Is The Shillelagh Game In Trouble?

It was announced yesterday that Notre Dame will move from the Big East to the ACC in all sports except for football and hockey. As per usual, ND has kept their football entity separate because, you know, it's such a national brand.

But there was something more significant in the announcement -- the Domers have committed to play five ACC schools per year in football. That's a big deal, actually. This year, for example, the Irish play no more than three schools from any one conference, with the three being the Big Ten (Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State). Playing five "conference games" (which is effectively what they are, even if they won't be reflected in the ACC standings) eats up a lot of real estate in ND's schedule.

Why am I bringing this up? Because Purdue and Notre Dame have played every year since the '40s (even though it's not a rivalry, remember) and I think that could be in danger.

Morgan Burke was quoted yesterday as saying it "only make sense" that Purdue and ND will continue their regular meetings, but I'm not sure it's something that Morgan can just hang back and assume will happen. It might take some effort/lobbying on his part.

Consider that Notre Dame AD Swarbrick said the Domers are committed to playing USC, Stanford and Navy every season. They also currently face Michigan and Michigan State on a regular basis, and it's fair to say that at least the game vs. Michigan is a marquee matchup on a more national level. If you assume those five games remain and then you add in five ACC games, Notre Dame is down to two slots left. They already have some agreements in place, such as Miami this year in Chicago and a home and home with Oklahoma starting this season, and while I'm too lazy to research their ongoing committments in this regard, it's safe to say Army and others might be already on the schedule in upcoming seasons.

The point is, the 12 game slots are more quickly and easily filled now. You might be thinking you remember reading that Purdue and ND are committed to play through early next decade, and you'd be partially right. But the ever-thorough Mike Carmin of the J&C reported the following:

The schools have an agreement to play annually through 2021, but only the 2013 and 2014 games have signed contracts.

According to information provided to the Journal & Courier through a public records request, the contract for the 2015 game hasn’t been signed and a “letter agreement” exists for the 2016 and 2017 matchups.

I find this interesting and telling. There are also reports that ND is already floating the fact that some of their regular opponents are going to need to get used to the idea of, for example, a two years on, two years off arrangement.

While Purdue and ND have a longstanding history of playing each other regularly, I think this may be the beginning of the end of having ND automatically on the schedule every year. From what Carmin reported, it looks like it would be tough for ND to get out of the games through 2014, but not difficult at all after that. I also think it would be possible for ND to negotiate with Burke and offer future guaranteed matchups (though not annually) in exchange for letting them out of those contracted 2013 and 2014 games. The point? This "rivalry" could dissipate faster than you think.

It also does bring me to a question: do you care? Vote in the poll to the right and let us know your thoughts on this in the comments.

The Real Big One?

A year ago as the BT began to test the waters of mega expansion, the college sports nation reacted. But when it was all said and done and the B1G had made its move, a super conference in the midwest wasn't a reality, but a 12-team Big Ten was.

The Big 12 tried to slap a band-aid on its wound with a hastily- designed TV deal and conference re-structuring and everyone knew it wasn't a permanent solution...little did we know how temporary it would be.

The 10-team Big 12 will soon be an 9 team and with Texas A&M leaving...and like when the BT was changing, rumors are swirling about other parts- Mizzou (who clearly wants out of the B12), FSU and Clemson could all move to the SEC as well, and help form a 16 team, all-sport super conference. If this were to happen, what would happen in the BT?

My thought is that without a whale wanting to join and a greater stake in the Northeast TV market, no move will come from Delany and Co. In fact, I would guess it would take other schools coming to the B1G boss, not vice-versa.

EsPN was first to report the rumors of the new quasi-Southeast Mega Conference...and some reports directly contradict the whispers...but why wouldn't Mickey & Co. try to grease the wheels a bit? EsPN already has a heavy vested interest in the SEC and making this conference have longer arms and more TV interest would do nothing but help Disney.

We'll see what happens in the coming days/weeks...but it's getting interesting...Again.

Might not be smiling for too long

How Long Does This Band-Aid Fix the Big 12?

Not that I particularly care what the Big 12 does, but whoring themselves out to Texas is probably not the best solution to all of this. However, what choice did Dan Beebe have? Texas wasn't blinking in the staredown and was supposedly really considering bolting for the Pac 10 and -- just as importantly -- taking half the conference with them.

So Beebe acquiesced and gave in to Texas' demands, which, basically are that the Longhorns continue to be the big dog of the conference and now have the right to have their own television network.

Yes, that's right. Not a Big 12 network -- a Texas Longhorns network. Sure, sure, the new deal engineered by the Big 12 and the University of Texas' leadership reaps money for the rest of the remaining Big 12, too, but Texas stands to make the most. Of course.

Consider this: One of the primary complaints by schools like our newest Big Ten member, Nebraska, was that Texas made things all about them. They had to be the biggest, the baddest and they wanted the Big 12 to bend at their whim. Ever since the SWAC/Big 8 days, Texas has been the bully and has minimized other programs within the conference. It was thought that Nebraska was not alone in feeling this way.

Now, with Colorado (somewhat meaningless) and Nebraska (somewhat meaningful) gone from the Big 12, isn't it reasonable to assume that other schools will eventually begin to feel the way they did...if they don't already?

How long does this honeymoon last? Yes, as Orangebloods.com points out, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State will see their TV revenues double under the new deal. But Texas, Oklahoma and A&M will make 50% more than that. And then Texas will launch a Longhorns TV network, or so it appears. AND Texas, Oklahoma and A&M will reportedly get the others' share of the buyout money that Nebraska and Colorado have to pay to the conference.

So yes, everyone will be happy for a little while. But it could be a short period. Once we get to December of next year and nobody is paying attention to the Big 12 anymore because they can't have a title game with fewer than 12 teams in their conference, won't some grumbling begin? Or will they all be too busy counting their money to notice?

My point is the same thing that's been wrong with the Big 12 for years continues to be wrong with it. It's just that they've bought off the "lesser" schools for a little while. But why the pyramid with Texas at the top? Why is that okay? Are the have-nots in the Big 12 that reliant on Texas? Could they not catch on elsewhere? Perhaps that's why, but it's hard to imagine some of those schools (such as Kansas) not being appealing to a conference like the Big Ten.

I think they'll have to annex a couple of schools and get back to 12 and regain the level of significance that they had. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. Yes, they're all making more money now, which is all that matters to them, but with a title game back in the picture, they could..... make even more money!!

This stuff sucks. Get me to football season.

Iowa State Wants Some Love

Where do you go when you just aren't feeling the love anymore? Why, Craigslist, of course.

Someone has posted a request for a new conference on behalf of Iowa State. See below. (Click to see better.)


Yeah, we've all got too much time on our hands now with three more months to go before football.

(Thanks to Michael for the heads-up.)

Conference Expansion SCOOP

With all of the big-time football conferences jockeying for position, it's been hard to keep up with what's happening and what's really going to happen. However, Boiled Sports is here for you, as always, as we have the scoop on the happenings with all major conferences whose logos are above.

In a surprise move, the I-AA conferences have gotten involved.

"We really feel that a playoff is in the best interests of college football," said Jim Delany today, "and since the BCS kind of hog-ties us, we're going to request several of our teams move to I-AA conferences."

"Hog-tied!! Now yar speekin' mah language, Jimmy!!" exclaimed Mike Silve, SEC commissioner.

"Hey, don't forget us! We're really important to college football," chimed in Pac 10 commish Larry Scott. "We have a team people pay attention to!"

"Yeah, USC. Which is about to go on probation and, let's face it, has an overgrown frat boy as a coach," countered Dan Beebe, Big 12 commissioner. "Nobody cares about the Pac 10."

"Oh yeah?" responded Scott. "Well, I give you until FRIDAY, JUNE 11 to take that back!!"

"Or else what?" asked Beebe.

"Uhhhh...." *gurgling noises*

[end transcript]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What BS has learned is the following.

Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Purdue and Iowa will join the MEAC, creating new and exciting rivalries with teams like Bethune-Cookman and Delaware State. An added bonus is that Ohio State and Michigan will feel right at home since these are their typical non-conference foes under their current situation.

Illinois, MSU, Minn, and Penn State will join with the SEC West in merging with the Ohio Valley conference. An advantage here is that Tennessee will have three new conference rivals in Tennessee State, Tennessee Tech and Tennessee-Martin -- three schools with admittedly more impressive academics but they've agreed to let Tennessee join.

The SEC West will fold into the Patriot League, so that Florida can still feel big and strong by beating up on defenseless foes like they currently do every September. Bucknell, Colgate and Fordham sound like they'll do the trick. As a concession to Georgia, they'll never have to go on the road since we all know they refuse to travel more than 200 miles from their campus.

The Pac 10 will merge with the WAC since nobody cares about -- or watches -- either conference.

The Big 12 will merge with the Southland conference. Perfect! Texas will have a new rival in Texas State to pad their record against.

[Ed Note: None of this is true. Or maybe it is. Nobody knows at this point. But Jim Delany wants 18 months to think things over so will EVERYBODY PLEASE JUST SLOW DOWN??]

Seth Davis is a Jack

Sure, PSU and IllinoiS did the Big Ten no favors last night with their awesome display of awesomeness in Champagne (maybe I caused this by bashing women's basketball last week?), but I'm still tired of the Big Ten taking shots from people who should know better.

This morning, Seth Davis was on the Dan Patrick Show and he was first asked about the 38-33 Naismith-esque game between the Kittens and the Illini. His response? Why, to take a shot at the Big Ten in general, of course:

"When I saw that, I wondered if they had gone back to the old rules where you had to have a jump ball at center court after every basket. Although that would have maybe been an improvement in the Big Ten this year."

The hell? Frick you, Seth Davis. You and your haughty, ACC-leaning self. He also went on to talk about how those in "lesser" conferences are sometimes in better position for the tourney because they're not grinding out tough games like those teams "in the ACC and Big East."

One of the things I recently discussed with Boilerdowd was how the mass media don't have any clue WHY the scores are generally lower in the Big Ten. It's not that it's weaker -- it's that our conference does this little thing called DEFENSE.

Did anyone watch Duke-UNC last week? There wasn't any defense in that game. They just ran up and down the court, nobody was even getting their hands up on defense, and when you have two teams full of all-American shooters, well, you KNOW they're going to score. And then -- presto! -- you've got a 90-80 kind of game. It's not rocket science.

Oh, and if you still think (and I know none of you do) the Big Ten is "weak," let's take a look at the conference RPI ratings.

Huh. That's funny. It looks to me -- and I'm no Seth Davis-level genius -- like the Big Ten is ranked the #2 conference... ahead of the Big (L)East and mere thousands of a point behind the ACC.

Do you know how long it took me to do that research? Four seconds. Sure, I'm biased, too, but I don't get paid to be knowledgeable on the subject.

Todd McShay Is A Handsome Man

I never had much of an opinion on Todd McShay, except that I was glad he was kind of challenging idiot extraordinaire Mel Kiper, Jr. for supremacy in evaluating college football talent.

But this morning McShay was co-hosting on ESPN Radio (filling into for the fat man / gay man combo) and he was asked to rank the college football conferences in terms of strongest to weakest. And despite the constant bashing of the Big Ten by ESPN and others, McShay actually referred to the Big Ten as "underrated," which made me want to hug him. McShay's rankings went as follows:

1. SEC (which would be #1 even if they weren't thanks to ESPN making sweet, sweet love to the SEC)

2. Big 12 (which I might argue with since yes they have some great teams but also a lot of lousy programs)

3. Big Ten

4. Pac Ten

5. Big East

6. ACC ("ha ha!" -- insert Simpsons sound effect here)

I think this is the most fair representation of the various conferences I've seen in a long time. Of course, I'm sure ACC supporters wouldn't agree, and I could possibly see flip-flopping them with the Big (L)East, but again, I can't argue too much.

Mark Schlabach Still Hates the Big Ten

Just a quick hit to point out that Mark Schlabach continues to irrationally hate the Big Ten. This is not the first time I've tried to find some logic in Schlabach's anti-Big Ten comments.

Buried in this "College GameDay Final" article, we find this nugget from Schlabach:

WINNER: Big Ten. Frankly, the conference isn't very good. But five weeks into the season, Ohio State is ranked No. 4 and Wisconsin is No. 5. With a stingy defense and improving offense (as well as a soft schedule), the Buckeyes are 5-0. The Badgers have struggled to win their past four games. The Buckeyes and Badgers play Nov. 3 at the Horseshoe in Columbus, Ohio.

So let's look at this carefully.

WINNER: Big Ten.

Cool! Some props for the Big Ten!

Frankly, the conference isn't very good.

Oh. Then why are we "winners"?

But five weeks into the season, Ohio State is ranked No. 4 and Wisconsin is No. 5.

Ah, yes, disproving your previous sentence... I mean, how is it that a conference that "isn't very good" has two of the top 5 teams in all the land?

With a stingy defense and improving offense (as well as a soft schedule), the Buckeyes are 5-0.

So is Mark complimenting or bashing OSU in this comment? Is he fence-sitting?

The Badgers have struggled to win their past four games.

What's your point? Wisconsin is never flashy yet always seems to wind up with a solid record.

The Buckeyes and Badgers play Nov. 3 at the Horseshoe in Columbus, Ohio.

And that's it. That's his last line. Great reporting, Mark! Thanks for regurgitating what a refrigerator magnet schedule can tell us!

Did a fourth-grader from Madison, Wisconsin file this report for Mark? Maybe the rough draft looked like this:

"Wisconsin plays hard and wins. Ohio State is scoring lots and wins. These teams play each other."

And one more point on all this "The Big Ten isn't very good" baloney. What would make a conference good in Mark Schlabach's world? The Big Ten has two teams in the Top Ten. Here's how other major conferences break down:

Big Ten: 2 (OSU, Wisc)
Pac Ten: 2 (USC, Cal)
SEC: 3 (LSU, Fla, UK)
Big East: 2 (South Fla, BC)
Big 12: 1 (OK)

So, again, I ask what makes a conference better than "not very good"? You don't have to love the Big Ten, but we do ask that you show some damned respect. Does anybody meet your expectations, Mark?

My guess as to what makes a good conference in Mark Schlabach's world is one where Notre Dame is the charter member and wins the conference with an unblemished record every season, while Charlie Weis wears a toga and sways in a hammock while Schlabach feeds him grapes and pork rinds.