What the men’s NCAA basketball tournament might look like by 2025

Posted on February 20, 2024 by Sandlapper Spike

The rumblings are getting louder that the NCAA tournament will expand. The train seems to be getting closer to the station. A review of the timeline:

August 11, 2022 (from an article by Pat Forde in Sports Illustrated):

Southeastern Conference commissioner Greg Sankey, probably the most influential person in college athletics, said Thursday he wants to take “a fresh look” at the NCAA men’s basketball tournament—perhaps with an eye toward expansion of the current 68-team field…

…There has been a rising tide of concern about being left out of March Madness among conferences that send only their tournament winners to the NCAA tourney—the underdogs who so often give the event their best moments and unique flavor. Some of that comes from comments Sankey reportedly made to members of the Division I Council earlier this summer about the NCAA tournament looking different in the future.

Sankey stresses that he said the tourney “could” change, not that it would. But the suspicion among some mid-major and low-major programs is that their automatic bids would instead be given to more teams from the rich and powerful multi-bid leagues.

“March Madness will become much more controlled by a handful of schools,” Florida Gulf Coast president Michael Martin told a Fort Myers TV station recently. “And automatic qualifiers that we now get from being in the A-Sun will disappear.”

 

July 13, 2023 (from an article by the AP):

The NCAA Division I men’s basketball committee discussed possible expansion of March Madness at its meetings this week but said no moves were imminent to increase the field beyond the current 68 teams.

“Whether the tournament expands or not remains to be seen,” sad Dan Gavitt, the NCAA’s senior vice president of basketball.

Earlier this year, the NCAA Division I board of directors approved recommendations by the DI transformation committee that included allowing one quarter of teams in bigger sports to compete in championship events. That could mean expanding the fields in both men’s and women’s basketball up to 90 teams.

 

September 11, 2023 (from an article by Dana O’Neil in The Athletic):

Multiple sources told The Athletic that a stretched bracket likely needs to be in place in time for the 2025 tournament, after the reorgs in the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and ACC take over.

The reason? Simple preservation.

Multiple sources who have worked with or served on the NCAA Tournament selection committee agree that a small compromise in expanding the field  — somewhere north of the current 68, but ideally less than 96 teams — could serve as the ideal best olive branch to prevent the real threat to the whole operation: namely that the football-playing schools opt out of the tourney altogether, and form their own.

 

January 25, 2024 (from an article by Ross Dellenger in Yahoo! Sports):

…commissioners of the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and, yes, even the Pac-12 opened dialogue with [NCAA president Charlie] Baker about their wish to examine NCAA tournament expansion…

…discussions between the commissioners and NCAA go beyond the topic of revenue and also include the growing wish for more access in the form of at-large spots. In the meeting with Baker, commissioners were transparent about their desire for more access in a 68-team field that includes 32 automatic qualifying spots — 27 of which go to non-power leagues.

“I want to see the best teams competing for a national championship, no different than (the Big Ten and SEC) want to see in football,” [Big XII commissioner Brett] Yormark said. “I’m not sure that is currently happening.”

How to expand the tournament is a lingering question, Yormark and [ACC commissioner Jim] Phillips acknowledge.

Do you eliminate automatic qualifying spots to small-conference champions? That move is sure to backfire politically at a time when congressional help is sought.

Do you simply add more at-large spots to the field? That complicates an already crammed schedule.

And if you expand the men’s event, wouldn’t the women’s tournament need expansion, too?

Commissioners describe Baker as “understanding” and “receptive” to their points, paving the way for future modifications.

—

Now, would increasing the number of power conference teams in the tournament improve the event? Of course not. For one thing, all of the good teams (and quite a few mediocre ones) in those leagues already make the tourney.

After all the changes in the main five leagues (following the demise of the Pac-12, and including the Big East as a “power” conference in hoops), there are 75 schools that will be in those increasingly bloated conferences for the 2024-25 season. Of those, 38 (50.67%) made the tournament in 2023. 

Breaking it down a bit further: of the 34 schools that will be in the Big 10 and SEC (the “Power Two”), 17 made an appearance in last year’s March Madness — exactly 50%.

Meanwhile, only 10.45% of schools not in power leagues were represented in the 2023 tournament. This is why the ‘25% of all teams should be in the tourney’ argument is intellectually dishonest. The power brokers are obviously not interested in expanding the field to add more of those teams.

However, Greg Sankey and company will get what they want. We all know that.

—

The mission for the decision makers: cram as many power-conference teams into the event as possible while A) not causing a public (and political) backlash by getting rid of the smaller schools’ access to the tourney, and B) maintaining as a focus the 64-team main draw, which is what most casual — and many diehard — fans think of as the actual tournament (including all the pools/brackets/etc. that are associated with it).

I suspect the solution could be to combine workarounds from past tournaments.

(Trigger warning for enthusiasts of small conferences: you’re not going to like any of this.)

—

In coming up with this format, I made two assumptions. First, that around two-thirds of the teams in the power leagues would make the tourney — basically, 50 spots, give or take one or two. I suspect that would be the least of their demands.

I also anticipate those 50 teams would all be seeded directly into the main draw of 64, because they will want to maximize exposure (with a possible exception which I’ll get to later).

The 20 “lowest-ranked” conferences will be determined in the summer before the start of the season, based on a formula that consists of ratings from previous seasons (or perhaps just the prior campaign).

The champions of those leagues will be automatically sent into a preliminary bracket. This would still technically be considered part of the NCAA tournament, in an effort to avoid angering various constituencies. Many national media members will presumably go along with this notion and promote it accordingly, partly because some are easily manipulated saps, others are only interested in power-conference programs, and a fair number are easily manipulated saps who are only interested in power-conference programs.

The 20 teams will then compete in what is in effect a two-round mini-tournament, narrowing the 20 to 5 squads that will ultimately make the round of 64. 

To do this, the conferences will all have to complete their league tourneys in the first weekend of conference tournament action (many of them already do so). The ten matchups in the first preliminary round could be held following the Selection Show, with six on Sunday (a triple-header on two Paramount-affiliated networks) and four on Monday (a double-header on those same two networks). Then there will be three games on Tuesday and two on Wednesday which will produce the 5 survivors (similar to the “First Four” games that are part of the current setup).

There might also be a third game on Wednesday night to get the overall number of NCAA tournament teams to 80 (rather than 79). This could be a “last one in” game between two power-conference teams fighting for the final spot in the main draw. I could see the TV folks requesting a game like that.

—

Some aspects of the potential scenario outlined above would not be unprecedented. There were “play-in” games in the NCAA tournament as recently as 1983 (a 52-team field with eight 12-seeds that faced each other in an opening round game) and 1984 (53 teams; two of the five 11-seeds played in an opening round game as well).

In 1991, though, the NCAA did something really stupid. It took the six lowest-rated conferences (as determined prior to the season) and matched them up against each other, eliminating three of those teams before the tournament. And no, they didn’t get credit for an NCAA tournament appearance. Two of the three eliminated teams were from HBCUs. 

That probably isn’t going to happen again anytime soon, at least not under the NCAA umbrella. If the inevitable breakaway in football by the big-brand schools eventually comes to include hoops, though, all bets are off.

—

All of that is speculation, to be sure. I think something like it is on the horizon, however. Whatever the eventual format is, it likely won’t be good news for fans of the sport, or for many of the schools that compete.

Filed under: Basketball | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Nothing is collegiate about college athletics

Posted on September 4, 2023 by Sandlapper Spike

collegiate, adjective & noun: of or belonging to a college.

—

Future conference games in FBS football over the next three to four years will include the following:

UCLA-Rutgers
Oregon-Northwestern
Southern California-Maryland
Washington-Purdue
Virginia Tech-Stanford
California-Miami (FL)
SMU-Boston College
Oklahoma-Vanderbilt
Texas-Kentucky
UTEP-Kennesaw State
Utah-West Virginia
Colorado-UCF

That doesn’t even include some of the ridiculous matchups that have been league games for a while now, like West Virginia-Texas Tech. Already, we have somehow become acclimated to this kind of stupidity.

On Friday, the ACC announced it was expanding again, this time adding Stanford, California, and SMU. USA Today columnist Dan Wolken very reasonably described the move as a “Ponzi scheme“. 

However, in these times a Ponzi scheme can be considered necessary for a college athletics conference to survive. Pat Forde of Sports Illustrated put it this way:

Viewed in a vacuum, the idea of California schools joining an East Coast conference is entirely nonsensical. But College Sports Inc. left the common-sense vacuum last year when USC and UCLA bailed for the Big Ten, then doubled down on it this summer with Oregon and Washington doing the same. We aren’t going back.

In other words, common sense no longer applies — which is why the Pac-12 is now the Pac-2. 

—

One of the more curious aspects of the ACC expansion is that SMU is essentially paying to join the league; the school will not receive media rights money from the conference for its first nine years of membership. That’s how desperate SMU’s administration and big-time boosters were to become members of a power conference, even a power conference that isn’t the SEC or Big 10.

SMU will become eligible for media payments after nine years, but the ACC’s deal with ESPN expires in 2036. There is a very good chance the conference won’t exist (at least in its current form) beyond that year. I can only assume that SMU is simply trying to position itself for a seat at the table in the next and presumably final round of conference realignment, the inevitable creation of the ‘Superleague’.

If SMU is willing to essentially join a league for free just to get in the same room with the big boys, then the next thing that could happen is a school paying to join a conference. The ACC has 18 schools now (including Notre Dame); why not an even 20?

I would not be surprised if Liberty, which is absolutely flush with cash at the moment, were to wind up in the ACC (or the Big XII). For those who think such a notion is completely ridiculous, perhaps it is — but what about the last few years in the big-picture world of college sports hasn’t been completely ridiculous?

—

After all, at this point everything is on the table, at least in terms of money. Florida State, which can’t wait to get out of the ACC but is currently stuck in the league thanks mostly because of the Grant of Rights agreement between the members, is considering private equity investment in its athletics program:

Florida State University is working with JPMorgan Chase to explore how the school’s athletic department could raise capital from institutional funds, such as private equity, according to multiple people familiar with the plans.

PE giant Sixth Street is in advanced talks to lead a possible investment, said the people, who were granted anonymity because the specifics are private. Institutional money has poured into professional sports in recent years, from the NBA and global soccer to F1 and golf, but this would break new ground by entering the multibillion-dollar world of college athletic departments.

It doesn’t have to be private equity, either, based on what is happening in professional golf and European soccer. Perhaps the sovereign wealth fund of the Saudi Arabian government (known as “PIF”) could invest in Florida State athletics and help the school exit the ACC.

Two or three home football games each season might be moved to Riyadh. The team could wear green alternate jerseys with ‘SAUDINOLES’ across the front. All in all, it would presumably be a small price to pay in order to avoid playing Virginia or Wake Forest.

—

It might come as a surprise to some, but the Superleague isn’t really a 21st-century notion. Variations of the concept have been bandied about since at least the late 1950s, after the dissolution of the major west coast conference of the time, the Pacific Coast Conference. The most well-known version of that era was the so-called ‘Airplane Conference’, an idea championed by respected athletics administrator Tom Hamilton, which would have included Air Force, Army, California, Navy, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Penn State, Southern California, Stanford, Syracuse, UCLA, and Washington.

Other schools were reportedly in the mix as well, including Duke, Georgia Tech, and Penn, just to name a few. The participation of the service academies was ultimately vetoed by officials at the Pentagon, however, and then a new west coast league was created (which would become the Pac-5/8/10/12). That put an end to the Airplane Conference before it could take flight.

Well, now the nation’s major west coast conference has been decimated again, but this time the Pentagon is unlikely to be a factor in what comes next.

—

The modern version of the Superleague might form around the time the current TV contracts for the Big 10 and SEC expire (at the end of the 2029-2030 and 2033-2034 seasons, respectively). There has been occasional discussion about schools like Vanderbilt and Northwestern eventually getting kicked out of those two leagues, but what could happen instead is that the ‘big brands’ in each league simply leave the conferences to join a new entity, which will be the Superleague (undoubtedly to be called by a sponsor name).

As Dennis Dodd wrote last month:

The conversation — a notably preliminary one — took place in December 2022. Around a table were venture capitalists and private equity types. The super-rich don’t get that way sitting on their assets. They plan. They innovate. They create change; they don’t wait for it.

So, at some point in the conversation, the question was posed: What would it take to “buy” a conference, invest at the base level of college athletics itself?

After some noodling, they agreed: $1 billion.

There’s even a conference out there that would be available. You haven’t heard of it. Nobody has.

It resides in the mind of media consultant Patrick Crakes. He was the one speaking with those investors who are beginning to see great potential in reshaping college athletics.

“Take $1 billion and roll up all the best teams into a new conference,” said Crakes, who spent a quarter century as an executive at Fox Sports…

…Since pursuit of this story began, CBS Sports has learned that at least one major private equity firm has shown interest in funding a conference structure.

—

How will all of this eventually affect smaller college sports programs, like the one at The Citadel?

It’s hard to tell right now, although the end result almost certainly won’t be positive.

I don’t think there is much question that the days of football “money games” for the Bulldogs against Power 5 programs will be coming to an end in the near future, at least for significant monetary payouts. 

If The Citadel is playing a school like South Carolina after 2035 or so, it’s because South Carolina didn’t make the cut and isn’t in the Superleague — and if that is the case, then there isn’t going to be much money for the Gamecocks to hand out. Heck, the schools might wind up playing a home-and-home or a 2-for-1.

(Side note: South Carolina would probably be on the outside looking in for the Superleague, unless that entity consisted of at least 40 schools. My guess is that the number will ultimately be in the 20-36 range.)

Money from the NCAA basketball tournament could also be scarce, if the big-brand schools decide to leave the NCAA in that sport as well. I’m not as sure about that happening (there are multiple complicating factors), but it is a possibility. 

Of course, cash isn’t everything, and if after the dust settles The Citadel were to wind up in an all-sports conference with like-minded schools, similar to the situation that now exists in the Southern Conference, that would be fine. The college has managed to navigate an ever-changing NCAA landscape for decades as it is.

That’s why the school shouldn’t do anything dramatic right now, because nobody really knows what the future will look like, or what adjustments (if any) The Citadel will have to make because of the new world order in college sports.

—

I find the current state of college athletics to be rather depressing. I still mostly enjoy the games, but everything else is a total mess. The future doesn’t look good, either.

I’ll keep hoping for the best, though.

Filed under: Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Big 10 and SEC conference realignment musings, Independence Day edition

Posted on July 4, 2022 by Sandlapper Spike

One of the discussion points in this latest round of conference realignment is how many schools will eventually wind up in the Big 10 and/or SEC. With the addition of UCLA and Southern California to the Big 10, the current combined total of institutions in the two leagues is 32, counting UCLA/USC and Texas/Oklahoma.

No one really expects 32 to be the final number, but what will be? 40? 50? More?

One key to determining the number is that, at least for the time being, other varsity sports are being included as part of the conference changes, even though football is obviously the driving force behind all the movement.

If this were a football-only situation, then we would probably only be talking about one conference entity. It could be called the College Football Playoff Conference, or CFPC. Some of the current (and prospective) B1G/SEC members would be left out of the mix, either by choice or because of not bringing enough to the table in terms of brand identity.

The way I envision it, the CFPC would be made up of roughly 30 schools, all of them willing to designate players as employees and decouple their respective football programs from the rest of the NCAA (or whatever governing body inevitably succeeds the NCAA).

However, the college sports industrial complex seemingly isn’t at that stage yet. It might be by 2032, when the TV contract for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament expires, but right now in these very uncertain times schools and conferences are continuing to keep football as part of their existing sports portfolios.

That is why I suspect when the dust settles in this round of conference expansion, the Big 10 and SEC could have between 24 and 32 schools each. My guess is the number for both will be closer to 24 than 32, but it is not completely out of the question there will be over 60 schools in the two conferences.

I believe there is a strong possibility of a sizable increase in the total number of schools in the two conferences in the near future.

I anticipate travel logistics will be a major issue. As a practical matter, the Big 10 cannot have only two schools on the Pacific coast if they are all-sports participants. Two (and possibly four or five) more universities on the west coast need to be added.

Another consideration is Fox (and ESPN as well) undoubtedly would prefer a more national product – for promotion, advertising, and additional (and flexible) time slots, among other things. That is one reason some of the current ACC members would be attractive to the Big 10.

Of course, it is unlikely any of those schools would pass the “maintains/increases media rights payout average per institution” test right now, in the way the UCLA/USC addition did. Notre Dame is arguably the only school in the country outside the Big 10/SEC right now which would.

That notwithstanding, it might be worth it for Fox to decimate the ACC (with its ties to ESPN), much as the Big 10 adding UCLA/USC permanently wrecked the Pac-12 and its future contractual opportunities.

The ACC’s Grant of Rights currently stands in the way of the Big 10 and/or SEC poaching teams from that conference, but it isn’t impervious to attack.

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me the simplest and quickest way to get around the GOR for the ACC would be for more than half the conference schools to bail on the league. At least eight schools would have to do so (this would not include Notre Dame).

The problem is the Big 10 probably would not have interest in more than six of the current ACC schools — North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Florida State, and Duke (a serious candidate if men’s basketball is part of the equation).

It is hard to imagine the conference taking all of them, and it would still be two short of a GOR-busting majority. Would the Big 10/Fox be willing to add those schools, plus perhaps Pittsburgh and Clemson? I don’t see it.

If the Big 10 grabbed 8 ACC schools, though, and picked up five additional west coast institutions (like Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Colorado, and Utah), along with the dream addition of Notre Dame, it would result in a 30-team league covering the entire country, undoubtedly broken down into four geographically reasonable divisions for travel.

That scenario is almost certainly not going to happen. I do think something like it could happen, though, which is why I believe a 24- to 28-school conference is not an outrageous possibility.

The more realistic way to get an eight-member majority in the ACC, and thus force the ending of the Grant of Rights, would be for the SEC to take three or four of the schools. Would the SEC’s partner, ESPN, really want to short-circuit its own deal with the ACC? Maybe not. It is conceivable, though, that the network decides the conference (and is contract) is permanently damaged, and its priority should be to focus on savable assets within the league – namely, the schools in the ACC with brands which would translate to the new world order of the Big 10/SEC.

That list of schools could mirror the group of eight schools mentioned earlier. For the SEC, though, other institutions (notably North Carolina State and Virginia Tech) might be in the running.

One final thought: some of these schools could have issues with state legislatures trying to limit conference movement at the expense of other public universities within their state. There is a history of political interference in league realignment in Texas and Virginia, and in this cycle it has already appeared in Washington and Oregon. Such machinations likely would be a factor in North Carolina as well.

—

Most or all of what I have written may be complete nonsense. I freely admit I have no idea what will happen.

I don’t think anyone else really knows what will happen, either.

—

28-member Big 10 and SEC, 2025 (theoretical)

—

Filed under: Football, Special Topics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

If FBS schools no longer play FCS schools in football, what are the ramifications?

Posted on February 25, 2013 by Sandlapper Spike

If you follow college football at all, you probably are familiar with last week’s story out of Wisconsin, where Barry Alvarez was quoted as saying that Big 10 schools would not schedule FCS opponents going forward:

“The nonconference schedule in our league is ridiculous,” Alvarez said on WIBA-AM. “It’s not very appealing…

“So we’ve made an agreement that our future games will all be Division I schools. It will not be FCS schools.”

A couple of quick points:

– Obviously, FCS schools are members of Division I. You would think the director of athletics at a D-1 institution would know that.

– Alvarez claimed that the Big 10’s non-conference schedule “is ridiculous”, yet he is the same AD who in recent years scheduled multiple FCS schools from all over the country, including The Citadel, Wofford, Northern Iowa, South Dakota, Austin Peay, and Cal Poly. The Badgers will play Tennessee Tech in 2013.

Alvarez’s comment drew a lot of attention, understandably so, although it is not a lock that the Big 10 will enforce such an edict. Northern Iowa’s AD was blunt:

I would tell you the loss of the Big Ten schools will be devastating, to UNI and to a lot of our peers. Not just because we wouldn’t play Iowa and have the guarantee, if you think this will stop at the Big Ten…I look at things happening in the equity leagues in fives, and so I have to believe this might lead to additional dominoes…It impacts our ability to generate money in football. It closes the ranks, it closes us out a little bit more.

Samford’s AD had a similar reaction:

If the SEC and ACC make the same decision, we’ve all got to sit back and reevaluate how we’re going to replace our money. If you eliminate those guarantee teams, it puts us in a tough situation at a private school where we don’t get any state funding.

Of course, not everyone is upset. Some in the media welcome the move, eager for what they perceive as “better” scheduling (though suggesting New Mexico State would be a significant improvement over a decent FCS squad strikes me as a bit puzzling). Most members of the college football press/blogosphere, however, understand the potential issues associated with such a decision and the nuances at play. Not all of them do, though — or if they do, they simply don’t care.

The best (worst?) example of this attitude is probably Yahoo! Sports columnist Frank Schwab, who couldn’t be more thrilled with the no-FCS proposal. After writing (in a headline) that “hopefully everyone follows [the Big 10’s] suit”, he added:

…hopefully other conferences (and by “other conferences” we mostly mean you, SEC) stop the practice of wasting a precious Saturday afternoon in the fall on FCS opponents. The FCS teams benefit with a large payday, and that’s great for the bean counters at those schools. It’s not good for anyone else.

It stinks for the season-ticket holders that have to pay for a sham of a game. It’s nothing worth watching on television. The FBS team has nothing to gain, because a win is expected but a loss goes down in infamy. And while the FCS team will get enough money to build a new weight room, the most common result is getting pounded by 40 or 50 points, which can’t be that enjoyable for those players.

Some Big Ten-Sun Belt game in September might not be a ratings bonanza either, but at least it’s better than a parade of FCS opponents.

I thought Schwab’s overall tone was a bit much, to be honest. I sent him a tweet, trying to be as polite as possible:

You seem to have a very flippant attitude about the FCS.

His reply:

Oh, make no mistake, no “seem” about it

Okay, then…

My first thought when I read Schwab’s piece was that it was clearly the work of someone who does not understand FCS football, or who has no connection to it at all (Schwab is a Wisconsin alum). Saying that FCS players can’t enjoy the experience suggests he has never spoken to any of them about it. Most small-school players relish the challenge of “playing up”. In fact, such games are often a recruiting tool for FCS coaches. It’s not all about the money.

Earlier in this post I listed six FCS schools Wisconsin has played in recent years. Of those matchups, the Badgers had to hang on to beat Northern Iowa by five points, were tied at halftime with The Citadel, and frankly should have lost to Cal Poly (winning in OT after the Mustangs missed three extra points). I’m not really getting the “sham of a game” vibe with those contests. Now if you want to talk about the 2012 Big 10 championship game against Nebraska in those terms, go right ahead.

Schwab singles out the SEC as the worst “offender” when it comes to playing FCS schools. I think it is only fair to point out that Big 10 schools currently have a total of 37 FCS teams on their future schedules, while SEC schools have 32. (I’m sure the SEC will eventually add a few more.)

Oh, and to quickly dispose of one canard (which in fairness to Schwab, he does not suggest): some people occasionally claim that allegedly easy FCS matchups have given the SEC a leg up on winning BCS titles, because they play fewer quality non-conference opponents. You only have to look at the Big 10 to see that isn’t the case.

The SEC has played more FCS schools in the past than has the Big 10. However, despite that, Big 10 schools have actually lost more games to FCS opposition since 2005 than has the SEC. In fact, no BCS league has lost as many such games (six) or had as many different schools lose them (four) in that time period.

Not playing FCS schools won’t hide the Big 10’s real problem, which is illustrated to a degree by this article, written in August of 2012:

Iowa has four nonconference football dates. It has chosen to fill two of them this year with games against teams from the Mid-American Conference

The reason for this: The Hawkeyes wanted two games they would have very good chances to win.

That’s not exactly a revelation. But perhaps you aren’t aware of just how pronounced Iowa’s (and the Big Ten’s) dominance over MAC teams has been.

The columnist wrote that the MAC was “the Big 10’s football piñata”, which in years past it may have been. Unfortunately for the Big 10 (and to the undoubted surprise of the writer), it would lose three games to MAC schools in 2012, and that was just part of a trend — MAC teams have beaten Big 10 squads twelve times since 2008. (MACtion, indeed.)

As for the Hawkeyes and the “two games they would have very good chances to win”…Iowa lost one of them by one point, and won the other by one point.

The truth is the Big 10 just hasn’t been that good in football in recent years, which doesn’t have anything to do with playing FCS opposition. Dropping FCS schools from Big 10 schedules won’t change things, either. SEC schools aren’t winning all those BCS titles because they play FCS teams; they’re winning them because SEC schools have the best players and (in some cases) the best coaches.

So what happens if the Big 10 follows through and has its members drop all FCS opponents? What happens if other leagues do the same thing?

You’ve seen the quotes from ADs at schools that would be affected. Then there is this take from agent/event promoter Jason Belzer:

If other conferences follow the Big Ten’s lead and stop scheduling games against FCS opponents, the institutions that compete at that level will have two options: 1) look to make up the funds elsewhere, or 2) essentially be forced to stop competing at the same level as the larger institutions. Because it is  unrealistic to believe that any institution can begin to make up the difference in loss of football guarantee revenue by playing any number of additional such games in basketball, it is more likely that the second option will occur. With the loss of revenue, the gap between schools in BCS conferences and those who are not will continue to grow ever wider, leading to what may be the eventual breakup of the approximately 340 schools that compete at the NCAA Division I level.

How soon this may occur remains to be seen, but the the additional millions in revenue the new college football playoff will provide BCS conferences, coupled with their decision to eliminate the one source in which smaller schools could obtain a piece of those funds, will almost certainly accelerate the timetable for any such  fracturing.

I think that is a distinct possibility. I also think it may be the ultimate aim of the Big 10.

Not everyone agrees that the outlook is so dire, and at least one observer believes there are other ways for smaller schools to generate revenue:

FCS schools can take steps to enhance revenue streams outside of the on-field competitions with big schools. For example, very few schools FCS schools have media rights deals. Yet there are an increasing number of regional sports networks (RSNs) and national networks that are looking for programming. In fact, NBC Sports Network signed a media rights deal with the FCS Ivy League to “broadcast football, men’s basketball. and lacrosse.” FCS schools can and should continue to pursue these deals to be less dependent on paycheck changes…
…many institutions do not lobby at the federal or state level for their athletic programs or rely the schools’ lobbyists for their athletic programs. As schools like UNI receive more state funding, it is unclear how much of that funding will go to its athletic department. Therefore, FCS can and should make larger commitments to lobby on their athletic programs’ behalf, especially if paycheck games are eliminated.

That comes from a blog by a group (or maybe just one individual) called Block Six Analytics. I’ll be honest. I don’t buy either of those options.

I think many smaller institutions already lobby on varsity sports interests, and at any rate in most cases there would be a ceiling for actual results. To use The Citadel as an example, the school has in recent years begun to play Clemson and South Carolina in football on a more regular basis, as do several other FCS schools in the Palmetto State.

This outcome was basically due to a request by the state legislature to the two larger schools, neither of which had any real problem with it. However, The Citadel can’t play Clemson and/or South Carolina every year, since there are numerous other FCS programs in the state (Furman, Wofford, South Carolina State, Coastal Carolina, Presbyterian, and Charleston Southern).

The first point, that FCS schools should have media rights deals…um, it’s not like they haven’t tried. I’m sure the Southern Conference would like to have a profitable contract with CBS or ESPN or Al-Jazeera, but that’s not likely to happen. Even the mid-major conferences that do have deals (like the CAA has with NBC Sports) usually only get the benefit of exposure. That’s great, but it’s not a big cash situation.

I’m trying to imagine what reaction SoCon commissioner John Iamarino would have if he was told that he should go right out and find a big-money media rights deal for his league. Eye-rolling? Uncontrollable laughter?

Speaking of Iamarino, he had some comments on the FCS vs. FBS situation that were fairly ominous:

The only reason to have 63 scholarships is to be eligible to play FBS teams and count toward their bowl eligibility. If those games go away, the entire subdivision would have to look at if 63 is the right number. Could we save expenses by reducing the number of scholarships? It would seem to me that’s one thing that would have to be looked at.

I disagree with Iamarino that “the only reason” to have 63 scholarships is to play FBS schools (but I digress).

I’m guessing it hasn’t occurred to some of the more FBS-focused among the media that there could be a potential loss of football scholarships if the Big 10’s big idea comes to pass. No one thinks that would be good for the health of the sport. It would also be an sizable number of lost opportunities for potential students.

Iamarino doesn’t give a number, but I could see the FCS maximum dropping to around 50, based on scholarship costs and the lost income from not playing those games. That’s not much more than the D-2 maximum of 36.

This wouldn’t be the first time a Big 10 proposal had the potential to eliminate athletic scholarships at other schools, of course. As far back as 1948 the NCAA, then largely controlled by the Big 10, enacted the Sanity Code, an attempt to get rid of all athletic scholarships. It was a rule seen by many as benefiting the Big 10 at the expense of mostly southern schools.

Famously, the Sanity Code would not last long, and it is a pleasure to note that The Citadel was one of the “Seven Sinners” at the heart of its eventual destruction. I would hate to see the school have to reduce opportunities for prospective students after all these years.

Block Six Analytics did make one good point, which is that the FCS schools do have one other string in their collective bow, namely the NCAA basketball tournament:

One may argue that it is madness to have such a seemingly large organization completely dependent on one deal. However, this deal also means the NCAA will do everything in its power to ensure that there are enough Division I basketball programs to continue “March Madness” (also known as the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship). This requires that schools outside of the BCS have basketball programs that compete at the Division I level. In addition, this dynamic may allow smaller schools to actually ask for an increased amount of subsidies from the NCAA – especially given the elimination of paycheck games.

This may be the biggest obstacle to the Big 10 (and other power leagues) breaking away from the NCAA sooner rather than later. There is a lot of money in that tournament, and the event works in part because the country is enchanted with the “David vs. Goliath” component that is traditionally the major drawing card of the first two rounds. A basketball tournament only open to 65-75 larger schools wouldn’t be nearly as valuable (whether administrators at the BCS schools all understand this point is another issue).

Having said that, I have my doubts the smaller schools could extract a larger pound of flesh for their participation in the event.

—

A couple of other thoughts:

– If the Big 10 eliminates games against FCS schools, it will be harder for its member institutions to become bowl-eligible. This could be even more of a problem if the league moves to a 10-game conference schedule, which is reportedly under consideration.

If dropping FCS schools from FBS schedules was done across the board, there wouldn’t be enough eligible teams for all the existing bowl spots. Either the rules would have to be changed to allow 5-7 teams to play in bowls, or a bunch of bowl games would have to be cut.

– Frank Schwab wrote that a “Big Ten-Sun Belt game in September might not be a ratings bonanza either, but at least it’s better than a parade of FCS opponents”. I believe all but one of the current Sun Belt schools were once FCS (I-AA) programs. It’s not that big a difference from playing these schools versus competing against a quality FCS squad.

In addition, if FBS-FCS matchups go by the wayside, then a bunch of FCS schools will likely move up to FBS — more than are already planning to do so.

—

It’s possible that Alvarez’s comments to a local radio station are just the rantings of one man. I hope so, but I’m not confident that is the case. I think this is probably going to happen (though perhaps not next year). It will have a limited impact unless leagues like the SEC and ACC do the same thing. Then it will become a problem.

When it comes to maintaining financially stable sports programs, smaller schools already have too many problems.

Filed under: Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Conference Realignment — Back to the Future?

Posted on September 20, 2011 by Sandlapper Spike

Admittedly, there have already been a few billion words wasted on the subject of conference realignment, but I’ll throw in a few comments about the subject as well…

—

There is some discussion about a merger of sorts between Conference USA and the Mountain West.  This would create a confederation of (at least) 22 teams, which sounds ridiculous.  It would not be unprecedented, however.

The Southern Conference formed in 1921, with 14 original members.  Those schools: Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Washington & Lee.  Six schools joined shortly thereafter:  LSU, Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tulane, and Vanderbilt.  By 1931, Duke, Sewanee, and VMI had become members.

That’s right.  One major conference, 23 member schools.  It was an unwieldy amalgamation, and destined for a breakup.  It wouldn’t be the last time a league split into pieces because it got too big.

Tangent:  It really wasn’t the first time, either.  The SoCon itself was a product of a split, as those 14 original schools were breaking away from the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association, which by 1921 had 30 members.

In December of 1932, 13 of the SoCon schools left to form the Southeastern Conference:  Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Sewanee, and Tulane.  The final three schools listed would eventually leave the SEC, with Sewanee departing in 1940 after eight years in the league; the Tigers had played 37 conference football games and lost all 37 of them.

Now the SEC has 12 schools (with Arkansas and South Carolina added in the early 1990s) and is poised to add a 13th, Texas A&M.  Conference commissioner Mike Slive has stated that the league can stay at 13 members for the time being, and why not — it was a 13-school league for the first eight years of its history.

—

There has been a lot of talk about BCS “superconferences” with 16 schools.  It wasn’t that long ago that there was a Division I league with 16 members — the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), which expanded from 10 to 16 schools in 1996.  This proved to be a mistake, as several of the “old guard” WAC schools did not like the new setup.  After three years, the 16-school league was a memory, as eight members left to form the Mountain West.

Eleven of the schools that were in the sixteen-member WAC are now in either the Mountain West or C-USA.  I wonder what they think about possibly becoming part of a 22-school association…

Another one of the “WAC 16”, TCU, was set to become the Big East’s 17th member next year (10 for football, all for hoops).  Now that league will be losing at least two of its schools, Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

There are a lot of reasons why the Big East is in trouble, but trying to satisfy the agendas of so many different institutions is surely one of them.  That’s one reason I was surprised when Brett McMurphy of CBSSports.com reported that the Big East had considered adding Navy and possibly Air Force to its roster (as football-only members) prior to the sudden departures of Pitt and Syracuse.

—

Random thoughts:

— If a school isn’t sure which conference it should join, maybe it can join two at once, like Iowa, which was a member of both the Big 10 and the Big 8 from 1907 to 1911.

— If your conference ceases to exist, like the Southwest Conference, that might be sad.  It could be worse, though.  Phillips University, which was a member of the SWC for one year (1920), closed up shop in 1998, two years after the league in which it was once briefly a member met its demise.

— It’s sometimes instructive (and occasionally amusing) to look back at what schools were once members of various leagues.  I’ve already mentioned original SEC member Sewanee.  The Big 10 once included the University of Chicago (and that school is still a member of the conference’s academic consortium, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation).

Southwestern University was a charter member of the SWC.  Washington University (MO) was an original member of the Big 8, which also featured for a time Drake and Grinnell College.  The league now known as the Pac-12 once had both Idaho and Montana as members.

— Then there are schools like West Virginia, a BCS school (for the moment, anyway) that until 1968 was a member of the Southern Conference.  Virginia Tech was a SoCon stalwart for four decades, leaving in 1965.

Rutgers has gone from being one of the “middle three” with Lafayette and Lehigh, and a historic rivalry with Princeton, to big-time athletics in the Big East; now it is searching for a way to ensure it continues to hold its place in that sphere as its conference appears on the verge of collapse.  Another Big East school, South Florida, did not hold its first classes until 1960 and did not field a football team until 1997 (history records that the Bulls’ first loss on the gridiron came at the hands of The Citadel, at Johnson Hagood Stadium).

The University of Arizona started playing football in 1899, before Arizona was even a state.  Arizona (the school) and Arizona State were members of the Border Conference, which included Hardin-Simmons and West Texas A&M, and then left that league to join the WAC (long before the 16-member WAC) before becoming members of the renamed Pac-10.

—

The history of conference realignment is that leagues have been transient by nature, as the fortunes on and off the field of the various schools have ebbed and flowed.  In 1899 no one would have dreamed that the state of Arizona would have a population boom thanks (in part) to air conditioning, so that by the end of the century that state’s universities would be much larger than anyone would have anticipated one hundred years before.  There are a lot of stories like the Arizona schools and South Florida, and a few on the other side as well (like poor Phillips).

In other words, trying to anticipate how things will shake out can be dicey at best. Even as I type this, my twitter feed has exploded with the news that the Pac-12 (which was once the Pac-10, and before that the Pac-8, and before that the AAWU, and before that the PCC) has decided not to expand, for now.

We’ll see how long that lasts.

Filed under: Football | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Variety Pack: The NCAA’s Seven Sinners, Gonzo’s friend Duke Rice, and the Plant of the Week

Posted on December 19, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

It’s the long-awaited latest edition of the Variety Pack, the celebrated TSA series that debuted earlier this year.  The idea is to write briefly (I hope) on two or three different topics without being limited to 140 characters, like my Twitter tweets.

This is one of two holiday Variety Packs; in a week or two I’ll post the other one, which will (probably) feature The Citadel’s role in the modern-day proliferation of college football on television.

Both Variety Packs are inspired by Google Books.  What  I did, basically, is type in some search terms, and see what came up.

—

In 1948, the NCAA crafted a statute colloquially known as the “Sanity Code”.  The Sanity Code was an attempt to end the practice of awarding athletic scholarships, something many southern institutions had been doing since the early 1930s.

The Sanity Code allowed schools to award scholarships to prospective athletes, but only on a basis of need – and even then the scholarships were limited to tuition and incidental expenses.  Most scholarship athletes would either have to qualify for academic scholarships, or pay their own way, usually by holding down jobs while in school.

This was seen by a lot of the southern schools as an attempt by the “establishment” to keep itself on top of the college athletics pyramid.  The establishment consisted mainly of the Big 10 schools, largely aligned with the Ivy League and Pac-8.  To add fuel to the fire, in those days the Big 10 commissioner also oversaw the NCAA’s daily activities; Walter Byers, later executive director of the NCAA, split time between his NCAA duties and his primary job as the Big 10’s publicity director.

There were myriad problems with the Sanity Code.  It was basically unenforceable.  It was also seen as unfair.  The southern schools had no interest in dropping athletic scholarships, especially when at the same time wealthy Big 10 alums would be giving bogus jobs to football and basketball players with no penalty.

The school most often ridiculed by Sanity Code opponents was Ohio State.  Prior to the 1950 Rose Bowl, it was revealed that at least 16 Buckeye football players had cushy jobs with the state, including a running back on the payroll of the state’s transportation department as a tire inspector.

The Sanity Code was going to allow OSU to do that, but not let SEC or Southern Conference schools offer athletic scholarships.  It’s easy to see why people got upset.

Enter the “Seven Sinners”.  No, I’m not talking about the John Wayne-Marlene Dietrich movie.

In this case, the “Seven Sinners” were seven schools that refused to live a lie, and admitted that they were not adhering to the new statute enacted by the NCAA.  The seven happened to be a very difficult group for the establishment to criticize.  Only one, Maryland, was a major college football power offering a large number of athletic scholarships.  The others were Virginia, Virginia Tech, VMI, The Citadel, Boston College, and Villanova.

For The Citadel, the notion of having athletes work jobs while at the same time go to class, play a sport, and participate in military activities was a non-starter (the same was true for VMI, and to a certain extent Virginia Tech).  The school also questioned the amateur-but-not-really idea of the Sanity Code, with The Citadel’s faculty representative stating that “The Code defines the word amateur and then promptly authorizes students to participate…who do not meet the requirements of the definition.”

At the 1950 NCAA Convention, the association moved to expel the seven schools. That’s right, the NCAA wasn’t going to put them on probation, a concept not yet considered.  It was going to expel them.

UVA president Colgate Darden made a principled argument against the statute, and stated that his school had no intention of following the Code.  Maryland president (and former football coach) Curley Byrd worked the floor at the convention, making sure there weren’t enough votes to expel the seven schools, and using Ohio State’s situation (as an example of the NCAA’s hypocrisy) in order to convince some fence-sitters to support the Sinners’ position.

The Citadel, however, had already announced it was going to resign from the NCAA, stating it refused “to lie to stay in the association”.  For The Citadel, either the Sanity Code had to go, or The Citadel would go.  After all, it’s not like the school had a history of shying away from secession-related activities.

Since all seven of the “Seven Sinners” are still members of the NCAA, you can guess that they weren’t expelled.  Expulsion required a two-thirds majority, and that didn’t happen (although more than half of the NCAA members did vote against the Sinners). This prevented a complete fracture of the NCAA, as it is likely the southern schools would have left the association otherwise.

While most of the votes supporting the seven schools came from the south, there were schools in the other parts of the country which also voted against expelling the seven, a fact not unnoticed by the NCAA leadership.  The Sanity Code was repealed the following year.

In retrospect, it’s kind of funny that The Citadel was in the position of being an NCAA malefactor.  However, it should be pointed out that 111 schools did vote to expel the military college from the NCAA on that fateful day in 1950.  In fact, when the vote was taken, NCAA president Karl Lieb announced that the motion to expel had carried, before being corrected by assorted shouts from the convention floor.  He then said, “You’re right, the motion is not carried.”  Lieb had forgotten about that two-thirds majority rule for passage; the vote to expel The Citadel and the other six schools had fallen 25 votes short.

The echoes from the Sanity Code controversy still reverberate today.  There are still notable divisions between the Big 10 and Pac-10 schools and the other “major” conference schools like the SEC.  The Ivy League has basically withdrawn from the scene.  Even today, there is some distrust of the Big 10 and its closeness (real or perceived) with the NCAA.

Below are some links that touch on this topic.  They are mostly links from Google Books, so it may take a little bit of work to get to the referenced sections.

College Football:  History, Spectacle, Controversy (starting on page 213)

The 50-Year Seduction (starting on page 18)

Unsportsmanlike Conduct:  Exploiting College Athletes (starting on page 53)

College Athletes For Hire (starting on page 43)

Sport:  What Price Football? (column in Time magazine)

Egg In Your Beer (editorial from the January 21, 1950 edition of The Harvard Crimson)

—

While perusing Google Books, I read a passage from a book entitled Gonzo:  The Life of Hunter S. Thompson:  An Oral Biography:

[Thompson’s] best friend from his early days was probably Duke Rice.  He was a skinny kid and not all that tall, and suddenly he shot up to six-six or six-seven and got a basketball scholarship to The Citadel, where he was the only player of the time who was able to shut down Jerry West.

Now, this little blurb interested me, for a couple of reasons:

— Thompson’s friend was named Duke Rice.  With a name like that, he shouldn’t have gone to The Citadel; he should have gone to Vanderbilt or Northwestern.

— The “Blitz Kids” were a group of players recruited by Norm Sloan to The Citadel in the late 1950s and early 1960s (which is also the time period when Jerry West played for West Virginia).  That era was the pinnacle for basketball at The Citadel.  The stars of those teams were Art Musselman, Dick Wherry, Ray Graves, and Dick Jones (and later Gary Daniels)…but not anyone named Duke Rice.

The Blitz Kids never won the Southern Conference, mostly because West Virginia was in the league at that time, and Jerry West played for the Mountaineers.  He was, of course, a fantastic player.  Very few teams shut him down, and The Citadel certainly didn’t.  West played three games in his career against The Citadel.  WVU won all three games, by scores of 89-61, 85-66, and 98-76.

That 85-66 score came in the 1959 Southern Conference tournament championship game, the only time The Citadel has ever made the league final.  West scored 27 points in that contest.  I don’t know how many points he scored against the Bulldogs in the other two games, but since the Mountaineers put up 89 and 98 points in those matchups, I’m guessing he wasn’t exactly “shut down”.

Incidentally, that 98-76 game was played during the 1959-60 season at McAlister Field House, and was arguably the most anticipated contest ever played at the ancient armory (at least for those contests not involving Ric Flair).  West Virginia had lost in the NCAA championship game the year before (to California, 71-70), and West was the most celebrated college basketball player of his time.  People came out in droves to see West play.

West was so good, both in college and in the NBA, that he had no fewer than three great nicknames — “Zeke from Cabin Creek”, “The Logo”, and “Mr. Clutch”.  There are a lot of great athletes who would love to have just one cool nickname, and West had (at least) three of them.

Going back to the book, the person who stated that Duke Rice had played for The Citadel was another friend of Thompson’s named Gerald Tyrrell.  Now, I was sure Tyrrell didn’t make up that story.  After all, there wasn’t any reason for him to do so, and I suspected that part of it was true.  It’s just that it was rather obvious that The Citadel part of it wasn’t true.

No one with the last name “Rice” is listed as having lettered for The Citadel in the school’s media guide.  I briefly considered the possibility that the last name was incorrect (and that Duke was a childhood nickname), but Hunter S. Thompson grew up in Louisville, and none of the players for The Citadel during that era were from Louisville, at least from what I was able to determine.

As it happened, it didn’t take much effort (just some additional Googling) to come up with the answer.  Duke Rice had in fact played college basketball, and had played in the Southern Conference for a school with a military component…but the school in question was Virginia Tech.

Rice is mentioned in this interview of Chris Smith, who starred for the Hokies from 1957-61.  Smith described the 1960 Southern Conference championship game:

We had great athletes.  Bobby Ayersman, Louie Mills, and Bucky Keller were each outstanding high school football quarterbacks.  Dean Blake and Duke Rice did a great job  during the game as they took turns guarding Jerry West.  They held him to 14 points.  When Jerry fouled out in the third quarter, we were tied 49 to 49. Unfortunately, the rest of the WV team responded well and they scored on several long shots during the final 10 minutes of the game.

There he is!

What’s more, it appears that Tyrrell’s comment that Rice was “the only player of his time to shut down Jerry West” has some validity to it.  Maybe it’s an overstatement, but at least it’s rooted in fact.

In the end, the Duke Rice story doesn’t really have anything to do with The Citadel.  It’s more about a slightly blurry memory (which I suspect Thompson himself would have appreciated) and a lack of fact-checking by the book’s editors.  This particular book happens to be co-authored by Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner.

[Edit: 12/9/2020…

Actually, this story does have something to do with The Citadel. It only took me 10 years to find out!

As it happens, Duke Rice began his college career at The Citadel — but transferred to Virginia Tech before ever appearing in a basketball game for the Bulldogs. So there was a connection. However, he never faced Jerry West while wearing light blue and white.]

It also illustrates the inherent danger of taking oral histories at face value.  Anyone who follows baseball knows this all too well.  The success of Lawrence Ritter’s classic The Glory Of Their Times has led to a number of similar books, a lot of which are a little short in the truth-telling department.

—

It’s time for the Plant of the Week.  For this edition, the honoree is a canna lily, the Cleopatra canna, which when it comes to coloration basically has a mind of its own.

Warm weather can’t get here fast enough…

Filed under: Basketball, Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Why exactly is The Citadel playing Arizona in the first place?

Posted on September 6, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

I didn’t touch on this in my preview of the game between The Citadel and Arizona, but I figured I could make a quick post out of the question:  why exactly is The Citadel playing Arizona in football in the first place?  I’m sure fans of both schools are a little curious about that.

Well, for money, of course.  The Citadel has to play at least one football “guarantee” game every season to balance (or attempt to balance) its budget for athletics.  On the other hand, surely The Citadel could find an FBS opponent a little closer to home, an ACC or SEC team, or even a Big East squad.  After all, the Bulldogs have played teams from all those leagues in the last few seasons, along with a Big XII team (Texas A&M), a Big 10 outfit (Wisconsin)…oh, wait a second.  I see a pattern — a pattern created by none other than Les Robinson.

That’s right, The Citadel’s national tour of BCS conferences is a result of one of former AD Les Robinson’s grand ideas.  You can read about it here:  Link

The game against the Pac-10’s Arizona is the last of the “BCS series” for The Citadel, which in the past five years has traveled to play against the aforementioned Texas A&M and Wisconsin, along with Pittsburgh of the Big East, Florida of the SEC, and North Carolina and Clemson of the ACC.

Just prior to that five-year run the Bulldogs traveled to Oxford to play Mississippi and Tallahassee to tangle with Florida State.  The coach for all these games has been Kevin Higgins, so keep that in mind when evaluating his 25-32 record at The Citadel. I think there is a good chance Higgins is the only head coach in the country to have played teams from all six BCS conferences in the last five seasons.

After this game the Bulldogs will have completed the Robinson Quest, having played teams from all six BCS leagues.  Robinson even set up a “bonus” two-game series with Princeton of the Ivy League.  I am not sure current AD Larry Leckonby is crazy about scheduling the likes of Arizona or (to a lesser extent) Wisconsin, as the travel for those games eats into the guarantee.  It was also a significant issue for the game at Princeton.

I can certainly understand that, and in the future I expect most, if not all, of The Citadel’s football guarantee games to come against SEC/ACC schools.  However, I don’t think it hurts the school to travel out of its home region on occasion.  I agree with the comment Robinson made in the linked article about such games providing needed national exposure.  Another thing they provide is an opportunity for alums living outside the southeast to attend a game.

The Citadel brought a very good crowd to the Princeton game last year.  I can attest to the number of PA/NJ/NY alums in attendance, most of whom showed up with their families, and some with friends too.  We need to play games like that once in a while, if only for those fans.

The game against Arizona will give some of our alums on the west coast a chance to see their team in action.  Admittedly, a game against UCLA or Stanford might have been a better bet in terms of Bulldog supporters showing up — I’m not sure how many alums live in Arizona — but still, it’s in the general area.

Anyway, I hope the following gives a little insight into how this game came to be.  I don’t think we’ll be seeing any other matchups on the gridiron between The Citadel and Pac-10 teams in the near future, but you never know.

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Conference expansion: should The Citadel join the Big 10?

Posted on June 9, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

Nebraska, Missouri, Notre Dame, Texas — it’s hard to take in all that’s (not) going on right now…

With all this expansion talk, there is a chance the Big 10 (motto:  “Just ignore the ’10’ thing”) might wind up with an odd number of teams.  Of course, it has an odd number of teams right now.  However, I’m thinking that when all the dust settles from this latest realignment, Jim Delany and company are going to want to be at 12 or 14 or 16 teams, if only to end speculation the league might expand again (and thus prevent all those late-night telephone calls from the folks at Iowa State begging for admission).

If the Big 10 needs an extra team, The Citadel would be an obvious candidate and would presumably get an invitation.  The question is, should the military college accept the Big 10’s offer and leave the Southern Conference?  What are the positives and negatives of making the move?

Positives

— There would be no controversy over where the conference baseball tournament would be hosted, as the other schools in the Big 10 would have no problem playing in Charleston every May.  Charleston versus Columbus?  No contest.  No more carping from the likes of UNC-Greensboro.  (And do you see UNCG mentioned as a candidate to join the Big 10?  No.  The Spartans should be grateful just to be in the same hemisphere with the Bulldogs, much less the same league.)

The Citadel would be a favorite to win the league in baseball every season.  Also, we could probably demand that all of our conference games would be played at Riley Park.  Fun spring trip for the guys from Minnesota and Wisconsin, and an easy three-game sweep for us.

–All home games in football and basketball would be on TV, along with a lot of televised games for the other sports.  Also, the Big 10 Network has a slightly larger distribution nationally than the SoCon TV package.

It’s important for The Citadel to increase its TV presence, as I have written many times before.  I have previously advocated playing Big 10 teams in non-conference action so as to get on TV.  Now, the opportunity could be there to play Big 10 teams as league games.

–By 2012 or 2013 or whenever we joined the league, there is a chance Indiana still wouldn’t have its act together on the hardwood and we could snag a road victory at Assembly Hall, which would be neat.  Plus, you know Nebraska won’t be any good at hoops, and Northwestern would be a promising opportunity for a road W.  So we could be competitive almost immediately.

–A new recruiting territory would open up, and with the advantage of offering recruits the best weather in the conference (unless Texas joins the league, and even then it’s a push).  The Citadel has already had some good luck recently with players from Big 10 country (Ohio is the home state for basketball’s Austin Dahn and baseball’s Justin Mackert).

If Texas winds up in the conference along with the Bulldogs, that opens up the Lone Star state even more to The Citadel’s predatory hoops recruiters (see:  Cameron Wells, Zach Urbanus, Mike Groselle).  With that type of opening, regular trips to the Final Four would be inevitable.

–The extra money from being a Big 10 member could go toward expanding Johnson Hagood Stadium.  The Big 10 could also flex its collective muscle and break the NCAA’s silly postseason ban in the Palmetto State.  That, combined with the newly expanded JHS, would result in a new bowl game for Charleston, so the community would also benefit.

Negatives

–Well, the road trips would feature a lot of snow and ice (excepting UT-Austin, which would probably be worth a mandatory travel game for the corps of cadets).  There is only so much places like East Lansing and Iowa City have to offer (not to mention Lincoln).

That’s why you can expect a lot of the league meetings to get moved to Charleston. Also, look for a lot of the Big 10 coaches to acquire beachfront property in the Low Country, a la Roy Williams, Ralph Friedgen, Les Robinson, etc.  It’s just a natural thing for them to do.

–Big 10 basketball can often be unwatchable.  Actually, you could say that about a lot of Big 10 sports…

–The Citadel probably would not be able to play schools like Chowan or Webber International in football.  Wait, that’s a positive!

–Women’s sports:  The Citadel has a limited number of women’s teams, and the ones we have would probably struggle in the Big 10.  We don’t have a women’s lacrosse program, though, which may be just as well.

–The other schools in the Big 10 would be much larger than The Citadel, which could lead to their fans trying to take over our home parks/arenas.  If we made sure the corps of cadets was fully armed before games, however, I think we would maintain our home field advantage.

–There is a possibility that a spot in the ACC or SEC could open up.  If that happens, it’s important for The Citadel to explore all its options.

—

All in all, I’m undecided about a potential berth in the newly constructed Big 10.  One thing I can say for sure, though, is that The Citadel will be okay wherever it lands.  Can Rutgers or Kansas say the same?

The New Big 10

Filed under: Football, The Citadel | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

College baseball bubble, 5/30

Posted on May 30, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

Prior two posts on the baseball bubble:

College baseball bubble, 5/29

Examining the college baseball “bubble” with one week to go

All the league tourneys have ended now, as the SEC has finally escaped Mother Nature.  LSU won the tournament (again).  With all of the conference tournaments completed, there are no more bids to “steal”.

In my opinion, this is what we have…

Locks (including teams that have received automatic bids):  Louisville, Connecticut, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Coastal Carolina, Cal State Fullerton, Rice, TCU, Arizona State, UCLA, Washington State, Oregon, Florida, South Carolina, Auburn, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Alabama, LSU, College of Charleston, Florida Atlantic, Louisiana-Lafayette, Kansas State, UC Irvine, The Citadel, New Mexico, Stanford, Baylor, Southern Mississippi, Rider, Grambling State, Jacksonville State, Illinois State, Hawaii, Mercer, Stony Brook, Bethune-Cookman, Kent State, Dartmouth, Virginia Commonwealth, St. Louis, Bucknell, Central Connecticut State, Lamar, Minnesota, Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Oral Roberts, Florida International, St. John’s, San Diego

58 teams in.  6 spots to fill.  Who fills them?

I believe those six spots will come from a group of 12 teams.  They are:  North Carolina State, North Carolina, California, Oregon State, Arizona, Kentucky, Elon, Florida Gulf Coast, Pittsburgh, Liberty, Texas State, and Wichita State.

Of those twelve, I believe that NC State is best positioned to receive a bid, and that Liberty is in the worst shape.  I would put them in this order:

North Carolina State
Oregon State
Arizona
North Carolina
Elon
California
———
Kentucky
Wichita State
Texas State
Pittsburgh
Florida Gulf Coast
Liberty

Note that this is not the order I think they should be in, but my guess as to what the committee will do.  I would not be completely shocked to see any of these teams in or out (although it’s hard to imagine NCSU not making it at this point, and Liberty has very little chance).  If I am wrong, it most likely will be Kentucky getting in at the expense of one of the Pac-10 schools (probably Cal).

We’ll find out tomorrow at 12:30 pm ET.

A few more quick predictions:

— Arizona State will be the #1 national seed.

— The committee will choose geography over results, and not give national seeds to both UCLA and Cal State Fullerton (and likely set them up to potentially play each other in a super-regional).

— At least one of the western regionals will be completely insane.

— Florida State goes to UConn as the 1 seed.

— There will be two TV-friendly regionals (one on each coast) for the folks at ESPN, and I am guessing that one of them will be in Miami and feature the ‘Canes, FIU and 54-game hit streak maven Garrett Wittels, and (oh yes) defending national champion LSU.  Perhaps Big 10 champ Minnesota will be thrown in for good measure to appeal to midwestern viewers.  (This potential scenario, or at least part of it, was mentioned today by Aaron Fitt in a post on Baseball America.)

— The Citadel will be a 2 seed.

Just a few hours to go…

Filed under: Baseball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

College baseball bubble, 5/29

Posted on May 29, 2010 by Sandlapper Spike

Just a quick update…for the breakdown prior to conference tournament play, see this post:  Link

The Saturday morning report, with changes noted from what I wrote in midweek:

– Locks (36):  Louisville, Connecticut, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Coastal Carolina, Cal State Fullerton, Rice, TCU, Arizona State, UCLA, Washington State, Oregon, Florida, South Carolina, Auburn, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Alabama, LSU, College of Charleston, Florida Atlantic, Louisiana-Lafayette, Kansas State, UC Irvine, The Citadel, New Mexico, Stanford, Baylor

Change: Six teams that were not locks earlier in the week are now:  Kansas State, UC Irvine, The Citadel, New Mexico, Stanford, and Baylor.

– Champions from “one-bid” leagues:  15

Congratulations to Stony Brook and Rider for clinching automatic bids on Friday out of the America East and MAAC, respectively.

— Champions from leagues likely to get just one bid, but that do have bubble teams (but no locks):  4 (the leagues in question are the A-Sun, Big 10, MVC, and Southland)

Change: Florida Gulf Coast did lose in its tournament.

—

That means 55 spots are taken, with 9 still to go.

— Florida Gulf Coast University’s loss in the Atlantic Sun tournament will hurt, but it may still draw an at-large bid, making the A-Sun a two-bid league.  Could be close for the Eagles.

— The Big 10 is not likely to be a two-bid league.  Minnesota is in the driver’s seat for the auto bid.  I won’t completely discount this league getting a second team (Michigan), only because it’s the Big 10, and not because it deserves one.

— Wichita State is in the final of the MVC tournament and plays Illinois State for the title on Saturday.  The Shockers could lose today and still get in the NCAAs, but I tend to doubt it.

— Texas State is still alive in the bloodbath that has been the Southland tournament.  Could Texas State get an at-large bid, if needed?  Possibly.  Like FGCU, it would be a close call.

— The Big East has two locks and likely will get a third team in the field.  That team would have been Pittsburgh, but the Panthers went 1-2 in the tourney.  Also, St. John’s could steal a bid.  If the Johnnies win the tournament, is this a 4-bid league?

— Results in the Pac-10 on Friday broke almost perfectly for that league getting 8 teams in the field.  Stanford locked up a bid, and there were big wins for Oregon State and California.  Washington also won, but I think the Huskies are the ninth team and will not make it.  Oregon State and Cal both probably need one more win.  Arizona is still in good shape, but the Wildcats need to beat the Beavers at least once during the weekend to feel 100% secure.

— The Big XII is going to be a five-bid league.  It also has four completely meaningless games in its tournament today, thanks to the wonder that is pool play.

— The Southern Conference will be at least a three-bid league.  Elon should be that third team, despite losing a fight and a game on Thursday.  The Phoenix can still win the SoCon tourney, but if Elon doesn’t and either Western Carolina or Appalachian State does, I’m not sure the committee is taking four teams from this league.  The Citadel and the College of Charleston will be in the field of 64.

— Southern Mississippi plays Rice in the C-USA title game on Saturday, and the Golden Eagles probably have to win that game to get a bid.

— Liberty is still alive in the Big South tournament, but with more conference tourney upsets looming, it looks like the Flames must win that tourney to snatch a bid.  That will be a tall order, as Liberty will have to beat High Point once and Coastal Carolina twice.

— The Sun Belt could become a three-bid league if a team other than Florida Atlantic wins its tournament.  Either Arkansas State or Troy will be in the final, and FAU has to beat Florida International to get to the other side of the title matchup.  It would be interesting to see Garrett Wittels continue his hit streak in the NCAAs, but I think FIU has to win the SB tourney to make it.  Of course, they may just do that.

— Boston College is probably out of the mix for an at-large after going 1-2 in the ACC tourney (a result that helps North Carolina).  North Carolina State beat Clemson in its opener and probably needs one more win to feel good about its chances.  At this point, I think the Wolfpack might need that win only to further differentiate itself from BC.

— I still think the SEC will get 8 bids.  Kentucky is still in the mix, but I just don’t see it.  I wouldn’t be shocked if Kentucky’s name popped up on the selection show, though.

So, there are nine spots to fill.  As of Saturday morning, I think they might go like this:

Arizona, North Carolina, Oregon State, FGCU, Pittsburgh, North Carolina State, California, Elon, Liberty

Still alive:  Texas State (if needed), Southern Mississippi, Washington, Michigan, Boston College, Wichita State (if needed), Kentucky

Filed under: Baseball | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Next Page »