Past performance is no guarantee of future success. In Charlie Strong’s case it is.

158 wins to 48 losses…

That’s Mack Brown’s record during his 16 year coaching career at the University of Texas; a coaching career that saw him go 3-1 in BCS bowls, win a national championship, play for another, win 2 conference titles, and make the University of Texas a whole lot of money in the process. And notwithstanding his recent struggles over the past four years (30-21), his consistent struggles against Bob Stoops and Oklahoma (7-9), and the general feeling that the Longhorns underachieved during his tenure, Mack Brown is responsible for the resurgence of a Texas program that lay dormant for 30+ years since its 1969 and 1970 national championships. So before I continue on to talk about the topic at hand … Charlie Strong and the future of the Horns … I want to do something that I never did enough of during the Mack Brown Tenure:


“Thank you Mack Brown for 16 solid years. With its own television network and a valuation of $139M you have created a secure foundation for the future of the Longhorns, and you are a big reason the University of Texas is relevant again in college football. You have always been a class act in the face of all the scrutiny from spoiled fans like me. I truly wish you the best in the next endeavor (hopefully a color commentary spot on Longhorn Network?).” 




Today, the Texas Longhorns will “officially” name Charlie Strong their 29th coach and this appointment will mark the first time a black head coach will be in charge of a major men’s sport (football, basketball, baseball) at the University of Texas. If the reports are accurate, Charlie Strong was probably not the Longhorns first choice. But in my opinion, the appointment of Charlie Strong is the right overall move from a football X’s and O’s standpoint. He will right the defensive side of the football for the Longhorns and ultimately jump start the program back to its winning ways.



At 53 years of age, Strong’s resume speaks for itself; especially on the defensive side of the ball. While at South Carolina in the early 2000s, Strong bucked traditional defensive formations and invented the 3-3-5 stack defense. Predicated on speed, athleticism, and a “fly around a play football attitude,” the 3-3-5 stack placed a myriad of “hybrid” defenders on the field that could do multiple things to disrupt offensive schemes (especially the spread). The result of Strong’s defensive innovation was an 8 game win improvement (8-4 overall after an 0-11 season the year before) for the Gamecocks and an Outback Bowl victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes.

After his three year stint with the Gamecocks, Charlie Strong went on to serve as the defensive coordinator for the Florida Gators from 2002 to 2009. And as the defensive coordinator of the Gators, Strong more than proved his worth with top rated defenses in the 2006 and 2008 national championship years. 

Specifically:



2006
2008
Points per game:
13.5 (7th)
12.8 (5th)
Yards per game:
268.8 (10th)
279.3 (8th)
Total sacks:
36 (5th)
31 (11th)
Total interceptions:
21 (4th)
26 (1st)
Pick 6s
1
5




















In the 2006 national championship game against the Ohio State Buckeyes, the Gator defense held the Buckeyes to 82 yards in their 41-14 victory. In the 2008 title game against the Oklahoma Sooners, the Gators defense held the Sooners to 14 points. During that season the Sooners were averaging 54.0 points per game and had scored a FBS record 702 points. Needless to say, Charlie Strong knows what he is doing on defense.

His tenure as the head football coach at the University of Louisville has been marked by rapid success. In the three seasons before Strong, the Louisville Cardinals were 15-21 with a 5-16 conference record. Over the last four years under Strong’s leadership, the Cardinals have posted a 37-15 record with a 20-9 conference record and a 2012 Sugar Bowl win over the Florida Gators. And not surprisingly during Strong’s tenure the Cardinals have been absolutely stout on defense. From 2010 to 2013 the Cardinals ranked 7th in points per game (18.8), 6th in yards per game (308.1), 10th in yards per play (4.9) and 3rd in sack percentage at 8.3% (1).

Since the early 2000s, the trend in college football and the Big 12 in particular has been for offenses to move towards speed and spread. A consistent theme in Charlie Strong led defenses is to attack the spread with athleticism on defense. An attacking-playmaking defense is something that the current Texas Longhorns haven’t had lately (see the 30-7 Alamo Bowl shellacking they received this past Monday from the Oregon Ducks).

In hiring Charlie Strong, the Texas Longhorns are getting a proven defensive guru. Although past performance is no guarantee of future success at Texas, Charlie Strong’s track record has me convinced that he is the man to turn the Horns around, especially on the defensive side of the ball. If the old adage often rings true, Offense scores points but Defense wins Championships, Strong will be raising a crystal ball during his time in Texas. And at $5.0 million per year, for the next five years the expectation is nothing less.

Did Mack Brown just buy himself another year? At a minimum he bought himself one more week.

One year ago to the date (see blog post below) I wrote that it was time for the Texas Longhorns to part ways with Mack Brown. To be more specific, I stated that from a win-loss perspective, the Texas Longhorns can’t afford to have Mack Brown as their coach. Since their last national championship appearance in 2009, the Longhorns are 25-18 overall and 13-15 in conference (not including yesterday’s win). And during this same time period, Texas A&M has re-surged on the back of a quarterback that Mack Brown passed on.


The Texas Longhorns are losing the war for the state of Texas to the A&M Aggies and General William Mack Brown is a sleep at the wheel!


Admittedly, I have been one of Mack Brown’s biggest detractors during his most recent struggles. I can list countless issues I have with him till I am blue in the face, the biggest of them being his inability to rally a group of 4 and 5 star recruits to achieve their full potential especially against their biggest rival Oklahoma. But today I am stopping for a moment to give him some serious credit for yesterday’s performance. 

All week long, Mack was defiant when asked about his future, even going as far as to guarantee that he was not going to be fired from Texas. He was adamant that his Longhorns still had everything to play for and his team was going to get this ship righted (i.e. win the Big XII championship and play for a BCS bowl). He was also very bullish on his team’s chances in the Red River Rivalry game against Oklahoma.

I’d be a liar if I said that I believed him and I’d be lying if I told you that I believed the Longhorns had much of a shot heading into yesterday’s game with the Sooners. 

They hadn’t really given me a reason to believe that they were going to be good enough defensively to stop the Sooners run game and Thursday’s last minute victory against Iowa State on the road did little to change my mind. Vegas odds makers seemed to agree with me, listing the Horns a two-touchdown underdog against the Sooners. 

But then Saturday, October 12, 2013 happened…. The Longhorns shocked the Sooners with a 36-20 victory in Dallas. And to be fair, they dominated Oklahoma on both sides of the ball. To borrow a line from Burnt Orange Nation: “Texas thoroughly whipped OU up and down the field, on both sides of the football, from start to finish.” The stats of the game do not lie: of the 82 total plays ran by the Longhorns, 60 of them were rushes for a total of 277 yards. The Horns played old fashioned grown man ground and pound offense. And their defense stepped up in a way we haven’t seen since 2009.

Maybe it was Mack Brown’s “Hulk Hogan” like performance the night before that inspired his Horns to show up and play in all three phases of the game: 


Whatever it was, Mack Brown and his Longhorn players ignored the media and so-called pundits like myself, showed up and simply played great football on Saturday. They ended their three-year losing streak to Bob Stoops and the Sooners and in the process bought Mack some much needed time … At least for one more week.

So with that I say congratulations to William Mack Brown and the Texas Longhorns for a world class performance on Saturday. You circled with wagons, thoroughly whipped your biggest rival, and have set yourselves up for a chance at something bigger.

Defense wins Championships not Heisman Trophies

First off, let me start by congratulating Johnny Manziel (a.k.a. Johnny Football) for becoming the first freshman in the history of college football to win the Heisman Trophy. Over the season, Johnny Football racked up over 4,600 yards of total offense, including 1,181 rushing yards and 43 TDs in arguably the toughest conference in college football. 

His “Heisman Moment” came on November 10, 2012 when he passed for 252 yards, 2 TDs, and rushed for another 92 yards in the Aggies’ upset win over the #1 ranked Alabama Crimson Tide. His truly gaudy numbers, general improvisation, exciting play, and overall charisma make him a truly deserving winner. At the same time, a part of me can’t help but feel that Manti Te’o was hard done by yesterday’s result.



In the 78 year history of the Heisman Memorial Trophy Award, 73 players that have claimed this award have either been a quarterback or running back. The other 5 have been some combinations of wide receiver, punt returner, and kick returner. No purely defensive player has ever won the award, and there have only been a total of 23 defensive players (including Manti Te’o) to finish within the top five of voting. Last night, Manti Te’o finished with a total of 1,706 points, the highest point total any purely defensive player has ever received. It still wasn’t enough to make Heisman Trophy history.




With 103 total tackles, 7 interceptions, and 1 fumble recovery, Manti Te’o was clearly one of the most dominant players in college football and most NCAA coaches acknowledged as much. This fact was only further solidified by his winning of the Maxwell Award[1]and the Walter Camp Player of the Year Award[2], two awards that tend to be dominated by offensive players.




The Heisman Memorial Trophy Award is supposed to be awarded to the player deemed the most outstanding player in collegiate football. Over the last 78 years, most outstanding has been synonymous with most exciting, and most statistically relevant/significant. And yesterday’s vote continued this trend.

The old football adage states that “offense wins games, and defense wins championships.” The 928 voters spoke in complete unison when they invited Johnny Football into the Heisman fraternity. Each member was saying … “Offense wins games … and Heismans”  

P.S. The closest to “defensive player” to win the Heisman was University of Michigan cornerback Charles Woodson. In 1997, he dazzled college football but he won the award primarily because of his punt and kick returning ability.

P.P.S. On an aside, take a look at the list of talented freshman to not win this award in their first year ….

     1. Adrian Peterson (RB) of Oklahoma finished second in 2004 after rushing for 1,925 yards and 15 TDs.


     2. Michael Vick (QB) of Virginia Tech finished third in 1999 after amassing 2,420 total yards at 20 TDs.

     3. Herschel Walker of Georgia finished third in 1980 after rushing for 1,616 yards and 15 TDs.







[1]The Maxwell Award is presented annually to the collegiate football player judged by a panel of sportswriters, head coaches, and sportscasters to be the best football player in the United States.
[2]The Walter Camp Player of the Year Award is presented annually to the collegiate football player judged by a group of NCAA Division 1 head coaches and sports directors to be the player of the year.

Conference Realignment … In this High Stakes Game of College Football RISK the ACC is at Risk


Maryland leaving the ACC and Rutgers leaving the Big East (both teams are heading to the Big Ten) signals to the rest of college football that super conferences are on their way whether we like it or not (and I do not like it for the record). And when you consider the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership for the Rose Bowl and the SEC/Big XII newly formed partnership for the so-called “Champions Bowl” (better name clearly still pending), the ACC is in deep trouble. 


Just this past September, things looked very rosy for the ACC. Notre Dame agreed to join the ACC in all sports except for football but also committed to playing a minimum of five football games against ACC opponents annually. Furthermore, the ACC as a group voted to raise the overall exit fee to $50 million, although both Maryland and Florida State voted against this measure. It seemed as though Commissioner John Swofford had done enough to insulate his conference from any further defections. 

But yesterday, Maryland decided it was time for them to move to greener pastures even in the face of a $50 million buyout (Maryland stands to make approximately $24 million annually compared to the $15 million it currently makes in the ACC). And although I’m certain that the ACC will quickly replace Maryland with either UConn or Louisville within the next coming weeks I am still making the following declaration: 

The ACC will cease to exist as a preeminent BCS football conference in the next coming years.

The high stakes game of Conference Realignment (which I’m calling Collegiate Football Risk) comes down to one thing: Acquiring more television markets to generate more Benjamins, and participating in a preeminent BCS bowl.

Although the ACC currently has teams in and around nine of the top 20 U.S. TV markets (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Washington D.C., Tampa, Miami, Orlando), I believe that their lack of a preeminent/important BCS bowl tie (Orange Bowl***) in will be their final undoing even with the impending playoff format. 


***Please note that in my opinion, the Orange Bowl doesn’t really count as an important college football bowl in the grand scheme of it all. It’s located in Miami and far too corporate. And outside of the national championship game in Miami, it has the lowest Nielsen ratings year over year of all the other BCS Bowls (see post #1 for more details about Nielsen’s). 

The two biggest power brokers in conference realignment thus far have been the Big Ten and the SEC. With 14 teams already, both conferences are best positioned to become the first 16-team super conference. As a result, in the post ACC (and Big East) world of college football they will work together to create the first two true 16-team Super Conferences. 
I predict that the SEC will look as follows (please note that in the parenthesis is ranking of the relating larger TV market served by related team):


West                                     
Texas A&M -Houston (10)
Missouri -St. Louis (21)
LSU -New Orleans/Shreveport (53/84)
Arkansas -Little Rock (56)
Alabama -Birmingham/Mobile (40/60)
Auburn -Birmingham/Mobile (40/60)
Mississippi State  -Jackson (90)
Ole Miss -Jackson (90) 



East
Georgia -Atlanta (8)
Va. Tech -Washington D.C. (9)
Florida -Tampa/Jacksonville (13/47)
NC State -Raleigh-Durham (27)
Vanderbilt -Nashville (29)
South Carolina -Greenville/Columbia (36/79)
Kentucky -Memphis (48)
Tennessee -Knoxville (59)


I predict that the Big Ten will look as follows (please note that in the parenthesis is ranking of the relating larger TV market served by related team):



Legends                                     

Illinois -Chicago (3)

Iowa -Des Moines-Ames (71)

Michigan -Detroit (11)
Michigan State -Detroit (11)
Minnesota -MSP (15)
Nebraska -Omaha (76)
Northwestern -Chicago (3)
Wisconsin -Madison (85)

Leaders
Indiana -Indianapolis (25)
Ohio State -Cleveland/Columbus (18/32)
Penn State -Philadelphia/Pitt (4/23)
Purdue -Indianapolis (25)
Boston College -Boston (7)
Rutgers -New York (1)
Maryland -Washington DC (9)
UNC -Raleigh-Durham (27)

Current legislation in the state of North Carolina forces UNC to be in the same conference as NC State unless NC State can find a home in another BCS conference. In other words, UNC can only split from NC State if NC State ends up in another BCS conference. As a result, The SEC and the Big Ten will make a deal to split the Charlotte (24) and the Raleigh-Durham (27) television markets by taking NC State and UNC respectively.
The Big Ten will then move to lock up the Boston television market (even though Boston isn’t necessarily a huge college football market) by taking Boston College. The SEC will round out the overall television market package with Virginia Tech which will give them the Washington D.C. (9), Richmond (58) and Roanoke-Lynchburg (67) television markets
At 16 apiece and a majority of the major U.S. television markets consumed, the Big Ten and the SEC will stop (I hope to God!) leaving the Pac-12 and the Big 12 to fight over the remaining remnants of the ACC and Big East.
The Big 12 currently has 10 members and would need to attract 6 new teams to reach Super Conference status. Current members and their related TV markets are as follows:

Texas -Dallas-Ft. Worth/Austin (5/49)
Oklahoma -Dallas-Ft. Worth/O.K.C. (5/45)
Texas Tech -Dallas-Ft. Worth (5)
TCU -Dallas-Ft. Worth (5)
Oklahoma State -O.C.K. (45)
Baylor -San Antonio (37)
Iowa State -Des Moines-Ames (71)
Kansas -Kansas City (31)
Kansas State -Kansas City (31)
West Virginia – ……… It’s West Virginia
Upon further analysis, you start to see a very consistent theme with the current Big 12 …. It’s very Texas focused. And while I love me some Texas, it’s simply not enough to survive the new cut throat world of conference realignment. As a result they will have to be aggressive in the expansion of their television footprint.
At the same time you have the Pac-12, currently sitting pretty with 12 members but also suffering from the same geographical concentration as the Big 12.

Because both the Big 12 and Pac-12 will be eager to expand (not certain if all the way to 16), the remaining “attractive” teams in the ACC (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse) and Big East teams (Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida, Louisville) will have the power in deciding where they end up (grade-A suppliers market).

Due to the geographical constraints of the Pac-12 (all remaining teams are approximately 1,500 to 2,000 miles away from the closet Pac-12 school) and the simple fact that there are only four really good television markets remaining, I believe the Big 12 will go to 14 (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech) bringing them the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale (16), Tampa (13), Jacksonville (47), Greenville (36) and Atlanta (8) television markets.
At 12-teams and their partnership with the Big Ten, the Pac-12 is safe even though they are the smallest conference in terms of numbers but they will definitely have the smallest television contract in the future world of the post Conference Realignment game of Risk.
In closing, I just want to say that as a fan of college football, I am utterly disgusted at the sheer lack of respect for college football traditions. This high stakes game of realignment is driven solely by greed and money. At the same time, I’d be a liar if I told you that if I were the commissioner of a major conference I wouldn’t be doing the same thing for the sake of the overall conference.
So fans of college football, enjoy the last couple years of tradition. In the post conference realignment world, tradition will be all but dead.
P.S. I didn’t talk much about Notre Dame primarily because this year’s performance all but solidifies the fact that they will never join a conference. 

From a win-loss perspective, the Texas Longhorns can no longer afford to have Mack Brown as their coach

First let me say that my heart goes out to Texas DT Brandon Moore who was injured in the third quarter of today’s game. He has movement in all of his limbs and is in stable condition at a local hospital. This post or better yet rant is clearly irrelevant in the grand scheme of life given the fact that it’s only football games I am talking about.
I started calling for Mack Brown’s resignation after last weekend’s 48-45 home loss to West Virginia, a move that had most of my Texas brethren calling me ungrateful. On Thursday, I wrote that today’s game against Oklahoma would be a referendum on the tenure of Mack Brown. And after today’s 63-21 shellacking, no Longhorn fan can deny that the time has come for the Texas Longhorns to part ways with Mack Brown.

Since 1998, the Longhorns are 145-41 under Mack Brown. With a win percentage of 78% (give or take a couple decimal places), Mack Brown’s tenure at Texas has been one of the most successful in Longhorn history. But like the old adage says … All good things must come to an end.

Since 2002, the Texas Longhorns have had recruiting classes ranked higher than the Oklahoma Sooners 7 out of 11 times (see following chart).
Final Recruiting Rankings Based on Rivals.com
Texas Longhorns
Oklahoma Sooners
2012
2
11
2011
3
14
2010
3
7
2009
5
13
2008
14
6
2007
5
14
2006
5
9
2005
20
3
2004
18
11
2003
15
4
2002
1
7
But during this same time period, the Longhorn’s record against their arch rival has been downright abysmal. Since ‘02 (including today’s game), the Longhorns are 4-7 with blowout losses of 65-13 (2003), 55-17 (2011) and 63-15 (2012). To make matters worse, there was also a blowout in 2000, 63-14.

After today’s game the ‘Horns are now 6-9 overall against the Sooners during Mack Brown’s tenure began in 1998. Like I said in Thursday’s post, this is simply not good enough given how much money Brown is currently being paid by the Texas athletic department and how much next-level talent there is in the program.

My issue with the Longhorns during Brown’s tenure isn’t talent level. Since Mack Brown has been at Texas, 52 players have been drafted into the NFL and 20 have been first round picks. Since Bob Stoops has been at Oklahoma, 53 players have been drafted into the NFL and 12 have been first round picks.

But given the fact that the ‘Horns out-recruit the Sooners (at least based on class rankings) their record against their biggest rival is downright appalling, and the number of blowout losses is unsettling. From and X’s and O’s and motivational standpoint, when it comes to Oklahoma vs. Texas, Bob Stoops is simply better at getting his boys ready to play. His 9-5 record against Texas post today’s game only serve to further proof this fact.


Football can be a very cruel sport to head coaches. When their teams win, they get a fair bit of credit. But when their teams lose, they get all the blame. Fans like me start criticizing their tactics and schemes and start (at times irrationally) calling for their heads. An argument can be made that this isn’t right, but regardless this is the way it is especially given the amount of money coaches are making in college football. Something is no longer working anymore and that something is William Mack Brown. From a purely win-loss perspective the Texas Longhorns can no longer afford to have Mack Brown as their lead head coach.

After today’s dreadful performance, the Longhorns are now 17-14 since their 2009 BCS National Championship appearance. What was once considered the strength of the program, this year’s defense is average at best and the offense is … well … they scored 21 points and gained a total of 289 yards in four quarters of football so enough said. The game was so bad today that ABC stopped showing coverage in my area with 9:00 minutes left in the 4thquarter (probably better for my overall mental health).

The “blame” shouldn’t fall solely on Mack Brown’s shoulders especially since he’s not out there actually playing. But ultimately as the head coach, he is supposed to push the right buttons to get his players to play at their best level. Because he has been unable to do this recently (over the last three years) as the “CEO” of the Texas Longhorns, it’s time for him to step aside and open the door for someone new.
2005 was such a long time ago ….


Saturday, October 13, 2012 … Dallas, Texas … Oklahoma-Texas … Mack Brown’s last stand…?

Every year about this time (Thursday evening before the Oklahoma-Texas game), I start to get butterflies in my stomach as if I am taking the field in Dallas on Saturday. You may think I’m crazy for this, but if truth be told, my nerves are simply a reflection of the magnitude and importantance of a win in this game (clearly not life magnitude or a matter of life and death but still very important).
Once known as the Red River Shootout (still my favorite name), the OU-Texas Game (now known as the Red River Rivalry) has been played 106 times since October 10, 1900. The Longhorns lead the current series 59-42-5, and since 1945, one or both of the two teams have been ranked within the top 25 61 out of 66 games. This Saturday is no different.


The #15 Texas Longhorns hobble into Dallas to face the #13 Oklahoma Sooners and the stakes couldn’t be any higher. Given last weekend’s home loss to West Virginia and Oklahoma’s early season loss to Kansas State, Saturday’s game is pretty much for all the marbles.
The winner of six of the last ten matchups between the Longhorns and Sooners has played for the BCS National Championship (the Sooners 4 times and the ‘Horns 2 times). The loser of Saturday’s game will have two conference losses, which will all but relegate them to a second place finish and an outside chance at a BCS bowl (although stranger things have happened… See two-loss LSU vs. two-loss Ohio State circa 2007).
To call Saturday’s game “Put up or Shut up Time” for the ‘Horns is an understatement. Since the Mack Brown era began in 1998, Texas has only won six of the last 14 matchups against the Sooners and has lost the last two consecutive matchups. In the past two seasons, the Longhorns are a measly 13-12 and will be taking an eight-game losing streak against teams ranked in the AP Top 25 into Saturday’s Red River Rivalry. To make matters even worse, the ‘Horns are 1-10 in their last 11 games against Top 25 teams. To be frank, things haven’t been this bad in Austin in a while. Saturday’s game in Dallas may be a referendum on the 15 year tenure of William Mack Brown.
Now to be fair, from 2001 through 2009, Mack won 10 or more games each year, won a national championship, played for another, and went 3-1 in big time BCS bowl games. He has worked tirelessly to make Texas relevant on the national stage once again. But like a Fortune 500 CEO, his recent performance is simply not good enough given his annual salary of $5.2 million (which makes him one of top three highest paid coaches in America).
So this Saturday, the Texas Longhorns have a chance to right the ship and stay in the national championship picture. A win Saturday will go a long way towards erasing some of the ‘Horns recent failure. A loss Saturday and the ‘Horns will drop to 1-2 in conference all but sealing their second place finish.
No pressure ….
So let’s hope that Saturday my ‘Horns feel like this ….














And not like this …. 














Favorite Red River Rivalry Game:
October 11, 2008:
Texas 45, Oklahoma 35
Hands down one of the best regular season college football games ever played. It ended as the highest scoring game in the rivalry’s history with the most fans to ever see this game. My boy Chris Ogbonnaya sealed the game with a 62-yard run … Hook ‘Em



Most regrettable Red River Rivalry Game:
October 6, 2001
Texas 3, Oklahoma 14
Down 7-3 late in the 4th quarter the Longhorns had the ball on their own three-yard line. On first down the ‘Horns decided to air it out. As Chris Simms (who I’m still irrationally angry at) dropped back to pass, Roy Williams, starting safety for the Sooner leapt over an offensive lineman (see picture below) and deflected the pass which fell unfortunately into the hands of Teddy Lehman, the Sooners starting linebacker… Game, Set, Match Sooners



I’m going down to Columbia, SC again and this time Georgia’s coming to town.

Honestly, is it Saturday yet?

Last November while in my second year of business school, I completed my college football tour with the South Carolina-Florida homecoming game in Columbia, SC. I was introduced to a proper SEC-style tailgate (moonshine included) and a more than decent football game … South Carolina outlasted Florida 17-12 to keep its SEC East title hopes alive, which were subsequently dashed the following week when the Georgia Bulldogs beat the Kentucky Wildcats 19-10.

Before this season began, I committed to returning to Columbia, South Carolina for the Georgia game and it’s safe to say that I made a very wise decision since South Carolina and Georgia both won last night. The Georgia-South Carolina rivalry has been contested since 1894 and has become so heated in recent years that sports writers have dubbed this annual game “New Fashioned Hate.”


Saturday’s game between the #5 Bulldogs and the #6 Gamecocks takes this rivalry to new heights. The October 6th contest is already being called “The Biggest Game in South Carolina 
History.” 

Both teams enter the game undefeated and both teams enter the game playing pretty darn good football. 

The Georgia Bulldogs roll into town as the third SEC team in history to score at least 40 points in each of its first five games in a season — not sure if that’s because they play good defense or bad offense in the SEC =). 

South Carolina has won its last nine-games in a row and has won 11 straight games against SEC East opponents dating back to last season. And the Gamecocks have won the last two meeting against the Bulldogs.




At stake is clearly bragging rights but far more important is first place in the SEC East. And the winner of this game will move into pole position for a place in the national championship game.

This game is so big that the original kickoff time of 1:00 pm eastern has been pushed back to 7:00 pm prime-time and I fully expect to take advantage of the additional 5 hours of tailgating time (see picture to the left).

ESPN’s College GameDay will be their first thing in the morning and my man Lee Corso better pick South Carolina and the Ole’ Ball Coach!

Now I just have to get through this work week!



It really is the SEC and everyone else especially in the biggest games

***Warning, I’m about to rant all because of the Alabama Crimson Tide***

It pains me to say this … I’ve known this as fact for the last 7 years. I’ve known it since the BCS era began with Tennessee beating Florida State. Although top-heavy, the SEC is head over heels the best conference in college football. And if I am very honest, it’s not even close. I’ve been watching college football for a while now but what we are seeing right now is something else. The top of the SEC is stupid good!


Typically conferences and teams trade off their domination of college football. The 1970s were dominated by the Big Ten and the Big Eight. The 1980s were dominated by the Miami Hurricanes and the early 1990s were dominated by the Florida State Seminoles. Oklahoma, USC, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Texas have all had dominate runs, but what we are witnessing right now as college football fans is something different. In particular the Alabama Crimson Tide and the LSU Tigers ….

The very top of the SEC is sustaining their dominance year over year as evidenced by this year’s top 10 AP pre-season poll. The SEC has five teams ranked in the top 10 (#2 Alabama, #3 LSU, #6 Georgia, #9 South Carolina, and #10 Arkansas). As a conference, they have won 8 of 14 BCS national championships and have won the last 6 in a row. When you peel back the SEC’s performance over the last 14 years you start to realize that their success is a function of some very “simple” factors…. NFL-type talent, NFL-type coaches, NFL-type strategies

First off, SEC football is played in a region of the United States that has some of the best high school football talent. Currently, 15 of the top 25 high school programs in this year’s MaxPreps top 25 poll are from Southern states (I’ve included Texas in this primarily because the SEC recruits heavily in Texas). I’m not knocking the brand of high school football played elsewhere. California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan have all produced their fair share of Division 1 and NFL talent. But the old adage that speed kills is alive and well in Southern football talent. Those defensive ends and tackles that run as fast as wide receivers , those safeties that hit like defensive tackles but run like the wind, and those line backers that run as fast as safeties are all found in the South. Simply put, it’s the defensive talent in the SEC that sets their teams apart from the rest of America!


Secondly, SEC coaches and staff are paid more on average than the rest of the coaches and staff in the nation. The 12 SEC coaches and staff made an average of $5.98 million in 2011 with Alabama, LSU, and Florida, and Auburn paying well above $6.3 million in total compensation[1]. More specifically, of the 10 highest paid head coaches in the country (at public institutions) six were from the SEC[2]. Les Miles, Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Steve Spurrier, and Gene Chizik are all NFL caliber coaches with NFL caliber coaching staffs. Money talks plain and simple. If you pay more you will get better coaches. Better coaches plus high quality players equals better qualify programs.

And lastly, the brand of football played in the SEC is fundamentally the best way to win football games. Oregon, Oklahoma, Michigan, Texas, and a plethora of other teams have gotten away from the brand of football that wins the big game. Don’t get me wrong, I love the spread. As a former wide receiver, the spread otherwise known as fun ball is my type of style. But when you really think about it, football in general is a run first type of game. Strong running games and great defenses have always been the back bone of most championship teams. The old adage that defense wins championships is clearly alive and well in the SEC. Haters will say that the SEC defenses don’t face real offenses in conference. To that I say, ask the 2010 Oregon Ducks (lost to Auburn), 2009 Texas Longhorns (lost to Alabama), and 2008 Oklahoma Sooners (lost to Florida) to name a few what it felt like to run up against an SEC defense. Each of these teams had top 5 ranked offenses heading into the national championship games and each of these teams were held to their lowest outputs all season.

I am far from an SEC homer in fact I’ve been one of the biggest SEC hater for some time. Primarily because their fans chant the following at their games: “S-E-C, S-E-C, S-E-C.” I am also certain that this eventual dominance will ebb (especially once Nick Saban and Les Miles retire). But after what I just witnessed in this Michigan-Alabama game I have to pay proper respect to college football’s pre-eminent conference (at the moment). I guess I have finally “accepted” it and the rest of the haters should too.


Did Penn State Football Deserve Permanent Death?



First, let me start off by clearly stating that I in no way support the actions of the Penn State administration, athletic departments, and football leaders in regards to their handling of the years of child sexual abuse at Penn State by Jerry Sandusky. 


Before yesterday’s unprecedented NCAA sanctions of Penn State, I called for the death penalty. But the death penalty I wanted wasn’t your traditional “SMU-type” death penalty were a team is banned for one to two years from competing in a sport. I was calling for a complete shutdown of the Penn State football program … a more “permanent” death penalty.

You see, the problem I have with the sanctions levied by the NCAA isn’t the fact that they aren’t harsh enough; nor is it the fact that the NCAA clearly violated the traditional due process of an investigation it typically affords its member schools. My problem with these sanctions is that Penn State football has a chance to recover (albeit a slim chance). What chance of recovery do the victims really have?

Stuart Mandel of Sport Illustrated wrote yesterday, “Penn State will remain at the front of the news for many years to come, not for the criminal acts of a former assistant coach or its leaders’ abhorrent inaction in handling him, but for its football players’ inevitable on-field futility.” He highlights the fact that the focus is now switched from the actual victims of these atrocities back to the Penn State football team and whether or not they can recover. And to me, that simply isn’t right.

The NCAA missed an opportunity yesterday to send a resounding message the football isn’t king and in fact isn’t bigger than everything else. Although the sanctions levied are crippling, they don’t serve as true justice for the children who were victimized. In essence, by allowing Penn State to still play football, even a reduced version of football, the NCAA sends a message to the victims that football is in fact still bigger then each and every one of them and too big to “completely fail.”

Had the NCAA implemented a complete shutdown of the Penn State football program, I believe they would have provided each victim real justice, helped to close one of the more egregious chapters in the history of The Pennsylvania State University, and really served to deter future atrocious actions of its member universities and administrations. 

The BCS and Division I FBS Must Change… TV Will Lead the Way

“The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was devised outside the structure of the NCAA. It was a creation not just of the big six leagues but of the free market, of television. Since television made the BCS possible, television will ultimately have the final say on whether a larger and more inclusive BCS will work financially.”
-Keith Dunnavant, The Fifty-Year Seduction
Introduction
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is currently at a crossroads. On one hand, the BCS faces increased pressure and threats from anti-trust lawsuits which claim that access to the BCS is not uniform for all schools, especially non-BCS football schools. Although this imbalance between BCS schools and non-BCS schools is tough to deny especially when you consider that over the last 14 years of this system, 96% of all bowl revenue has gone to BCS conference schools, the 15 years preceding the creation of the BCS were no different[1]. During this time period, there were 120 selections made for the four top-tier bowls and only once did a non-BCS school participate.
On the other hand, college football’s postseason continues to show signs of declining popularity amongst football fans, especially outside of the National Championship game which will continue to threaten the financial viability of the entire system. While 2011 regular season games like LSU vs. Alabama (Nielsen rating of 11.5), Oklahoma vs. Florida State (Nielsen rating of 8.56), and Stanford vs. USC (Nielsen rating of 6.72) continue to show the trends of ever-increasing levels of fan viewership during the regular season, television ratings from some of the biggest postseason games continue to remain mediocre and downright disappointing. Examination of the Nielsen ratings for the four 2011-12 season BCS bowl games and the national championship further prove this point:
Exhibit 1. Nielsen Ratings for 2011-12 BCS Bowl Games
Bowl Game
Matchup
Nielsen
Rating
Change from
2011
Orange Bowl
Clemson vs. West Virginia
4.56
32%
Sugar Bowl
Michigan vs. Virginia Tech
6.07
18%
Fiesta Bowl
Stanford vs. Oklahoma State[2]
9.60
56%
Rose Bowl
Wisconsin vs. Oregon
10.17
10%
BCS Title Game
Alabama vs. LSU
14.01
  8%
Contrary to all the rhetoric spread by BCS supporters, college football’s postseason is actually getting less popular as the years go on. In fact, college football’s average 2011-12 bowl rating dropped below 2007 levels for the lowest average Nielsen rating since the controversial BCS began[3]. Furthermore, overall viewership in 2011 was down eight percent from 2010. And since the inception of the BCS, total viewership has actually dropped a total of 37 percent3. To further complicate matters for college football, the NFL’s postseason continues to outperform college football on a head-to-head basis. The Nielsen ratings for the 2011 NFL postseason ratings are as follows:
Exhibit 2. Nielsen Ratings for 2011 NFL Postseason
Playoff Game
Matchup
Nielsen
Rating
Change from
2010[4]
Fox Super Bowl XLV
Pittsburgh vs. Green Bay
37.7
   3%
NFL Championship
Green Bay vs. Chicago
17.6
11%
AFC Championship
Pittsburgh vs. New York Jets
18.6
16%
AFC Divisional
New York Jets vs. New England
14.8
21%
NFC Wildcard
Green Bay vs. Philadelphia
13.3
13%
The current BCS postseason format simply doesn’t stack up to the NFL or even March Madness, and its television ratings are a direct indictment on the current system’s inability to consistently deliver compelling matchups across all facets of the postseason[5]. Left alone, the BCS runs the risk of having television executives finally decide to sell (show) something other than subpar football match ups. The time for a new postseason product is now. Significant modifications to the current BCS are necessary for the long-term financial viability and popularity of college football.
Overview of Paper
This paper will examine the financial implications of a variety of changes to the current college football regular season and postseason. It will then compare the projected financial impact of each of these changes with the financial performance of the current BCS. This paper will focus on finding solutions to the popularity issues that college football’s postseason faces and will stay away from discussions on the anti-trust and fairness issues faced by the BCS.
These proposed changes will significantly increase the popularity of college football’s postseason, which will drive increased viewership and television ratings. But more importantly, these changes will increase total revenue and profitability for college football without adversely impacting academics, making it a win-win for college administrators, television executives, and fans.
Revenue and Profitability of the Bowl Championship Series Bowl System
The current BCS bowl system, which is a consolidation of private business with no affiliation to the participating schools, generates revenue from four main sources: (1) Ticket sales revenue, (2) Title sponsorship revenue, (3) Advertising revenue, (4) Television right payouts.
(1)     Ticket sales revenue is derived from payments received from fans or schools for admission to the bowl game. Typically, fans will purchase tickets directly through their participating school but they can also purchase tickets on secondary markets like StubHub! or FanTickets.com to name a few.
(2)     Title sponsorship revenue is derived from payments received from a patron (usually a corporation or other type of businesses) of the bowl game that has provided money, goods, and services in exchange for the exclusive right to have the patron’s name appear prominently before the title of the event. For example, think Discover Orange Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or Allstate Sugar Bowl.
(3)     Advertising revenue is derived from payments received from corporations or other types of businesses for the rights to advertise their products and services through commercials during the telecast of the bowl game.
(4)     Television right payouts are lump sum payments received by the bowl game from television networks and syndicators for the rights to broadcast the bowl game.
For decades, ticket sales provided nearly 100 percent of the revenue generated by bowls games but through the years as college football popularity soared, television entered the picture. Corporate advertisers began to recognize the value in the large, demographically desirable audiences that were watching college football, and consequently the television networks began to pay increasingly generous rights fees to retain this valuable college football programing, and corporations began to increase their involvement within college football.
By the 1970s, television had surpassed ticket sales as the primary source of revenue for bowl games and it hasn’t looked back since[6]. And as bowl games continue to struggle to sell tickets in modern times, television’s share of overall bowl game revenue continues to surge, as the various networks and syndicators continue to pay inflated fees even for mediocre matchups with limited national appeal.
Since the 2005 postseason, the BCS bowl system has grown total profit & revenue for the participating schools at a CAGR of 5.68 percent, but this growth has been primarily driven by increasing television rights, title sponsorship, and advertising payouts[7]:
Exhibit 3. 2005 – 2011 Profit & Revenue from BCS Bowl Games and National Championship:












Although revenue growth has been steady each year since its inception, the BCS’s postseason product pales in comparison to the revenue generated by some of its nearest counterparts. For a sport as popular as college football (nearly one-quarter of the U.S. population or between 75 and 80 million people follow college football regularly[8]), this simply isn’t good enough.
This past year alone, March Madness generated $771.4 million in television contract revenue for its month long postseason collegiate basketball tournament which on its own is approximately four times the size of total combined revenue generated by the BCS postseason[9]. And an analysis of the profitability of the NFL television deal for the 2011-12 season and postseason shows total revenue of $1.93 billion per year. Future estimated projections show that the NFL’s total television contract revenue will grow to $3.09 billion by 2022[10]. From a revenue standpoint, college football’s postseason does not stack up to the NFL or even March Madness in its current format. Significant money is being left on the table and the current BCS postseason format is the primary reason for this.
The Proposal
Given the multiple levers that can be pulled in college football, the following significant modifications to both the regular season and the postseason must be made to significantly impact fan popularity and drive increased profitability:
1.       Downsize Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) to 64 full members
2.       Realign the remaining members into five BCS conferences each with a championship game
3.       Eight-team playoff based on five BCS conference champions and three at-large births
4.       Reduce the total number of regular season games from 12 to 10
5.       Preserve the tradition of the non-BCS bowl games
Downsize Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and Realign Conferences
Currently, in order to qualify for inclusion within Division I FBS, the NCAA primarily requires that its institutions average annually at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football contests once every two years[11]. Consequently, because of this lackadaisical standard there are currently 120 full members of Division I FBS, which is far too many when you examine fan base followings and concentration of revenue generation. A comparison of 2010 average attendance records by conference show that BCS conference schools far and away outperform the majority of non-BCS schools on the basis of this primary FBS membership requirement, and this trend continues year over year (see Exhibit 4 below):
Exhibit 4. 2010 Average Attendance by Conference or Independent Team:


In this modern era of big time college football, attendance and ticket revenue represent only modest portions of overall revenue generated by college football (approximately 22%)7. Television has become the engine that drives college football revenue and because of this fact, television should be utilized in the determination of Division I FBS membership not year over year average attendance.
Although different college football programs around the country play into each of the large television media markets in different ways one theme is consistent across all markets: BCS conference schools have significantly larger fan bases and followings across more regions of the U.S. than non-BCS football schools. Exhibit 5 shows the estimated total fans by conference across numerous U.S. television and media markets:
Exhibit 5. Estimated Total Fans by Conference across U.S. Television Markets as of 2011:


Because of this fact, more fans in their respective markets want to see more BCS schools on television than non-BCS conference schools, and because of this demand, television executives continue to cut large checks to the 6 main BCS conferences, Notre Dame, and Texas for the rights to broadcast their regular season games. More fan viewership of certain conferences across the various television markets translates to potential opportunities for advertising revenue from the television networks’ perspective which translates to windfalls for most BCS schools.
In 2012, the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Pac-12, Big 12, Texas, and Notre Dame are all expected to have record years in terms of regular season television revenue. Total payouts to each of the aforementioned parties per year will be as follows[12]:
Exhibit 6. Television Revenue by Conference and Team
Conference/Team
Revenue per Year
Expiration Date of Deal
Pac-12
$250 million
2023-24 (Fox and ESPN)
Big Ten
$212 million
2015-16 (ABC-ESPN); 2031-32 (Big Ten Network)
SEC
$205 million
2023-24 (CBS)
ACC
$185 million
2023-24 (ABC-ESPN)
Big 12
$150 million
2015-16 (ABC-ESPN); 2024-25 (Fox)
Texas Longhorns
$15 million
2031-32 (Longhorn Network)
Notre Dame
$15 million
2015-16 (NBC)
But while Notre Dame, Texas and the five BCS conferences mentioned above are all enjoying record windfalls, the Big East is floundering and the Mountain West, Conference USA, Sun Belt, WAC, and MAC all make less than $27.4 million per year combined. It’s a sellers’ market for college football content, and television executives aren’t buying the Big East and non-BCS product. To make matters worse, a majority of non-BCS schools are far from financially self-sufficient. A majority of these non-BCS football playing schools are only capable of “surviving” due to the large payouts they receive from their BCS counterparts for non-conference regular season games. Without these large payouts, which can often reach as high as $1.5 million per game, most non-BCS schools would be unable to cover the rising costs of Division I FBS membership. And current NCAA rules require each Division I football playing school to support a minimum of 16 other sports programs. So in essence, BCS conference schools subsidize the very existence of non-BCS conference schools. The fact simply is that non-BCS schools cannot support themselves and the cost of doing business within Division I FBS will force them to drop down to Division I FCS. It’s simply a matter of economics!
Realign the Remaining 64 Members into Five BCS Conferences
Unfortunately for the Big East, the preliminary rounds of conference realignments during the summers of 2010 and 2011 have left this conference on shaky grounds. The current television deal with ESPN for $200 million ($33.3 million per year) ended at the conclusion of the 2011-12 season, and the deal with CBS for $54 million ($9 million per year) is scheduled to end at the conclusion of the 2012-13 season.
With a depleted roster of Division I FBS football schools and no true major football powerhouses left in the Big East, the new television deal will not be enough it to keep this conference from dissolving. And because of these factors, the Big East will not survive as a football conference and its bell-weather programs like Rutgers, UConn, Boise State, USF, Cincinnati, and Louisville will have to find other conferences to join if possible.
Based on this new TV-driven realignment and television market focus, Division I FBS conferences will be best suited if realigned as follows:                                                                                    

                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                      
With the initial rounds of expansion during the summer of 2010 and 2011, the SEC, ACC, Pac-12, and Big Ten all made significant strides to expand their geographic footprint and stabilize, while the Big 12 made strides to remain relevant. Because these other four conferences already have conference championship games additional expansion may not add significant additional value for them. Especially given the fact that each of these conferences’ regular season television deals are already locked in for the foreseeable future.
Currently, the Big 12 is the one BCS conference that does not have a conference championship game since it only has ten members which means that it is missing out on the extra television revenue that this game generates. This past year, the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 conference championship games generated roughly $15-20 million in additional revenue for their respective conferences on top of the other television revenue received for their regular season games. Consequently, in the post Big East world the Big 12 will be the aggressor making moves to acquire two top quality programs. Based upon an analysis of the best independents available, these two programs are Notre Dame and BYU.
Notre Dame has one of the more highly nationalized fan bases in college football with significant followings in four of the largest television markets for college football: Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. This national following has allowed Notre Dame to reap the benefits as they earn well over $15 million a year from their current television deal with NBC. Unfortunately, since their last contract extension in 2008 the Irish have gone 29-22 and there are serious rumors circulating that NBC is considering walking away from this franchise once the current deal is over at the end of the 2015-16 season. This is the perfect storm for the Big 12.
As a conference, they are one of the only BCS conferences that allow their members to negotiate independent television contracts and keep all revenue streams; similar to Texas and the Longhorn Network. Furthermore, the ESPN portion of the current Big 12’s television deal expires at the end of the 2015-16 season, which is the same season Notre Dame’s NBC deal expires. The Big 12 can work with ESPN to lure Notre Dame with the promise of its own network and steady conference revenues. Joining the Big 12 would significantly increase Notre Dame’s television revenue from its current level of $15 million to approximately $27.5 million[13]. And it would also allow Notre Dame to guarantee that they would not be left out of the national championship discussion.
With large fan base followings in Chicago, Philadelphia, New York, and Los Angeles, the addition of Notre Dame would give the Big 12 a truly diverse geographic footprint. Additionally, Notre Dame to the Big 12 would give this conference the first (Texas – $129 million), second (Notre Dame – $112 million), and tenth (Oklahoma – $87 million) most valuable college football teams[14]. The Big 12 would have significant leverage in re-negotiations with ESPN which could push their annual revenue from there new television deal well above the $60 million a year mark it is currently at12. Adding Notre Dame to the Big 12 would be a win-win for Notre Dame and the ten other members of the Big 12 conference.
The addition of BYU gives the Big 12 the necessary 12 full members to allow them to adopt a conference championship game. It also grants the conference significant access to the television markets in Utah and Southern California allowing them to directly compete with the Pac-12 for television viewership. With an estimated 710 thousand fans, and a rich tradition of success, BYU is the best non-BCS school available after Notre Dame. BYU would be a necessary addition for the Big 12 to compete with the other four BCS conferences.
The downsizing of Division I FBS and conference realignments will be driven solely by television markets. As such, conferences with larger geographic reach will continue to generate larger television rights payouts. As a result, its members will be able to meet the rising costs of Division I FBS membership. With 120 full members within Division I FBS college football is oversaturated with more than 56 mediocre to subpar teams that truly add limited value to the total bottom line of the sport and aren’t financially relevant on their own,
 Realignment and reduction of the number of full members within Division I FBS college football from 120 to 64 is necessary for continued deliverance of a top quality product. Although, the short-term financial impact from this move is the loss of $27.4 million in television revenue due to the demotion of the 42 members of Conference USA, the Mountain West, the Sun Belt, the MAC, and the WAC to Division I Football Championship (FCS) and the loss of $42.3 in television revenue due to the demotion of the 12 members of the Big East Conference, this is a small price to pay for a much improved quality of college football product; a price that fan viewership and television executives demand.
Eight-Team Playoff: Five BCS Conference Champions and Three At-Large Bids
The stated mission of the BCS is to provide a championship game between the two best Division I FBS college football teams and ultimately avoid split national championships similar to those that used to occur under the old bowl system. But for a system that was created 14 years ago to solve this problem, arguments surrounding nine of its current national champions can be made. The following chart details the nine questionable matchups and champions that the current BCS has created over the past 14 years which have left college fans and teams at best unsettled; at worst angry:
Exhibit 8. Controversial BCS Champions
Season
National Title Controversy
2011
Undefeated SEC Champion LSU loses to one-loss Alabama in a rematch of their regular season contest. One-loss Big 12 Champion Oklahoma State is left on the outside looking in.
2009
Undefeated Big 12 Champion Texas loses to undefeated SEC Champion Alabama. Boise State, TCU, and Cincinnati, all unbeaten conference champions, are left on the outside looking in.
2008
One-loss Big 12 Champion Oklahoma loses to one-loss SEC Champion Florida. One-loss Texas is left on the outside looking in even though Texas beat Oklahoma in the regular season and ended with the same exact conference record.
2007
Two-loss Big Ten Champion Ohio State loses to two-loss SEC Champion LSU. Two-loss Pac-10 Champion USC and two-loss Georgia are both on the outside looking in.
2006
Undefeated Big Ten Champion Ohio State loses to one-loss SEC Champion Florida. One-loss Michigan is on the outside looking in as a potential rematch with Ohio State eventually goes begging.
2004
Undefeated Big 12 Champion Oklahoma loses to undefeated Pac-10 Champion USC. Undefeated SEC Champion Auburn is left on the outside looking in.
2003
One-loss Oklahoma loses to one-loss SEC Champion LSU after Oklahoma loses its conference championship game to Kansas State. One-loss Pac-10 Champion USC, AP #1, beats Michigan in the Rose Bowl resulting in the first ever BCS split national championship.
2001
One-loss Nebraska loses to undefeated Big East Champion Miami. One-loss Big 12 Champion Colorado who beat Nebraska in the final game of the regular season is on the outside looking in. One-loss Pac-10 Champion Oregon is also left on the outside looking in.
2000
One-loss ACC Champion Florida State loses to undefeated Big 12 Champion Oklahoma. One-loss Big East Champion Miami who beat Florida State in the regular season is left on the outside looking in. One-loss Pac-10 tri-Champion Washington, who beat Miami in the regular season is also left on the outside looking in
            Controversy and the BCS national champion are nearly synonymous. This should be no surprise though since the top teams are currently determined by coaches who vote along political lines, Harris Poll electors with obvious regional biases, and computers whose influence is neutered by the restrictions the BCS places on them5. As was mentioned before, contrary to what BCS apologists believe, this controversy has actually made college football’s postseason far less popular amongst fans. The heart of the problem with the BCS is its consistent lack of a feeling of finality. Division I FBS’s national champion is rarely crowned based solely on on-the-field accomplishments. Politicking and campaigning have become so ingrained within this system that the chance at playing for a national championship has become nothing more than a popularity contest, where contestants win by climbing to the top of the bumbling Harris Poll, bogus coaches’ poll, and the downright corrupt computer rankings.
            A bona fide college football playoff is necessary to accurately and fairly crown a national champion, and add that “feeling of finality” which college football’s postseason sorely lacks. It’s no surprise that every other sport in America, including college football in lower divisions, has figured this out. With the BCS subject to renegotiation in 2014, the time is now to finally fix this broken system and an eight-team playoff is a viable and financially lucrative solution.
            The downsized five BCS conferences easily fit into an eight-team playoff postseason format where the five BCS conference champions get automatic bids to the playoff. The remaining three at-large playoff berths would be determined by a selection committee comprised of athletic directors and conference commissioners throughout Division I FBS similar to the NCAA basketball tournament selection process. Once the eight teams are selected, the selection committee would then reseed and rank each of the teams from one to eight based upon a variety of factors from the final BCS conference ranking, to strength of non-conference schedule, to wins-losses against conference opponents, to name a few. Using the 2011-12 BCS postseason matchups, a hypothetical eight-team playoff for the current year would look as follows:
Exhibit 9. 2012 BCS Postseason Matchups Conformed to an Eight-team Playoff

This eight-team playoff would give teams an incentive for winning their conference through the automatic bid reward. At the same time it would still give all 64 teams an opportunity to still make the playoffs without winning their conference through the at large bid system, giving significant credence back to the regular season. Similar to current arguments within college basketball’s March Madness, there would definitely still be arguments over the final three at-large bids. But these arguments would be centered on which two-loss teams were left out, not which unbeaten or one-loss teams are currently left out as the nine aforementioned controversies discuss. The competition for the final three spots would make the final month of the regular season a “circus” of flurried action. The excitement and “feelings of fairness” that a college football playoff would create would directly translate into increased viewership which would ultimately translate into more money from television executives. It would also significantly increase the value of the conference championship game, thus earning each of the five BCS conferences more than the current average of $15-20 million.
In terms of location and logistics, the eight-team playoffs would take place in multiple locations. The first round games would be held at the four traditional BCS bowls during the Friday and Saturday of the third week in December. The second round games would be held at the location of the highest bidder during the Friday of the fourth week of December. The final game would be held on or around New Year’s Day at a location to be determined by a bid system similar to the NFL Super Bowl where the stadium with the highest bid wins, giving this new playoff system multiple monetization points. This four week playoff would be completed in precisely the same timeframe as the current bowl calendar.  This proposed eight-team playoff would bring meaning back to September, add excitement to October, and turn November into a football palooza as teams fight for their chance to earn one of the three at-large bids5. But more importantly (as will be discussed below), this eight-team playoff system will create larger revenue streams that will significantly benefit all teams within Division I FBS.
Currently, under increased pressure from waning popularity amongst college football fans, television executives, and an expiring contract, the 11 commissioners of the BCS executive committee finally proposed a four-team pro-style playoff system on April 26, 2012. The initial proposal for the four-team playoff released from the executive meetings is as follows[15]:
·         A four-team playoff, with the semifinals and final rotated among the existing BCS bowl games (Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, and Rose).
·         Four teams, with the semifinals rotated among the existing BCS bowl games and the final held at a neutral site. The location would be determined in a bid process, much like the Super Bowl is awarded.
·         A four-team playoff, with semifinals and final held at either the existing BCS bowl game sites or neutral sites, determined by a bid process.
·         Removal of all automatic bids placing full selection power in the hands of the selection committee
Initial valuations of this four-team playoff show increased distributions to as much as $360 million for the two playoff games. A final proposal is expected to be completed an sent to the NCAA Presidential Oversight Committee by July 4, 201215.
In their 2010 book, Death to the BCS, Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Passan estimated that a full blown 16-team playoff would net approximately $550 – $760 million in distributions a year (post $200 million reduction for bowl executive compensation). Given the overall popularity of playoffs in our country and the fact that nearly one-quarter of the U.S. population follows college football regularly, it is not unreasonable to expect an eight-team playoff to generate $455 – $560 million, which represents the median between the estimated values of the four and sixteen-team playoffs. This would represent a 2.50 to 3.08 times increase over the 2011 distribution of the current BCS of $182 million. Exhibit 10 shows the valuation of the playoff proposal:
Exhibit 10. Comparison of Distributions from Playoff Formats with Current BCS:





Although the valuation shown above is a relatively imprecise figure, the fact remains that the current BCS system will be rendered financially obsolete in the coming years. What remains clear is a playoff system can and will generate more distributions to the 64 BCS teams. Utilizing a modified playoff format, college football will be able to generate significantly larger sums of revenue; revenue that can be used to meet the ever increasing financial needs of the 64 athletic departments around the U.S. currently struggling to meet the demands for multiple sports programs. In comparing the current BCS to an eight-team playoff format, it’s really a no-brainer: the BCS loses this debate in terms of fairness, excitement, and overall profitability… every time!
Reduce Total Number of Regular Season Games from 12 to 10
In a system where rankings are largely based on popular opinion and dubious computers the current BCS forces teams to practically go unbeaten in order to have a chance to play for the national championship. Consequently, the BCS bowl system has gutted the regular season by rewarding teams for scheduling cupcake opponents in a blatant effort to either go undefeated or secure the six wins needed to guarantee bowl eligibility5.
From 1998-2003, the BCS ranking system included a strength of schedule component which in essence attempted to reward teams for playing tougher opponents in and out of conference. But since the removal of this incentive in 2004, top non-conference matchups between teams have significantly decreased. In fact, over the past two decades, the number of Top 20 non-conference matchups has decreased by half every 10 years, and Top 10 matchups have virtually disappeared, going from a height of seven in 1988 to just one in 2008 and 2011[16].  The fact simply is, almost everyone is trying to find the easy way to success – which, depending on the level of your program, could be bowl eligibility, a BCS bowl, or a national championship15.
Weak non-conference games also serve another more financially relevant purpose for BCS, non-BCS, and FCS schools. With three to four non-conference games per year to fill, a majority of the larger 64 BCS conference schools use these games as an opportunity to tune up for tougher games and generate millions from easily winnable home games. With stadiums in excess of 50,000 to 100,000 thousand, these 64 BCS teams prey on their fans loyalty and wallets, as they flock to a home game just to see their team beat anyone, even a hapless FCS opponent. On average teams like Texas, Michigan, and the rest of their big school counterparts generate two to five million in revenue per home game. Consequently, these games represent a good way for big school teams to earn a victory and fill their stadiums and luxury suites.
These so-called “guaranteed games” also allow lesser programs to earn large sums of money in exchange for a presumed loss. On average, non-BCS and FCS schools can earn anywhere from $586 thousand to $1.5 million per game[17]. With tight budgets and a faltering economy, these paydays represent significant means of subsistence for the small athletic departments of non-BCS and FCS schools. This complete financial reliance upon BCS schools serves to further prove that non-BCS schools should in fact be relegated to Division I FCS as they are not financially self-reliant.
In consistently scheduling this way, BCS conference schools are failing to realize that their fans are no longer tolerant, especially those watching on television. Sparse fan attendance at these meaningless non-conference games show that they are no longer willing to shell out their hard earned money for non-marquee match ups against weaker opponents. Fans at home are even starting to tune out these non-conference games against non-BCS conference and FCS schools, and tuned out fans is exactly what television executives do not want.  With only 64 teams, 5 BCS conferences, and an 8-team playoff remaining in the downsized Division I FBS, the necessity for 12 regular season games disappears as the incentive to schedule weaker non-BCS opponents decline due to bowl eligibility rules[18], and the need to impress the at-large selection committee.
The new downsized FBS and regular season forces college teams to heavily reconsider who the schedule in their two non-conference games. Texas fans would no longer have to endure a myriad of non-conference games against the likes of Rice, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Florida Atlantic. Alabama fans would no longer sit through slaughter fests against teams like Kent State, the Citadel, and North Texas. With three at-large berths up for grabs, more non-conference games against teams in the Top 25 will significantly increase as the 64 BCS teams look to bolster their season resume for the selection committee, leading to a much improved on the field product, higher television ratings, and larger revenue per game. And better non-conference games against highly ranked opponents mean more money for all involved. This past year LSU earned $3.25 million to $3.5 million for their non-conference neutral site game against Oregon, which eclipsed the net revenue of $2.2 million that LSU hauled in for a home game against a non-BCS level program[19]. In essence, new scheduling requirements and considerations would force each BCS team to trade four lower quality lower revenue games for two higher quality and significantly more revenue games.
Using this past year (2011-12 season), I have outlined the parameters and key dates of the new ten game regular season and 8-team playoff postseason below and have included a detailed calendar of this modified 2011-12 seasons in Appendix A:
·         8 conference games and 2 non-conference games
·         Conference partnership for neutral site non-conference games that rotate every two years:
v  Big Ten vs. Pac-12
v  Pac-12 vs. Big 12
v  Big 12 vs. SEC
v  SEC vs. ACC
v  ACC vs. Big Ten
·         Begin season Labor Day Weekend on Thursday, September 1
·         Regular season would last for 12 weeks ending on Saturday, November 19
·         Conference championship games would be played on Friday, November 25 and Saturday, November 26 following Thanksgiving
·         Selection Sunday would occur on November 27 for the three at-large teams and seeding of eight playoff teams
·         10 days of academic break for final exams would begin Monday, November 28 and end Thursday, December 8.
·         Non-BCS bowl would be eligible to begin Friday, December 9. Non-BCS bowl season would end Saturday, December 31.
·         Non-BCS bowl games will take place concurrently with the BCS playoff but not game will occur on the same day as a playoff game.
·         First round playoff games would occur on Friday, December 16 and Saturday, December 17
·         Second round playoff games would occur on Saturday, December 24
·         Championship game would be held on Monday, January 2
Shortening the regular season from 12 to 10 games will lead to a much improved on the field product in terms of non-conference games which will lead to more revenue per non-conference game for all 64 BCS schools. Estimates show that neutral site non-conference games between highly-ranked opponents net a premium of 40 to 60 percent over home games against non-BCS opponents18. Big schools would be able to earn in excess of the average two to five million in revenue per home game that they currently generate. They would also be able to keep more of this revenue as they would no longer have to cut large checks to their non-BCS opponents for their “guaranteed games” like they currently do. This reduction in the number of non-conference games will also add integrity and relevant back to the regular season, something that has slowly been declining during the BCS era.
Adding strategic conference partnerships for non-conference game scheduling would serve to only further the integrity of regular season non-conference and would also give further leverage to each conference in their future negotiations with television executives regarding their regular season conference television deals. This would more than likely result in increased television revenue for all five BCS conferences above and beyond the current record deals that each conference currently enjoys.
But more important than the financial gains that arise from the reduction of the regular season is the academic gains that will occur. A shortened regular season significantly helps with the academic missions that each of the 64 BCS schools should be primarily concerned with in the first place. By shorting the required number of games in the regular season, student-athletes will naturally have more time to devote towards the completion of their degrees. The ten day break after Selection Sunday will also give players a much needed rest to heal, recharge, and study. Not to mention it will also give coaches adequate time to prepare for their playoff opponent.
In closing, a shortened regular season to ten games simply replaces two low revenue generating non-conference games between a BCS school and an overmatched opponent with two rounds of more meaningful playoff football. By implementing a shortened regular season Division I FBS would be choosing more lucrative postseason games over less lucrative and meaningless non-conference games generating more revenue for the entire system.
To borrow directly from Death to the BCS by Wetzel, Peter, and Passan, any proposed changes to the current BCS must include the following three parameters:
1.       Must be more profitable in every imaginable way for colleges and universities
2.       Must protect, if not increase the value of the regular season
3.       Must take academics into consideration, if only so presidents can save face for their long-standing hypocrisy on the issue
The proposed changes outlined within this paper show that college football can in fact make more money than it is currently making. Each of the proposed changes increase the overall value of college football while both respecting academic concerns and protecting the regular season. Appendix B and C further outline the total estimated valuation of college football currently and post modification.
Conclusion
Despite the unmistakable drag on ratings caused by the marginally exciting postseason matchups generated by the BCS, the college football postseason television package remains one of the hottest properties in all of televised sports. History shows that CBS, NBC, and ABC are willing to battle for the rights to broadcast college football. Consequently, there is a significant opportunity for college football to capitalize on television executives’ willingness to dole out large checks and increase the overall size of the college football revenue pie.
The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was created in 1998 to provide a championship game between the two best Division I FBS college football teams. Since its inception, the BCS has undergone multiple alterations in an attempt to fix the multiplicity of issues that have arisen. But the current system still leaves a lot to be desired by college football fans.
Today, I believe that the issue that looms largest for the BCS is the declining popularity of college football’s postseason among its fans and underlying this is the undeniable fact that college football needs to create a more compelling postseason story. Even the executives of the current BCS are finally starting to realize this point. With the current BCS deal expiring at the end of the 2013 season and a new BCS cycle scheduled to resume in 2014, the time is now for BCS executives to seriously consider a playoff format for college football’s postseason. The BCS in its current form isn’t doing the job it set out to do and the power that be understand that a college football playoff system is inevitable … It just needs the right product.
Appendix A. Modified 2011-12 Regular Season and Postseason Calendar:


Appendix B. Profitability of the Current Division I FBS BCS System: Regular Season and Postseason:
The current system generates roughly $3.1 billion a year for 120 teams:

Appendix C. Profitability of the Proposed Modifications to the Division I FBS System:
The proposed modifications generate roughly $3.4 – $4.2 billion a year for 64 teams.











Sources
General:

v  Wetzel, Dan; Peter, Josh; Passan, Jeff (2010). Death to the BCS: The definitive case against the Bowl Championship Series.London, England: Gotham Books
v  Dunnavant, Keith (2004). The Fifty-Year Seduction…How Television Manipulated College Football, from the Birth of the Modern NCAA to the Creation of the BCS. New York, New York: Thomas Dunne Books
v  Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, October 29, 2003. BCS or Bust: Competitive and Economic Effects of the Bowl Championship Series on and off the Field.
Nielsen Television ratings:
v  Solomon, Jon (2012). College football’s average bowl rating drops to lowest during BCS era. Published: Friday, January 13, 2012. Retrieved March 30, 2012, http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/college_football_average_bowl.html
v  LSU-Alabama Marks CBS’ Best College Football Audience in 22 Years(2011). Published: Monday, November 7, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2012, http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2011/11/07/Media/LSU-Bama-Ratings.aspx
v  Gorman, Bill (2011). TV Ratings Saturday: Oklahoma v. Florida State Football Leads ABC Win. Published: Sunday, September 18, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2012, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/09/18/tv-ratings-saturday-oklahoma-v-florida-state-football-leads-abc-win/104016/
v  Gorman, Bill (2011). TV Ratings Saturday: Stanford/USC Carries the Night For ABC. Published: Sunday, October 30, 2011. Retrieved March 30, 2012, http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/10/30/tv-ratings-saturday-stanfordusc-carries-the-night-for-abc-americas-most-wanted-special-near-previous-seasons-ratings/108920/
v  Football TV Ratings Soar: The NFL’s Playbook for Success(2011). Published: Friday, January 28, 2011. Retrieved March
Attendance Records
v  2010 National College Football Attendance Records. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2011). Retrieved March 30, 2012, http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/pdfs/2011/2010+national+college+football+attendance
Television Contracts
v  Other college football TV deals (2010). Orlando Sentinel. Published: July 22, 2010. Retrieved September 15, 2011, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-07-22/news/os-college-football-tv-deals-0723201020100722_1_espn-big-ten-network-big-east
Non-Conference Scheduling
v  Pair, Brittany F., Moore, Christian S., Dittmore, Stephen W (2009). Paying for Wins: An Examination of Football Non-Conference Game Scheduling by BCS Schools, 1994-2009. University of Arkansas. Presented April 21, 2010 at the College Sports Research Institute’s Scholarly Conference on College Sports.
Playoff Proposal
v  NCAA pursues football playoff system for 2014 season that would include four-team playoff (2012). New York Daily News. Published: April 26, 2012. Retrieved April 28, 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/calling-a-college-football-final-4-article-1.1068325  


[1] Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate, October 29, 2003. BCS or Bust: Competitive and Economic Effects of the Bowl Championship Series on and off the Field.
[2] Please note that the 2011 Fiesta Bowl matchup was Connecticut vs. Oklahoma which obtained a Nielsen rating of 6.15. As a result, the significant percentage increase for the 2012 Fiesta Bowl can be considered an trend outlier
[3] Solomon, Jon. College football’s average bowl rating drops to lowest during BCS era. The Birmingham News of Nielsen Media Research. Published: Friday, January 13, 2012
[4] Please note that Nielsen ratings are not finalized for the 2012 NFL playoffs at the time of this writing.
[5] Wetzel, Dan; Peter, Josh; Passan, Jeff (2010). Death to the BCS: The definitive case against the Bowl Championship Series. London, England: Gotham Books
[6] Dunnavant, Keith (2004). The Fifty-Year Seduction…How Television Manipulated College Football, from the Birth of the Modern NCAA to the Creation of the BCS. New York, New York: Thomas Dunne Books
[8] Silver, Nate (2011). The Geography of College Football Fans (and Realignment Chaos). The New York Times College Sports Blog. Published: Monday, September 19, 2011. Retrieved April 10, 2012, http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
[11] D. NCAA Division I-A Football Requirements 3.Public Support. Retrieved April 10, 2012, http://utsa.edu/ucomm/athletics/iv.htm
[13] Notre Dames current deal with NBC gives them $15 million a year. The Big 12 TV deal gives the conference $150 million per year. With equal revenue sharing across its 12 members, Notre Dame’s portion of conference revenue is $12.5 million.
[14] Smith, Christopher (2011). The Business of College Football. Forbes. Retrieved April 11, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/college-football-11_land.html
[15] NCAA pursues football playoff system for 2014 season that would include four-team playoff. Retrieved April 28, 2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/calling-a-college-football-final-4-article-1.1068325
[16] Forde, Pat (2009). Big nonconference games vanishing. Published June 8, 2009. Retrieved April 21, 2012, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4239858&sportCat=ncf
[17] Paying for Wins: An Examination of Football Non-Conference Game Scheduling by BCS Schools, 1994-2009 by Brittany F. Pair, Christian S. Moore, and Stephen W. Dittmore. University of Arkansas. Retrieved January 12, 2012, http://www.slideshare.net/sdittmore/bcs-college-football-schedulinghttp://www.slideshare.net/sdittmore/bcs-college-football-scheduling
[18] The NCAA limits the number of victories over FCS teams that FBS teams can count towards the required number of wins to one.
[19] LSU to pocket $3+ million for 2011opener vs. Oregon. Retrieved April 28, 2012, http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2010/09/lsu-to-pocket-3-million-for-2001-opener-vs-ducks/