Tag: Big Ten

PAC-12, Smack 12 – Best Volleyball Conference?

horvath Leave a comment

PAC-12, Smack 12 – for a number of years, smack talkers from the West have claimed the PAC-12 is the top collegiate volleyball conference in the country. At times that has been true; however, that wasn’t the case in 2015.

Without a doubt the Big 10 was the country’s elite collegiate volleyball conference this season. The following table shows the win-loss records for the NCAA teams from the Big 10.

Team Record
Nebraska 6-0
Minnesota 4-1
Illinois 2-1
Ohio State 2-1
Penn State 2-1
Wisconsin 2-1
Michigan State 1-1
Michigan State 1-1
Purdue 1-1

Not only did the tournament champion come from the Big 10, but six of the conference teams had winning records and all of the Big 10 teams won matches.

The Huskers won six matches – three were 3-0 and three were 3-1. Their dominance was impressive given the depth of the field.

Looking ahead to next season, you have to feel sorry for the Big 10. The leading hitter for Nebraska was Kadie Rolfzen (412 kills) and right behind her was Mikaela Roecke (386 attacks). Rolfzen is a junior and Roecke is a freshman.

Amber Rolfzen led the team in blocks (182) and Kelly Hunter led the team in assists (1,501). Rolfzen is a junior and Hunter is a sophomore. The chances are pretty good that Nebraska will have a “decent” team in 2016.

Sixty four teams played in the NCAA championships. These teams represented thirty-two conferences.

The following 20 teams and conferences were at the bottom with 0-1 records.

University Conference
• SMU American Athletic Conference
• New Hampshire American East Conference
• Lipscomb Atlantic Sun Conference
• NAU Big Sky
• Coastal Carolina Big South Conference
• UNC Wilmington Colonial Conference
• Cleveland State Horizon League
• Fairfield Metro Atlantic
• Ohio Mid-American Conference
• Howard Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference
• Colorado State Mountain West
• Robert Morris Northeast Conference
• Belmont Ohio Valley Conference
• Furman Southern Conference
• Texas A&M Corpus Christi Southland Conference
• Jackson State Southwestern Athletic Conference
• Arkansas State Sun Belt
• Harvard The Ivy League
• Denver The Summit League
• NMSU WAC

In addition, the PAC-12 and Missouri Valley Conference were leaders for the number of teams with first round losses. Both had three, followed by the Big 12 with two. The ACC, SEC, WCC, and Big East also had teams that bowed out in the first round.

Only 12 conferences had teams that won matches and only six conferences had winning records.

Conference Record
Big 10 21-8
Big 12 10-5
PAC-12 9-7
SEC 5-4
WCC 5-4
Big West 3-1
Big East 3-3
ACC 3-4
Atlantic 10 Conference 1-1
Conference USA 1-1
Patriot League 1-1
MVC 1-4

Only 16 of the 64 teams had winning records

University Conference Record
Nebraska Big 10 6-0
Texas Big 12 5-1
Minnesota Big 10 4-1
Kansas Big 12 4-1
Hawaii Big West 3-1
USC PAC-12 3-1
Washington PAC-12 3-1
Florida SEC 3-1
Illinois Big 10 2-1
Ohio State Big 10 2-1
Penn State Big 10 2-1
Wisconsin Big 10 2-1
Creighton Big East 2-1
UCLA PAC-12 2-1
BYU WCC 2-1
Loyola Marymount WCC 2-1

While it is entertaining to play with the data and talk smack about which conference is best, the most impressive aspect of the 2015 NCAA Championships was the number of quality players on all teams.

Congrats to the Cornhuskers and Big 10 on a great season!

Big Ten and Pac-12 Dominate NCAA Volleyball Championships

horvath Leave a comment

Once again the women’s  NCAA Volleyball Championships were a showdown between the Big Ten and the Pac-12. The Big Ten captured bragging rights for quality with six teams entered and three of the eight quarterfinalists. The Pac-12 laid claim to the deepest conference, with ten teams entered and one semifinalist.

On December 4th, 64 teams from 31 conferences kicked off regional play for the 34th NCAA women’s volleyball tournament. On December 20th, Penn State won the championship for the second consecutive year.

Each of the six Big Ten representatives won matches. The overall conference record was 17 wins and 5 losses.

Big Ten Won Lost
Penn State 6 0
Wisconsin 3 1
Nebraska 3 1
Ohio State 2 1
Illinois 2 1
Michigan St. 1 1
Conference Total 17 5

Each of the ten Pac 12 teams won matches. Conferences teams were 17-10 in championships.

Pac 12 Won Lost
Stanford 4 1
Oregon 2 1
Oregon State 2 1
UCLA 2 1
Washington 2 1
Arizona 1 1
Arizona State 1 1
Colorado 1 1
USC 1 1
Utah 1 1
Conference Total 17 10

The 16 teams from the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences won 34 of the 63 matches played in the championships. That is dominance!

Five teams represented the SEC. Florida had three wins and was the only SEC team that had a strong presence in the championships. Texas @&M was the only team that did not win a match.

SEC Won Lost
Florida 3 1
Alabama 1 1
Kentucky 1 1
LSU 1 1
Texas A&M 0 1
Conference Total 6 5

Four teams represented the ACC. North Carolina and Florida posted winning records.

ACC Won Lost
North Carolina 3 1
Florida 2 1
Miami (FL) 1 1
Duke 0 1
Conference Total 6 4

Four teams represented the West Coast Conference. The strongest WCC team was finalist BYU. The Cougars were the only team from the conference to win matches.

WCC Won Lost
BYU 5 1
Loyola Marymount 0 1
San Diego 0 1
Santa Clara 0 1
Conference Total 5 4

With the exception of Texas, the Big 12 was represented by teams that were weak by Big 12 standards.

Big 12 Won Lost
Texas 4 1
Iowa State 1 1
Kansas 0 1
Kansas State 0 1
Oklahoma 0 1
Conference Total 5 5

Combined, the 19 teams from the SEC, ACC, WCC, and Big 12 won 22 matches of the 63 matches played.

There were 5 conferences that had the remaining 7 wins in the championships. CSU was the only team to have two wins.

School and Conference Won Lost
Colorado State Mountain West 2 1
Hawaii Big West 1 1
Long Beach State Big West 1 1
Dayton Atlantic 10 1 1
UALR Sunbelt 1 1
Illinois State Missouri Valley 1 1
Total 7 6

In total, the 41 teams that represented the 11 conferences mentioned above had a combined record of 63-39.

Of the 41 teams representing the 11 conferences mentioned above only 9 teams did not win a match. In addition, there were 24 teams from 20 conferences represented that did not win a match.

Generally speaking, these teams were admitted to the tournament as a courtesy because they were conference champions. While these teams and conferences all have solid programs, they are not competitive with the top teams or conferences. This is evident by the first round match scores for the losers. The majority of first round losers lost their only match 3-0. The summary of first round match scores follows:

  • 23 matches, 71.9%, were 3-0.
  • 5 matches, 15.6%, were 3-1.
  • 4 matches, 12.5%, were 3-2.

For the 31 other matches played (second round through the finals) the  majority of the scores were 3-1, i.e. the matches were more competitive. A summary of these scores follows:

  • 12 matches, 38.7%, were 3-0.
  • 14 matches, 45.2%, were 3-1.
  • 5 matches, 16.15%, were 3-2.

It is clear from the results that there are multiple tiers of ability within the NCAA Division I teams. The good news is that these 64 programs offer athletic opportunities for 600-700 of the country’s top women volleyball players.

Congratulations to Penn State on another NCAA volleyball championship!

Big Ten Dominates NCAA Women’s Volleyball Championships

horvath Leave a comment

On December 5th, 64 teams kicked off regional play for the 33rd NCAA women’s volleyball tournament. Teams represented 31 conferences; however, the tournament was essentially a competition between the Big Ten and the Pac 12.

There were 4 Big 10 teams and 3 Pac-12 teams in the quarterfinals. Although Penn State defeated Wisconsin in the finals, the match of the tournament saw Penn State defeat Stanford after being down 9-6 in game 5.

Michigan was the only Big Ten team that did not win a match. All other teams had winning records and conference teams won a total of 23 matches while losing 7.

Big Ten

Won

 Lost
Penn State 6 0
Wisconsin  5 1
Purdue  3 1
Nebraska  3  1
Illinois  2  1
Michigan State  2  1
Minnesota  2  1
Michigan  0  1
Conference Total  23  7

 

The Pac 12 was also well represented by 9 teams. Only ASU didn’t win a round and 5 teams won a match before bowing out. Conferences teams were 15-9 in championships.

 

PAC 12

Won

Lost
Washington

4

1
Southern California

3

1
Stanford

3

1
Arizona

1

1
California

1

1
Colorado

1

1
Oregon

1

1
Utah

1

1
Arizona St.

0

1
Conference Total

15

9

 

The Big Ten and Pac-12 teams won 38 of the 63 matches played in the championships. That is dominance!

Five of the 8 teams representing the SEC won their first round match, but lost in the second round. Overall the conference had a modest performance.

SEC

Won

Lost
Florida

1

1
Kentucky

1

1
LSU

1

1
Missouri

1

1
Texas A&M

1

1
Alabama

0

1
Arkansas

0

1
Georgia

0

1
Conference Total

5

8

 

Of the 4 ACC teams, only Florida State posted a winning record.

 

ACC

Won

Lost
Florida St.

2

1
Duke

1

1
Miami (FL)

0

1
North Carolina

0

1
Conference Total

3

4

 

The Big 12 was represented by 4 quality teams.

 

Big 12

Won

Lost
Texas

4

1
Kansas

2

1
Oklahoma

1

1
Iowa St.

0

1
Conference Total

7

4

 

There were 4 conferences that had a total of 8 teams. Each of these had representatives in either the round of 16 or 32.

School

 Conference

Won

Lost
Hawaii Big West

1

1
Cal St. Northridge Big West

1

1
UC Santa Barbara Big West

0

1
San Diego West Coast

2

1
BYU West Coast

2

1
Marquette Big East

1

1
Creighton Big East

1

1
American Univ. Patriot

2

1
Total

10

8

 

In total, the 41 teams that represented these 9 conferences had a combined record of 63-40.

Then there were the other 23 teams from 22 conferences. Generally speaking, these teams were admitted to the tournament because they were conference champions. While these teams and conferences all have solid programs, they are not competitive with the top teams or conferences.

None of the teams from these conferences won a match. In fact they only won 6 sets while losing 69 sets. Only Colorado State played a “close” match, losing 3-2 to Cal State Northridge.

 

School Conference Sets Won Sets Lost
Louisville AAC

0

3
New Hampshire America East

0

3
Duquesne Atlantic 10

0

3
Jacksonville Atlantic Sun

0

3
Idaho St. Big Sky

1

3
Charleston So. Big South

1

3
Radford Big South

0

3
UTSA Conference USA

0

3
Milwaukee Horizon

0

3
Yale Ivy

1

3
Fairfield Metro Atlantic

0

3
Ohio Mid-American

0

3
Hampton Mid-Eastern

0

3
Wichita St. Missouri Valley

1

3
Colorado St. Mountain West

2

3
LIU Brooklyn Northeast

0

3
Morehead St. OVC

0

3
Ga. Southern Southern

0

3
Central Ark. Southland

0

3
Alabama St. Southwestern

0

3
IUPUI Summit

0

3
Texas St. Sun Belt

0

3
New Mexico St. Western Athletic

0

3
Total

6

69

 

It is clear from the results that there are two if not three or four tiers of play within the NCAA Division I teams. The good news is that these 64 programs offer athletic opportunities for 600-700 of the country’s top women volleyball players.

Congratulations to Penn State on their championship season!

 

 

Can Colorado Afford to be in the Athletic Arms Race?

horvath Leave a comment

Two and a half years ago, the University of Colorado announced they would join the PAC 12 in 2011. The move was justified by university officials for the following reasons:

  • More than 35,000 alumni reside in the Pac-12 footprint, whereas about 11,000 are located within the Big 12 regions.
  • This level of alumni support in key markets should help with recruiting.
  • CU should get more support on the road, because there is easier access to PAC 12 cities.
  • Many CU fans feel the PAC 12 cities are more desirable to visit.
  • PAC 12 teams will receive significant revenue from the new Pac 12 television contract.
  • The PAC 12 was a closer fit academically.

These are all legitimate reasons to make the switch; however, it was obvious that CU could not bankroll teams that could consistently compete against Oklahoma and the wealthier Texas schools. Most Coloradans hate to lose to Texas (at anything).

CU is not the only university that is having trouble dealing with the accelerated level of spending for athletic programs. In August 2011 Michael Smith, writer for Street and Smith’s Online Sports Business Journal was the author of an article entitled “Athletic Budgets Continue to Climb“, that focused on the rapid growth of budgets for the major athletic conferences. Though the data is slightly dated, it illustrates the amount of money spent on college athletic programs and their rates of growth.

Smith secured budgets for most of the schools in the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and PAC 12. Texas tops the list in spending. The median rate of annualized growth is 5.4%.

Six SEC, four Big 10, and two Big 12 teams round out the top twelve schools in spending. Oregon is the top PAC 12 team at number 13 and North Carolina is the top ACC team at number 21. Four of the bottom eight schools are from the PAC 12, including newcomers Colorado and Utah.

In the PAC 12 Colorado and Arizona State have similar budgets and both are well above Washington State and Utah. The four schools stack up at the bottom of the conference.

If Colorado was still in the Big 12 it would be at the bottom with a budget similar to Iowa State and Baylor. The size of the Texas athletic budget is about the same as the combined budgets of Colorado, Iowa State and Baylor.

Of the 49th teams, CU was 42nd overall and 39th in the rate of growth. Six of the PAC 12 teams had budgets that grew at an annualized rate of 3.1% or less from 2010 to 2012.

The PAC 12 is a great conference for the University of Colorado for the reasons stated above. Time will tell whether schools such as Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, and Utah can afford to participate in the PAC 12 or any other major athletic conference.

The table below expressed the athletic budgets for the schools in millions, from Smith’s article. In three instances estimates were made or to account for data that was not available in Smith’s report.

ACC Budgets were not available for Boston College, Duke, Miami and Wake Forest. The Big 10 budget for Northwestern was not available. The PAC 12 budgets for Stanford and USC were not available. The Big 12 budgets were not available for Baylor. The SEC budget for Vanderbilt was not available.  The 49 universities are color coded by Conference (Big 12 = grey, Big 10 = pink, SEC = green, Pac 12 = purple, ACC = light orange).

Academic and Athletic Rankings – We’re #1

horvath Leave a comment

About 40 years ago, college and university administrators increased the level of their discussion about the relationship between academics and athletic programs. It became necessary to tie the two together because of the anti-establishment mindset and the general unrest associated with the Viet Nam war era. As well, a backlash developed towards athletes that was initiated in part by Dave Meggyesy’s book, Out of Their League.

Athletics were pitted against academics. Were athletics important to the mission of the school? Did they divert funds that could be spent in academic areas? Did they distract students from their book learning? “Enlightened” professors and anti-jock community members gravitated towards each other and spoke out in unison against college athletic programs.

The phrase “student-athlete” was coined out of these discussions. The expression drew attention to the fact that college athletes were also students.

Over the years, athletic program leaders have strengthened their message about the relationship between athletics and academics in an effort to appease naysayers. In addition, they have included the concept into their strategic planning.

This was particularly evident when the University of Colorado and the University of Utah were added to the PAC-10 to form the PAC-12. Commissioner Larry Scott and local CU officials touted the PAC-12 as a premier academic and athletic conference.

In the 2011 Academic Ranking of World Universities, there are 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, including a total of 26 schools are from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The only schools excluded from the top 100 rankings were: Dartmouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State. (Is it any wonder Scott recently struck an alliance with the Big 10 to expand competition between the two leagues?)

The top 10 global academic universities are:

  • Harvard
  • Stanford
  • MIT
  • Cal – Berkeley
  • Cambridge
  • California Institute of Technology
  • Princeton
  • Columbia
  • Chicago
  • Oxford

The ranking system placed a strong emphasis on science and publications. The top 10 schools were separated by about 44 points; Harvard had 100 points compared to 56.4 for Oxford. The schools ranked between the 11th and 100th positions were assigned point values between 54.8 and 24.2.

The ranking of global MBA programs, by Financial Times, produced similar results. Of the 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, 20 were from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The following schools from these conferences were not included in the top 100: Brown, Princeton, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State.

The top 10 global MBA programs are:

  • London Business School
  • University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
  • Harvard Business School
  • Stanford University GSB
  • INSEAD
  • Hong Kong UST Business School
  • Columbia Business School
  • IE Business School
  • IESE Business School
  • MIT Sloan School of Management

Global academic and MBA rankings don’t receive the same level of attention, scrutiny, and debate as the BCS rankings. The people most concerned with the ratings are prospective students and administrators who have to explain subpar ratings.

So, what is the significance of these rankings?

Realistically, academic and athletic rankings highlight the distinctive competencies of colleges and their conferences. In the above example, these rankings provide evidence that supports the Ivy League’s claims of academic prowess. Similarly, they confirm that the PAC-12 and BIG-10 are elite academic and athletic conferences.

Prospective students make decisions about which school to attend based on rankings. The alumni and university communities use them to establish bragging rights. Rankings are a tool used by school administrators to market their institutions, programs, and competitive advantages. Finally, rankings are used for fundraising, recruiting, and to justify the existence of academic and athletic programs.

 

Great Scott – Another Good Idea – PAC 12 and Big 10 Commit to More Competition

horvath Leave a comment

PAC-12 Conference leader Larry Scott continues to amaze with his creativeness and aggressive approach for making the league the premier athletic conference in the country. Last week, Scott and Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany announced a commitment to schedule more competition, in all sports, between the 24 schools in the two conferences. In football, the goal is to create 12 inter-conference games by 2017.

The concept makes sense to the average sports enthusiast. Unfortunately the press release did not. For example it stated:
• “Collaboration will feature more games between the two conferences in an effort to enhance the experiences for all student-athletes, fans and alumni while broadening the national scope of both conferences.”
• “We believe that both conferences can preserve that sense of collegiality and still grow nationally by leveraging our commonalities in a way that benefits student-athletes, fans and alumni. This collaboration can and will touch many institutional undertakings, and will complement our academic and athletic missions.”
• “Through numerous conversations over the past several months with stakeholders from the Big Ten and Pac-12, we decided there would be great value in building upon the history and collegiality that exists between our member institutions, by initially committing to an increased frequency of play between our schools in all sports.”

The four sentences in these three bullet points were written at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 18.3. In other words, they are understandable by an average person with 6.3 years of college, i.e a college professor.

As well, the four sentences have a Flesch- Reading Ease score of 19.7. A score of 90 to 100 is understandable by an average 11 year old. A Reading Ease Score of 60 to 70 is easily understood by a 13 to 15 year old. As a point of reference, Time magazine is about 52 and the Harvard Law Review is in the low 30s (Wikipedia).

The press release was posted on the PAC-12 website on December 28 (when school is not in session). It was written at a level designed to appeal to only the academic-types at the 24 member institutions. Was this announcement made in this fashion because Scott and Delany expect to receive serious backlash from faculty members and the university communities?

In a nutshell, Scott and Delany said:
• This is a business venture between two of the country’s top athletic conferences.
• It is intended to generate more revenue for our television networks.
• It is intended to generate more revenue for both conferences and their member schools.
• We have a history of competing in the Rose Bowl.
• We want to build on the distinctive competency of past Rose Bowl competition.
• It will be easier to build a virtual super-conference rather than one made of bricks and mortar.
• Get your tickets now.
• $$$.
• Let the games begin.
FYI – This set of bullet points were written at a 7.2 grade level with a reading ease score of 63.

The concept is a slam dunk (in more ways than one). It is exciting for the sports enthusiast. And it should make these 24 athletic programs more financially viable.

To read the entire press release or to get more information about the PAC-12 click here or  click here for the Big 10 website.

Note: On July 13, 2012 the deal fell apart. In the article “Pac-12 and Big Ten Partnership Falls Apart,” the New York Times reported, “The fundamental fissure between the leagues was the Big Ten’s preference for 12 games with the Pac-12 every year. Larry Scott, the Pac-12’s commissioner, said in a telephone interview that it ultimately became a “flexibility”  issue for his teams, which play a nine-game conference schedule and have longstanding scheduling agreements with other teams, like those of Southern California and Stanford with Notre Dame. The Big Ten teams play an eight-game league schedule, making the addition of an annual marquee game outside the league easier.”

Bummer!