NCAA Football 2012 Season Catch-All

Jayhawker wrote:

I would have liked to haver seen Notre Dame in the Big 12, but not in the way they are in the ACC. But I am glad they made a move, because it could get Texas to give up on trying to lure ND and open up some other expansion.

I keep waiting for them to make a run at BYU. Get them back in the mountain time zone with a team that can actually play some sports.

gizmo wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

I would have liked to haver seen Notre Dame in the Big 12, but not in the way they are in the ACC. But I am glad they made a move, because it could get Texas to give up on trying to lure ND and open up some other expansion.

I keep waiting for them to make a run at BYU. Get them back in the mountain time zone with a team that can actually play some sports.

I think BYU and Louisville would be great adds if the Big 12 wants to get back to 12. FSU and Clemson would have been better, but that's off the table now.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I don't think we should derail this thread to debate it, but I believe that blanket accusations of racism without any context or proof are irresponsible and destructive. How can one possibly know why Strong hasn't gotten other jobs before now? He's still in his first HC position, and in only the third season there.

It's not just an SEC problem, it's an NCAA problem, as boogle said. ESPN does an Outside the Lines special on the topic at least once a season for the last 5+ years, maybe more. Ever since the NFL adopted the Rooney Rule that requires them to interview a minority candidate, and the numbers got better for them, many have encouraged the NCAA to do the same.

Here's an ESPN article from February about Sumlin's hiring, which has some historical numbers in it.

In 1994, there were only four black head coaches at FBS schools. In 2002, that number bounced all the way up to … four. Things weren't much better in 2008, when there were just five black head coaches. And for many these numbers were a source of consternation, from the Black Coaches Association to the NCAA and to the media. Really, for anyone who cared about fairness, particularly in a business in which around 50 percent of the players are African-American.

But Sumlin's ascendance is part of a larger recent trend: real progress, which is worth noting during Black History Month. Not only are there now 15 black head coaches in FBS football, seven of them have AQ conference jobs.

Now there's the thing, it's getting better. Finally there are more than 10.

There's also the BCA, which has been doing hiring reports for 8 seasons now. They examine both FBS and FCS football schools. Even reading just the most recent one gives a nice recap.

1) 52 percent of all the ethnic minority football coaches ever hired have been hired in the eight years since the publication of the first BCA Football Hiring Report Card.
2) Of the 22 coaches hired since the inception of the BCA Football Hiring Report Card, 19 have been hired in the past five years.
3) In the past two years, 19 appointments have occurred, almost doubling the number of head coaches who began the 2009 football season on the FBS level.
4) From the 2003 football season, since the first 2004 BCA report card, there has been a 600 percent increase in the number of Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) head football coaches from three (3) to an all-time high of 19 today.

In the appendix they include the breakdown of Offense/Defense Coordinators, which is where the hiring pool part of the study comes from. The path to HC usually goes through coordinator, so getting numbers there is progress too.

 220 (84.6 percent) whites
 31 (11.9 percent) African-Americans
 Three (1.2 percent) Latinos
 Five (1.9 percent) Asians
 One (0.4 percent) Native American

So there's 15/120 FBS coaches this year, or 12.5%. Very close to the same ratio as coordinators from last season. Great signs of progress.

2009, when Charlie are Joker were hired, was the start of this improvement we're seeing. Before that in 2008 you had 4/119, or 3%. But the coordinator numbers were actually up at 15% that season, if you go look at the previous BCA reports.

There definitely has been a problem. No one is making this stuff up. There are at least 8 seasons of numbers you can dig through, just from this one report. And there are a lot more articles from the times ESPN has covered this issue. It's getting better. But you can't deny there was a problem.

Jayhawker wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

gizmo: The ACC has just established itself as the fourth power conference, imho.

I'd say they are still fifth, but have avoided the Big East like crumble. They are fourth (or better) in basketball, though!

Yeah they've stolen 2, and with ND 3, of the good basketball programs from the Big East. Jerks. :p

Mormons in the Big 12?
I'll take Utah, at least they drink.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I don't think we should derail this thread to debate it, but I believe that blanket accusations of racism without any context or proof are irresponsible and destructive. How can one possibly know why Strong hasn't gotten other jobs before now? He's still in his first HC position, and in only the third season there.

gizmo: The ACC has just established itself as the fourth power conference, imho. I agree with you that ND's next contract won't be remotely as lucrative. The answer to what kind of conference TV deal the ACC can get in light of this move depends largely on the details of their deal with ND, and I'm not sure those are out yet. ND doesn't have nearly the national appeal of yesteryear, but they're still a good "name", if you will. The question to me is whether any of their games would be included in the ACC deal.

Imho ND should just join the ACC as a full member and give up independence, but I do understand that they have a lot of rivalries / traditional series they want to maintain. I think as they become less and less of a national draw (and down here, no one cares at all), their independence works against them. It eventually becomes a "Who do they think they are?" kind of thing.

I would largely agree. Back when you didn't have ESPN, ESPN2, Fox Sports Net, Comcast Sports Network and individual channels for every conference and sometimes teams Notre Dame was who made it on TV. Thus they were in the spotlight, got recruits, etc. Coming to terms with being just another college isn't fun, but they need to consider that. I think it would be sad for them not to play USC and other teams from a tradition standpoint, but they're probably a natural fit for the ACC. Minus the part where Indiana isn't on the Atlantic Coast.

boogle wrote:

Mormons in the Big 12?
I'll take Utah, at least they drink.

Meh, more for us.

When BYU was in talks with the Big 12, I think BYU TV was a major stumbling block for negotiations in terms of media rights. Not sure if that would change.

Fifth, right. However, only the Big 12 will be without a conference championship game. As the playoff system spins up, with selections made by a committee, will there not be some backlash towards the one conference that doesn't subject its best teams to a championship game? Whatever the makeup of the committee, a majority is almost guaranteed to have come from conferences with a championship game.

McFinn wrote:

When BYU was in talks with the Big 12, I think BYU TV was a major stumbling block for negotiations in terms of media rights. Not sure if that would change.

That would be ironic in the age of The Longhorn Network, but I would never put it past this guys to have one rule for themselves and one rule for everyone else. That's kind of the definition of a longhorn.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
McFinn wrote:

When BYU was in talks with the Big 12, I think BYU TV was a major stumbling block for negotiations in terms of media rights. Not sure if that would change.

That would be ironic in the age of The Longhorn Network, but I would never put it past this guys to have one rule for themselves and one rule for everyone else. That's kind of the definition of a longhorn.

Back to the Charlie Strong to Arkansas point.

If the Cardinals jumped to an AQ, like the Big 12, wouldn't that make it more likely that he would stay long term? Seems to me that would be even one more reason for them to make the move.

Oh yeah, I think every team should want to be in an AQ conference.

Right now, there's no comparison between the SEC and the Big East. I have no idea what Louisville is paying Strong, but Stele is obviously good at research, so I imagine we'll know that soon.

Arkansas is rumored to be paying $4MM. I'm assuming that's a pay raise. So the question would be, who among us doesn't take a big pay raise to move to a job in the most prestigious company (conference), especially when he's currently at a company (conference) whose future is in doubt?

I don't think it's to do with Louisville at all, really. It's about dollars and the changing college football landscape.

All that said, the rumor may be totally off base, or Arkansas may be looking at multiple coaches. They for sure are looking, and they're almost certainly willing to pay up to stay in the game. They just accomplished the second-largest fall in the history of football rankings, after coming to believe they'd solidified themselves as the best team in the SEC besides Bama and LSU. They're going to get the best coach they can by paying as much as they can afford.

Fedaykin98 wrote:
McFinn wrote:

When BYU was in talks with the Big 12, I think BYU TV was a major stumbling block for negotiations in terms of media rights. Not sure if that would change.

That would be ironic in the age of The Longhorn Network, but I would never put it past this guys to have one rule for themselves and one rule for everyone else. That's kind of the definition of a longhorn.

BYU simply doesn't have the leverage to force a network on a conference. One can hope after Boren pretty much saved the Big 12 UT won't anymore either.

Well since you asked, yeah Charlie is making $2.3 million base, after his contract extension last season.

And as for the changing college landscape, the playoffs are coming in 2014, not that far away. At that point there is no more "AQ status." The best 4 teams are supposed to get put into the finals. If the playoffs system had been implemented a few years ago, I doubt we would have all of this super-conference madness we've got this year and next year with teams jumping around.

Now there's still something to be said for strength of schedule and how these teams get selected. There might be an perceived AQ status for the winners of the SEC, Big 10, or PAC-10 championship game winner to get into the final 4. But nothing is guaranteed. And C-USA and MWC are supposedly doing that combined conference for football with a championship game. Just having a championship game for that extra strong schedule win might be more important than what conference you're in. Which is why the Big East and Big 12 need to get their numbers up enough to have one of those. If everyone continues on the current plan into next season, the Big East will have enough members, and 2 divisions.

Of course who knows what will happen? TCU already changed their mind before. Nothing is for sure until teams actually move...

Stele wrote:

Which is why the Big East and Big 12 need to get their numbers up enough to have one of those. If everyone continues on the current plan into next season, the Big East will have enough members, and 2 divisions.

On that note, any word on the Big East figuring out what to call itself once Boise and San Diego State are on board?

gizmo wrote:
Stele wrote:

Which is why the Big East and Big 12 need to get their numbers up enough to have one of those. If everyone continues on the current plan into next season, the Big East will have enough members, and 2 divisions.

On that note, any word on the Big East figuring out what to call itself once Boise and San Diego State are on board?

I saw two articles this week. One was that there was a committee looking into possible renaming. And another that said they were sticking with Big East. So I don't know.

When I hit 2013 in NCAA Football on my dynasty I just added in the proper teams and went with an East/West division lineup. Heh the West Division of the Big East... fun stuff.

It's too bad that Big West is taken.

That would have been too perfect.

Stele - I agree, the playoff system somewhat mitigates the desire of teams to switch conferences. Somewhat. Having a selection committee made up of humans means that perception is going to be key, probably to the same degree it is now. AQ won't matter, but being 12-1 (after conference championship game) from, say, the PAC-12 is going to mean a lot more than being 12-1 from Conference USA. Being 12-1 from the SEC is going to mean more than being 11-1 from the Big 12, imho.

Let's say Bama loses to LSU but beats Georgia in the conference championship, compared to the Longhorns losing to OU and running the table otherwise. We know from conference makeup today that Bama will have had more impressive wins, and more of them, including that massively challenging conference championship game.

Anyway, I think conference still matters a great deal, and I think the Big East is about to be maybe one notch ahead of where Conference USA recently was, because the Big East has been raided repeatedly, and is replacing those teams with Conference USA teams.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Fifth, right. However, only the Big 12 will be without a conference championship game. As the playoff system spins up, with selections made by a committee, will there not be some backlash towards the one conference that doesn't subject its best teams to a championship game? Whatever the makeup of the committee, a majority is almost guaranteed to have come from conferences with a championship game.

I think the Big 12 will be forced to expand and add a championship game by the SEC in regards to their new bowl agreement. But 10 teams is pretty nice. Play everybody in football and everybody twice in basketball. The big downside is a nine game football schedule that means you never have an even home and away schedule. In that way, 11 would be better.

I don't think the ACC is as stable now as people are making it out to be. I mean, ND is coing from the ultra-stable Big East, right? How can they be viewed as a stabilizing factor? I still think that if they ever think they need to be in a conference they will bolt to the Big 10.

Jayhawker wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

Fifth, right. However, only the Big 12 will be without a conference championship game. As the playoff system spins up, with selections made by a committee, will there not be some backlash towards the one conference that doesn't subject its best teams to a championship game? Whatever the makeup of the committee, a majority is almost guaranteed to have come from conferences with a championship game.

I think the Big 12 will be forced to expand and add a championship game by the SEC in regards to their new bowl agreement. But 10 teams is pretty nice. Play everybody in football and everybody twice in basketball. The big downside is a nine game football schedule that means you never have an even home and away schedule. In that way, 11 would be better.

I don't think the ACC is as stable now as people are making it out to be. I mean, ND is coing from the ultra-stable Big East, right? How can they be viewed as a stabilizing factor? I still think that if they ever think they need to be in a conference they will bolt to the Big 10.

The raise of the ACC buyout to 50 million will help some.

http://floridastate.rivals.com/conte...

"FSU President Eric Barron voted against it. I personally think that $50 million is punitive. I'm not sure that holds up," said Bense, who was named the chairman of the Board of Trustees for a two-year term in June. Bense also said that Maryland voted against the increased buyout. "I'm not implying that there's going to be any changes, but $50 million is a lot of money."

The way I read that it still went into effect regardless of the votes against it.

ACC Commissioner John Swofford said that the increased exit fee goes into effect for all 15 member schools immediately including Notre Dame.

The increased exit fee is on the heels of rampant offseason speculation that ACC members FSU and Clemson were being courted by the Big 12.

And he is right, it is punitive, and I don't blame any conference for taking just such a step. The idea is to make it more attractive to be together than it is to leave.

As for the stability, I think it is also the overall addition of teams, with Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame all on the way in, which has the ACC appearing to be at a position of strength. Of course, the true athletic might of this conference will be, by far, most apparent during basketball season. But that's for another thread.

Oh, it goes into effect. And apparently they chose the buyout fee over a grant of rights like the Big 12 has because it didn't require a unanimous vote. So FSU will just push the issue to court and foce the ACC to negotiate a lower buyout if push come to shove. Kind of like West Virginia being forced to wait until next year to join the Big !2.

That's what he meant by, "I'm not sure that holds up." FSU considered leaving, decided to stay and see how the ACC worked out, and then was stuck with a buyout they didn't agree to. It might or might not be that binding.

Exit fee for the SEC: Still zero dollars.

Still, I think the $50MM is kind of a shrewd move, as the ACC has done a decent job of reacting to realignment. Not great, not proactive, but they saw what was happening and took some intelligent steps.

gizmo wrote:
i38warhawk wrote:

However, I'm of the opinion that Arkansas simply cannot put a better defense on the field then Alabama or LSU while Saban and Miles are coaching. Strong would be in for quite a challenge.

It would be a daunting task, but if memory serves, he put together quite the squad on that side when he was down in Gainesville. His scheme is an exciting, attacking style, and he seems to be able to recruit. Of course, to get to the level of the Tide or Tigers, you need at least 3 rock star recruiting classes in a row, but I think if anyone can, Charlie can.

Florida has certain inbuilt recruiting advantages that Arkansas does not. Florida is a big state that produces a ton of great D1 talent. Arkansas is tiny state that just doesn't produce enough D1 players to be competitive with Alabama or LSU without external recruiting. Northwest Arkansas produces decent QB's and a few WR's. Little Rock will spit out a four or five star running back every other year, and some of the Central Arkansas schools will help fill in the skill positions. Other than that there isn't a whole lot more coming out of Arkansas. Especially on the defensive side of the ball.

The key to winning big at Arkansas is recruiting Texas (crucial if you're defense first coach). That's why the game at Cowboys Stadium is so important to the program. It Strong could come in and recruit Texas we could probably sit at between 9-3 and 10-2 with an occasional trip up of LSU. Then you hope Saban has a down year like in 2010 to break into the SECCG and maybe the playoff depending on the year.

I don't think race would be an issue for Strong at Arkansas.

How has this not appeared in this thread yet?

Ugh. Auburn got a ridiculous hail mary TD at the half to take the lead on UL-M.

Welcome to the Cal/Ohio State game, where no play is complete without a penalty. Even the announcers were starting to wish for new refs.

Stele wrote:

Ugh. Auburn got a ridiculous hail mary TD at the half to take the lead on UL-M.

I don't think that game is on TV around here; I'm keenly interested. We need the official SEC channel to launch pronto.

I'll be rooting for the Ags v SMU at 2:30 on Fox Sports, and might watch Ole Miss vs the Longhorns tonight if nothing else presents itself.

Yeah, no ULM - Auburn here. I have, no kidding, 11 channels showing ULL - OSU, though.