OSFFL

Archive for the ‘Featured’ Category

NittanyWhiteOut

You’ve got to hand it to Tim Curley and the athletics department,  Faced with the adversity of four coaching vacancies in one offseason, they remain unfazed and simply replace the departing coaching legends with another.

The track record speaks for itself. Wrestling legend Cael Sanderson was snatched away from powerhouse Iowa State to to take over the wrestling program, Bob Warming was hired from his successful stint at Creighton to replace legendary Barry Gorman and now Penn State has lured Jeff Tambroni away from Cornell, member of the lacrosse powerhouse conference that is the Ivy league. In fact, the Ivy league has been represented in 9 of the last 18 championship games, returning with the title 6 times.

Even in the highly competitive league, Tambroni has led the Cornell Big Red to 8 consecutive Ivy league championships and 8 NCAA appearances including 3 quarterfinal, 2 semifinal and 1 title game appearance in just 10 seasons. Promising numbers for Penn State lacrosse fans who watched the program struggle in recent years under departed head coach Glenn Thiel. Thiel only managed to lead the Lions to 2 NCAA appearances in 33 seasons never making it past the first round.

Jeff Tambroni currently sits 5th among active Division I coaches in winning percentages (109-40 for .732) and is the 10th fastest coach to reach the 100-win milestone in just 134 games. His players have earned a combined 39 All-American honors

Despite his sparkling resume, it is his dedication to his player’s performance in the classroom that makes Tambroni the perfect fit at Penn State. In 10 seasons at Cornell, his players have accounted for 5 ESPN The Magazine/CoSIDA Academic All-District honors, 3 Academic All-America second-team recipients, 2 Academic All-America first-team honorees and 2 Lowe’s Senior Class award, an honor that is given on the merits of classroom, competition, community and character.

Tambroni’s hire almost did not happen when Penn State originally targeted current Brown coach and past Penn State assistant coach, Lars Tiffany who eventually turned down the opportunity. Although Tiffany’s ties to the Nittany Lions makes him a good candidate to replace Glenn Thiel, he has since compiled a 38-20 record (.655) since 2007 at Brown including 2 shared Ivy league titles (with Cornell) and 1 NCAA berth. Jeff Tambroni however has led the Big Red to 9 consecutive seasons with 9 or more wins including a 73-21 (.776) record in the past 6 seasons and 51-15 (.773) since 2007. Tambroni was also a candidate for the Maryland vacancy before Penn State hired him. It may seem Tiffany’s rejection could very well be a blessing in disguise.

We look forward to welcoming Jeff Tambroni to the Penn State family and eagerly anticipate the heights he might elevate Penn State lacrosse to.

Related Posts:

1. Success with Honor: Creighton’s Bob Warming declared Penn State’s soccer coach
2. Farewell to Penn State Women’s LAX coach
3. Farewell to Penn State Women’s Gymnastics coach

NittanyWhiteOut

“Over-ra-ted”

The chants would rain down as the clock winds down, the home underdog clinching victory from a ranked opponent. It’s a scene college football fans are all too familiar with in the past few seasons as upsets littered the college football landscape.

But were they? Who is in fact, the most overrated team of the past decade?

Since the adoption of the BCS, a team’s position in the preseason rankings has a direct impact on its shot at playing for the title by seasons end more than ever.

Exhibit A: Auburn in 2004. USC and Oklahoma, ranked #1 and #2 during the preseason never relinquished their stranglehold on the top 2 spots until USC beat the Sonners in the championship game at seasons end. Auburn started off ranked #17 in the AP preseason poll was shut out of the title game despite also going undefeated eventually ending up ranked #2 behind preseason #1 USC in the final poll.

So even the dubiously insignificant preseason poll which is released weeks before the first snap is even played, has a major impact on determining the chances of each team’s title chances come early January.

Since the 2000 AP preseason poll, 73 different squads have secured a spot on either it’s preseason or season-ending version, but in the 16 seasons between 1991 to 2007, college football’s champion has come from outside the Top 10 only 4 times (#14 Michigan in 1997, #19 Oklahoma in 2000, #13 Ohio State in 2002, and #14 LSU in 2004).

During the last 22 seasons, 15 teams have lost a game and still managed to finish the regular season ranked in the top 2 in the BCS standings qualifying for a coveted championship game spot. But only one of those teams, LSU in 2003, started off the season ranked lower than 8th in the preseason poll.

So unless you are fortunately enough to find your squad in the Top 10 in this season’s upcoming preseason poll, your best bet at a shot at the national championship is an undefeated season.

So we at NittanyWhiteOut, set out to find which teams were the most overrated and underrated in the last decade starting with the 2000 preseason AP poll.

We took each team’s preseason ranking in the AP Top 25 poll and calculated it against where that team finished the season. For example, if Penn State was ranked #10 in the preseason poll and eventually finished #20 in the final season-ending version, Penn State ends up with -5 points.

Teams that started or finished the season unranked was given a ranking of #26. So if Penn State started the season ranked #15 and ended up unranked, it would end up with -11 points and vice versa.

This was calculated for every season starting in 2000 and the Delta (difference between preseason and final rankings) is accumulated.

Keep in mind I am well aware of the limitations of such a formula. An example, if a team is ranked #1 every single year since 2000 and won the championship 8 out of 9 years, but fell from the top spot to unranked in one season (-26 points in one season), that team would be considered one of the more overrated squads according to this formula. It is also much harder for a team that enters a season ranked in the Top 5 to improve than it is for a team ranked #24 in the preseason. Hence the teams that normally perform well and hold high expectations according to AP voters prior to each season are penalized. Ultimately the best way to use the formula would be to rank all 117 teams from 1 to 117 during the preseason and final version of the poll.

Unfortunately the AP does not rank teams past the Top 25 and although I acknowledge the limitations of the formula, it does provide for a great estimation as to the most overrated and underrated teams of the past decade.

With that all in mind, we hereby present the most overrated team of the last decade by the AP poll …

Florida State

The Bobby Bowden coached juggernaut of the 1990s has been demoted to the most overrated team of the past decade. In fact, the Seminoles are one of only 8 squads to be ranked in every preseason AND postseason AP poll since the 1999-2000 season. In the 10 seasons since 2000 though, Florida State finished with a lower ranking than they started with 8 times with the biggest drop coming in 2002 when they started off #3 with high expectations only to finish #21. The Seminoles finished the season unranked in 3 of the last 4 seasons, a stunning stat when you consider they have been a mainstay in the AP poll for 2 decades.

On the flip side, the most underrated team of the last decade is

Boise State

The upstart mid major program was ranked 3 times in the preseason version of the AP poll (Boise State did end up unranked in 2 of the 3 times they started the season ranked) during the last decade, but finished ranked in the final Top 25 on 6 occasions. Not surprisingly, Utah and TCU joins Boise State among the most underrated teams of the last decade often exceeding expectations around the country by seasons end.

• This brings us to conference rankings. The most overrated conference of the last decade is the Big 12 (-81) followed immediately by the ACC (-80), then the SEC (-79). Combined, Big Ten squads also sit in the overrated region of the list, but at -20 it means pollsters most often than not, are generally accurate in their preseason polls when it comes to Big Ten squads. The most underrated automatic qualifying conference in the nation? The Pac-10 (42) followed surprisingly by the Big East (32), the only two AQ conferences in the black.

• Those numbers however do not even come close to the collection of non-AQ conference members (214) who are the most underrated (collection of) conferences of the past decade. Boise State, Utah and TCU sitting #1, #2, and #3 on the underrated list respectively had alot to do with that astounding number.

• Of the last 10 champions, all but 1 were among college football’s most overrated during the preseason in the last decade. The 1? Alabama, who is the 9th most underrated team of the last decade. Is there an inherent advantage of being overrated in the preseason? I should think so.

Penn State is among the nation’s Top 10 most underrated teams of the past decade, sitting at #10 on the list. The Nittany Lions managed to exceed or match preseason expectations on 4 occasions.

The entire list compiled into a table for your viewing pleasure.

Related Posts:

1. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Special Teams
2. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Wide Receivers
3. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Safety

NittanyWhiteOut

So much for the denials and being discrete.

Following Nebraska’s example on Wednesday, Colorado announced a move of their own, except to the Pac-10 conference. A switch also confirmed by the Pac 10 conference today, thereby welcoming the Colorado Buffaloes as the 11th member of the Pac 10 conference. It also means the certain demise of the Big 12 conference as we know it.

Colorado is only one of the several Big 12 teams currently targeted by the Pac-10 over the last week, but unlike the Texas / Texas A&M / Tech or Oklahoma / Oklahoma State packages, the Buffaloes were the only ones that didn’t come as part of a package deal. A political/academic hurdle that is clearly slowing down decisions in Austin and Norman.

This move comes as no surprise ever since Colorado was mentioned as part of the 6 team raid by the Pac-10 conference. Colorado and the Pac-10, much like Notre Dame and the Big 10, has always been a more natural fit. Academically, the Buffaloes are part of the Association of American Universities (AAU), a research-intensive consortium that also includes 8 of the 10 existing members of the Pac-10. Colorado currently has more joint research projects with Pac-10 institutions than with the Big 12.

As for an athletic and cultural fit, you really only have to ask yourselves whether Colorado fans are more eager to travel to Eugene, Tempe, Los Angeles and Seattle or Lawrence, Waco, and Lubbock.

Athletically, Colorado still lags far behind its new conference mates. Currently, they only field 11 teams that compete on the Division I level, compared to the 35+ Division I teams field by fellow Pac-10 member Stanford. Colorado doesn’t even field a baseball or softball team, almost blasphemous when you consider the importance the Pac-10 conference places in both sports, especially softball; Pac-10 teams have won 23 of the 28 Women’s College World Series ever held. Overall, Per latest Director’s Cup standings, Colorado is ranked #76 comparable to fellow Pac-10 members Oregon State (#73), but would still represent the lowest ranked Pac-10 member in the standings.

Logistically, this can be considered a victory for the Pac-10 conference looking to start its own Big Ten-like television network. The addition of Colorado moves the Pac-10 footprint into the fastest growing state in the nation and adds the Denver (#16) and Colorado Spring-Pueblo (#92) markets, 2 of the Top 100 markets in the nation. Numbers that will surely come in handy when it comes time to negotiate subscriber fees with cable companies.

The move doesn’t come cheap. Remember back in May when we told you to keep an eye out for the date June 30th? Here’s a quick reminder.

Now for expansion enthusiasts out there, here’s a real date to keep an eye on. June 30th.

Under Big 12 rules, [Colorado] could leave the conference without penalty should it provide 2 years notice. Should they take the jump immediately, as a “breaching member” they would owe the Big 12 a penalty equal to 80 percent of of it’s two-year conference revenues if notice isn’t given given by June 30th. That penalty increases to 90 percent before the end of this year or 100% if notice isn’t provided until 2011.

Colorado’s announcement today would mean they will beat the deadline easily. From the latest records obtained from the Big 12, Colorado receives $8.0 million annually from the Big 12′s disproportionate revenue sharing system, ranked 10th in the 12 member conference. It’s no wonder they were so eager to jump ship. But by beating the June 30th deadline, you are talking about an estimated $12.8 million in penalties. They can avoid these penalties altogether by providing a 2 years notice. Colorado will officially join and compete in Pac-10 athletics in 2012, so consider this their 2 year’s notice to the Big 12. But regardless of any potential penalties, the possible financial windfall of the new Pac-10 network, if it is remotely as successful as the Big Ten Network would simply outweigh them.

Queue the funeral march for the Big 12. RIP 1996-2010

Related Posts:

1. Qualified Applicants Need Apply: Nebraska will join Big Ten in 2011
2. Unqualified applicants need not apply: Missouri
3. Now, an Accelerated Timetable for the Big Ten

NittanyWhiteOut

As Julius Caesar returned from his Gallic conquests, and arrived at the Rubicon, he had a choice to make.  Crassus had died, and Pompey had taken over Rome, dissolving the triumvirate, and forbidding Caesar from maintaining his position in absentia. To cross that river with his sole legion meant to ignite a civil war, to create a new Rome where Caesar could be emperor. Caesar knew what he had to do.  He had to regain his power. Alea iacta est, he said. The die is cast. He had passed the point of no return.

I imagine a similar dialogue took place this afternoon in Lincoln, Nebraska.  Faced with the conundrum of staying in a shaky Big XII or crossing over to the Big Ten, Chancellor Harvey Perlman and Athletic Director Tom Osborne did what they had to do. Knowing full well that Texas, and their merry band in the Big XII south were ready to bolt at the slightest provocation, that once the Pac-10 expanded to 16 teams that the SEC and Big Ten were sure to follow, that college football and college sports would never be the same, Perlman and Osborne presumably took a deep breath.  Alea iacta est, I imagine they said. The die is cast.

In this fast-moving, information-laden world, everyone surely knows by now that earlier today, it was reported, by just about every reputable outlet, that Nebraska would join the Big Ten.  The formal announcement from the board of regents is expected Friday.  Though I’m just a few hours late, this might as well be yesterday’s news.  It’s also become apparent that this move is just the first, that Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado are about to desert the rapidly imploding Big XII and head west, to the greener pastures of the Pac-10.  After months of speculation, well, this is it.  And this is just the start.   Now, the rest of the dominos start to fall.  What will happen to Missouri, to Kansas, to Kansas State?  Will the SEC or the Big Ten or the ACC blink first?  Will Notre Dame be forced to give up their status, as college football’s lone relevant independent team?  Soon enough, we’ll find out.

In Nebraska, the Big Ten moves in a direction few saw coming.  Though Missouri had embraced a potential invitation from college football’s oldest conference, they have been left out in the cold on expansion’s first day.  And though so many expected the Big Ten’s decision to come down to academics, demographics, and expanding the Big Ten Network’s footprint, Jim Delany has gone in the exact opposite direction, adding a school with ample tradition, with an instantly recognizable and familiar name–and a cash cow considered one of the most valuable programs in college sports–but without much of a built-in audience.

The state of Nebraska has a population of less than 2 million people, making it roughly as large as the Detroit or Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan areas.  Though a member of the Association of American Universities since 1909, and thus a major research institution, the University of Nebraska ranks 96th in the US News & World Report’s listing of the nation’s best colleges, placing it on an equal level as Alabama, and Stony Brook, and just ahead of Florida State.  And despite its cushy spot in the weakest division in college football, amongst competition they were expected to squash on a yearly basis, Nebraska has been merely good, having won the Big XII North just twice since 1999.  And in basketball, they’re one of just three power-conference schools to have never won an NCAA men’s tournament game (Northwestern and South Florida are the others).

But now, for better or for worse, they are a member of the Big Ten.  It will not be hard to develop a hatred of the Cornhuskers amongst Nittany Lions fans, since Tom Osborne helped to cheat Penn State out of a title in 1994, though that one’s as much on the AP voters as anything. And for Nebraska, it ensures that they’ll have a home after the dust settles, and one that comes with a built in revenue stream in excess of $22 million dollars.

As for me, well, I’m still waiting in anticipation to see where all the pieces fall.  When Texas and its cabal announce their move west, and the Big XII formally disbands, it will become official, that we are all witnesses to the reformation of college football as we know it.  The Rose Bowl, come 2012, may well be a matchup between Texas and Nebraska, or Notre Dame, or Rutgers.  I can’t wait to find out.

This is no longer our father’s Big Ten, and soon enough, nor will it be his Pac-10, his SEC, or his ACC.  In a few months’ time, we’ll know exactly what the future brings, but for now, it’ll just be more idle speculation.

But thanks to Nebraska, the die has been cast. Alea iacta est.  College football has passed the point of no return.

Related Posts:

1. Qualified Applicants Need Apply: Nebraska will join Big Ten in 2011
2. Now it’s Official: A Look from the Nebraska Sidelines
3. Now, an Accelerated Timetable for the Big Ten

NittanyWhiteOut

It’s decision time for Jim Delany and the Big Ten

Where there was smoke, fire has indeed emerged.  Chip Brown’s report, on Orangebloods.com has been verified, and it seems that Larry Scott, the Pac-10′s commissioner, is set to recommend expansion of six Big XII schools–Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and either Colorado or Baylor–during today’s conference meetings.

Whether all six of those schools are officially invited, and accepted into the conference remains to be seen, but the Big XII has gone on the defensive, reportedly issuing an ultimatum to Nebraska and Missouri, though officials from either schools are yet to confirm reports.

Missouri and Nebraska officials neither are confirming nor denying reports from Texas that the Tigers and Cornhuskers face a ultimatum to pledge allegiance to the Big 12 Conference or risk half the league taking a reported expected offer to join the Pac 10 Conference.

“Right now there’s nothing else we can say than what we’ve told you before,” said a University of Missouri news bureau spokesman speaking on behalf of UMC Chancellor Brady Deaton. “We’re a proud member of the Big 12 Conference.”

That didn’t answer the question of whether a deadline of next Friday — or possibly as late as June 15 — had been issued, as was reported by the Austin-American Statesman late Saturday night.

The Pac-10′s pursuit of, pretty much, the entire Big XII south has had obvious side effects.  Namely, they’ve sped up the Big Ten’s expansion process.  Even during April’s BCS meetings, Jim Delany dispelled rumors of an “accelerated timetable” to see the conference add one, or three, or even five new members, claiming that the evaluation process was still ongoing.  We weren’t to expect any concrete news for up to a year.

But now? The Pac-10 has set into motion a plan that has the Big Ten reeling.  Delany’s plan had been to strike the first domino, but now, they have to make a decision 10 months, or more, before schedule.  Would Nebraska or Missouri constitute a “home run” for the conference, or were they merely a smokescreen, for the conference’s pursuit of other, bigger, fish?  Either way, Jim Delany now has less than two weeks, maybe as little as just four days, to decide whether those schools are worthy of inclusion in the conference.

The Big Ten had been rumored of going in so many different directions–first, and most obviously, adding Notre Dame, or splitting apart the Big East by adding Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers; securing the New York market by adding Rutgers or Connecticut; and then looking south, or even trying to expand into the D.C. market by snagging Maryland.  Missouri had been one of the few schools to openly lobby for an invitation into the conference–even Governor Jay Nixon sought to “explore” entrance into the Big Ten, but during those meetings in April, Jim Delany had expressed an interest in moving to the south and west, with such unlikely names as Vanderbilt entering the mix, and Texas emerging as a top target. Missouri had been as much a fall-back plan as anything, and Nebraska, well, had been a bit of an enigma.  Not delivering too many TV markets, but plenty of tradition, Nebraska might have gone against everything we thought we knew the Big Ten sought in an expansion candidate.  In short, they were–and are–worth more to the Big XII, with its rivalries in place with Oklahoma and even Colorado–than to the Big Ten, though the allure of Big Ten money could sway the Huskers to the North.

Yet now, the Big Ten must choose whether it’s better to act now, or to hope that the pieces will fall into place.  And that decision will set the others into motion.  Should the Big Ten choose to wait things out, maybe counting on the SEC and ACC to pick apart the Big East, and letting Notre Dame fall right into their laps–Nebraska and Missouri would stick it out, and Texas would have a reason to stay in the Big XII.  In the end, the decisions of the Oklahoma schools, A&M, Texas Tech, and either Baylor or Colorado are almost certainly tied to the fate of Texas.  If Texas decides to bolt for the Pac-10, they all will.  Should the powers that be decide that maintaining the status quo is worth it? Dan Beebe, Big XII commissioner, will finally be able to exhale.  And that’s all dependent on what happens in Chicago, Lincoln and Columbia.

And yet, we’re still operating on the assumption that the Pac-10 will, indeed, extend offers to those six schools.  Larry Scott pulled off a brilliant maneuver, by recommending at least three of the Texas schools, because the state legislature would’ve put up bureaucratic red tape preventing either Texas or Texas A&M from joining the conference on their own.  But the Pac-10 rules require unanimous consent from all parties when voting on conference expansion.  For a school like Stanford, or Cal-Berkley, or even USC–schools with excellent academic reputations and remarkably strong athletic programs (all finished in the top 7 of last year’s Director’s Cup standings), would it be worth taking a flyer on schools like Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, who offer neither, even if it would mean losing out on Texas, and all of its programs and revenue streams?

In short, nobody knows exactly what’s going to happen.  There are so many moving parts that next Friday’s deadline for Nebraska and Missouri may come and go with a whimper, if indeed such a deadline exists.  Or, alternatively, we might have our first two members of the new Big Ten (the Big Fourteen? Sixteen?).  But the wheels of change have been set into motion, and we will know, soon enough, whether the landscape of college football as we know it is eroding rapidly beneath us.

Remember the uproar when the NCAA seemed set to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams?  The ripple waves that will begin with Nebraska and Missouri’s decisions next week may well make that change seem as benign as the inclusion of a 65th team to the tournament.

Related Posts:

1. Adding Texas: The Texas Tech Dilemma
2. Nebraska to Join the Big Ten: Alea Iacta Est
3. The Pac-10 Comes Out Swinging, but Texas to the Big Ten Emerges

NittanyWhiteOut

Yesterday, we heard news that basically signaled the impending destruction of the Big XII.  The Pac-10 was “on the verge” of issuing invitations to Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech, creating the first 16-team superconference, and getting out ahead of the Big Ten in expansion.

And in response, I wrote why Texas wouldn’t be like to take them up on that offer.  There have been consistent rumors swirling of Texas getting an invitation to the Big Ten–not quite as strong as the whispers linking Nebraska or Missouri or Rutgers, but the general consensus is that the Big Ten would love to land arguable the biggest fish in the pond. And for Texas, well, there are about 15 million reasons why the Big Ten offers a better package than the Pac-10

But now, it seems the biggest player in Texas-to-the-Big-Ten isn’t Texas. It’s not Jim Delany, either. No, not Joe Paterno, who presumably still wants that eastern rival.  It’s the Texas state legislature.  Lost yet?  Let me explain:

Last night, the Columbus Dispatch, citing “right-to-know” laws, managed to get their hands on a series of emails exchanged between Ohio State’s president, E. Gordon Gee, and the Big Ten Commissioner, Jim Delany.  As I suggested yesterday, they echo a willingness for Texas to join the Big Ten, and the Big Ten’s desire to hit a home run in expansion.

“We are fast-tracking it but need to know the $ and observe contracts,” Delany wrote. “Also need to make sure we leverage this to increase chances of hr additions. Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.”

And what would harm the Big Ten about adding Texas?  Having to bring along their red-headed stepbrother, Texas Tech.

Don Hale, Texas’ vice president for public affairs, said he did not think the three Texas schools had a legal commitment to be in the same conference. But he said the Texas Legislature may apply pressure for that to happen.

“I think it’s a political issue,” he said today. “Because they’re state institutions, I think the concern is that one can’t move without the others.”

In another email, the Ohio State president wrote that Texas would love to hear from the Big Ten, but that the albatross of Texas Tech looms large:

“I did speak with Bill Powers [the President] at Texas, who would welcome a call [but] say they have a ‘Tech’ problem,” Gee wrote in an e-mail

It’s not too hard to decipher that comment.  If indeed Texas Tech is tied to A&M and Texas, the Big Ten would likely give up their pursuit of the Longhorns.

Be sure to note: the problem is not adding Texas A&M.  The Aggies offer a strong academic profile–they’re ranked #61 in US News & World Report’s ranking of the nation’s top universities, tied with Minnesota and a just notch below Ohio State, and would surely welcome an invitation to the CIC.  They also have strong programs in a number of sports, and have finished in the top 20 of the Director’s Cup standings the last three years.  Sure, the football team hasn’t finished the season ranked since 1999, but they’ve reached both the NCAA Men’s and Women’s basketball tournament in each of the last five years.  They’re a baseball powerhouse, and have strong track and field, softball, and golf programs.  Sure, Texas A&M wouldn’t bring in much that Texas didn’t–but if those two are a package deal, it’s one that Big Ten has to take.  Hell, on their own, A&M offers enough that they’d be worth adding for the SEC or Big Ten.

So it all comes down to whether the Big Ten would jump on the Texas Tech grenade.  Unfortunately, there is very little to like about that school, from our conference’s perspective.  I’m sure I’ll get some angry TTU students complaining, but academically, they don’t compare to the rest of the conference.  Ranked a “Tier 3″ school, Texas Tech does not boast a strong academic profile.  Unlike the other two big state schools, they’re not a member of the Association of American Universities, which indicates a college with strong research programs.  Already, they don’t fit in to the Big Ten brand.

And they don’t exactly boast the kind of athletics that would blow you away.  Other than women’s cross country and men’s outdoor track, Texas Tech hasn’t won a single Big XII championship in any sport since 2000, and boast one NCAA championship, women’s basketball in 1993, in their entire athletic history.  Though the football program had a couple nice seasons under Mike Leach, they don’t exactly boast a superior track record.  In basketball, they’ve made the NCAA tournament twice in the past decade, but haven’t continued that success since Bob Knight retired.

Texas Tech wouldn’t have made the Big XII if it wasn’t for political pressure, and, well, there’s a reason why.  It’s the very inclusion of Texas Tech in this discussion that makes these rumors so palpable: not having to take this to the Texas legislature speeds up the process considerably.

In short, there isn’t a single redeeming quality about Texas Tech.  And for the Big Ten, adding Texas simply isn’t worth ruining their academic reputation if they have to bring along Tech.  The Pac-10 can afford to bring along a school like Tech, since they don’t offer the academic consortium as the Big Ten.  Though schools like Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, and Washington are among the top 50 in the country, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, and Washington all rank in the 100s.  Oregon State, like Texas Tech, is a tier three university.  In short, they’re not harming their brand at all.  That’s proven by the fact that they’re also reportedly set to offer Oklahoma State (tier 3) and Oklahoma (#102) in this batch of potential expansion.

So in the and, we’re left with three question.

Is the Pac-10′s offer to Texas Tech conditional on bringing along Texas and A&M?

If indeed those three are the package deal as described earlier, it makes sense to offer all three at the same time.  But what if Texas and A&M are going to play it slow?  There are rumors of SEC showing interest in Texas A&M, and that the university is reciprocating.  Texas has, obviously, been courted by the Big Ten.  If it all fell through, and the state of Texas was to let those three schools split up, would the Pac-10 be willing to find themselves stuck with one ugly consolation prize just to say that they’d expanded into Texas?  Or would all 6 of these schools need to “sign on” before the invitations are officially offered?

Will the State of Texas let it happen?

We’ve thought of this expansion in terms of football, conference commissioners, and university presidents, but state governments have a role to play as well, especially as it concerns Texas.  Looking at the potential revenue that would go to its flagship university, can the state pass up on $25 million–roughly the difference in television revenue between what Texas makes now and what it could, by 2015, if it joins the Big Ten?  A&M would be set to pick up close to $15 million by joining the SEC, as well.  Lastly, we can all joke about the backwards culture in Texas, too, but the research opportunities that the state would open up by Texas and A&M joining the CIC could be substantial as well.

If those three don’t split up, can the Big XII be salvaged?

If Texas, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech are indeed a package deal, them joining the Pac-10 is no done deal.  If the proposed Pac-16 becomes just the potential Pac-13, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine Oklahoma and Oklahoma State passing up on the invitation.  For Colorado, it would seem that the Pac-10 is where they truly belong, but for the Oklahoma schools, staying put might make the most sense.  Even if the Big Ten snags Nebraska and Missouri, the Big XII could jump on TCU and get back to 10 teams.

Related Posts:

1. The Pac-10 Comes Out Swinging, but Texas to the Big Ten Emerges
2. Now, an Accelerated Timetable for the Big Ten
3. Nebraska to Join the Big Ten: Alea Iacta Est

NittanyWhiteOut

If Texas is on the move, the Big Ten is its logical destination

The huge news today, regarding conference expansion, didn’t involve the Big Ten.  No, Rivals reported that the Pac-10 conference, which had largely considered to be patiently waiting to see where the dominoes might fall, sent out invitations to six of the marquee teams from the Big XII.

Citing the standard “multiple sources close to the situation,” as it seems every newspaper, radio station, television outlet or blog has over the past few months, Chip Brown writes:

[I]t appears the Pac-10, which has its meetings in San Francisco starting this weekend, is prepared to make a bold move and invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado to join its league…

The six teams from the Big 12 would be in an eight-team division with Arizona and Arizona State. The other eight-team division would consist of USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

Now, we’re obviously not going to accept this report on face value. If every unverified column were true, the Big Ten would’ve already added UConn, and also Missouri, Nebraska, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Pittsburgh. Or maybe just Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska. And maybe Notre Dame.  The Pac-10 would’ve welcomed Utah and Colorado, not the above listed 6.  In short, we’ve seen this movie before, Chip, and we’re going to take some convincing.

The thought is the Big 16 (or whatever they decide for the name) would start its own television network that could command premium subscriber dollars from cable providers on par with the Big Ten Network and pay out upwards of $20 million to each of the 16 schools in TV revenue.

Now, all indications are pointing to this being more than just mere fluff.  Colorado’s AD, Mike Bohn, hinted that this was more a probability than a done deal, but even so, the ramifications throughout the landscape of college football are evident.

Still, Charlie just wrote about the hurdles a potential Pac-10 Network would face, which begs the question: if Texas is going to move, wouldn’t it be to the Big Ten?

The Big Ten already has their Network up and running, and paying out more than $20 million dollars to each school based not just on BTN revenues, but also its hefty contract with ESPN.  If Big Ten expansion hits home runs rather than singles, and adding Texas would be a grand slam, that revenue would skyrocket.  The Pac-10 is hoping to pay out $20 million to each school, the Big Ten already does!  The BTN wasn’t financially successful until Comcast struck a deal with the Network, and that didn’t happen for more than a year.  Even today, not all cable carriers in the state of Pennsylvania carry the network, and I’m sure there’s more demand for Penn State than for Washington State or Arizona in their respective states.  Yes, it has been the trailblazer for future conference-run TV networks, but the fact is that demand isn’t there right now for a Pac-10 Network to be an immediately viable money maker.  And even if there was, the rocky path to a financial windfall would ensure that it would take years before any Pac-10 team could see $20 million from TV revenue.

But for the BTN?  Bringing in a Texas, and a Texas alone would mean at least another 2 million per school.  Considering Texas’ population (approximately 25 million), the school’s overwhelming popularity, and the fact that the Big Ten Network receives 88 cents per subscriber of states within the Big Ten footprint, the conference could stand to bring in over $20 million by adding Texas alone.  Add Rutgers, and you’ve got the New York City market cornered: another $20 million for the conference.  Throw in Nebraska to make things even, and you’ve got a superconference that dwarfs even the new Pac-15, not just in TV revenue, but in talent.

Even before expansion talk hit, conference officials expected Big Ten Network revenues to double over the next decade.  Sure, the Pac-10 might be able to offer $20 million–maybe, in a few years, down the road–but by joining the Big Ten, Texas could be looking at more than $40 a year by 2016!

That’s not even considering the college football fans all across the country who would buy in to the BTN just for the opportunity to watch the titans of the sport play on a weekly basis.  And once you’ve got close to 100 million households nationwide on the BTN, the Big Ten would have the chance to force even more money out of ESPN.  And if you’re ESPN, how could you pass up on the chance to broadcast some epic matchups? Texas-Ohio State is a national championship game, not a 3:30 start.  But in this scenario, it’s happening every week.  Penn State-Nebraska.  Rutgers-Michigan.  My pants just got tight imaging that.  Well, maybe not that last one.

Texas had been talking of starting up their own network–Longhorn TV–long before this revelation, because even though they’d earned the lions’ share of television revenue from the Big XII in its weighted sharing system, it still amounts to just over $10 million dollars.  Why go through the hassle when you’ve got the BTN waiting for you?  The same conundrum arises with this proposed Pac-10 Network–there’s a lot of heavy lifting to be done, and, should things fall through, the members of the conference are only making between $8 and $10 million on their current TV deals.  Sure, adding all these teams would provide a boost, but not one as influential to any school’s bottom line as joining the Big Ten.

So what would Texas even have to lose?  Sure, they’re a team that likes to schedule soft, and since they’d undoubtedly want to keep their rivalries going with Oklahoma and Texas A&M, it would mean sacrificing two out-of-conference matchups to keep the Red River Shootout a yearly tradition.  It’s also possible that the Big Ten would be forced, by the state of Texas, to bring A&M along for the ride.  Either way, Texas still comes out ahead by joining the Big Ten.

Or maybe Texas would just have to lose a rivalry–it happens.  I hate to bring up the example, but Penn State hasn’t played Pitt in a decade, and the world has gone on.  In the above article, it was suggested that Texas A&M had been approached by the SEC, which would, in effect, force Texas into the exact same boat they’d be in by joining the Big Ten.  So if you want to make the case that Texas would sacrifice the opportunity to be in the Big Ten because it would mean losing their in-state rivals, I wouldn’t be so sure.

Texas has always dodged SEC rumors by claiming the importance of academics. The US News and World Review ranks UT-Austin 47th, tied with our humble college in that regard.  While the Pac-10 boasts some solid institutions, in Stanford, as well as Cal, UCLA, and USC, the fact is that no other athletic conference operates such a powerful academic consortium as the Big Ten.  The Committee on Institutional Cooperation not only includes the Big Ten, with such prestigious universities as Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, but the University of Chicago as well, and the ability to share resources would open up Texas to even greater research opportunities.

Now, this rumor may well have legs.  The Big XII Commissioner, Dan Beebe, canceled his scheduled press conference at this week’s conference meeting,  probably so that he can verify these rumors before taking questions about them.  The Pac-10 may well have made the first move in conference expansion, and there’s no doubt they came out swinging.  They wanted to “revolutionize college athletics” and should this punch land, they’ll have done just that.   And we’d see the Big Ten picking at the remnants–Missouri, Nebraska, rather than devouring the Big East whole.

But when it comes to Texas, well, they’re just as likely to whiff.  If Texas is going anywhere, it should be North, not West.

Related Posts:

1. Adding Texas: The Texas Tech Dilemma
2. Nebraska to Join the Big Ten: Alea Iacta Est
3. Now, an Accelerated Timetable for the Big Ten

NittanyWhiteOut

While you were grilling steaks and enjoying the weather, UC Berkley’s chancellor Robert Birgeneau spent his Memorial Day with fellow alumni in New England where he brought up the possibility of a Pac 10 Network, which would be a clear and desperate effort by the league to catch up to the financial hegemon that is the Big Ten.

It seems as if the Big East has a similar plan in it’s sights.

Marinatto said a Big East TV network “is definitely on the table,” but the soonest it could begin would be after their current television deals expire after the 2012-13 school year.

But will either television networks become the saving grace both conferences are hoping for, or will it simply become one expensive experiment that confirms the lack of national appeal of either conferences?

A quick look at the past seasons’ Nielsen ratings for bowl games.

Big Ten

Big East

Pac 10

Though it’s just a small sample, it is indicative of the lack of national appeal by both the Pac 10 and Big East. In fact, BCS selections since 2002 pretty much sums it up, 6 current Big East and 8 Pac-10 teams were selected while a whopping 15 Big Ten teams participated in BCS games during the same time span. BCS games involving Big East squads averaged a 7.56 rating compared to the 12.64 averaged by BCS games involving Big Ten squads.

The top 32 rated post season games on record involved 17 Big Ten, 14 Pac 10, and 0 Big East squads. That’s right, 0 Big East squads. So herein lies the big question in regards to creating a network with the looming possibility that not many people would watch.

Side by side comparison of  post season games played in 2009-10 between the Big Ten, Big East and Pac 10.

Would marginal schools like Cincinnati command the entire state of Ohio or just the city of Cincinnati, a legitimate question that can also be asked of Pittsburgh, South Florida, Rutgers, Louisville and Syracuse. Just because they are located in the states of Pennsylvania (vs Penn State), Florida (vs Florida/Florida State/Miami), New Jersey, New York and Kentucky (vs Kentucky), will there actually be demand for the Big East Network throughout the entire footprint or just regionally in those individual cities when there are more prominent and statewide institutions they must compete with within their own states? It makes all the difference when it comes to negotiating prices with cable providers. Other than being able to deliver the entire state of West Virginia, it is hard to make a case for any Big East network  to demand the same subscription fees that the Big Ten earns in it’s respective footprint.

A worrisome proposition when the Big Ten is dangling $13 million a year to prospective expansion candidates just from their network alone. Would the Big East Network even come close to that?

The Pac 10 is more fortunate where it’s institutions have a broader appeal in their respective states (Oregon/Oregon State can deliver Oregon, USC/UCLA/Stanford delivers California, Arizona/Arizona State delivers Arizona and Washington, Washington State will deliver Washington) But their Achilles’s heel lies in the lack of national appeal or specifically, in the East and South. This is evident by the conference’s lackluster television ratings during the regular and post season year after year. Other than USC, few other programs would turn heads in Big Ten or SEC country.

So before the Pac 10 and Big East dive head first into a conference-based network just to keep up with the Big Ten, they should keep in mind such an experiment, should it fail would only confirm the existence of a college football hierarchy that many in the Big Ten and SEC already hold to be true.

Simply, not all conferences were made equal.

Full table of 2009-10 post season games, matchups and Nielsen ratings. Excluding BCS games, 3 matchups involving Big Ten schools top the list before the first game involving a Pac 10 or Big East institution.

Related Posts:

1. The Tornado Alley Divide: MWC vs Big East
2. Big Ten Ratings Sweep: Official 2009 – 2010 Nielsen Bowl Ratings
3. Champions of the East: Nittany Lions awarded record 28th Lambert Meadowlands Trophy

NittanyWhiteOut

It seems as if Penn State will be replacing one soccer coaching legend with another.

Penn State announced that Creighton’s Bob Warming will become Penn State soccer’s 11th head coach. This news should delight fans of the soccer program at Penn State.

Bob Warming currently sits 6th among active Division I head coaches and 15th all-time with 383 victories over 32 years. He is also one of two coaches ever to coach 2 different programs to the College Cup.

In essence, Bob Warming is Creighton soccer. In just 3 short years, Bob Warming led the Creighton Blue Jays to a perfect 19-0-0 record and the top overall seed in the NCAA tournament. During his cumulative 14 seasons with the Blue Jays, he compiled a 190-61-34 record (.726) including 7 Missouri Valley Conference regular season and tournament championships and led 11 of those teams to the NCAA tournament.

He also helped plan and develop Michael G. Morrison Stadium, a $13 million, 6,000 seater venue, arguably one of the finest soccer facilities in the nation. It is no coincidence that Creighton rank among national attendance leaders annually with their state of the art facility and an impeccable 107-18-15 home record.

In spite of his glowing resume, Bob Warming greatest achievement as coach has to be the consistent development of his players. Although he began his stint at Creighton in 1990, he left the program for St Louis University in 1994 before returning to Omaha in 2001. Since his return, Warming has had at least one player selected in each MLS Draft. Warming’s Creighton is the only college program in the nation to have a player selected in every MLS Draft ever held accounting for 42 former Bluejays that have gone on to play professionally since ‘93. How could you compete with that stat line when recruiting the top players in the nation?

Penn State soccer fans should be thrilled with the selection of Bob Warming as the school’s next head coach. He has a proven track record both on and off the field. In addition to success on the field, he was pivotal in the construction and upgrades of soccer facilities at both Creighton and St. Louis University. One would expect any deal to lure him away from Creighton involved promises to upgrade existing facilities at Penn State. Almost a requirement if you have ever attended a soccer game at Jeffery Field. It is desperately in need of upgrades especially when you compare it to Morrison Stadium Bob Warming just left behind.

It is nice to see Penn State show a commitment to excellence in sports other than football and the administration’s recent track record with Cael Sanderson and Bob Warming should have fans excited that the school is actually looking outside the Penn State family for quality head coaches.

Related Posts:

1. Farewell to Penn State Women’s LAX coach
2. Farewell to a Soccer Coaching legend
3. Penn State baseball reclaims Keystone rivalry in thrilling fashion

NittanyWhiteOut

It seems as if the BCS has a contingency plan to deal with the USC scandal all along. While the NCAA dragged their feet for 6 years uncovering what took Yahoo! Sports 8 months to discover, the BCS actually met back in 2007 and drew up a a policy calling for teams’ BCS appearances and BCS titles to be vacated when major rules violations subsequently are discovered and the institutions are sanctioned by the NCAA. Current BCS executive director Bill Hancock confirmed the provision Wednesday to USA Today.

This might be the only legitimate college football championship ring from 2004

The actual policy reads:

“When the NCAA or a conference makes a finding of violations … and imposes a sanction of forfeiture or vacation of contests in which an ineligible student-athlete participated, we will presume that vacation of participation in a BCS bowl game is warranted.”

There is simply no doubt if the NCAA finds Bush in violation of NCAA rules, the Trojan’s 2004 national championship would be forfeited under such a policy considering the pivotal role Bush played during that season.

Keep in mind that the NCAA probe in fact centers not only on Reggie Bush and the football program, but the OJ Mayo scandal and the basketball program as well. But if the resignation of the head basketball coach Tim Floyd and self-imposed penalties including forfeiting 21 wins doesn’t imply guilt, then I don’t know what does.

The evidence against the football program and Reggie Bush is equally damning.

Originally written back in a 2008 article:

In 1987, Southern Methodist University, a WAC conference team was handed the NCAA ‘death penalty’ because 21 players received approximately $61,000 in cash payments from a booster while they were on probation for another violation. The penalty was downright shocking. A loss of 55 new scholarships over 4 years, loss of 3 coaching positions for 2 years, cancellation of the 1987 season and a limit of only 7 games (all on the road) for the 88? season, and a 2 year bowl, TV ban. The consequences of the penalty was so severe that the school voluntarily canceled the 88? season as a lost cause.

Now fast forward to 2010. 23 years after the dreaded SMU ‘death penalty’, the NCAA is faced with yet another possible headache. After an eight month investigation by Yahoo! Sports, it has been revealed that USC Heisman winning running back Reggie Bush has been receiving improper benefits during the 2 years he attended the university, 1 of which when they won the national championship. This was not one isolated incident where Reggie Bush was given money, but a 2 year long history of improper benefits for Reggie as well as his immediate family members. Documented records show:

• $595.20 in round-trip airfare from San Diego to Oakland in November 2005 for Bush’s stepfather, LaMar Griffin, his mother, Denise Griffin and younger brother to attend the USC-California game at Berkeley. The fees were charged to the credit card of Jamie Fritz, an employee of Ornstein. The document detailing the charges was provided by Lee Pfeifer, an estranged business associate of Ornstein’s.
• $250.65 for limousine transportation from the Oakland airport to the Ritz-Carlton in San Francisco that November weekend for the Bush family, charged to Fritz, according to a document. Ornstein acknowledged both he and Bush’s family stayed at the luxury hotel.
• Suits for Bush’s stepfather and brother to wear during the Dec. 10, 2005 Heisman ceremony in New York, a makeover for his mother for the event and limousine transportation;
• Weekly payments of at least $1,500 to the Bush family.
• $623.63 for a hotel stay by Bush at the Venetian Resort & Casino in Las Vegas from March 11-13, 2005, charged to Michaels, according to a document signed by Bush.
• $1,574.86 for a stay by Bush at the Manchester Hyatt in San Diego from March 4-6, 2005, paid for by Michaels, according to a hotel document, a hotel employee and a source.
• Approximately $13,000 to Bush from New Era to purchase and modify a car, three sources said.
• As reported by Yahoo! Sports in April, $54,000 in rent-free living for a year at Michaels’ $757,500 home in Spring Valley, Calif., according to Michaels and San Diego attorney Brian Watkins.
• Also from previous Yahoo! reports, $28,000 from Michaels to help Bush’s family settle pre-existing debt, according to Michaels and Watkins.
• Thousands of dollars in spending money to both Bush and his family from the prospective agents, according to multiple sources.

So why the hold up? This has been in the news and even redocumented in the book ‘Tarnished Heisman’ in even greater detail and Reggie Bush still cannot be forced to talk. The NCAA isn’t exactly a beacon of consistency when it comes to handing out sanctions for similar crimes which is also why the outcry of anger from fans across the country alleging bias by the NCAA towards USC and protecting their modern dynasty. Such allegations may actually be based on some truth.

In 1989, Oklahoma State was levied with a 2 year TV ban, 3 year bowl ban, and loss of 5 new scholarships for 3 years for 1 athlete receiving cash payments and a sports car at no cost during his first 2 years with the team.

Then in 1996, Florida State was given no sanctions when players were taken by prospective agents on a documented $6000 shopping spree at Foot Locker including dinner outings and small cash payments. The difference? The NCAA found little evidence of the school’s knowledge or participation during the violations.

Well that makes sense, Florida State knew nothing of the violations when they happened if they found no evidence of it many of you will say. Well, in USC’s case, it is well known that sports agents wander Heritage Hall where USC’s athletics offices are located:

according to a Los Angeles Times story that documented the rampant presence of agents at USC during the 2005 season.In January, according to the Times, USC offensive line coach Pat Ruel surveyed the lobby outside the football offices and saw more than a dozen unfamiliar faces.

Furthermore, sources told Yahoo! Sports that representatives of a fledging marketing firm from which Bush and his family allegedly received improper benefits were allowed in the USC locker room during the 2005 season.

Sources also said USC running backs coach Todd McNair knew of Bush’s involvement with the marketing firm before last season’s national championship game against Texas.

So once again I ask. WHAT’s THE HOLDUP?

NCAA by-law 12.3.1.2 states that an athlete shall be deemed ineligible if he or she accepts benefits from agents or marketing representatives. The rule further states that student-athletes, their family or friends cannot receive benefits or loans from agents. Additionally, NCAA by-law 12.1.2.1.6 states that athletes cannot receive preferential treatment, benefits or services because of the individual’s athletics reputation or skill or pay-back potential as a professional athlete, unless such treatment, benefits or services are specifically permitted under NCAA legislation.

The rules are clear, there is obviously financial records available if Yahoo! Sports can find them, how is the NCAA unable to find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing? I am not rooting for the death penalty (though because they are not already under probation, it does not apply), but I am asking for a fair sanction, any sanction to be handed down. Why should anyone be bent up over something that happened a few years ago? Because while everyone had to win by the rules, USC reaped the benefits of an athlete being pampered and basically paid during his years at USC. He may single handedly be the reason why they won some of the games they did, Fresno State 05?, Notre Dame 05?, etc. So while everyone was running the marathon in their standard sneakers, USC took a taxi to the finish line. So you better bet that I’m pissed and want blood.

The stalling tactic employed by the NCAA is embarrassing. It seems as if everyone has seen this coming for years now, including the BCS. When both the football and basketball programs are allowed to deteriorate to the point of being investigated for 2 major NCAA violations, one has to wonder how the NCAA defines ‘lack of institutional control’. The fallout has already cost Tim Floyd his job, and 21 vacated wins, all before the NCAA even concluded their investigation.

At this point anything but dropping the hammer on the Trojan program would undermine the credibility of the NCAA organization itself.

Related Posts:

1. Why stop at 96, NCAA tournament might as well expand to 344 teams
2. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Running Backs
3. Talor Battle is Going to Serbia!

NittanyWhiteOut

As we’ve examined Big Ten expansion, a common theme has been what the proposed schools would bring to the conference.  More specifically, what media market they would offer, so that the Big Ten Network would reach more viewers.  It’s why Pittsburgh isn’t much of a viable option, and why Rutgers seems to be ideal.

As Penn State fans, we know what a great addition to our fanhood the network has been.  Not only is every football game guaranteed to be aired, but we’re now able to keep tabs on Penn State basketball, too.  Just a few years ago, you had to go to the Bryce Jordan Center to watch more than 2 or 3 Penn State basketball games a season. Now, thanks to the Big Ten Network, virtually every game is televised.

We’ve even had the chance to watch the wrestling team on a regular basis, and seen those volleyball matches and baseball games that we never would’ve had the chance to before.  In total, more than 100 distinct events featuring 24 different Penn State teams were featured last year alone on the Big Ten Network, to go along with another 14 Big Ten championships the network aired.  And heck, how many of us haven’t spent afternoons reliving the greatness of years past, watching the Nittany Lions in the 1995 Rose Bowl or the 1983 Sugar Bowl as part of the “Big Ten’s Greatest Games” program.

In short, the Big Ten Network has transformed the fan experience for all things Nittany Lion.

But as has come to the attention of NittanyWhiteOut, before the BTN is distributed to New Jerseyites or Missourians, we need to make sure that there are no holes in the coverage within our own state.

Just 83% of Pennsylvania residents have television access to the Big Ten Network, easily the lowest percentage of any Big Ten state’s residents.  More than 90% of households in the Big Ten footprint carry the network, a number that dwarfs Pennsylvania’s coverage.

Though most major carriers have included the network in their basic or expanded packages, three cable providers, in particular, have refused to broadcast the channel.

Even worse, among that 17% is approximately 34,000 Penn State alumni, who have no choice but to subscribe to one of those three providers, because they live in a neighborhood serviced by either Blue Ridge, Armstrong or Metrocast Cable.  And given how Penn State pride has permeated into every corner of the state, there are undoubtedly countless other Nittany Lion fans who are denied the opportunity the rest of us have, to cheer on our school on a daily basis, in as many sports we can name.

If you happen to be among that unlucky percentage, don’t be afraid to act.  Though you might not be able to change cable providers, you can switch to DirecTV or Dish Network, each of which will offer you the same opportunity to watch the Big Ten Network as the rest of the state.  If that’s too complicated, challenge your cable provider. Make it known to them just how important the BTN is to you, as a customer, and try and find other Penn State alums and fans who can back you up.  Other providers have caved.  As far east as Long Island, my cable provider, Cablevision, recently offered the capability to purchase and watch the Big Ten Network.  So too does BrightHouse Network, down in Florida.  For those just a stone’s throw from State College to be denied the same ability to watch their team is shameful.

If you’re a true Penn State fan, you can’t go without the Big Ten Network.  I know, this sounds like an advertisement for the channel, but it’s really true.  I never would’ve imagined that I’d be watching the Big Ten Network more than ESPN, or

Plus, they’ve got Charissa Thompson

how much I’d miss a television channel during Winter or Spring break.  Those of you who don’t get access to the BTN don’t even know what you’re missing out on.

There are still about three months before Penn State football takes the field once again.  For the 110,000 inside Beaver Stadium, and the millions around the state who receive the Big Ten Network, it will be a return to our cherished fall traditions.  But for the 17% of Pennsylvania residents, blacked out by their cable provider? It’s a reminder that you need to act.  Whether it’s switching providers or simply writing a letter or making a phone call to your cable company, do something.

And for those of us fortunate enough to get the Big Ten Network? That doesn’t mean we should be silent, either.  We speak loudest in numbers, and the only way to right this wrong is through mass action.  Attached, you can find the contact information for Metrocast, Armstrong, and Blue Ridge cable.  Do your friends a favor, and make the call.

Maybe then, every Penn State fan and alumnus will have the same access to their favorite team as they deserve.

Armstrong Cable

Metrocast

Blue Ridge

Related Posts:

1. Holes in the Coverage
2. Penn State recovers from slow start to beat Northwestern
3. Week One Big Ten Picks forecasts 11-0 start

NittanyWhiteOut

Boise State and TCU could find themselves playing regularly

With so much talk the last few months discussing Big Ten expansion, and the possible ramifications–not just within the conference, but in the responses by the Big XII, SEC, or ACC, and even regarding the continued feasibility of the Big East after, presumably, a member or two had been plucked–perhaps the most immediate news regarding the BCS’s future was overlooked in the shuffle.

Last month, the Bowl Championship Series, which governs college football’s post-season play, outlined how a conference not currently in the “Big 6,” the aforementioned leagues, plus the Pac-10, could earn an automatic berth to the BCS series of bowls.  And unsurprisingly, one conference in particular has earned the most speculation.

The Mountain West Conference has performed so well the last two seasons that it could receive an automatic bid to the BCS in the 2012 and ‘13 seasons.

BCS executive director Bill Hancock was hesitant Wednesday to say the MWC, which has placed Utah and TCU in the Bowl Championship Series the last two seasons, was on course to become the seventh automatic qualifying conference.

But he did tell the conference commissioners and athletic directors gathered here this week for meetings that they should be aware of the strides the Mountain West has made toward earning an automatic bid.

With the emergence of the Mountain West conference over the past few years, and the public groundswell of support for mid-major and small-conference teams, especially as it relates to a potential playoff scenario, it’s not hard to imagine Utah, TCU, and Brigham Young shedding that very label, and joining their on-the-field equals in terms of perceived stature.

But don’t consider this charity on the part of the BCS.  Those who run the the system would prefer to promote the traditional powers, the Texases, the Floridas, the Ohio States, the USCs, not just because of a claimed superiority, but because it makes more financial sense.  Those teams draw better TV ratings, and better attendance figures than do the mid-majors.  But the Mountain West achieving BCS status might be the only way for the Bowl Championship Series to survive.

Because mid-major teams are not guaranteed a spot in the 5 bowls that make up the Bowl Championship Series, (the Orange, Sugar, Rose, Fiesta, and BCS Championship Games), the BCS does not have to distribute the same amount of revenue to the schools in those conferences.  For proponents of a playoff, that’s been a key issue when deriding the unfairness of the current system.  Last year, for instance, the Big Ten and SEC received $22 million each from the BCS. The other four power conferences were awarded $17.7 million each.  But the 5 non-BCS conferences were granted just $24 million, to split among the leagues.  Consider that Notre Dame is awarded $1.3 million dollars annually, if they fail to reach a BCS bowl game, and the difference is even more staggering.

Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, has cited the revenue discrepancy as a reason for his legislation that would ban the promotion of a postseason NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision game as a national championship unless it results from a playoff. The bill passed a subcommittee last month but faces an uphill battle in Congress.

So what exactly would the Mountain West, or any other conference need to accomplish in order for one of its teams to earn an annual berth to any of the most prestigious, and highest paying, bowls?  There’s a three-part formula, and the conference in question would need to eclipse any BCS conference in all three.

• The BCS ranking of the conference’s top team
• The average computer ranking of the teams in the conference
• The number of teams in the conference ranked in the end-of-year Top 25 (adjusted by number of teams in the conference)

However, there is a caveat in the third criterion, that a conference that ranks in the top 6 of the first two thresholds only needs to be at 50% of the #1 team in the third category.

The SEC blog Team Speed Kills did the math, and showed exactly where the Mountain West stacked up against the other conferences.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t too pretty for the Mountain West, .  But they did uncover yet another caveat.

The computations will be made according to the conference’s membership on Dec. 4, 2011.

Why is that so important?  Because the rumor mill is starting to circulate that come the 2011 season, Boise State will join the Mountain West.  A Fresno, California TV Station reported that the Broncos, who have been perhaps the most elite non-BCS team over the past few seasons, will be offered a spot in the Mountain West conference.

Boise State, which has won two BCS games in the past 5 years, have established themselves as a top team heading into next season. Some have gone so far as to suggest that they might be the first mid-major team to earn a shot at the crystal football.  While that’s no given, the fact remains that the Broncos’ success has given credence to the idea that these teams might be just as good as one from the Big XII.

ESPN’s Joe Schad corroborated the report, though it’s probably not as done a deal as claimed.

But what would Boise State joining the Mountain West mean? Well, according to Team Speed Kills:

As far as 2008-09 goes, things look better. The MWC would soar to third in Criterion 1, edge into sixth ahead of the Big Ten in Criterion 2 (by a margin of 0.45), and it would be the top league in Criterion 3 by a wide margin with 28.75 points. In other words, the MWC would be in position to get an automatic bid without a petition.

With that in mind, would it even be possible for the Mountain West  to spurn Boise State?  With the Broncos joining Utah, TCU, Brigham Young, and Air Force, among several other lesser teams, the conference would boast as much talent at the top as the ACC or Big East, which, in all fairness, may not actually exist come 2011.  It would guarantee that conference an equal share of the BCS pie–the same $17 or $24 million that the other power conferences receive.  And most importantly, for the Bowl Championship Series, it would shut up detractors who claim that a playoff is the only chance for the mid-majors to receive equal consideration.

With this in mind, we would need to see an equal shift in the minds of voters as well as the potential institutional change.  If TCU or Boise State had been in a “power conference” last year, would they have received consideration for the national championship last year?  Probably not, since they’d still have been thought to play a lighter schedule than even the undefeated Cincinnati team that played just three ranked teams.

The Mountain West will still be treated as the red-headed stepchild of the BCS, with grudging acceptance rather than with whole-hearted welcoming.

But it would be a start, a much needed start, towards achieving equality for all of college football’s teams.  Once the Utahs and Boise States of the world are presented with the same BCS endgame as the members of the more prestigious conferences, it’s not hard to imagine an even greater push for a playoff structure.  We’ve seen the success of mid-major teams in BCS games over the past decade, and it’s not hard to imagine that they’d continue such play.  Once those teams prove that, on a  year-in, year-out basis they’re every bit the equals of the current Big 6, their next championship game snub might not be perceived as so just.

Of course, there’s no guarantee that college football will be the same, even five years down the line.  We’ve all read the articles about how Big Ten Expansion could set off an implosion into four superconferences, that those could even break off from the NCAA and set up their own structure.

But right now, that’s fantasy.  And all that’s concrete is the potentiality for the Mountain West to finally find themselves on equal footing as the power conferences.  Adding Boise State would be the first step towards fixing college football’s broken system.

Related Posts:

1. The Tornado Alley Divide: MWC vs Big East
2. A Modest (Playoff) Proposal
3. Los Insight Bowl partners with ESPN to increase prestige and exposure

NittanyWhiteOut

Jonathan Graham commmited to Penn State Thursday

Yes, these are indeed strange times in Penn State.  While Joe Paterno and his staff are yet to secure a single commitment in next year’s class, for the second time in a matter of weeks, Ed DeChellis and crew have added a player as part of the late signing period, according to the Baltimore Sun.

I guess you can actually promise these guys immediate playing time when there are only 8 scholarship players held over from last year’s team, only one of whom has actually distinguished himself as a legitimate starter.

Jonathan Graham is a 6′8, 215-pound power forward who should immediately challenge rising sophomores Sasa Borovnjak and Billy Oliver for the role of backup forward to Jeff Brooks and Andrew Jones.  Scout gives 3 stars, and ranks him the #40 power forward in the nation.  Rivals offers three stars, and ESPN’s Scouts, Inc. grades Graham an 86, grading out the same as Tre Bowman, Penn State’s other late-period signee.

Though the recruiting services roughly agree on his skillset, they are very inconsistent in listing the other offers Graham received.  Scout cites scholarships from VCU and Seton Hall, Rivals lists “interest” from such schools as Florida State and Davidson, and ESPN reported that among Graham’s top choices were Rhode Island, Wright State, and UAB.  Meanwhile, the Sun article claimed that Graham selected Penn State over, primarily, Duquesne.

So here’s what we know about the Baltimore, Maryland native:

His father is something of a legend at Maryland, so he may have some mixed emotions when Penn State takes the floor against the Terps this fall.  He failed to gain the same notoriety as his father did, as Ernie Graham was a high school wunderkind before moving on to the college game.  Still, he was the standout performer on a 21-7 team that won the Baltimore Catholic League championship, averaging 17 points and 9.9 rebounds a game in his senior season.  Perhaps most importantly for the Penn State team he’s set to join in the fall, Graham averaged 3.4 blocks per game, which is, shall we say, a smidge more than the .5 blocks per game that Jeff Brooks had to pace the Lions in the 2009-10 campaign.

Here’s a nice read about Graham, from ESPN. Admittedly, it comes from a biased source (his high school coach), but it should at least describe the kind of kid we’re getting:

“Schools are concerned with his lateral movement, but they love his demeanor and attitude,” coach John Bauersfeld says of the 6-8, 225-pound forward.

Graham, a late bloomer, could push out an additional 2 inches, Bauersfeld says. Graham also is fundamentally sound, can put the ball on the floor, can defend the post and shoots a hook shot with both hands.

The article went on to list interest from such schools as St. Joseph’s, Temple, South Florida, and the aforementioned Maryland, each of whom was taking their time before offering a scholarship.

Those skills are similar strengths to those described by Scout, who offers up such positives as “post play,” “rebounding,” and “low post scorer,” while taking points off for his “explosiveness” and for “playing below the rim.”

Named an all-league performer in a league that has graduated such standouts as Juan Dixon, Rudy Gay and Donte Green, Graham is a good get for Penn State.  Sure, he wasn’t the coaching staff’s top choice, but he has the potential to be a starting big man on a competitive team, which is more than you can say about some of the forwards on Penn State’s roster over the past few years.

Earlier today, Eric over at BattleDoesItAgain laid out a recruiting update, and until today, things hadn’t been pretty for Ed DeChellis this offseason.  For him to pick up a player in Graham is a significant acheivement.  Sure, Seton Hall might not be a powerhouse, and it may just be baby steps, but over the past few months, we’ve seen players spurn Penn State for such schools as TCU, Central Florida, and Iowa State.  Graham was a player who received some significant attention in the recruiting game, and who will almost assuredly see playing time as a true freshman.

For now, I’ll save the Ed-bashing.  Graham isn’t a player who will take Penn State to the next level on his own, but given the constraints of 4 transferring players, with little notice, the coaching staff has done a solid job identifying and securing players who can do more than fill out a roster.

Welcome to Penn State, Jonathan. Good luck.

Related Posts:

1. When it Rains it Pours (but in a good way): Dominique Easley Commits to Penn State
2. Nation Top Fullback Zach Zwinak Commits to Penn State
3. Penn State basketball picks up Tre Bowman

NittanyWhiteOut

To those of you who aren’t Seinfeld fans, you probably have no idea what I’m talking about.  Here’s a refresher course.

But for those of you who know exactly what I’m talking about, you’re in for a treat.  Here at NittanyWhiteOut HQ, we’ve got our Festivus pole up, we’re preparing the Festivus dinner, and while we await the Festivus miracles and the feats of strength, we’ll take advantage of another Festivus tradition, the airing of greivances, and address some of the problems we have with some of Penn State’s decision-making in the past year.  Here it is everybody, how the following people have disappointed us in the past year:

• Hey, Tim Curley–do we really need to play 7.5 home games a year?  I’m pretty sure most other schools sponsor the same number of sports as Penn State does, and yet the vast majority of them aren’t afraid to play a marquee game every year.  So what the hell were you thinking when you asked Penn State fans to pay full price to watch games against such great opponents as Temple, Akron, and Eastern Illinois?  One of those games is fine, and two is acceptable, but when Syracuse is a stinker, and Temple ends up being your best non-conference opponent, somebody’s failed in the scheduling department.  Next year will be even better, with Alabama an away game, you’ll be treating fans to a lineup of Temple, Kent State, and Youngstown State, and a Big Ten slate devoid of any of the marquee teams in the conference means Northwestern might well be our best home game in 2010.  But that’s not all–implementing a new ticket policy for students which made it damn near impossible to even give your tickets away, much less sell them?  You deserve all the blame for the empty seats this year, not anyone else.  Now, we find out that you’re taking away our sideline seats and throwing all the students in the end zone? Do I need to remind you that the team is PENN STATE’s team and that we, as PENN STATE students, shouldn’t be tossed aside like an afterthought?  Shame on you, Mr. Curley, for selling out so brutally, and turning what actually once might have been “The Best Show in College Football” into a corporate farce of marketing.  Now, all fans will have to pay what amount to PSLs and you’re increasing prices across the board?  I can only hope that you, and Guido D’Elia get called out over and over again, especially when people look at the half empty student section for games like the aforementioned jokes and even against Minnesota in the snow.  You’ve ruined Paternoville, you’ve ruined tailgating, you’ve taken away all the beauty of college football-the marching bands, the tradition, in favor of cheesy pumped-in arena rock songs and corporate sponsorship.
• Hey, Joe Paterno–I’m not going to complain, as some “fans” have, that you should be forced out, that a 10-2 season is a disaster, that you’ve clearly lost touch with your players, because even if that was true, you’ve earned the right to go out on your own terms.  But after all these years, would it kill you to hire a special teams coach?  This year’s unit couldn’t have been worse, with Collin Wagner physically unable to kick a field goal of more than 40 or so yards and spotty on anything closer, with a punter who was solid but coverage that was a sieve, with a kick and punt return unit that put the ball on the floor more often than they broke a big one and a kick coverage unit that ranked among the worst in the country.  Take a look at Frank Beamer, and see what an advantage his teams have by dominating that area of the game. They’ve consistently created more scoring chances for themselves with big returns and key blocked kicks when they need them.  Now look at your team, and see that a blocked punt doomed us against Iowa and a long punt return against set the tone in the Ohio State game, and maybe, if our special teams were merely mediocre, we’d have won one of those games.  I know, not all schools have a special teams coordinator, but why wouldn’t you want to give your team the absolute best chance to compete?
• Hey, Darryl Clark–stop complaining.  Look, I like you, you were a good leader for this team, and whenever you’ve got a quarterback who’s a two-time All-Conference selection, you can’t argue about the production on the field.  That’s right Daryll, against the Michigan States and Illinoises and even the Michigans of the world you cleaned up.  But against Iowa, you were horrendous, twice, though your offensive line certainly wasn’t doing you any favors.  Against Ohio State this year, you couldn’t complete a pass of more than 5 yards.  And even though the Lions beat the Buckeyes last year in Columbus, you were on the bench while your backup scored the winning touchdown.  That’s why I take umbrage with a recent Twitter post you put up.  Sorry, Daryll, but I thought your legacy was on the line against Ohio State this year, and, well, we both know how that turned out.  You were a great quarterback for us, but no matter what happens on New Year’s Day, you’ll be remembered as the QB who couldn’t win the big one.  So don’t worry, Daryll, your legacy isn’t on the line, it’s already been determined.  Just not the way you’d like.  That’s not to say I’d take these years back, that’s not to say I’d prefer Pat Devlin, that’s not to say I don’t appreciate and respect all you’ve done for this team.  Your legacy will always be as a great leader, as someone who put the Anthony Morelli years firmly in the rearview mirror, and who excelled in the vast majority of his games.  This grievance is just to beg you not to be indignant when you had the chance to leave your mark. Sorry, Daryll, but you’re no Michael Robinson.

Hat tip to BSD

• Hey, Cael Sanderson–I get it, you’re quite possibly the greatest wrestler of all time, you’re an Olympic legend, and you’re a hell of a wrestling coach.  We were all thrilled when you came here, and early returns, both on the mat and in wrestling recruiting, have been sparkling.  You’re certainly earning the record contract that you signed, even though some (me) might argue that the money would be better spent on bringing in some marquee opponents for the football team.  But this isn’t about that.  This is about your dictator-like tendencies to suspend a wrestler for having a beer on his 21st birthday.  You made it a team rule that wrestlers couldn’t drink any alcohol during the wrestling season, and I really don’t like that rule.  These wrestlers are just kids, college students, and it’s not fair to hold your athletes to that high of a standard.  I’m not suggesting that these student-athletes should be going out and getting drunk every weekend, but how about a little trust in your kids to be responsible?  One beer on his 21st birthday isn’t taking this wrestler out of his game, it’s not making him out of shape, and that rule serves no purpose other than to assert your dominance, Mr. Sanderson, over a bunch of college students.  I know, you want your wrestlers to be at their peak physical condition, but why can’t we just let kids be kids, and athletes second?
• Hey, Floyd Mayweather–man up and fight Manny Pacquiao.
• Hey, Phillies fans–realize that you got completely fleeced in the Roy Halladay trade.
• Hey, anybody on the Penn State basketball team other than Talor Battle–please, help that man out. He can’t do it all on his own, okay?
• Hey, Ed DeChellis–you should have a play that doesn’t involve dicking around until there are 5 seconds left on the shot clock and then having Talor Battle throw up an off-balance three.
• Hey, readers–thanks for your support of NittanyWhiteOut over the past year, have a Merry Christmas, Joyous Kwanzaa, for those of you who celebrated a Chappy Chanukah last week, I hope your candles burned bright, and to all: May your 2010s be better than your 2009s!

Related Posts:

1. Happy birthday Joe Paterno!
2. Scoping out the Secondary Market
3. Is Greg Paulus coming to Happy Valley?

NittanyWhiteOut

To celebrate the upcoming new year, and new decade, we’ll be offering a retrospective here at NittanyWhiteOut. Over the next two weeks, we’ll reveal all the members of NittanyWhiteOut’s All-Decade team, comprising of the best Penn Staters from 2000-2009. Don’t agree with our picks? Let your voice be heard in the comments! We continue today with a look back at Penn State’s best defensive tackles of the past decade.

Defensive tackle isn’t always the most glorious position to play. While defensive ends are tasked with getting after the quarterback, and linebackers have the duty to tackle the ball carrier, the defensive tackles make it all possible by clogging running lanes and eating up blockers. The best mark of a defensive tackle doing his job is the superior play of everyone around him, and our choices below went above and beyond just that. They pressured the quarterback, pushing back blockers and penetrating beyond the line of scrimmage. They swallowed up ball carriers, not even letting them get to the next level. Their superior play bolstered tremendous defensive performances, and as such, they make the NittanyWhiteOut All-Decade team.

Jimmy Kennedy (1999-2002) stood out in an era in which not too many Nittany Lions excelled. While stories of Kennedy’s girth are legendary–the commonly repeated story is that he came into Penn State weighing close to 400 pounds, his play on the field was perhaps just as epic. A four-year starter for Penn State, Kennedy made an immediate impact on a struggling program, being named an all-Big Ten honorable mention player in his sophomore season and an first-team all-conference player in his junior seasons, despite the abject failure of the rest of the team around him. With Penn State struggling, Kennedy weighed heavily a decision to enter the NFL a year early, but chose to return to Penn State for his senior year, a move that paid obvious dividends, as Kennedy experienced a metamorphosis, from a solid tackle to one of the best linemen in the country. As a senior, Kennedy racked up 87 tackles, 5.5 sacks, and even knocked down 3 passes at the line, en route to a spot on the All-America team. A finalist for all sorts of post-season awards, Kennedy found himself a first-round draft pick, 12th overall, and one of 4 Nittany Lions drafted in the first round of the 2003 NFL Draft, though he has failed to find the same success in the NFL that he did during his Penn State playing days.

Jared Odrick (2006-2009) came to Penn State with considerable fanfare, a consensus All-American, and lived up to that promise almost immediately. Though he saw the field very little as a freshman, by his sophomore season Odrick was making a big impact on the Lions defense, playing both defensive end and tackle. Going into his junior season, Odrick was firmly entrenched as a starter at defensive tackle, and following the dismissals of Chris Baker and Phil Taylor before the season, and exacerbated by the mid-season legal issues of Abe Koroma, Odrick was thrust into an every-down role. Jared wouldn’t be on this list if he didn’t rise to the occasion, and, after a 4.5-sack, 10-TFL season, Odrick was named to the all-Big Ten first team. Odrick was even better in his senior season, coming through with 6 sacks and countless pressures despite constant double-teaming. Though the Big Ten media listed Odrick as merely a second-team player, the coaches not only voted him as the best defensive lineman, but as their conference player of the year, perhaps the ultimate form of respect. Odrick was also named to the CBS All-America team and the AFCA All-America team, as voted on by the coaches of the NCAA.

Honorable Mentions: Jay Alford, Anthony Adams

Related Posts:

1. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Defensive Ends
2. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Offensive Tackles
3. The Penn State All-Decade Team: Safety