Xenon's Comments

Posted Monday April 04, 2011, About: Notre Dame should form the "Integrity" Conference
Getting back to original post ..

I think it would be really cool to have a true "Conference USA" that had a bunch of teams that play sports but for whom the sports are NOT the prime driver.

So, places like the Service Academies ...
Army, Navy, Air Force ... where the sports are important, but as means to end to develop leaders for the country's military.

BYU, Notre Dame ... where sports are important, but not overriding honor codes or morals (see BYU suspended their #2 player before the NCAA tourney)

Northwestern, Duke, Stanford ... where sports are important, but not enough to override entrance standards and academics.

I think there are probably a few other programs that could also fit ... Maybe Vandy as an example, or perhaps Boston College or TCU as well.

A national conference with teams from all over the country, most of which have national appeal. NBC's Notre Dame contract, and BYU's BYUTV would give the conference lots of coverage, as well a perhaps something like AFN.

Just wondering ....
Posted Sunday January 30, 2011, About: USC Appeals Sanctions - Odds?
I think the chances are good. I think the new NCAA president is setting a "new tone" and creating a "kinder and gentler" NCAA ... at least to the Big Boys.

The new NCAA doesn't want to get in the way of the Schools that make up the NCAA making as much money as possible ...

Camgate ... punishing Auburn would have cost Auburn, the SEC, the SEC Champ Game, and the BCS lots of money .... hence no punishment EXCEPT to Cam's Dad who couldn't go to the games. Note, no one in the NCAA got punished in any way.

Tatt5 ... The BCS and Ohio State were not punished in a way that costs them money. The Tatt5 might not even come back, but even if they do, OSU gets all the same money for 5 early season games. NOW, maybe those PLAYERS get punished, but not the school, and not the BCS bowls and the BCS money.

I think that is exactly where the new NCAA will go with USC. They'll get rid of the Bowl Ban (money) but leave the vacated National Championship (no money in that anymore). Forbid USC from ever having Bush back on campus (no money).

Just my opinion.....
Posted Monday December 06, 2010, About: Is Oklahoma finally in a BCS game they can win?
No,

Oklahoma will bring plenty of people ... And probably UConn won't do that bad relatively speaking because Arizona is a way better place to be for New Years then Conn!!!

No, I'll bet that the Orange is the worst attended AGAIN. Which is too bad really, since Stanford vs VaTech should be a pretty good game....

But Stanford will have a tough time getting people clear across the country, and VaTech won't be able to fill the stadium either ....
Posted Thursday December 02, 2010, About: Seriously...
The part that doesn't make sense to me ... is timing ...

Look, if the rule is that "if a representative of a student solicits money or benefits, then he is ineligible" then Cam was / should have been ineligible all year long. He is ineligible from the time of the infraction to the time of being reinstated. That is why UNC didn't play people, and why A.J. Green didn't play, etc etc etc. So then Auburn is 0-0 this year, having vacated all the wins with Cam Newton.

OR, if Cam didn't do anything wrong, then he never should have been ruled ineligible by Auburn and never needed to be reinstated by the NCAA. If nothing bad happened that involved Cam, then he should never have been ruled ineligible.

There is NOTHING that Cam did between the end of the Iron Bowl and Wednesday morning that warranted being ruled ineligible. In nothing else at the NCAA does the time of ineligibility start when the investigation is complete, or worse yet, a section of the investigation complete.

To go back one more time to the Reggie Bush Mess. If we applied the Newton/Auburn time line to Bush/USC mess ... Reggie would have been ruled ineligible sometime this summer, after he had already played several years in the NFL. USC gets back all of their games and the BCSNCG because Reggie was eligible at the time (the investigation was not complete just like Newton). Reggie gets back his Heisman, because he was eligible all the time of the year he won it. But that is NOT the time line that the NCAA is using in the Bush case. In the Bush Case, they said the ineligible started at the time of the infraction. If you apply that (the Bush Time Line) to the Newton case, he is ineligible the whole year. Why the different time lines?

Either Newton did nothing wrong and should not have been ruled ineligible even for 1 hour or 1 second, OR Newton should have been ruled ineligible from the time of the infraction to the time he is ruled re-eligible by the NCAA. But not this weird half and half baloney!
Posted Tuesday November 23, 2010, About: My Kill the BCS Wish List for this weekend ...
I pretty sure that the BCS REQUIRES that everyone in the 1-4 rankings get a BCS bid. That is why Stanford needs to get to the #4 spot. Otherwise, you are right, they will be left out ....

That is part of why I really want it happen. Anything that makes the BCS do stuff they don't want to do is great in my mind .....
Posted Thursday November 04, 2010, About: BIG EAST EXPANSION
I think the idea of the power programs and ESPN and other power brokers is to "contract through expansion".

Right now, the BCS money is split between around 65 or 66 teams most of the time. That is tooo many. As some have pointed out, really only about 20 to 25 of those teams are really money makers. So each one of the 20 or 25 real power programs is dragging along one or two deadweights. I think the power players want to reduce that ratio.

So, I don't think 4 SuperMegaConferences of 16 is the plan ... that's still 64 teams. It will be 3 SuperMegaConferences of 16 teams.

PAC16 - PAC10 + Colorado + Utah + 4 others which might include some Texas teams, Oklahoma, BYU, etc.
SEC16 - who steals the best 4 teams from the ACC and or the BigXII.
B16Ten - BigTen + Nebraska + a couple of BigEast or BigXII or ACC teams

What happens to everyone else?
ACC takes what is left of the BigEast, and some CUSA teams, and forms a Basketball centric 12 or 16 team league.
BigXII in name takes the best of the WAC/MWC/CUSA to rebuild back to 12, also focusing mostly on basketball.
BigEast stops Football entirely, and stays as a 12 or 16 teams Basketball centeric league.

You have 48 teams in the ELITE level of Football, in three conferences.
You have 96 or so teams in the ELITE level of Basketball, in 6 conferences.

BCS money goes up for everyone in the ELITE level because it is divided between fewer teams.
Posted Thursday November 04, 2010, About: BIG EAST EXPANSION
I think the idea of the power programs and ESPN and other power brokers is to "contract through expansion".

Right now, the BCS money is split between around 65 or 66 teams most of the time. That is tooo many. As some have pointed out, really only about 20 to 25 of those teams are really money makers. So each one of the 20 or 25 real power programs is dragging along one or two deadweights. I think the power players want to reduce that ratio.

So, I don't think 4 SuperMegaConferences of 16 is the plan ... that's still 64 teams. It will be 3 SuperMegaConferences of 16 teams.

PAC16 - PAC10 + Colorado + Utah + 4 others which might include some Texas teams, Oklahoma, BYU, etc.
SEC16 - who steals the best 4 teams from the ACC and or the BigXII.
B16Ten - BigTen + Nebraska + a couple of BigEast or BigXII or ACC teams

What happens to everyone else?
ACC takes what is left of the BigEast, and some CUSA teams, and forms a Basketball centric 12 or 16 team league.
BigXII in name takes the best of the WAC/MWC/CUSA to rebuild back to 12, also focusing mostly on basketball.
BigEast stops Football entirely, and stays as a 12 or 16 teams Basketball centeric league.

You have 48 teams in the ELITE level of Football, in three conferences.
You have 96 or so teams in the ELITE level of Basketball, in 6 conferences.

BCS money goes up for everyone in the ELITE level because it is divided between fewer teams.
Posted Friday October 15, 2010, About: ACC Getting no Love???
I am one who sees the ACC as a step down ... and while it is certainly "just opinion" here is my reasoning ....

I see three levels in FBS ....
ELITE - These conference have several teams in the top 25, the champ is always in the top 10, and the champ is always in the national title discussion.

Power - These conference usually have a team or two in the top25, the champ is sometimes in the top10 but not always, and the champ usually considered an outsider for the national title.

other - These conferences sometimes have a team in the top 25, the champ sometimes is in the top 25, and the champ is almost never in the national title discussion.

------

Looking at those criteria, there are 4 conferences in the ELITE level, and they are consistently in the ELITE level.
SEC - SEC always has a few ranked teams, always in the top ten, and the SEC almost has a guarenteed ticket to the BCSNCG.
BigTen - BT always a few ranked teams, almost always in the top ten, always in the discussion for national title.
PAC10 - P10 always a few ranked teams, always in the top ten, usually in the discussion for national title.
BigXII - Usually a few ranked teams, usually in the top ten, usually in the Title game.

Then the next level....

MWC usually a couple of ranked teams, and at least lately always in the top 10, but only sort of in the National Title discussion.
ACC - not as many ranked teams as the ELITE level, not always top 10, seldom in the title discussion.
WAC - usually 1 ranked team, usually in the top 10, but not thought of a legitimate national title contender.
BigEast - what, no ranked teams last week right, not typically in the top 10, and champ is not considered a legit national title contender (Take Cincy last year ... they might have made it, but most people were saying they shouldn't have ...)

SunBelt, MAC, CUSA kind of speak for themselves ...
Yeah, and that is my point sort of ...

So, in the end, Pitt has loses to Utah, Miami, ND and WVU (for example). And WVU will then point to their game against Pitt as a "great win against a tough Pitt team" and proof that WVU should be ranked ... and I just don't buy it ....
Posted Monday August 23, 2010, About: Deep MWC Thoughts...By Jack Handy
Yeah, BYU is definitely looking for better terms from the MWC. Mostly related to TV rights ....

For example, BYU announced a deal for a home and home with Texas in 2013 and 2014. That deal is evidently dependent on the home game in Provo being on ESPN or ABC, and NOT on the MTN or Vs. BYU wants the rights to at least their home games, to sell to ESPN or at least local channels. BYU wants the rights to rebroadcast their games on BYUTV. BYU wants the rights to broadcast other sports on their own internal campus channel. All of which right now is prohibited by the MWC contract with the MTN.

If the MWC is willing to give at least some of those TV rights to BYU, then I think BYU stays. If not, I think BYU goes Indy to get those rights, even without a good deal for the rest of the sports. Rumor is that ESPN has offered BYU and Utah $2.0M each for the Holy War Rivalry games for the next 4 years. BYU gets $1.5M from the MTN for ALL the games on the MTN for the whole year.

So yeah, I think there is definitely an element of trying to get better terms from the MWC. However, I also think that the MWC rather underhanded way of forcing BYU to stay by killing the WAC is going to backfire long term. BYU might end up staying for a year or two, BUT, I think BYU's determination to leave will be strengthen by what they perceive to be underhanded moves by the conference (decisions made without BYU's involvement even though BYU is still a member of the conference, etc.) I suspect that the MWC can't offer enough to keep BYU in place long term now, but maybe for another year or two at the most.

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2027
    Comments
    865
  2. 2
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    1893
    Comments
    527
  3. 3
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    1969
    Comments
    138
  4. 4
    Cup drought weighing on Sid
    Views
    2273
    Comments
    107
  5. 5
    Smith won't play for San Fran in 2014
    Views
    3623
    Comments
    63

SI.com

SI Photos