But they’re settling it on the (expanded) field!, 96 Tears edition

As part of the spirited commentary we’ve had this week on the playoffs/BCS debate, it was suggested that rather than looking at the 1-AA football playoffs for insight, I would do better to look to March Madness for a playoff template.

So let’s do that.  This Wall Street Journal article is chock full of goodness.  The title, “Why March Madness Needs 96 Teams”, ought to tip you off to what you’re about to read.  Here’s why it needs to expand:

Coaches’ welfare. Jim Boeheim has been a shameless whore for expanding the tournament for a long as I can remember, so his quote that “It’s an easy decision” comes as no surprise.  It’s a way for more mediocre head coaches to justify their existence – because their teams made the NCAA playoffs.  The best part is that with this concern in mind, there’s no reason to stop at 96.  Just ask Baylor coach Scott Drew.

“I think we should expand even more,” says Baylor coach Scott Drew, whose team narrowly missed out on the NCAA tournament last season and lost to Penn State in the final of the consolation National Invitation Tournament. “Go up to 128. I’ve thought that for several years. There’s that many good teams, and it gives everybody one more game.

“To everyone who says, ‘What about a missed class?’—trust me, those players would trade a day of class for a chance to play in this tournament any day,” Mr. Drew says.

Do it for the coach, kids!

The bullshit excuses. These are from the people who don’t want to admit what the real reason for considering expansion is.  So you get silly comments from conference commissioners like this:

“I’m a proponent of the tournament expanding,” says Bernadette McGlade, commissioner of the Atlantic 10 Conference. “There’s so much parity in the game today, it’s become necessary.”

In other words, we’ve watered the game down so much that we need to water it down even more.

Then there’s this convoluted line of reasoning.

“The early rounds are the riveting part of the tournament,” says Doug Elgin, the commissioner of the Missouri Valley Conference. “If we had an expansion, it would deepen the tournament in the middle. You’re going to see much more balance and maybe more upsets in these first and second round games.”

Translation:  getting more mediocre teams in the tournament can only be a good thing for mid-major conferences.

Top it off by tossing in a little Enron-styled accounting.

While many of the newest teams in Division I aren’t exactly championship-caliber, the fact remains that this sport, compared to others, is relatively stingy with postseason play. More than half of all major college-football programs get to extend the season by going to a bowl game… Then there’s the men’s NCAA college basketball tournament’s figure—19.5%. “That’s among the perspectives that we’ve heard,” says NCAA senior vice president Greg Shaheen.

Mr. Shaheen must not be aware of the difference between apples and oranges, if he seriously considers that argument.  Or he’s totally shameless.  Because college basketball has its own versions of bowls; they’re called the NIT and the CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament.  (I don’t suppose any of you folks who bitch about the antitrust implications of the BCS care about that in this context.  Of course, since the NCAA owns the NIT outright, it probably doesn’t matter much anyway.)

The money. Like you didn’t know we were gonna end up here.  Here’s the real meat of the deal:

The NCAA has the right to opt out of its 11-year, $6 billion contract with CBS at the end of this season, which is the impetus for considering to expand the tournament and perhaps move it to cable. “We have an opt-out provision at the end of this contract year, so we’re simply doing due diligence on all aspects of that contract,” Mr. Shaheen says.

An ESPN spokesman said that if the tournament became available to the cable provider, “we would be interested if it made good business sense.” A CBS spokeswoman declined to comment.

TV experts say that the value in expanding the tournament is mainly in the ability to sell it to more than one network. “They could legitimately bring in two networks, saying it’s too much for one network,” says Rick Gentile, a former executive producer at CBS Sports. “I personally wouldn’t like to see it. There is an issue of diluting it. But if you get two networks involved, they’ll both pay a premium to be a part of it.”

For the smaller schools and conferences, the revenue the tournament can generate for schools is no minor issue—especially as some schools drop expensive sports like football. “It’s not about the rich getting richer,” says Mr. Elgin of the Missouri Valley Conference. “It’s about staying afloat and not dropping baseball programs and wrestling programs.”

There’s the scary part.  What they’re telling us is that they’ve maxed out the revenue stream from college basketball.  There are no regular season TV deals for basketball coming like SEC football just obtained.  And CBS won’t pay anymore for the tournament broadcast rights than it’s already committed.  All that’s left is new product to peddle to another network to raise additional revenue.  If it means a further dilution of the quality of the product, that’s life.

Of course, we would get bigger brackets to fill out, so we’ve got that going for us as fans.

No doubt my post will generate a series of comments about how none of this is applicable to college football (never mind that it involves the same frickin’ set of decision makers), because there’s something unique about college football that renders it immune from this problem.  Which is my point exactly – when you start down the extended playoff road, you rob the sport of that uniqueness.  Immunity becomes a moot point.

Wednesday morning buffet

Niblets for everyone!

• We’re starting to see the juniors-considering-early-entry-to-the-NFL-draft stories, some typical, some perhaps more interesting.  I wonder how much of an impact the unsettled NFL labor situation will have on this.  It’s something to keep an eye on.
• It sounds like there’s been some rough sailing in Gainesville over the last month.
• Junior gets compared to Nixon.
• Sure, this is rumor mongering, but it’s quality rumor mongering.
• George Will is a little too patrician for my taste when it comes to opining about sports, but when sports and politics intersect, he can have his moments.  Like this one:  “Barton believes in limited government, but not so limited that it cannot right outrageous wrongs, such as the absence of a playoff. Bipartisanship lives: Barack Obama, who wants to fix everything — health care, the climate, the pothole on your street, college football — also wants a playoff.”
• I share Rex Robinson’s frustration over the perception that Leigh Kiffin’s Tiffin’s year surpassed Blair Walsh’s.
• Why should we care what Charles Barkley thinks about Gene Chizik?
• Here’s an interesting riff off of a stats-driven post of mine.
• When Alabama complains, the SEC listens.

Doing the Big Ten expansion math

Most of the early smart thinking about the possibility of the Big Ten adding a twelfth (yeah, I know) team points in the direction of Pitt.  Maybe so, but I’m partial to Matt Hinton’s argument that what we’re looking at is another extended courtship of Notre Dame.  Except I don’t believe for a minute that it’s about all the high-falutin’ reasons that are being tossed around.  It’s about – surprise! – the money.

Stewart Mandel, give him credit, does a nice job of spelling out the calculations.

… The Big Ten does not publicly release revenue-sharing figures, but it’s been reported that its rights deals with ABC/ESPN and the Big Ten Network generate about $212 million annually. (That’s in addition to the league’s direct profits from its jointly owned network.) Add in this season’s two BCS berths ($22.3 million) and five other bowl berths (about $14 million), and we’re talking a minimally estimated $248.3 million in shared revenue, or $22.6 million per team.

Therefore, any potential 12th team would have to add $22.6 million in “value” to renegotiated TV and bowl deals to prevent the others from losing money. [Emphasis added.] With all due respect to Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers (the most commonly discussed candidates), there’s only one viable school that could guarantee that kind of gold mine: Notre Dame…

Texas would, too, but I’ve never seen that school as a realistic prospect for the Big Ten.  In any event, that’s a steep wall to climb.  And Mandel points out one more consideration to factor into the mix.

While Big Ten teams have taken their lumps on the field, they aren’t exactly hurting for consideration. The league has produced a second BCS berth more often than any other conference (nine times in 12 years), including each of the past five seasons. If this year’s Ohio State-Iowa showdown, played Nov. 14, had taken place in a league title game three weeks later, the 10-2 Hawkeyes likely wouldn’t be playing in the Orange Bowl. Oklahoma in 2003, Alabama in 2008 and Florida in 2009 are the only title-game losers ever to receive BCS at-large berths, and all three entered their title games undefeated.

If the league loses more than one at-large berth (currently worth $4.5 million) over a four-year period, that extra championship-game revenue becomes a wash.

Not exactly a compelling case for expansion, is it?

The Big Ten’s problem here is, of course, that there’s no compelling reason for Notre Dame to join the conference.  There’s not much of a financial gain (if any at all), the Irish would lose their special BCS status and they cede some degree of control over how the program operates to Jim Delany if they were to make that move.  That’s not to say that Notre Dame doesn’t do a little dancing before sending the Big Ten back to the table.  If nothing else, it’s probably good for squeezing a couple of extra bucks out of NBC to keep the TV deal.  Maybe the school can call Jimmy Sexton in as a consultant.

In the end, I don’t see this leading anywhere.

**********************************************************************

UPDATE: Michael Elkon argues that the Big Ten is focused on the wrong thing.

Tuesday brunch buffet

A few late morning nuggets for your viewing pleasure:

• Paying Mack Brown $5 million per year is “unseemly” in the eyes of some UT faculty members.
• What Zooker’s paying Paul Petrino to be his offensive coordinator next season will raise a few eyebrows.
• Jimbo Fisher sees some good in having been a coach-in-waiting.
• Gordon Gee reiterates his longstanding playoffs-over-my-dead-body position.
• Urban Meyer talks to Tyrone Nix.  Urban Meyer has known Tyrone Nix a long time.  But Urban Meyer hasn’t offered a job to Tyrone Nix, because nobody says “no” to Urban Meyer.
• This is as good a smackdown of political involvement in the D-1 football postseason as I’ve read.
• The Big Ten evidently is considering adding another school and a playoff game.

Not getting Bud Foster? Oh, noes!

This is why I’m not posting about potential candidates in the defensive coordinator search:

… I’ve said this before, but I’ll repeat it now: Georgia is a big-time gig, and while there are coaches out there who are very interested in getting the job, there are plenty more who know it’s a fantastic bargaining chip to getting a raise at their current one. Indulge in any rumors at your own risk.

There’s going to be a lot more noise in the system before we hear about a hire.  We’ve got a head coach whom I trust to evaluate the needs for the position.  And there are plenty of good defensive coaches out there.  In the end, it’ll work out, people.  Give it time.  As Hale concludes, “… fans should be confident Richt is aiming high and Damon is willing to back up those aspirations with a significant investment financially.”

***********************************************************************

UPDATE: Mr. Westerdawg wins today’s Pun of the Day contest.

But they’re settling it on the field!, continued.

I hate to keep interrupting the narrative, but these pesky stories turn up and they’re worth bringing to your attention.  There are two for you today.

First up, the expansion of the 1-AA tournament from 16 to 20 teams is being met with some approval, mixed with a little “we’ll figure it out as we go along”.  (h/t Team Speed Kills)

“I think any time you’re able to provide more access, so more institutions can be part of the tournament, it’s a good thing,” said Massachussetts athletic director John McCutcheon, who chairs the NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee. “We’re going to have some learning-curve issues to deal with, probably, the first year that we move to this format, but I think all in all it’s going to be a positive addition to the playoffs.”

More interesting to me, though, is the criticism from one of the coaches whose team plays in the title game.

Montana coach Bobby Hauck, whose Grizzlies are in the championship game for the second straight year and seventh time overall, has a much different opinion.

“It’s a disastrous decision on every level,” he said…

That’s pretty cut and dried.  What’s the problem?

… Montana athletic director Jim O’Day and Appalachian State athletic director Charlie Cobb are on the championship committee, and both opposed changing the current format.

While he supports more teams having the chance to play in the postseason — there are 118 FCS teams — O’Day said he’s very concerned about the physical toll the lengthened season will have on the players and the economics of the switch.

“When we assessed it from our point of view at the University of Montana, we figured it was probably going to cost us another $100,000 to keep the kids over Christmas,” O’Day said. “The dorms are closed, the dining services at the university are closed, so we’ll have to be (living) off campus and eating off campus…”

Also, competition.

… University of Tennessee at Chattanooga coach Russ Huesman said he liked the 16-team format because with only a few exceptions every team in the field had a chance to win the title.

“I think every team that’s in the tournament should have a chance to win the tournament, and that’s not the case (with the expanded field),” he said. “They’re adding four teams that have no shot to win the thing.”

Ultimately, Huesman said, the NCAA “can do what they want. My job is to win games and try to get in it.”

Now there’s a ringing endorsement.  Seriously, some probably see that as a feature not a bug, as Cinderellas tend to spice up a multi-round tournament.

The other story is for those of you who pooh-pooh all that “devalue the regular season” concern about a playoff that people like me have.   There’s nothing to worry about, right?

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

If you want a perfect encapsulation of what generates Tebow fatigue, here’s something treacly from Ivan Maisel, who should know better, about a reason to cast a first place Heisman vote for the GPOOE™.

Why Tebow should win: If you like your history served sunny side up, there could be no worthier player to join Archie Griffin as a two-time Heisman winner. Tebow has represented the best that college football can offer for four years. Florida stayed at No. 1 until nearly the end of this season and goes into the Sugar Bowl at No. 5 in large part via Tebow’s will and positive thinking.

His NFL career can’t start soon enough for me.

Holding it together in Athens

A few thoughts come to mind after reading David Hale’s article about how the Georgia staff is reaching out to recruits to keep the waters calm until the new coaches are in place.

1. Rodney Garner’s professionalism. We know he’s ambitious (not that that’s a bad thing).  But he’s not letting his personal feelings interfere with his primary responsibility right now of keeping things together.  Yes, he has a good product to push, but he’s still got to make the effort.
2. Mark Richt’s demeanor. His program is in a state of flux, but he’s still the man.  And from what it sounds like, that carries a lot of weight.
3. Maybe the Internet has its uses after all. You see the usual brickbats fly all the time against message board posters and bloggers about how negative rumors can hurt the program, but Garner offers something of a reverse with this thought:  “I think with the media, those rumors were out there all year,” Garner said. “I don’t know how shocked everyone was. The kids initially asked about it, but a lot of that was stirred by people calling them, asking what they thought.”
4. Scheme, shmeem. There doesn’t seem to be too much worry about how a new DC might be expected to deploy his players.

“Schematically, everyone now is so versatile. We’re a 4-3 base under Coach VanGorder and Coach Martinez, but we did some 3-4 stuff,” Garner said. “We did multiple stuff. I think whomever or whatever coach or system goes, I think the personnel, the nucleus is here. You may have to go out and tweak it here or there if you change it a whole lot. We’re pretty versatile as is, so the guys are feeling fine.”

But they’re settling it on the field!

You work your butt off to sponsor a true national title game, you have the benefit of exciting semi-finals going for you, and this is your reward:

Montana’s 24-17 win Saturday over visiting Appalachian State in a second-half snowstorm provided a riveting finish, but it cost the city of Chattanooga more than $1 million.

The Football Championship Subdivision finalists are set for Friday night with Montana and Villanova, a combination that will travel the fewest fans since the title game came to Finley Stadium in 1997…

The point isn’t that this delegitimizes the 1-AA title game, but that slapping a playoff label on a postseason format in and of itself doesn’t automatically translate into greater riches.

Postseason game sponsors are rational actors who aren’t in the business of setting up money losing matchups.  Rail against that as much as you’d like, but if a sponsor is obligated to hand out $30 million+ to a couple of schools, it’s going to make an effort to arrange for a game that gives it the best shot it can get to cover the numbers first.  It’ll worry about the quality of the participants later. That’s how crudely capitalism works sometimes.

Meanwhile, back at Congress – a bleg

This Arizona Daily Star editorial is fairly standard stock – college football is broken and is in need of reform, etc. – but there’s one little blurb tossed in there that made me sit up and pay attention.

… another congressional committee is examining whether to give college athletics an anti-trust exemption so universities can regulate coaching salaries.

That’s the first I’ve heard of that.  And that has the potential to be far bigger than anything Joe Barton is currently monkeying around with.  I’ve posted before that I think that’s the deal with the Devil that the big conferences would be more than willing to make:  the trade of a true national football playoff, with all the bells and whistles, in return for complete freedom to fix salaries and control the product without any further threat of antitrust violations.

But like I said, it’s the first I’ve heard of it.  Do any of you readers know anything about this, such as which committee is looking at this and who the congressional sponsors of it are?  I’d sure like to find out more about its future.