Big Ten: Jim Delany
Follow us on Twitter. Let's get to those emails ...
Jeremy from Columbus writes: With regards to the future Big Ten schedules (2016 and beyond), will we go to a system of staggered crossover games? Since we went to divisions, we've played two non-protected crossover teams one year, then the same teams at opposite sites the next, leading to the same opponents two years in a row. With the three crossover schedule coming with nine conference games, are all three crossovers going to swap simultaneously, or can they implement a staggered system? We would have to in order to play all seven teams in the other division every four years, which I believe was a major goal for the ADs to allow every player to play against every other Big Ten team once. Alternatively, any chance of not playing direct home-and-homes with the crossover teams? For example, hosting a team one year, skipping them the next, then visiting them the third year? I personally would prefer this system in order to play the widest variety of teams.
Adam Rittenberg: Jeremy, I reached out to Big Ten scheduling czar Mark Rudner to get some clarity on your question. The main thing to remember, as you point out, is the league-wide directive to have each Big Ten team play every other conference member at least once every four years. That will happen in the post-2016 scheduling model. To meet that goal, the crossovers after 2016 will be staggered, so you won't always see the same teams in consecutive seasons. You also won't always see direct home-and-homes with crossover opponents. Eventually every game will be, in a sense, returned, but it won't be as "clean" as the current setup. The goal remains to avoid these long breaks without certain matchups.
Ethan from Prague writes: Adam, I am a PSU fan living in Prague so thank you for your blog so i can keep track of my team. I know the quarterback race is down to two: Ferguson and Hackenberg. For me, I think even if Hackenberg edges Ferguson slightly in preseason camp, I would rather have him redshirt just to save his eligibility. For PSU right now I think the long-run is more important than this season and having Hackenberg learn O'Brien's offense while not wasting a year of eligiblity could get many offensive recruits excited to come to PSU because they can play with him while competing for two bowl games. I also think O'Brien will be there for as long as Hackenberg is playing, so 5 years minimum with O'Brien would be better than any alternative. Thoughts?
Adam Rittenberg: Ethan, first off, thanks for reading us all the way from Prague. I've always wanted to visit. I understand your perspective here, and if Steven Bench had stuck around in Happy Valley, it might make sense for Penn State to consider redshirting Hackenberg if he and Ferguson are about even in preseason camp. But without Bench, Penn State doesn't have much else behind Ferguson if Hackenberg doesn't play. Penn State could start Ferguson with the hope he can last the entire season and perform at a relatively decent level, but if not, the team can't tank the season just to save a year of eligibility for Hackenberg. While it's never ideal for a quarterback to play as a true freshman, there could be tremendous value for Hackenberg, a mature kid with a high ceiling.
Keep in mind, too, that Penn State will surround its new quarterback with some good weapons. The offense has a chance to be good again and that, more than anything else, will help recruiting. I think you're overvaluing Hackenberg's effect on Penn State's recruiting and on O'Brien staying or leaving. Penn State still can recruit top offensive players even if Hackenberg doesn't play, and O'Brien likely will base his future on which NFL teams come calling and how comfortable he feels in State College.
Matt from Michigan writes: Hey Adam, there's been some confusion on whether or no Jake Ryan can medically redshirt this upcoming season. Some say that because he redshirted for non-medical reasons his freshman year that he could not redshirt again. Could you verify this? Thanks.
Adam Rittenberg: Matt, Ryan wouldn't get a second redshirt season but a sixth year of eligibility, which would come after he's exhausted the years given to each player coming into college. It would be similar to the Devin Gardner situation, except Gardner didn't redshirt as a freshman in 2010, but had his season limited by injury. If Ryan's injury is severe enough to cost him the entire 2013 season, he could return as a fifth-year senior in 2014 and then apply for a sixth year in 2015. He would need to show medical proof that he couldn't return for a good chunk of 2013. This all likely is moot as Michigan coach Brady Hoke has said repeatedly that Ryan will return this fall, but if he has a setback in his recovery, I could see him going the sixth-year route.
Michael from Los Feliz writes: Hey Adam, As a Gopher fan I am outraged over the twenty fourteen and fifteen schedules. Minnesota is finally building what looks like a solid program under new leadership at all the big positions: football coaching staff, University President, and AD. However, apparently Jim Delany wants to see the Gophers continue to struggle. It is totally unfair to saddle Minnesota with cross division games against Ohio State AND Michigan, the two best programs in the conference. You can force Minnesota to play one of those schools, but both is totally unfair. It's especially brutal because Wisconsin and Iowa look to be taking a step back on the field, yet Iowa gets Maryland/Indiana and Wisconsin gets Rutgers/Maryland. This is gerrymandering and I am livid. Don't you think the Gophers got screwed by JD?
Adam Rittenberg: No, I don't. This might absolutely shock the conspiracy-theorist contingent of Big Ten blog readers, but Jim Delany has almost nothing to do with league schedules. Mark Rudner and his staff handle the schedule, and, after the league-wide scheduling principles (i.e. no more than two straight road games) are met, a computer generates the schedule and then the ADs sign off on it. Minnesota AD Norwood Teague agreed to the schedule, just like his Big Ten colleagues did. Is it a tough crossover schedule for 2014 and 2015? Sure. But Minnesota still is in what most believe to be the more favorable division (West). The Gophers won't have to deal with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State every year. Besides, aren't you happy that the Jug rivalry will continue in 2014? That has to be some sort of consolation.
Jon from Bangladesh writes: I've read a few articles that mope about the change of demographics and pool of talented players increasing in the South. No doubt as a Husker fan one has to accept that things aren't quite what they used to be. However I just had a thought today. What if the talent base in the South continued to increase? Assuming no new big Southern colleges are being founded, no move to Canadian style 13 players or more, and talented players not wanting to play third string, could a pattern like this actually begin to saturate the South, overflow a bit towards bigger colleges further North, and perhaps actually even the recruiting playing field a bit?
Adam Rittenberg: Jon, thanks for reading us from so far away. I've thought about the same thing: if demographic trends continue the way they are, more quality players should be looking for opportunities in far-flung leagues like the Big Ten. The counter argument is that SEC schools still will be getting the very top players from their surrounding areas and therefore will remain a cut above the Big Ten and the rest. If the SEC can pick and choose and not have to look far for national championship-type talent, it will continue to win those crystal footballs. That said, Big Ten schools must continue -- and, in some cases, ramp up -- their recruiting efforts in the South and Southeast. There's just too much talent in those regions to ignore and expect to compete at the highest level.
Stephen from Chicago writes: I am an Indiana Hoosier fan and was excited when Nebraska joined the Big Ten. I was looking forward to making the trek out to Lincoln and meet the supposed nicest fans in the country. As luck would have it, Nebraska ended up in the other division as Indiana and we were the one team that missed them the first four years in the conference. With Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big Ten, we were once again in the opposite division as Nebraska. Not only that, we were the only team with a protect cross over; meaning until the Big Ten goes to 9-game schedules, IU will only play one other team from the west each season. As I opened the 2014 schedule hoping for the 1 in 6 chance to find Nebraska, Nope we have Iowa. Am I ever going to see Nebraska play Indiana?
Adam Rittenberg: Stephen, this is a good point to raise, and it's obviously an unfortunate component of a scheduling model that keeps changing. Although having no Indiana-Nebraska game for Nebraska's first four seasons as a Big Ten member isn't ideal, it's not as bad as having a six-year break in the Illinois-Iowa series, which is currently going on and thankfully will end in 2014. The answer is yes, you'll see Nebraska soon enough, most likely in the 2016 schedule. After 2016, Indiana won't go four years without playing the Huskers. Things will begin to settle down from a scheduling standpoint. Look on the bright side: because of the quirky schedule, IU gets back-to-back home games against archrival Purdue this fall and next.
Kase from Dallas writes: Adam, as Nebraska alumni I'm a very disappointed in the 2014 (and 2015) schedule. No Penn State, No Ohio State, No Michigan. My biggest excitement about joining the B1G was getting to play these power programs. But it looks like this won't happen until at least 2016 when the B1G goes to a parity scheduling system. Home games against Illinois, Rutgers, Purdue & Minnesota are not exciting. Do you think the B1G is taking the Husker fans for granted? I doubt many other B1G programs would have sellout homes games with these opponents. Looking at 2015, I'm sure these schools will love the thousands of Nebraska fans that will likely travel to these away games. When making the schedule did the B1G take into account the "fans"?
Adam Rittenberg: I don't think the Big Ten bases its schedule on whether Nebraska can continue its sellout streak, if that's what you're asking. Certain home schedules will be more appealing than others, but until parity-based scheduling kicks in, Big Ten schedules aren't designed with the quality of opponent in mind. It's fairly random after the core principles agreed upon by all the ADs are met. The good news for Nebraska fans is after 2016, you'll see Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in Lincoln more often than other East division teams. Although Nebraska fans aren't pleased with the 2014 home schedule, I'd be stunned if many stayed away. This is the same program that drew more than 60,000 for the spring game in April.
Jeremy from Columbus writes: With regards to the future Big Ten schedules (2016 and beyond), will we go to a system of staggered crossover games? Since we went to divisions, we've played two non-protected crossover teams one year, then the same teams at opposite sites the next, leading to the same opponents two years in a row. With the three crossover schedule coming with nine conference games, are all three crossovers going to swap simultaneously, or can they implement a staggered system? We would have to in order to play all seven teams in the other division every four years, which I believe was a major goal for the ADs to allow every player to play against every other Big Ten team once. Alternatively, any chance of not playing direct home-and-homes with the crossover teams? For example, hosting a team one year, skipping them the next, then visiting them the third year? I personally would prefer this system in order to play the widest variety of teams.
Adam Rittenberg: Jeremy, I reached out to Big Ten scheduling czar Mark Rudner to get some clarity on your question. The main thing to remember, as you point out, is the league-wide directive to have each Big Ten team play every other conference member at least once every four years. That will happen in the post-2016 scheduling model. To meet that goal, the crossovers after 2016 will be staggered, so you won't always see the same teams in consecutive seasons. You also won't always see direct home-and-homes with crossover opponents. Eventually every game will be, in a sense, returned, but it won't be as "clean" as the current setup. The goal remains to avoid these long breaks without certain matchups.
Ethan from Prague writes: Adam, I am a PSU fan living in Prague so thank you for your blog so i can keep track of my team. I know the quarterback race is down to two: Ferguson and Hackenberg. For me, I think even if Hackenberg edges Ferguson slightly in preseason camp, I would rather have him redshirt just to save his eligibility. For PSU right now I think the long-run is more important than this season and having Hackenberg learn O'Brien's offense while not wasting a year of eligiblity could get many offensive recruits excited to come to PSU because they can play with him while competing for two bowl games. I also think O'Brien will be there for as long as Hackenberg is playing, so 5 years minimum with O'Brien would be better than any alternative. Thoughts?
Adam Rittenberg: Ethan, first off, thanks for reading us all the way from Prague. I've always wanted to visit. I understand your perspective here, and if Steven Bench had stuck around in Happy Valley, it might make sense for Penn State to consider redshirting Hackenberg if he and Ferguson are about even in preseason camp. But without Bench, Penn State doesn't have much else behind Ferguson if Hackenberg doesn't play. Penn State could start Ferguson with the hope he can last the entire season and perform at a relatively decent level, but if not, the team can't tank the season just to save a year of eligibility for Hackenberg. While it's never ideal for a quarterback to play as a true freshman, there could be tremendous value for Hackenberg, a mature kid with a high ceiling.
Keep in mind, too, that Penn State will surround its new quarterback with some good weapons. The offense has a chance to be good again and that, more than anything else, will help recruiting. I think you're overvaluing Hackenberg's effect on Penn State's recruiting and on O'Brien staying or leaving. Penn State still can recruit top offensive players even if Hackenberg doesn't play, and O'Brien likely will base his future on which NFL teams come calling and how comfortable he feels in State College.
Matt from Michigan writes: Hey Adam, there's been some confusion on whether or no Jake Ryan can medically redshirt this upcoming season. Some say that because he redshirted for non-medical reasons his freshman year that he could not redshirt again. Could you verify this? Thanks.
Adam Rittenberg: Matt, Ryan wouldn't get a second redshirt season but a sixth year of eligibility, which would come after he's exhausted the years given to each player coming into college. It would be similar to the Devin Gardner situation, except Gardner didn't redshirt as a freshman in 2010, but had his season limited by injury. If Ryan's injury is severe enough to cost him the entire 2013 season, he could return as a fifth-year senior in 2014 and then apply for a sixth year in 2015. He would need to show medical proof that he couldn't return for a good chunk of 2013. This all likely is moot as Michigan coach Brady Hoke has said repeatedly that Ryan will return this fall, but if he has a setback in his recovery, I could see him going the sixth-year route.
Michael from Los Feliz writes: Hey Adam, As a Gopher fan I am outraged over the twenty fourteen and fifteen schedules. Minnesota is finally building what looks like a solid program under new leadership at all the big positions: football coaching staff, University President, and AD. However, apparently Jim Delany wants to see the Gophers continue to struggle. It is totally unfair to saddle Minnesota with cross division games against Ohio State AND Michigan, the two best programs in the conference. You can force Minnesota to play one of those schools, but both is totally unfair. It's especially brutal because Wisconsin and Iowa look to be taking a step back on the field, yet Iowa gets Maryland/Indiana and Wisconsin gets Rutgers/Maryland. This is gerrymandering and I am livid. Don't you think the Gophers got screwed by JD?
Adam Rittenberg: No, I don't. This might absolutely shock the conspiracy-theorist contingent of Big Ten blog readers, but Jim Delany has almost nothing to do with league schedules. Mark Rudner and his staff handle the schedule, and, after the league-wide scheduling principles (i.e. no more than two straight road games) are met, a computer generates the schedule and then the ADs sign off on it. Minnesota AD Norwood Teague agreed to the schedule, just like his Big Ten colleagues did. Is it a tough crossover schedule for 2014 and 2015? Sure. But Minnesota still is in what most believe to be the more favorable division (West). The Gophers won't have to deal with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State every year. Besides, aren't you happy that the Jug rivalry will continue in 2014? That has to be some sort of consolation.
Jon from Bangladesh writes: I've read a few articles that mope about the change of demographics and pool of talented players increasing in the South. No doubt as a Husker fan one has to accept that things aren't quite what they used to be. However I just had a thought today. What if the talent base in the South continued to increase? Assuming no new big Southern colleges are being founded, no move to Canadian style 13 players or more, and talented players not wanting to play third string, could a pattern like this actually begin to saturate the South, overflow a bit towards bigger colleges further North, and perhaps actually even the recruiting playing field a bit?
Adam Rittenberg: Jon, thanks for reading us from so far away. I've thought about the same thing: if demographic trends continue the way they are, more quality players should be looking for opportunities in far-flung leagues like the Big Ten. The counter argument is that SEC schools still will be getting the very top players from their surrounding areas and therefore will remain a cut above the Big Ten and the rest. If the SEC can pick and choose and not have to look far for national championship-type talent, it will continue to win those crystal footballs. That said, Big Ten schools must continue -- and, in some cases, ramp up -- their recruiting efforts in the South and Southeast. There's just too much talent in those regions to ignore and expect to compete at the highest level.
Stephen from Chicago writes: I am an Indiana Hoosier fan and was excited when Nebraska joined the Big Ten. I was looking forward to making the trek out to Lincoln and meet the supposed nicest fans in the country. As luck would have it, Nebraska ended up in the other division as Indiana and we were the one team that missed them the first four years in the conference. With Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big Ten, we were once again in the opposite division as Nebraska. Not only that, we were the only team with a protect cross over; meaning until the Big Ten goes to 9-game schedules, IU will only play one other team from the west each season. As I opened the 2014 schedule hoping for the 1 in 6 chance to find Nebraska, Nope we have Iowa. Am I ever going to see Nebraska play Indiana?
Adam Rittenberg: Stephen, this is a good point to raise, and it's obviously an unfortunate component of a scheduling model that keeps changing. Although having no Indiana-Nebraska game for Nebraska's first four seasons as a Big Ten member isn't ideal, it's not as bad as having a six-year break in the Illinois-Iowa series, which is currently going on and thankfully will end in 2014. The answer is yes, you'll see Nebraska soon enough, most likely in the 2016 schedule. After 2016, Indiana won't go four years without playing the Huskers. Things will begin to settle down from a scheduling standpoint. Look on the bright side: because of the quirky schedule, IU gets back-to-back home games against archrival Purdue this fall and next.
Kase from Dallas writes: Adam, as Nebraska alumni I'm a very disappointed in the 2014 (and 2015) schedule. No Penn State, No Ohio State, No Michigan. My biggest excitement about joining the B1G was getting to play these power programs. But it looks like this won't happen until at least 2016 when the B1G goes to a parity scheduling system. Home games against Illinois, Rutgers, Purdue & Minnesota are not exciting. Do you think the B1G is taking the Husker fans for granted? I doubt many other B1G programs would have sellout homes games with these opponents. Looking at 2015, I'm sure these schools will love the thousands of Nebraska fans that will likely travel to these away games. When making the schedule did the B1G take into account the "fans"?
Adam Rittenberg: I don't think the Big Ten bases its schedule on whether Nebraska can continue its sellout streak, if that's what you're asking. Certain home schedules will be more appealing than others, but until parity-based scheduling kicks in, Big Ten schedules aren't designed with the quality of opponent in mind. It's fairly random after the core principles agreed upon by all the ADs are met. The good news for Nebraska fans is after 2016, you'll see Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in Lincoln more often than other East division teams. Although Nebraska fans aren't pleased with the 2014 home schedule, I'd be stunned if many stayed away. This is the same program that drew more than 60,000 for the spring game in April.
100 days away ...
- Illinois is very much in the mix for Oklahoma State QB transfer Wes Lunt. Illini coach Tim Beckman and his assistants are social-media machines.
- A great look inside a week with Michigan offensive coordinator Al Borges. Michigan is in good shape to add standout CB recruit Jabrill Peppers. Former Wolverines star Mike Hart talks about the challenges that await incoming RB recruit Derrick Green.
- Top 2014 recruits are buying what Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald is selling, Jared Shanker writes. Incoming freshman Macan Wilson talks about why he picked the Wildcats.
- Junior college defensive lineman Robert Gregory hopes to arrive at Nebraska next month. Check out Huskers QB recruit Johnny Stanton.
- Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke is confident about the program's direction under new coach Darrell Hazell. Hazell meets with a group of local pastors.
- This is mostly basketball related, but colleague Myron Medcalf checks in with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany.
- Christian Hackenberg will follow Penn State QB tradition and wear No. 14 for the Lions. Tom Dienhart breaks down Penn State's 2013 schedule. Lions coach Bill O'Brien is featured on HBO's "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel."
- Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio discusses conflict resolution. Former Spartans LB Chris Norman chooses faith over football.
- Another great breakdown of Big Ten assistant coach salaries from Joe Rexrode. A look at how Maryland assistants' salaries stack up with the rest of the Big Ten.
- More on Iowa's coaches and their contracts.
- Indiana adds a big prep school lineman to its 2013 recruiting class.
- A Federal judge mulls whether Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's lawsuit against the NCAA will move forward.
- Some good news for TBDBITL. Ohio State coach Urban Meyer is looking rather busty.
- Tom Brady played for Michigan, but his son is sporting Minnesota Golden Gopher gear. A positive spin on Minnesota's tough upcoming schedules.
- New Wisconsin coach Gary Andersen and his staff cast a wide recruiting net.
- Please consider donating to the Red Cross or The Salvation Army to help the victims of Monday's tornado in Moore, Okla.
I missed our correspondence during my vacation. Let's let the letters commence:
Alex from New York writes: As a Michigan fan, the release of the new schedules starting in 2014 is pretty infuriating. Both MSU and OSU on the road in a given year? Are you kidding me? Did Dave Brandon not bother fighting this at all? Couple this with some of the recent basketball schedulings, like giving OSU a home game against Michigan next year but not vice versa, it seems like sometimes the Big Ten is out to screw Michigan. I realize that I'm overreacting, but as far as football is concerned, I think this is unacceptable, especially having to play MSU on the road twice in two years. It makes for a great home schedule one year, and a very lackluster one the following year. What are your thoughts?
Brian Bennett: The Big Ten is out to get Michigan? I think Michigan State fans would find that funny. Playing at Michigan State and Ohio State in the same year is tough, but is it really more difficult than last season, when the Wolverines played at Nebraska and at Ohio State? With Penn State coming to Ann Arbor in 2014 and Michigan's other Big Ten road games being at Northwestern and at Rutgers, you can't say that's an especially difficult schedule. It stinks for Wolverines fans that the games against the Spartans, Buckeyes and Notre Dame will all be on the road next season, but Ohio State and Michigan State will come to the Big House in 2015. And the rotation could change again when the league goes to a nine-game schedule in 2016.
Dave from Nashville writes: Regarding the new 2014 B1G schedules: There's a lot to comment on, but I'm gonna focus right now on, wow, Ohio State has a crazy easy schedule. Toughest games at home? Arguably the best team in the B1G having its two cross-overs with arguably the West's two worst teams (final decision pending Iowa's Greg Davis-induced implosion). Seems the B1G is desperate to get a team into the first College Football Playoff. They have chosen their champion, and have laid the easiest path possible for them to reach it. Michigan seems like a back-up option for 2015 with the favorable schedule, but even they have to contend with a dangerous NW squad. Better get them in before "parity-based" scheduling and 9 conference games make it more difficult ...
Brian Bennett: It's disappointing that we won't see the Buckeyes play Nebraska, Wisconsin or Northwestern in 2014. Perhaps Minnesota will have improved enough by next year that it will give Ohio State a test in Minneapolis. The Buckeyes still have to go to Michigan State and Penn State, and they have Navy, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech in the nonconference, which is a major step up from their 2012 and 2013 out-of-league slate. Perhaps after playing Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraska as crossover opponents in 2011 and 2012, Ohio State was due for a break. Getting Michigan at home next year will also be key in the inaugural East Division race. While it's always dangerous to make assumptions on what will happen more than a year away, the Buckeyes do seem to have an advantageous position in 2014.
Mike from Madison, Wis., writes: So I just read the piece on how many of the B1G coaches and Jim Delany support to increase the win requirements to go to a bowl from the current 6-6 to 7-5. I agree with that and also the fact that a fan bases of a 6-6 team is less enthused to have to pay all the costs involved with going to a bowl game and that some fans and students ultimately don't go because its not worth it. However, I also agree with coaches that the extra game and more importantly practice time that goes along with a bowl game is greatly beneficial to a 6-6 team. I have an idea that will please everyone involved: 6-6 teams get cut from being in a bowl game. However, they are permitted to play an extra game with a school in their region and that the game would be held at the one of the school's football stadiums. Don't know how that would be decided but everyone involved wins. Coaches get their game and fans get it closer and cheaper.
Brian Bennett: I'm divided on my opinion about whether 6-6 teams should go bowling. On the one hand, I believe there are too many bowl games and that teams should have to accomplish more than merely going .500. How much, for example, did Purdue gain by going to a bowl last year, as the Boilermakers fired coach Danny Hope the day after they clinched postseason eligibility and then got embarrassed by Oklahoma State? On the other hand, bowls still provide us entertainment in December, and more college football is rarely a bad thing. I'm much more in favor of 6-6 teams going to bowls if they play a nine-game conference schedule. That's much more of an achievement, since programs can't simply schedule four nonconference patsies and then go 2-6 in the league and declare their season a success. I'm surprised a team like Indiana, which will have its hands full in the East Division, supports the seven-win requirement.
As for your idea, Mike, I'm not exactly sold. A large part of the appeal for a 6-6 team to go bowling is that the players get a nice trip somewhere warm and a bowl-like experience out of it. Who would have gotten fired up last year for, say, Purdue at Central Michigan or Iowa State at Minnesota last December in the cold?
Rob NitLion from Morristown, N.J., writes: Bennett! Long time since I last emailed you. Please PLEASE tell me that with the new bowl scheduling partnerships the B1G will no longer have 5 schools playing at the same time on New Year's Day...as a B1G fan, I cannot stand missing the Rose Bowl because there are other attractive B1G matchups at the same time. I'm hoping Delaney has found some way to facilitate changing the times or dates of some of these bowl games as to not have B1G fans scrambling to try to catch multiple games at the same time on New Year's Day. Even if your team isn't playing in the Rose Bowl, as a college football fan, specifically a B1G fan, who doesn't want to watch the Rose Bowl and all its Pagentry? I know the Capital One and Outback bowls are probably remaining in the B1G bowl line up, but do you foresee any chance that there are changes so the times are not conflicting with the Rose Bowl?
Brian Bennett: I don't think that avoiding overlapping times is a major concern for the Big Ten as it tries to find the best bowl lineup. However, it's inevitable that we'll see some changes in that regard as the new lineup and the new playoff structure take hold. The playoff semifinals are going to own New Year's Day, so we'll have to see how that affects when the other bowls decide to kick off. There could still be several Big Ten teams playing at once, especially with the league holding onto ties with the Capital One and Outback bowls and sharing a slot with the ACC on the Gator. But with access to the Orange Bowl and other moves, I doubt we'll see as big of a Big Ten logjam in the bowls.
Aaron from Minneapolis, Minn., writes: As a Minnesota fan, I generally like the direction that the conference is going with non-conference scheduling. But I've heard a lot about how Iowa is being handcuffed by their annual tilt with Iowa State, and I was just wondering why this is a big deal. Lots of annual non-conference rivalries are going by the wayside these days (Michigan-ND, Florida-Miami, Nebraska-Oklahoma, etc.). While I understand that an in-state game is big for fans, I can't imagine Iowa fans will suddenly be at a loss for bad blood with Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even a potentially budding rivalry with Nebraska each year. And even if the game is not played annually, two games every four years would open up much more breathing room for Iowa to continue to schedule strong opponents on a regular basis. Am I completely off base here?
Brian Bennett: You're not wildly off base, Aaron, especially because the Iowa-Iowa State game doesn't really move the needle nationally. Still, I think it would be a shame to see that series end. I'm a huge proponent of in-state rivalries, especially in a state like Iowa where there are only two major programs. It's one thing for Florida and Miami not to play, but at least Florida-Florida State and Florida State-Miami continues. These are the kinds of rivalry games that keep friends, co-workers and neighbors talking year round within the state. I'd rather see Iowa test itself by playing one other marquee game in the nonconference schedule than losing the Iowa State series, though I understand why that's difficult with a nine-game league schedule. And speaking of in-state rivalries ...
Erik S. from Tallahassee, Fla., writes: With the renewal of the PSU-Pitt rivalry in 2016 and the dedication both sides feel about making the game happen every year, I'm hopeful that we'll get to see more of these games after the upcoming four-year contract is over. My question is that in the years Penn State plays Pitt, will that game become Penn State's required "one marquee nonconference game" or do you think another "Big Five" conference team would make the slate in addition?
Brian Bennett: There were some very encouraging comments last week from both sides about the future of the Penn State-Pitt rivalry, one that I think ought to return to being an annual affair. Penn State will have to decide how it wants to schedule its three nonconference games after 2016, and complicating matters is the NCAA probation. Do the Nittany Lions want to take on tough opponents as they're coming out of the sanctions era, or do they want to help themselves ease back into bowl contention? When at full strength, I absolutely think Penn State is the type of program that can handle playing Pitt and one other marquee, or at least major-conference, opponent every year. Given Pitt's near-perennial habit of underachieving, simply playing the Panthers probably wouldn't be enough to make the Nittany Lions' strength-of-schedule argument a compelling one in most years.
Bear rom Waco, Texas, writes: Baylor/Big 12 fan here just wanting to say props for the Big Ten agreeing to schedule nine conference games and no FCS opponents. The Big Ten, like every other conference, has its problems, but I really respect that y'all want to make create the highest quality football match-ups possible. So thanks Big Ten from down in Waco!
Brian Bennett: I guess it's always good to have a bear on your side, rather than the other way around.
Alex from New York writes: As a Michigan fan, the release of the new schedules starting in 2014 is pretty infuriating. Both MSU and OSU on the road in a given year? Are you kidding me? Did Dave Brandon not bother fighting this at all? Couple this with some of the recent basketball schedulings, like giving OSU a home game against Michigan next year but not vice versa, it seems like sometimes the Big Ten is out to screw Michigan. I realize that I'm overreacting, but as far as football is concerned, I think this is unacceptable, especially having to play MSU on the road twice in two years. It makes for a great home schedule one year, and a very lackluster one the following year. What are your thoughts?
Brian Bennett: The Big Ten is out to get Michigan? I think Michigan State fans would find that funny. Playing at Michigan State and Ohio State in the same year is tough, but is it really more difficult than last season, when the Wolverines played at Nebraska and at Ohio State? With Penn State coming to Ann Arbor in 2014 and Michigan's other Big Ten road games being at Northwestern and at Rutgers, you can't say that's an especially difficult schedule. It stinks for Wolverines fans that the games against the Spartans, Buckeyes and Notre Dame will all be on the road next season, but Ohio State and Michigan State will come to the Big House in 2015. And the rotation could change again when the league goes to a nine-game schedule in 2016.
Dave from Nashville writes: Regarding the new 2014 B1G schedules: There's a lot to comment on, but I'm gonna focus right now on, wow, Ohio State has a crazy easy schedule. Toughest games at home? Arguably the best team in the B1G having its two cross-overs with arguably the West's two worst teams (final decision pending Iowa's Greg Davis-induced implosion). Seems the B1G is desperate to get a team into the first College Football Playoff. They have chosen their champion, and have laid the easiest path possible for them to reach it. Michigan seems like a back-up option for 2015 with the favorable schedule, but even they have to contend with a dangerous NW squad. Better get them in before "parity-based" scheduling and 9 conference games make it more difficult ...
Brian Bennett: It's disappointing that we won't see the Buckeyes play Nebraska, Wisconsin or Northwestern in 2014. Perhaps Minnesota will have improved enough by next year that it will give Ohio State a test in Minneapolis. The Buckeyes still have to go to Michigan State and Penn State, and they have Navy, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech in the nonconference, which is a major step up from their 2012 and 2013 out-of-league slate. Perhaps after playing Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraska as crossover opponents in 2011 and 2012, Ohio State was due for a break. Getting Michigan at home next year will also be key in the inaugural East Division race. While it's always dangerous to make assumptions on what will happen more than a year away, the Buckeyes do seem to have an advantageous position in 2014.
Mike from Madison, Wis., writes: So I just read the piece on how many of the B1G coaches and Jim Delany support to increase the win requirements to go to a bowl from the current 6-6 to 7-5. I agree with that and also the fact that a fan bases of a 6-6 team is less enthused to have to pay all the costs involved with going to a bowl game and that some fans and students ultimately don't go because its not worth it. However, I also agree with coaches that the extra game and more importantly practice time that goes along with a bowl game is greatly beneficial to a 6-6 team. I have an idea that will please everyone involved: 6-6 teams get cut from being in a bowl game. However, they are permitted to play an extra game with a school in their region and that the game would be held at the one of the school's football stadiums. Don't know how that would be decided but everyone involved wins. Coaches get their game and fans get it closer and cheaper.
Brian Bennett: I'm divided on my opinion about whether 6-6 teams should go bowling. On the one hand, I believe there are too many bowl games and that teams should have to accomplish more than merely going .500. How much, for example, did Purdue gain by going to a bowl last year, as the Boilermakers fired coach Danny Hope the day after they clinched postseason eligibility and then got embarrassed by Oklahoma State? On the other hand, bowls still provide us entertainment in December, and more college football is rarely a bad thing. I'm much more in favor of 6-6 teams going to bowls if they play a nine-game conference schedule. That's much more of an achievement, since programs can't simply schedule four nonconference patsies and then go 2-6 in the league and declare their season a success. I'm surprised a team like Indiana, which will have its hands full in the East Division, supports the seven-win requirement.
As for your idea, Mike, I'm not exactly sold. A large part of the appeal for a 6-6 team to go bowling is that the players get a nice trip somewhere warm and a bowl-like experience out of it. Who would have gotten fired up last year for, say, Purdue at Central Michigan or Iowa State at Minnesota last December in the cold?
Rob NitLion from Morristown, N.J., writes: Bennett! Long time since I last emailed you. Please PLEASE tell me that with the new bowl scheduling partnerships the B1G will no longer have 5 schools playing at the same time on New Year's Day...as a B1G fan, I cannot stand missing the Rose Bowl because there are other attractive B1G matchups at the same time. I'm hoping Delaney has found some way to facilitate changing the times or dates of some of these bowl games as to not have B1G fans scrambling to try to catch multiple games at the same time on New Year's Day. Even if your team isn't playing in the Rose Bowl, as a college football fan, specifically a B1G fan, who doesn't want to watch the Rose Bowl and all its Pagentry? I know the Capital One and Outback bowls are probably remaining in the B1G bowl line up, but do you foresee any chance that there are changes so the times are not conflicting with the Rose Bowl?
Brian Bennett: I don't think that avoiding overlapping times is a major concern for the Big Ten as it tries to find the best bowl lineup. However, it's inevitable that we'll see some changes in that regard as the new lineup and the new playoff structure take hold. The playoff semifinals are going to own New Year's Day, so we'll have to see how that affects when the other bowls decide to kick off. There could still be several Big Ten teams playing at once, especially with the league holding onto ties with the Capital One and Outback bowls and sharing a slot with the ACC on the Gator. But with access to the Orange Bowl and other moves, I doubt we'll see as big of a Big Ten logjam in the bowls.
Aaron from Minneapolis, Minn., writes: As a Minnesota fan, I generally like the direction that the conference is going with non-conference scheduling. But I've heard a lot about how Iowa is being handcuffed by their annual tilt with Iowa State, and I was just wondering why this is a big deal. Lots of annual non-conference rivalries are going by the wayside these days (Michigan-ND, Florida-Miami, Nebraska-Oklahoma, etc.). While I understand that an in-state game is big for fans, I can't imagine Iowa fans will suddenly be at a loss for bad blood with Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even a potentially budding rivalry with Nebraska each year. And even if the game is not played annually, two games every four years would open up much more breathing room for Iowa to continue to schedule strong opponents on a regular basis. Am I completely off base here?
Brian Bennett: You're not wildly off base, Aaron, especially because the Iowa-Iowa State game doesn't really move the needle nationally. Still, I think it would be a shame to see that series end. I'm a huge proponent of in-state rivalries, especially in a state like Iowa where there are only two major programs. It's one thing for Florida and Miami not to play, but at least Florida-Florida State and Florida State-Miami continues. These are the kinds of rivalry games that keep friends, co-workers and neighbors talking year round within the state. I'd rather see Iowa test itself by playing one other marquee game in the nonconference schedule than losing the Iowa State series, though I understand why that's difficult with a nine-game league schedule. And speaking of in-state rivalries ...
Erik S. from Tallahassee, Fla., writes: With the renewal of the PSU-Pitt rivalry in 2016 and the dedication both sides feel about making the game happen every year, I'm hopeful that we'll get to see more of these games after the upcoming four-year contract is over. My question is that in the years Penn State plays Pitt, will that game become Penn State's required "one marquee nonconference game" or do you think another "Big Five" conference team would make the slate in addition?
Brian Bennett: There were some very encouraging comments last week from both sides about the future of the Penn State-Pitt rivalry, one that I think ought to return to being an annual affair. Penn State will have to decide how it wants to schedule its three nonconference games after 2016, and complicating matters is the NCAA probation. Do the Nittany Lions want to take on tough opponents as they're coming out of the sanctions era, or do they want to help themselves ease back into bowl contention? When at full strength, I absolutely think Penn State is the type of program that can handle playing Pitt and one other marquee, or at least major-conference, opponent every year. Given Pitt's near-perennial habit of underachieving, simply playing the Panthers probably wouldn't be enough to make the Nittany Lions' strength-of-schedule argument a compelling one in most years.
Bear rom Waco, Texas, writes: Baylor/Big 12 fan here just wanting to say props for the Big Ten agreeing to schedule nine conference games and no FCS opponents. The Big Ten, like every other conference, has its problems, but I really respect that y'all want to make create the highest quality football match-ups possible. So thanks Big Ten from down in Waco!
Brian Bennett: I guess it's always good to have a bear on your side, rather than the other way around.
Jim Delany still No. 2 in commissioner pay
May, 20, 2013
May 20
2:30
PM ET
By
Brian Bennett | ESPN.com
The Big Ten remains the king among football conferences in total revenue created and distributed among its member schools. But the leader of that kingdom remains only No. 2 in terms of his own income.
USA Today reports that Big Ten boss Jim Delany ranked second among conference commissioners in salary and compensation in the 2011 calendar year, according to the most recent tax documents available. Coming in at No. 1 for the second straight year is Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, who was paid about $3.1 million. That includes $1.575 million in base salary and about $1.5 million in bonus and other pay. From the story:
Scott has certainly earned his keep, leading the drive to add Colorado and Utah to the Pac-12 and negotiating a new TV contract worth about $3 billion over 12 years. Still, the USA Today story notes that the Pac-12 reported $175.9 million in revenue in 2011 and distributed $132.9 million to its member schools. Compare that to the Big Ten, which raked in a reported $315.5 million in 2011. Big Ten schools are expected to receive $25.7 million each this year. The league's revenues are expected to skyrocket with the next TV deal, which will include new members Maryland and Rutgers and their desirable markets.
Adam debated Chris Low earlier this year about whether Delany or Slive was the more powerful figure. Maybe we should do the same with the Pac-12 blog now, though it's hard to argue that Scott has had a bigger overall influence on college football than Delany.
There's no need to feel sorry for Delany, who is still generously compensated for his work. But you couldn't blame him if he looked at Scott's salary and thought he deserved a raise.
USA Today reports that Big Ten boss Jim Delany ranked second among conference commissioners in salary and compensation in the 2011 calendar year, according to the most recent tax documents available. Coming in at No. 1 for the second straight year is Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, who was paid about $3.1 million. That includes $1.575 million in base salary and about $1.5 million in bonus and other pay. From the story:
"Scott's compensation is about $300,000 more than that reported for Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and almost double the nearly $1.6 million total for Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive."
Scott has certainly earned his keep, leading the drive to add Colorado and Utah to the Pac-12 and negotiating a new TV contract worth about $3 billion over 12 years. Still, the USA Today story notes that the Pac-12 reported $175.9 million in revenue in 2011 and distributed $132.9 million to its member schools. Compare that to the Big Ten, which raked in a reported $315.5 million in 2011. Big Ten schools are expected to receive $25.7 million each this year. The league's revenues are expected to skyrocket with the next TV deal, which will include new members Maryland and Rutgers and their desirable markets.
Adam debated Chris Low earlier this year about whether Delany or Slive was the more powerful figure. Maybe we should do the same with the Pac-12 blog now, though it's hard to argue that Scott has had a bigger overall influence on college football than Delany.
There's no need to feel sorry for Delany, who is still generously compensated for his work. But you couldn't blame him if he looked at Scott's salary and thought he deserved a raise.
How the B1G 2014 schedule came together
May, 16, 2013
May 16
4:00
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
The Big Ten released its 2014 league schedule earlier Thursday, completing what its architect Mark Rudner called a "long, arduous process" of crafting a slate with two new teams, two new divisions and a second open week.
ESPN.com caught up with Rudner, the Big Ten's senior associate commissioner for television administration, to discuss how the 2014 schedule came together.
It's important to note the Big Ten compiled the 2014 slate based upon principles green-lighted by its athletic directors.
They are:
It's not as if athletic directors ask the league not to schedule multiple rivalry games on the road every year.
"Once you do that," Rudner said, "you're at risk of never having a schedule."
There has been some reaction to Michigan facing in-state rival Michigan State in road games in consecutive seasons (2013, 2014) and Purdue visiting Indiana for the Bucket game the same two years. The Wolverines never have played the Spartans in East Lansing in back-to-back years and haven't hosted MSU in consecutive years since 1967-68.
Although it'll be new for Michigan, such back-to-backs are fairly common when a scheduling model changes. Between 2010-11, there were 13 instances of back-to-back matchups, including rivalry games like Iowa-Minnesota (both games in Minneapolis) and Penn State-Ohio State (both games in Columbus) and other good matchups like Wisconsin-Michigan State (both games in East Lansing).
"It's unavoidable," Rudner said. "It happened five times in 2008-2009. So it's not foreign, it's not ideal, but it's unavoidable. When you're introducing new institutions and you dole out home and road games, it just happens."
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has said "parity-based scheduling," where teams will face one another more often in crossovers based on historical success,will begin in 2016, will begin once the league goes to a nine-game conference schedule. Rudner said the league asked the ADs if they wanted to start the nine-game schedules in 2014 but they couldn't because of so many signed contracts for non-conference games. If they had, the 2014 would have incorporated parity scheduling.
The 2014 slate ultimately features none of it, as the traditional powers in each division -- Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State in the East, and Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa in the West -- don't play at all.
"I don't think it's going to hurt us," Rudner said. "Brand is strong enough. There are enough games that are strong that'll drive television interest. Short of a full round-robin, which nobody in our conference wanted to do, you're going to have these sort of issues."
A few other schedule notes:
The 2015 Big Ten schedule, which should be released by the end of the month, will feature the same matchups at the opposite locations. The league has to maneuver around some previously scheduled non-league games before finalizing the slate.
ESPN.com caught up with Rudner, the Big Ten's senior associate commissioner for television administration, to discuss how the 2014 schedule came together.
It's important to note the Big Ten compiled the 2014 slate based upon principles green-lighted by its athletic directors.
They are:
- Nonconference games that had been previously contracted were protected. For example, Northwestern visits Notre Dame on Nov. 15, 2014, so the Big Ten made sure not to schedule the Wildcats on that day. Also, Penn State and Rutgers had a previously scheduled non-league game for Sept. 13, 2014, which became a conference game with Rutgers joining the Big Ten. The date wasn't changed.
- No more than two consecutive road games
- Each team must play two home games and two road games in each half of the season
It's not as if athletic directors ask the league not to schedule multiple rivalry games on the road every year.
"Once you do that," Rudner said, "you're at risk of never having a schedule."
There has been some reaction to Michigan facing in-state rival Michigan State in road games in consecutive seasons (2013, 2014) and Purdue visiting Indiana for the Bucket game the same two years. The Wolverines never have played the Spartans in East Lansing in back-to-back years and haven't hosted MSU in consecutive years since 1967-68.
Although it'll be new for Michigan, such back-to-backs are fairly common when a scheduling model changes. Between 2010-11, there were 13 instances of back-to-back matchups, including rivalry games like Iowa-Minnesota (both games in Minneapolis) and Penn State-Ohio State (both games in Columbus) and other good matchups like Wisconsin-Michigan State (both games in East Lansing).
"It's unavoidable," Rudner said. "It happened five times in 2008-2009. So it's not foreign, it's not ideal, but it's unavoidable. When you're introducing new institutions and you dole out home and road games, it just happens."
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has said "parity-based scheduling," where teams will face one another more often in crossovers based on historical success,will begin in 2016, will begin once the league goes to a nine-game conference schedule. Rudner said the league asked the ADs if they wanted to start the nine-game schedules in 2014 but they couldn't because of so many signed contracts for non-conference games. If they had, the 2014 would have incorporated parity scheduling.
The 2014 slate ultimately features none of it, as the traditional powers in each division -- Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State in the East, and Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa in the West -- don't play at all.
"I don't think it's going to hurt us," Rudner said. "Brand is strong enough. There are enough games that are strong that'll drive television interest. Short of a full round-robin, which nobody in our conference wanted to do, you're going to have these sort of issues."
A few other schedule notes:
- Rudner and his staff didn't have a directive to schedule mostly division games in November, but it worked out that way as most teams will play exclusively in their division or play only one crossover in the season's decisive month. "Ideally, that's what we would like to do," Rudner said. "It makes a lot of sense to play division games late in the season, toward a championship."
- The Big Ten doesn't look at long-term trends of how often teams open league play on the road when crafting schedules. Athletic directors haven't asked it to a be a principle of building schedules. "It's never been important to them," Rudner said. "What they want to avoid is long road trips and making sure there's balance, home and away, in each half of the season. The rest of it, they can live with. Not everybody plays the same kind of schedule, but they do it based on those principles. They look at it and say, 'That's fair. Let's do it.'" Penn State, by the way, will open league play on the road for the fifth straight year and for the ninth time in the past 11 seasons.
- That new members Maryland and Rutgers host traditional powers Ohio State and Michigan on the same day (Oct. 4) was pure coincidence, Rudner said.
The 2015 Big Ten schedule, which should be released by the end of the month, will feature the same matchups at the opposite locations. The league has to maneuver around some previously scheduled non-league games before finalizing the slate.
Some spring meetings leftovers and much more ...
- The Big Ten is expanding its bowl options for 2014 and beyond. The new lineup will combat "bowl fatigue," Kyle Meinke writes. There's a lot to like about what the Big Ten is doing.
- Some good takes on the Penn State/medical care issue from Neil Rudel, David Jones, Bob Flounders and Donnie Collins. The former Penn State walk-on mentioned in the SI story defends trainer Tim Bream. Hear from Penn State's latest recruit.
- New Rutgers athletic director Julie Hermann must be a visionary for the program. Hermann is the right type of hire for Rutgers. The historical ramifications didn't motivate Rutgers in hiring a female AD. Those who knew Hermann at Nebraska weigh in on her hire.
- Big Ten leaders talk about the possibility of the major conferences separating from the rest, Jeremy Fowler writes.
- Graham Couch weighs in on what Jim Delany and Mark Hollis said at the spring meetings.
- Michigan State defensive coordinator Pat Narduzzi talks recruiting and Joel Heath's development. The Spartans add to their 2014 class with Chris Frey. Former MSU signee Jay Harris knew the school wouldn't like his rap video.
- Michigan likely won't wear alternate unis in 2013.
- Alex Lewis wasn't wearing Nebraska gear the night of his arrest. Three former Huskers make the NFL Network's top 100 list.
- Wisconsin adds a defensive lineman to its 2014 recruiting class.
- Ohio State AD Gene Smith supports a Big Ten title game at Detroit's Ford Field.
- Illinois completes its 2014 nonleague schedule. The Illini are pursuing Oklahoma State transfer QB Wes Lunt (subscription required).
- More Big Ten spring meetings notes. Expansion isn't dead, but it's not on the front burner for the Big Ten.
- Northwestern's latest recruiting target watch.
Adam Rittenberg wraps up Big Ten spring meetings from Chicago, where league commissioner Jim Delany talked bowl lineups, scheduling and a little bit of expansion.
B1G to take more control of bowl pairings
May, 15, 2013
May 15
5:00
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and the league's athletic directors are trying to strike a balance with their future bowl partners.
They don't want to tell bowl committees which teams they'll be hosting each winter, but they also don't want committees making selections without some clear guidelines in place. There have been too many bad matchups, too many repeat trips, too many empty seats and too many poor TV ratings numbers in recent years.
A shake-up to the process is coming for the next bowl agreement cycle, which will go from 2014-19, but how dramatic will be it be?
"We'll probably be somewhere in between selection and a conference placement," Delany said Wednesday. "So what we'll do is give a lot of conditions to each bowl, and they will have to get conference approval for the selection that they choose. The goal is going to be that we keep these games fresh and also that the bowls create the best possible lineup. I think there's been some fatigue as there's a lot of competition for discretionary spending. I don't think fans are going to be interested in going to the same region over and over and over again."
To prevent this, the Big Ten will require its bowl partners (except the Rose Bowl) to select at least five different teams during the six-year cycle. They'll be afforded only one repeat participant.
The Big Ten looked back at the last 18 bowl seasons, created six-year segments and looked at how the distribution would have worked if certain rules had been in place. The models estimated an average of nine bowl-eligible teams per season with two going to one of the bowls in the Playoff rotation (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton and Chick-fil-A Peach).
If the new policies had been in place, Wisconsin wouldn't have gone to Florida bowls (Capital One, Outback or Champs Sports) in six consecutive seasons, as it did from 2004-09.
"Obviously, you can go to the Rose Bowl as many times as you want," Delany said. "But other than that, we want to get different bowls, different teams into different environments as much as we can and still give them some control over the quality of team they're getting."
Delany said the Big Ten's full bowl agreement should be announced in the next two weeks after the league's presidents see what the ADs are recommending. Other than the tie-ins with the Rose Bowl and, in some years, the Orange Bowl, the Big Ten will have "at least six other relationships, maybe more."
Although Big Ten teams always have appealed to bowls because of their large, traveling fan bases, the league found itself in a stronger position for the upcoming cycle because of its newer members.
"I think our fans and our coaches and our players are in for a good treat," Delany said.
They don't want to tell bowl committees which teams they'll be hosting each winter, but they also don't want committees making selections without some clear guidelines in place. There have been too many bad matchups, too many repeat trips, too many empty seats and too many poor TV ratings numbers in recent years.
A shake-up to the process is coming for the next bowl agreement cycle, which will go from 2014-19, but how dramatic will be it be?
"We'll probably be somewhere in between selection and a conference placement," Delany said Wednesday. "So what we'll do is give a lot of conditions to each bowl, and they will have to get conference approval for the selection that they choose. The goal is going to be that we keep these games fresh and also that the bowls create the best possible lineup. I think there's been some fatigue as there's a lot of competition for discretionary spending. I don't think fans are going to be interested in going to the same region over and over and over again."
To prevent this, the Big Ten will require its bowl partners (except the Rose Bowl) to select at least five different teams during the six-year cycle. They'll be afforded only one repeat participant.
The Big Ten looked back at the last 18 bowl seasons, created six-year segments and looked at how the distribution would have worked if certain rules had been in place. The models estimated an average of nine bowl-eligible teams per season with two going to one of the bowls in the Playoff rotation (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton and Chick-fil-A Peach).
If the new policies had been in place, Wisconsin wouldn't have gone to Florida bowls (Capital One, Outback or Champs Sports) in six consecutive seasons, as it did from 2004-09.
"Obviously, you can go to the Rose Bowl as many times as you want," Delany said. "But other than that, we want to get different bowls, different teams into different environments as much as we can and still give them some control over the quality of team they're getting."
Delany said the Big Ten's full bowl agreement should be announced in the next two weeks after the league's presidents see what the ADs are recommending. Other than the tie-ins with the Rose Bowl and, in some years, the Orange Bowl, the Big Ten will have "at least six other relationships, maybe more."
Although Big Ten teams always have appealed to bowls because of their large, traveling fan bases, the league found itself in a stronger position for the upcoming cycle because of its newer members.
"I think our fans and our coaches and our players are in for a good treat," Delany said.
B1G still supports seven-win bowl minimum
May, 15, 2013
May 15
3:40
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- Indiana athletic director Fred Glass oversees a football program that has made one bowl appearance in the past 19 seasons.
The Hoosiers soon will take up residence in the Big Ten's East Division, which includes traditional powers Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State, as well as Michigan State. Like every other Big Ten team, Indiana also will begin playing nine conference games instead of eight beginning in 2016.
Although Indiana took a step last fall in Year 2 under coach Kevin Wilson, it has won six or more games just 11 times since 1967, when it shared the Big Ten championship and went to the Rose Bowl.
If given the choice between keeping the minimum wins requirement for bowls at six versus increasing it to seven, Glass seemingly has an easy decision.
"Perhaps the surprising answer is I'd probably favor going to seven [wins]," Glass told ESPN.com on Wednesday. "We're a program that's trying to build, and you might say it's in our best interest to stay at six, but there's something about enthusing your fan base with a winning season, being 7-5. Maybe that might help limit the number of bowls out there, too, so it's a real positive experience."
At last year's spring meetings, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany came out in strong support of increasing the bowl requirement from six wins to seven.
"For us, it means redefining a successful year at 7-5 from the standpoint of a bowl season," Delany said last May. "We argued for 6-6. We've experienced 6-6. Now we're suggesting that it's in our best interest, the bowls' best interest as well as the other conferences that might benefit by these open slots to look at a 7-5 standard."
Ultimately, other major conferences weren't on board with the push to increase the requirement. The Big Ten had three 6-6 teams -- Michigan State, Purdue and Minnesota -- make bowl games in 2012 and four 6-6 teams (Ohio State, Illinois, Purdue and Northwestern) go in 2011.
"We think the bowl system would be better off with a 7-5 situation," Delany said Wednesday. "We thought for a while we were heading in that direction, but it's obvious that we're not."
The Big Ten's move to nine league games means a team would have to win at least three conference contests to reach the six-win minimum, giving it a little more credibility. Minnesota athletic director Norwood Teague said many coaches, especially "those building programs," are in favor of keeping the requirement at six victories.
But ADs still hope that seven can be the magic number some day.
"Seven wins is what you should have; always felt that," Ohio State AD Gene Smith said. "I still think we have too many bowls. I just think 6-6 is not the level, but I know that's not something that appears to be reversing at this time. I just don't want to be there again."
The Hoosiers soon will take up residence in the Big Ten's East Division, which includes traditional powers Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State, as well as Michigan State. Like every other Big Ten team, Indiana also will begin playing nine conference games instead of eight beginning in 2016.
Although Indiana took a step last fall in Year 2 under coach Kevin Wilson, it has won six or more games just 11 times since 1967, when it shared the Big Ten championship and went to the Rose Bowl.
If given the choice between keeping the minimum wins requirement for bowls at six versus increasing it to seven, Glass seemingly has an easy decision.
"Perhaps the surprising answer is I'd probably favor going to seven [wins]," Glass told ESPN.com on Wednesday. "We're a program that's trying to build, and you might say it's in our best interest to stay at six, but there's something about enthusing your fan base with a winning season, being 7-5. Maybe that might help limit the number of bowls out there, too, so it's a real positive experience."
At last year's spring meetings, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany came out in strong support of increasing the bowl requirement from six wins to seven.
"For us, it means redefining a successful year at 7-5 from the standpoint of a bowl season," Delany said last May. "We argued for 6-6. We've experienced 6-6. Now we're suggesting that it's in our best interest, the bowls' best interest as well as the other conferences that might benefit by these open slots to look at a 7-5 standard."
Ultimately, other major conferences weren't on board with the push to increase the requirement. The Big Ten had three 6-6 teams -- Michigan State, Purdue and Minnesota -- make bowl games in 2012 and four 6-6 teams (Ohio State, Illinois, Purdue and Northwestern) go in 2011.
"We think the bowl system would be better off with a 7-5 situation," Delany said Wednesday. "We thought for a while we were heading in that direction, but it's obvious that we're not."
The Big Ten's move to nine league games means a team would have to win at least three conference contests to reach the six-win minimum, giving it a little more credibility. Minnesota athletic director Norwood Teague said many coaches, especially "those building programs," are in favor of keeping the requirement at six victories.
But ADs still hope that seven can be the magic number some day.
"Seven wins is what you should have; always felt that," Ohio State AD Gene Smith said. "I still think we have too many bowls. I just think 6-6 is not the level, but I know that's not something that appears to be reversing at this time. I just don't want to be there again."
Expansion not 'dead,' but not B1G's priority
May, 15, 2013
May 15
2:05
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- The man who many think gave life to realignment fever around college football three years ago isn't quite ready to give expansion its last rites.
Asked Wednesday whether expansion is dead in the Big Ten, league commissioner Jim Delany replied, "Dead is a strong word."
Delany never will close the door to more Big Ten expansion, but the topic didn't bring much if any discussion at the league's spring meetings of athletic directors. The ACC's recent grant of media rights agreement through 2026-27 likely put the brakes on the immediate possibility of more Big Ten expansion, as the league had been rumored to be targeting other schools on the East Coast after adding Maryland and Rutgers in November. ACC members like North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Virginia had been mentioned as possible Big Ten additions.
Delany made it clear that the East Coast remains the Big Ten's priority, but the league is focused more on expanding its existing product, especially the Big Ten Network, and integrating its new members than pursuing new ones.
"I can't speak for others, but we've been focused on making a home in a new region, making new members feel at home in this region," Delany said. "Everything we'll do competitively and in television and in bowls is to bring, as quickly as we can, a level of comfort. The Eastern corridor is ... the richest corridor in the world from the standpoint of financial institutions, political institutions, media institutions, and we're new to it. So if we can build relationships, make friends and be impactful and relevant over time, that's the goal.
"We're not going to be changing the world, but we are looking forward to doing everything we can to build a presence in that place."
Many thought building a presence would include more members from the East Coast, but if the ACC is secure, and it appears to be, there aren't many if any attractive expansion candidates. Connecticut is looking for a home, but it's not a member of the AAU, a virtual must for future Big Ten members, league sources say. After that ... it's slim pickings.
Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said further expansion didn't come up in the meetings. Michigan State AD Mark Hollis joked that the Big Ten could pursue the University of Toronto, an AAU member and a favorite expansion possibility among Big Ten blog readers (also an unrealistic one).
There are potentially attractive candidates in other regions like Missouri, but adding a member from anywhere other than the East Coast doesn't seem to click with Delany's bi-regional vision. The Big Ten is in the process of looking for a space for an East Coast office, most likely in New York. Delany noted Wednesday that the Big Ten has 1.2 million alumni living between Northern Virginia and New York.
"Some people say they're tired of writing about [expansion], but they keep asking questions about it," Delany said. "From my perspective, we're inactive and we're focused on bringing [our] new members into the fold."
Asked Wednesday whether expansion is dead in the Big Ten, league commissioner Jim Delany replied, "Dead is a strong word."
Delany never will close the door to more Big Ten expansion, but the topic didn't bring much if any discussion at the league's spring meetings of athletic directors. The ACC's recent grant of media rights agreement through 2026-27 likely put the brakes on the immediate possibility of more Big Ten expansion, as the league had been rumored to be targeting other schools on the East Coast after adding Maryland and Rutgers in November. ACC members like North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Virginia had been mentioned as possible Big Ten additions.
Delany made it clear that the East Coast remains the Big Ten's priority, but the league is focused more on expanding its existing product, especially the Big Ten Network, and integrating its new members than pursuing new ones.
"I can't speak for others, but we've been focused on making a home in a new region, making new members feel at home in this region," Delany said. "Everything we'll do competitively and in television and in bowls is to bring, as quickly as we can, a level of comfort. The Eastern corridor is ... the richest corridor in the world from the standpoint of financial institutions, political institutions, media institutions, and we're new to it. So if we can build relationships, make friends and be impactful and relevant over time, that's the goal.
"We're not going to be changing the world, but we are looking forward to doing everything we can to build a presence in that place."
Many thought building a presence would include more members from the East Coast, but if the ACC is secure, and it appears to be, there aren't many if any attractive expansion candidates. Connecticut is looking for a home, but it's not a member of the AAU, a virtual must for future Big Ten members, league sources say. After that ... it's slim pickings.
Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez said further expansion didn't come up in the meetings. Michigan State AD Mark Hollis joked that the Big Ten could pursue the University of Toronto, an AAU member and a favorite expansion possibility among Big Ten blog readers (also an unrealistic one).
There are potentially attractive candidates in other regions like Missouri, but adding a member from anywhere other than the East Coast doesn't seem to click with Delany's bi-regional vision. The Big Ten is in the process of looking for a space for an East Coast office, most likely in New York. Delany noted Wednesday that the Big Ten has 1.2 million alumni living between Northern Virginia and New York.
"Some people say they're tired of writing about [expansion], but they keep asking questions about it," Delany said. "From my perspective, we're inactive and we're focused on bringing [our] new members into the fold."
Video: Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany
May, 15, 2013
May 15
1:00
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany talks at the spring meetings about what the league is looking for in its next bowl lineup.
Take Two: B1G involvement in scheduling
May, 14, 2013
May 14
9:00
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg and
Brian Bennett | ESPN.com
Big Ten bloggers Adam Rittenberg and Brian Bennett will occasionally give their takes on a burning question facing the league. We'll both have strong opinions, but not necessarily the same view. We'll let you decide which blogger is right.
Scheduling will be a big topic this week as Big Ten athletic directors gather in Chicago. The Big Ten is taking a more active role in nonconference scheduling, outlining a format it would like all of its members to follow (no FCS games, at least one game against a major-conference foe per season), and reaching out to other league's about scheduling possibilities. "The conference is going to try to help as much as we can and coordinate and communicate to other conferences who have a desire to upgrade schedules," commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com last month.
Today's Take Two topic is: How much should the Big Ten be involved in nonconference scheduling for its member schools?
Take 1: Adam Rittenberg
Scheduling is certainly a tricky topic and each school has its own interests to protect, but I'm in favor of the Big Ten taking a very active role. Big Ten teams have been criticized in the past, often justifiably, for playing weak September schedules. Delany always has strongly opposed these types of games, even if he hasn't been public about it. Remember, he's the guy who spearheaded the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball and put together by far the nation's toughest bowl lineup. He wants Big Ten teams to challenge themselves, but in a sport where strength of schedule hasn't mattered, he didn't have a huge reason to get involved. The College Football Playoff changes things as schedule strength will be a big part of the selection process. A strong nonconference win could make the difference between No. 4 (in the playoff) and No. 5 (out of it).
Perhaps the Big Ten doesn't need a full-fledged scheduling partnership after being burned by the Pac-12 last summer, but agreements on a smaller scale could be very beneficial. Big Ten teams still should play Pac-12 teams often in nonconference play (I realize some games already have been scheduled). The same goes for Big Ten-Big 12, Big Ten-ACC and, when possible, Big Ten-SEC. Delany, who likes partnerships, should help the Big Ten's best teams get on the biggest stages, and he should push all of the league's programs to challenge themselves more out of conference. Some might see it as meddling. I see it as helping to craft a better product for fans after too many September clunkers in recent years.
Take 2: Brian Bennett
I like that Delany has issued the challenge to league schools that they need to take on better and bigger opponents. I also love the conference office's desire to end the practice of playing FCS opponents. And if the Big Ten is going to go to a nine-game schedule that will present problems for teams in nonconference play, then the league certainly has an obligation to help those teams rearrange contracts, set up opponents, etc.
However, I think this should only go so far. Not to sound like a Tea Partier, but every school needs to have its individual right to schedule how it sees fit. Ohio State's philosophy on nonconference games isn't going to be the same as Minnesota's, for example. Some programs are aiming to be in the mix for the College Football Playoff every season, while others will have more modest goals like bowl and perhaps division contention. Once the nine-game schedule starts, teams will only be able to control who they play three times per year, and they sure as heck don't need the league office telling them who one or two of those opponents should be. A partnership with another league is not necessary and would further take decision-making away from individual teams.
The Big Ten office should act as a facilitator, helping to arrange games when a member school requests the help. It should prod its schools to play better opponents. But it should not dictate how teams decide to schedule to suit their own needs and wants.
Scheduling will be a big topic this week as Big Ten athletic directors gather in Chicago. The Big Ten is taking a more active role in nonconference scheduling, outlining a format it would like all of its members to follow (no FCS games, at least one game against a major-conference foe per season), and reaching out to other league's about scheduling possibilities. "The conference is going to try to help as much as we can and coordinate and communicate to other conferences who have a desire to upgrade schedules," commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com last month.
Today's Take Two topic is: How much should the Big Ten be involved in nonconference scheduling for its member schools?
Take 1: Adam Rittenberg
Scheduling is certainly a tricky topic and each school has its own interests to protect, but I'm in favor of the Big Ten taking a very active role. Big Ten teams have been criticized in the past, often justifiably, for playing weak September schedules. Delany always has strongly opposed these types of games, even if he hasn't been public about it. Remember, he's the guy who spearheaded the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball and put together by far the nation's toughest bowl lineup. He wants Big Ten teams to challenge themselves, but in a sport where strength of schedule hasn't mattered, he didn't have a huge reason to get involved. The College Football Playoff changes things as schedule strength will be a big part of the selection process. A strong nonconference win could make the difference between No. 4 (in the playoff) and No. 5 (out of it).
Perhaps the Big Ten doesn't need a full-fledged scheduling partnership after being burned by the Pac-12 last summer, but agreements on a smaller scale could be very beneficial. Big Ten teams still should play Pac-12 teams often in nonconference play (I realize some games already have been scheduled). The same goes for Big Ten-Big 12, Big Ten-ACC and, when possible, Big Ten-SEC. Delany, who likes partnerships, should help the Big Ten's best teams get on the biggest stages, and he should push all of the league's programs to challenge themselves more out of conference. Some might see it as meddling. I see it as helping to craft a better product for fans after too many September clunkers in recent years.
Take 2: Brian Bennett
I like that Delany has issued the challenge to league schools that they need to take on better and bigger opponents. I also love the conference office's desire to end the practice of playing FCS opponents. And if the Big Ten is going to go to a nine-game schedule that will present problems for teams in nonconference play, then the league certainly has an obligation to help those teams rearrange contracts, set up opponents, etc.
However, I think this should only go so far. Not to sound like a Tea Partier, but every school needs to have its individual right to schedule how it sees fit. Ohio State's philosophy on nonconference games isn't going to be the same as Minnesota's, for example. Some programs are aiming to be in the mix for the College Football Playoff every season, while others will have more modest goals like bowl and perhaps division contention. Once the nine-game schedule starts, teams will only be able to control who they play three times per year, and they sure as heck don't need the league office telling them who one or two of those opponents should be. A partnership with another league is not necessary and would further take decision-making away from individual teams.
The Big Ten office should act as a facilitator, helping to arrange games when a member school requests the help. It should prod its schools to play better opponents. But it should not dictate how teams decide to schedule to suit their own needs and wants.
You know, I've got problems of my own. I can't always be the lovable sidekick on the Manny Show. Did you even notice I'm binge eating?
- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany will be deposed by the attorneys representing Ed O'Bannon and others in the antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.
- Dennis Dodd picks Ohio State to win the national title, and the Buckeyes lead off his post-spring Top 25. The Buckeyes are all about ending the SEC's streak of titles. Buckeyes star Orlando Pace raised the bar for offensive tackles.
- Penn State coach Bill O'Brien doesn't expect many more player departures. Former Lions quarterback Matt McGloin will try out for the Carolina Panthers. A good look inside Penn State's athletic budget.
- Tom Dienhart thinks Indiana faces a rough road this season.
- Marc Morehouse looks at recruiting around the Big Ten. Some interesting odds on who will win the Big Ten (league and divisions).
- Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez says no contract has been signed to play LSU in Houston.
- Nebraska picks up its second recruit for the 2014 class. Former Husker great Grant Wistrom welcomes Tommie Frazier to the Hall of Fame fraternity.
- Two Michigan wide receiver recruits stand out at the recent Nike camp. Michigan football names a new operations chief (Nolan Jones) and associate AD (Bob Lopez).
- Michigan State is in the hunt for a tight end from Badger Country. Kirk Cousins' singing career is catching up to him in the NFL.
- Purdue is among a small group of NCAA programs that doesn't receive athletic subsidies.
- Minnesota realizes it has to be part of the Big Ten's push to upgrade schedules. The Minnesota Vikings will use TCF Bank Stadium for two seasons while their new facility is built.
- Illinois coach Tim Beckman and AD Mike Thomas were on Chicago radio Wednesday.
- Northwestern linebacker recruit Anthony Walker brings more speed to Evanston.
Osborne likes Legends panel to pick Playoff
May, 9, 2013
May 9
11:00
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
The name, game sites and logo for the upcoming College Football Playoff are set. Now comes the most important piece of the puzzle: the selection committee.
Everyone wants to know who will have the important and unenviable task of choosing the field of four for the Playoff each year. BCS executive director Bill Hancock has said the committee will consist of 14-20 members representing every conference in the sport. Hancock issued a statement following the recent meetings in California, saying that discussions about the selection committee's structure are ongoing, and that there's "no rush" to decide given the committee's importance to the process.
Who will serve on the group? Former coaches? Current administrators? Former media members? All have been mentioned as potential candidates. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told ESPN.com and several other outlets last week that the committee must first and foremost be "a core group who are football smart, football savvy, great integrity" and that a member "can’t be a congressman. You can't come from this part of the country to take care of that."
Tom Osborne once was a U.S. Congressman, but he also had a Hall of Fame coaching career at Nebraska and served as the school's athletic director from 2007-12. In my view, Osborne would be an excellent candidate for the Playoff selection committee. His football knowledge and experience in pressure situations -- as a coach, an athletic director and in Congress -- make him a great fit.
Osborne isn't one to promote himself for the committee, but he has thoughts on how it should be compiled, and shared them with the Lincoln Journal Star. Osborne told Hancock to consider members of college football's Legends Poll, a group of 17 former college coaches, 15 of whom are in the College Football Hall of Fame, who select a top 25 poll each week during the season. According to the Legends Poll Web site, the former coaches "review all of the relevant game film using a state of the art service called Hudl, discuss each team's performance during a weekly conference call and establish a ranking of the Top 25 teams."
Sounds a lot like what the Playoff selection committee will be doing.
Here's the current Legends Poll voting panel (along with the school with which they're most closely identified): Bobby Bowden (Florida State), Frank Broyles (Arkansas), John Cooper (Ohio State), Fisher DeBerry (Air Force), Vince Dooley (Georgia), Terry Donahue (UCLA), Pat Dye (Auburn), LaVell Edwards (BYU), Don James (Washington), Dick MacPherson (Syracuse), Bill Mallory (Indiana), Don Nehlen (West Virginia), John Robinson (USC), Bobby Ross (Georgia Tech), R.C. Slocum (Texas A&M), Gene Stallings (Alabama) and George Welsh (Virginia).
Osborne served three years on the Legends Poll panel, and former Iowa coach Hayden Fry also has been on it. Former Michigan coach Bo Schembechler was an active voter at the time of his death late in the 2006 season.
From the Journal Star:
It sounds like a good place for Hancock to start. Cooper, who coached Ohio State from 1988-2000, has said he'll serve on the committee if asked. Mallory, who coached Indiana from 1984-96, also would be a good choice.
I lean toward a mix of former coaches and current administrators, as a guy like Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez makes a lot of sense for the job. But the time commitment could be an issue for those still working in the sport -- Alvarez talks about it here -- and the retired coaches certainly have more flexibility in their schedules.
It would be a surprise if several members of the Legends Poll don't end up on the Playoff selection committee. Here's hoping they reserve a spot for Osborne, too.
Everyone wants to know who will have the important and unenviable task of choosing the field of four for the Playoff each year. BCS executive director Bill Hancock has said the committee will consist of 14-20 members representing every conference in the sport. Hancock issued a statement following the recent meetings in California, saying that discussions about the selection committee's structure are ongoing, and that there's "no rush" to decide given the committee's importance to the process.
[+] Enlarge
Bruce Thorson/US PresswireTom Osborne believes retired coaches would be unbiased if chosen to evaluate teams for the upcoming College Football Playoff.
Bruce Thorson/US PresswireTom Osborne believes retired coaches would be unbiased if chosen to evaluate teams for the upcoming College Football Playoff.Tom Osborne once was a U.S. Congressman, but he also had a Hall of Fame coaching career at Nebraska and served as the school's athletic director from 2007-12. In my view, Osborne would be an excellent candidate for the Playoff selection committee. His football knowledge and experience in pressure situations -- as a coach, an athletic director and in Congress -- make him a great fit.
Osborne isn't one to promote himself for the committee, but he has thoughts on how it should be compiled, and shared them with the Lincoln Journal Star. Osborne told Hancock to consider members of college football's Legends Poll, a group of 17 former college coaches, 15 of whom are in the College Football Hall of Fame, who select a top 25 poll each week during the season. According to the Legends Poll Web site, the former coaches "review all of the relevant game film using a state of the art service called Hudl, discuss each team's performance during a weekly conference call and establish a ranking of the Top 25 teams."
Sounds a lot like what the Playoff selection committee will be doing.
Here's the current Legends Poll voting panel (along with the school with which they're most closely identified): Bobby Bowden (Florida State), Frank Broyles (Arkansas), John Cooper (Ohio State), Fisher DeBerry (Air Force), Vince Dooley (Georgia), Terry Donahue (UCLA), Pat Dye (Auburn), LaVell Edwards (BYU), Don James (Washington), Dick MacPherson (Syracuse), Bill Mallory (Indiana), Don Nehlen (West Virginia), John Robinson (USC), Bobby Ross (Georgia Tech), R.C. Slocum (Texas A&M), Gene Stallings (Alabama) and George Welsh (Virginia).
Osborne served three years on the Legends Poll panel, and former Iowa coach Hayden Fry also has been on it. Former Michigan coach Bo Schembechler was an active voter at the time of his death late in the 2006 season.
From the Journal Star:
"Each week, they would send us DVDs of the top games," he said. "So you'd get 8-10 DVDs. They sent you a video player. You could sit there and really study the games."
The coaches on Mondays would gather for a teleconference, which lasted up to two hours, Osborne said.
"Each coach would talk about the game he had gone to the previous Saturday, and also what he'd seen on video," Osborne said. "I was impressed by the fact they seemed to be objective. It wasn't like R.C. [Slocum] was pushing Texas A&M, or Gene Stallings was pushing Alabama. They were just talking about strengths and weaknesses of teams in their area, and teams they'd seen. It was a very informative discussion."
Weren't coaches biased toward former employers?
"I thought the discussions were pretty objective and pretty dispassionate," Osborne said. "I heard coaches say things about their former school that weren't highly complimentary. They might say, 'We just can't play defense this year.' Or, 'We're pretty good overall, but we don't have a quarterback.' I didn't hear anybody trying to pump up their school to the other coaches. They were pretty blank, pretty blunt."
It sounds like a good place for Hancock to start. Cooper, who coached Ohio State from 1988-2000, has said he'll serve on the committee if asked. Mallory, who coached Indiana from 1984-96, also would be a good choice.
I lean toward a mix of former coaches and current administrators, as a guy like Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez makes a lot of sense for the job. But the time commitment could be an issue for those still working in the sport -- Alvarez talks about it here -- and the retired coaches certainly have more flexibility in their schedules.
It would be a surprise if several members of the Legends Poll don't end up on the Playoff selection committee. Here's hoping they reserve a spot for Osborne, too.
The B1G debate: Division staying power
May, 7, 2013
May 7
9:00
AM ET
By
Brian Bennett and
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
The Big Ten made news a little more than a week ago by announcing its new division alignment for the 2014 season, as well as a move to nine conference games beginning in 2016. We covered all the news here and here and here, but several components of the moves merit further analysis.
We're breaking down the divisions and the new conference schedule model, their impact now and in the future, as the College Football Playoff is just a year away. These aren't exactly Take Twos, but they're similar, as we'll both be sharing our thoughts on these big-ticket items.
Today's topic is: How likely are these divisions to stand the test of time?
Brian Bennett
The Big Ten sometimes gets criticized for being too stodgy and stubborn, but the fact is the league is undergoing a serious football makeover for the second time since 2010. Yes, expansion played a major role in Legends and Leaders getting (thankfully) cast overboard, but the league didn't have to remake the divisions so drastically just to add Maryland and Rutgers. So no one ought to think that the new East and West formats will last forever, or even a mighty long time.
Yet the conference isn't going to make any quick knee-jerk reactions here, either. You can't properly judge competitive balance on just a few seasons, so I have little doubt that the Big Ten aims to let this play out over a number of years to see how it's working. If you're like me and you think the East has too much power, well, you'll have to wait and find out if that's actually true. A big key to all of this, I believe, is Penn State. As long as the Nittany Lions are on probation and dealing with sanctions, they are somewhat sidelined in the whole balance-of-power argument, even though they are eligible to win a division title. The scholarship reductions could have a major impact on the program beyond 2017. But if Penn State can regain its headliner status quickly, then the Big Ten may well have to re-examine whether it's right to have Michigan, Ohio State and the Nittany Lions all duking it out in the same division.
Of course, whether Michigan State can remain strong is also an issue, as is whether other West teams can consistently challenge Nebraska and Wisconsin for superiority. Again, this is something we're only going to learn over a long period of time, probably a decade or more.
But as we've seen, things can change rapidly. Who's to say there won't be further expansion that causes another reshuffling? Perhaps Michigan or Ohio State will get tired of finishing in the Top 10 nationally but only No. 2 in its own division. Maybe teams in the West will demand more exposure and recruiting opportunities in the East. The future, to quote Don Draper, is something you haven't even thought of yet. At least we know the Big Ten is adaptable.
"We're not foolish enough to think what we did today is what the Big Ten will look like for the next 100 years," Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips said the day of the division announcement. "We've had a lot of change in the last 24 months. We've proven under commissioner Jim Delany's leadership that we'll adjust and make changes."
In other words, if you don't like the current alignment, just stick around a while.
Adam Rittenberg
The Big Ten can't be shuffling the divisions every 2-3 years, unless there's more expansion. But the league also can't bury its head in the sand and let a Big 12 North/South situation take place. The potential for that to happen exists with so much firepower in the East, but I also think the league will let things play out for a while before entertaining serious talk of another shuffle. Keep in mind that the Big Ten's recent expansion and, to a certain extent, its division realignment is about building the brand in a new region. So if there's more attention on the East than the West, at least initially, the league office can live with that.
You bring up some great points about Penn State, and it will be important for Bill O'Brien's team to prevent Ohio State and Michigan from separating themselves in the East (and in the entire league). But I think the key to staying power isn't necessarily the "No. 1 seeds," as league commissioner Jim Delany calls Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Penn State. And while Wisconsin can't match those four programs for historic excellence, the Badgers have been just as good or a little bit better than Penn State since the Lions joined the Big Ten. They've also been a better program than Nebraska in recent seasons. Wisconsin will boost the West division.
The teams to watch here are Northwestern, Iowa and Michigan State. The West might not match the East in terms of strength at the very top, but it can match up with overall depth if Northwestern continues on its upward trajectory and Iowa gets back to the success it had in 2009. Northwestern has tremendous momentum right now with improved recruiting and a new facility coming soon. Iowa has shown the ability to rise up repeatedly under Kirk Ferentz. If both of those programs are winning eight, nine or 10 games in many seasons, the West should be fine even if Ohio State and Michigan create a bit of separation. Michigan State's role is to challenge the three traditional powers in the East and create at least some parity in the division. As I wrote last week, Michigan State has a great opportunity in the East division and shouldn't shy away from it. We're going to learn exactly who these Spartans are in the coming seasons.
As you mention, BB, there are a lot of unknowns out there. Ohio State and Michigan appear poised to separate themselves because of their recruiting efforts. But that might not be the case. Ultimately, it's up to teams like Northwestern, Iowa and Michigan State -- as well as Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland -- to create enough depth/parity in both divisions. Otherwise, we'll eventually see another change.
More B1G Debate
We're breaking down the divisions and the new conference schedule model, their impact now and in the future, as the College Football Playoff is just a year away. These aren't exactly Take Twos, but they're similar, as we'll both be sharing our thoughts on these big-ticket items.
Today's topic is: How likely are these divisions to stand the test of time?
Brian Bennett
The Big Ten sometimes gets criticized for being too stodgy and stubborn, but the fact is the league is undergoing a serious football makeover for the second time since 2010. Yes, expansion played a major role in Legends and Leaders getting (thankfully) cast overboard, but the league didn't have to remake the divisions so drastically just to add Maryland and Rutgers. So no one ought to think that the new East and West formats will last forever, or even a mighty long time.
[+] Enlarge
Matthew O'Haren/USA TODAY SportsIf Bill O'Brien's Penn State teams can recover from sanctions the Big Ten may need to re-examine its top-loaded East Division.
Matthew O'Haren/USA TODAY SportsIf Bill O'Brien's Penn State teams can recover from sanctions the Big Ten may need to re-examine its top-loaded East Division.Of course, whether Michigan State can remain strong is also an issue, as is whether other West teams can consistently challenge Nebraska and Wisconsin for superiority. Again, this is something we're only going to learn over a long period of time, probably a decade or more.
But as we've seen, things can change rapidly. Who's to say there won't be further expansion that causes another reshuffling? Perhaps Michigan or Ohio State will get tired of finishing in the Top 10 nationally but only No. 2 in its own division. Maybe teams in the West will demand more exposure and recruiting opportunities in the East. The future, to quote Don Draper, is something you haven't even thought of yet. At least we know the Big Ten is adaptable.
"We're not foolish enough to think what we did today is what the Big Ten will look like for the next 100 years," Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips said the day of the division announcement. "We've had a lot of change in the last 24 months. We've proven under commissioner Jim Delany's leadership that we'll adjust and make changes."
In other words, if you don't like the current alignment, just stick around a while.
Adam Rittenberg
The Big Ten can't be shuffling the divisions every 2-3 years, unless there's more expansion. But the league also can't bury its head in the sand and let a Big 12 North/South situation take place. The potential for that to happen exists with so much firepower in the East, but I also think the league will let things play out for a while before entertaining serious talk of another shuffle. Keep in mind that the Big Ten's recent expansion and, to a certain extent, its division realignment is about building the brand in a new region. So if there's more attention on the East than the West, at least initially, the league office can live with that.
You bring up some great points about Penn State, and it will be important for Bill O'Brien's team to prevent Ohio State and Michigan from separating themselves in the East (and in the entire league). But I think the key to staying power isn't necessarily the "No. 1 seeds," as league commissioner Jim Delany calls Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Penn State. And while Wisconsin can't match those four programs for historic excellence, the Badgers have been just as good or a little bit better than Penn State since the Lions joined the Big Ten. They've also been a better program than Nebraska in recent seasons. Wisconsin will boost the West division.
The teams to watch here are Northwestern, Iowa and Michigan State. The West might not match the East in terms of strength at the very top, but it can match up with overall depth if Northwestern continues on its upward trajectory and Iowa gets back to the success it had in 2009. Northwestern has tremendous momentum right now with improved recruiting and a new facility coming soon. Iowa has shown the ability to rise up repeatedly under Kirk Ferentz. If both of those programs are winning eight, nine or 10 games in many seasons, the West should be fine even if Ohio State and Michigan create a bit of separation. Michigan State's role is to challenge the three traditional powers in the East and create at least some parity in the division. As I wrote last week, Michigan State has a great opportunity in the East division and shouldn't shy away from it. We're going to learn exactly who these Spartans are in the coming seasons.
As you mention, BB, there are a lot of unknowns out there. Ohio State and Michigan appear poised to separate themselves because of their recruiting efforts. But that might not be the case. Ultimately, it's up to teams like Northwestern, Iowa and Michigan State -- as well as Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland -- to create enough depth/parity in both divisions. Otherwise, we'll eventually see another change.
More B1G Debate
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Adam Rittenberg
Rittenberg joined ESPN.com in 2008 after four years at the Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald, where he covered sports at Notre Dame, Northwestern, DePaul and several other colleges. He lives in Chicago.
Brian Bennett
Bennett joined ESPN.com in August 2008 after nine years at The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., where he covered college sports and the University of Louisville beat. He lives in Louisville.
BIG TEN TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
Michigan: WolverineNation
Follow everything Michigan at WolverineNation: Michigan Wolverines football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
RECRUITING NATION
Ohio State: BuckeyeNation
Follow everything Ohio State at BuckeyeNation: Ohio State Buckeyes football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
