter nature of Rutgers

I've known a lot of people who went to Rutgers (got to be over a hundred) over the years. I know one person who commuted.

I think Rutgers is a perfectly fine fit for the B1G. Its all about potential cable subscribers. The large alumni base and the improving football program is enough. Lets not pretend academics was ever a concern, as long as the minimum threshold was passed that's all that mattered. The only other schools that would bring the potential eyeballs and fit academically were Texas and Notre Dame and they're not coming.
   785. DL from MN Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4306210)
Maryland and Rutgers almost right in the middle for USN&WR; US universities:


Good point, the other universities that would fit in the B1G are almost all ranked below Rutgers and Maryland. They're not getting UNC, Georgia Tech or Texas to join. Iowa State is ranked 101 and adds no marginal revenue. Kansas is 106 and it's reputation is mostly basketball. Pitt (58) and Missouri (97) are probably the best fits for the B1G if they expand to 16. They've already given Mizzou the brushoff.
   786. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4306211)
Oh, Rutgers definitely meets some sort of minimum standard.

I bet GT would consider the Big 10. Pitt isn't a bad fit. I think Maryland was a decent add.
   787. Eddo Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4306217)
Maryland's AD said the divisions will be:

"Leaders"
Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Purdue
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers

"Legends"
Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Minnesota
Northwestern
Iowa
Illinois

Damn. If that's true, it gets rid of the only way to remember which teams are where.

Currently, it's "The M's, the N's, and Iowa" and "Everyone Else". With the above alignment, it would be "The M's, except for Maryland, the N's, Iowa, and Illinois" and "Everyone Else". Doesn't have any ring to it whatsoever.
   788. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4306218)
“According to the official, Maryland projects to make $32 million when it joins the league for the 2014-15 season, well beyond the ACC’s projected payout of $20 million.

The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school’s motivation to realign is largely financial. Delany declined comments regarding finances in a telephone interview Monday.”

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/pete_thamel/11/19/maryland-big-ten-money/index.html
   789. DA Baracus Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4306220)
Scratch that link.

Damn. If that's true, it gets rid of the only way to remember which teams are where.

Currently, it's "The M's, the N's, and Iowa" and "Everyone Else". With the above alignment, it would be "The M's, except for Maryland, the N's, Iowa, and Illinois" and "Everyone Else". Doesn't have any ring to it whatsoever.


There's got to be a clever acronym to come up with for the teams.
   790. Cowboy Popup Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4306226)
There's got to be a clever acronym to come up with for the teams.

Well, one should be PIMPROW. The other has two I's and a #### ton of M's and N's, which will make it difficult. MINNIMM?
   791. DA Baracus Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4306230)
PIMPROW is fantastic.
   792. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4306243)
The real jump in projected revenue comes in 2017, after the Big Ten negotiates its new television contract. The Big Ten payout that year projects to $43 million, dwarfing the $24 million the ACC projects to pay out that year. During his Monday press conference, Maryland president Wallace D. Loh said the school’s motivation to realign is largely financial. Delany declined comments regarding finances in a telephone interview Monday.”

Geez, no wonder ESPN was in such a hurry to lock up all their major conferences to extremely long term TV deals.
   793. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4306248)

AG#1 - So Florida State and Notre Dame are certainly positive possible teams that could be added - but who else in the ACC is realistic mover and a gain?
Of course I didn't think Maryland was possible mover, so I guess anyone is in play


I think ND is locked into the ACC for now. We'll see. I'd love to see the Big 12 land them though.

There were rumors of FSU and Clemson wanting to jump to the Big 12 a few months ago. IIRC, both voted against the increase in exit fees. Neither can go to the SEC supposedly because Florida and South Carolina would block them. So the Big 12 would be the next best option.
   794. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4306249)
Fine, I think we were arguing past each other to a certain extent. Rutgers meets the criteria of what a Big 10 school should be. Rutgers is not in the top half of Big 10 schools academically. I think both those things are true.
   795. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4306251)
FSU voted against the increase but I do not believe Clemson did.
   796. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4306252)
correct, pops.

miami just self imposed a bowl ban. gt will face (lose to) fsu in the conference championship game. acc will not be able to fill all possible bowl slots this year (had up to 8).
   797. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4306253)
The divisions are northwest and southeast. I couldn't tell you the SEC's divisions off the top of my head, and they are no more geographically accurate than the B1G. They just chose the simple names.

   798. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4306254)
Everything I've read listed FSU and Maryland as the only two to vote against.
   799. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 19, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4306255)
College football in general is unlikely to fill the bowl slots and will have to get creative to fill them. 6-7 teams, etc.

   800. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 19, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4306256)
Did anyone else watch 60 Minutes from last night? They interviewed Brady Hoke, Dave Brandon (Michigan AD), Denard and Nick Saban. I guess good timing.
Page 8 of 35 pages ‹ First  < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4468 - 6:32pm, Aug 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(14 - 6:30pm, Aug 20)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(441 - 6:25pm, Aug 20)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(3 - 6:22pm, Aug 20)
Last: Zach

NewsblogGiants plan to protest bizarre loss at Wrigley
(35 - 6:17pm, Aug 20)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogBP: Moonshot: The Analytic Value of the Crack of the Bat
(7 - 6:08pm, Aug 20)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogPrado at second base not how Yanks Drew it up
(41 - 6:07pm, Aug 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-20-2014
(25 - 5:50pm, Aug 20)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogBrewers Form Creative Council
(1 - 5:46pm, Aug 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogBrisbee: The 10 most underrated players in baseball, part 2
(6 - 5:45pm, Aug 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-20-2014
(18 - 5:41pm, Aug 20)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogSellout Crowd Turns out in AAA Charlotte for Native Son Carlos Rodon
(6 - 5:21pm, Aug 20)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogRusney Castillo rumors: Decision imminent for Cuban outfielder
(21 - 4:52pm, Aug 20)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSabermetrics Gets Soft «
(3 - 4:42pm, Aug 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogLester return to Boston a long shot; Cubs, Yankees are likely players
(2 - 4:15pm, Aug 20)
Last: AROM

Page rendered in 0.5659 seconds
53 querie(s) executed