Domers vs The Big Ten

I have been following Rock's House over at ndnation.com for some time now and am fascinated by the fact that Domer contributors seem to be obsessed with various aspects of the expansion issue, from the issue of joining the Big Ten to financial questions concerning the Big Ten Network (BTN).  They are in fact more obsessed than Buckeye fans seem to be.

After writing the introductory paragraph, I traveled to ndnation.com and found that the top thread was one started by this post, titled: How to Back Door the Big 10.

So all this conversation about the BTN got me thinking. We keep equating Big 10 conference with BTN, but they are two very different entities. If the Big 10 wants ND to join its conference to improve the BTN economics, lets make a deal.

Screw the conference. Let's see what kind of dollars the BTN would pay for ND football rights. Why couldn't they match NBC dollars? You could kill two birds as they say: the BTN gets programming to drive it into basic and up HH coverage and ND gets its revenue without joining the dam conference.

This illustrates just how ignorant Domer fans can be.  Yes, the BTN and Big Ten are separate entities but the Big Ten owns 51% of the BTN and so there can be no back dooring.  Mark Silverman, who runs the BTN, would probably give the university presidents a heads up.

Some will object that I refer to Domers as "Domers."  It is not respectful.  Writers at ndnation often refer to the Big Ten as "The Integer." This is how rivals treat each other.  Yes, though Ohio State doesn't have any plans to play Notre Dame, the Domers do play 3 Big Ten teams t his year and I root for them -- yes, even for Michigan -- or, for that matter, any team that plays Notre Dame. My first encounter with "The Integer" was in an essay entitled, "No means No," which lays out the argument against joining the Big Ten.

The next thread on the front page of Rock's House mentioning the Big Ten is titled, "Something about the BTN thing doesn't add up to me."  This wanna be financier writes

The idea seems to center around the fact that adding teams that happen to be in a certain geographic market will force cable providers to add the BTN to every subscriber's cable package in that metro area. While that might happen in the short run, that does not seem like a sustainable business model in the long run. Eventually, people are going to figure out that they don't want to pay $150 a month for 2000 channels when they only watch 10 and on-demand/ pay-per-view is going to become "the way".

It seems like the Big Ten is making the proverbial 40 year decision based on market conditions that may only last for 5-10 more years. If I were them (and thank god I'm not) I would be more focused on finding schools that are a good fit for the long-term than adding schools primarily to get access to a new television market. If the quality of the conference teams and competition is good enough, people will pay to watch it. That seems like a more sustainable business model to me. 

Another post in this thread is titled Jim Delaney may be more worried CEO than visionary.  Then comes, in that same thread, this set of post titles:

* Well, since Purdue's number for 2008-09 was - destewart 2010-05-07 17:48:51
      o That was all TV revenue - crazymary 2010-05-07 18:10:48
* How is the $22m number unsubstantiated? - Boston Domer 2010-05-07 16:33:25
       o Because it's total income from all sources, not BTN. - 84david 2010-05-07 16:43:45
             + Where did you read that?

What is interesting about this is the interest they have.  But, first, a clarification.  No one in the Big Ten has said that the $22 million payment to Purdue (assuming for the sake of argument that that is the right figure) came solely from the BTN.  In fact, anyone who actually knows the situation would know that it comes from ESPN (football on ESPN and ABC), CBS (Saturday basketball broadcasts), bowl money to the conference, and NCAA basketball money to the conference, and the BTN,  The point of joining the Big Ten is not that the BTN will pony up $22 million per year to your school but that the conference will.

Further down there is a thread started off  with title Blurb on the Big 10's $22 million per year.

If ND adds up the NBC contract, bowl game, the NCAA basketball tournament, and licensing fees, how much of a gap is there with the Big 10's $22 million per year? Anybody have a good guess?

This is a very interesting question and it brought forth the response

While no one really knows, $15 million for the NBC deal (reported in the NYT), $3 million in rev sharing from the Big East (reputed avg payment for basketball schools) and $1 million BCS guarentee (non-BCS year) to $4.5 million BCS payout (BCS year). That's $19 to $22.5 million right there. That doesn't figure in the national radio deal (only school to have one), non- BCS bowl revenue in a non-BSC year and licensing fees. Of course this analysis is about as robust as the $22 million per Integer team that is being thrown around without citation--no one really knows.

We see here the characteristic delusions of grandeur of so many Domers.  They have so little going for them right now  in their major sports even an exclusive national radio contract is touted as a major asset.  One thing is that he believes his analysis is as robust as the $22 million figure "being thrown around without citation."  The Dude seems not to like to do research since the figure of $22 million has been well-documented.  Check out this Sports Business Journal Article for some of the data.  Let me just provide the basics along with some other references:  it comes from the division of 

$22 million in BCS money (usually 2 teams go)
$10,700,000 in non-BCS bowl money
$80 million automatic BTN licensing fee, paid no matter what
$42 million in BTN profits (half of the $84 million profits after paying the licensing fee)
$100 million per year from ESPN for football
$15.3 million per year from the NCAA for March Madness
$2 millions from CBS per year for basketball

This gives a total of $272 million per year.  This figure does not reflect bowl expenses. The figure of $22 million per school would require a total of $242, which would suggest that bowl game and March Madness expenses as well as in conference travel expenses for Big Ten games might amount to $30 million.  The NCAA has a crazy quilt way of distributing money to schools, which is one reason not to let it close to the football post-season.


So, Domers, the money is solid.  Read the figures and weep.  If you have questions or want further documentation, please ask.  

I don't really think I want Notre Dame in the conference.  Who can forget the Fainting Irish's tie with Iowa, a game in which the august Frank Leahy got his players to fake two injuries.

A controversial 14-14 tie against Iowa denied the Irish another potential national championship....
The controversy over the tie with Iowa stemmed from the fact that both of Notre Dame's touchdowns (one late in the first half and the other late in the game) came after a player had faked an injury. In both instances, Notre Dame had used up their allotment of time outs, and under normal circumstances, time would have expired in each half before they could run another play. Faking an injury was a widely-used ploy in football as a means of buying time, but in most cases there was no impact on the outcome of a game. In Notre Dame's case, they used this ruse not once but twice in the same game, and both times they managed to score touchdowns. A new rule was implemented the following year forbidding players from faking injuries, and many saw this as punishment directed at Notre Dame, who were branded as the "Fainting Irish."

Does the Big Ten really want this bunch of Cheating Cheaters in the conference?  We should probably force them to change the record of that Iowa game from a tie to a loss before admitting them.
XVQBUNERYWKB

Should There Be A College Football Playoff?

The NCAA basketball tournament has almost run its course and by sometime Monday night we will have a new national champion. It is taken as given that the NCAA basketball tournament is a legitimate method of determining the champion.  So, naturally, sports reporters and many fans think that a playoff is just the ticket for college football as well.  Understand one thing, the call for a football playoff is not about Truth (finding the "true champion"), Justice (opening the process to the little guys like Boise State, Utah and TCU), and the American Way (giving the people what they want.)  The clamor is simply about a desire that universities create a football extravaganza for sports reporters to opine about, watch, and then report on.  And for fans to watch as well.

The people who call for a playoff don't give a damn about universities and what is in their best interests.  College football is a great sport second only the professional football in the united states in popularity.  The schools that built college football into what it is today are not the little guys like BYU, Utah, and Boise State.  These programs are little more than a sideshow attraction.  It has been built by the BCS schools.  There can be no doubt about that.  I would argue that we should leave college football in the hands of the those who created it and these good people don't want a playoff.  That's good enough for me.

Some reporters seem to think that the BCS schools are run by village idiots since, as seems quite obvious to them, a playoff would bring in huge amounts of money universities are currently "leaving on the table" (as is often said).  They point to the NCAA basketball tournament as the model for their financial imaginings.  There are two problems with that.  First, the BCS schools do not want to share the money they have earned the way the NCAA currently shares basketball tournament revenues. The NCAA dispenses the CBS money to a very large number of schools.  I have no proof that the NCAA might try to grab control of any Division 1 football playoff but the fact is that they control all of the other playoffs.

The second problem with the financial imaginings of reporters and fans is that bowl division schools receive a great deal of money from bowls.  It is very likely greater than what a playoff would bring in but that misses two key points.  First, while the NCAA tournament has just one team that ends its season with a win, the bowls allow for a very large number of winners.  Moreover, it provides exposure to a very large number of schools, albeit not always a great deal of exposure.

The only genuinely compelling reason to have a playoff would be that that is the best way to find the best team in the country, the "true champion."  This is, of course, perfect nonsense. The notion that basketball playoffs reliably find the "best team" in the country is refuted by the facts.  Does anyone really think that North Carolina State was the best basketball team team in 1983 when it beat the Phi Slamma Jamma Houston Cougars by a fluke basket in the last seconds of the game?  Did Dereck Whittenburg make a beautiful last second pass to Lorenzo Charles for a dunk or did he throw up a desperation air ball that Charles fortuitously happened to be in position to pluck out of the air and toss down.  Anyone who say the play knows that it was the latter.  Was NC State the best team that year?  The Sporting News calls it the biggest tournament upset ever.  The fact that NC State won 7 of its last 9 games that year coming from behind in the last minute supports the view that while gritty this team was not the best team.  And, the 8th seeded Villinova team that beat Georgetown in the 1985 NCAA championship game was manifestly not the best team that year.

This year, we have two 5 seeds, Butler and Michigan State, a 2 seed in West Virginia, and a 1 seed in Duke.  Butler got to the Final Four honestly -- it beat a 1 seed and a 2 seed to get there.  Michigan State beat a 4 seed but the rest of the work was done by others.  Tom Izzo was characteristically honest about the situation.

"I don’t know how many of those teams lose if it’s a best-of-three or best-offive,” Izzo said. “But that’s the excitement of the tournament.”  

Is any of the teams in the Final Four the best team in the country?  Very possibly not.  How would we know?  How could we prove it? If we let the tournament decide then we will have to accept that NC State was the best team in 1983 or or Villinova was the best team in 1985 and if Michigan State wins this year we will have to accept the manifest falsehood that it is the best team.

The problem with the basketball playoffs is that who wins is too much a function of seedings and the match ups they generate.  This would be no less true of a football playoff.  A question of real interest to me is how the 8 teams that would play off the championship would be determined?  Ironically we would have to use the BCS formula, possibly tweaked a bit.  Though no one would say that the humans that vote are objective or that they can remember key stats, we have the computer polls for that.  But if we are going to do that then we might as well accept the current system where the BCS determines which two teams will play in the national championship game.  There is no way to prove that the BCS winners are not the best teams of the years they win.