College Football 2019/20

[ursus arctos]

Oregon still have a good chance to make the playoff if they win out and beat Utah in the conference championship. Particularly if Auburn give Alabama trouble.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

Oregon still have a good chance to make the playoff if they win out and beat Utah in the conference championship. Particularly if Auburn give Alabama trouble.

Oregon fall by the wayside, and Penn State too. We didn't get the OS/PS game, in another example of ESPN UK's erratic game choices (as far as I know they aren't restricted and can pick from any of the games). Utah still a possibility to get in amongst the usual suspects.

[ursus arctos]

The game for Paul Bunyan's Axe will be the most significant in decades

[Hot Pepsi]

Oregon fall by the wayside, and Penn State too. We didn't get the OS/PS game, in another example of ESPN UK's erratic game choices (as far as I know they aren't restricted and can pick from any of the games). Utah still a possibility to get in amongst the usual suspects.

You didn't really miss much. It was closer than I expected, but sadly we are still hopelessly overmatched by Ohio State and I don't see that changing any time soon. It all feels pretty hopeless. I really thought we might lose that game 70-0.

The defense is still not great, but they played much better than they did against Minnesota or Indiana and were able to create some turnovers. If they'd played that well against Minnesota, they would have won and maybe PSU could go to the Rose Bowl. Oh well. As it is, I'm hoping PSU will go to the Outback Bowl so my brother and nephew can go. They live close enough to Tampa that it wouldn't be hard.


But the chances of beating OSU were never more than about 2%. Our defensive backfield is truly terrible. We've got one very good, but not great, linebacker and no great defensive lineman. QB is about average, but just a sophomore. His backup is a better runner, but a worse passer. Running back has been by committee and the best RB, Cain, has been hurt most of the year. The only good wide receivers are a Hamler, who is way too small to be a real downfield threat and Freiermuth, the TE who is needed to block most of the time because the OL isn't great. PSU, despite all of its putative recruiting advantages still has not had a great offensive line in the last 25 years. It's infuriating to see how Wisconsin and even Indiana has a better OL. Despite the lack of good receivers or a strong-arm QB, downfield options, or pass protection, our offensive coordinator wants to throw long often. That worked against Michigan only because they kept putting a slow safety one-on-one versus Hamler. But every other team has been much smarter about that. We could really use a new OC, I think, but I don't think that will happen because this is already Franklin's third OC. Moorhead was very good, but then he got the HC job at Mississippi State. Can't blame a guy for taking an SEC head coaching job.


The talent deficiency is distressing, but the attitude still seems to be good. It has actually been a pretty good season given the overall lack of talent. Indiana, Iowa, Pitt, Michigan and, to a lesser extent, Buffalo and Michigan State were all very loseable games that they managed to win.
They are 38 point favorites against Rutgers, so hopefully that won't be too much of a struggle.

[laverte]

The game for Paul Bunyan's Axe will be the most significant in decades

i am quite excited about this ! Hoping i can find a way to see it.

Obviously there’d be nothing more Minnesota than for their football teams’ seasons both to end with a home loss to the noisy neighbor.

i also learned this week that no player out of UMinn has ever started a real NFL game at quarterback. Maybe Tanner Morgan can put an end to that peculiar streak.

Go GoGos !

[ursus arctos]

Dream start for your boys, who score on their second play from scrimmage

Row the Boat

[Hot Pepsi]

Didn’t work out.

[ursus arctos]

No, it did not

But Alabama lost in hilarious fashion, Stanford finished with four wins and LSU are beating the crap out of Texas A&M, so the day hasn't been a complete loss.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

As usual, stayed off this thread til I got caught up, which I mostly have now. The Iron Bowl was marvellous entertainment - two teams going toe to toe with lots of talking points and drama, and then the descent into farce with the missed easy field goal and the decisive penalty. Saban has looked like a defeated man in recent week, the ruthless discipline and organisation of recent years seems to have collapsed this year.

So the picture seems to be Ohio State, LSU and Clemson are home and dry, Georgia need to beat LSU, and if they don't Utah will get the fourth spot if they beat Oregon / if both Georgia and Utah lose Oklahoma will get in by beating Baylor / if both Georgia and Utah lose and Baylor beat Oklahoma then surely it's still Georgia?

[ursus arctos]

I agree with that reading of the options, though I guess Baylor could make it if they were very impressive in beating Oklahoma while LSU destroys Georgia.

I have no idea how good Clemson is, but am confident that they are considerably stronger than whoever will be number four.

[Janik]

As usual, stayed off this thread til I got caught up, which I mostly have now. The Iron Bowl was marvellous entertainment - two teams going toe to toe with lots of talking points and drama, and then the descent into farce with the missed easy field goal and the decisive penalty. Saban has looked like a defeated man in recent week, the ruthless discipline and organisation of recent years seems to have collapsed this year.

To the point where he is whining about Auburn's punt theatrics being unfair. That was just a f*ck up of organisation by him and his coaches.
He had more of a point about the field goal at the end of the first half. That was genuinely unfair on his side; it effectively gave Auburn a time out when they were all out of them and the game clock was meant to be rolling.

[ursus arctos]

Absolutely correct in all respects

[Cal Alamein]

Most of my fellow OU fans were loving the Auburn win as it puts the Sooners a possible step closer to yet another CFP - I just love to see Saban squirm, get uptight as hell and whine.

While I hope they beat Baylor again next week, I'd just as soon see Utah or Georgia get that #4 slot (assuming the favorites all survive). If Baylor beats OU, then the Bears have as good an argument as Utah to get in.

Ohio State and LSU are really on a different level this year - I think Clemson is just as strong, but didn't have the schedule.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

While I hope they beat Baylor again next week, I'd just as soon see Utah or Georgia get that #4 slot (assuming the favorites all survive). If Baylor beats OU, then the Bears have as good an argument as Utah to get in.

I can see the argument for Baylor if they bring down Oklahoma but they had a really soft non conference schedule and would be a weak contender.

When I attended Rice v Baylor a couple of years ago we found ourselves in the Baylor section. The constant gravel-voiced rumble from their fans of " 'old 'em Burrs " still sounds in my head every time they are mentioned. This was quite amusing for a Rugby League fan such as myself, but then they got the ball and the rumble changed to 'go Burrs', and for the rest of the match not much 'olding was required.

[ursus arctos]

They also have a number of low margin, non-dominant wins in conference, which is why I think they need more than just a winover the Sooners

[laverte]

Ach well, there's always next century.

While you good folks are here i hope you don't mind if i ask a couple of questions about college football. First up listening to the broadcast i kept hearing the word ;redshirting'; from the context i couldn'rt work out what it means but suspect it doesn't have much to do with bolshevism.

i also wante to ask about how the leagues earn and split their revenue. It seems to me that there isn't much parity: in the big 10 (or 14) Ohio State and Wisconsin generally win their divisions (conferences?) without too much fuss while colleges such as Rutgers and Indiana are usually neaar the bottom. How can that be the case? Is the television income divided according to a formula that privileges past performance, or is there something like a free market based on audience numbers? Minnesota has invested a lot in a new stadium and facilities and a sought-after coach; do you think that is likely to bring them more success?

Now veering dangerously off topic a final question about college towns. It strikes me as odd that some of the giants of college football play in out-of-the-way places like East Lansing and Tuscaloosa and, uh, State College. i'm curious as to how American colleges ended up in these places, rather than in Milwaukee, say, or Cleveland, given that most universities founded during a similar period in the UK and France were set up in big industrial cities. Would the fact of UMinn being in the Twin Cities amke it more (or less) of a draw when recruiting athletes than Lincoln, NE or West Lafayette, IN?

[caja-dglh]

Ach well, there's always next century.

While you good folks are here i hope you don't mind if i ask a couple of questions about college football. First up listening to the broadcast i kept hearing the word ;redshirting'; from the context i couldn'rt work out what it means but suspect it doesn't have much to do with bolshevism.

Redshirting is when a player joins the college but they define them as not playing for a year (typically their freshman year). This maintains the years of eligibility as a college athlete. For the school it manages a pipeline of players without having an overpowered bench of players.

The player in turn gets to train and learn the system and probably complete a masters while eligible on scholarship.

[ursus arctos]

And if you really want your mind blown, has now become an accepted term here for having one's child (almost always a boy) start kindergarten a year late.

[Janik]

I presume at one point such players literally wore a red shirt during practice sessions?

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

i also wante to ask about how the leagues earn and split their revenue. It seems to me that there isn't much parity: in the big 10 (or 14) Ohio State and Wisconsin generally win their divisions (conferences?) without too much fuss while colleges such as Rutgers and Indiana are usually neaar the bottom. How can that be the case? Is the television income divided according to a formula that privileges past performance, or is there something like a free market based on audience numbers? Minnesota has invested a lot in a new stadium and facilities and a sought-after coach; do you think that is likely to bring them more success?

It's all a bit complicated when you start looking into it (which I have done on occasion in recent years). The TV rights are pooled for conference games, so last year the SEC paid out $44m per member and the Big Ten paid out $50m. There are anomalies and penalties which might vary what individual teams get. I think the treatment of non conference games varies by conference, the SEC bundle them into their TV deal. Colleges get further payouts for qualifying for bowls. Notre Dame have their own TV deal.

A big variant will be on ticket sales - Rutgers are down to around 25,000 which is a long way off what Ohio State, Michigan etc are pulling in (and they'll be doing it at a higher average ticket price too). The American posters will know more about this than me but I think for non conference game it is usual for home teams to guarantee a payout for visiting teams and obviously the more attractive the opponent the higher they will be paid. There also seems to be a trend for some of the bigger inter conference games to be hosted at neutral stadia, guaranteeing one or both teams a big payday (Alabama got $4.5m for playing Duke in Atlanta this year).

[Hot Pepsi]

I presume at one point such players literally wore a red shirt during practice sessions?

That is true.

The redshirt indicated players who were at least somewhat injured so they shouldn’t be tackled. Quarterbacks often wear them in the spring intersquad game. Sometimes the shirt looked like the Swiss flag as that is also a well-known symbol for a hospital.

Players can and do “redshirt” a season because they are injured and therefore retain that year of eligibility. But, as explained above, they can also redshirt a year just because the coach thinks it would be better for them to just practice that year and preserve that year of eligibility. That’s usually their freshman year, but not always.

You’ll often hear playerS referred to as “redshirt freshmen” or “redshirt sophomores,” that means they are in their first or second year of eligibility, respectively, but are also took a redshirt year, so they’re in their second and third year of college.

This can get complicated with players who’ve been injured more than once and have to petition for extra years, etc. There are players in their sixth year of studies but in their fourth year of eligibility.

Many of those players have already finished their bachelors degree and are working on a graduate degree while still playing sports.


As for the money-sharing thing. That is complicated, but basically teams share all the TV revenue with the other institutions in their conference. That means that big money makers like Penn State and Ohio State are sharing with schools that bring in less revenue, like Rutgers and Northwestern, but the pros of being in a conference now outweigh the cons. The most important pros are that being in a conference creates leverage for TV contracts. It makes scheduling a lot easier, especially for the non-football sports, but it’s mostly about the TV money.

For example, the BigTen got Maryland and Rutgers into it’s league entirely because that compelled the cable companies in the New York and DC markets to put the B1G Network on the cheaper tier of their cable package, which then allows the network to charge more for ads which makes more money for everyone. Maryland has good teams in basketball and some non-revenue sports like lacrosse, but ranges from mid-table to terrible in football. Rutgers is a perennial doormat in football and doesn’t add much in any other sport except women’s soccer, maybe. They were invited to the BigTen just because of the TV market thing. They don’t even have that many fans in the New York area.

It used to be that many of the big programs - Penn State, Miami, Florida State, etc. - were independent for football so they could keep all that revenue, while playing other sports in a league for scheduling purposes. But since the 90s and the growth of big package TV deals, it’s been more lucrative to be in a conference. The only major hold out is Notre Dame, which had/has enough “brand power” to have its own national TV deal for football while playing in conferences for its other sports - the ACC for most sports and the Big Ten for hockey. But that may not last forever.


As to why so many big schools are in relatively small towns - That goes back to the development of the state “land grant” universities that got federal money in the 19th century to start public colleges. A lot of them were - and to some extent still are - focused on agriculture, mining, forestry etc, so the non-urban setting made sense.

Also, in Penn State’s case, it was politically expedient to put the new university about halfway between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia as a political compromise between the political and industrial powers in those cities. A lot of other big schools are in their state’s capitol - Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio State, etc. which, I assume was also a political compromise.

As far as sports go, it’s traditionally been difficult for college teams in cities with major pro teams to generate a lot of interest. Pitt, Miami, Minnesota, Boston College, Rutgers, Maryland, among others, are all in the shadow of major pro teams that get more interest. One of the reasons that college football is so popular in the south and the west is that there were few major pro teams there during the 50s and 60s when televised football was taking off.

On the other hand, college basketball thrives in more urban markets because it’s easier for those teams to get fans to come out on days other than Saturdays. Penn State has struggled with this. They can get 100,000+ people to seven football games on Saturdays every a year, but most of those people are traveling at least 100 miles to be there. Basketball has a lot more games and a lot of them, especially since cable tv took off in the 80s, are on week nights. It’s harder to get people to drive far for that in the winter. That’s not the only reason Penn State basketball hasn’t had much success, but it’s one of them.

[Southport Zeb]

Maryland and Rutgers don't get full shares of conference revenue for another couple of years due to one of the conditions they had to agree to gain entry to the Big Ten.

[Hot Pepsi]

Right.

It’s still more money than Rutgers was getting in the old Big East and it’s remarkable that Maryland was willing to leave their traditional home in the ACC, but I guess the TV money just wasn’t nearly as good in that conference.

[ursus arctos]

The other big factor is finances is the amount contributed by "boosters", which can vary widely by school and is highly correlated with success on the playing field. Traditionally, those have been primarily large networks of "big men in small towns" (the prototypical case being an automobile dealer) that can be dominant in a state, though we have recently seen the advent of oligarch driven athletic programmes - with Phil Knight (of Nike) spending hundreds of millions of USD to make Oregon a national power in football and Boone Pickens (oil) spending a similar amount at Oklahoma State.

Contributions of equivalent size at "elite" institutions never go to athletic programmes. Nor are those schools' fund-raising and application numbers anywhere near as sensitive to athletic results (especially in football and men's basketball) as they are at other schools (Clemson has more than doubled both during their current run).

It's a very weird system for non-USians to comprehend.

[Hot Pepsi]

“Contributions of equivalent size at "elite" institutions never go to athletic programmes.”

I’m not sure I know what you mean.

Maybe they don’t get single contributions for sports as big as what Phil Knight has provided to Oregon, but many elite institutions certainly have big sports boosters too. For example, the Ivies generally sponsor every possible sport and have excellent facilities despite not making much money from sports. That comes from donors, does it not?

Even some D3 programs have fancy facilities too. Most of that comes from donors.

But that’s all just excess. Unlike Louisville or Clemson or Oregon, places like Stanford or Harvard do not need sporting success to build name recognition or reputation. They do it just because they can. That’s why it’s so easy to hate Stanford.