The latest Big Ten expansion rumor du jour: a 5 -team expansion with Missouri, Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers. South Bend NBC affiliate WNDU (which was owned by the University of Notre Dame until 2006) has a report from “a source in St. Louis”, while Tom Dienhart of Rivals and Yahoo! tweeted about this scenario and then explained to a Nebraska radio station (h/t to Scott C) that he had received his info from Mizzou officials. The Show-Me State apparently has so many loose lips that we should expect to have the next big expansion news to break out of Branson. Hooray for more rampant speculation (and beer)!
As far as news stories about Big Ten expansion go, this is at least within the realm of reasonably coming to fruition. This particular 5-team combination is no surprise to the followers of this blog as we discussed this in detail in the comments a couple of weeks ago with hypothetical pod alignments and the potential financial and prestige merits of this option. As a far as collective requirements for the Big Ten, this group consists of great academic schools (all are members of the AAU), provides one marquee football brand name (Nebraska), grabs a set of guaranteed households (Missouri) and makes a legit play for the New York City market (Syracuse and Rutgers). As sports fans, this expansion would look like a mega-blockbuster if one of those schools were to be replaced by Notre Dame, but I’d still characterize this as a game-changing move that improves both Big Ten football and basketball while expanding the conference footprint. If true, Notre Dame fans will also feel that they’ve dodged a bullet by maintaining independence while simultaneously giving up millions of dollars per year (both in added revenue and reduced travel costs) and watching their league for basketball and non-revenue sports completely collapse. This is seriously what passes for wonderful news in South Bend these days.
In addition, I found the comments from University of Nebraska president Harvey Perlman to be slightly titillating. One week ago, he told the Omaha World-Herald the following:
So far, Perlman said, Nebraska hasn’t been approached by another league.
In an article yesterday in the same paper, Perlman was a lot more evasive:
Last week, I asked Perlman if NU had contacted the Big Ten or any conference about joining. His response: “I’m not going to comment on that.”
Anyway, Dienhart suggested that there would be four 4-team divisions if the Big Ten were to go with the proposed 5-school expansion. Here’s how it could shake out in my eyes:
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois
NORTH: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota
SOUTH: Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern
These “divisions” would really be pods, where the pods would rotate every 2 years. I’d make the East and West divisions always be opposite each other with the North and South divisions rotating. At the same time, every team would have a permanent non-division rival as follows:
Michigan – Ohio State
Illinois – Northwestern
Penn State – Nebraska
Iowa – Minnesota
Pitt – Michigan State
Rutgers – Indiana
Syracuse – Purdue
Wisconsin – Missouri
This way, every team has 4 annual rivals while playing everyone else in the conference 2 out of 4 years (with a few exceptions) if there’s a 9-game conference schedule. The rotating pod mechanism allows everyone in the conference to continue to play each other on a regular basis even in a 16-team conference and still comply with NCAA rules requiring divisions of at least 6-teams each to play an exempt conference championship game.
As for the permanent non-division rivals, despite Pitt’s non-land grant status, I’m fairly certain that Penn State fans will gladly hand over the keys to the Land Grant Trophy (AKA “The Trophy Designed by Rasputin: It Just Won’t Die” or “The Big Ten Bowling League Trophy with a Lion Mold-A-Rama Glued on the Side”) in exchange for an annual game with Nebraska. Now, if you want a REAL rivalry trophy, check out this bad-ass politically incorrect killing machine that Illini like myself and Northwestern fans get to enjoy… wait a second… WTF?!
I was firmly in the camp of believing that Michigan and Ohio State HAD to be in the same division for a very long time no matter how the conference was expanded and that seriously mucked up logical pod setups if you stuck that principle. However, I like the aforementioned pods enough that I’ve been convinced that we may be better off splitting the 2 big dogs. The pods are geographically contiguous and has one marquee football name each. If Michigan and Ohio State really do have to play each other 2 weeks in a row, maybe that’s not the most horrible thing in the world. The Worldwide Leader certainly can’t get enough Yankees-Red Sox and Duke-UNC games to slam down our throats, so having a rematch of college football’s best rivalry for the Big Ten championship would be a completely different kind of Armageddon.
All in all, I’d be fairly happy if this 16-school conference came to fruition. I still think a lot of the value that the Big Ten would be looking for could be achieved in a 3-team expansion with just Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers (assuming that Notre Dame and Texas aren’t in the mix), but this 5-school proposal would definitely lock up the Northeastern quadrant of the United States for the conference with similarly situated top tier research schools that have big-time athletic departments. It’s a risk to expand in this manner without either Notre Dame or Texas, yet I do feel as though all of these 5 schools could “feel” like Big Ten schools and fit in well with the current members. Of course, the only way that this works out financially is if the Big Ten Network takes Manhattan. That continues to be the gazillion dollar issue to be resolved in this conference realignment.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from FanHuddle)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Pingback: The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT
I agree with Cutter. You can’t split up WI/MN/IA. I don’t think you can split OSU from UM and MSU, so those 3 would have to be together.
I thought pods were a great solution for the WAC, but it didn’t work. Ultimately since the pods didn’t work, the WAC failed. They couldn’t figure out an 8/8 split. I think the ACC’s idiotic divisions are part of their championship game problem. Its hard to remember whose in your group. That was the problem for the rotating pods in the WAC.
Some Big 10 source was quoted as saying the division (if 8/8 or 7/7) had to be E/W for travel issues, but really you only need divisions in football and travel isn’t that big an issue for 4 conference games a year. N/S with OSU/UM/MSU/IA/MN/WI and one or two others (out of NE,MO,IL,NW) makes too much sense.
LikeLike
I think that an ideal scenario for the Big Ten would be to add Nebraska and Missouri (or 2nd Big12 North team). Then to let things sink in with the rest of the nation realizing that the Big Ten has three scenarios left since staying at 13 isn’t an option.
1) Add one team to round out at 14 (in essence, ND)
2) Add three eastern teams to balance with NU and MU (aka the Big East combo of Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn/Syracuse)
3) Add Texas/A&M and one other team (ND, Rutgers, Kansas etc).
At this point, the writing is on the wall for ND since if they don’t join, then options 2 and 3 will result in the demise of the Big East. Option 2 directly takes the three best teams leaving only five football teams left that will be seeking out new homes in ACC, Big 12, etc. Option 3 means that the Big Ten has NU, MU, Texas, A&M and probably Rutgers. The SEC and ACC will have to expand to keep pace and so Pitt, WVU, will be gone in a flash.
The advantage of this to the Big 10 is that if you get NU and ND then it becomes a no-brainer to take Pitt over Syracuse or UConn. In the end, this may yield Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, ND, and Rutgers. However, if you take the Big East teams first then it becomes a trickier issue to decide which 3 you want because you know that ND will be looking to
LikeLike
I think that an ideal scenario for the Big Ten would be to add Nebraska and Missouri (or 2nd Big12 North team). Then to let things sink in with the rest of the nation realizing that the Big Ten has three scenarios left since staying at 13 isn’t an option.
1) Add one team to round out at 14 (in essence, ND)
2) Add three eastern teams to balance with NU and MU (aka the Big East combo of Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn/Syracuse)
3) Add Texas/A&M and one other team (ND, Rutgers, Kansas etc).
At this point, the writing is on the wall for ND since if they don’t join, then options 2 and 3 will result in the demise of the Big East. Option 2 directly compromises the Big East and Option 3 does it indirectly as the ACC and SEC will definitely be forced to expand.
The advantage of this to the Big 10 is that if you get NU and ND then it becomes a no-brainer to take Pitt over Syracuse or UConn. In the end, this may yield Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, ND, and Rutgers. In my mind, this is better than Nebraska, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Rutgers on all fronts (academic, athletic, and TV/financially).
Taking the Big East teams first means that you must decide which three you want prior to ND looking around. I’d rather take the best teams first and hope that ND joins than to take the teams that I hope would force ND to join. Besides, everyone expects that the Big East will be tapped, so it is better to let that a the status quo until the final moment changes than to put the wheels in motion and have to move more quickly if the ACC wants to snap up Pitt/Syracuse/UConn.
LikeLike
@Nittany Wit,
I agree with Nebraska and Mizzou in the first stage. Like you say, it´s the most effective way to destabilize the biggest fish.
I disagree slightly though on what comes next.
1) You hope to finish off with a sweep of the Big 12 (Texas, A&M, KU or OU)
2) The status quo is not an option for Texas (the Big 12 is dead in this scenario) but if Texas still spurns the Big 10 even with the package deal on the table, you approach Notre Dame one last time. If they´re in, then you take Notre Dame, Rutgers and Pitt/Syracuse.
3) Notre Dame balks once again, and with Notre Dame off the table, you give up any dream of locking down NYC. In that case, you add Kansas and call it a day.
A couple explanations:
First, you don´t take Rutgers without Notre Dame and one other Big East school. It spreads you too thin and accomplishes nothing.
Second, I don´t buy into the three school Big East conglomerate without Notre Dame. By starting with NU and MU, you don´t end up with lameduck East Coast schools, if Notre Dame doesn´t want in. You also hold out the option for a package deal to entice Texas.
LikeLike
@ Michael
Even though I wouldn’t mind seeing it, I seriously doubt whether all the pieces that have to fall for Texas to join the Big10 would actually do so.
From a posturing standpoint, I think that Nebraska and Missouri puts more pressure on ND than on Texas.
In fact, I’d prefer to just take Nebraska at this point.
LikeLike
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune had a rather extensive article on the Big Ten Network in today’s edition of the newspaper. Go to http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/92558764.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr
I live in Arizona and would have never realized that there are more Big Ten alumni living in the state than Pac Ten alumni. Maybe that’s why the Big Ten Network is available on the sports tier with my local cable company.
LikeLike
Geez, Frank, can’t you give us faithful readers of your blog news we don’t already know? 🙂
LikeLike
OK, let’s suppose this five-team expansion is what in fact happens.
(1) Would this be a big enough move to trigger the threatened SEC nuclear option? (I think, “not quite large enough”.)
(2) Would the Big XII respond by doing, well, nothing? (As I argued in the dying embers of the previous frame, perhaps doing nothing, and becoming a 10-team, single division conference, and lobbying with a conservative, non-expansionist 10-team Pac 10 to allow conferences with less than 12 teams to stage championship games, is better than trying to fit some awkward pieces into a 12-school framework.)
(3) If my thoughts on (1) and (2) are correct, could we realignment junkies be left with a mere repeat of 2003 (a conference raids the Big East, the Big East raids C-USA, C-USa raids the Sun Belt, etc.)?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn, Agree with you the Missouri and Nebraska losses should not trigger an SEC raid on the Big XII by themselves. Would expect the Big XII to look at Colorado State and BYU to get back up to 12 rather than sitting at 10 (especially since there is still danger that Colorado goes to the PAC10). If there is one thing the Big East experience re the ACC should teach us, having more football schools than you need is better than having too few. As to your last point, my expectation is the Big East probably folds as a football conference if it really loses Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers. If that happens, the dominoes fall west to east with the Big XII (and maybe PAC10 with Utah) taking MWC schools, MWC raids the WAC and/or C-USA, while C-USA (paradoxically) may be strengthened by picking up former Big East schools.
Then again, Big East special advisor Paul Tagliabue has experience as an NFL commissioner and may be able to counsel member schools on how to pick up in the middle of the night and relocate to more favorable markets (like the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts, the Oakland-LA-Oakland Raiders and the Houston/Memphis/Nashville Oilers/Titans. Don’t mess with the Big East!)
LikeLike
One last brainstorm re the Big East. The five remaining teams of the Big East (UConn, WV, Louisville, Cin and USF) could keep the Big East name and offer a football merger to the entire C-USA conference (maybe even adding Troy from the Sunbelt). That way they could keep the Big East’s AQ and form the nation’s 2nd “superconference”. Am sure the Big East would not hesitate to sue if anyone tried to stop this, even though this is sort of a nuclear option that turns the eastern college football conference map into a parody of itself…
LikeLike
The Big East already raided the good C-USA schools. C-USA + UConn, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincy, and USF do not a conference that will keep AQ status for long make. C-USA has some interesting schools, like Houston, Memphis… um… SMU… um… does Rice count?
LikeLike
@Morgan Wick, do get your drift, although C-USA schools like East Carolina, Central Florida, Tulsa and Texas-El Paso have also had moments in recent history. Still, in general, does not sound like a long term solution to the Big East’s problem, just delays an inevitable collapse. If C-USA schools like Tulsa, Houston, SMU or Texas-El Paso also get Mountain West invites, they might consider them above any Big East offer, even with upcoming problems the Mountain West might encounter.
LikeLike
Ron:
I agree with you on the Big East/ C-USA football
merger. 5 Big East + 12 C-USA, with maybe 1 or
2 C-USA schools moving to the Big XII or whatever.
Either way, the Big East AQ would entice any mid-
range conference with a merger. Big East
basketball schools (and their other sports) would
retain 13 members. The conference certainly
would be no worse off football-wise than their
current membership. A clean transition. Hoops
would suffer with the loss of Syracuse; hoops
would celebrate the loss of Rutgers; hoops would
be rather keep Pitt, but it’s not that big a deal.
Regarding the AQ for the Big East… if more than
half its football members are retained, including
2 ranked teams from 2009, I don’t see how their
AQ status could be lost… actually, how does AQ
status get lost?
LikeLike
Sorry for the spacing problems.
LikeLike
N.P.B. Sounds logical to me. Re AQ status, my understanding is the BCS has now written up a set up standards that govern how a conference can gain AQ status. However, as far as I know, there is no objective written standard governing how AQ status is lost. My personal (mythical) take on AQ’s in the first place is that a bunch of BCS power brokers originally were eating out and scribbled the conferences receiving AQ’s with a cross pen on a napkin. A guy from New York agreed to split the check with a guy from North Carolina, so everyone agreed the Big East and the ACC should both get guaranteed conference slots in addition to the Big Ten, Big XII, PAC10 and SEC. Since then, they’ve referred the whole matter back to a series of committees which are feverishly writing it up in the form of legally defensible objective standards. Imagine future committees will be assigned the task of writing up objective standards of how a conference loses AQ status. Odds are this occurs several years after it becomes ridiculously obvious to everyone that some conference that has that status really needs to lose it.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how to read the Pac 10 right now. Would the conference consider expanding without Texas? That might be the biggest question right now as to whether the theorized Big 10 expansion leads to wholesale realignment or remains contained in the midwest.
LikeLike
Given your supposition that the Big Ten goes to 16 as rumored, think the PAC10 will feel pressure to go to 12 and have a conference championship. Utah and Colorado would both be strong additions. Suspect legislators in Utah might be okay with the state school going to the PAC10, especially if they think the Big XII ultimately takes BYU (a delicate balance in practice to carry out, but a reasonable compromise solution for both the Big XII and the PAC10).
LikeLike
But . . . what if the Big XII stays at 10 and approaches the Pac 10 to jointly lobby for changing the rule which requires 12 teams to stage a championship game? That might be the best for all parties involved: no raiding each other, no having to stoop to invite MWC teams to join your conference, no opening the door to BCS dollars to additional players.
LikeLike
On the flip side, peeling off Utah and BYU would kill the possibility of a new BCS conference being formed between the Pac 10 and the Big XII.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn, having the MWC get an AQ is not in the interest of either the PAC10 or the Big XII. Best solution for both is a sort of functional MWC/WAC “remerger” in the long run as the PAC10 and Big XII slowly add teams as needed to keep up with the SEC and Big 10 supersizing.
LikeLike
@ Hopkins Horn
Taking BYU and Utah would destroy any chances of the MWC gaining AQ status (though I think the MWC’s chances are bad even if its not affected by expansion).
My question is, which conference takes them? We know the Pac-10 won’t take BYU. If the Pac-10 decides to expand without taking TX, it would take Utah and CO. That gives the Pac-10 12 teams and leaves the Big 12 with 9 (assuming no NE or MO). The Big 12 could take BYU and stay at 10, but that seems to flip the conferences’ preferences.
The best would be: the Pac-10 stays at 10 (it is resistant to expansion anyway). The Big 12 takes BYU and Utah to get to 12 and then the conferences form a joint network. Adding the Utah schools would destroy the MWC, strengthen the Big 12 North, and make the Big12/Pac 10 network more geographically contiguous.
LikeLike
@Oneforthemoney, good logical points, but you’ve got to keep in mind that the Big XII and Pac10 may be liable for antitrust or other legal action if they cooperate too closely in actions that damage the MWC. A joint PAC10/Big XII network and an explicit agreement for the Big XII to annex BYU and Utah would really look bad legally.
LikeLike
@Ron
I’m a young attorney with no real knowledge of antitrust matters. I do see your point regarding collusion between conferences. Then again, if six conferences can get together, form the BCS, and somehow avoid an anti-trust lawsuit, I would think the Big 12/Pac 10 could carry on with their plan, although they would certainly target one conference in particular. Again, I have no real legal knowledge from which to speak, so I could be wrong.
Perhaps, the Big 12/Pac 10, as two ten team leagues, might just consider a TV network and be done with it. Don’t they have to consent to another conference being given AQ status anyway? This would make it harder for the MWC to threaten them.
LikeLike
@Oneforthemoney, no particular antitrust expertise here either, other than just following the news and reading a lot. My understanding is the current BCS structure came very close to a lawsuit, which is why a deal was recently implemented to guarantee a non-BCS slot in the BCS (that even sounds stupid, but it is true). The BCS actually has objective standards about how AQ status is determined, my suspicion is the BCS drew these standards up, at least in part, to avoid legal action. As far as a network, think the PAC10 would be well-advised to team with the ACC rather than the Big XII to avoid collusion charges.
LikeLike
There were rumors a while back that the ACC, Big 12, and Pac-10 would all come together for one big network, though I haven’t kept up with sports media news since August or so.
LikeLike
Here’s a link on network speculation for ACC, Big XII and Pac10, about a year old…
http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63036
If you read between the lines, there is skepticism even two conferences can share a network, let alone three. Would think the three hour difference between eastern and pacific time zones would make a PAC10/ACC network a little easier to schedule than a PAC10/Big XII network (only 2 hour difference in central and pacific times).
LikeLike
Hopkins, I have a question for you. Do you suppose that Texas would spurn the guaranteed money and academics of the BIG TEN for the unknown but almost surely less money for perhaps the slightly higher academics of Stanford and the PAC TEN? It is your thoughts that the travel would be a wash or do you consider the West closer.
LikeLike
I’ve thought for years that Texas would wind up in the Big 10, but I can sense that the likelihood of that is less than it was a few months ago.
I would assume that if Texas doesn’t go to the Big 10, it would be because Texas has indicated it wouldn’t move to the Midwest. (Not being egotistical here; I think that’s what a majority of the posters here seem to believe.)
Disregarding the role any cultural or political factors which might have played into what seems to be Texas not wanting to go to the Big 10, one would have to think that the financial calculation, from an athletics standpoint, is that the potential profit from a successful launch of a Longhorns Sports Network, which would be possible in a retooled Big 10 and would at least be on the table in a move to the Pac 10, outweighs what the school would earn as a 1/12 to 1/16 shareholder in the BTN.
As far as travel goes, I’m not sure if the aggregate travel to the Big 10 schools would be greater or less than the aggregate travel to the Pac 10 schools, but I would think that it would be close enough that it wouldn’t be the tipping point in making a decision between those two conferences alone. Increased travel, not so much from a cost standpoint but more from a standpoint of increased demands upon UT student-athletes, could be a factor leading the school towards staying in the Big XII.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horns,
It sounds like the most important variable here is this proposed Longhorn sports network. All of these ¨packages¨ that we are talking about to entice Texas to the Big 10 are packages that the SEC and Pac 10 could offer, as well.
If, however, the Big 10 is actually willing to go to bat on this Big 12 expansion scenario, Texas will only have two choice and they both involve moving: follow four of your Big 12 rivals to the sure bet in the Big 10 or choose to forego tens of million a year, go someplace else and try to forge your own way with this network.
If the Big 10 is serious about this, they don´t give Texas the option of remaining in the Big 12. The Big 10 holds all the cards here and can destroy the Big 12, if it so wishes. If Texas decides to drag its feet, you add Nebraska and Missouri (leaving room for three more Big 12 teams) and, in the process, send an unequivocal message to Texas: you´re welcome to join us but the status quo won´t be an option.
LikeLike
And let me just add, if there´s a man in college sports shrewd enough to pull this off, it´s Delany.
LikeLike
With the Big Ten essentially killing off the Big East, I think the next move is the ACC’s. Do they scoop up UConn, West Virginia, Louisville & Cincy? All have good-to-great basketball programs with football teams looking for a home. The ACC may also want to have some teams in reserve, just in case to SEC takes 2 or 4 teams from the ACC. On the other hand, such a play for more basketball schools, may push Florida State, Miami and/or Clemson to seek out the SEC.
Once again, no matter what happens, the SEC will only expand if CBS and ESPN pay for it.
LikeLike
Alan, I have a question for you too. Suppose that A&M and Oklahoma somehow, someway convinced Texas to join them in the SEC. Do you see that CBS and or ESPN would up the money?
LikeLike
If the SEC had Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Texas A&M, CBS would never finish second to ABC’s regional afternoon coverage.
ESPN’s SEC prime time slot would get similar if not better rankings to the ABC prime time game.
CBS would definitely be in. The question would be ESPN, since ABC’s inventory would be devastated in the process. Think of it – the Red River Rivalry goes from ABC to CBS; CBS or ESPN gets Florida/Florida State and Texas/A&M every year; plus they get Oklahoma/Alabama, LSU/Texas, Florida/Texas, I could go on and on.
The Big Ten probably only picks up one highly compelling team in Nebraska. Nebraska v. Penn St./Ohio St./Michigan would be must-see TV and I’d certainly watch Nebraska v. Iowa or Wisconsin, but Rutgers v. anyone just isn’t that compelling unless Rutgers becomes competitive.
LikeLike
“(1) Would this be a big enough move to trigger the threatened SEC nuclear option? (I think, “not quite large enough”.)”
It depends on how much money the Big 10 starts making on a per-school basis. If SEC conference payouts start to fall significantly behind, the SEC will look to respond.
Since much of the value of a 16 team expansion apparently comes from the additional programming on the BTN, these schools may well be enough to trigger an SEC expansion a few years down the line.
LikeLike
@Frank:
I’ll say again that I think it’s going to be a tough sell trying to get Michigan and Ohio State to agree to be in different pods. To be honest, I think everyone would be for it except those two schools.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but everything I’ve heard from the last decade or so has said neither school wants the chance to meet up in a conference championship a week after facing one another. And there’s a very good chance it could happen, quite frequently, when you look at the history of the conference. As much as it pains me to say it, Michigan won’t be down forever. Even with new big dogs in the conference it’s just too likely they’ll meet again imo.
LikeLike
I agree, I don’t want Michigan and Ohio State split up in opposite divisions even if they are still guaranteed to play each year. I prefer a consistent East-West split. Iowa and Wisconsin don’t have the “name” value, but I think the actual on field performance for the last twenty years or so balances the two regions. Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin is about equal to Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State.
The only problem with an East West split is splitting up Indiana and Purdue or Northwestern and Illinois. If they go to 16 I would like to see Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas(AAU and brand name b-ball) and 2 Big East schools or Nebraska and Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn.
I have to admit the five rumored schools might be the top five individual choices, but I don’t like how that combination messes up the rivalries I want to see remain intact.
LikeLike
One problem with the East – West split, not the only. I’m sure the West schools want to maintain their games with U-M, OSU, and PSU, hopefully that could be alleviated with annual games against Nebraska. There would be two rotating cross-over games in my mind, allowing one game against an East division power 75% of the seasons.
LikeLike
Michigan and Ohio State may prefer to be in separate pods actually.
The pods are each anchored by one traditional power in college football. If you throw Michigan and OSU into one pod, you are creating the opportunity for another Big 10 program to emerge as a consistent power by winning their pod regularly while UM and OSU battle it out every year in their pod.
As long as UM and OSU play every year, I don’t think its an issue. What UM and OSU fans will care most is being in that 4 team tournament to determine the Big 10 champ (yes I expect 4 teams fairly shortly) — if they are in the same pod, it is going to make it harder to win the Big 10 title.
Besides, a UM/OSU Big 10 title game would be the ideal scenario however when you split up UM, Nebraska, PSU and OSU into different pods, you get A LOT of enticing title game matchups.
LikeLike
I doubt the tournament will happen. That would require a rules change in the NCAA and I may even take a game away from the regular season schedule. Rotating pods is more likely scenario. That would give 3 possible pod groupings that could rotate every two years. So 1/3rd of the time, Michigan and Ohio State would be in the same division.
LikeLike
Also, if the West and East are always kept in separate divisions, as Frank suggested, then they will be in the same division 1/2 of the time.
My question about scheduling is whether we need to have a protected outside-of-pod game for every team. Why not just guarantee the ones that really matter and then allow for more variety with the other team’s schedules? Do we really need to guarantee Purdue-Syracuse or Rutgers-Indiana?
LikeLike
I could see a change to the rules allowing a CCG if multiple conferences don’t like the current rules. If the Big XII goes to 10 teams, they would want a new rule to allow a CCG. If Pac-10 doesn’t expand (or does expand to 12 but doesn’t want to split into two divisions), they would want a new rule. And then a voting bloc with the Big Ten (and perhaps a new revised Big East) wanting new rules, it could easily happen.
LikeLike
The NCAA would likely grant the waiver. The NCAA would have to be concerned that if they reject the proposals that the superconference could leave the NCAA and form their own entity.
I don’t see the NCAA doing anything to antagonize the power schools. If anything, they will be trying cater to their interest even more to ensure they remain within the organization.
LikeLike
As a Michigan fan and alum, I wouldn’t mind having UM and Ohio State in different pods as long as the scheduling allows for a protected rivalry so that the two schools play one another each year.
If that also means moving the Michigan-Ohio State game up in the year or having the two meet again in a conference championship final or semi-final game, then that’s fine as well. The hype leading into such a contest would be off the charts and if the conference semi-final game was played in the stadium of the higher ranked team, it would be pretty incredible. The Big Ten would be taking a backseat to no one in that kind of scenario (the same goes if it was Michigan-Nebraska or Penn State-Ohio State in a conference semi-final game–the sort of ideal postseason matchup that the B10 and the networks would love to have with this sort of pod setup).
I’m going to throw out another pod setup with the teams mentioned above that assumes a nine-game confernce season.
Pod A: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Pod B: Illinois, Missouri, Northwestern, Ohio State
Pod C: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Pod D: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers
This arrangement has an eye to maintain the rivalries largely within the existing pods (with the obvious exception of Michigan-Ohio State) with a secondary emphasis on goegraphy.
1. Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin stays together an adds Nebraska for geographic consistency and to put a “major program” within the pod.
2. Illinois-Missouri and Illinois-Northwestern are kept intact. Ohio State is the “major program” within the pod”.
3. Michigan-Michigan State and Purdue-Indiana are also kept intact.
4. Penn State-Pittsburgh are kept intact and having Rutgers and Syracuse in the pod makes them geographically consistent. This also gives Joe Paterno the eastern presence that he’d like to see in the Big Ten.
The obvious protected game in this setup is Michigan-Ohio State. I also like the Penn State-Nebraska idea that Frank discussed in the blog. I won’t go into detail about the other possible protected games, but if this has to happen conference-wide to make it work, so be it. I will say that, in a sense of fun, Minnesota and Rutgers should be paired together and play for the annual Paul Tagliabue “Golden Tennis Racket” Award.
Other than that, we know the mechanics behind the pod system, the semi-final conference championship game and the conference championship game. For Michigan, the conference schedules might look something like this:
Year 1 (5 Home Conference Games)
Michigan State
At Indiana
Purdue
At Ohio State
Iowa
At Minnesota
Illinois
Penn State
At Pittsburgh
Year 2 (4 Conference Home Games)
At Michigan State
Indiana
At Purdue
Ohio State
At Iowa
Minnesota
At Illinois
At Penn State
Pittsburgh
Year 3 (5 Home Games)
Michigan State
At Indiana
Purdue
At Ohio State
Nebraska
At Wisconsin
Missouri
Syracuse
At Rutgers
Year 4 (4 Home Games)
At Michigan State
Indiana
At Purdue
Ohio State
At Nebraska
Wisconsin
At Missouri
At Syracuse
Rutgers
Years 5 & 6 would be just like the first two years, but substitute Illinois with Northwestern. What that shows in this type of system that the other teams in Ohio State’s Pod C (Missouri, Illinois, Northwestern) only play Michigan twice in six years while the other teams in Pods A & D play the Wolverines twice in four years. Obviously, this can be mixed up somewhat–instead of playing Penn State and Pittsburgh in one season, it could be Penn State and Syracuse or Penn State and Rutgers. The schedule laid out above was just one example of what could be done.
LikeLike
@Cutter:
We’ll have to agree to disagree here I think. As an Ohio State fan/alum, I suppose that was destiny. 🙂
In all seriousness, I just remember both OSU/Michigan being wary about inviting Penn State back in the day because of fears that it would somehow diminish the impact of The Game. Ultimately Michigan voted against it and OSU for it. It was a fist fight just to get the game pushed back a week, because it was traditionally the week before Thanksgiving.
Now we’re talking about moving the date of The Game up, and having the chance of Ohio State/Michigan meeting up again in a conference championship 2/3 of the time? I don’t see it. I think Ohio State fans are for expansion by and large, but that’s predicated on the notion that The Game is left alone as much as possible.
LikeLike
Manifesto: As history shows, the addition of Penn State was a boost to the conference and it didn’t have any major effect upon the annual Michigan-Ohio State game.
In fact, if anything, the bigger effect on the game was the 85-scholarship limit that kicked in the same time PSU joined the conference. It clearly meant that the Big Ten was no longer the “Big 2, Little 8” that it was in the 70s and 80s. Think about it–in that time we’ve seen Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, etc. go to the Rose Bowl, become Big Ten champions or co-champions, etc.
I don’t think having Michigan and Ohio State in different pods is going to diminish the rivalry–that will always be there. But I would say that the meaning of The Game in terms of deciding the Big Ten championship has already changed, irregardless of the winning streak Ohio State is currently enjoying right now.
I would rather hazard a rematch in a conference championship final or semi-final game than having the annual winner of the UM-OSU game being crowned pod champion–that would be kind of a letdown in the bigger scheme of things and I think that’s why you have the four major programs in diffent pods–it gives greater potential for higher stakes in the post-regular season conference tournament.
One more note. Would you really want to schedule a game against your all-time major rival just before the conference semi-final games take place? Would it make sense for Ohio State to play Michigan one week and then have to go on and play Penn State or Nebraska in a conference semi-final as the first step to a BCS bowl game or the national championship? To me, that would not be scheduling smart.
LikeLike
They could name the pods after storied coaches—Bo, Paterno, Hayes, and Osborne.
Also… why not have Northwestern and Syracuse as the protected rivalry somehow? The two private schools.
LikeLike
I think you lose too much else by putting Mich and OSU in different pods — (1) a 9-game schedule witha 4-pod setup makes for a smooth schedule UNLESS you add in non-pod protected rivalries; and (2) there aren’t enough good rivalry games to be “protected” unless you really mess with the pods, which kind of destroys the idea of having geographically tight pods in the first place.
LikeLike
Just imagine Pitt and Syracuse having to play Penn St. in the Paterno Division.
LikeLike
I just don’t know if I can trust these Missouri sources, but if it’s true, I’ll be happy. Personally, I’d like to see two protected games, but as long as the pods are rotating regular, I can live with this setup.
On a side-note, Frank, when I finally finish working on my department’s resource site for our intranet, I might have to design you a WordPress theme or something that could really make the site’s look match the greatness of the content and analysis. 🙂
LikeLike
I don’t really trust these sources either. I think the Big 10 is still several months away from making a decision. They’ve still got to build a consensus among 11 college presidents, and that’s going to take some time.
I also agree with Frank–I don’t see what adding Syracuse and Pitt does in this scenario other than making Joe Paterno happy and PO’ing Jim Boeheim. Even if you wanted to go to 16, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t go to 14 first and then see who you could add later. It’s not like Pitt and Syracuse are going anywhere anytime soon. You could always add them later.
LikeLike
I love how this blog remains fresh and unpredictable.
Last week, you warn readers to believe nothing, that every journalist was being lied to and nothing they said could be remotely believed.
This week, you go into an in-depth discussion of random journalists’ “buzz”.
Last week, you said that you are not “one of those people that subscribe to conspiracy theories and break every conference official comment down like the Zapruder film.”
This week, you break down the Nebraska president’s comments like the (obviously fake) moon landing photos.
If you forced the conference to pick a group of five that it was pretty sure would say yes, this would be it. We knew this 5 months ago. (I for one would be very amused if they added the 3rd through 7th schools on your original list) For anyone who is of the “Make a threat at ND (or Texas)” persuasion, this is the setup: a viable, massive addition that eliminates the Big East, severely injures the Big XII, and removes all possibility of joining in the future. I suppose what they can do is go to the other schools and say “If you want in this, we’ll take you instead of (?Syracuse?). If not, we’re done.”
The NU-Illinois reward is of course the LoL Trophy. I just made a joke about how feebly Illinois has performed against Northwestern in my previous comment so I will refrain from doing so here.
The pod setup for this arrangement has Northwestern’s protected games being Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, and … OSU. One of those just doesn’t belong.
LikeLike
maybe they could use a panther/nittany lion pelt stuck on a spear? Actually it’s good thing that the block of wood is so large because it’s an excuse for not bringing it to the sidelines. Otherwise you get memorable moments like when ND forgot to bring the Megaphone Trophy which caused Irish eyes to turn red with anger when Spartans planted a flag on their turf.
of course, the Illini did it to State in imitation but it wasn’t like they were in the midst of winning 6 straight at an opponents stadium…
Maybe with expansion we can get rid of the number 11 in the logo. The Big Ten brand will still be used, so instead of thinking the ‘Ten’ refers to the number of universities, a change in definition is in order. Think water. More specifically, the USGS has six watersheds in what could be described as Big Ten Country. You split the Great Lakes watershed into its component parts of five. You then take the other five watersheds, the Missouri River, the Red River of the North, the Upper Mississippi River, the Ohio River and pick a river to represent the Mid-Atlantic. You can pick from the Susquehanna, the Delaware or the Hudson.
Big Lakes, Big Rivers, Big Ten Country…
LikeLike
Actually 10 in hexadecimal is equal to 16 in decimal notation. Thus there is no need to change it…unless you want to call the conference ‘The Big Hex’.
LikeLike
I as a nerd fully enorse this idea.
Big10, make it so!
LikeLike
Ah, yeah, I remember that game. Can’t believe the megaphone was left behind, that was embarassing. As for the flag planting,
Stay classy, Sparty.
…come to think of it, I also remember ND winning the next year in Lansing. Wish I could find the picture of those three MSU players, guarding the S at midfield against a ND flagplanting that wasn’t going to even be attempted. Classic.
LikeLike
yeah that game was the 40 year anniversary of the 10-10 tie and the ‘phantom slap’ of Weis. The 4th quarter collapse spelled the end of the John L. era, thankfully.
LikeLike
kerplunk.
LikeLike
Let’s assume this report is true. I fully understand that any expansion will be approved only by the presidents on their terms which are mostly academic and financial related. But 95% of people look at on field results and not the classroom and you can’t help but shake your head when you consider that initially, the B10 was talking about adding Texas and now we’ve been reduced to adding a bunch of third rate Big East teams and a never was school like Missouri. I was led to believe that Jim Delaney was all powerful and that the B10 with it’s “public Ivy League” reputation along with the BTN, we could pick any one we wanted and we get this?
LikeLike
Agreed. But if Notre Dame is not an option because of its “independent” DNA and Texas would prefer a southern or western league, then Nebraska is the best option that exists.
The question if ND and Texas are off the table is which of these three options to pursue:
1. Add only Nebraska. Solid, conservative move that will excite fans without watering down the league. Leaves the door open for future expansion. Maybe Texas re-evaluates in a post-Nebraska Big 12.
2. Add Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers. Solid additions, though with a bit of a “filler” feel. Opens new markets in Missouri and New Jersey (15 million new residents in “Big Ten” country), gives Penn State an eastern partner, still leaves the door open to Texas/aTm or Notre Dame/Pitt down the road.
3. The option discussed in the post above.
My guess is that the Big Ten is not excited about the five-team expansion described in the post and that the “buzz” is the result of leaks made with the hope to shake the tree a bit.
I think option 2 is the best way to combine the Big Ten’s apparent desire for a larger, splashier expansion that would provide more programming for the BTN, with its hopes of someday truly being the premier football super conference. Going to 16 with Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse closes the door to the big dream of a conference that includes the likes of OSU, PSU, UM, ND, NEB, and TEXAS.
LikeLike
Nebraska I could live with. Any of the others would be a major let down. Keep in mind that once these teams are in, they’re in forever pretty much.
LikeLike
But 95% of people look at on field results and not the classroom and you can’t help but shake your head when you consider that initially, the B10 was talking about adding Texas and now we’ve been reduced to adding a bunch of third rate Big East teams and a never was school like Missouri.
The B10+ has never talked about adding Texas, only outsiders have. Barry Alvarez was asked specifically if Texas was on the list of 15 teams studied and he said he didn’t see them on it.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Eggs.
LikeLike
Bacon.
LikeLike
Oops. Ham.
LikeLike
sausage.
LikeLike
A couple thoughts:
1. Pitt, Rutgers, Nebraska and Missouri all make sense. I am not sold on Syracuse as their profile is too different than existing Big Ten members. Syracuse is a smaller, private school with a limited research budget. Syracuse’s research budget is $36M, compared to the average Big Ten university of $505M. By comparison, other candidates are large public, flagship universities with large research budgets: Rutgers ($280M), Pitt ($530M), Nebraska ($215M) and Missouri ($215M). Using this profile, both Colorado ($250M) and Kansas ($131M) would be better fits for the Big Ten.
2. I believe the Big Ten would go to a pod system that would try to maintain existing rivalries as much as possible. In addition, IMO the Big Ten will go to a 9-game conference schedule without protected rivals to allow each team to face each other team at least twice every four years. The best example of how this would work would be as follows:
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
South: Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
North: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern
East: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
There are three main issues with this setup:
1. Northwestern and Illinois would be in different pods.
2. Northwestern is stuck in an odd grouping.
3. There will be some years where one pod is disproportionally strong (e.g. this year the West would have 3 teams in the pre-season Top 12).
IMO, these drawbacks are far outweighed by the advantages of maintaining existing key rivalries (OSU/UM, IU/PU, IA/MN/WI, UM/MSU) and allowing all teams to play each other two of every four years.
LikeLike
To be honest, this is more like a “Feeble Five” than a “Fab Five”.
Syracuse has roughly 1/10th the research $ and 1/10th the endowment of NW….app. 11000 fewer students and $173M less in research $ than Missouri. If we must go with 5, pick KU or U Conn for that 5th team.
LikeLike
You do realize that if they don’t take 5, Pitt almost surely gets left out in the cold? Meaning if ND turns them down, Pitt doesn’t get in without Syracuse.
LikeLike
@Playoffs Now!. IMO, both Pitt and Syracuse are at > 50% chance of not getting invites. However, I believe Pitt would get in before Syracuse. Pitt simply fits in better with the Big Ten universities and Pitt wants it more. The only way I could see Syracuse getting the invite ahead of Pitt is if Syracuse could delivery the NYC market, which I do not believe would happen.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but if the B10+ only takes three, it is probably Rut, MO, NE. Being ranked 4th rather than 5th then becomes a worthless consolation prize. And if the conference goes to 5 they’re almost surely going to want more of a presence in the greater NYC market. (KS or MD would be nice but their odds are low, for various reasons.) CT isn’t AAU, so Pitt’s chances rest with ND and Syr, and ND seems to not be interested.
LikeLike
Why wouldn’t Pitt get in with U Conn or KU as the 5th team?
LikeLike
Keep in mind, I’m basing this purely on athletics, not academics. This proposed expansion, while not as sexy as some may like, looks like the sum of the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts. None are knockouts, but it accomplishes what we all believed were the Big Ten’s goals to increase revenue through BTN subscribers.
Back in the 90s, the SEC picked up Arkansas and South Carolina. They definitely weren’t the sexiest girls on the street from a football perspective. But what expansion did for the SEC, was to allow the existing conference super powers to grow stronger.
LikeLike
@Alan
I think you are 100% right on this. If these five schools are brought in, the talking heads are going to talk themselves senseless about not truly getting NYC, the lack of top brands (my own arguments about Nebraska I’m sure will come up), how they missed the real opportunity to get ND and a host of other truly non-important aspects because the expansion isn’t “sexy” enough from the purely football perspective.
Ignore the Big10 will now encompass every state above the Mason-Dixon line, north of the Ohio River, and into Great Plains (assuming Nebraska delivers the states above it)…probably close to a quarter of the square footage in the contiguous US.
Ignore the ridiculous percentage of the overall population the Big10 will have the biggest, and most affluent schools in and the $$$ the BTN will leverage off those populations to further expand the athletic programs of each schools’ already considerable stature.
Ignore the billions of research added to the CIC. The understanding that the Big10 continues to be the primary conference of big universities who pride themselves on academics.
Ignore the instant rivalries that can be ignited between Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Mizzou, Illinois in both football and bball as well as the re-starting of the Pitt-PSU rivalry.
True nothing “screams” home run at me with the addition of these teams, but the more I think about the 5, the more I think this grouping can be the group that will enable the Big10 to thrive for the next 50-100 years.
I can live with that.
LikeLike
Five successive stand-up doubles is better than a solo home run in this case.
LikeLike
Exactly.
What can anyone do to damage the Big 10 footprint?
With 3 Big East schools… the Northeast is locked up.
Nebraska and Missouri lock up the Midwest region.
Take Kansas instead of Syracuse… and now the ACC can grab UConn and Syracuse and divide the NY/NE Market with B.C. Perhaps they will “affiliate” with Notre Dame somehow.
LikeLike
Here’s another possible pod system:
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers
ROTATING POD 1: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Northwestern
ROTATING POD 2: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois
LikeLike
“Anyway, Dienhart suggested that there would be four 4-team divisions if the Big Ten were to go with the proposed 5-school expansion. Here’s how it could shake out in my eyes:
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois
NORTH: Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota
SOUTH: Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern”
Frank,
I do not like those pods at all, as a Ohio State Fan I do not want “The Game” to become a best of two series period. I also do not think Iowa, Wisconsin & Minnesota would be split up. It was my understanding that the whole reason the conference has the current two protected rivals format is because when Penn State joined the league those three schools made a stink about not playing each other every year. I think those schools would make a similar demand this time around.
If those are indeed the schools i would rather see the pods like so:
NORTHEAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse
MIDWEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
HARTLAND: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Missouri
CENTRAL: Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois
Granted Mizzou is completely out of place, but that is a concession I think need to be made in order to keep the 2 tirades in place. With this setup no permanent cross pod rivals are needed if 1 pod is always in division 1 and other is always in division 2 with the other two rotating divisions every two years. The permit pods would then play two teams from each other on a rotating two year basis, and the rotating pods would do the same. The result would be a 9 game conference schedule and no school will go more than 2 years without playing in any other school’s stadium.
Just to muddle things further if Missouri is a lock I would rather see Kansas get the nod, then the pods could look like this:
EAST: Rutgers, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue
MIDWEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
GREAT LAKES: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
CENTRAL: Northwestern, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas
Again I make geographical concession for the sake of rivals which I feel are more important.
And finally if Pitt is a absolute must, then I feel the best possible setup would be to make a hard press for Notre Dame. Then the league could breakdown as such:
NORTHEAST: Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse,
MIDWEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
GREAT LAKES: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Notre Dame
CENTRAL: Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
At any rate any combo above I feel I could live with as long as Michigan & Ohio State stay together and Iowa plays Nebraska every year [that should develop into a pretty good rivalry in time].
All that being said I am sure the 5 suspects will once again change in say about 7 days or so 😉
Cheers-
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Pingback: FRANK THE TANK - The Big Ten's Fab Five?
East 1: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers
East 2: Ohio State, Illinois, Missouri, Northwestern
West 1: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
West 2: Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
LikeLike
I think those pods have a better balance and feel for preserving some of the existing rivalries, like the iron triangle of Iowa/Minnesota/Wisconsin. However, they’re not geographically contiguous (which may or may not be relevant), and add in some challenges with figuring out cross-pod rivalries — other than Ohio State-Michigan and I pray, Nebraska-Penn State — what’s worth establishing/preserving?
LikeLike
I like your pods a lot more than Dienhart’s, but if I were you, I’d switch Ohio State out for Nebraska, as that allows for Nebraska and Missouri to play each other every year and for the creation of a permanent Penn State-Nebraska rivalry.
LikeLike
That permanent rivalry already exists, it just doesn’t get played out very often. From one Nebraskan’s POV, give us Penn State, Iowa and Wisconsin and we’ll be happy as pigs in you-know-what.
LikeLike
Great Blog, and outstanding discussions in the comments.
I’ve got a question for those with their finger on the pulse of Texas:
If I understand this correctly, UT has athletic dept revenues of ~$100M per year. And Research revenues of ~$500M per year. And then the three big UT Hospitals have research revenues of ~$1.5 Billion per year. What kind of power do the hospitals have?
I don’t know what the real dollar value of synergies is worth, but if you suppose that synergies with the CIC increases research funding by 10%, that would be an additional $150M per year. Adding the increased funds of $10M to $20M from the BTN trumps any gains from a Longhorn TV Channel (I haven’t seen numbers, but lets go nuts and assume the Longhorn TV is worth $50M).
Now, I understand that this is a University, not a business, but if a CEO and Board of Directors chose $50M instead of $160M, the consequences from shareholders could be enormous – not only losing their jobs, but criminal charges.
LikeLike
I asked more or less this very question on the Horn-centric blog I play on. Unfortunately, it’s looking like the thread has died off before the person I was hoping would answer had a chance to do so.
I’m not exactly sure how all of the institutions interrelate for the purposes of making a political decision like this.
But looking at the players (and correct me if I’m wrong on this Playoffs Now):
— when we talk about President William Powers, he is President of the University of Texas at Austin. There is no medical school at UT-Austin.
— UT-Austin is one of 15 institutions — 9 universities and six health institutions — which make up the University of Texas system. I would assume that the bulk of those research dollars are going to those health institutions elsewhere in the UT system.
— It should be noted that the UT system includes one other school (UTEP) playing football at the D1-A level, another school (UT-San Antonio) which has announced its intentions of doing so in the near future, and at least two other schools (UT-Arlington and UT-Pan American) which compete at the D1 level in all other sports. So the chancellor and the board of regents of the UT system has to keep the interests of all schools in mind — and the Legislature makes sure it does.
— I have no idea if the UT system board would merely rubber-stamp a move by UT-Austin to another conference. My recollection of the conference moves in the 1990s is that the president of UT-Austin was the key figure publicly, but who knows what was going on in the background.
— I’ve noticed in that list of research funding by university that pops up from time to time that most Big 10 schools report by an “all campuses” methodology, while UT-Austin reports independently of its other branches. Whether this is a semantic difference or truly indicative of how an increase in research dollars Texas would supposedly receive from the Big 10, I don’t know.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that, even assuming an arbitrary, straight-line 10% increase in research dollars available if joining the Big 10 and the CiC, it’s unknown, at least to me, which specific dollar amount would be increasing by that 10%. Nevertheless, even if it’s an increase in research dollars going to UT-Austin alone, it strikes me that that is a bigger pot of gold available to the university than would be the funds from a Longhorn Sports Network which launches and is successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
Here is a link:
http://mup.asu.edu/Rankings-I/2008_Top25_Natl.xls
Please note that Baylor’s medical is separate from the University and from the numbers shown, Texas’s medical branch is separate also.
There is more information available. But in a nutshell, the Univeristy of Texas research is at $431,000,000 and Texas A&M is at $493,000,000.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s the list I’ve seen, thanks for posting.
LikeLike
just FYI, Baylor University has no medical school. Baylor College of Medicine separated from the university back in the 1960s.
LikeLike
Longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ take:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
LikeLike
I don’t see conference semi-finals making sense. You don’t want to guarantee another loss for 3 of your top 4 teams. If they have any hopes of a 3rd BCS at-large, semis are not the way to do it.
LikeLike
Conference Semi’s make a ton of sense…if there is no BCS. The current BCS contract ends after the 2014 season. If you have 4 conferences, with 16 teams each making a Super-64…the semi’s actually become a defacto first round of a 16 team playoff. The 2nd round would be the championship games…then each conference sends a champion on for 4 game playoff which I would assume be held in the bowls then the winners get a Championship Game, or a “Plus One game”.
And there’s your playoff which will rake huge money for the teams that are in it…and it won’t be the NCAA or the small programs like Utah State, or Tulane, etc. It will ONLY be for 64 teams. Not in one of the 4 conferences? tough
LikeLike
“Conference Semi’s make a ton of sense…if there is no BCS.”
ehh…the value of expansion comes from college football being the most important regular season in all of sports. This makes every regular season game important.
Reducing the importance of regular season games, especially regular season conference games, is not in the Big 10’s financial interest.
LikeLike
@M(Ag)
I agree that college football’s regular season is one of it’s draws. How does that diminish with a playoff system around the pods? Getting to the top of a pod is still going to be tough. Also there will be no “wild card” in this scenario.
In many ways it makes the regular season even more important. First a team only has to be the best out of it’s four team pod (assuming that’s how it’s done). This gives hope, and a season isn’t done with the first loss. It still would be only 16 teams out of 64..which would be the lowest % of any playoff system out there (that I know of pros and college)
LikeLike
When you only have to finish ahead of 3 teams to get in a playoff—you’ve diminished your regular season substantially.
LikeLike
Longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ take:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
(Sorry if this ends up duplicating, but it never showed up so I’m trying again.)
LikeLike
“If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.”
Nice to know which sportswriters’ opinions should never be taken seriously.
LikeLike
It’s a pretty long list we’re developing.
By contrast, I found this article in today’s Washington Post about the Big East’s options to be quite well-written:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/02/AR2010050203478.html?hpid=moreheadlines
LikeLike
Just for fun, let’s count up the gaffes:
1) No one will leave a supersolid conference like the SEC for one that is bleeding members. Not even Arkansas.
2) Texas and aTm are not joined at the hip unless the powers that be in Texas politics force the issue.
3) Texas to the SEC. Over Powers’ dead body. And probably not even then.
4) Texas Tech to the Pac-10. Only if Stanford sees virtue in the “guns up” salute.
LikeLike
MSU fan here.
I’m ok with Frank’s Pod’s & would be fine (thrilled even) moving our protected rivalry to Pitt (or even Rutgers) – maybe we could be favored in a few more late season games.
Sure hope Notre Dame doesn’t get an invite. As a 30 something football fan I’ve never understood the media obsession with them. Sure they’ve got boatloads of history, but in my lifetime they’ve just been a blah (imo) team.
LikeLike
Yeah, Notre Dame would be an awful choice athletically when compared to such powerhouses as Missouri and Rutgers.
LikeLike
Where do UC, UL, SFU, WVU & UConn land if this happens? I can’t see Big East surviving–adding Memphis UCF ECU is unlikely going to be enough to keep auto bid.
LikeLike
The Big East under Frank’s scenario:
The Big East could align with Conference-USA for
football only. C-USA’s 12 schools could merge
with the 5 remaining Big East footballers. This
totals 17 schools.
Dominoes will fall and conferences will adjust, but
as long as the C-USA/ Big East combination keeps at
least 12 teams, they’ll have their conference
playoff, and C-USA will gain an auto-bid.
This would be a marriage of convenience, but
the schools each conference would be fine.
In all other sports, the two conferences
LikeLike
That would be a pretty weak BCS league IMO. The standard-bearers of such a league are WVU & UC? Yikes! I wonder how the BIg East withdrawal guidelines are written, i.e. if B10 takes 3 BE FB schools & the remaining 13 can’t agree on adding 3 new FB schools, is there a basis for the 5 remaining FB schools to seek a dissoluton of the conference on the basis that FB is no longer a real option thereby avoiding the $5 Mil buyout & 27 month wait??
LikeLike
As it stands, West Va and Cincy ARE the
standard-bearers. It’s not like the
three best teams (record-wise) will be
leaving the conference (under the
proposed scenario from Frank).
Weak, yes, but 57% of the Big East will
be retained.
LikeLike
Sorry for the sentence fragments at the
end of this post…
They should have read:
“This would be a marriage of convenience, but
the schools in each conference would be fine.”
“In all other sports, the conferences
remain separate.”
LikeLike
The scheduling as noted could conceivably create 3 Indiana-Rutgers games every third year.
Following Frank’s pod system and schedule:
In the years where the East plays the South, Rutgers would face Indiana in the “rotating pod” scheduling matchup (along with Rutgers vs OSU, Purdue and NW).
Additionally, as part of the annual “rivalry” matchup, Rutgers would again face off against Indiana.
Conceivably, if Rutgers and Indiana then advance to the Big Ten title game, they’d face off for a third time.
This would hold true for Syracuse vs Purdue, Iowa vs Minn, and Missouri vs Wisconsin, in that same rotation year,
LikeLike
I doubt redundant games would be scheduled – the teams would have an extra non-conference game or something.
LikeLike
Testing. Prior posts have not gone through.
LikeLike
Longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ take:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
LikeLike
UT appears out. (U. of Toledo, that is.)
http://toledoblade.com/article/20100503/COLUMNIST08/5030363/-1/SPORTS02
LikeLike
From longtime Austin sports writer Kirk Bohls’ column today:
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
If I were the SEC, I’d invite Texas, A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to form a 16-team league that would be tougher than some NFL divisions. Teams that could get left out, however, are the two Oklahomas and Texas Tech, if they’re not careful. Should be a very interesting Big 12 spring meetings in Kansas City next month.
LikeLike
Link:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
LikeLike
Link to the Kirk Bohls column:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
LikeLike
I’ve tried 4 times to post the link for Kirk Bohls column, but it never posts. However the rest of the post did go through once I removed the link.
Does the Austin American Statesman have some sort of ban on WordPress linking to it?
Anyway, if you really want to read it, a Google search will lead to it.
LikeLike
Does this work?
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html?srcTrk=RTR_661354
LikeLike
That’s weird. I just tried linking it for you a couple of different ways and couldn’t do it either.
LikeLike
OK, what wound up happening (delayed multiple posts for both of us) was even weirder than what we thought was initially happening.
LikeLike
What do you think about his analysis? I’m not really buying it. I know Bohls has been around for a long time, but his logic seems completely flawed to me. We’ve all expressed skepticism about Arkansas leaving the SEC so I won’t revisit that. But the vacancy in the Big 12 contemplated in this article is created by Missouri leaving, which creates an opening in the North, not the South. Which Big 12 South team are you going to kick to the North if Arkansas joins? Oklahome St.? I doubt it.
It is interesting to note Bohls’ reaction to a mega-conference with the SEC or Pac-10. Again, I don’t feel like that issue needs to be revisited, but I find it interesting that he concludes–or appears to conclude–that it would not be worth Texas’ time to rebuild to Big 12 by inviting other schools (BYU, Utah, etc.).
LikeLike
Without taking his analysis in today’s article into consideration, it should be known that many Longhorn fans take Bohls’ columns with as many grains of salt as NU fans seem to take with that Omaha columnist linked to in the comments of the prior post. A million monkeys with a million typewriters sort of thing.
I’m with you re Arkansas. Though I’m on the record that Arkansas won’t leave the SEC, it makes the least amount of sense when Arkansas would be the only school replacing only one departing school. Arkansas is going to leave the SEC so that it can start playing Iowa State and Colorado annually?
LikeLike
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/24xphxg
LikeLike
Let’s see if it works if I link it like this.
LikeLike
Click on my username on this post.
LikeLike
The more I’ve read, and heard on the conference expansion the MORE I think we are headed for the 4 conferences with 16 teams which will break off from the NCAA to have their own playoff championship.
Last week I broke out schools into conferences, and amazingly it worked. The amount of big time program/schools left out really wasn’t all that long of a list. The Big East as a football conference was dead, and the Big 12 was divided up.
Here’s out I had it. (who goes where of course is just speculation) It could go something like this:
Big 10 adds 5 teams: Rutgers, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Nebraska, Missouri
SEC: Adds Kansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, & Oklahoma St
ACC: West Virginia, PITT, South Florida, Louisville
Pac-10: Adds Utah, BYU, Colorado, Texas Tech, Texas, & Boise State/or New Mexico/or UNLV
That leaves the Big 12 down to: Kansas St, Baylor, and Iowa State…and the name “Big 12”. I assume it dissolves. I think the Pac-10 and SEC make a deal to split up Texas and A&M
Their are a few left over schools like Cincinnati, Houston, UTEP, TCU, New Mexico (or Boise St/or UNLV), Hawaii, Fresno St., Nevada-Reno, San Diego St., Wyoming, Colorado St. (and others) on the outside looking in to the SUPER 64. But most of these schools are small, and don’t have the TV market or alumni national followings that the big boys want. These ARE the guys the big boys want to kick aside.
This goes back years, when the the NCAA set up D-1, and D-1A…and the big boys thought the NCAA stuck WAY too many schools into D-1.
My real question is if all this happens would the Big 10 kick out Northwestern, or the SEC kick out Vanderbilt? Both are small private schools that really don’t compete well in sports. They are located in major metro areas, but those metro areas, get more TV from other schools already in the conference.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
I think if we were going to continue to add to Frank’s Expansion Rules from the last blog post, the next rule on that list should be: “No conference is going to kick out another member.” That sums up my feelings on Northwestern ever being kicked out. You don’t kick out family, and I think that’s how the Big Ten sees itself.
LikeLike
Yeah, I would make this one a golden rule as well. Just look what it took for the Big East to finally kick out Temple. No school in any of the BCS conferences is in anywhere near the condition Temple was in 2003.
LikeLike
@Manifesto
I could see that. Especially in the “first Northwestern/Vanderbilt….is your school next?”. It would set a bad precedent. Still monetarily, I don’t think either school brings anything to the table, where another school might. Kansas would be worth more to the Big-10 then Northwestern for example. Greed can break family ties.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
Perhaps. But in a conference that prides itself on its academic reputation (in addition to its athletic reputation) Northwestern is a good school to have. They’re also occasionally (within the last 20 years) competitive on the football field, even if they’re never expected to reach the upper echelon.
To be honest, if the Big Ten kicked out Northwestern (or any other team) in favor of a prettier name I’d lose a lot of respect for the conference. You can’t expect any loyalty from teams in your conference if you don’t show any as well.
LikeLike
If Texas agreed to join, but only if
Northwestern were booted out, what would
the Big Ten do?
This blog has introduced a zillion
scenarios, many of which have been
implausible. Many scenarios, after being
challenged, were defended by wondering
how a school could ignore the Big Ten’s
megadollars (e.g., the Maryland bolting the
ACC scenario, among others).
So a future Northwestern boot is very much in
the scheme of things. What if the Big Ten
went to 16 schools this year, but then in
a couple of years, Texas wanted to join?
No room for a 17th, but hey, Northwestern
is expendable right?
LikeLike
@NPB:
Very doubtful at best. When Texas was supposedly interested in joining the Big Ten in the early 90s, the Big Ten presidents wouldn’t even lift the moratorium placed on expansion discussion. But they’re going to kick out a founding member if Texas comes calling?
The decisions aren’t being made by Delany or fans or the media. The presidents aren’t going to kick out a highly respected institution like Northwestern.
LikeLike
@Manifesto
I think the possibility varies from conference to conference. Would the Big 10 kick out Northwestern? doubtful. Would the Pac-10 kick out Stanford? Well, that’s two totally different circumstances and pressures.
I think the Super-64 is going to be TV driven. Like so much of sports now days, all the posturing and power isn’t much with in reality the power is in the hands of the TV executives and their cash. If they set up the plan/outline to get to the Super-64 and a playoff system (and I think they have) they might also start dictating whose in an whose out.
I wouldn’t be surprised by kicking out certain teams. Actually I’d be more surprised if Vanderbilt or Northwestern was part of the Super-64 and Kansas St, or Texas Tech wasn’t.
LikeLike
Got to keep Northwestern. Husker fans will sell out Soldier Field for you for that game, if you have the good sense to put it there. Easy drive from the east end of the state.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
I agree that the probability varies conference to conference. That’s why I haven’t really talked about the SEC and Vanderbilt, although I would say I consider it almost as unlikely.
But, then again I don’t really think these teams would split from the NCAA anyway. All of it feels like the schools would be taking on too much political heat. That and the situation largely ignores the bureaucratic systems in place that these teams both chafe and benefit under.
LikeLike
No way in hell the Big10 kicks out NW. If the only way for Texas to join is to kick out NW, Texas will have to look elsewhere for a conference. The Big10 is like a family, once a member, always a member. The Big10 will not drop NW for TV money. Won’t happen. I can not think of one instance that would cause the other members of the Big10 to kick NW out. Not even up for discussion. Consider that The University of Chicago is still an academic member of the Big10.
LikeLike
The Big 10 is an integrated athletics and academics conference.
No one “truly leaves,” look at Chicago. Chicago is still a part of the CIC after all.
The only way any member of the Big 10 leaves is if they do so of their own accord. The Big 10 is a bunch of schools that are “all for one and one for all.”
Any school that puts forward an ultimatum like “we’ll join if someone gets kicked out” will be laughed out of town. The Big 10 schools work as a team, everything is shared, etc.
They would just laugh at such an offer, it just won’t happen.
Likewise, the same is true of this new expansion. Once the Big 10 invites new teams, those teams will become members for the long haul. Even if the schools don’t necessarily bring their markets, their membership won’t be conditional.
LikeLike
The Big Ten would leave
all that Texas money
on the table?
And let the SEC gobble
it up? All for the sake
of Northwestern?
I agree that it would
be a shame, but the Big
Ten is currently in the
process of destroying
longtime rivalries for
the almighty dollar…
if a Gordon Gekko type
replaces Delany in the
future, then North-
western might be in
trouble…
LikeLike
Yes! The Big10 would leave the money on the table. If Texas comes with that attitude, the Big10 will tell them good luck in the SEC. Texas will not be able to dictate to the Big10 Presidents to kick out NW. Not going to happen. Period! End of story. Doesn’t matter when Delany retires, because he would not be making that decision anyway. NW will not be in trouble or danger of being kicked out of the Big10.
LikeLike
@NPB:
As Prophet said, in the end it doesn’t matter if Delany is replaced with someone even more shrewd, because ultimately the decision comes down to the university presidents. I don’t see the presidents tossing a fellow school under the bus.
LikeLike
One final thing on Texas (or any school) and the Big Ten. If Texas enters the Big Ten in 2010, they will have just as many rights and privileges as any other Big Ten school. It doesn’t matter that they’d be a new member. If Texas has different priorities, the original Big Ten schools will have to deal with them. At some point, Texas would want a Texas alum in the commissionership. What then? They’ll set up a voting bloc with Missouri and Nebraska, etc, and twist arms. Nothing is certain as to what could happen to Northwestern in the future. Especially dealing with possible egomaniacs at Texas and Rutgers.
The Big East is an interesting example. The conference was set up as a basketball conference, and for ten years functioned as one, first and foremost, with incredible success. Now, for the past 20 years, it’s been caving in to the whims of football schools… so that original members St. John’s and Georgetown have to listen to the demands of West Virginia? People on other blogs loosely throwing out the idea of booting out original members Seton Hall and Providence, so that Louisville and South Florida can be retained via invites to Memphis and East Carolina?
We can believe that Northwestern is safe because of the long Big Ten tradition, but keep in mind that when you invite in TEXAS, you’re inviting in the school, their alums, their traditions, their egos, their whims, their entire history and culture, all of which have little connection to Big Ten traditions. You may not recognize the Big Ten in ten years.
LikeLike
N.P.B.-
The idea that Texas will join the Big 10 to orchestrate a campaign to throw out Northwestern is so bizarre that I can only guess you intended it as comedy.
Otherwise, I’d say you’ve taken the idea of secret conspiracies behind conference expansion way too far.
LikeLike
m (Ag):
Sorry I didn’t explain my thoughts well enough. My point is not some “Texas conspiracy”… it’s that realities change… priorities change. Texas wouldn’t enter the Big Ten with underlying motives, but in 5, 8, 10 years, a different set of realities may exist. This is true if you’re talking about a 1,500 pound tiger (Texas) being invited into the conference, which has absolutely nothing in common with Northwestern.
The Big Ten should invite schools that are enthusiastic about joining, and have solid academic and athletic backgrounds. Go with Pitt, Missouri, and Nebraska. Pitt is a no-brainer. Mizzou is stable and solid and enthusiastic. Nebraska would be a great balance. Go to 14.
Syracuse is only as good as Boeheim, and after he leaves, they may turn into a St.John’s basketball-wise. Rutgers has too big an annoyingly enormous ego, similar to Boston College. Texas– forget about them– the Big Ten would lose its soul– too many cultural differences.
LikeLike
“Texas– forget about them– the Big Ten would lose its soul– too many cultural differences.”
Could you list some of these ‘cultural differences’ that will come up in conference votes?
LikeLike
@N.P.B.: where are you coming up with all this ego referenced trashing of Rutgers? “Enormously annoying ego”? “Egomaniacs”? What is that all about? Is it possible for you to make your points without such vitriol and trashing of Universities such as Texas, Rutgers, Boston College etc.
LikeLike
Rick, m (Ag):
Ok, I re-read my post and should
have avoided the insults.
Peace, NPB.
LikeLike
Northwestern isn’t all that bad. Certainly not as bad as you suggest. They went 8-5 last year and took Auburn to overtime in a very good bowl game. They were 9-4 the year before.
They’re also in the single largest market in the Big Ten footprint, a market arguably more important to college football viewers than LA or NY. A market that is home to the CIC and the Big Ten itself.
They’re also a very good academic school with good research numbers.
Other than their purple uniforms, why would anyone kick them out?
LikeLike
In fairness to those wondering about Texas’ motives in this expansion scenario…
Texas was the only major power in the old SWC conference for about 80 years.
When that conference died it tried desperately to get into the Pac and Big 10 rather than get “lumped” in with the Big8. After failing (and being forced by the Texas State Legislature) it joined in the Big12, but happily left behind (rightly or wrongly) most of its old SWC teams. During its stint in the Big12, it has taken a distinctively “Texas (school) Centric” view on things…ie unequal profit sharing and shot down a Big12 Network in favor of a purely “Texas” network (where no profits would be shared). Now it remains absolutely silent as its conference potentially falls apart around it (even the BigEast is trying to save things).
Part of me wonders if Texas is that chick who knows she just won’t find happiness with the ones she’s with so she buys time and protects herself for now. The other wonders if Texas is that cold hearted self-centered b#$%^ who’s always looking out for number one while looking to throw anyone under the bus to make the best situation possible.
Fact is, I think the Big10 is that stubborn independent SOB who will tell Texas to screw off if it thinks Texas can tell them to boot NW. Conference membership to the Big10 is damned near family (as someone mentioned, Chicago is still in the CIC) and family is listened to, respected, protected, and yes fought with sometimes…but never thrown away for something “better”.
If Texas can buy into this mindset, no problems. I just can understand why folks on the outside looking in could see some blemishes on Texas’ appearance.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you’re saying PSUGuy, and I also think that 100% the Big Ten would say “absolutely no” to any school that offered to conditionally.
I would also go so far as to say that if the Big Ten did invite Rutgers or Syracuse or UConn that the invite would not be conditional.
Even if Syracuse can’t bring the NYC market, it’s not like their membership will come up to a vote in 2020 or something; we’re inviting them for the long haul. The invited schools will presumably get invited to the CIC, etc.
The Big Ten will not be expelling schools. Delaney has the power to run the conference affairs and that includes the Big Ten, but there’s no way a commissioner could ever suggest or think about kicking out a school. The conference would fire him the day he floated the idea.
LikeLike
The B10 will kick out Ohio State and Michigan before it kicks out Northwestern
LikeLike
True, that.
The Big 10 may be chary of inviting new private schools, given the nature of the vast majority of conference members, but Northwestern has a legacy in the league and it will stay as long as it chooses to.
LikeLike
I agree that we’re headed to super conferences, but the problem with the school alignments you have are that:
The Pac-10 isn’t extremely motivated to add schools AND there is that little unanimous consent requirement to add schools. Adding BYU, Tech, Boise, New Mexico and UNLV are going to be REAL stretches for a league with Stanford, Cal and Washington in it.
I could see a Kansas St. being in the same position as A&M is with Texas — political forces mandating those two schools stick it out together.
I think Cincy makes it into a top 64 league simply because of TV sets…its a top 25 MSA and the BTN is the only league where there is currently overlap…maybe UK a little for the SEC, but not really. Plus once Cincy grows into Dayton and they become a combined MSA (a la Dallas Ft worth) — it will be even larger.
While it hasn’t been mentioned, I think eventually ND could use Independence to its advantage — if you’re a national brand that is the only one without its own network and the other conferences have their own networks — ND provides live college football programming that the other networks aren’t getting because of the limited supply thanks to BTN like product. I could see the same with Texas as a potential independent?
LikeLike
@indysportsfan
Well, the Pac-10 and their 100% vote rule is a HUGE issue to over come. But they have to figure out how. I agree that some of the teams I listed for them don’t fit with their current model. But if the Super-64 is going to happen, and if the Pac-10 is one of them, they will have to figure it out.
And…while we are discussing it above, if expansion is blocked 9-1 and that one is Stanford, well, some schools in the Pac-10 are really hungry and desperate. I’m not saying they get kicked out, but I’m sure there would be arm twisting, and unlike the Big-10…the Pac-10 I think will change the rules out of desperation, and necessity.
As for Kansas St. political connections to Kansas, I could see that. I could see your arguement with Ciny. The issue coming up with 64 teams, is some one with a good arguement DOES get left out. Like I posted who goes where is really pure speculation. I mean I could see T. Tech left out pretty easily.
As for ND or Texas independence goes, I personally don’t see either. The way I see it is the if your not one of the 64…you are D-1A. There is no place for you to get into the playoffs as an independent team as the spots are locked up with the 4 conference winners in the way I think it plays out. This is about keeping the playoff TV money tied up, in the fewest hands as possible. Opening it up to a 5th conference or to independent teams opens it up to too many.
LikeLike
@ Redhawk. been discussed here before but in the event of a 9-1 vote on expansion from the Pac 10 or in other terms: one team impeding 9 other schools attempt at generating much needed additional revenue – whats to stop the 9 from seceding from the Pac 10 and just joining the additional members in the creation of a new conference?
LikeLike
@Stopping By – It depends upon who that 1 dissenting vote is. If it’s Washington State, I think that the other Pac-10 schools will bolt. If it’s Stanford, though, who every university president wants its own school to aspire to in terms of a top notch academic school with a great sports program, that’s a different story. Stanford is going to carry disproportionate influence in the conference – I don’t think that the university presidents are going to pull the trigger on disassociating themselves from that school.
LikeLike
Stanford has disproportionate influence, but everything I’ve read indicates Pac 10 athletic programs have been hit hard by the recession. Stanford itself has had to make cuts.
If the other 11 schools walk away and join with the schools they want to add, they’ll leave a spot open for Stanford. At that point, would Stanford really refuse to join?
It’s better for Stanford to avoid this, because the new constitution would probably eliminate the unanimous vote requirement, which Stanford would like to keep for other votes. So if 11 schools line up for expansion, I think Stanford would have to go along with it. Of course, if there are other schools who don’t feel strongly about expansion, Stanford will get it’s way.
LikeLike
@m(Ag):
For all of our concern about Stanford, does anyone know about USC? USC’s been the big dog in that conference for so long. Would they even want an 800lb gorilla like Texas challenging them? From a recruiting standpoint it’s a slam dunk, with 2/3 of the largest football states under one conference.
LikeLike
I don’t really know what anyone in particular wants in the Pac 10. Well, they’d all like money and academic prestige.
Perhaps USC would be happier with only second tier programs added to their conference. They are probably more financially sound than the other programs, so they may feel less urgency.
Then again, they may want the extra money + football prestige that would come with adding some top programs to the Pac 10.
LikeLike
You asked about UDC. I know for a fact that Mike Garrett, who is the USC AD would joyfully welcome A&M and Texas into the conference. Mike has made that statement to my son.
LikeLike
USC not UDC.
LikeLike
@Wes: Well, that’s good enough for me. I retract my question regarding USC. 🙂
LikeLike
@indysportsfan:
I think a clear majority in the Pac-10 favor expansion, and are keen to do so. That’s the main reason for hiring a pro like Larry Scott, who didn’t come cheap.
@Frank the Tank:
The Pac-10, as I understand it, also saw USC threaten to take a walk 3 years ago when Stanford balked at taking ASU along with Arizona. So while I don’t think the “9” would at the end of the day walk away from the “1,” they could use that threat to force Stanford’s hand if it were to balk at, say, Texas A&M. Having said that, your point stands that Stanford — because it is in many ways the academic flagship of the conference — has disproportionate sway. But there are limits.
LikeLike
testing
LikeLike
I still like the 2 phase expansion idea. Add Nebraska, Syracuse and Rutgers in phase #1. Give ND the ultimatum that’s it’s them or Pitt. If ND still doesn’t bite then add Pitt and Missouri. If ND caves in and comes on board then add ND and Missouri with Pitt the odd man out.
LikeLike
I forgot that Syracuse once had a proud football program. It has a long way to go if they want to get it back to these days:
Syracuse @ Wisconsin brawl
http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2010/05/former_su_player_joe_ehrmann_g.html
LikeLike
Here’s my pod set.
-I think divisions with 2 rotating pods every other year is the best way to maintain balance and keep every team connected. With a 9 game conference schedule, you’d be 2 years on 2 years off for every team in the conference. Pods A & B always opposite, Pods C & D always opposite.
-I think it is best to divide the newcomers up in their pods for the most part to help create new rivalries and meld them into the new conference.
-I wanted to keep the most significant rivalries connected (UM-OSU, IA-MN-WI triangle, UM-MSU, IU-PU, UI-NW).
-Fortunately some of the newcomers have some real easy rivalries that geographically make great sense (UI-MO, PSU-Pitt, NB-IA-WI)
-The sticking point in every mix I tried was UI-NW and IU-PU, those 4 geographically fit and have numerous trophies and current protected games.
-The second sticking point was PSU. Either they were going to anchor their own pod or they were going to go in with UM-OSU. As much as they want to play UM-OSU every year, I sacrificed that to give them Pitt every year. They would rotate between a home-away with UM & OSU to a home-away with NB & IA (who seems to have their number). So their annual schedule would see one home visit from UM, OSU, NB or IA every single year.
-I put Rutgers with UM-OSU-MSU because I think it would benefit the conference to have either UM or OSU playing in New Jersey every year.
-Syracuse is really out of position and if Syracuse was replaced by Kansas, this set up would really fit better.
Pod A
Nebraska
Minn
Iowa
Wisc
Pod B
MI
OSU
MSU
Rutgers
Pod C
Illinois
NW
Syracuse
Missouri
Pod D
Pitt
PSU
IN
Purdue
LikeLike
Do the teams from Pod A and Pod B ever meet?
LikeLike
Yes. A & B (as well as C & D) would play 2 teams from their opposing pod every year, plus 3 games in their own pod and 4 games in their matched up division pod.
So for Pod A.
3 games with Pod A teams
4 games with Pod C teams
2 games with Pod B teams
That stays the same for 2 years (home/away for each matchup). Then C & D swap.
Pod A then gets
3 games with Pod A teams
4 games with Pod D teams
2 games with Pod B teams (the 2 teams they didn’t play the cycle before).
It sounds difficult at first to get your head around but it’s really simple. You have 3 preserved rivalries and everyone else you’re playing 2 on 2 off.
LikeLike
Frank and others….
Concerning expansion $ #s….they don’t seem to add up…
Big 10 teams got a reported $22M from tv rev last year.
The ABC/CBS deals average 9.27/year over 10 years, but are lower in the early years—83M in year 1…so network $ may have been 8.5 or so per team lasy year…
BTN rights fees, independent of profit sharing, were 6.3M lasy year.
So that’s 14.8M or so in rights fees. One would assume the remainder (7.2M or so) would be profit sharing..
But BTN has a repoted 35M subscribers, 26M in it’s “footprint”
If BTN cleared .36/month on 26M sub, that would be 10.21M per team. Adding in the others at .05 a pop would add another 1/2M or so, taking it to roughly 10.7M, prior to consideration of adv revenues.
The Big 10 would have to pay the cable companies a share…..not sure what %, but throwing in a reasonable # there, things still don’t add up………
LikeLike
The difference is advertising revenue. Your other numbers are consistent with my understanding. In one of Frank’s earlier posts, a media executive ran through the numbers. The variables in your analysis are ad revenue and other BTN expenses. I used a WAG method of estimating them based upon ad revenues making up 40% of total revenues and $150M of operating expenses (all expenses other than rights fees) and that comes up with approximately $7M / school, which is your difference.
Sub Revenue $235M
Advertising Revenue $156M
Rights Fees $(70M)
Other Expenses $(150M)
$172M
Big Ten percentage 51%
$88M
12
$7.3M per school
LikeLike
The rights fees are seperate from the profit calculations.
Assuming 235M sub rev plus 156adv rev minus 150M expenses, you’d have 241M profit, or 12.29M to each team.
12.29M plus BTN rights fees of 6.3M plus ABC/CBS network fees of 8.5M (guess) would be over 27M per team.
LikeLike
I backed the rights fees of ~$70M out in the calculations above. The three components I have are:
ABC/ESPN rights fees ($8.0M)
BTN rights fees ($6.5M)
BTN revenue sharing ($7.2M)
LikeLike
Using your #s, 235M + 156 -150 equals 241M. 51% of that is app. 123M. Divided by 11 is 11.18M
That would be each teams share of profits.
11.18 + 8.0 + 6.5 equals 25.68M per team.
Not sure where you came up with $150M expenses. That sounds like a lot….but reduce adv rev by 41M and the #s may be close….
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
I know you had mentioned the rights fees before, but do you have any documentaion on that? The BTN seems to be very restrictive with their numbers. I am thinking that the added programing is what is really going to drive expansion.
LikeLike
Sorry if someone already said this but I didn’t get to read through every comment, but why would we kill both the Big East and the Big 12 and not get either of the big dogs?
I feel like taking the good half of the Big 12 is a better proposition if we were to go to 16 teams.
With Texas and Texas A&M we would lock down the state of Texas and gain two very good research institutions. With Missouri we would get higher carriage rates for St. Louis and get part of the KC market. With Kansas we would lock down the other half of the KC market and gain a premier basketball program. Then Nebraska brings a premier football program with a great fan base that will travel anywhere. And all a large state flagship research institutions which fit the Big Ten profile.
With the Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Mizzou, and Nebraska combination you are hoping that the combination of Big East schools will get the NY and NJ markets but with Texas and Texas A&M you know you’ll get the entire state of Texas. Plus Missouri is more valuable with Kansas since the combination gets the whole KC market and higher carriage rates.
And then the Big 12 schools are just more competitive in football and basketball than the Big East schools.
Maybe if ND is swapped with Pitt it makes sense but we just killed the Big 12 why not go after Texas? I guess they could go independent but I don’t think they would have enough quality programming to get their own network off the ground. And they would still need a deal to get their football games nationally televised unless they are ok with having every home game on the Longhorn Network. They could also find shelter in the PAC 10 but they wouldn’t get nearly as much money as they would in the Big Ten and then there is the two time zone difference and the unanimous voting of the PAC 10.
Any thoughts?
LikeLike
@UofMinMaryland,
I agree, and I imagine you go directly to 16 in this scenario because you´ve been told by Notre Dame and the Texas schools that they will never join the conference.
I really can´t see that happening though – until things shake out why would you shut the door on any scenario? And because of that, like you say and Frank has said in the past, I don´t see 16 making sense. Nebraska + one or both of the others and it could happen – short of that though, I think we take three and wait out the storm.
I think we all need to be careful finding truth in any of these rumors. As for this one in particular, I call BS.
LikeLike
I’m with Michael. I think that since the most appealing candidates are off the table, take 3 and call it a day. A 14 team Big Ten that includes Nebraska is the TOP Conference in the country. After the other top candidates see how much $ is being made, they may reconsider in a few years.
LikeLike
Agreed. If taking 3 can start monumental shifts in CFB, you don’t need to take 16 and then not have room for Tex or ND. Start the ball rolling and then mae another move once the landscape has been softened up.
LikeLike
YEP, this whole post is just too logical. Back to Frank’s original index, if expansion does not have Texas or Notre Dame, no expansion makes sense. Larry in Baton Rouge says don’t expand unless you expand with schools that have a following and will be watched. So Right! If Rutgers, Missouri, Syracuse and UConn are not pulling big TV ratings now, what makes the Big Ten think that all of a sudden the leopard would change its spots? Your expansion idea mirrors another post on a totally different blog by a Michigan man. Football is King in the Big Ten and in Texas and in Nebraska and your post brings the KINGS to the King of conferences.
LikeLike
That doesn’t make sense.
Create a conference with Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa St., Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, and Northwestern and see what kind of ratings it gets in Chicago.
It is the mega-schools that drive the revenue stream–Ohio St., Michigan, Nebraska, Penn St. If Ohio St. plays Northwestern… people will watch. If Ohio St. plays Rutgers… people will watch. If Penn St. plays Syracuse…people will watch. And so on.
I originally hated the pods, but now I see the brilliance. You put one traditionally dominant school in each pod. Any of those schools coming to town will create interest.
And none face a daunting task to success, despite being challenged.
LikeLike
Wes – I’m Alan from Baton Rouge, but that’s OK. Larry in Baton Rouge may have said something else, but I’ve always said that the reason for Big Ten expansion is different from the reason for SEC expansion.
The BTN is pushing Big Ten expansion, as we all know. More subscribers = more money for the Big Ten.
The SEC has a different deal. The SEC’s equivalent to the BTN is the ESPN-produced SEC Network. It is syndicated throughout the SEC footprint and in at least 15 states outside the footprint. Generally speaking, the SEC Network game competes with the early Big Ten ESPN game. The SEC’s partner, ESPN, has a greater interest in the reach of syndication than the SEC. The SEC gets a flat fee per year.
The SEC would only expand if CBS & ESPN pay for it. If CBS & ESPN thought the SEC could get two of the following teams – Texas, Oklahoma, Miami, Florida State, the networks would probably jump. If all four aren’t available, stick in A&M, OK State, Texas Tech, Clemson or Georgia Tech in one or two of the other spots, and it still works. A bigger footprint is not a big deal for the SEC.
Big name teams that all have had recent success, ie BCS championships, means compelling match-ups, means big ratings, means higher ad rates, means more money. That’s the SEC’s formula for expansion.
LikeLike
Completely agree, though I think you can see the conundrum in that there aren’t that many big time programs left in “weak” conferences so the expansion of this model is quickly coming to a head.
Realistically I could see the SEC adding Oklahoma…maybe a Texas team. Other than that what big time programs are out there?
Maybe that’s enough, and fair enough on that, but is the SEC really going to be content with the likes of Indiana making more than Florida or Alabama?
LikeLike
PSUGuy – I’m not sure if the likes of Indiana is really making more than Florida or Alabama. One point that a lot of people are missing in the SEC/CBS/ESPN contracts is that the individual schools can sell their own inventory of games after CBS & ESPN takes their picks.
For example, LSU sells its surplus inventory to Cox – the biggest cable provider in Louisiana.
That’s why I’ve been saying all along that Texas would have to take a hard look at SEC membership, since the SEC contracts wouldn’t prevent Texas from starting a Longhorn TV network.
LikeLike
Perhaps thats true, but my statement was coming from the realm of conference money.
Even with its new big deal the SEC payout will be ~$17 million. Indiana got ~$22 million last year from the Big10.
LikeLike
Thanks for everyone’s posts. Not to duplicate, but two points:
(1) Hard to see Cincinnati in the 64-team super division without booting teams that, many seem to agree, will not be evicted (Northwestern will always be in the Big Ten).
(2) As a Texan who went to Michigan and lives in Ohio, I think the key to the
Big 10 becoming THE top conference is UT (Texas). I don’t think Nebraska going will force Texas’ hand, rather UT joining would then give the Big Ten the ability to pick whomever else they want–and the list of schools wanting to join would be long, perhaps even ND.
This is perhaps reflective of a built-in bias, but I think UT makes any conference it joins No. 1.
LikeLike
Depends, I suppose, on what you mean by “top conference”. As far as money payout to schools, the Big Ten is in that perch. If you’re talking a combination of payouts and football dominance, then it’s the SEC. And I agree with the idea presented here that it’s very doubtful Texas will go the SEC route, but not for the academic reasons proffered. Texas won’t go to the SEC because they will get pwned on the football field in that conference, and there won’t be one heckuva lot they can do about it. And if there is anything Texas can’t abide, it’s not being in control and top dog. Good luck with that in the SEC. Or the Big Ten. Maybe they could share power with USC in the Pac 10, even that’s an iffy proposition. The more one thinks about it, the more one leans toward the Texas and the Tomato Cans Conference model after this all shakes out, if they can find enough schools who wish to be wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Longhorn Network.
LikeLike
I love to read such unbiased and insightful analysis like this. I feel all the better informed for it.
LikeLike
You yourself have stated that losing Nebraska and Missouri would be of no great loss to the Big 12, that Texas, er, the Big 12 to 10 can do fine without them. It’s your opinion, just not put in a way that you can appreciate.
It’s all conjecture anyway, someone will guess right and most will guess wrong. If we could predict the future we’d be living in a really nice mansion in Vegas, no?
LikeLike
Yes, I have stated that the Big XII could survive without Nebraska and Mizzou. I have also consistently stated that the conference would be weakened if those two schools left, no matter which two schools out there realistically being floated as replacement schools were plugged in their place.
There is nothing inconsistent in noting both of those.
(I also believe that the conference would be weakened, but would survive, if it chose not to replace NU and Mizzou at all, if that makes you feel better.)
That’s a far cry from writing the equivaent of what you wrote, that the real reason that NU wants to leave the Big XII is that the Huskers are tired of being “pwned” on the field by the Horns.
There’s many reasons to speculate why schools might go in different directions, but to say that the reason Texas wouldn’t go to the SEC is that Texas would be “pwned on the football field” and that Texas desires to be in a conference of tomato cans (we did leave the tomato cans behind when we joined the Big XII, remember?) when this is all said and done is laughable and far below the level of analysis most of contributors here demonstrate.
LikeLike
If you had actually owned us, it’d be a valid statement. In actuality, we’ve been quite competitive, even through our down cycle, although somewhat snakebit lately. If it makes you feel any better, we’d get pwned in the SEC also, at least for a while until we could get up to speed. It’s a bitch of a football conference on the field. We certainly wouldn’t go in thinking we had to run things to our advantage and to everyone else’s disadvantage.
As far as the quality of my contributions, well lahdeedah. Have Frank give me the boot if they’re so beneath you.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
I think that we would do well to remember the failed WAC experiment. While the Big 10 does have obviously better revenue stream in place, part of the WAC problem was dissention amongst it’s members (the good academic schools resented the bad ones). I only see a 16 team model really working if it is: 1) a big 10-big 12 merger; or 2) the NY model with ND as the ceterpiece. Otherwise, you end up with a collection of schools from different regions of the country with little in common. If interested, check out my analysis on this topic at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/04/22/a-history-lesson-the-case-against-a-16-team-super-conference/. Once again Frank, good job staying on top of things.
LikeLike
@Michael Ziemba
Which is another reason why I think the Big10, and only the Big10, can expand to 16 anytime soon. Not only does it have the BTN which allows it to pass the point of diminishing marginal returns, but all its schools are very like minded in their goals.
AAU, Top 100-150 ARWU, hundreds of millions in research, large student populations, major athletics programs (not just in football, all collegiate athletics).
If the right mix of schools is added, no more than one or two of those characteristics would be broken for any of the members. Schools that have proven “they are Big10” without even being in the conference would likely share world-views with the already existing members…like-wise the current Big10 members wouldn’t have to worry that their view of what the Big10 is now would be changing radically with the addition of new members.
Folks talk about the likes of WVU joining the ACC or Texas joining the SEC in 16 team superconferences though and then, yes you’re point is very valid.
LikeLike
I do have “culture concerns” when it comes to Rutgers, Syracuse, U Conn…none with Mo, Neb, KU, Pitt….
Rutgers looks so much like a BT school that I think they’ll be a good fit….Rutgers has been beaten down so much image wise that I’m curious to see what it can do….Syracuse, on the other hand, is a small, private, liberal arts-focused university….The best thing Syracuse has going for it is basketball…..however, the SU basketball program has nowhere to go but down in the BT…..if that happens, the BT gets the blame with SU fans…Syracuse is also probably the school that has been most devoted to the Big East….basketball coach Jim B. keeps talking about how it will be a mistake to leave…finally, Syr doesn’t look like any Big 10 school, even NW. NW has 8000-9000 grad students to 5000 for Syr., does 10X the research, and has 10X the endowment…
LikeLike
mushroom good, for your reasons, I just don’t see Syracuse as a good fit culturally. All the other factors seem to make sense. For the same reason, I have recently cooled on ND. While there are obvious benefits, the small school Catholic no real R&D grants makes them a bad fit in my opinion.
PSU guy, I agree. The Big 10 has the best chance of all to pull off 16 for the very reasons you stated. Stating the obvious, they still need to be careful. The morst different interests you bring in, the more likelihood there is for problems.
LikeLike
IMO, Rutgers is a Big10 school through and through. Its Pitt without the athletic pedigree. Also, UConn = Kansas (actually its better than Kansas for some categories), it only lacks the AAU status.
Kinda agree on the Syracuse thing though. Its seems they try to walk a fine line between being the only Div1 school in NY and being a smaller “New England” college that seems to more prevelant thereabouts.
I do think however, if the Big10 offers it an invite ‘Cuse starts putting more effort into research/academics and expanding its student body to more closely resemble Northwestern (could we start calling it “Northeastern”?).
LikeLike
Syracuse would be a dramatic departure from the Big 10 norm.
Total 2008 R&D totals:
Wis 882M
UM 876
OSU 703
PSU 701
Minn 683
Pitt 596
Ill 501
NW 484
Pur 430
IU 412
MSU 357
Neb 349
Rut 323
Iowa 294
Mo 245
UConn 226
Kan 215
ND 97
Syr 38
I believe I also read that Syracuse has a $545M endowment, which compares to $6B + for ND, $5B+ for NW.
I hope people open their eyes and realize Syracuse is not an elite university. It is nothing like Northwestern.It is nothing like ND. And it has less research $ than U of Wisc. at Milwaukee, Jackson St., Wright State, UTEP, UNLV, or Toledo.
LikeLike
Understood and agreed.
Only questions then are:
1) Do you think Syracuse would be amenable to pushing hard to change that if a Big10 invite were forthcoming?
2) Do you think UConn could be a Syracuse replacement?
LikeLike
No on Syracuse “changing” to the extent necessary to fit in with the other BT teams.
Syracuse is a darn good private school, but not “elite” in the same sense as NW or ND. However, for Syracuse to try to change to be more like the Big 10 model would be the tail wagging the dog. It’s one thing to ask schools to add a sport or two or to improve their facilities to be more competitive–it’s another to ask them to change the very nature of the university. If I was an SU alum, I’d be offended at the suggestion….
And no Rox, that’s not what the Big 10 would ask of ND either. Association with Big 10 Us might make a school lean in one direction or another, but that choice is left to the adm., faculty, and alums of the school, not the remaining BT schools.
As to U Conn., I’d absolutely take it over Syracuse…bigger school, public, 7X the research, and nearly as selective in admissions. Plus, everything I’ve read indicates that U Conn has athletic and academic momentum on it’s side — Syracuse, not so much — SU’s total research budget is less than 2001, the CD is an aging facility, the football program is down….
However, the lack of AAU status seems like a killer for U Conn., even though they’ll be there in 5 -10 years.
I’ve been very surprised and disappointed in the lack of imagination the Big 10 appears to be showing to date….seems like the “study” that was done was geared toward confirming the original 5 of ND, RU, Syracuse, Pitt, Missouri…I can’t imagine why U Conn., KU, and Neb. weren’t included to be studied in depth….makes you wonder….
LikeLike
Mushroomgod…. 90% of posts are anti-Syracuse. Seems to be one of the biggest concerns in your life is keeping Syracuse out of the Big 10.
LikeLike
@ Michael Z,
I agree. I think the conference needs to focus on one goal and then do everything in it´s power to carry it out.
Is the purpose of this expansion to capture the NY market? If it is, fine, but let´s do it right. It needs to be ND, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and UConn.
If we´re looking to expand the conference West and really lock down the heart of the country, go with five from the Big 12.
I think the problem we run into, however, is appeasing both sides of the Big 10. How do you sell an all-East expansion to Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Or, on the other hand, would PSU, Michigan, OSU and NU buy into an all-West expansion?
For my part, I´ve made it clear that I prefer the latter of the two, as it better fits the Big 10 culture, as I see it.
It should go without saying, but a job well done is better than two done half-ass.
LikeLike
@Michael – If the Big Ten adds these 5 schools, I think it’s really a “Northern” strategy. It would have all of the AAU members of the BCS north of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Rockies except for Iowa State, Kansas and Maryland. So, I think that this combo actually makes sense in that regard as a collective as opposed to jumping to various markets. Now, I frankly don’t care at all about making geographic jumps to get schools like Texas and Texas A&M, but maybe the Big Ten university presidents think differently. This combo also has a lot more firepower if one of those Eastern schools is replaced with Notre Dame, yet we’ve discussed whether that will happen ad nauseum.
LikeLike
Random fact: Maryland is actually south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
LikeLike
Which is why I think the 5 spoken to work so well.
You add a national brand on the west, where one was lacking, and another solid market there as well. In the east you add lots of markets and make a legitimate play for NYC. If you really want to be serious, ditch Pitt and add UConn (don’t necessarily argue for that or think it will happen, but you get the point).
Plus, the additions, and their locations, make creating 4 divisions relatively easy.
As I said elsewhere, it just seems to well balanced plan that maximizes $$$ while minimizing risk.
LikeLike
I don’t think any Michigan fans would have any problem with going west. I think JoPa has always wanted a more natural rival in the east but besides PSU why would anyone (Michigan, MSU, OSU, or NU included) care if we added quality schools in the west?
I think we seem to be on the same page though as far as our personal thoughts on expansion strategies are conserned.
On a side note, I wonder why so many in the MSM seem to think the Big Ten will only go after the low hanging fruit though? How many schools when asked if they would like a $10M+ increase in their annual budget and an equity stake in a growing and profitable TV network would say no? I can think of only one. The Big Ten can afford to be picky in my opinion.
LikeLike
There are two that can say no. After that, it’s pretty much ALL low hanging fruit.
LikeLike
The reason why UoM and OSU want to go east is because that’s where many of their alumni go. It’d turn in to “home” away games. Not so much the further into the mid-west you go. The same can be said for PSU. There’s a reason JoePa wanted to start a conference there…big time populations mean lots of jobs, where large schools (like most of the Big10) will send a disproportionate amount of graduates.
NY/NJ/MD are Big10 states without having Big10 schools. Add the right schools and they become purely Big10 states.
Loki has the right idea about the low hanging fruit though.
LikeLike
OSU doesn’t have as large an East Coast presence as Michigan.
Michigan has far more out-of-state students then OSU.
LikeLike
If academic standing had been a problem in the old WAC, the MWC schools probably wouldn’t have left Rice, SMU and TCU behind when they split. The MWC schools left because a. their long-standing rivalries were being diluted in the mega-WAC, and b. they realized they could get just as good of a TV contract and split it half as many ways.
LikeLike
We’re all discussing pods, but I agree with Alvarez that anything in this area is just imagination. So here are some what-if scenarios, just throwing it out there.
What if instead of adding the schools you mentioned, you instead added an entire league? What I’m thinking happens a couple ways, but what if the BTN went ESPN and added another league such as the Big East to its programming content, but they remained separate conferences?
Why? You add schools and markets without the equal payment and equity that a new conference member would need and you could add 8 football schools and a premier basketball conference to really expand your programming content. On the Big East’s end — adding even 2 million per school to their existing 7 mill payout is a huge addition and I think puts them on par with the Big 12 and ACC.
If this discussion really is about beefing up content and adding viewership — wouldn’t this have a safer and larger effect for the Big Ten and BTN then just adding straight up conference members? Heck — get rid of the guarantee games and spice up the schedule with non-conf games against the leagues or specific opponents where you have strong alumni/recruiting/tv interests a la OSU, MICH, Mich ST at Rutgers — and do so without the so-so Minn Vs. Rutgers games.
If a league were truly thinking like a President AND a for profit network it seems like this would be the best.
Rather than find 22million per school, now you can just find 50 million for an 8 team league or 100 million for football and all the basketball that a 16 team basketball league adds..plus hockey, etc.
Also for the Big Ten, a move like this strengthens the Big East and allows them to go back after BC and some of the more tenuous ACC brethren to strengthen things even further..
Outlandish? possibly.
The other scenario I see is the July 2010 scenario — whereby the BE football schools can break away without penalty by then.
What if Marrinatto already knows 3 schools are leaving and those schools are working with the league office to find appropriate homes for the other 5. Its 5 million per school and 27 months of awkwardness that can be avoided if it happens. Bring on Tagliabue to convince the SEC, ACC and BIG 12 that its in their interest to provide a home for 1-3 of the available BE schools and within a shorter time frame the new landscape occurs and the BE saves face by making a ‘strategic shift’ to be the nation’s premier catholic basketball conference by adding Xavier, Dayton and Temple.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Don’t know if you guys have already discussed this, but I just found it: some pressure may be put on Notre Dame by the Big East to either join them for football or leave for basketball. I have always wondered why the Big East put up with that since ND isn’t much of a player in basketball (or maybe I’m wrong on this, maybe the name still makes them a draw). Here is the link I found:
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/04/30/big-east-coaches-want-notre-dame-to-get-in-or-get-out/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002
LikeLike
@Michael Z:
It’s interesting from a drama standpoint. The cracks in the Big East have been showing since this whole thing started, and it’s been looking recently like they’re beginning to eat their own (Tags’ comments, now this).
But it’s telling that, according to Edsall at least, this has been going on for the last two years. Moreover, it’s important to note here that he points out that it’s the coaches, not the presidents or even the ADs. Therefore I doubt it has much traction.
I will say, however, that as this builds obviously the Big Ten’s public image takes a hit. But does Notre Dame’s as well? A lot of officials from various schools and conferences have been quoted saying, “if only ND would just join this would probably be over with”. If the Big Ten kneecaps two conferences, some people are going to be raw over it. If Notre Dame stays independent, do they suffer any kind of blowback? Doubtful, but it’s something to think about I guess.
LikeLike
Perhaps ND does, but only from those so naive to think that B10 will stop at 12. Thanks to the BTN, who seriously desperately needs something to run (I can almost see a weekend of OSU and UM spring games, but when you’re rerunning NU-UVA women’s lax, you are running dangerously low on content) they won’t stop before fourteen at least.
I’m just glad ND didn’t hire Edsall. Anyone who fails to realize that ND would leave before joining in football and that the Big Ten raid will continue regardless is not going to make it as the ND head coach. He also needs waaay more tact.
LikeLike
@Michael Z – I think that it’s too little too late to do that to ND. Putting aside the fact that it would take a unanimous vote to kick ND out and the Catholic schools and those angling for Big Ten invites wouldn’t do it, ND actually emboldens the Big Ten for adding multiple Eastern schools. The main value of ND besides the national brand name is its NYC/East Coast fan base,
LikeLike
I think this is simple. No “divisions”, no real “pods” and you keep the 8 week schedule if 14 teams and go to 9 if 16.
Each team has 3 “designated” rivals, much like they do now. They play these teams every year. For example, Michigan’s would be OSU, MSU and Minn.
Then, you play exactly one-half of the others 5 (if 14 teams) or 6 (if 16 teams) every year. Each school would have its own 2 “pods” of teams, if you will. This way you play everyone at least every 2 years.
Then, the top 2 finishers play for the championship. No unbalanced “divisions” to worry about.
LikeLike
no division = no conference championship game
NCAA rules
LikeLike
I think the BT should go to 20 schools. If you whore yourself out for money, why not really go for it.
For football, 4 divisions of 5 teams. You play your division rivals each year. You play all five teams from another division for a total of nine games. You’d have a semi final round played at two campus sites and a BT championship game played at rotating neutral sites. Sites could include Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, Indy, St Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philly, New York. You rotate the divisions so that each school plays every school at least once per three years.
For basketball, no divisions. You would play each team once per season so you would get a full round-robin and you would play every team every year. The schedule would be equatable this way. Top 12 make the BT tournament with the top four seeded into the quarterfinals.
Can you imagine a Big Ten football championship played at Yankee Stadium? That would be pretty cool.
Added schools:
Syracuse
UConn
Rutgers
Pitt
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Iowa State
Colorado
Divisions:
Syr, UConn, Pitt, Rutgers, PSU
OSU, UM, MSU, IU, PU
WI, MIN, NW, ILL, IA
ISU, NU, MO, KU, CU
The Big XII collapses. Oklahoma, Okla St join the SEC.
Texas and A&M join the Pac 10.
Texas Tech, Baylor and Kansas State join the MWC giving the MWC a championship game.
WVU, Louisville, Cincy, USF join the ACC.
LikeLike
I know this doesn’t actually matter at all, both because the Big Ten hasn’t expanded and because preseason rankings are mostly worthless, but:
Was looking at ESPN’s Mark Schlabach’s newest “way to early top 25”, posted today. If the Big Ten added the “fab five” today, the conference by conference comparison of the Top 25 would be:
Big Ten (6): #3 OSU, #7 Nebraska, #9 Wisconsin, #11 Iowa, #13 Pitt, #23 Penn State
SEC (5): #1 Alabama, #8 Florida, #14 Arkansas, #17 LSU, #20 Georgia
ACC (5): #5 VTech, #15 FSU,#19 Miami, #21 UNC, #22 Georgia Tech
Big 12 (3): #4 Texas, #12 Oklahoma, #25 Texas A&M
Pac 10 (3): #10 Oregon, #15 USC, #24 Stanford
WAC (1): #2 Boise State
MWC (1): #6 TCU
Big East (1): #18 Cincy
Just food for thought.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before. If the Big 10 wants to make a truly compelling case for Texas, they should secretly solicit Texas’ interest in the following proposal.
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10.
Texas keeps its two primary rivals. You would have 6 of the 7 winningest programs in the past fifty years — Neb #1, OSU #2, PSU #3, OU #5, Michigan #6 and Texas #7. You could probably add the Cotton and Holiday Bowls to your bowl game stable which includes the Citrus, Outback and Gator.
We agree that the other four schools are academically acceptable. So does OU single-handedly kill the whole deal?
The SEC would be hard pressed to match this move.
LikeLike
Justin, I totally agree but I would replace Missouri with Kansas just because of the strength of their basketball program and the money BB amkes for them and consequesntly, would make for the new league.
LikeLike
Let the SEC try to top that!
LikeLike
We´ve talked about how Texas´ preference may be the status quo. The biggest problem, however, is that the Big 12 isn´t profitable enough for anyone.
We´ve also talked about how Texas may not have a particular affinity or tie to anyone else in Texas apart from A&M.
If you then combine the strengths of the Big 12 with the revenue, exposure and academics of the Big 10, I don´t see where Texas would object.
We could argue that they´d prefer the Pac 10, but 1) the Big 10 is more profitable and 2) an expansion of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M would essentially keep the status quo while correcting its faults. Under that scenario, Texas would either be placed in a four school pod with A&M, Oklahoma and Kansas or placed in an 8 team Western division with the four other Big 12 teams plus Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin.
This scenario makes too much sense, for all parties. Now, the only question is if OU would be a deal breaker for either side, and I´m not sure who feels more strongly about this issue: the Big 10 or Texas.
LikeLike
If OU were a deal-breaker for the Big 10, could KU be substituted? Or would that make this overall theoretically package not attractive enough?
(And Justin, I can’t remember if I said so when you originally posted this idea, but I really like it.)
LikeLike
If Missouri meets Big 10 academic standards then so does Kansas. From the Big 10´s standpoint, I don´t think they´d lose much athletically moving from OU to KU. You lose the Red River Rivalry but gain the Border War. I´d be interested to see Patrick´s revenue estimates for OU. You lose an elite football program but gain an elite basketball program.
I don´t see why the Big 10 wouldn´t be fine with KU and MU but I don´t know how Texas would feel about it. Hopkins Horn, how do you and the rest of the Texas fans on here feel about making a move without OU? Would a 5 team package with A&M, KU, MU and Nebraska work?
LikeLike
I cannot imagine Texas would turn down this proposal.
I cannot imagine the Big 10 wouldn’t accept A&M, Missouri or Nebraska, so its all about OU.
OU is still the flagship state school, so we’re not talking about adding Nevada-Reno here.
I don’t think Texas has any interest in Kansas. They would still have to play OU in the non-conference — I don’t think Texas fans care whether Kansas ever appears on the schedule again.
To me, the 5 school expansion of OU, NU, Mizzou and the Texas two-step is feasible — I guess the only caveat is that it would require Texas to make the first move, albeit collectively.
LikeLike
Oklahoma is not in the AAU. ARWU ranking in 300’s (worst ranking of any other school mentioned is Kansas/Nebraska in the 200’s…all current members are under 150). I could not find its research amounts.
Suffice it to say Oklahoma is not a “Big10 calibre” school and I would be very surprised to see it entertained as an expansion candidate.
As for Texas/TAMU, as discussed ad nauseum they’d be great fits in the Big10 and Texas truly is the only “perfect” candidate as far as the trifecta of athletics/academics/population.The thing is I’ve seen nothing to indicate even tangentially that Texas is considering a move to the Big10. Nebraska says things like “no comment”, Mizzou gleefully says “We’re in!”, but Texas is as quiet as a grave.
Now maybe this is Texas keeping a lid on things till the last second so the legislature can’t get involved, but I can’t help but think Texas has some desire other than to join another conference and its just letting everyone scatter as they may till they get around to doing it.
LikeLike
@PSU guy,
Missouri and Nebraska have nothing between them and the Big 10. They would probably be willing to move whether they were by themselves, with two others, four others, etc. Long story short, there is little reason for them not to openly acknowledge this.
Texas is a whole other beast. The only way they´d even consider a move seems to be if A&M were brought along for the ride. The scenario being talked about here would involve four other Big 12 schools and is a much more complicated and highly contingent discussion.
If they were interested in this type of move – and why would they not be? – we wouldn´t hear anything about it unless we also heard about this specific scenario.
LikeLike
Oklahoma´s R&D numbers from 2008 were $192 million. That compares to Iowa´s $293 million, Missouri´s $244 million, Kansas´ $215 million, Notre Dame´s $97 million and Syracuse´s $38 million.
From an academic standpoint, the Big 12 would certainly have more difficult sales jobs than OU. They are clearly at least a tier above OSU, Texas Tech, KState and Baylor.
LikeLike
@…well, in general
For the record I have my first degree from Oklahoma. My 2nd from Colorado State.
OU’s academics have increased tremendously over the last 15 years or so. I don’t think they will ever be members of the AAU. But OU’s academics aren’t anything to be embarrassed about. OU has built a University that the college football team can be proud of.
However, if all MONEY WERE EQUAL, OU would join the SEC over the Big-10. There are more cultural connections. If there were a 4 team pod of OU, A&M, Arkansas, and LSU, OU fans would be very happy.
But using that standard, Uo f Texas would join the Pac-10 as they see them selves in the same group as Cal-Berkley over the Big-10
And my personal guess is when the Super 64 gets going, I think the SEC and the Pac-10 make a deal to split Ok. State and OU and Texas and TA&M to give both conferences present in both markets.
LikeLike
That would be great! Also, it would be a lot easier to divide up the divisions
WEST: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
EAST: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern.
I don’t see why this isn’t a realistic possibility and it is infinitely more attractive than what is now being discussed with all of those Big East teams.
LikeLike
This league would be a financial juggernaut — with 6 of the top 7 programs over the past fifty years, you’d probably have a chance to get on basic cable everywhere.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine OK in the Big 10. They are the biggest cheats this side of UK basketball….they definately belong in the SEC.
LikeLike
Yes and no. As you can surmise from my name, as a Husker I know about the Sooners. 50’s-80’s, yes I would not trust them as far as I could throw them. But now they have stability with Stoops as HC and IIRC there has been only one cheating situation and that appeared to be all about a booster with no connection to the athletic department.
Let me be very open and say that I really hate cheating and I see (IMO) a general decline in US morality but at the same time, as a long-time Husker fan, I largely to not see recent evidence of the Sooners being a cancer whether that be bad fan behavior or cheating. I’m no insider and I could be wrong, but I do pay some attention as do many Husker fans. I hear mostly positive vibes re the Sooner from Husker fans.
LikeLike
At Syracuse, they taught us how to spell definitely correctly. HEY-O! Yeah, I’m going there. 😀
LikeLike
To me, Big 12 teams are much more desirable than any Big East team. For one thing, people in the Big 12 states actually give a shit about sports. For example, while NY/NJ is obviously a way bigger market than Nebraska, you can bet when Nebraska plays every TV in the state is set to the game. Do people that go to Rutgers/Syracuse/UConn really care to much about the athletics, let alone random people in NYC?
However, there are some concerns with your idea.
First, I think (but don’t really know) that OU’s academics would be a deal-breaker.
Second, adding that many teams from a single other conference creates a “us-and-them” mentality. It would always be “the old Big Ten” and the “old Big 12” teams.
Also, I think that a two-division 16-team league is a terrible idea. It would divide the league, especially considering in these proposals the entire Big12 contingent would be in one division. Furthermore, why would current B10 schools want to add all these teams if there never going to play them.
LikeLike
Are OU’s academics a deal breaker?
Let’s think about a similar hypothetical.
What if ND said they would join the Big 10 only if West Virginia were included? Would the Big 10 reject ND under those circumstances or take WVU and just hope for substantial academic advancement?
I would guess the latter. Its the same scenario here. In fact, there is even more incentive to do the deal because OU is an athletic monster on their own.
LikeLike
I disagree, for two reasons.
1. WVU’s academics would be a dealbreaker
AND
2. There is no way the Big Ten would let ND start these sort of BS negotiations. In no way would the B10 allow ND to be “special” or get a different deal than anyone else.
LikeLike
While I in no way would ever want to defend a BigEast team…but you might want to read between the lines a little bit when trying to understand the NY/NJ/NYC DMA’s.
The power of the BigEast brands comes in the form of providing local markets for already established programs to come to town. NYC ranked its favorite collegiate programs and the highest percentages were (in no particular order) Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn, PSU, OSU, Mich (which by the way does show that apparently those markets do care about their local teams). This means that when PSU comes to play Rutgers or OSU Syracuse you are going to have large local ratings because the home team fans will tune in and PSU/OSU graduates living in the area will tune also.
Now of course ABC/ESPN will say so what, I can’t market that nationally, but the Big10 will say great, I can put it on the BTN and make a boatload doing so. Having the same team play Kansas will net much less.
Point being we both agree on taking the whole Big12 would probably be a mistake, but I think a lot of people who are marking the Rutgers/Syracuse/UConn’s of the world as useless are going to be in for a surprise when the BTN starts releasing its profits numbers after accessing the NJ/NY/NE markets.
LikeLike
Oh I understand the TV revenue thinking, it makes sense. Its simply unfortunate that we’re talking about adding generally poor programs that don’t really culturally fit, just as a vehicle to get BTN on basic cable in NYC and as an excuse for OSU/Mich/PSU to play games out east.
I’m saying if I had to choose, without TV revenue or other money concerns, I would clearly take B12 teams hands down to Big East teams.
LikeLike
How are Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse any historically worse than Indiana, Purdue, and Minnesota?
LikeLike
Here’s how the SEC beats that using ESPN’s All-Time Prestige Rankings.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3849468
Under your scenario, the Big Ten picks up #5 Nebraska, #7 Texas, and #20 Texas A&M, to go along with existing members #3 Ohio State, #8 Michigan, and #11 Penn State.
Since the Big Ten doesn’t want Oklahoma, the SEC gladly picks up #1 Oklahoma, to go along with #9 Florida State, #10 Miami, and #18 Georgia Tech. The SEC currently has #6 Alabama, #12 Tennessee, #13 LSU, #14 Georgia, #15 Florida, and #19 Arkansas.
So the SEC picks up 4 in the all-time top 20, while the Big Ten picks up 3. The Big Ten currently has 3 members of the all-time top 20, while the SEC has 6. The Big Ten has more teams in the top 10, but the SEC has much more depth.
I’d say the SEC wins with half of the top 20 residing in the proposed conference, while the Big Ten has only 6, but it looks like the Big Ten/SEC cartel would have just about cornered the market on historically-great football teams.
LikeLike
I guess they picked 1936 as the year to start with because of the AP poll, but it seems fairly random and definitely favors Oklahoma.
Other teams show up in the top spot depending on what year you choose to start with, and when dealing with the AP Poll you are basing everything on humans picking teams…. and for a long time (I think through 1970 or so) the FINAL AP poll came out before the bowls were played.
Try this fun list builder. Choose any year you want and judge by winning percentage or wins.
http://football.stassen.com/records/compute-request.html
LikeLike
Awesome tool. Fun and interesting. Thanks Patrick
LikeLike
Alan—I don’t think the Big 10’s intent is to try to top the SEC in football. SEC will do anything, by hook or crook, to win football games. Your SEC would have 5 of the top 10 “Dirtiest NCAA Football Programs” of the last 10 years, according to Fanhouse (7/27/07)—
#2 Oklahoma
#4 Alabama
#5 UK
#8 Auburn
#10 Miami
What’s impressive about that is that UK saves most of it’s cheating for basketball…..
LikeLike
that should have read “last 20 years”….
LikeLike
Mushroomgod – I wasn’t flaming, I was just responding to Justin & Wes Haggard’s earlier posts along the line of “Let’s see the SEC top that.” Personally, I wouldn’t want the SEC to take Georgia Tech. They left the SEC in the 60s.
Regarding cheating, the SEC has certainly cleaned it act up relative to the 70s & 80s. No, the SEC isn’t as virtuous as the Big Ten, but it has improved.
LikeLike
Alan, I was just messing with you anyway….I would consider it a compliment to SEC fans that they wouldn’t give up their poition without a fight….shows the passion the Southern fans have for their football…
LikeLike
shroomgod – I am a Southerner, but have Midwestern roots and have much respect for the Big Ten’s institutions and their brand of football. I certainly enjoyed my Tigers whipping Ohio State for the BCS Championship a few years ago. While I didn’t like the outcome of the Tigers’ recent trips to Orlando, I had fun getting to know Iowa and Penn State fans.
Having been to all the SEC stadiums and most parks in MLB, my next adventure in sports road trips is the Big Ten. I went to see LSU play Ohio State at the ‘Shoe back in the 80s. After Hurricane Gustav shut down Baton Rouge for a week, I took my son on a sports trip to Wisconsin back in 08. Camp Randal is a lot of fun. This, during LSU’s open date, I’m seriously considering Michigan v. Penn State at Happy Valley.
Regarding your earlier flame about cheating, there’s an old saying: “If ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” I can’t defend my SEC brothers, since in the last 20 years 10 SEC schools pop up in the NCAA major infraction database. The two that didn’t: Vandy & LSU. By the way, the Big Ten had five (Ohio St., Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan State & Minnesota) Of your most prominent candidates, Rutgers, Pitt & Syracuse also show up.
None of us know for sure how all this expansion stuff will play out, but at the end of the day, the two remaining superpowers will only get stronger.
LikeLike
Two points.
1–Don’t forget that ESPN is in bed with the SEC. Bias towards their “product” is to be expected. I’m not saying SEC football sucks==just saying that it’s not unusual to see them get a bump when discussed by ESPN.
2–If we add ND too (#4 on this little list) and I think the Big 10 is going for the home run lineup (Texas schools, Nebraska, ND, and Rutgers), then we have 7 of the top 20. The SEC might not even expand at all, and if they do, it’s no LOCK that they’d simply pick off anybody they wanted. They might take OU (but only with OkSt too…#65 in this poll) And simply getting the “best” football schools isn’t what expansion is completely about. The competition on the football field might be stiff, but the Big 10 would win in population centers if they can snag the dream team (Nebraska, Texas, aTm, ND, and Rutgers (NJ)).
LikeLike
Like I said in an earlier post, I was responding to the “take that SEC” posts. I’m not sure who the SEC would take and I don’t think Mike Slive will ask me for my advice. But don’t think that whatever the Big Ten does, that they will somehow pull away from the SEC. The SEC and Big Ten are the undisputed Super Powers of college sports. Conference expansion won’t change that fact; it will just further separate the SEC and the Big Ten from the rest of the conferences.
LikeLike
This proposal would greatly improve the quality of programming on the BTN. I would wager more people in large markets like NYC or Boston or Philadelphia would rather watch any random combination from the pool of Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State than games with Syracuse or Rutgers. Hence, to me, this combination makes more sense than simply finding a school with an attractice population base nearby.
It’s an interesting thought, too, to think that with an eastward expansion, the Big Ten might have to worry about how to spread the football talent out in the west to match that of the eastern powers. In this scenario, you could argue that the west (Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa and Wisconsin) would have the stronger teams (Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan).
LikeLike
Don’t underestimate the power of the local team man. The Pittsburgh Pirates are the crappiest baseball team in the MLB yet if you poll a number of people in downtown Pittsburgh to see who’s a fan of the Yankees or Dodgers I bet you’d be laughed at (if not threatened!).
Point being in NJ, watching Rutgers play PSU, Pitt, or even Syracuse probably trumps a pure mid-western matchup, even if the teams are better, simply because the home team is the home team.
Now if the home team isn’t playing, agreed the better over-all match-up will draw the most viewers.
LikeLike
Rather than pods, why not just divide up the teams into two divisions that will balance the historical powers and keep most of the rivalries intact. Here’s my attempt:
DIVISION A
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Missouri
Rutgers
DIVISION B
Penn State
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Northwestern
Two traditional powers at the top of each side. Iowa-Wisc-Minn kept together and placed with Nebraska. Pitt and Syracuse placed with Pitt.
Michigan State placed with Michigan. Indiana-Purdue and Missouri-Illinois kept together.
Rutgers put with Michigan and Ohio State to appeal to New York fans.
Northwestern represents the another “big” city to put in the division opposite of the “NYC” team. Downside would be splitting NW from ILL. Another downside would be that Division B seems a little bit stronger.
LikeLike
I love your division idea Paul. I also am more in favor of this type of traditional set up. It creates more continuity and tradition.
LikeLike
First off, I doubt the second division buys off as they’ll be spending significantly more on travel costs.
Second, I really don’t think half the conference will buy off on never playing the other side. Even if you have some sort of protected rival system odds are most teams won’t play most other teams. Believe me, I’ve tried to make 2 8 team divisions work in my mind, but none really matches the flexibility of 4 divisions.
Now if the NCAA says it won’t allow another playoff game to filter from 4 division champs to the Championship game (and would thus need a glorified paper-rock-scissors tournament to see who goes to the championship game) then having two divisions of 8 may be required…
LikeLike
To expand on what DCphx says below, you use pods to create 2 divisions that change every 2 years. Rather than type up a whole new example, I’m going to copy and paste an example I gave on another post of Frank’s.
This is an example where the Big 10 adds 5 from the Big 12 and makes the following 4 pods:
OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU
CO, NE, Tex, A&M
Iowa, Wis, Min, MO
IU, Pur, Il, NW
“We’ve discussed this on other threads, but using the pod system that rotates divisions can allow everyone to play against everyone else in the conference every 4 years.
For example, with 5 teams from the West:
Year 1 & 2:
Division A: OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU, IU, Pur, Il, NW
Division B: Iowa, Wis, Min, MO, CO, NE, Tex, A&M
Year 3 & 4:
Division A: OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU, Iowa, Wis, Min, MO
Division B: IU, Pur, Il, NW, CO, NE, Tex, A&M
Every year teams from the (OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU) group will play 2 teams from the (CO, NE, Tex, A&M) group for non-divisional games. Teams from the (IU, Pur, Il, NW) group will play 2 teams from the (Iowa, Wis, Min, MO) group.
With this lineup, the 3 Western schools would have a home and away series with every other current Big 10 member every 4 years. Of course, it wouldn’t take long to develop rivalries with the new members.
Obviously, this sort of setup will work with any 16 schools.”
Now, Frank in this post is suggesting a slightly modified version, where you have one additional permanent foe who you’ll play as a non-divisional game if they’re not in your division. This means there will be at least 1 team you wouldn’t see in 4 years.
LikeLike
While I realize you’re not really stumping for Colorado here and just using them as an example, I’ll take the opportunity to point out some weaknesses to a case for them, since I’ve seen them brought up as a possibility on less current threads.
First, CU has always pined for the Pac 10 and will jump there without a doubt if invited. Demographically and culturally they’re an excellent fit with a lot of cross-pollination of graduates and residents between the Front Range and California. The glaring liability they would bring is they don’t really draw interest from their home market, even though they’re smack dab in a big metro. Denver is a pro town. Broncos, Avs, Nuggets, Rockies, with CU and CSU as afterthoughts, in good years. The Front Range also has some of the best skiing in the world a short jaunt away, and lift tickets will pull a lot of the fall and winter entertainment money that might go to season tickets elsewhere.
You need only look to the fact that CU didn’t have the booster backing and therefore couldn’t afford to buy out their current football coach last year, once the State politicians foreclosed any help in that regard due to budgetary concerns. They sell out rarely, usually just when the Huskers visit Boulder, and it’s Husker fans filling their stadium. So while you might potentially get the Big Ten Network on Front Range cable systems, there’s no real draw there for massive advertising support, unless CU improves dramatically on the field.
LikeLike
@eapg
I currently live in the Denver metro area, and my 2nd degree was from Col. St., and everything you said is correct.
Most folks in Denver & Colorado are not FROM here originally. The connection to CU and CSU is weak. I’d argue that if some one wanted the Denver TV market in college football, they should take Nebraska over CU.
LikeLike
Yes Denver is a pro-sports town but the Buffs draw just fine in the local market, at least they did before the Hawkins hiring debacle. I will concede that support is not as rabid as at a place like Nebraska, and the “other things to do” factor does come into play, particularly when compared to some of the other…umm…garden spots where most of the other Big 12 campuses are located. Not every game is a sellout like at Nebraska but we’re usually near capacity and season ticket sales have been trending up despite 4 years of crappy football. Honestly we haven’t been down for THAT much longer then Michigan. Plus when you’re talking markets for a conference you’re really concerned with the potential households in that market for the broader set of content, i.e. ALL the games not just when CU plays. I’m guessing both of these responses were from Husker and CSU fans which I’m sure are completely unbiased :). We’re also a heck of a better fit academics / research wise then any of the other Big 12 schools besides TX and potentially TAMU (#34 ARWU ranking).
In regards to the booster issues for Hawkins, you’re oversimplifying the issue. It’s not that the money wasn’t there, but that the school made the political decision that it didn’t want to deal with the bad press of paying out a coach while fighting tooth and nail against budget cuts, even if the payout came from private funds. Due to a lovely piece of legislation called TABOR that was passed around 10 -15 years ago, higher ed funding has been taking it in the teeth and you’d be hard pressed to keep calling CU a “public” school based on the amount of state funding we’re receiving. For an AD that everyone is claiming is broke and has no support we’re somehow funding a brand new B-Ball facility this year. I also think its possible that the retention of Hawkins may have been tied to the knowledge that we may be taking a revenue hit from a conference switch. Most of the “insider” stuff we heard was that Hawk was gone 2 weeks before the NU game, then our AD went out to Hawaii for the B-Ball tournament and spent a lot of time talking to the AZ AD out there and suddenly Hawk wasn’t fired anymore.
All that being said, I still think the PAC 10 is probably a better fit primarily due to the “Californication” that has occurred in CO over the past 20 years. Tons of Cali folks out here who would like to watch PAC teams, and our alumni presence on the west coast in CA/WA dwarfs anything in the other Big 12 states and likely the Big 10 states as well, though I haven’t seen any numbers for the Big 10. We did have fairly strong contingents from IL and NJ when I was going to school. If the recent UCLA and ASU games are any indication we’d have a much better traveling rep in the PAC 10, but I seriously doubt that would be the case in the Big 10, particularly for the schools further East.
LikeLike
<<Rather than pods, why not just divide up the teams into two divisions that will balance the historical powers and keep most of the rivalries intact.<<
The benefit to the pods is that you can arrange it so that in a 4 year period, you play every team home and away. With the division alignment, it takes 8 years to cycle through all of the other schools in the division, home & away. I don't think that is an insignificant difference.
LikeLike
Thanks. I see the logic. (It’s just really hard to make pods that will keep everyone happy.)
LikeLike
I’d go East/West
OSU UM IU Pur Rut PSU Pitt Syra
Mo Neb Iowa Wis Minn NW Ill MSU
MSU is the only one out of place. They could still play UM and PSU/OSU every year. With Miss, Neb, Iowa, Wis, and MSU you’d have enough strength in the West. Play 6 in your division and 3 in the other.
LikeLike
I like your thinking here mushroom god, but instead of splitting Michigan / Michigan State, I split Indiana and Purdue. Put Purdue in with the western teams. They are closer to Chicago, Indiana is downstate and closer to Indianapolis. I would say that the east is a little stronger but these things change and flex constantly. Your line-up would keep the big rilvalries in place and keep travel costs down.
LikeLike
I am really starting to buy this 5 team expansion of Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers. All five have been discussion on this board for a long time, and each of those institutions would join in a heartbeat. Although each school was its flaws; as a collective group they all add different value to the BTN and Big 10. Nebraska with the marquee name, Missouri gives guaranteed households, Pitt provides solid academics, athletics and research powers despite not adding new markets, and finally Syracuse and Rutgers provide Update New York, New Jersey, and some of NYC.
It is a balanced expansion eastward and westward, and provides another marquee name along with valuable markets and secondary sports (basketball, lacrosse, hockey etc.)
Despite all of Notre Dame’s whining, protesting and demand for special treatment they were continuously mentioned until now. I think I finally found out what was the final straw for Delany and co. that completely removed Notre Dame from the expansion discussion.
Atrocious.
I can see Delany’s press release now; “After seeing that atrocious music video and failed attempt for a pep rally we have come to the conclusion that Notre Dame’s institutional mission and values do not align with the members of the Big 10.”
Have fun staying independent with your indie music artists who managed to shame one of the best fight songs and athletic programs in the nation.
LikeLike
Pretty silly, particularly when you consider that for one Saturday, Nebraska was Notre Dame:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/
All your eBay tickets belong to us!
LikeLike
If the Big Ten Network takes Manhattan, wouldn’t they need the Bronx and Staten Island, too?
LikeLike
@Jake – Naw, the only other borough worth anything is Brooklyn.
LikeLike
@Frank – Not a music fan?
LikeLike
I haven’t read every comment, but read several and here are a couple of my thoughts.
1. I like the idea of OSU and Michigan in separate pods. In a 16 team conference, with the parity that exists, and with the number of high profile teams, I don’t think an OSU-Michigan rematch would happen that often and if it’s just on occasion, that could actually add to the rivalry. With that said, moving the game up in the schedule is not an option. Both schools benefit as it is and both love where it is. You aren’t going to see support for moving it and you shouldn’t.
2. I don’t see 9 game schedules. I understand how it could help (and would be in favor of it even in the current set-up where one team would be stuck at 8 games), but remember you are already talking about the Big Ten taking a big risk with 5 new members. Given the size of that risk, the larger existing members aren’t going to want to give up any home games at the same time, which is what you would be asking them to do with 9 conference games.
3. I could see the Big 12 sticking at 10. I think they’ll move, but they’ll at least study the thought.
4. In some ways, this is a better expansion idea than with Notre Dame and/or Texas too. There is only so many marquee programs a conference can have before some start to decline. This would keep the balance much better.
5. I don’t like the thought of a multi-game playoff in conference at all. One of the things that separates college football from most other sports is the importance on the regular season and this would definitely devalue that. That said, I could see them trying to get approval for it.
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
Seeing the many failed attempts to post the AAS writer’s column should be one more confirmation that Frank the Tank should dump WordPress.com for Blogger or WordPress.org (unless blog traffic dies down when realignment talk does).
LikeLike
Here is an alternative pod system that is (1) fairly balanced, (2) maintains some geographic logic, and (3) keeps almost all important rivalries intact (assuming a decision is made to split up the big four teams.
EAST – Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
NORTH – Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana
SOUTH – Ohio State, Northwestern, Illinois, Missouri
WEST – Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
LikeLike
I still maintain that if Maryland is interested, it will bump off Pittsburgh for member $16. Much more of an upside in terms of viewers (two new markets as opposed to none), and comparable academically and athletically.
If the Big Ten did go to 20, how about taking in Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Missouri, Nebraska and the ACC’s four AAU members (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke)? Notre Dame would be the only school for which the Big Ten would not require AAU membership, so forget Connecticut and Kansas.
LikeLike
Oopsie — that should have been “member #16.” (Though the dollar sign is a bit subconscious, isn’t it?)
LikeLike
@Vincent – I really wish everyone else at Maryland had your passion on this matter. If Maryland was willing to move, they’d clearly be a top candidate.
LikeLike
@ Frank – I also agree with Maryland being a top candidate, as a blogger, what do you think can be done to assist those “Powers That Be” (Maryland and The Big Ten Expansion Council) to court one another?
LikeLike
Frank, I wish the folks in College Park had my vision on the matter. This is about the University of Maryland in 2030 or 2040, not today. As I’ve often said before, the university’s academic and athletic destiny can’t be held hostage by two basketball games with Duke — it’s not a natural rivalry, and won’t last any more than the Maryland-N.C. State rivalry did past the ’70s.
(Heck, when the ACC was formed in 1953, the big wintertime sport at Maryland wasn’t basketball, but boxing; basketball games at Ritchie Coliseum were prelims to intercollegiate boxing, which at the time was a big deal but soon faded after a few fatalities in the ring.)
Some thoughts on divisional or “quad” setups in a Big Ten that added Maryland, Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska:
East: Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Central: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue
West: Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska
For football — nine conference games, three against the teams in your quad, four against another quad, rotating every three years, and two against teams from the other eight-team division. Trophy rivalries such as Michigan-Minnesota, Ohio State-Illinois and Penn State-Michigan State would continue to be played annually, regardless of divisional setups that year. (Substitutions would be made on the schedule to avoid teams playing each other twice.)
For men’s and women’s basketball — 18-game schedule, home-and-home with the teams in your quad and one against the conference’s other 12 opponents. No divisions.
LikeLike
As a PA and PSU guy…I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion Pitt would turn a cold shoulder to the Big10 simply because of PSU. Starting with the BigEast and PSU’s attempt to start a football based NorthEast athletics conference Pitt just never seemed interesting in seeing PSU on the same side-line as it. I even have friends who are pumped about joining the ACC and going to 16 teams there instead of the Big10 (imagine the looks in their eyes when I mentioned Indiana made almost twice as much as Texas or 5 times Pitt last year).
If Pitt for some ridiculous reason doesn’t want in, could MD ever be considered a good “trade” with the thought the ACC scoops up Pitt?
LikeLike
If Maryland gets in and Pitt doesn’t, it won’t be because the latter didn’t want the Big Ten (I can’t imagine either would spurn an invitation), but because Maryland has more to offer the conference.
LikeLike
Yah, for some strange reason the ACC seems to be calm and impervious to expansion talks. Admittedly they tend to be much more “Big10” in their outlook as far as the “conference is more than just about athletics” so that’s bound to create loyalty amongst the members, but its pretty astounding to see.
LikeLike
I will disagree with the flavor of the week-Nebraska.
They seem to be the only willing national power to join, but I think they will be unpalatable from an academic standpoint (which also means 14 is more likely than adding 5 mediocre fb progams).
Many Nebraska fans will agree. Nebraska despite being AAU has a different mission. It was open admissions until recently. Rather than being elite like UM, UW, etc., it is THE school in Nebraska. There are only 4 state schools, 2 in remote west and central Nebraska, a commuter school in Omaha and then Nebraska. I’m not being negative about Nebraska, it just has a different purpose, by necessity.
And the current AD, Tom Osborne, almost scuttled the Big 12 before it started. As the Big 10 said, you want someone you can be with for 30 years. As part of the deal to create the Big 12, the SWC rules limiting partial qualifiers was adopted. Then just before the league started, Nebraska backed by KSU tried to eliminate those rules. They failed. Had they succeeded the Big 12 would not exist today. Osborne, a legend in Nebraska, bellyached about it and that contributed to a lot of the N/S anomosity in the league. Why did he complain? Well he had 23 partial qualifiers on one of his great mid-90s teams (new limit was 2). That was more than any other CONFERENCE in the country. So will the Big 10 want a school with an AD who abused the ability to use partial qualfiers?
LikeLike
You’re overcounting University of Nebraska campuses by one. UN-Kearney, UN-Omaha, UNL. Three State (teacher’s) colleges, Wayne, Peru, Chadron. Kearney was Kearney State until fairly recently.
As far as partial qualifiers, Osborne resoundingly lost that argument. Nebraska adjusted, it’s history. Maybe not for Osborne, but at his age he’s a transitional AD at any rate. Perlman is much more the face of Nebraska in this negotiation. Nebraska, if admitted to the Big Ten, will adjust again to even tighter recruiting rules and will have to embark upon some academic improvements to keep up with the new conference, a project I’m sure Perlman welcomes.
LikeLike
AAU members have a dedication to graduate research, much like the CIC. I would argue that Nebraska would be easier to accept to the CIC than Notre Dame. While Notre Dame has a better undergraduate reputation, Nebraska spends more than 4 times as much on graduate research.
I believe the Big Ten and the CIC is much more concerned with the graduate programs and the strength of research by any potential university than the mission of the undergraduate programs. That’s where the money is.
LikeLike
Everything I’ve read indicates Neb. has dramatically improved it’s academics and research in the last 20 years….I’m impressed with the 1B research park. Also Neb has the most academic AAs of any school.
I think Nebraskans are good people and good fans. Let’s add Neb and let OK go to the SEC. The SEC would then have the 3 “cheatinest” programs of all-time in ‘Bama, OK, and UK>
LikeLike
Hey, there are actually more than that:
Chadron State College(extreme NW Nebraska)
University of Nebraska-Kearney (mid state)
Wayne State College (Northeast Nebraska)
Peru State College (Southeast Nebraska)
University of Nebraska-Omaha
University of Nebraska Medical Center (2 miles east of Nebraska-Omaha’s campus)
And you can say Dr. Tom almost scuttled the Big 12 on formation; you can also say he was a Cassandra — what he feared came to pass, and no one believed him. The Big 12 has not served the interests of the Northern schools, and Nebraska fans (and administrators, I suspect) are more than willing to leave the former Big 8 schools behind.
And how is having a great many partial qualifiers abusing it? Was it not legal? Was not one of Nebraska’s great selling points their academic support for athletes? (e.g. Jared Tomich and Neil Smith had undiagnosed learning disabilities in high school.) What school has the NCAA records for academic All-Americans in both all sports and in football again? Oh, and that number of partial qualifiers on that one team? According to this (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19960726&id=O3cKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7145,4385844), that’s about the number for a decade. Ironically enough, back when the Big 12 was formed, the Big Ten had no limits regarding the recruiting of partial or non-qualifiers.
LikeLike
You beat me to it, Albino.
I’ll add this, too. Say what you will about Osbourne, but Perlman is the man in charge and I think the driving force in this will be the CIC. Perlman wants to make Nebraska a top research university. They are moving forward with plans to build an large innovation campus north of the current campus on the old state fair grounds by the Devaney Center. It’s a larger project that will in bring millions of dollars in research.
http://innovate.unl.edu/
LikeLike
That does it for me. I’ve always felt certain schools (like Nebraska) would be asked to “step it up” in the research department if invited to the Big10. If this project is already in the works (as it seems to be) I think the addition of Nebraska is a done deal.
LikeLike
Fan of: Iowa
My preferences seem to change almost daily. Initially, I hoped for ND. After reading Frank’s BTEI, I thought we were going to 14 w/ UT, TAMU & ND. After reading the 18 follow-ups & comments, I’d prefer NU, Pitt, SU, RU & UConn/MD.
* NU-marquis CFB brand
* Pitt-excellent despite their market/geographic issues
* SU-just b/c they don’t have A LOT of research doesn’t mean that tBT doesn’t value the DIVERSITY of their research vs. current BT members (thanks Omni), excellent MBB
* RU-for markets & recruiting
* UConn-they have A LOT of potential, they’ve come a long way in a short period of time; their MBB & WBB are top-notch; What if they become the “U of New England?”
(* MD)-they fit very well; good-great MBB & WBB
MU isn’t a bad fit, I just think adding CT instead gives us the tri-state around NYC, thus helping the BTN’s chances there. If it’s MD… well it’s not a bad thing to have a member institution so close to where many government contracts are handed out, right?
LikeLike
Maryland makes much better sense than Connecticut. AAU member, stronger academics, better all-around athletic program. Syracuse and Rutgers will give you metro NYC; Maryland will give you both Washington and Baltimore.
LikeLike
Frank–
Up until now you have remained admirably dispassionate about ND, recognizing the benefits to the Big Ten (and fairly pointing out potential economic upside to ND) while recognizing long-standing resistence to it among alumni. In this post, however, you lost that careful balance and, unfortunately, resorted to petulant insults.
Face it, joining the Big Ten is not, and never will be, the Holy Grail for ND. Moreover, your attempt to demean a hypothetical new landing place for ND’s non-football sports is simply dishonest. A “Catholic Big East,” while not quite to the current Big East standard, would still be a very respectable conference for the other sports. Indeed, the biggest threat, as I see it, would be if the Big Ten added hockey, thus gutting the CCHA. But there doesn’t even seem to be much threat of that at this point.
Finally, in the worst, worst case, if we got entirely squeezed out of any respectable conferences in non-football conferences AND couldn’t schedule any longer as an independent, one of these hypothetical forthcoming mega-conferences would inevitably have a spot for ND. I mean, if you get to 16+ in a conference, really, what’s one more? It’s not as if such a conference is really in any meaningful sense a conference anymore anyway.
LikeLike
Get thee to the ACC…..
LikeLike
Frank — petulant and dishonest? He must be a regular Fielding Yost.
You will have to explain “petulant” to him, however—remember, he’s an Illinois grad.
LikeLike
The ND mindset of “we can always join a conference later” is why the BT should only go to 14 if they truly want ND. Once the landscape starts shifting, and ND decides that it must join a conference, the BT would be the best option.
I would also point out though, that a “Catholic” Big East, without Syr, LVille, Pitt, etc, would be a notch below the majors in basketball (although clearly better than a mid-major.) Will ND fans stomach being in that conference?
LikeLike
The CYO league MIGHT be acceptable for basketball….no way it works for the program in other minor sports.
LikeLike
@ JC
ND fans would be happy to be in about any conference so long as the football team doesn’t have to join. The AD’s office may not be. I’m not seeing a problem with a Catholic BE/A10 league, outside of LAX.
@ ‘shroom’
why the heck not, especially when they finish poaching the A-10?
LikeLike
You are talking about an all-sports league with schools like Marquette, St. John’s, Xavier, Dayton et al?? If you have no problem with that, good for you.
LikeLike
Yeah. Sure it isn’t as sexy as the Big East, but it’s probably the best possible non-football conference in the NCAA for the foreseeable. Then again, I still don’t really follow the current Big East’s olympic sports.
CCHA 4 Life…or until there’s a BTHC and the CCHA ends up looking like the MAC….
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that any conference would want ND if approach by ND, but not sure that ND would get there first choice.
Notre Dames appeal from a financial perspective is based on the NY market and the overall national appeal. However, if the Big Ten takes Rutgers and/or Syracuse to get the BTN into NY, then this diminishes ND’s value to some extent regardless of what conference they would go to. For conferences with standard TV contracts, they may not be able to re-negiotate these contracts as effectively if the TV execs do not think that ND can bring NY in as it once could. As Swarbrick said, ND’s biggest bargaining chip, if they wanted to join a conference, is their NBC contract. But the longer that ND waits, the less value that they contract (currently till 2015) carries. And likely this contract will not be renewed if ND joins a conference, and certainly not at the amount that it currently is.
My point being that ND will find a home if they want to join a conference, but they might have to settle for less that what they could have. There is an opportunity cost that ND is passing by if they choose to remain independent at this juncture. Additionally, if ND waits until it can’t remain independent, they have lost a lot of negotiability as they will be dependent on joining rather than being proactive.
LikeLike
There’s an opportunity cost for everything. You are assuming that the BTN will be carried on basic cable in NYC. That’s a big assumption considering we’re talking about a network that is running FOUR HOURS of Northwestern Women’s Lax today (none of it live and the UVA game I’ve flipped thru twice and it wasn’t live either of those times), TWO HOURS of tape delayed IU rowing, and NINE HOURS of Ohio State Baseball (one live game against U of L, and the replay of the UM-OSU match-up *twice*) JUST TODAY.
The more I check out BTN the angrier I get thinking I’m paying money for this on basic.
You further assume that people will keep paying for BTN which is what allows the Big Ten to pay out to the individual schools as much as it does. BTW, today has more actual sports content on BTN than it does any other day for the rest of the week. ND apparently plans to be one of the last teams to join a conference in Football. For ND to join, you practically need four 16team superconfs. To make the Superconfs viable you need either the networks to pay significantly higher rights fees (unlikely given the economic climate) or for the conferences to get their own networks. You are assuming they will do this sooner rather than later, and that the cable situation will be similar to how it is now.
I still can’t believe I’m paying for BTN. There’s no way B10 will make any money on this if we ever go to an a la carte pricing unless they actually pay the money to get the HD cameras to all these olympic sports and/or get a every non-national B10 game live on the one channel. Not seeing that happening.
You are also assuming that the Big Ten Network will cause non-transplant New Yorkers to transfer their allegiance to either the Big Ten generally or Rutgers specifically. Considering that NYC is a known pro-sports town, this is another huge assumption.
Also included in that supposition is that ND will then be ignored by NYC, particularly it’s Catholic community. ND doesn’t need superfans to get eyeballs. It has relied for years on bandwagon and “they’re my second favorite team” fans. I don’t see how BTN hurts ND with either.
The next assumption is that one of these Superconfs either wouldn’t want ND or would force them in at worse terms than ND would get by joining now. I doubt that would be the case (I mean, what’s really to stop conferences with cable channels from going >16?). As for the NBC contract, it will rise and fall based on ND performance, the economy, and what the market will bear.
I see no downside to ND for waiting and seeing, especially given more realistic assumptions.
LikeLike
FLP,
You need to use a little progressive thinking. When tBT expands, they will have much more content to offer. This includes (but is not limited to); add’l CFB games, MBB, WBB, wrestling, rowing, field hockey (and hopefully a BT Hockey Conference & BT LAX conference)…
I/we understand that you don’t want ND to join tBT and that’s fine. I think some BT fans (myself included) have come to the conclusion that it may not be in our (tBT’s) best long-term interest to extend an invitation to ND.
So instead of attempting to degrade tBT &/ the BTN, please just say… “While we (ND) appreciate your interest in our institution (and our FB team), we will have to respectfully decline.”
LikeLike
@ Sportsman24
Progressive thinkning? Shoot, they’ve been on the air for almost three years now. They’re not reinventing the wheel here. We’ve got ESPN’s six or eight channels, Fox Sports, Fox Sports regional channels, various local sports channels, etc., so they’ve already got the blueprint. How hard can it be to get programming when you have student labor and paid-for equipment at what are supposed to be eleven of the finest Universities in the country with approximately 400,000 undergrads total? There’s a lot of filler on the channel. I don’t know if a mere 45% increase in schools is gonna help when it appears that there’s only enough live programming on a random May Tuesday to cover 3 of 24hrs.
I will continue to badmouth the Big Ten Network for two reasons.
1. I am merely a proud alum of ND. I am not in their pay, so I feel no obligation to be diplomatic for the Big Ten’s fan’s sake. You want diplomacy, look at ND’s turn-down from 1999. What was true then’s still true now.
2. The BTN stinks as TV. I’m a cable subscriber in Indiana and I resent having to pay for it at an increased rate when it should be on the Sports Premium tier at best. I will complain as long as I remain an unsatisfied customer. The BTN folks will either hafta drop the price I gotta pay, let me not have to pay it, or improve the product to ESPN2 levels.
LikeLike
FLP,
As you probably know, the premier BT games go to ABC/ESPN. The BTN gets the games that are not selected. When tBT expands, there will be more (and better) games available to the BTN. This will allow the BTN to increase the quality & quantity of their programming. This is especially true if tBT adds a Hockey &/ Lacrosse Conference.
I believe it is admiral that you are a fervent “fanatic” for your alma mater, as you should be. But, what does it say about your character? You seem to have to degrade other universities in order to build up your own? Is this indicative of all ND fans/alums?
LikeLike
It’s less than $10.00 a year for God’s sake. The content from August through March more than makes up for the dearth of programming April through July. This is a tempest in a teapot.
When JoePa mentioned the expansion should be looked at like a marriage and you better be ready to live with it for a long time for some reason I don’t think he was talking about Neb, Mizz, Kansas, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, BC, Texas, TAM.
LikeLike
@ Rick
If $10/yr is no biggie, can you send me a check?
😀
Kidding
The only part of a game I ever watched on BTN live was the 4th quarter of last year’s IU-EKU game when the Hoosiers needed luck to squeak one out against an FCS team. I had an uncle that went to Eastern for a little while in my defense.
If you want to watch it, great. I would rather have the ten bucks. I mean, that’s a sixer…y’know something I can actually use. 🙂
@ Sportsman24
Point of Fact: I have yet to degrade any Big Ten schools. I go out of my way not to, actually. You may miss that since I don’t bother expressing awe at the majesty that is the Big Ten. *shrug*
The Big Ten sponsors 25 total sports. Ohio State sponsors like 36. I’m sure other schools sponsor fewer sports, but there’s adequate games to cover. The problem is that the BTN is making no discernible effort to cover these games. This week, the BTN is showing maybe a half-dozen live events. I think. They listed the Iowa-PSU baseball game as live at least twice, and I don’t think it’s the only one. There may be only 4 games going all week on Big Ten campuses…but I sincerely doubt it.
I would be shocked if any B10 school lacked a TV journalism class. I know Fox can run a studio show. I don’t care if it’s just undergrads calling Varsity games. Come to think of it, that actually sounds pretty cool.
But if the BTN want to be a sports channel, they should ACTUALLY SHOW LIVE SPORTS. Now it’s like a cross between PBS and ESPN classic. The former I shouldn’t hafta pay for, the latter I choose not to.
I have no moral issue with taking the professionals of the BTN to task for providing bad product. I’d rather have my ten bucks than a year of BTN. Then again, I’m no B10 fan anymore.
LikeLike
@NDRox
You are 100% correct. The BTN needs to show live events and in different sports to truly be successful.
Thing is…its only been three years…I don’t even consider an investment in stocks a profit in that timeframe let alone some cashflow coming in from a fledgling tv network. Getting those sports (hockey, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, etc) is a necessity, but a necessity that’s going to have substantial up front costs that are totally dependent on on who the final members of the Big10 are.
Does it make much sense for PSU to upgrade its club hockey team to official NCAA team and outfit it with HD tv cameras if no other hockey schools join and the Big10 hockey schools remain in their other conferences? Should PSU outfit its lacrosse fields likewise if Syracuse or other mid-atlantic states with good programs don’t join?
Point being, I understand why some feet dragging on this front is happening. The Big10 is stockpiling $$$ and waiting for the new schools to commit with the argument that the BTN can put those schools programs (in second tier sports) on near national tv. Once they do commit, then they can spend the couple years worth of BTN profits on the infrastructure necessary to happen.
THEN you’ll see a truly “collegiate sport network” just as you describe (at least I damned well hope so!)
LikeLike
PSUGuy: Think you can send Rox $10 in the meantime or at least a case of Ponies?
LikeLike
Or 2 cases of Stoners for the suffering for that matter.
LikeLike
@PSUguy
That’s the thing, tho’, they apparently aren’t sitting on the money. They are giving it to the member institutions at a $22mil/school/year clip. If I’m an investor looking long-term with stock in a company putting out an inferior/shoddy product that could be rectified by investing in the production angle, I’d be angry if they the board was just handing out huge dividends instead of reinvesting. If you only have enough cameras and talent to cover three games a day, get some people and some equipment rather than showing re-ran games from a couple weeks ago.
If I was in the AD’s office at a B10 school, knowing that our olympic sports teams could be highlighted on basic cable every night throughout the Midwest half the year (fall and spring), I’d be livid with BTN showing re-re-re-runs. The BTN should be the hugest non-revenue recruiting tool ever and it is being completely wasted. Heck, as a college sports fan not even a Big Ten fan, I find that offensive.
If the money will eventually have to be invested anyway (which I would assume it will) doesn’t that mean the $22mil/school/yr we’re all assuming is totally malarkey?
I’m not anti-BTN, so much as I’m anti-BTN-stinking.
LikeLike
The BTN has to pay out the $$$ to its member schools, the member schools don’t have to spend the money…yet.
Its like this…me and my friends want to buy an island so we invest money in IBM to make enough money to buy it. After a couple years we make some nice profits on dividends, but we still haven’t made enough to buy our island. No biggey, we’re still saving.
PS-as an alumni of one of the Big10 universities I of course can spare $10 for NDRox to get the channel. I’m just smart enough not to waste $10 on those who wouldn’t appreciate the greatness of the channel!
LikeLike
“SU-just b/c they don’t have A LOT of research doesn’t mean that tBT doesn’t value the DIVERSITY of their research vs. current BT members (thanks Omni), excellent MBB”
Exactly. I think you take a bullet on SU’s research. In time, with Big Ten support, they will catch up to Northwestern’s numbers and they’ll be sister schools. And two of the best journalism schools in the country. I’ve worked for many consumer magazines in NYC, and there are a TON of SU alums in that industry. Keep that in mind when talking about “taking NYC.” An example: http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2009/12/should_syracuse_join_the_big_t.html
I think the SU admins really want to be in the Big Ten and will improve on anything needed to be a member.
The AD, Daryl Gross, is a USC guy (credited for bringing Pete Carrol in) and is hellbent on improving their athletics. He’s done an amazing job (besides the previous football couch) so far.
The chancellor, Nancy Cantor, has Big Ten ties as provost of Michigan and chancellor at Illinois. Don’t think she wants to compete with Northwestern?
If offered membership, I see an immediate announcement to expand or completely replace the Carrier Dome. With a complete rebuild, I see them playing a lot of games near NYC.
Now, if you want my mostly unbiased view, the Big Ten should not attempt a Northeast expansion strategy that doesn’t include at least 3 Big East teams. Just won’t work. Rutgers will not work alone. Picture Rutgers being a single BE expansion team. Looks a lot like BC in the ACC, doesn’t it? Then picture taking Rutgers, Pitt, and UConn. I really like UConn’s upside, but come on, can you really skip the entire state on NY to take them? Just doesn’t make sense. If you’re not going to take the state of NY, then don’t attempt a Northeast strategy. It’s that simple. Just go for the Big 12.
I think one problem most people are making when considering the NYC market is that it’s not so much the home team, but who is coming to town. A school like Rutgers would be an arm of the Big Ten. When Ohio State, or Michigan, or Penn Stage come to town, those school’s alums are going to take that roadtrip. I think this is a big reason why the BE basketball tournament works so well. All those alums are here in NYC. You just need an event to bring them out.
Notre Dame: I told my college roommate in the mid 90s that one day ND would be in the Big Ten. But seeing how opposed to joining the alums are, no way in hell should they be invited. *Especially* if they are manhandled into joining. They will complain for years and YEARS! Decades!
LikeLike
Fuzzy headed thinking Jeepers.
HTH is Syracuse ever going to catch up with NW in research funding? Syracuse is a liberal arts university, focusing on undergraduate studies. Does it have an engineering school? It has app. 5000 grad students. Pitt has 10000, NW 8000 or 9000. It has 1/10th NW’s endowment, and 400M less in research dollars.
As far as the CD goes, maybe, maybe not. I assume you’re talking about a new 60000 seat domed stadium. How much do those cost? Where is this private school with a small athletic budget going to get the $???
LikeLike
Mushroom, apparently you’re the fuzzy headed thinker here considering how often Syracuse is mentioned as an expansion candidate. Even being on the “magic” list of 5. Maybe you should stop being so closed-minded? Research isn’t the be-all end-all. There are no Penn State level candidates this time around. Try again. You’re just going to have to realize some sacrifices need to be made.
Now, the people who are against expansion completely (unless it’s ND or Texas), they have a valid argument.
LikeLike
And aren’t you an Indiana guy, mushroom? Why don’t you just admit you’re anti-Syracuse because you’re not looking forward to Syracuse giving Indiana yearly ass-whoopings as revenge for 1987. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not saying Syracuse has nothing going for it.
I was responding specifically to your response on the research issue, which was fuzzy-headed.
Syracuse would be by far the biggest departure from the BT norm if it’s included in the expansion. 10 years from now the BT would be wondering why they didn’t take U Conn, and Syracuse would wonder why it’s not in the ACC. It’s a bad fit.
LikeLike
Re “10 years from now the Big 10 would be wondering” why they took Syracuse.
Of course, 10 years from now the Big 10 could well be wondering why they didn’t connect the conference to major northeast universities instead of expanding to schools like Missouri and Kansas.
LikeLike
And Syracuse does, in fact, have an engineering program.
A non-scientific, lazy (it’s 2am) first link in google reveals:
Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs
Syracuse #78
(higher than UConn, Nebraska, and Missouri)
Engineering Specialties: Computer Engineering
Syracuse tied at #56
(higher than UConn, Missouri, and tied with Iowa)
Engineering Specialties: Mechanical
Syracuse tied at #73
(higher than Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska)
LikeLike
Just ignore Mushroomgod. He hates Syracuse in a way that can only be personal.
LikeLike
Actually, when expansion first came up, Syracuse seemed like a good candidate, and I was not an advocate of Pitt. However, study the matter for 10 minutes and you change your mind.
Amoung the “Feeble 5” expansion candidates, there are two areas of obvious excellence that can’t be duplicated by the other candidates. Nebraska has football prowess, a brand name, and an incredible fan base. Pitt is the 17th ranked research college in the country, behind only Wis, Mi, OSU,PSU, and Minn in the BT. These schools are an exspansion must if at least 2 schools are selected.
LikeLike
Re points of view (ezdozen)
Varying points of view are to be expected and desirable given relative interests, values and goals of posters.
However, when a poster on this board uses words like “crap”, “feeble”, “tundra” and other offensive terms to describe a highly ranked and respected university, it raises the questions about the “mind” and judgment of the poster.
Of course, when someone posts the same message a hundred or more times, that’s another clue as to the judgment of the poster.
LikeLike
Jeepers, I think that we all (for the most part) agree Syracuse is a great undergraduate school, the problem lies in the graduate programs / research & development. It appears that Syracuse may be in despite these issues. The CIC is very important to the Big Ten University presidents.
LikeLike
I think the Presidents know what is important to them, and the rest of us are sitting here trying to think about what grabs their attention.
The CIC is important to the Big 10. Well, what aspect of the Big 10 is NOT important to them?
Everything is just one factor.
LikeLike
I don’t think ND should be or will be “manhandled” into the Big 10. That’s bad PR for everybody.
I’ve said this proposal before, and despite about three weeks of “leaks”, nothing has changed my opinion.
The Big 10 Home Run.
Nebraska and Rutgers this summer.
Destabilized Big 12 gives Texas and aTm cover to flee. They are added next January.
ND begins to “leak” how much the Big 10 has “changed” now and is more “national” and isn’t so “regional” and that they’re considering joining the richest and “best” (arguably of course) conference in the nation. Five months later, Notre Dame joyfully joins (despite some groans by backwards thinking traditionalists), and the Big 10 joyfully welcomes them in. Good PR for everybody.
LikeLike
About a month ago, that theory was potentially viable. Since Swarbrick made that “force into a conference” comment at the BE tourney, he’s been backing off of it as hard as humanly possible. As fast as it happened I don’t even think it was alumni backlash. I think it was internal backlash among Swarbrick’s bosses.
Plus it assumes things about ND that just aren’t true. First, that there are non-traditionalist alums. Well, maybe among the grad students, but they often aren’t fans. Second, no one at ND can argue that merely adding Jersey and Great Plains state schools makes the B10 ‘national’ with a straight face. If ND goes to a conference at this point (after generations of pro-independence propaganda) it will be only if forced by circumstances and without any pleasure.
LikeLike
Oh, and since I forgot to mention it, I haven’t seen *anything* that leads me to believe that Texas wants any part of the Big Ten. They want their own network, something the Big Ten would never let them have.
LikeLike
Interesting thoughts, FLP.
Adding the state of Texas (and in a sense, the corridor between Indiana and Texas also) certainly adds a ton of territory to our conference (almost doubled actually). While New Jersey isn’t a ton of land, it’s a ton of people, and a ton of those people are Catholic. So, spanning from Texas to the Atlantic Ocean (with some fingers into America’s largest city, New York) is more “national” than any conference is currently.
You state “without any pleasure” but it’s ridiculous to imagine that ND would put a positive spin on any move they made. Why would they become the Eeyore of college football? That’s a sure recipe to kill any momentum and popularity…”We’re Notre Dame! We used to be good and independent but now we’re forced to be in the richest conference in the nation and it sucks!” That’ll be a sweet PR campaign.
LikeLike
This is Scot S, here as DjinnDjinn. I tried to add a photo to my profile, but it didn’t work, so now I’m just left with a different name.
In any event, let’s look at this “national schedule” business a little more deeply, as the term is continually used without any examination of what it means.
From 2009 – 2016, Notre Dame played, or will play a total of 96 games. So that gives a reasonable sample.
Every year during this stretch they play Michigan and Purdue. So that means 16 total games between those schools in those eight years. Six out of eight years they play Michigan State. Wisconsin is tentatively scheduled twice. We’re now up to 24 games out of 96 are against teams currently in the Big Ten. That’s fully 25% of their schedule over those eight years.
In addition, every year they play Pitt (8 games). UConn is close behind (6 games). They play Syracuse, too (3 games). These are all Big East teams. Plus Missouri (1 game) is scheduled.
So, for those of you scoring at home, this means 42 out of 96 games are against Big Ten or Big Ten candidate schools. That’s 43.75% of their games. (I’m not counting Boston College in this group, though they have been discussed here as being a Big Ten candidate, because I don’t see them as a viable Big Ten candidate.)
Notre Dame has long-standing rivalry games with USC, Army, and Navy. Army didn’t appear on the schedule in 2009, but they’re there every other year. So let’s say Notre Dame plays each of these teams every year. (In joining the BT, Notre Dame could keep playing these teams if it wished. In fact, they could schedule another independent game.)
We’re now up to 65 games. This means 2/3 of Notre Dame’s schedule is made up of Big Ten schools, Big Ten candidates or long-standing rivalries.
So that leaves 31 games over eight years, or 3.875 games per year that are needed to be scheduled out of the Big Ten or future Big Ten footprint. These games, along with the rivalry games, are the “national schedule” continually talked about. So who has Notre Dame scheduled with those games?
There are several Pac Ten teams on Notre Dame’s schedule: Arizona State (2), Washington State (2), Stanford (4), Washington (1). It varies by year, but only Stanford had a winning record in 2009. And I’m not sure if any of these teams would be considered football powerhouses on a yearly basis.
There’s several games against the likes of Baylor, Tulsa, Western Michigan, Wake Forest, and Maryland. All had losing records in 2009, even in weak divisions, but again, this might vary by year. Again, though, there are no real football powers here. No Alabamas. No Ohio States. No Floridas.
And there are several games against Nevada, South Florida, Utah, and Boston College (2). Each of these schools had a winning record in 2009, though in other years they might be down. But looking at these teams objectively, it’s once again, it’s not like any are really top-rung football programs on a yearly basis. There’s no Auburns. No Penn States. No Georgia.
Correct me if you have a different opinion, but I’d go so far as saying that the only school scheduled that would be a game of high national interest would be against Oklahoma, which is scheduled twice during that stretch.
I can understand the appeal of wanting a “national schedule”, if that meant picking top-notch teams you wouldn’t get to play if you were in a conference. And Oklahoma fits that bill. But look through Notre Dame’s schedule over these eight years and look at it objectively. Baylor? Tulsa? Wake Forest? Nevada? South Florida? Washington State? Is going “national” for games like these really the preference of Notre Dame?
Is the domer really saying that geographic diversity (especially when most games are played in South Bend anyway) is more important that quality of opponent?
If Pitt were to join the Big Ten and Notre Dame lost them as a regular opponent, Notre Dame’s schedule would be even weaker.
Would domers really rather play these schools–plus Maryland, Arizona State and Western Michigan–instead of Iowa? Ohio State? Penn State? Wisconsin? Nebraska, if they join the BT? Missouri, if they join? Every one of these teams has a winning record 8 or 9 seasons out of ten. Every one of them has a legitimate chance at ending the season to be ranked. Is this true of Tulsa and Maryland? Of Wake Forest or Nevada? Of Washington State or Boston College?
Even Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois would give better competition than most of these “national schedule” teams Notre Dame prefers to schedule.
I think this whole “national schedule” idea that’s continually tossed out really needs to be kept in perspective. Because it doesn’t really equate to a top-quality schedule as implied by the Notre Dame grad. And it’s not as good a schedule as what they’d encounter in the Big Ten. It’s just an excuse to justify not wanting to join the Big Ten. Which is fine, but let’s call it what it is. Let’s not hold it out there like going “national” equates to a superior line up.
LikeLike
@ ATYCLB
Getting Texas, you might be able to make the argument. But you actually hafta get UT to do it. So far, Texas has expressed no interest in the B10. It seems to still be behind the BXII, Pac12, and maybe ahead of the SEC.
That is the spin they’d try to put on it, but I don’t see *anyone* buying it…especially not the alumni.
@ Scott S’s new handle
First, let’s acknowledge a truth: That 66.67% and 75% are greater than 43.75%
Depending on the # of conference games, if ND joined the Big Ten ND would have to play 8 or 9 games against other Big Ten teams. It’s an approx. 50% increase in games against the Big Ten footprint (read Midwest) at least.
Considering that Navy will be kept on the schedule regardless, and USC likely will as well, ND joining the Big Ten would lock either all but one or two games a year in perpetuity. For you percentage folks, that’s 91.67% and 83.33% respectively. Which really stinks when you are used to only having about 33.33% locked annually.
For comparison, let’s go with Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fortunate insofar as all of its rivalry games are in the B10. Currently they play 8 B10 games or 66.67% and they get four OOC games. Next year they go out to Vegas and bring SJSU (CA), ASU (AZ), and FCS Austin Peay (TN?) to Camp Randall. Not horrible exciting Nationally, I’m afraid. Future schedules I could find (2011, 2012) include Oregon State, UNLV, South Dakota (FCS), and NIU (MAC). Still not supersexy from a National football standpoint.
Scheduling suffered greatly under Kevin White. Still there’s no FCS schools on the schedule, unlike practically every B10 team. In a perfect world we’d all get dream match-ups every week. But here in reality, that’s not the case. Show me a team that plays top competition every week, and I’ll show you an NFL team.
Geography isn’t more important than team quality. But geography is still important. National doesn’t necessarily equate to a superior schedule every year, but it does equate to a more flexible one. Besides, superior schedules in college are rather a crapshoot. Who woulda thunk a decade ago that Michigan would miss bowl games?
Then again, just from the schools mentioned in your post, I notice that ND is playing teams from *every BCS conference* except for the SEC. Who does the SEC play outside of Dixie? Is their any one in the Big Ten who can say that they play 5 different BCS conference schools?
No.
Even on a bad schedule like 2010, ND plays 4 of the 6 (no SEC or BXII) and a MWC school.
Would Domers prefer to play a differing group of teams from power conferences around the country as opposed to playing Wisconsin, Minnesota, IU, and Illinois practically annually forever?
God, yes.
LikeLike
The national schedule thing mattered in the days before ESPN and national broadcast networks.
Nowadays, not so much.
If big name schools are playing, then people all around the country will watch.
Maybe it’s nostalgia or something, but actually having a geographically diverse schedule essentially doesn’t matter that much anymore. Sure, it’s a nice thing to have, but Notre Dame would grab the viewers regardless of where the games are. National schedules mattered when the brand was being built. Whether Notre Dame joins a league now is more of a pride factor.
LikeLike
FLP, I looked at eight years of Notre Dame’s opponents and reviewed them all in an attempt to be objective as to who you’re really playing.
In response, you attempt to dismiss the Big Ten by mentioning its weakest teams.
The point is that if you look objectively at Notre Dame’s so-called national schedule these days, at the end of the day, there are typically two challenging games–Michigan (most years) and USC. Maybe you add Pitt or Michigan State as a rung below.
Wisconsin plays its share of bottom-feeders, too, (as a cash grab), but we’re still playing high-quality teams like Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, and Iowa–and likely soon, Nebraska. Not to mention, Michigan State and Missouri and Pitt if they join.
Even now, what you call the Big Ten’s “regional” schedule is certainly no weaker, and arguably stronger than the “national” schedule about which domers seem so proud. That’s my point.
If playing teams in 4 of 6 divisions is the ideal, regardless of their relative strength, then I agree, you’re doing great. I can see the appeal of playing a larger variety of teams. It’s just that objectively, I’m not sure it equates to being superior in actual quality.
LikeLike
@ zeek
It matters to ND alums nationwide that the Irish play a variety of teams also Nationwide. That it doesn’t matter to B10 fans who play 2/3 of their schedule in Conference, and most of the remaining games at home and about half of them against FCS and/or MAC teams neither surprises nor concerns me.
@ Djinn^2
And you continue to miss my point. I am not arguing that ND has the toughest schedule. I am arguing I’d much prefer ND’s nationalized schedule to the Big Ten schedule.
On the other hand, maybe I should argue that ND’s schedule is tougher. On the Indiana High School football board I check on during the season, they treat the Sagarin’s as practically gospel. What it predicts so often comes true apparently, it’s uncanny. Many there argue that the IHSAA should forgo to nation’s only all-in HS football playoff since no school outside the top half of the Sectional’s Sagarin ratings have won a sectional in the twenty-odd years of the all-in tourney. He does NCAA football, too, and they do rank SOS. I think I’ll check it out.
I don’t mean to dismiss the Big Ten merely by stating my preference. I’d rather play a large variety of schools than a small one. If I’m obliged to play approximately 4 games a year against the bottom half of a conference, I’d just as soon play those four games against teams from different conference than a single one. If I’m supposed to play 3 OOC bottom-feeders, I’d rather play teams in BCS conferences or at least the MWC or WAC than the MAC.
Just because the B10 is used to doing it one way doesn’t mean ND should prefer doing it like the Big Ten does.
LikeLike
Yeah I’m just saying that in terms of maintaining a national brand, it doesn’t matter whether you’re in conference or not. That much should be obvious considering that every other national brand is in a conference.
I don’t see Notre Dame joining a conference, but it doesn’t have much to do with its national ratings, which would be there regardless of where it is.
LikeLike
Personally, I’m not so sure about Sagarin. I thought Wisconsin handled Miami pretty well in their bowl game, yet Miami ended up ranked higher in the final rankings–just after the game. How does that work? I also question any ranking that gets down to the 100th decimal place.
In any event, using Sagarin’s numbers, by my calculations, the average BT team gets 79.6 points. That means the average BT team is slightly better than Auburn. (Which isn’t bad.)
As a comparison, Sagarin has Notre Dame at 75.31.
Notre Dame’s 2010 schedule clocks in with 72.99 points.
I’m only looking at one year, mind you, but it would appear that Big Ten opponents are, on average, stronger than the opponents Notre Dame chose to schedule at least next year.
How a BT school ranks in strength of schedule would depends upon what you put in as your OOC games. Wisconsin booking Austin Peay or Wofford, (I had to look up both to see where they even were) or Notre Dame booking Army or Western Michigan doesn’t help the average much.)
LikeLike
per USAToday.com, specifically the Sagarin pages at:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt01.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt02.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt03.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt04.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt05.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt07.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt08.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt09.htm
Here’s your Sagarin average Strength of Schedule Ranking for the Big Ten and ND.
1. ND 18.56
2. Michigan 28.78
3. Ohio State 34
4. PSU 40.33
5. Iowa 40.89
6. Illinois 41.67
7. MSU 43.11
8. Purdue 43.78
9. Northwestern 44.11
10. Wisconsin 45.67
11. Minnesota 50
12. Indiana 50.56
Considering how the SOS rankings shifted year to year, I think a lot of SOS depends on the how the teams are playing that year as opposed to the scheduling philosophy. I doubt there was a major scheduling philosophy change at Purdue between 2005 (the 15th toughest sched. in all Div. I) and 2006 (the 67th toughest).
That said, ND had the toughest schedules on average between 2001 and 2009 in “the current Big Ten footprint”. The lowest ranked schedule of the current decade was IU’s 2007 slate of FCS Indiana State, WMU, Akron, Illinois, Iowa, Minn., MSU, PSU, Wisc., BSU, Northwestern, Purdue, and Oklahoma State that the Hoosiers went 7-5 against. The only Nat’l ranked #1 SOS was ND’s 2003 slate of Wash. St., Mich., MSU, Purdue, Pitt, USC, BC, FSU, Navy, BYU, Stanford, ‘Cuse. The Irish unfortunately went 5-7.
Lemme guess, you see Navy, BYU, Stanford, and Syracuse, and see a weak schedule. The computer says you’re wrong.
More importantly, ND schedules are at the very least no worse than an average Big Ten schedule.
LikeLike
Arguing with FLP is a little bit like arguing with a rock, but yet I keep doing it. 🙂
I get it, all of the “national schedule” drum ND fans are beating. I do. Two points of clarification…
If Texas were to come to the Big 10, I would 100% expect silence between the parties. It would be a cataclysmic change to the NCAA landscape. The silence could mean there is no interest on either side. Or, the silence could mean everything. A merger of this size would require the utmost care and caution.
An expanded Big 10 schedule won’t look much like the current Big 10 schedule. “Playing Wisconsin and Indiana and Minnesota every year” (an Irish version of purgatory, I assume?) wouldn’t be the future of ND football. While pods vs. divisions vs. some-other-format isn’t clear yet, what IS clear is that you will have a dynamic schedule every year. ND would (ideally) have UM, MSU, and Purdue every year as part of Big 10 play. Then (if you allow my “home run” conference to be an outlandish possibility for the Big 10), the Irish would play 2 or 3 CFB giants each year (OSU, Texas, Texas A/M, Nebraska, or PSU) and 2 or 3 other average CFB programs each year as well (Iowa, Wiscy and others). Pencil in Navy and USC each year. Schedule Stanford or Arizona or Washington or BC or UNC or another “National” program every few years…grab a “national” cream puff (like Nevada or SDSU or UCF) for a home only game…and not only do you have a diverse schedule each season, still keeping many traditional rivalries. It’s not quite as bad as purgatory, if you ask me.
(Oh, and you’ll make tens of millions of dollars extra each year too. FWIW.)
LikeLike
You make an *excellent* point about UT-Austin. It would be in everyone’s best interest to keep that under wraps. However, it seems to be the blogs conventional wisdom that politically speaking Texas can’t leave without the BXII being on death’s door, and they gotta bring TAMU with them (since I guess TAMU won’t leave without Texas). I suppose to do that, you need some combination of Neb., KU, CU, Mizzou, and Oklahoma to leave. The Pac-10-12 is probably only interested in Colorado, Texas, and TAMU now. To get the SEC to expand, the B10 has to first go to 16. OU is not gonna fly as a B16 member. Nor is CU. The only way to flush/give cover to the UT/TAMU move is for the P12 to take Colorado and for the Big Ten to take two Neb., Kansas, and Mizzou.
Unless we’re wrong about Texas’ comfort in being the first domino…which is quite possible.
Anyway, back to your hypothetical. We’re adding ND, TX, TAMU, Neb., and Rutgers, right?
Hmmm.
There are 12 games. Two are set aside for Navy and Southern Cal, leaving 10. Of those ten, 8 will be conference games (possibly nine, but let’s not go there yet). Those eight will be divided among 15 teams unequally depending on who ends up in our pod/division. I doubt we’ll get a protected rivalry with Michigan, since they are already at two (OSU, MSU), correct? We may with Purdue, but I’d be among the rare alumni excited about that. We’d most likely end up with MSU and Purdue as protected rivalries if we aren’t placed with either of them in the pod. I haven’t been following the pods, but wouldn’t protected rivalries mess them all up?
For our remaining two OOC games, you’re proposing we’d rotate home and homes with Air Force, Army, Pitt and/or Syracuse, Washington, Stanford, Georgia Tech, Miami, BYU, Maryland, Baylor, Wake Forest, Oklahoma, ASU, UNC, Tennessee, FSU, BC, etc.?
Um, yeah. I’m still not psyched. Is it better than being stuck in a Western division in a Big Ten Plus Two? I guess. But I also guess it’s better being shot in the groin than in the face. Point is none of these sound like good options for the Irish.
I’m also still very suspicious of the claims of continued growth to the BTN and network contracts for the Big Ten. Will the economy improve more in the Rust Belt than the Sun Belt? Will the demographics of shift once more northward?
After noting BTN more since I started coming here, I don’t think it’s a super investment opportunity anymore. I don’t know if the money in 20-50yrs will be substantially better for ND than if we had just stayed Independent.
Then we can get to other problems like the cultural dissimilarities, the fact Ara warned us about how when he was at Northwestern they’d get outvoted 9-1, how they’d get about our having to be Catholic, but mostly how we’ve been doing it our way since 1842 and we’re OK with that.
LikeLike
re-posted without the links if it isn’t approved for posting.
per USAToday.com, specifically the Sagarin pages
Here’s your Sagarin average Strength of Schedule Ranking for the Big Ten and ND.
1. ND 18.56
2. Michigan 28.78
3. Ohio State 34
4. PSU 40.33
5. Iowa 40.89
6. Illinois 41.67
7. MSU 43.11
8. Purdue 43.78
9. Northwestern 44.11
10. Wisconsin 45.67
11. Minnesota 50
12. Indiana 50.56
Considering how the SOS rankings shifted year to year, I think a lot of SOS depends on the how the teams are playing that year as opposed to the scheduling philosophy. I doubt there was a major scheduling philosophy change at Purdue between 2005 (the 15th toughest sched. in all Div. I) and 2006 (the 67th toughest).
That said, ND had the toughest schedules on average between 2001 and 2009 in “the current Big Ten footprint”. The lowest ranked schedule of the current decade was IU’s 2007 slate of FCS Indiana State, WMU, Akron, Illinois, Iowa, Minn., MSU, PSU, Wisc., BSU, Northwestern, Purdue, and Oklahoma State that the Hoosiers went 7-5 against. The only Nat’l ranked #1 SOS was ND’s 2003 slate of Wash. St., Mich., MSU, Purdue, Pitt, USC, BC, FSU, Navy, BYU, Stanford, ‘Cuse. The Irish unfortunately went 5-7.
Lemme guess, you see Navy, BYU, Stanford, and Syracuse, and see a weak schedule. The computer says you’re wrong.
More importantly, ND schedules are at the very least no worse than an average Big Ten schedule.
LikeLike
FLP, we’re both right, but it doesn’t seem like it because we’re not exactly talking about the same thing. Here’s the deal…
The Big Ten teams, themselves, (Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, etc.) have an average strength that works out higher than Notre Dame’s schedule. (Look it up, yourself.) So if any team played nothing but Big Ten teams, you’d have a pretty tough schedule.
So if that’s true, why don’t the BT teams have a stronger strength of schedule. After all, we’re both using Sagarin’s numbers?
What lowers BT numbers is that, for the most part, the Big Ten teams schedule cream puffs for the OOC schedule. That’s what lowers the BT average SOS. (We’re talking the “mean”.) Like Wisconsin scheduling Austin Peay or Wofford. Their Sagarin numbers are exceedingly low. That’s the sort of thing that lowers the mean average.
That’s a point a lot of Wisconsin fans gripe about, actually, and I understand the complaint. However, there are several reasons BT teams do this.
First, the season that matters most in the Big Ten–to get to the Rose Bowl–is the Big Ten season. Cream puffs are scheduled as warm up games, to get the offense and defense in sync and ready for Big Ten play.
Second, the cream puffs are scheduled as home games. That means less wear and tear on the team for the BT season.
And third, the home game schedule means cash in the pocket.
So does Notre Dame have the strongest schedule? I’ll believe you if you say so. But if you toss out the cream puffs the BT plays as warm ups, the answer would be no. The Big Ten conference schedule is tougher than Notre Dame’s. (Again, this is what Sagarin’s numbers say.)
The point I was making, however, (feel free to read my original post) is that complaining that a BT schedule is “weak” is disingenuous. If Notre Dame were in the Big Ten, their conference games would be, on average, better than Notre Dame’s current schedule. And all they’d have to do is keep a reasonable out-of-conference schedule and you’d have a stronger schedule than you have at present. For example, maintain your current rivalries with USC, Navy and another reasonable school like, say Pitt or Boston College. Then you’d have a SOS stronger than you’re generating at present.
What would lower Notre Dame’s average SOS would be if Notre Dame took the same approach as the current Big Ten teams and scheduled cream puffs before conference play.
In other words, joining the BT conference wouldn’t make your schedule weaker than your “national” schedule–it would make it stronger–depending upon what is scheduled for the OOC games.
LikeLike
@ zeek
It’s cute how you Big Ten fans believe that your teams are “national brands”. AFAIK, there is only one “national brand” and that is ND. Show me non alumni family fans outside the footprint that aren’t full-fledged bandwagon jumpers, and we’ll talk. P.S. Merchandizing #s don’t count, too many gang-based purchases to screw-up the #s.
Djinn^2
The issue you and I are having basically derives from the fact neither of us are actually arguing against the other one. I’m arguing against people who say ND plays a weak schedule. You’re arguing against people who say ND’s schedule is stronger than all Big Ten teams. I’d agree we’re both right.
Far be it from me to criticize anyone’s scheduling practices…except K-State when they first got good. I won’t even question that rancid IU schedule I mentioned previously. If I was IU’s AD and I had a good coach and a Big Ten schedule without UM and OSU, I’d have done the same thing. The Big Ten has been putting their OOC schedules together for a century. I’d hope they’d have it down to a science.
Taking a closer look at the Sagarins listed above, I noticed a half-dozen B10 national top 10 ranked schedules in that nine years. Looking at their OOC games, I question your assertion that the cream-puff portion of the schedule was what was holding down the SOS.
2001 PSU OOC – Miami, So. Miss., Virginia (Miami ended up #1, Virginia was rebuilding, and So. Miss was a decent non-BCS squad).
2002 Mich OOC- Wash., Utah, WMU, ND.
2004
UM OOC – Miami (OH), SDSU, ND
OSU OOC – Cincy, Marshall, NCSU
UI OOC – FAMU, UCLA, WMU
NU OOC – TCU, Az St, Kansas.
Or, as I see it, typical OOC type games for the respective teams. What made those schedules so much tougher those years? Better Big Ten teams.
You are the first to mention weak re this while taking me to task for pointing out Big Ten teams that I as an ND far weren’t enthused about playing.
Better question is why ND would necessarily want an even stronger SOS than currently. Since our schedule is currently tougher top to bottom than the typical B10 team, as you already mentioned.
By the grace of God, ND has no conference championship to play for. We play our games for the purpose of winning a NC. Failing that, of playing in a BCS game. Anything else is considered failure. That’s why ND schedules the way it does. Or at least that’s the goal.
LikeLike
If tBT selected the five schools that I prefer (right now), I’d set up the sub-divisions something like…
West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
South: IL, IU, NW & OSU
North: UM, MSU, PU & SU*
East: CT*, PSU, Pitt* & RU*
* = New Member
The Protected Games would look something like (N vs.S & W vs. E)…
IA vs. PSU
MN vs. CT
NU vs. RU
WI vs. Pitt
UM vs. OSU
MSU vs. IL
PU vs. IU
SU vs. NW
What can I say, I’d like to see Iowa play PSU annually. Besides, by having NU/RU as a Protected Game (instead of NU/PSU), is another marquis name visiting NJ/NY every other year and thus, another marketing opportunity for tBT.
LikeLike
Except the protected games are totally contrived for almost everyone, for the whole sake of putting Mich and OSU in separate pods. I think the best option is Mich and OSU in the same pod. Much smoother schedule for everyone (if you go to 9 games).
LikeLike
To me, NU sounds like Northwestern University.
For clarity sake, I think we should refer to Nebraska as UN (the University of Nebraska) or UNL (the University of Nebraska Lincoln).
LikeLike
As far as I know, Nebraska is not known as UN. Its either NU or UNL.
LikeLike
Northwestern was NWU till like 5-7 years ago when they launched the whole rebranding effort to NU (and people jokingly wanted the university named John Evans University).
LikeLike
Uh, no, Northwestern was NU back when I was there (mid-’90’s), and I believe it’s been NU since forever. We wouldn’t have this problem if the old Big8 schools knew the initials to their schools.
LikeLike
@Richard – Ha! Seriously, can someone explain why the old Big 8 schools juxtapose their initials?
LikeLike
@Frank – I’ve tried to ask some OU grads about that, and they just look at me funny. They really don’t like it when you call them Oklahoma University. At least Missouri keeps it simple with just the M. The “State” schools all get it right, but no one cares.
LikeLike
This still sounds like a bluff to get Notre Dame to cave in and join the Big Ten.
Nebraska ought to be the first choice if ND still says no.
No to Rutgers, no to Syracuse. Either one or both would be a mistake for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
re: mushroomgod (on May 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm)
I think they question about SU is, do they want to stay relatively the same or become more like NW? If the answer is to be NW-like, then I think they should get an invite, as I believe they can achieve that goal (especially with the add’l resources that come w/ BT membership).
As far as UConn not being an AAU member… Don’t you think that 15 of 63 members lobbying for them to receive an invite would help?
LikeLike
Yes on U Conn being in the AAU within 5 years….
As far as Syracuse becoming more like NW, see my response above. Not going to happen. Silly to think that it will.
As to your teams, no way Missouri gets left out if there’s a 5 team exspansion.
LikeLike
you need 3/4ths of the current members to vote for an invite after a lengthy 2 phase evaluation process of meeting membership principles and indicators.
LikeLike
70%, not 3/4ths, is what we’ve been told.
LikeLike
here’s the link from the AAU site
http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=4020
maybe you were thinking about the Big Ten Conference vote which appears to be 70%
LikeLike
You are correct. I’m sleep deprived.
LikeLike
New quotes from Tom Osborne on expansion:
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/04/football/doc4bdf926c39995040840910.txt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Really, until these conferences make up their minds what they want to do, and start making offers one way or another, it’s hard to assess the landscape,” Osborne said. “You just don’t know for sure what they’re thinking. And, obviously, they have not called us, and they have not informed us what they’re thinking.
“It’s not that we’re just sitting here not doing anything,” he added. “But you can’t all of a sudden begin to make a lot of phone calls to people when you don’t even know what the parameters are.”
And if the Big Ten made an overture to Nebraska?
“We have to listen to anything,” he said, reiterating his past comments. “Because, if it looks like the Big 12 is going to take a real big hit, and lose two or three or four teams, then you’d have to take a look. If, on the other hand, it looks like the Big 12 is staying intact, then that’s another issue.
“There’s no way anybody at this point can know.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perlman stated that the Big Ten hasn’t contacted them, as well, but he did refuse to answer whether or not Nebraska has contacted them. So it sounds like Nebraska is being proactive behind the scenes, but the Big Ten is sticking with their time table and Delany’s promise to inform the conferences before they open talks with a school.
LikeLike
I found this part telling:
In exactly a month, the Big 12 Conference board of directors will vote whether to keep the league’s football title game at Cowboys Stadium through 2013, or continue to rotate the site.
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, in a radio interview last week on the Husker Sports Network, sounded inclined toward keeping the game in suburban Dallas.
“Look, the fact of the matter is, we have the facility in this region of the country that is the best in the world right now, that is also in a recruiting hotbed for all of our programs,” he said. “So, I think our members so far feel like, why would we move away from such a tremendous facility?”
Um, not quite all members feel that way.
Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told me Monday that Big 12 athletic directors voted on the issue in March at the request of Beebe, perhaps as a way for the commissioner to test the waters.
“The vote, as I recall, was 11-1 to return to Texas and to give them a three-year contract,” Osborne said.
Hmmm, I keep hearing from Shatel and NE fans how the North feels enslaved to UT’s interests and how they can’t wait to bolt from such oppression, how UT gets its way regardless of the North teams preferences. They often point to the championship game being in Dallas twice in a row (Oh, the humanity!) as exhibit A in how unfair life is and how the North is ignored. But an 11-1 vote for a 3-year extension doesn’t exactly support that portrayal, seems more like a NE issue than a North one. The conference didn’t have any trouble voting against Texas on the tiebreaker, so it is hard to believe that they were strong-armed into voting for multi-years at JerryWorld. Maybe it was simply the best money-maker. 11-1 ain’t close to 7-5.
While NE has plenty of good points, I think the more they squawk and the more the B10+ reads and hears them, the more the latter starts to see a a bit of pouty, high-maintenance attitude. Some may start to wonder if the statement about the conference looking for good partners for 30-years, not just the moment, might be referencing NE’s complaining nature.
Recall that iconic internet picture of the gorgeous chick and the caption, “No matter how hot she is, someone, somewhere is sick of her sh!t.”
LikeLike
Well said. And something on which we can agree. 🙂
LikeLike
Re Osborne interview (Scott C)
Interesting article since Osborne has a reputation of being honest in what he chooses to say.
So while many schools are a possibility, appears no one really knows what the package might be perhaps because the Big 10 may not have decided on one.
LikeLike
subscribing
LikeLike
My weekly “gut feeling” update. I still think that Texas, A &M, and Marlyand are all off the table.
Four of these 5 get in. Nebraska, Rutgers, Missouri and either Pitt or Syracuse.
The break up of the BE is still the ultimate play for ND. My gut is that they will join. I don’t know if it is wishful thinking or not.
I still have a preference for all 3 Eastern teams. I understand those who have a preference for the midwestern teams. We all speak from our own biases.
I hope that we know something by June 30.
LikeLike
With all due respect to ND, I don’t think they would be a good long-term fit in tBT. They don’t seem like they’ll ever fit in culturally or grad/research-wise. At this point, I think ND would be a better fit in the ACC (if Independence is no longer an option).
As far as UT &/ TAMU… I think they’d be great long-term additions, but IDK how well they’ll fit in, in the short-term. The SWC & B12 were set up fundamentally different than the “all for one & one for all” mentallity of tBT. I believe they can do it, I just question how long it may take. What do you think, Hopkins, Playoffs, et al?
LikeLike
Sportsman, I’ve seen a few posters around here express a concern that Texas wouldn’t be a good fit because of its not having this same sort of ‘all for one and one for all” attitude which schools in the Big 10 have.
Aside from the self-admittedly feelings of bitterness many Husker fans have about not being the power they once were and complaining about such minor things as the location of the conference HQ, I think the main area of concern for Big 10 fans as to whether Texas would be a “team player” would be the unequal revenue distribution of the Big XII.
My response to that is this: if Texas were to join the Big XII, I would believe that a meeting of the minds would have to have occurred on the issues of revenue sharing and television rights before such a merger were agreed to. All parties involved will reach an agreement which everyone can live with. And if Texas did join the Big 10, I would assume that such an agreement would be very close, if not identical to, what the Big 10 has in place already.
If Texas doesn’t express a willingness to play by Big 10 rules, I don’t think there’s any chance they’d get an invite.
Remember a key difference here and what happened with the Big XII: in today’s situation, Texas would be joining an existing conference. In the 1990s, all eight schools of the Big 8 and four schools of the SWC left their respective conferences to form a completely new conference (i.e. it was not Texas joining the Big 8 and then demanding all of its rules be changed to fit its needs). Being a new conference, all conference rules, including revenue distribution, needed to be determined.
So it won’t be a case of having Texas join the Big 10 and then working out after the fact that Texas doesn’t want to play by the rules.
Now it very well could be the case that Texas in fact doesn’t want to play by Big 10 rules, and that’s what’s caused the mating dance so many of us foresaw not to happen.
In sum: if Texas joined the Big 10, I wouldn’t worry about Texas not being a “team player.”
LikeLike
The problem I personally have with Texas is that of all the possible Big Ten expansion schools, they seem the most likely to leave the Big Ten when a better offer comes years down the road. I could easily see this happening.
LikeLike
In theory, I can see where you’re coming from, but in practice, it’s hard for me to imagine what that better offer could ever possibly be unless collegiate sports evolves to the point at which independence is a much more viable option than it is today. Or 50 to 100 years down the road at a point at which transportation has evolved to the point at which one could travel coast to coast in an hour and geographic proximity means less than it even means today.
LikeLike
And even then you’d need the “better offer” to not only offer better $$$ but also better academics. A tough combo to pull off.
LikeLike
A better reason to be wary of Texas leaving the B10 than unequal revenue sharing is their decision to block the B12 TV network plan. Texas is now looking at starting their own TV network, which they would not need to share revenue with any other teams. Not a very “one for all” decision. I think that’s the straw that ultimately is going to break the B12.
LikeLike
RedDenver, I would put that in the very same category of issues which would be worked out in advance if Texas were to join the Big 10, so I wouldn’t have that as a reason not to invite Texas.
LikeLike
Agreed. But it’s still riskier than Mizzou or Pitt who are extremely unlikely to ever leave the B10.
LikeLike
RedDenver, but all you’re saying is that a bigger brand name school is more likely to be able to leave than a smaller school.
In terms of actual risk to leave, sure it’s higher for Texas than it would be for anyone in the league, but there won’t be a reason to leave until/unless population densities change massively, which isn’t going to be on the horizon for many decades.
It really is not worth considering as a part of the decision making process.
The people making these decisions won’t be making it based on some kind of black swan event in which the Pac-10 or SEC somehow becomes so attractive that it’d be able to grab Texas away from the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Can one of the Big 10 commenters on this board answer me this:
I understand why some might question whether Texas would be a good member of the Big 10, given what they’ve read of the turmoil of the Big XII. Questions like that should be raised of any perspective member school.
So why aren’t people raising similar questions abut whether Nebraska would be a good fit? It seems pretty clear to me that Nebraska’s administrators and fanbase are just a wee bit sensitive when things don’t go their way. It seems to me that it would be very helpful to raise similar questions about Nebraska as to whether they’d be a good fit for the “all for one, one for all attitude” of the Big 10, or rather there would be continued public bitchiness when they lose a vote or a close game.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
Idk if this fair or not, but UT gets a lot of grief for many of the problems w/i the B12. If the CCG is in TX, then it’s UT’s fault. If there’s unequal revenue-sharing, it’s UT’s fault. If the B12 HQ is in TX, it’s UT’s fault. And so on… While I don’t think this is fair (or accurate), UT doesn’t seem to say very much. Because of this, perception becomes reality to the general public and UT then becomes the scapegoat for the inner-conference turmoil (when really their problems start w/ population density disadvantages).
However, UT blocking a B12 Network seems like a strong intimation that it views itself as above it’s own conference.
As far as NU is concerned, they’ve been knocked down a few rungs (from their power in tB8 to their power in tB12), so it’s assumed they could/would assimilate more fluidly into tBT.
LikeLike
The Big 12 wasn’t founded on “all for one, one for all,” so taking Nebraska to task for looking out for its own interests — as UT certainly has over the life of the conference — seems hypocritical. I’ll gladly admit that Nebraska hasn’t been rowing in the same direction as the rest of the schools, which appears from Nebraska’s perspective to be “whichever way Austin tells us to.”
Your perspective appears to be that the Big 12 was a new conference.
Nebraska’s perspective is more like “we invited them when they needed a new home as they blew their conference up, and they’ve been running it ever since.” Recall that all the Big 8 schools joined, whereas there were only 4 of the formerly 9 SWC schools, and two of them were tagalongs forced by Texas politics.
You can contend that’s not reality, but it is the perpective that I suspect many Nebraskans — and fans of other former Big 8 schools — share. If Nebraska is joining a conference like the Big 10, I’m sure there’s going to be a pretty non-negotiable set of terms and conditions that Nebraska will have to agree too, just like Texas would. And I suspect Nebraska’s administration would have less of a problem with them than would Texas’.
Here’s a different way of looking at it — what did Texas give up when it joined the Big 12? Anything of value or history? (Both conference’s history was washed out, so both lost there.) Nebraska ended up losing the NU/OU game. Nebraska also lost its edge on recruiting and educating partial qualifiers. Please, explain to me when Texas hasn’t gotten what they’ve wanted since the birth of the conference.
LikeLike
@Albino:
If Nebraska is joining a conference like the Big 10, I’m sure there’s going to be a pretty non-negotiable set of terms and conditions that Nebraska will have to agree too, just like Texas would. And I suspect Nebraska’s administration would have less of a problem with them than would Texas’.
I think that concern goes more towards the likelihood of joining the conference than how the schools would behave once admitted.
LikeLike
I don’t know why people are questioning whether Texas would be a team player but not Nebraska. Personally, I question neither for one reason…
The fact of the matter is that they’re in a conference built on convenience, not a conference built on an “all for one and one for all” mentality.
I would expect Nebraska and Texas to act in their own interests in the Big 12 but be willing to become team players if they’re asked to join the Big Ten and decide to accept.
Anyone who’s not acting in their own interest in a league like the Big 12 is foolish.
Nebraska is one of the 4 teams that votes along with Texas to keep unequal revenue sharing in the Big 12. That’s just proof that people will act in their own interests if they’re in that kind of situation.
Notre Dame does a similar thing with respect to the Big East.
BUT, I would fully expect Michigan or Ohio State or Penn State to do the same thing if they were in the Big East or Big 12.
The Big Ten schools treat the Big Ten differently than Big East or Big 12 schools treat their conferences. Once Nebraska or Texas or whomever becomes a Big Ten school, I would expect them to act just as Penn State did and act in the best interests of the conference, etc.
LikeLike
I don’t believe Texas A&M has much interest in B10 membership and it is highly unlikely, under any scenario, A&M will end up in the conference. This certainly is not a knock on the B10 schools or the quality of the conference but the cultural differences and travel are obstacles are too severe to overcome.
Texas A&M has had serious conversations with the SEC in the past and once the next phase of conference realignment begins, look for Texas A&M to land in the SEC. A number of schools in the SEC West are in favor of the move and are working hard to get approval for the conference invitation. Texas may or may not come along but that decision is unlikely to impact A&M’s move to the SEC.
LikeLike
@AggieFrank
I agree. Personally I think when the next phase begins, A&M will be in the SEC, and Texas in the Pac-10. I think a deal will be made to split between the conferences. I think OU will also join the SEC.
LikeLike
Redhawk,
I doubt very seriously that the SEC strikes a deal with the Pac 10 to split TX & OK. First off, that is a pretty one sided deal with TX being the more desired team. Now I think that it could end up with TX going to the Pac 10 and OK (and maybe TX A&M) going to the SEC. But it won’t be because the two conference struck up a deal to split them. JMHO
LikeLike
AggieFrank,
From everything I’ve read or heard, it seems that both TX A&M and Oklahoma would prefer to go the SEC if the Big 12 suffers huge loses. If those two schools do decide to jump to the SEC, then the question for TX comes down to whether or not they want to continue to keep their rivalries with those schools and allow their fan base to continue to travel with ease to away games; or whether they would prefer to join the preceived better academic schools in the Pac 10 where their fan base will have a harder time traveling to away games and where it will be a lot harder to form decent rivalries and would probably make less money and have less tv exposure since most of their away games will be played in the Pacific time zone. As most people have said, this decision will be made by the university presidents and not the athletic directors, so the academic standards may weigh more heavily than the normal fans would think. It should be interesting to see what TX does if this situation arises.
LikeLike
AggieFrank, I appreciate your thoughts and I can see where you may wish to personally become a member of the the SEC. I too believe that we would have an immediate and wonderful rivalry with LSU and we already have a series with Arkansas at Jerry World for a number of years. Myself and a number of my acquaintances think that membership in the Big Ten is the best for Texas A&M’s future. Athletics being the least of the reasons to join. Combined political power for obtaining research grants, the CIC sharing of education, emphasis on graduation studies and the sharing opportunities therein, not to mention just the thought of membership in a conference of higher educational standards and morality toward recruiting. I think the leaders of our wonderful University recognize that the Big Ten would and should be A&M’s first choice. From a purely athletic point, well, you can’t beat the money in the Big Ten. I would hope that Texas and A&M both accept membership if and when an invitation may be tendered.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn (on May 4, 2010 at 9:51 am)
Thank you for your insight. While I was/am aware that the B12 was a merger of the SWC & B8, I’m not sure of the mindset of UT. If what you say is true, then it helps alleviate one of my concerns.
Jeepers (on May 4, 2010 at 10:00 am) & RedDenver (on May 4, 2010 at 10:09 am)
These are a couple more of my concerns regarding UT & TAMU.
(I’m using my phone & cannot put these comments where they should be.)
LikeLike
Thanks. I guess my main point is that, if Texas really is as selfish an SOB as some fear it could be, it won’t ever come anywhere close to UT receiving an invitation to the Big 10, so the “team player” issue won’t be an issue.
I think Zeek sums it up best above: Texas and Nebraska are behaving in the same way virtually any other school in their present situation would behave.
LikeLike
Yeah I don’t really know where these comments are coming from as to the risk of Texas up and leaving soon after joining.
Texas joining the Big Ten would put it way ahead of any of the other conferences in terms of size and scope, and there probably wouldn’t be a reason to leave until the population densities moved more southwest… but that’s talking 50-75 years away from now.
For the next 30 years (and presumably as far as one can see), Texas would be as loyal a trooper as any other school if it were to join. I don’t see any tangible issue that would make me think otherwise.
The worry about risk of leaving or rocking the boat seems entirely misplaced. Once a school joins the Big Ten at this point, there’s not going to be a reason to leave anywhere on the horizon.
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting view on why the Huskers have such good traveling fans (hopefully this links):
http://bigrednetwork.com/archives/2010/05/nebraska_might_go_to_the_big_1.html
As a Husker fan living outside Nebraska, I can attest that there are many Husker fans all over the US.
LikeLike
That’s probably the most exciting thing that Nebraska brings to the table.
Nebraska has the potential to make as big a splash in the Big Ten for football as Penn State did just based on the fact that it has one of the most intense fanbases in the country. It still amazes that they got 80,000 at a spring game that they charged $10…; that in itself is mindboggling.
LikeLike
@Zeek: That’s what bigtime programs do, and Nebraska is a bigtime program. Ohio State drew 95k last year and 65k this year (rain killed attendance) charging $5-10 as well.
As a Big Ten fan it’s an exciting proposition to bring a school like Nebraska, with their passionate fanbase, into the conference. It enhances the conference to add another big program like this.
LikeLike
Ok, let’s say it is a 5 team expansion by the BigTen to go to 16 teams (Which I think is the most likely scenario at this point).
The SEC will follow suit by adding 4 teams to get to 16 as well. The big question is which 4 teams. They could go after 4 Texas Schools, or 4 other Southern teams from the ACC. I don’t think the Texas Administration is thrilled with SEC academics, so I kind of doubt the SEC goes West. I think they kill the “little brother” in their own backyard and take 3 or 4 from the ACC. Perhaps Duke and North Carolina to sure up the SEC in Basketball. Perhaps Florida State or Miami. Perhaps Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech. Or some combination.
That leaves the the ACC reeling … and sitting at 8 schools. I think the ACC can rebuild back to 12 by grabbing 3 or 4 from the remnants of the BigEast (USF in particular to keep a strong Florida presence). BUT, I really DON’T see the ACC being able to rebuild up to 16 teams to match the SEC and BigTen.
Which leads to a very interesting battle to the death between the BigXII and the PAC. In the end, I think this looks somewhat like a merger of the BigXII and the PAC to form the third and final 16 team supermegaconference. You get the core 6 or 7 PAC teams (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, ASU, AU) and the Core 6 or 7 BigXII remnants (Texas, TA&M, TTech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado) to for the core of the new “Everything west of the Mississippi” Conference. Those core 12 or so teams add in 4 more schools from the PAC / BigXII / MWC / WAC (Probably Washington and Oregon, maybe BYU, Utah, Baylor, OkState). That will be a very very political decisions (perhaps the Texas Legislature forces Baylor, or Oklahoma forces OkState or whatever).
So, in the end, you end up (in Football) with a “consolidation of power and money through expansion”. In the end, the Elite BCS football money is divided up between 48 schools (down from the current ~65ish), which means everyone gets a slightly larger slice overall.
AND, the remnants of all this end up forming 3 POWER Basketball conferences, that have varying numbers of football schools as well. The BigEast focuses on Basketball, and basically drops out of the football club … maybe two or three BE teams also play football as independents. The ACC reforms itself focusing primarily on their Basketball History. They rebuild with teams like Memphis and Syracuse and UConn that have great Basketball tradition. And the leftovers from the BigXII/PAC merger come together with the top of the MWC and the WAC to form a power basketball conference for west of the Mississippi. This has Kansas State, Iowa State, Washington State, Oregon State, BYU, Utah, New Mexico (good basketball program), Baylor, TCU, and perhaps schools like Gonzaga and St. Mary’s that don’t even play football.
End Result ….
48 ELITE Football programs in 3 SuperMegaConferences of 16 teams that get most or all of the BCS slots (each Conference gets 2 AQ teams into the BCS for each Division Champ, and can have one more at large bid as well)
96 POWER basketball programs in the 3 SuperMegaConferences and 3 or 4 Power conferences in Basketball of 12 to 16 teams. These conferences completely dominate the new NCAA tourney selection process, and have a BCS football arrangement similar to the MWC/WAC now … a champ with a ranking above 12 gets into the BCS, but not automatically if less than 12.
LikeLike
Most people have focused on Oklahoma and Florida State as being the targets of the SEC along with possibly Clemson and Texas Tech or Oklahoma State.
I don’t see the ACC getting raided for 4, that would be too redundant for the SEC’s footprint. Granted they don’t have a TV network yet, but they’d probably aim for Oklahoma and Texas or if Texas refuses, then Texas Tech.
LikeLike
I would prefer a TBD game instead of the 1 stable rival game. Have each pod play its own every year, and then rotate one of the other pods each year. Use the last game to match up teams based on records in the following way:
1 vs. 4 – mini semi 1
2 vs. 3 – mini semi 2
5 vs. 6
7 vs. 8
9 vs. 10
11 vs. 12
13 vs. 14
15 vs. 16
Then have the winners of mini semi games play each other in the conference championship game.
LikeLike
Reading about the possibility of adding Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse. I read that this expansion is fueled by academic and athletic goals, as well as “feeding the beast” of the BTN.
I am interested in the academic side. Currently there are 11 members and then the Big Ten +1 expands to the Big Ten +6. How does this improve the Big Ten + 1? I have no doubt that the expansion will aid the “recently added five” in their marketing efforts to attract students. But for the original eleven, what specific academic benefits do you forecast in terms of:
1. Undegraduate education: will the quality or number of undergraduates improve for the B10 + 1 by expanding to a B10 + 6? How?
2. Graduate education: How does a current graduate program leverage this expansion to improve the quality of their current programs? More opportunities for collaboration? Are the current grad programs in the Big 10+1 hurting for potential collaborators?
Will research dollars be pooled and leveraged in a way that the current group cannot pool? How much?
3. Faculty: will more qualified faculty be attracted to a department that is part of a Big 10+6 who were not attracted to the Big 10+1? Really?
What are the specific academic benefits that the posters expect to accrue to the Big Ten’s original 11 members as a result of an expansion to 16. Or to be crass — five years after the expansion occurs, how will the perceived value of a degree received from one of the original 11 in the new Big 16 be enhanced?
LikeLike
To be entirely honest, I see most of the positive impact going towards the schools joining rather than the original 11. That’s probably my view unless Maryland is somehow brought in because Maryland has a closer relationship to the federal agencies than any Big 10 school and that’s very important for the research money.
For undergraduate education, there probably won’t be much of a quality impact. I don’t think number really matters, anyone looking at a student coming out of a school looks at the school individually.
For graduate education, I would imagine that Nebraska, Rutgers, and Pitt will probably be able to pull their weight in terms of adding their research facilities to what’s already in the Big 10.
As for faculty, most of the benefit would go to the new schools being in the CIC and being able to offer when recruiting potential faculty.
All of these schools compete for the prestigious researchers in any case, the ones that may develop something that will pay off for the school; like the Lyrica drug that paid off handsomely for Northwestern, etc.
To be brutally honest, most of the benefits will go to the joining members unless we somehow bring along Maryland.
(I say this having done ug (as has 90% of the board ofc, and grad school at Big Ten schools).
LikeLike
@zeek – There could also be more of an intangible benefit for the current schools to the extent there really is an “East Coast bias” in higher education and the Big Ten establishes itself in that region. While schools like Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State and Northwestern typically receive notice from people on the East Coast (and to a lesser extent, Indiana much more lately specifically for the Kelly business school), the rest of the schools lack exposure in that area. The average high schooler in the NYC area likely thinks that Illinois is closer to Kansas State than UVA in terms of academics (as wrong as that may be). For better or worse, perception in higher education is driven by the East Coast (and in the New York area specifically), much like the media in general. I’m not sure if adding schools like Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt really can change it that much, but it’s likely a factor on the academic side and why the university presidents probably favor adding at least a couple of Eastern schools instead of a pure Western expansion (which some have suggested here as that would be more attractive from the sports perspective). Right now, the Big Ten academic “brand” is “big-time research schools with big-time sports programs in the Midwest” (notwithstanding the presence of Penn State). Adding Eastern schools would alter that brand into “big-time research schools with big-time sports programs in the North”.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s probably the strongest argument for Syracuse right there. Just getting the Big Ten into the NY consciousness would be quite the victory for its academics as a whole.
That also is probably why they don’t care that Notre Dame isn’t an AAU member (ignoring the athletics aspect of ND).
The only issue is whether it would really work. If we were talking about NYU, I could see that working out, but it’s just hard for me to imagine.
Just what I’ve heard from the people who attended undergrad with me from the NYC and northern New Jersey area, those areas are so east coast focused with the exceptions of the schools that you’ve named, that it might be impossible to pull it off without it being NYU on the table or a school like that.
But that’s the calculation the presidents will make when everything is on the table.
That’s probably why I wouldn’t be surprised whatever the mix is. At this point it seems as if a convincing argument can be made for any mix of 3 or 5 schools.
LikeLike
I think it’s also useful to have a sense of academic/research momemtum….
Looking at the #s form 2001-2008, the % increases in res. funding are:
ND 111%
NW 88%
OSU 80%
Pitt 71%
Pur 69%
IU 58%
Neb 56%
PSU 53%
Minn 48%
Wis 46%
Mich 46%
Mo 40%
U Con 38%
KU 38%
Rut 36%
MSU 34%
Ill 28%
Iowa 15%
Syr (09)%
The Iowa # may be a typo, as it’s #s increaed steadily from ’01 to ’07, then declined dramatically in ’08. Iowa’s correct # may be 40%
Couple points here–ND is doing very well in increasing res $s w/o the BT; also, Pitt and Neb seem to have some academic momentum, while Mo., Rutgers, and Syr do not. That kind of corresponds to the sense of things I’ve gotten from their boards…the Pitt and Neb boards seem to have more confidence in their adms that the others….
In 2001, ND had 46M in research, Syr. 42. By 2008, ND had 97M, Syr 38. Something dramatic happened to SU’s totals from 2004 to 2005. They declined from 62M to 36M…..
LikeLike
Re “research momentum”.
As I’ve said before, if there is one school that could ramp up their research totals it is probably ND. They have the endowment (and seemingly the administrative desire) to do it.
LikeLike
I agree with your analysis Zeek. I believe that most observers will interpret expansion similarly. If the Presidents believe that expansion will be portrayed similarly in the media “Big Ten sells academic reputation for additional BTN cable fees” they will get cold feet and everyone on this blog (including myself) will ask — where do I reclaim the hours of my life I lost writing and reading about something that did not happen.
LikeLike
That’s probably why I think we will see some sort of attempt to grab Maryland; it would probably be a mistake not to at least float the possibility of an invitation. But as has been pointed out, Maryland may be too hard to get. The ACC has a lot of strong undergrad programs and some strong research programs as well.
Sure we can offer a lot of money, but I’m not sure if money is enough to grab Maryland away from the other east coast schools that it really associates itself with…
A 3 or 5 team expansion that includes both Maryland and Nebraska would probably be the best way to satisfy the academics and the sports fans. That would be the easiest way to convince the faculties of the schools joining that this is a home run expansion other than grabbing Texas.
I mean, I just think it’s a statement of how good the current Big Ten is academically that the pickings are relatively slim. We’ve already got the strongest hybrid of athletics and academics out there among the big conferences, so it’s hard to improve on that.
I think Syracuse, Rutgers, and Pitt would be fine additions, it’d just be the equivalent of growing the academic pie from 11 slices to 14, per se.
Naturally, the Big Ten Network is easier to improve because we just need market access to create the 11 + 1 = 13 effect that Frank has talked about.
It’s really tough to get the same bang for the buck of expansion for academics/CIC.
LikeLike
If it appears the SEC will pick off a few ACC schools in its expansion, Maryland will become part of the Big Ten equation. Its president, C.D. Mote, is retiring at the end of August, and I think he’d like to give College Park Big Ten membership as a going-away present.
LikeLike
Currently, virtually all (there are a very few exceptions like supposedly Texas) Universities subsidize Athletic Departments in a substantial way. With the increased revenue generated from the Athletic Department due to expansion those subsidies would be able to be invested instead into the Academic and infrastructure side of the University thereby improving the University as a whole. The current Big Ten member Universities would benefit greatly from expansion revenue, aside from the Athletic Department, as a result of this reallocation of University funding. I think the Big Ten COP/C clearly understand this and is a very important issue for them.
LikeLike
In the link below there is an interesting discussion and analysis of this issue of University subsidies for Athletics.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-funding-analysis_N.htm
LikeLike
Note the last sentence of the linked story:
“Nebraska and Louisiana State were the only schools whose athletics programs reported receiving no subsidies in each of the four years studied.” Nebraska’s athletic department is required to receive no state subsidies, and in most years, contributes to the university’s general fund.
LikeLike
@Albino:
Saw that too, which confused me because Ohio State’s athletic department is believed to be self-sustaining. By going through the database I found out why they didn’t add OSU to that list of not receiving state/institutional subsidies:
2004/05: Direct institutional support – $5,429.00 – 0.01% (Ended ~$120k in the black)
2005/06: Direct state or other government support – $9,911.43 – 0.01% (Ended ~$2.9mil in the black)
Not sure how/why they received those tiny subsidies for those two years. Weird.
To tie this to Rich2’s original post, the athletics department at OSU returns a lot of money back to the university, despite funding 36 sports. This includes funding things like libraries, scholarships, and other areas that enhances the university as a whole (http://oncampus.osu.edu/2009/03/putting-the-pieces-together/).
When we’re talking things like libraries, campus police, campus radio stations, etc. yes I think both undergraduate and graduate students’ experiences are enhanced by the athletic department making more money. Making the assumption that the Big Ten->16 would generate more money, I also assume these fund infusions to the university to increase.
But, like Texas, Ohio State is probably the exception and not the rule. To counter, however, I would argue that schools like ND and Nebraska also fall under this exception, and I believe that the increased cash flow to their schools would have a positive impact on the average student. (Only looking at this from a financial standpoint, of course.)
LikeLike
In fact, LSU’s athletic department has makes yearly contributions to the University. In these difficult economic times when LSU has sustained numerous budget cuts, the athletic department has stepped up its academic contributions.
LikeLike
It’s not only fund infusions back to the University from flush ADs, but for most schools ( Big Ten schools included) the expansion revenue increases would lessen or negate the need for University subsidies therefore allowing the University to reinvest in Academics, Faculty, Infrastructure, Student life etc. This whole topic relates back to the OP by Rich2 questioning how the current Big Ten members will benefit from expansion other than growing the Athletic Department budgets. This is a huge concern among University President’s and BOG as well as State Govts. which are cutting back University funding all over the country. That coupled with a backlash from students on increases in Tuition and Student fees and Faculty pay freezes and department cuts makes enhanced Athletic Department revenue generation a big opportunity area that will benefit the Universities in general.
LikeLike
This example from The University of Iowa is typical of Universities across the country. It is not surprising that expansion by the Big Ten is currently on the agenda for COP/C. Budgets and revenue generation is on the agenda for every University administration everywhere. Conference realignment, instability in revenue generation for AD’s (non-Big Ten), University and State subsidy cutbacks, all make for a very anxious group of schools that will be effected by Big Ten expansion. I think the Big Ten is acutely aware of this and will not want to drag this thing along. The financial implications are too big for both the current Big Ten members and all Universities directly or indirectly effected by this for this topic to be extended too far past this summer or fall at the latest.
http://www.dailyiowan.com/2009/10/28/Opinions/13935.html
LikeLike
For further reading on the topic of the urgency of the financial concerns of University Presidents here are 2 links to “The Knight Commission” group. 1 is there home page, the other is their report from their findings gathered at a Conference they hosted this past fall for University Presidents. Big Ten expansion is in the middle of a bee hive and resolution soon is a high priority to settle the landscape.
Knight Home page:
http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
Conference Findings:
http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=418:october-26-2009-university-presidents-united-in-call-to-curb-athleics-spending-says-major-knight-commission-survey&catid=22&Itemid=12
LikeLike
Great insight zeek. I concur the the original 11 schools will not receive much academic benefit unless the expansion includes Maryland. Arguments could be made for the other contenders (like Pitt’s top notch Medical Research may further medical research) but the only clear cut winner on assisting the Original 11 is Maryland.
LikeLike
Count Fr. Jenkins, President of ND, as another one who does not understand the collective wisdom expressed on this blog. Frank, sign him up.
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/To-Join-or-Not-to-Join-/23710/
LikeLike
Father Jenkins (the ND equivalent of university president) had a few words today:
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/To-Join-or-Not-to-Join-/23710/
LikeLike
Fr. Jenkins is the President of the University of Notre Dame du Lac.
The post? article? what ever it is seems too short. I would have preferred to have seen a full interview. Fr. Jenkins was only quoted hitting obvious bulletpoints.
LikeLike
Unless I’m completely missing it, I think all the discussion we’re having on this thread is ignoring the elephant in the room: the fact that a number of sources seem to be coalescing around the idea that these five specific schools have been targeted by the Big 10.
How seriously do we take this? It seems as though most of us, including me, have been accepting these rumors as very much based in reality without stopping to reflect upon their validity.
Is this what’s really going on, or is this merely one rumor bouncing around and being amplified inside an echo chamber by other reporters with no original reporting of their own?
And if this rumor is in fact based in reality, is this what the Big 10 really wants, or are we still either at a trial balloon stage or a stage at which the Big 10 is still trying to lure bigger game?
(And an aside from my Texas-centric viewpoint: my original theory of Texas moving to the Big 10 included a moment very much like this: a moment at which the Big 10 would attempt to call Texas’ bluff by appearing intent upon inviting at least one other member of the Big XII to join the Big 10.)
LikeLike
My take on the rumors:
While the specific distribution of teams coming to the Big Ten is possible, I give only a 15% chance of the reports that the schools have been decided upon being false. They may be true if the negotiations are taking place, the schools have been agreed upon, and the entire conference is doing their best to keep a lid on them, which means that only one school (Mizzou) slipped up and the rest of the conference is refusing to confirm the rumors until the details are sorted out. More likely, however, is someone at Missouri said something to the local station that is either a) not true, or more likely b) somewhat uninformed, which is why no major news outlet with sources at multiple schools in the Big Ten has said anything. Because nothing has come out of the Big Ten or a Big Ten school, I doubt the rumors are based in reality or were even instigated by the Big Ten, as it is certainly not in Missouri’s interest to leak any information to try to force a move by other schools, as that could easily lead to Mizzou being left on the outside.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
I’m not taking this latest rumor very seriously. An awful lot of articles starting with “a source in St. Louis” or something similar, as Frank mentioned at the start of his post. Until I start seeing it from sources from other places I’m calling shenanigans. It’s too convenient that all of these sources appear to be coming from Missouri and not Pitt, Rutgers, or anyone else involved. Apparently Missouri is the only place where journalists can find someone willing to spill the beans anonymously. Maybe this is the final alignment, but I need more than shadowy figures making proclamations in sports gossip columns.
Fact of the matter is, despite all the “leaks” that have popped up since December, the only thing we know for sure is that the Big Ten is playing it very close to the vest and 99% of the leaks have yet to be verified by anyone reputable. Arguably the most trusted journalist covering this so far, Teddy Greenstein of the Chicago Tribune, even ended up with egg on his face not too long ago. For someone to magically appear like Expansion Moses to lead us to the promised land is suspicious at best. Especially since it popped up only a week after the Big Ten came out with “nothing to see here, move along” as their official response.
Hell, for all we know this “source” could be a journalist reading this blog and just misinterpreting Frank’s hometown. 😛
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I think the only thing we can say for sure is that schools are being talked to. There are too many quotes from people attached to too many universities and conferences. The biggest one to me was the SEC president’s comment.
Now WHO is going where…I seriously doubt anyone knows for sure, right NOW..not even the Big 10 people.
LikeLike
I wonder if anybody from the Big Ten office is reading this blog?
LikeLike
It’s just idle speculation. This is just the current focus because it’s the current media rumor.
I don’t think the Big Ten presidents have decided on any schools at this point.
Delaney has decided that he wants the Big Ten to go east and west and is telling ADs this in his conversations. The difference between now and 2003 or the late 90s is that he has the Big Ten Network on his side of the argument for expansion.
Personally, I see Delaney waving his wand and trying to net the big catch of Texas.
While the media is settled on Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt, they don’t realize that Nebraska/Missouri and presumably Colorado within two months leaving the Big 12 essentially destroys the conference. All of the remaining major markets will be in Texas and the Big 12 contract will be worth next to nothing when it comes up to re-negotiations.
There is no way Texas can sit by and let this happen. Thus, a move to 5 immediately seems like total folly unless you actually favor the current speculation group of 5.
Taking just Nebraska or Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers still seems like the most obvious move this year. That gives everyone (including Texas and Notre Dame) time to evaluate their options.
The Big East is already unstable; teams will bolt anytime for the Big Ten if given the opportunity. The Big 12 is potentially unstable if Colorado and Nebraska or Missouri leave.
All of this is all rehash, but it leaves us where we were when this process started. We don’t really know what will happen. The most obvious path is Nebraska (plus 2) -> Texas (plus 1) or Notre Dame (plus 1); or Nebraska -> Texas (plus 1 or 3).
Other than Nebraska, there isn’t a single school that seems to be moving this year that is guaranteed to significantly upgrade the football/television side of the equation while passing the academic smell test.
I still think Texas is the biggest chip on the board. Everyone’s just gotten bored of Texas-speculation (off of this site) so they’re just accepting Texas staying in the Big 12.
I would submit that Texas will not sit still if Nebraska/Colorado/Missouri move out of the Big 12.
You’re probably more qualified as to speak to what Texas will actually do after that though…
LikeLike
Oh, I would just add that the one rumor I believe is that the Pac-10 actually has spoken to Texas and Texas A&M and that only A&M was interested.
The Pac-10 is much further along (a fact that the media has not picked up for some reason) because of the way it needs schools to show off to networks in 2012.
The Big Ten will not do anything until it knows whether Colorado’s moving to the Pac-10 this summer.
LikeLike
Excellent point and one which got me to put my “mad genius” hat on…
Pac-10 comes out this summer and says TAMU/Colorado will be the additions.
Big10 then invites Neb, Mizzou, Kansas, Texas, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, ND
4×5 Team divisions
1)PSU, Pitt, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse
2)OSU, UoM, MSU, Purdue, ND
3)Nebraska, NW, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesotta
4)Texas, Kansas, Mizzou, Illinois, Indiana
Play everyone in your division plus one other division on a rotating basis (play all once every three years) for a total of 9 conference games with 2 OOC. ND’s historic rivalries with UoM, MSU, Purdue are kept and the “no more than two consecutive seasons” between ND / Pitt games are kept in tact as well. Pitt/PSU reignited, OSU/UoM kept. Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesotta good plus Nebraska added to the fun. Mizzou/Illinois can have the border war. Texas will just have to live with winning its division every year.
Only two schools not AAU (ND, UConn) only two schools not heavily invested in research (ND, Syracuse). Academically, the worst of the bunch is Syracuse, which has been in talks since the beginning.
The remaining Big12 schools invite (are forced by Texas State Legislature) other Texas schools to backfill in Texas, add NM, Utah, BYU and become a less academic version of the ACC.
Am I really going insane or does this actually seem like a plausible idea?
LikeLike
@PSUGuy:
To be honest, I’m already squeamish about 16. 20 feels like coo-coo crazytalk. You don’t have a conference then; you have two conferences with the same name.
I mean, who knows. Anything’s possible when nothing is really known. But when you’re talking about conference sizes bigger than either the NFC/AFC I think we’ve entered crazytown.
LikeLike
why stop there? Just go to 65 teams….we can all be the Big-10.
Sorry, I just think 20 is going the step in crazy land….but I never thought I’d be thinking that the real final out come of all this would be 4 16 super-conferences and a big finger to the NCAA. So …I guess 20 is possible.
LikeLike
As I said…crazy talk, but here’s the thing…name one school in that list that doesn’t nominally fit the Big10 profile.
Either AAU or research. Tend to be bigger schools. Even the least academically rated of the schools (Syracuse and ND) take academics very seriously.
You say “why not go to 65″…well when Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc start pushing the academics side of the field and stop violating so many NCAA rules for athletics I’ll say maybe thats when those schools are entertained.
Point being, there actually is a reasonable and noticeable reason to stop exactly at that point. No more schools of merit to include (ACC excluded).
Though again, complete crazy talk.
LikeLike
Actually, PSU guy, imo Texas is the ONLY school you mention that fits squarely into the present Big 10 norm. All of the others are either a “stretch” or are of a different nature than current BT schools.
LikeLike
To expound on that comment a little–
I think it’s useful to remember that none of the obvious expansion candidates really “fit” the existing Big 10 profile.
Take Mo. Yes, it’s a large, public, research university. However, it’s smaller, by over 10000 students, than any of the existing schools other than Iowa or NW. It’s also 31 spots below the lowest rated Big 10 U on UN News ratings.
Or consider Pitt. It’s 13000 smaller than the typical Big 10 U, and in the 90s in the Director’s Cup standings, some 40 spots below the lowest BT school.
U Conn and Nebraska are 16000 less than the BT norm. That’s a lot.
I’m not saying don’t take Mo or Pitt. Taking 1 or 2 of these schools is not a huge deal. However, when you take 5 at once, it becomes a big deal.
I think most of us on here are at least somewhat pro-expansion. However, when you go on the BT forumsand mention the schools we’re talking about, there’s tremendous skepticism. I think that’s justified.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod
Don’t disagree at all. My simple point is if Mizzou/UConn/Syracuse etc are in the discussions for likely expansion candidate there are literally many schools who fall inside the “minimums” required.
At that point it boils down to just how far does the conference want to push and how quickly?
Again, its crazy talk, but facts are there are some “solid” schools left on the table in even a 16 team conference. Maybe the Big10 doesn’t care about them and fair enough, but to me adding one more team per division while solidifying the conference’s landscape even further might just be worth it…if only in “crazy land”.
LikeLike
While I hope A&M is open to everyone who calls, I would be surprised if they quickly joined the Pac 10 without UT if there is a chance they could join the Big 10 with UT. Given the distances involved to the 2 conferences, having 1 close neighbor and rival in conference is good for travel and fans. It also gives more freedom to non-conference scheduling.
I don’t think UT and A&M are joined at the hip, but I do think UT would prefer to have A&M in the same conference if it moves to a large (13+ schools) conference. The only way I really see them splitting up if Texas moves to a large conference is if A&M prefers to go to the SEC and the SEC wants A&M.
Of course, if UT was to join the Big 10 as the 12th and last member, A&M would probably check if the SEC or Pac 10 would take them. Similarly, if UT went independent or declared it was staying in the Big 12 as other schools bolted the conference, A&M would be open to moving.
LikeLike
I think that’s a pretty spot-on analysis.
What I don’t think any of us know is the extent to which there might be a Legislative roadblock if Texas were to try to split on its own to either the Big 10 or Pac 10 without bringing A&M along. I instinctively believe that A&M and the SEC could easily come to mutually beneficial terms in such a situation, so I don’t know if the pro A&M forces would attempt to stop Texas.
LikeLike
Yeah, I see where you guys are going with this.
But what about this thought; what if A&M is signaling to Texas that it is willing to consider a move as a way of nudging Texas into considering it?
Right now we haven’t heard anything about Texas’ intentions from anyone (whether rumor or not). No one really knows what’s going through the minds of the Texas president and the Texas AD. We know they’re considering a Texas sports network to pick up the Big 12 contract’s slack. But we don’t really know what Texas has planned if the conference gets gutted because they lose all of the big markets outside Texas as well as the North’s national draw.
We do know that A&M has spoken to the Pac-10. They are probably more interested in the SEC as many have mentioned before (and you state).
I think this is A&M’s way of possibly sending smoke in the air.
I mean, Texas should know that A&M is considering different leagues because Texas was also contacted by the Pac-10 according to that source (the Memphis AD, whatever that’s worth).
I do think that Texas is considering its future in private at this point, but is not willing to make any moves until the first domino falls.
Right now Texas probably realizes that as the anchor of the Big 12 it should just act like business is normal so other schools don’t start scrambling to consider their options. It also doesn’t want to set off rumors.
Just imagine, if Texas were to talk to the Pac-10, just talk, that would set off alarms in 11 other schools in the Big 12. You’d have Oklahoma and Texas Tech open channels to the SEC. Kansas would try the Big Ten or the SEC, etc.
That’s probably why Texas told the Pac-10 they weren’t interested. The last thing they want is a scramble to the exit that would also force their hand.
Thus, I would probably just say that it is in Texas’ best interest to not respond to inquiries until Colorado does something.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
I would submit that Texas will not sit still if Nebraska/Colorado/Missouri move out of the Big 12.
That’s the key. The word I’ve used for a couple of years is “grudgingly” Texas is grudgingly content with the status quo — after all, the Big XII, in its current configuration, has been great for Texas athletics across the board. And all things being equal, Texas would prefer nothing to change. But if things do look like they’re about to change, I don’t think Texas will stand idly by and remain stuck in a weakened conference.
The key word in that last sentence is “stuck”. It is foreseeable to me that Texas remains in a weakened Big XII (assuming a Mizzou/NU departure here) if, and only if, the Pac 10 remains a safety net for down the road. In this sense, I’m arguing that Texas may view the Pac 10 in the same way many on this board feel that ND has viewed the Big 10 over the years, as a safety net in which it can fall if independence no longer suit sits needs.
Texas wouldn’t necessarily be “stuck” in a weakened Big XII if the Pac 10 doesn’t expand right away. And if the Pac 10 is unable to agree upon two expansion candidates outside of Texas — and the only plausible pair to me would be Utah and Colorado, and of course neither of those two schools provide the “wow” factor a Texas would bring — perhaps the Pac 10 doesn’t expand, and Texas can experiment with its LSN model, and if that fails, a Pac 10-Texas merger can remain.
But if the Big 10 shows it’s willing to expand without Texas, and if the Pac 10 shows it’s willing to raid the Big XII as well to get to a 12th team, then I think Texas chooses its preferred course, A&M and OU head east and the Big XII as we know it is dead.
LikeLike
All of this means that the timing of this is central.
Right now, the only thing that seems even remotely certain (I would say a solid 50% chance, which is better than anything else we know), is that Colorado is likely to announce a move to the Pac-10 by June/July.
The Pac-10 can’t wait is Texas’ biggest problem. The Pac-10 needs to start inviting teams this summer probably. Thus, where we are in July is probably all that really matters.
The whole 12 to 18 month timeline for the Big Ten is likely a way of letting the Pac-10 lead the way by grabbing Denver away.
Then, the ball starts rolling. Does Texas sit around and wait for Nebraska/Missouri to go to the Big Ten, or does Texas jump in front with a phone call to Delaney.
I’m sure you’ve seen the Continental/US Airways/United merger dance that went on.
Continental jumped in as soon as it heard US Airways was considering merging with United.
I have a hard time not seeing Texas start getting into gear if Colorado leaves.
A Big 12 contract without Colorado/Nebraska/Missouri is probably worth no more than $5-6M a year.
Texas is probably crunching the numbers right now on a Longhorn Network. If the network can pull down $10M+ a year, then it might be willing to do its own thing as the only big market in the Big 12.
Otherwise, there is no doubt in my mind that Texas will put phone calls in to Delaney and Slive the day after Colorado announces.
LikeLike
We’re pretty much in agreement here.
There are plenty of Longhorn observers who believe that the Horns do want to make a move, but can’t go first for political reasons.
If that’s the case, and the Big 10 really wants Texas, then let the Pac 10 pull the trigger first this summer.
LikeLike
Don’t think there really is a “final” list yet, but the size of the expansion (5 teams) and the specific school names leaked of Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers are all highly credible, desireable by objective criteria, located in states contiguous to current Big Ten states and probably available. It is a decent working list even if it is still open to question.
As far as the size of an expansion, the numbers 12 and 16 for league size both sound desireable and workable. Anything in between seems an attempt to hang out indefinitely while Notre Dame and/or Texas (with Texas A&M in tow) change their mind. Just what are these schools going to know in the coming years about the Big Ten that they don’t know now? Plus, if Notre Dame or Texas do have an epiphany and change their minds, couldn’t the Big Ten just expand to an odd number like 17 or 18 or 19 and live with that temporarily? Sixteen is a great number for league size, but it is not an absolute cap.
So to answer your question, the elephant fits quite nicely into the room for now, so let’s just allow it to hang out for awhile and see what happens (and keep our shovels handy).
LikeLike
Not only that… but if Texas sees that these 5 additions added to the pie AND the slices of the pie… they will then realize how much they could add!
The one thing we will not see for a long time is stability.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with you on this one, Hopkins. But again, you’re probably not going to like why. It’s very possible that this “leak” is an effort to exert some leverage on Texas. You mention a Texas bluff. What would they be bluffing about at this point? The leading contender for that answer would be their terms for accepting an invitation, which might not jibe (at the moment, not saying they might not come around) with the team player idea.
And really, why wouldn’t they shoot the moon as their opening price? You never know, you might get it. Texas is one big whopping football brand, made even bigger if ND is off the table, as it seems from all indications.
Anyway, if I had to bet, the five teams are the Plan B position and reservations are still good for Texas if terms can be negotiated, the big if, in my opinion. Prudence would dictate giving some time to see if a meeting of the minds can be reached.
LikeLike
A bluff could be for the reasons you state — negotiations with the Big 10. And it’s quite plausible that the Big 10 and Texas already know that the two parties could never come to mutually-agreeable terms. And if Texas believed that it would be more beneficial (financially-speaking, of course) to strike out on a path other than join the Big 10, I would term that less “not being a team player” and more “looking out for #1,” which pretty much each school is doing. It’s just that Texas happens to hold more cards than the other schools at the table and has more options available to it. I would tend to believe that Nebraska would do the same if it determined that launching a Huskers Sports Network within the framework of the Big XII would be more profitable than its 1/16 share from the BTN.
But if there is a “bluff” — or mutally agreed-to secrecy — going on right now, I would think that the primary reason would be for internal Texas state political reasons. Given all the theoretical roadblocks Texas might have to maneuver if it were to move to the Big 10, it would serve the school’s best interests to keep all speculation as quiet as possible, work out all the backroom deals it needs to in advance, and strike like lightning when the time is right.
I don’t think any of the five schools being speculated about right now face anywhere near the political hurdles Texas would face, so mindless speculation about their chances of winding up in the Big 10 doesn’t result in stirring up a hornet’s nest of internal state political opposition.
LikeLike
I’d be surprised if we hear who the new members are before the deal is done. This is especially true if UT &/ ND are part of the expansion.
LikeLike
No way the ND AD would spring that on his alums…no way, no how
LikeLike
Hopkins,I like your elephant in the room analogy. The only story that I have read about any University being contacted was the Kansas City Star article back around the first of the year and the subject of that article was Texas. Just maybe that is the only University that has been contacted by the Big Ten. Maybe Texas knows that it is the prettiest girl in the room and decides to leverage their looks and asks that A&M and OU be invited to the party too. Why should the administration leave Mack Brown with a ridicoulously difficult out of conference schedule with A&M and OU games that the Longhorns own traditionalists would not do without. I doubt not that there have been back room discussions. There always are in changes this big.
It just might be that the names floated are not the real targets. What if the real targets are Texas, A&M, Notre Dame, Maryland and Pitt? Guess we may never know. Or maybe we will after all the back room agreements are made.
LikeLike
Yeah, for what its worth, the Penn State addition was pretty much unexpected until the announcement from what people have said about it.
We probably will be in for a surprise when the actual schools are announced.
LikeLike
Wes,
I like your five teams, but it might be better if ND were exchanged for NU. It’s nothing against ND, I just think that NU along with UT, TAMU, Pitt & MD would be better institutional fits in the long run.
LikeLike
Two divisions! No, four pods! Enough with the fixation on even numbers, people.
Why is no one proposing a three-pod set-up with an at-large bid to a two week, 4-team conference tournament? If the four-team tourney is going to happen anyways with the pod system, as some have insinuated, why not structure the conference like the National League in baseball?
EAST: Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Michigan State
CENTRAL: Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois
WEST: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri
This keeps Ohio State and Michigan in the same conference and only creates a rematch situation if the two are clearly the best teams in the conference.
(yeah yeah, enough with your NCAA bylaws about conference tournaments and whatnot)
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn (on May 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm),
I now believe that if UT joins tBT, then they will be in it for the long haul w/ an “all for one” attitude. I wasn’t meaning to be down on UT. I got caught up in the perception, instead of the reality.
I don’t mean to patronize you or Playoffs, et al… but if UT fans are generally like you guys, then I’d welcome UT w/ open arms.
How about sub-divisions like…
* West: IA, MN, NU* & WI
* South: IL, IN, UT* & TAMU*
* North: UM, MSU, NW & PU
* East: MD*, OSU, PSU & Pitt*
Would this be appealing?
LikeLike
Let’s take a look at the B12 revenue numbers for the 08-09 and 07-08 years, from a link someone posted earlier:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-funding-analysis_N.htm
For NCAA/conference distributions including all tournament revenues:
08-09:
OU $16.8 million
UT 14.3
KS 12.3
aTm 12
OSU 11.7
MO 11.1
NE 11
TT 10.8
ISU 10.6
CO 9.9
KSU 9.8
= 130.3, if split evenly 11 ways (Baylor info isn’t available because they’re private): 11.8
07-08:
aTm 12.9
OU 12.8
KS 12.3
OSU 11.7
UT 11.3
MO 11.1
ISU 10.6
CO 9.9
NE 9.1
KSU 9.8
TT 9.6
=121.1, split evenly = 11.0, basically the same payout that UT received that year.
Now one thing I’m not sure of is the category “Broadcast, television, radio, and internet rights.” Seems odd that in 08-09 UT, aTM, and OU would have just $.2, .3, and 0 respectively, while ISU, KSU, and OSU made 2.6, 3.0, and 2.5. Is it possible that some schools lumped TV in with NCAA/conference distributions when reporting? If so, here’s the combined totals:
08-09:
KS 17.8
OU 17.1
NE 15.9
MO 14.8
UT 14.5
OSU 14.2
ISU 13.2
KSU 12.8
aTm 12.0
TT 10.8
CO 10.1
= 153.2, split evenly = 13.9, or 96% of what UT received that year.
07-08:
KS 18.3
aTm 16.2
NE 13.0
OU 13.0
TT 12.8
KSU 12.3
MO 12.2
OSU 11.9
UT 11.5
ISU 11.4
CO 9.7
= 142.3, split evenly = 12.9, or $1.4 million more than what UT received that year.
I’m not really seeing how schools are being screwed by Texas. If you have a good year you can get a jump in earnings, but that’s the same for everyone. Where Texas blows the rest away is in ticket sales, royalties, and contributions (donors.) Do other conferences equally share that?
And UT isn’t even the most profitable (net revenue – net expenses) program in the conference, aTm is. Profit:
08-09:
aTm 15.8 [20.3 less 4.5 DIS (Direct Institutional Support, aka the school subsidy to the athletic dept.)]
UT 10.8
NE 4.4
MO 1.8 [4.5 less DIS 2.7]
KS 0.5 [2.3 less 1.8 DIS]
OU 0.1
TT -1.2 [2.0 less 3.2 DIS]
ISU -3.6 [0 less 3.6 DIS]
CO -3.9 [1.7 less 5.6 DIS]
KSU -4.7 [-2.8 less 1.9 DIS]
OSU -22.3[-20.0 less DIS 2.3] (They have big losses when T. Boone Pickens isn’t donating mega millions. But one year they were $240 million in the black!)
07-08:
aTm 11.7
UT 9.3
didn’t run the numbers on the rest, but OU and NE were under 1.0
In addition, several of these schools could increase their portion if they would schedule decent non-conference games instead of I-AA matchups so bad that they can’t get on TV. That’s a gamble to make sure they get into a bowl, but it hurts their guaranteed payout. In contrast OSU plays a decent OOC schedule and gets a revenue bump, so some of the disparity is self-inflicted.
Some of the moaning about how devastating the B12’s unequal revenue sharing is appears to be overblown.
LikeLike
That said, I think the other schools are justified in being livid that UT blocked the creation of a B12 channel, even if it is a costly and risky venture.
LikeLike
I think your 2nd set of numbers look more accurate to my understanding of the splits. (like I know anything)
But for the 1AA match-ups for OU, they actually bank, as they put those games on Pay-Per-View, and they don’t share that money with anyone in the league, as it’s outside the league’s TV deals. (I doubt that Colorado or Iowa State, get the same bank on the 1AA games)
I’d take the net profit numbers with a grain of salt, as the OU athletic department is one of the few in the country to give money to the University.
LikeLike
Here’s a thought:
At first glance, Dienhart’s divisions make no sense since too many rivalries would be broken up. But you could actually have 4 actual divisions and semifinals so long as the NCAA changes one rule: the one where each teams has to play everyone else on their half of the conference to have a championship game. Here’s what may be possible if the NCAA plays along:
There would be 4 divisions:
North: Wisconsin, Minny, Michigan, MSU
West: Iowa, Nebraska, Mizzou, Illinois
South: Northwestern, IU, PU, OSU
East: PSU, Pitt, SU, RU
There would be set rivals between teams in all the divisions with one other except between West-South & North-East
So you would play
3 intradivision games
2 permanent interdivisional rivalry games
3 games against one other team from each of the 3 divisions.
The 9th game would not be set and would be between West-South & North-East teams in the order they finish in their division (so the game between the 2 division winners is a semifinal) and takes place Thanksgiving week, alternating each year to take place all in West stadiums or all in South stadiums (for example).
The permanent interdivisional rivalries would be
Minn-Nebraska
Wisconsin-Iowa
Michigan-Illinois
MSU-Mizzou
OSU-PSU
Northwestern-SU
IU/PU-Pitt/RU
IU/PU-Pitt/RU
Michigan-OSU
Wisconsin-Northwestern
MSU/Minn-IU/PU
MSU/Minn-IU/PU
Nebraska-PSU
Iowa-Pitt
Illinois/Mizzou-SU/RU
Illinois/Mizzou-SU/RU
2 rivalries broken: Iowa-Minnesota & Illinois-Northwestern (technically, Indiana-Illinois & Purdue-Northwestern are broken as well, but no one would miss them). UofI-NU can be nonconf (really, the students of neither side care too much). Don’t know how much they care about Floyd of Rosedale up there, though Iowa gains 2 new border rivals and Minnesota gains an annual game with Nebraska plus their battle for the Little Brown Jug becomes an annual affair again, so that may satisfy them. I guess they could flip to Minnesota-Iowa & Wisconsin-Nebraska if they wanted to.
The only current Big10 school that wouldn’t have an annual game against either Michigan or OSU would be Iowa. Again, they could flip the rivalries to be Iowa-PSU & Nebraska-Pitt if they cared that much.
LikeLike
For the old Big10 schools, the frequency that each school plays Michigan or OSU wouldn’t change that much, just the distribution. Wisconsin, Minny, IU, PU, & Northwestern would play one of those 2 all the time and the other 1/3rd of the time instead of each 75% of the time; for MSU, the drop would be from playing OSU 75% of the time to 1/3rd. For PSU & Illinois, it’d be at least 1.25 times vs. those 2, though they could meet one of them in the semifinals as well.
Iowa would play those 2 the least, though maybe having permanent games against Nebraska & PSU would satisfy them.
LikeLike
Oh, finally, another key point is that the permanent interdivisional rivals (like Michigan-OSU & OSU-PSU) wouldn’t meet again unil the championship game, and to do that, they have to both win their division and win their semifinal game, so it should be more rare (and even if it occurs, wouldn’t be back-to-back).
LikeLike
The problem I have with having two inter-divisional rivalries is that it means that you play the other teams too infrequently. For instance, as a Michigan fan, I would be very disappointed to play Penn State only once out of every four years (or twice out of every eight). It seems more logical to simply put as many rivals as you can in each division while conserving some semblance of competitive balance. That way, teams will play teams in other divisions twice every four to six years, as opposed to twice every six to eight years.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s true. What that would do, though, is spread the times other Big10 teams will play OSU & Michigan (and PSU+Nebraska) unevenly. As most schools would want visits from those top draws in order to sell season ticket packages, coming up with pods agreeable to all would be difficult.
In any case, if semifinals are allowed, all Michigan has to do to consistently meet PSU is win it’s division, since PSU will likely win its division most years.
LikeLike
Not sure about the Eastern schools but that’s not true for the Western schools. Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska would sell out every game regardless of opponent, but the most passionate draws are neighboring states. Similarily, Minnesota’s biggest draws are Wisconsin and Iowa and Northwestern draws well for Wisconsin, Iowa and Illinois.
Playing OSU, PSU and UM are nice, but not at the expense of missing closer rivals. For that reason, I believe it would be difficult to have any arrangement whereby Iowa/Minnesota/Wisconsin did not play every year.
LikeLike
Can’t speak for the other schools, but the Michigan and OSU games are the only ones Northwestern consistently sell out. Sad but true.
LikeLike
I’m not sure, but I may be the first ND alum to voice my support for joining a conference on this message board.
I’m a recent graduate in my mid 20s. I was born and raised in Dallas and have heard views from many different perspectives on this issue.
I loved the undergrad ND football experience. I loved being able to see teams from across the country every single year. It was fresh, dynamic competition. I preferred it to the schedules of friends who went to schools in the Big 12 South, Indiana, Northwestern, and Boston College (who split time in the Big East and ACC while I was a student). I loved the variety ND saw because I didn’t want ND to be regionalized. ND is a national school and draws its students from all over, sends its alumni all over, and reflects that diversity in its schedule.
It’s okay that ND is in a conference in all sports but football. I don’t think it’s hypocritical. Football independence is something ND alumni value deeply, just because it’s the way it always was.
That being said…
The game of college football has changed, and not subtly. Would it be great if there were a dozen powerful independent schools? Yes! Would it be great (or easier) if all conferences were strictly regional, avoiding the mess of schools leaving? Yes! Would it be great if BC missed the kick in ’93? Yes!
Notre Dame is good for football and is still relevant. ND as we know it today is the result of a number of social, economic, religious, and political events. I think the window of opportunity for ND to disappear from college football’s name-elite has passed. ND isn’t going to disappear like Army (I pray). ND doesn’t have to be independent to be followed nationally. Enough people around the country are familiar with the idea of Notre Dame thanks to television and computers.
So here is the situation: you can either continue to compete with the big boys by joining a super conference, or you can hang out with lesser competition. ND became ND by challenging the biggest and the best. It is 2010, and you may not be able to compete against the biggest and the best while being independent. Which trait do you value more, ND alumni? The desire to push yourself to excellence, or independence?
Notre Dame won’t disappear if it joins a conference. At some point, Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern joined a conference, and students from across the country still apply to the schools. Being part of a conference has not diminished the academic prestige of those schools.
It will be sad to see independence go, but sooner or later, the bandage HAS to be removed. Why not put yourself in the best possible situation academically and athletically and join the right conference, before you have to settle for something inferior?
The sun will come out the next day. I promise.
LikeLike
Good Lord!
Y’know, when I was at ND, we didn’t panic about ‘changing situations’. We are not, nor are we anywhere near, where the Superconferences will keep ND out. For the love of all that’s Holy let’s not jump on the first offer that comes out of fear of a potentiality. If the worst comes to pass and Independents are permanently shut off from Nat’l Championships, then a conference should probably be joined. But there’s no reason to do so until we hit that point. We’re Notre Dame, for God’s sake. The point where a conference *must* be joined probably won’t be reached for another decade at least.
ND should look very hard at offers, especially if they’re from gigantic midwestern secular institutions that don’t understand us and don’t really want to.
If you think that those of us who went to ND think that joining the Big Ten will lessen the prestige of the place academically, you’re mistaken. That’s not really the issue. It’s branding and marketing, and you know it. As Ol’ Chuck Lennon said back in 1999, “Our brand name is something special. We’d rather be one of one than one of 12.” Let’s not forget that truth, ‘kay?
What makes you think the Big Ten is the best place anyway?
LikeLike
As a Longhorn fan, I’m beginning to hope that we don’t wind up in a conference with the Irish either. 🙂
LikeLike
“Holy let’s not jump on the first offer that comes out of fear of a potentiality.”
It’s not the first offer. And I believe the argument is that this is closer to the last offer.
LikeLike
I would recharacterize “last offer” as “last chance”. I do not believe ND will receive an offer to join the Big Ten. All public statements by Big Ten officies indicate that ND is not going to be part of the Big Ten.
1. After the incidents of 1999 and 2004, Jim Delaney went on record as saying that if ND wanted to join the Big Ten it would have to apprach the Big Ten.
2. Barry Alvarez said that ND would not join the Big Ten for the same reasons that FLP_NDRox is saying.
3. Joe Paterno said that expansion is like marriage and that you need to make sure your parter has the same commitment that you do.
4. Delaney has said that he is looking at how expansion will help the Big Ten 50 years from now. Frankly, as an Irish Catholic, I believe the in 50 years ND’s national prestige will be closer to 2010 Army rather than 1990 Notre Dame as the television dollars will be earned by and BCS / playoffs rules will be set by major conferences.
Add in the strange public statements from ND’s Fr. Jenkins and Jack Swarbrick about ND being “regionalized” in a conference and the reaction from many ND alumni, I believe there is virtually no chance the Big Ten would invite. Yes, they would add value but the value would not be as much as they think it is and it is becoming very clear that ND and the Big Ten are not good institutional fits at the Athletic Department level (the ND faculty had previously voted to join the Big Ten).
ND will continue its football independence and will try to find the best home for other sports. ND will pursue its vision and the Big Ten will pursue theirs. At the end of the day, it will be interesting to see where both parties are 50 years from now.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – I think that most of us understand the Catholic identity portion of the argument from ND alums. There are legit academic and religious reasons why a Catholic university may have reservations in participating in an academic consortium with schools that may perform research (such as stem cell research) that would go against the principles of the Church. If ND refuses Big Ten membership on those grounds, then no one has a right to call ND deluded or arrogant – it’s following Church doctrine. It’s the other stuff that ND fans bring up constantly that just don’t jive with the media world in 2010. Most of us find the “national school”/scheduling arguments extremely weak (if not downright perplexing). We’ve been going around and around about this, but lots of schools are on national TV every week (including but not limited to every single Big Ten school) compared to even just a few years ago, when ND’s TV coverage was truly unique. ND won’t be transformed into a “regional” school in the Big Ten (or any other conference) any more than Stanford is a regional school in the Pac-10 or Duke is a regional school in the ACC. I think that the religious argument is more than valid, but the “regionalization” argument is simply off base considering how much the entire media landscape has changed in the past decade.
LikeLike
Frank, I think there’s some validity to the scheduling argument.
ND does lose control over 3 or 4 games if it joins the BT.
Those are games it can’t play on the west coast, in the ACC region, or in TX. If a good # of your alums and/or recruits live in those regions, you have a legit reason for wanting flexibility to play there.
I realize ND’s schedule for the next year or two may not reflect these objectives…..
LikeLike
@Frank:
I’m with Mushroom somewhat. Maybe they lose the current faux national schedule, but more importantly they would lose flexibility. Most of the arguments I’ve seen regarding ND are that with the BigTen they could still schedule USC and Navy OOC and be fine. Which sounds good in theory to those who don’t have to live with it.
With 16 teams, however, I see the BigTen conference schedule moving to 9 games. For ND, that leaves 1 game a year that can be used for matchups with Stanford, Army, or whoever ND feels gives them a “national” schedule now.
Moreover, locking down 2/3 OOC opponents every year will kill the idea that they’d ever play a different big name opponent. ND isn’t scheduling Alabama, Oklahoma, Miami, etc. if their schedule already includes USC, Michigan, and some combination of Texas/Neb/OSU/PSU/Wisc/Iowa.
It’d be a patsy home-only game, every year, plus USC/Navy/BigTen. That’d get old. It’s these marquee, rare matchups that generate buzz. Look at the OSU-USC or OSU-Texas series over the last five years, or Alabama-PSU this year. I think ND joining is unlikely at this point, because I think they’d have to sacrifice at least the yearly with USC in order to have flexibility. That’s a tough sell, and I imagine it’d sit about as well as losing Oklahoma did with Nebraska fans.
LikeLike
“It’d be a patsy home-only game, every year, plus USC/Navy/BigTen. That’d get old.”
Yes, in the old 11 team Big 10 that would get old.
However, there are a lot of 16 team scenarios out there (my particular favorite is most aggressive)…and even if the league goes to 9 conference games (which I do NOT think is automatic), you will have a 3-4 fixed games a year in the Big 10, and the other 5 will rotate.
What does THAT look like?
Patsy at home
USC (home and away yearly)
Navy (home and “variable national site” yearly)
Michigan
MSU
Purdue
That’s six games that are constant.
Then, you’ll have the other six games which will rotate among (in my favorite scenario)…
Texas
Texas A/M
Nebraska
Penn State
Rutgers (NY/NJ Catholic crowds are huge)
Wisconsin
Iowa
The five other Big 10 members
And finally, if the conference schedule stays at 8, another marquee OOC game
Worst case scenario, your schedule is 33% different every single season. Every 4 years, there will be “repeat” teams within a conference….BUT it still offers some significant geographical variety and yearly variation.
LikeLike
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s go with a 16team B10, in pod scheduling, with 8 conference games.
ND’s potential B16 sched:
3 locked annual Pod Games
2 locked annual OOC Games (USC and Navy)
5 conference OOP games (5 games rotated around 12 teams in perpetuity).
2 unlocked OOC games
41.67% locked forever
41.67% rotated between the same 12 teams forever.
16.67% actually open
with 9 conference games, it looks likes:
41.67% locked forever
50% rotated between the same 12 teams forever
8.33% actually open
This compares poorly with the status quo:
16.67% happily locked
25% Big Ten rivalry games
16.67%-25% Big East rotation (2 or 3 games against 6 Big East Teams rotated)
25-33.33% actually open
I’m not surprised that the average Big Ten fan doesn’t understand ND’s issue about scheduling flexibility. Only Iowa and Illinois play annual OOC rivalry games with non-ND opponents (ISU and Mizzou respectively). No B10 team has multiple OOC rivalries. All Big Ten teams have the same completely available dates as ND does now. Am I the only one who remembers the issues that were discussed on this blog previously about potentially going to a ten game conference schedule? That is precisely what the Big Ten is asking ND to do annually as per scheduling freedom.
LikeLike
@ Frank
Mani’ and ‘shroom’ are correct. I think the problem is the term “National”. Big Ten fans generally take that to mean that the game gets national TV coverage and interest. ND uses it to mean geographic schedule variety. Great analogy, BTW, Mani, re ND-USC = Neb.-Okla.
As for the Regional school discussion. I think it was you who stated that many kids on the east coast would be surprised to find out the Big Ten academic profile is closer to UVA than K-State. ND wants to make sure that kids all across America don’t make that mistake with ND. And we are rather enamored with the variety in the schedule.
@ gylynch17
IIRC, Big Ten also said it was the last time back in 1999.
Barry Alvarez was a former ND assistant. I thought he would have made a fine NDHC after Lou and later davie. He “gets” ND. And he acknowledges it would be a poor fit.
You may be right, re 50yrs from now. Considering that large public universities located in large population states seem to be holding all the power and money due to TV and politics, I’m not sure if joining a conference will help. Notre Dame intends to remain small, Catholic, and in Indiana. You state that in the future ND may be more like Army than ND of twenty years ago. Sadly, that may yet come to pass. However if we join a conference, given current trends, there’s no reason not to think that ND won’t end up being closer to say Vandy today than ND 20yrs ago. I’d personally rather be Navy than Vandy, but that’s me.
LikeLike
FLP_ND, I think Notre Dame’s brand and Notre Dame’s academic reputation go hand-in-hand. I believe people fear Notre Dame will just be another Midwestern college if it joins the Big Ten.
Most kids growing up in Texas don’t know anything about the academic reputations of Big Ten schools (unless their parents were Midwest transplants). Fewer kids know where Northwestern is.
Do kids know where South Bend is? No, many don’t, but a decent chunk knows what Notre Dame is and that it has a strong academic reputation. A lot of people first heard the name of the school from football games on television. Joining a conference will not remove Notre Dame from the ears and eyes of the media.
I would be more concerned with what we lose by joining a conference if we lived in an era without 1) big television and 2) the Internet. People are growing more tech-savvy. People can communicate on message boards, forums, blogs, and websites. There are plenty of resources out there to educate people on what ND is.
Notre Dame can still market itself as a different kind of school in a conference in 2010. In fact, they can do just what you said: position the school as one of one, and not one of twelve. There are plenty of avenues to do so.
If you don’t want ND to join the Big Ten, then what? Because if the word on the street is real, the day is coming when we will have to join a conference. I know the SEC is out. The Big 12 and Big East are doubtful. Would you rather join the Pac-10 or ACC? Joining either would basically guarantee a national (re: not Midwestern) schedule.
I would love to remain independent forever, but I fear we’ll be left behind competing for Conference USA titles if we don’t plan ahead.
LikeLike
Simple. I vote we keep doing what we’re doing. If in two years the Big Ten is at 16, it’s no skin off our noses. There are still at least 5 BCS conferences. We may not get to play as many Big Ten teams, but I’m sure we’ll manage. Taking five schools from likely the BXII-north and the Big East is no deathblow to us. In the short-term it may even mean more fellow independents to schedule.
Aside from the BXII and maybe the PAC-10 going to twelve, and the Big East either attempting to reload or going to football independence, there’s minimal change in the landscape.
It sounds to me like you are taking a world of 3-4 Superconferences as a given. I don’t. There’s no extra money for expanding…unless you have a cable channel or something. Only the Big Ten has that.
Plus, we’ve yet to see if a 16 team conference is sustainable. a B16 seriously probably would be. For anyone else, it’s gonna be tricky. The WAC-16 collapsed in a mere three years. Let’s see more than a single conference survive at >12 members for some time.
OK, *IF* all the current BCS conferences go to the superconference model, and make plans to keep the nat’l championship to themselves alone, then it may be time for ND to move.
Notre Dame is still quite a brand. Why be the first domino when you can easily be the last. Especially since ND football is coming off the worst 20yrs in history and the economy stinks. There’s no reason not to play for time and see how it all develops.
LikeLike
The WAC example is a strawman, but you do have a point.
Only the Big Ten and SEC can support 16 team conferences. They’re the only conferences with the networks putting the money on the table to make it worth expanding.
The SEC could probably figure out a way to redo their contracts with CBS and ESPN if they really need to expand. There’s no way CBS and ESPN would get in the way of an SEC expansion if teams like Oklahoma or WV/VTech or Texas Tech were on the list.
But in terms of money and logistics, it almost makes no sense for the Pac-10 to go to 16 without Texas and talk of the ACC or Big East expanding is pretty much a joke.
I fully agree with you that the world of super conferences is not coming.
In fact, there are only going to be two “superconferences,” and the rest will just get by and not be as rich, which is just what’s happened the past 2-3 years.
Thus, the NCAA will continue, and Notre Dame will have a spot at the table as an Independent for the next 50 years.
There’s just no way that the ACC or Pac-10 all of a sudden becomes monstrously profitable and able to support additions anytime soon or even for the next 20-40 years.
The more I do think about it, I don’t really see a need for Notre Dame to move until the Pac-10 and ACC prove they can go to 16 or more.
LikeLike
“Only the Big Ten and SEC can support 16 team conferences.”
While I think we’ll have at least 5 BCS conferences, I could see a scenario where the ACC goes to 16 schools and starts its own network.
Remember, since the ACC is going to make less money per school than the Big 10, schools that wouldn’t make money for the Big 10 could still raise the payout for ACC schools if they get a network.
If the Big 10 only takes 2 Big East schools (say Rutgers and Syracuse) while the SEC doesn’t take any ACC schools (either grabbing schools from the West or not expanding at all), the ACC might decide to make a 16 team conference with 4 regional pods:
FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson
UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest
Virginia, V Tech, Maryland, West Virginia/Louisville*
BC, UConn, Pitt, ND/Buffalo**
*West Virginia gives poor academics but great regional rivalries. Louisville is a geographic outlier, but might have a better academic reputation (don’t really know).
**Notre Dame has national and regional appeal and Buffalo is a big regional school.
Again, the ACC network doesn’t need to make as much money as the Big 10 network to raise what the schools are currently getting.
This conference is a good basketball conference, with the only 2 New England schools, all the major college powers but one from South Carolina to Maryland, and 2 big Florida schools (even though neither are as big as U of Florida).
This conference wouldn’t get much more national respect than the current ACC, but it would be able to get a network on cable in each region it covers. Not as valuable as the Big 10, but perhaps profitable enough.
LikeLike
The only problem I see is that the ACC won’t have the heft to be able to negotiate much outside of Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland. Maybe that’s enough, but I don’t really know.
There’s a ton of risk in starting a network and the ACC doesn’t seem like it’ll take that kind of chance.
And then adding schools that are on the Big Ten’s list don’t seem like they’d add anything. Maybe WVU and Conn would, but there’s no chance that Syracuse in the ACC would add anything. The Big Ten has the negotiating strength to pull off some of these additions…
LikeLike
@IrishTexan: Welcome to Frank the Tank’s board! It is great to hear such a fresh perspective from a recent Notre Dame grad. Your points sound intelligent and thoughtful. It is great to hear from someone so passionate about their school who can also see the benefits and flaws from both sides. Please comment more on Frank’s board. We need more like you.
LikeLike
@davidpsu: Thanks for the welcome! I look forward to getting involved in discussion here.
LikeLike
IrishTexan, as a fellow alum who is not freshly minted, let me add some context — dynamics means everthing in this dicussion. For example, if in three years, Kelly is 19 – 19, your analysis makes more sense, if in three years Kelly is 32-7, it sure doesn’t. Never negotiate when you are at near historic lows — and if PSU guy or Illini guy congratulates you for being reasonable, take a deep breath. ND can afford take a chance that the train will leave without us. If the Big 10 adds Missouri, Nebraska and Pitt, our fundamental position in the market is not affected negatively at all. As I have posted on a prior thread, we will lose not one additional student to the newly reconstituted Big 14, not one.
LikeLike
This link is for Notre Dame fans who claim that the Big 10 (16) schedule would be too boring and regional if they were ever to join the Big 10 (16). Scroll down to “MicahAndMe” post.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=5598641&p=9
I want you to look at your current schedule(s) and look at those and give me your honest feedback. (Keep in mind that you’ll be without a conference for your other 15 sports in a few years as well.)
LikeLike
@allthatyoucantleavebehind
ND fans hate their current and near future scheduling. They view the scheduling as a conspiracy between their AD and various schools who don’t want to schedule them during their conference season (and possibly Fielding Yost). If you say that their schedule has very few “national interest” opponents, they will agree with you and offer you a position in their plan to kidnap their AD and other schools’ AD and force them to play each other.
What they do not realize is that their current schedule is a direct result of trying to get a roughly comparable amount of tv money. For NBC to agree to their current contract, they had to have a night game (the neutral site) and 7 other home games, which effectively leaves them with 4 buy games a year, more than any conference team.
LikeLike
@ ATYCLB
ND’s future schedules are still incomplete. I think Swarbrick’s only managed to get c. 54 of 72 games set in seasons 2011-16 at most judging from a quick googling that has vastly different ideas of how far along the process is and not even all the teams are the same.
essentially after going thru the post, you are asking if ND fans would prefer:
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois
Texas
TAMU
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Northwestern
and potentially teams like SDSU or Vandy, and I suppose further down the line OSU, Indiana, and PSU.
over
USF
Maryland
Stanford
Baylor
Wake Forest
Arizona State
BYU
and whatever else we can find?
Uh, while neither look great, I’ll take what we already have, thanks.
Between who the Irish have scheduled 2002-2010, and who we think will be on the schedule 2011-2016, here’s who we play by conference:
7 different ACC teams (of 12)
6 Pac-10 teams (of 10)
5 Big East Teams (of 8)
2 BXII (of 12)
1 SEC (of 12)
9 non-BCS teams
and only *4* Big Ten Teams out of 11.
that’s the scheduling diversity in a bad 14 years. To get that kind of scheduling diversity in a conference will take the better half of a century.
LikeLike
forgot to mention:
1. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see a problem sticking with the BE Catholic schools, esp. if they add some A10 Catholic schools or something to cover the base and lax sports.
2. Still a little sick of TAMU from all those Cotton Bowl matchups in the 80s-90s that never managed to turn into a rivalry (although we did enjoy the bootleg t-shirts).
3. Underwhelmed by the Texas experience when we played them in 1996 (?) Bob Davie took over for an ill Lou and led the team to a 55-0 (?) win. Really got sick of “I’ve Been Working On the Railroad” from the Longhorn band. 😉
4. Pretty sure there’s a reason we don’t schedule Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc.
LikeLike
From a UH Cougar message board:
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=215&f=2804&t=5907475&p=7
(Requires registration, but is free.)
rangercoog
Posted: 4/27/2010 12:48 PM
Re: SEC studying expansion…..
I guess it’s time to dust of an old post.
A couple years ago I went to a media day event in Birmingham when I was stationed there as a guest of one of the Deputy Commissioners. I spoke with him and a couple of other SEC executives and we talked about expansion… of course I mentioned UH. Here is a summary of what they said off the record….
The SEC will allow current member teams to veto any expansion in their State. Therefore it is unlikely that any team from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, or Louisiana will be seriously considered.
If they expand west, then they would likely go after two teams in Texas or Oklahoma. In their pipe dreams they would like to add Texas and Oklahoma, but agree that such expansion is unlikely without some significant concessions. They also mentioned that expansion ‘west’ would be preferable.
If they expand east, they would likely go after two teams in North Carolina, Virginia, or West Virginia. Their pipe dream would be to add West Virginia and Virginia Tech, and they feel like they could pull this off. They mentioned that North Carolina would be a team that they are interested in but feel that loyalty to the ACC would be an issue.
Of course I asked about Houston, and the response was generally positive. They said that every time they brain storm expansion scenarios UH is at least mentioned as an outside possibility, as is TCU and ECU. But when they discuss expansion they primarily focus on stealing teams from existing BCS conferences which they believe they could pull off.
One guy said that the Houston and Dallas markets are VERY compelling, and he was certain that any expansion into these markets would get wide support from existing member teams, since many SEC teams already recruit in there areas. He said TCU and UH are ‘good enough’ to be considered legitimate contenders, and at the same time, not considered too much of a challenge to existing SEC teams.
Up side for TCU and UH is that both teams have a decent history and played in a ‘big’ conference in the past with some success. Both teams have shown recent quality improvement, both teams play is BIG markets, and both teams sit in the middle of rich recruiting grounds.
Down side for both teams is that neither team actually dominates their market. Attendance for both teams is well below the SEC average which is about 75,000. Another downside for both programs is facilities. The perception is adding TCU and UH would help us much more than the SEC as a whole.
While expansion west for TCU and UH is not impossible, under the existing circumstances it isn’t very likely either. If we had a new stadium that averaged 40K in attendance then it would be much easier for the SEC to consider us, in fact it would almost be a no-brainer. Some is true for TCU, although their attendance is in the low 30s, they are still lower than the worst SEC school Vandy.
——–
Same author, a week later:
Posted: Today 10:11 AM
Re: BIG 10 and PAC 10 Expansion
I just had an interesting conversation with my old friend for the SEC office in B’ham. Everything we discussed was off the record, so I’m not sharing names.
(1) The SEC is NOT seriously considering expanding into Texas. HOWEVER, they will target UT and A&M if the Pac-10 seriously makes an effort to expand into Texas. Right now the SEC is not going to do anything, but they will also not sit by and allow the Pac-10 to expand into a market that the SEC thinks is a natural market for the SEC.
(2) If the SEC does make a push for Texas, they will be looking at Texas Only. There is no interest in bringing in Oklahoma or any othe Oklahoma schools.
(3) If the SEC decides to exapnd they will likely expand big and go to 16 teams with an East and West Division. The West division would be the 4 Texas teams, Arkansas, LSU, and the two Mississippi teams. East Divison will be everyone else in the SEC.
(4) The Texas Universities that are being looked at are: UT and A&M (naturally). Strong contenders TTU, TCU, and UH, Out side shots: North Texas, SMU, Baylor. He would not confirm that any discussions are currenlty being held with any Texas teams, but he said, and I paraphase “The University of Texas is driving the bus on this one, they are going to be the ones that decides who comes in with them”
——-
Posted: Today 12:15 PM
Re: BIG 10 and PAC 10 Expansion
He didn’t want to discuss any potential Texas teams other than to say UT and A&M are ‘do or die’ teams. If they can’t get them then they wouldn’t want to expand.
When I asked him to expand on the stong contenders (TTU, UH, TCU) all he said was that each team has it’s pluses and minuses, and really all it boils down to is what UT would want to get this done.
LikeLike
Translation…the SEC wants Texas (the state) and is willing to just about anything to get it.
If the Texas State Legislature forces Texas/TAMU to pair up with their “idiot cousins”, just like they did with the Big8, the SEC is willing to have them come along.
Makes the play for Texas very interesting…
LikeLike
Sounds like the SEC is giving Texas all the leverage, which provides Texas with a hedge against the Big Ten.
That also sounds like the smartest power play at this point. It’s the kind of move that could leave Texas on the table the longest, which would be a win for the SEC if Texas feels it needs to join a conference and the Big Ten and Pac-10 have already expanded.
LikeLike
Do keep in mind that we’re using an anonymous posting on a University of Houston message board as the basis for this belief.
That being said, if this is true, and I want to stay consistent with my stated belief that Texas will not end up in the SEC, I would argue that Texas will not allow itself to wind up in a situation in which joining the SEC is the only means of escaping a dying Big XII. If it hits a “now or never” time with both the Big 10 and the Pac 10 during this round of realignment, then Texas ultimately says “now”. In which direction, who knows?
As I argued a few comments above, I think it is feasible that the Pac 10 decides it’s only worth expanding if it can lure Texas, and if Texas says no, the Pac 10 stays at 10 and the Big XII either stays at 10 or picks up a couple of spare parts, and the Horns give it a go launching the LSN.
LikeLike
Everything in that post makes sense even if it is admittedly an anonymous post on an internet board.
I mean, the SEC really wants Texas. Even if Texas wouldn’t touch the SEC with a ten foot pole, the SEC will let Texas know that it’s willing to jump any hoop.
But your point about the Pac-10 is interesting. As we discussed above, the Pac-10 is the likely first mover due to the fact that it’s contract negotiations come up in a few years.
If there is no Pac-10 announcement this summer, then the stakes drop dramatically for Texas and even the Big Ten as well.
The first domino at this point has to be Colorado for Texas to move. It is hard for me to see Nebraska being as willing to jump if Colorado says no to the Pac-10 or the Pac-10 doesn’t take Colorado.
I still believe there’s almost no chance of Texas going to the SEC regardless of what the SEC has said about Texas’ willingness in the past.
At this point, my scenarios are 1) Colorado moves, then Texas calls the Big Ten and SEC (to at least have as a second option), or 2) Colorado doesn’t move, and Texas most likely sticks it out.
I don’t really see any scenario where Texas goes to the SEC unless the Big Ten takes 5 teams right now (which is very unlikely with Texas on the board).
LikeLike
I just mean that Texas will use the SEC as leverage for the Big Ten to give it a free pass on the buy in or something… The buy in negotiation with Texas will have to be the cheapest if not free because of the sheer size of Texas’ markets.
LikeLike
@ zeek – What Colorado does or doesn’t do will have no bearing on Nebraska. There hasn’t been much love lost between the two for many years now. Pretty certain that Nebraska and Missouri both would be mortal locks to accept an invite to the Big Ten, even if a number of factors which make a prospective merger attractive weren’t there. The payday is just too good, and neither school could approach that part of the deal anywhere else that makes some logical sense as a possible new or old home.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
As a UT fan, if you had your choice, where would you like UT to end up… in the BT, Pac, SEC, B12, Ind. or something else?
Also, if you select a conference… What others would you like to move with UT (or in the case of staying in the B12, whom would you like to join)?
I’m sure you’ve said this in the past, but I don’t remember and am curious.
I’m an Iowa fan and I’d love to see UT, TAMU, NU, Pitt & MD join. If UT & TAMU aren’t on the table for tBT, then I’d probably have to go with NU, Pitt, SU, RU & MD/UConn.
LikeLike
Not only have I believed that Texas will join the Big 10, I have long been an advocate of that position. (And, yes, I’m sure that one of those sentences gave birth to the other. In what order, I don’t know.)
I believe that the Big 10 offers the most long-term financial stability to Texas. I say this as a skeptic of the proposed LSN.
I believe that the Big 10 offers the best academic situation for the university as a whole. Texas has underachieved at the undergraduate level — it’s good, but with all the oil money Texas is sitting on (yes, cliches come to life!), Texas should be one of the best, if not the best, public institution in the country. Hanging around a better bunch of school can only help Texas reach its full potential.
Athletically, the Big 10 offers the best and most appropriate level of competition for Texas, with the glaring exception of baseball.
But most important for me is that I think it is the best cultural fit for the school. I’ve traveled far and wide in the USA (just click my user name for the photographic proof, and, please, license a photo or 20!!!), and the Big 10 just feels right to me. I think we have a lot more in common with the Michigans and Wisconsins and Iowas of the world than we do the schools of the other mentioned conferences.
Not please do not confuse me with the typical Longhorn supporter. When this topic comes up on the Longhorn board I play on, I would say there’s roughly an even split between those who would advocate a move to the Big 10 and those who would support a move to the Pac 10. (And, yes, there are a handful of extraordinarily articulate Longhorn supporters [trust me, you HAVE to click on that link!] who would want to go to the SEC.)
But the strong majority of Longhorn fans seem to support staying in the Big XII rather than move at all. I acknowledge that, but I also wager a good sum of money that most who state such a belief do so believing that Texas will make its choice of conference affiliation in a vacuum, absent any influence of what might be going on in the rest of the country. If the Big XII winds up being wounded as badly as many of us foresee it being wounded, I think support for staying in the Big XII would drop like a rock.
That being said, the selfish, new-California-resident in me wouldn’t be too disappointed if Texas wound up in the Pac 10 instead. 🙂
As for the second part of your question, if NU and Mizzou alone departed (counting out a Pac 10 grab of CU for this), I would want Texas to add Utah and BYU. If that didn’t work out, I would rather the Big XII stay pat at 10 than start trying to force-feed schools like TCU into the mix.
LikeLike
I think we had 100 comments based on a University President saying something at a sorority event. You know, the oft-occurring event of male Presidents having dinner at sorority houses to discuss athletic conference expansion in great detail.
Heck… we should an experiment. Someone go to Chicago… write 5 candidate schools on a napkin… drop it on the floor and walk out. See if those 5 schools make it to a message board, blog, or newspaper article!!!
LikeLike
Even better, print three exact copies, with boxes to check next to the names, drop one in Chicago, one in South Bend and one in Austin.
LikeLike
Yeah…. it could be a “Delaney’s Things to do List”
Call Nebraska and invite to celebratory dinner regarding confirmed expansion plans.
Pick-up dry cleaning.
Continue raid of Big East.
Call Missouri. Tell them to shut up about their invitation.
Oil change.
LikeLike
Hopkins,
I would question whether you think the following chain of events is a reasonable possibility:
Big Ten expands and takes away Nebraska and Missouri (along with a Big East team or three), reducing the number of Big 12 teams to ten.
Then, the Pac 10 invites Texas and Texas A&M. Both schools refuse.
The Pac 10 decides to invite Colorado (and possibly Utah) even though this would not necessarily greatly increase the Pac 10’s revenue, reducing the Big 12 to nine teams and putting a ton of pressure on every school in the Big 12 to find a new home.
The Pac 10 reiterates their invitation to Texas and Texas A&M. They accept.
LikeLike
Hey, just an FYI that has nothing to do with our past disagreements:
Be careful with wholesale cutting-and-pasting entire paragraphs from other sits like this. It opens the door to possible coppyrigght infriingement issues (intentionally misspelled so that a serach engine doesn’t pick up the phrase) for this site.
LikeLike
West Virginia and Virginia Tech to the SEC? Makes sense. Both would give it access to the mid-Atlantic region; Tech’s years in the ACC have made it more of a Washington-area school than it’s ever been before. And both have football-first cultures that would fit in with the SEC. (Also remember that WVU was a Southern Conference member for decades.)
The SEC could then take in two schools from the west for a 16-team conference, preferably Texas and A&M but potentially settling for Oklahoma and Okie State.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten won’t touch West Virginia with a ten foot pole, why does this make sense for the SEC?
LikeLike
Big10 wouldn’t touch them for academic reasons. SEC might not care so much about that.
LikeLike
what if we had two teams”Paired” and had them rotate threw a 8 team division.
tie say tOSU and um(team 1) , and pitt and psu( team a) , 7 in division games 2 out of division games
year one:
teams
1
2
3
4
a
b
c
d
year 2:
d
1
2
3
4
a
b
c
year 3:
c
d
1
2
3
4
a
b
LikeLike
This sort of schedule would create a lot of variety, which is good, but a downside might be a lack of rivalries developing within a set division.
Think about the baseball divisions. As a Tigers fan, I now hate the Twins, Indians, and White Sox a lot more than I used to. Familiarity breeds contempt. These rivalries are good, but on the other hand, it would be cool to see the Red Sox and Yankees in town more often. So I think the Big Ten will weigh stability/predictability against variety/flexibility.
Taking your idea to the extreme, what’s to prevent the Big Ten from making entirely new divisions each year based on the prior years’ results?
LikeLike
i have thought about them using last years results, but that would be even hairy i think. as i iowa fan i expect a year or two down with a two or three up. this is college not pro and if our up years started by playing the best 8 teams in the conference why they played the worst then how would they ascend?
LikeLike
so teams “1” would play teams “a” as a out of division game.. year one tOSU plays pitt UM plays PSU . year two tOSU plays PSU, UM plays pitt.
LikeLike
A question about super conferences: If a truly super conference is created, say with six or more traditional powers, at what point does the resulting difficult schedule begin to diminish some of the sparkle of the crown jewels? How much filler is needed to ensure that the good teams get a breather?
If teams like Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech and Florida State are added to teams like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and LSU in the SEC, the schedules are going to be brutal.
A 11-1 Penn State team with victories over Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, and Missouri is going to be rated a lot higher than a 7-5 Alabama team with close losses to Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Florida State, and LSU.
So maybe it will be good for the Big Ten’s TV ratings to add four middle tier teams for every traditional power.
LikeLike
Which is why realistically I think you only want one “true” power per division.
Assuming a team would play its own division and one other random division, that’d mean each “power” team would have one “power” team on its schedule and two second tier programs (one from its own division and one from the other) with the rest as conference filler that won’t hurt its SoS rankings.
This way the power programs would realistically only have a 2 loss season (lose its big game and split the second tier pairings), 3 at the worst (unless of course they’re having a down year, but that’s something else entirely).
LikeLike
You bring up a good point that I don’t think gets discussed often enough. After a certain point, increasing the competitiveness of a conference can be detrimental to the individual programs. While guaranteed TV money is attractive, ADs also need to focus on maintaining brand success / product quality.
LikeLike
i disagree.. the NCG will be played between the Big 10+,ACC+.SEC+,Pac+. Pac vs big, ACC vs Sec and then NCG. no longer will ther be BSU’s because it will be the Super NCG.. not the College football championship game. should be fun me thinks!
LikeLike
I totally agree. The money for this “playoff” would also be split between 64 teams..not the current 120 schools of the NCAA.
I think this is where we are headed. The key for schools is not just which conference to join, but making sure they are in one of those 4 super-conferences.
LikeLike
what i mean is . if you can win your Conference rankings dont mean anything. other than for us to Bitch about and the rest of the Bowl games.
LikeLike
Random thought:
Is there any reason why the BTN and a proposed Longhorn Sports Network couldn’t coexist if Texas did wind up in the Big 10?
In context, view the LSN as a “BTN2” which focuses exclusively on UT content. ABC/ESPN and BTN still get first dibs on all content. (So, yes, all football games remain on those two networks.) Anything leftover would be fair game for the LSN. I would imagine that there would still be plenty of leftover material for an LSN. The BTN can’t possibly carry every Michigan hockey game, or Iowa wrestling match, or every Penn State women’s soccer game. (Or does it? I haven’t paid close enough attention to know.)
The BTN would have rights to show anything which originally aired on the LSN, so it would gain a production wing for additional content.
The two networks could be distributed in tandem inside Texas to increase BTN penetration. A cable system in, say, Amarillo could only carry the LSN if it also agreed to carry the BTN. (Instinctively, I think an LSN for a UT which remains in the Big XII would have a much greater penetration rate within Texas than would a BTN even if the Big 10 includes Texas.)
If this model were proven to work in Texas, it could be duplicated by other Big 10 schools. I’m not sure it would work for all Big 10 schools (Northwestern Sports Network?!?), but if an LSN could be grown and thrive side-by-side with the BTN, why couldn’t a Buckeye Sports Network similarly thrive in Ohio?
And if these school-specific networks could be nurtured, the BTN would have an entire fleet of networks to market to national carriers like DirecTV. And in the era of narrowing niche programming, that’s a good thing.
I know that the obvious argument is that such a set-up might not be congruous with the “all for one” mentality of the Big 10. In response, I would point out that (I presume) some broadcast revenue, like local radio broadcast rights, revenue from coaches shows, etc., are probably kept entirely by each school. I know it’s a drop in the bucket by comparison, but I would have to think that there already exist situations in which revenue isn’t split entirely equally. (And I admit I could be completely wrong about that as I am pulling that assumption out of you-know-where.)
I would also argue that the model I propose would increase the entire BTN pie for all schools, so it’s a win-win, if my assumption about marketing the BTN with the LSN inside Texas is correct. To use random numbers as examples, if the per-school profit from a BTN-only model with Texas in the conference were $20M, would Northwestern really be that unhappy with “unequal distribution” if the end result of the BTN+LSN model netted Northwestern $21M, even if Texas wound up with $30M?
And I would also assume that there could be some sort of profit sharing mechanism built in to the LSN as a concession given by Texas in exchange for permission to launch the LSN. Maybe a 70/30 split, with 30% of the profits kicking back into the general Big Ten pool?
The biggest flaw I see is that, if this model could work, why wouldn’t it have been attempted already with a LSN in tandem with the never-launched Big XII Network?
LikeLike
could it yes. but i have to say with all due respect there is no way the Big Ten lets the long horns do that! The one thing about the big ten that everybody in the country needs to understand is it has to be fair( or at least appear to be fair) to all the rest of the teams in the big ten. whats to stop tOSU from doing the same? we are stronger together then apart. time i think has proven that point.
LikeLike
I would also say that if you think Texas ( and the rest of the Big Ten ) would only be making 30 million a year, with Texas in the Big Ten, you are under estimating the BTN ability to earn AD money and cable money.
LikeLike
Hawkfan:
(1) As I stated above, the “$30M” figure I cited was strictly a random number pulled out of my ass for illustrative purposes only.
(2) The scenario I lay out would be “fair” to all in the sense that it would grow the overall profit pie of the BTN by giving the BTN a means by which to secure greater marker penetration in the second largest state in the country. (If you think the BTN salivates about NYC, just think if it could become standard fare throughout the entire state of Texas!)
(3) I think your missing a main point of my suggestion: the BTN would continue to exist and would have the same pull of programming upon which it would have first dibs.
LikeLike
you lost me a pulling things out of your bum!. ( just kidding)
what do you think the chances are that texas and the Big ten join up? because i know that there is no way they let them in with any kind of tv that isnt shared with rest of league, no school in the big10 will get more then their 1/? share. sorry.
LikeLike
Hopkins – what you suggest can already be done in the SEC.
LikeLike
Academics.
LikeLike
I agree with you that Texas doesnt want to go to the SEC for that reason alone. i havent heard much about “Teaxas to ACC” what do you think?
LikeLike
Never going to happen.
LikeLike
The problem is….why?
Why would the Big10 invest time and effort into building yet another channel. This time focused on only one of its members.
Why would they then try to market what truly amounts to a regional channel nationally to those few (per capita) Texas alumni in direct competition to its own BTN (which will be trying to get ALL Big10 alumni to tune into the BTN).
If the Texas channel is “Texas only” then why would Texas want to share the proceeds with the rest of the Big10 (Big12 argument all over again)? In which case why would the Big10 put up any money or effort to start it (see first question) or put up with one of its members (Texas) not sharing in all the pots that are supposed to be shared?
Personally, I think the reason why Texas would be very interested in joining the Big10 over any other conference is directly due to the BTN. Using regional programming, Texas (state) BTN feeds could be pumped Texas (school) athletics and it becomes the de facto LSN. Then when the Longhorns aren’t playing anything they can backfill in with other Big10 athletics (mid-atlantic lacrosse, mid-western wrestling, northern hockey). The other regional markets could act the exact same way.
I’ve said it on this site numerous time, but I really think any other conference getting its own tv channel are years (~5 IMO) off. While the present economy is improving, it takes billions of dollars and total dedicated effort to start a tv channel, get it on cable, and start to see profits. That kind of money and backing is going to be hard to come by in a situation where a lot of folks are hording cash and investing in the safest methods possible.
Texas may have been able to find backers and willing to do the work when their lot was sealed in the Big12 as little as a couple years ago (and most likely will if after this round of expansion they are not in the Big10), but I can’t see them pushing, or receiving any favorable ears, toward the idea of a LSN if admitted.
LikeLike
Why would the Big10 invest time and effort into building yet another channel. This time focused on only one of its members.
For what I’m suggesting, Texas would built it, and only Texas would be at risk if it failed.
Why would they then try to market what truly amounts to a regional channel nationally to those few (per capita) Texas alumni in direct competition to its own BTN (which will be trying to get ALL Big10 alumni to tune into the BTN).
I am making a purely speculative guess that it might be easier for the BTN, even if Texas joined the Big 10, to penetrate the Texas market if paired with an LSN. Remember that there’s probably a lot more demand in, say, Michigan for a Wisconsin-Minnesota hockey game that there’d be in Texas. At least until we get our kick-ass hockey team up and running!
If the Texas channel is “Texas only” then why would Texas want to share the proceeds with the rest of the Big10 (Big12 argument all over again)?
Because that could be a concession Texas could make to gain permission to join the Big 10 and still start a LSN.
Again, I realize that the idea is probably a non-starter. Just wanted to throw it out there for discussion.
LikeLike
I think the need/desire for the LSN is pretty negated by the BTN, especially with a regional feed (which BTN has). Want Texas-centric programming in Texas? Fine, BTN can do that.
Texas’s biggest benefit to starting the LSN versus the Big12 Network is that they wouldn’t have to share the profits, mostly generated within Texas, with a bunch of dead weight (not counting Nebraska and maybe Kansas/Missouri).
The BigTen might have a little dead weight as well, but not as much, and moreover is already up, running, and profitable in states with large populations. 4 of the current top 10 populated states are within the current BigTen footprint (all within top 30, 7/8 in at 21 or below). Missouri is #2 after Texas, at #18. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/rankings.html)
With Texas the BTN is more likely to tap into the northeast market (#3, 11, 15, and maybe 19 [Maryland]), something I don’t see the LSN doing alone. But, splitting 1 way versus 16 might mean they’ll make more money in the end even if they can’t tap those markets.
LikeLike
For quick reading, state rankings by population (from census data linked above):
Big Ten states:
#5 Illinois
#6 Pennsylvania
#7 Ohio
#8 Michigan
#16 Indiana
#20 Wisconsin
#21 Minnesota
#30 Iowa
Total: 67mil
Big 12 states:
#2 Texas
#18 Missouri
#22 Colorado
#28 Oklahoma
#30 Iowa
#33 Kansas
#38 Nebraska
Total: 43.4mil (24.3mil is Texas)
LikeLike
BTN has overflow channels, not regional channels. The only time I’ve seen these used for unique programming is on football Saturdays when more than one game is on at one time.
The problem with creating a “regional” channel with, say, “Texas-centric” programming, where do you draw the line? How long before Ohio State wants “Buckeye Sports” or Northwestern wants a “Wildcat Channel?” Could these even be viable? If the Big Ten expands to 16 I could see them having a permanent West division and East division feed, if it shakes out that way.
But it seems to me that what Texas wants with a LSN runs counter to the Big Ten philosophy of “all for one and one for all.”
LikeLike
I think Texas will negotiate some sort of alternative to the LSN into the Big Ten programming line up.
I mean, Texas is going to want to be sure that all their sports are getting regional coverage in Texas when the games are on if they’re going to give up on the LSN idea.
I think the Big Ten will agree to split the coverage regionally in order to give Texas precedence in Texas and the surrounding states.
LikeLike
Thats why I think the Big East could avoid a raid by working with the Big 10 to provide additional programming for the BTN.
For the Big Ten schools you don’t have to split the pie equally or give up equity in the BTN.
For the BTN, you have readily available programming and a premier basketball conf with 16 teams that provides for a lot of extra games that can’t all be shown on ESPN/ABC
For the Big East you add a little bit of cash per school to the pot that maybe brings it up to ACC/Pac-10/Bottom of the totem pole Big 12 money
Plus now the Big Ten essentially has a second conference and can call a few shots like the BTN is calling now..
16 schools without having to add 22 mill in value per school and better leveraging the Big East’s media markets with Big Ten teams that have better drawing power….
LikeLike
@indysportsguy
One angle that I think has been under-discussed is the BTN becoming a carrier of another conference. One of Delaney’s early expansion statements mentioned “possibly partnering with dozens of schools”. BTN becoming a secondary or tertiary carrier of another conference may be high on Delaney’s hit list.
Delaney’s grand plan may be more focused on the BTN rather than expanding the conference itself.
LikeLike
I agree Greg, that is a strong possibility. Maybe we are just talking about expanding the Big Ten Network’s reach, without actually adding schools. That would satisfy the presidents, who want to keep academically inferior schools out and still maintain the tradition of the Big Ten.
Also, I must point out that the timeline refers to 12 to 18 months just to make a decision. That timeline does not include actually sending out invitations or picking teams. As I understood it, they are giving 12-18 months to research this and then come to a decision to expand or not. Does anyone else see it that way?
LikeLike
I don’t think it is feasible for a Longhorns Sports Network to exist if Texas joins a conference with its own network. Should Texas join the Big Ten Network (which has regional coverage), then pretty much every Texas football game would be aired on either a national network or the BTN. Texas would have 17 other varsity teams to provide content to the LSN, which would probably not yield good ratings. This means that for a population of 24.3 million (as compared to the 67 million people living in the current Big Ten market), the LSN would be able to produce content for far fewer teams than the BTN and no football games would be covered. The result would likely be very low advertising revenue, leaving cable subscribers to provide the vast majority of the revenue to the network. As such, it is questionable whether such a network could even come close to being profitable, or even get any backing from another party.
Now, if a potential Longhorn Sports Network got the rights to football games, the conversation changes. That said, I question whether that would be as profitable as simply going with the BTN.
LikeLike
I had a similar thought. However, developing special “Texas-style” broadcasting for the channel wouldn’t be necessary. The BTN would be a great bridge between “two worlds” if you will.
Texas doesn’t have much affiliation with Big 10 country currently. If they were to enter into this marriage with a northern conference, it’d be “for life.” Therefore, they’d need to “get to know” their new league, and what better way to do that than through a channel which focuses solely on THE LEAGUE! As a PSU fan, I can speak to this. While we felt out of place for a good decade in the Big 10, we’re now nearing 20 years in the league and are affiliating ourselves with that conference more and more. Watching OSU/UM games of yore might not be “must see TV” for folks in Austin, but it will help them understand their new brethren better.
On the other hand, what better way for Big 10 country to embrace their new outlying franchises than to see a heavy dose of Texas on the BTN? There would certainly be Texas focused shows on the network (considering how a huge portion of the network’s fan base would be in Texas now)…and watching classic Texas/aTm match-ups would help the Big 10 to learn about the history and heritage of their new brethren.
I don’t see the need to create a Longhorn Sports Network. Simply gear 1/5 of the programming (2 of the 16 Big 10 teams would be in Texas if this happens) towards Texas. Maybe even 1/4, depending how rabid the Texas market is for the shows. A whole new channel (right off the bat) would be too risky and would be too unfair in a league that prides itself on equity among members. Plus, if you started a new network, you’d need to double your production costs.
Simply put, the BTN–spanning from Texas to New Jersey (not to mention anything about NYC) and including ND, OSU, UM, PSU, Texas, aTm, and Nebraska–would be a cable TV juggernaut and would vault the Big 10 coffers into the stratosphere.
LikeLike
well they are alot better all around academically then the SEC. and you would own most of the teams there. but i understand your point.
LikeLike
A couple of points from A&M’s perspective:
A&M is not interested in the Pac10 unless it is in a “doomsday” scenario where the B12 has imploded, the SEC has eliminated the possibility of an invite and the B10 option to tag along with Texas is also gone. It is very doubtful the rumors coming from the Memphis AD have any legs at all as this is the least favorable option for A&M. It is highly unlikely A&M would be agreeable to joining the Pac10 this early in the conversation.
While it is certainly true that Texas has multiple options and can basically decide where it wants to go, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Texas A&M will come along. If the SEC invites A&M to join, this would be the choice regardless of the decision by Texas.
Last, I’d be very skeptical of the comments from the UH board. It is hard to imagine a scenario that would include UH, TCU, Baylor, etc pairing back up with A&M and Texas. The only other university wth a chance would be Texas Tech and it would be limited to a Pac10 option with 16 teams.
LikeLike
Why do you say that “the Big 10 option to tag along with Texas is also gone”? Do you have any links? Or is this just your opinion?
It’s great to hear from an Aggie fan. As a Big 10 fan, I’m not really interested in JUST getting Texas. I’d want both of your schools b/c it would really give the conference some foundation in Texas. If we’d reach all the way down there, having just one school would be lame. Not only that, but Texas A/M is just as attractive as Nebraska and ND in my opinion. Decent football with rabid fans…amazing in all the other facets of research, education, all-sports programs.
Would love to hear where you’re getting your insights from and hear anything that you’re hearing “down there” in Texas.
LikeLike
I think you misread. He said “unless it is in a “doomsday” scenario where the B12 has imploded, the SEC has eliminated the possibility of an invite and the B10 option to tag along with Texas is also gone.” In other words, they’d only consider a move to the Pac 10 if the Big 10 option were gone.
LikeLike
Thanks. I got it now. 🙂
LikeLike
AllthatYouCanLeaveBehind,
This is only the FIRST post acknowledging Texas A&M as a wanted university in it’s own self. Thanks for the kind words. Speaking as an Aggie that thinks the Big Ten is the only other conference that we AGS would like to affiliate with, I assure you that you would find us a loyal member who would adopt the Big Ten “All for one and one for all” in a New York minute. Hope that it comes to pass. I hear that Big Ten country is great weather for an October football game. Just might invite you down for a November game and the same weather here.
LikeLike
I”m not the only one, Wes. There are scores of us “northerners” who have been shocked to find out where aTm ranks in all of these categories–fan attendance, sport program revenues, research dollars, academic rankings–you guys are big time. Second dog in a big state is still a big, big dog!
Eli Manning might not be Peyton Manning, but not many teams would be sad to have him aboard.
LikeLike
That’s not true. The attraction of TAMU in its own right (but not necessarily independently of UT) has been noted many times by various posters here.
It’s true there has been an assumption that if UT came Texas politics would insist TAMU came as well.
I my view the pair would be a good fit with the Big Ten academically and a big positive for the BTN. Take NU and RU and Pitt|Syracuse|MD|Missouri and that is an excellent outcome to the expansion.
LikeLike
“If the SEC invites A&M to join, this would be the choice regardless of the decision by Texas.”
That may be true, but I wouldn’t be sure, unless you’re writing from the office of the University President.
A&M has more to gain from raising it’s academic profile than UT. As an Aggie who does not live in Texas, I know few people around the country realize the school exists when the football team isn’t doing well. If they do recognize the name, they have no idea that it’s a top public university. If A&M moves to the SEC while UT goes to a conference with a better academic reputation, I think it will be a small but real lost opportunity to boost A&M’s ability to attract top professors and grad students from around the country and the world.
I certainly acknowledge that the SEC has better travel for sports, good rivals for A&M, and better money than the Big 12. I would prefer the SEC to the current Big 12 alignment.
However, a move to the Big 10 with UT and Nebraska would be athletically as strong or stronger than the SEC, offer more money than the SEC could, and raise the academic profile of the university.
LikeLike
I’ve never been there, but I’ve always like A&M for some reason. I root for them over Texas, not that I have anything against Texas, but I rather like A&M better for some reason.
It’s unfair A&M sort of sits there in UT’s shadow. If they were in any other state, everyone would know their name, and they’d be a very attractive candidate for the BT to court.
Personally, I think to an outsider, part of A&M’s issue with its image is the “A&M” tag. This modifier make the school sound smaller and less like a full-fledged university. For example, the name “the University of Texas’ suggests that it is, well, the university for the state of Texas. Whereas your school’s name makes it sound like its a small agriculture school. Hardly the case, as you can readily see with its gaudy research numbers.
It’s too bad, in a way, they don’t have a more distinct name. Something that better expresses its true breadth and scope.
LikeLike
“Personally, I think to an outsider, part of A&M’s issue with its image is the “A&M” tag.”
Yes, I know this is people’s first thought. There are several other universities in the country with “A&M” in their name, and I think their reputations drag down Texas A&M’s reputation.
That said, the university values its traditions; those traditions are a big part of the fun of being a student there. So there’s no chance the name will get changed. I wouldn’t change it myself.
What we might change is our conference affiliation!
LikeLike
Well, the school used to have “TEXAS AGGIES” spelled out in the endzone.
We Longhorn fans also looked forward to our games against the Texas Red Raiders!
LikeLike
“Well, the school used to have “TEXAS AGGIES” spelled out in the endzone.”
Yes, we’re not going to stop calling ourselves that. ‘Texas A&M Aggies’ is redundant.
We know College Station is in Texas and we have the maps to prove it!
LikeLike
Years ago, I met a doctor who was thinking about relocating here. He introduced me to his wife, and she soon mentioned she was an A&M alum. I told her, “You know, although I’ve not been there, I’ve always liked A&M and I root for them when they play Texas.” She was so happy, she gave me a big hug and a kiss.
LikeLike
I always rooted for Texas and A&M to tie so they’d both be disappointed…
LikeLike
That’s why you don’t get any action from the A&M chicks.
LikeLike
That leaves all the Rice, UH, Baylor, Tech, TCU, SMU, UTEP and No Texas chicks for me 😉
LikeLike
M, could not ahve said it better myself.
LikeLike
Don’t know how reliable it is, but someone posted a link or some such that said the Pac10 floated the idea of membership to both Texas and TAMU…TAMU was interested, Texas was not.
LikeLike
Yeah that was the Memphis AD.
And to AggieFrank, I realize you’re skeptical, but that’s the most reliable rumor out there.
If the Memphis AD says that he spoke to a Pac-10 source who told him that the Pac-10 spoke to both A&M and Texas but only A&M was interested, we should take his word on it.
That’s probably the most accurate rumor we’ve gotten because the Pac-10 is way ahead in its search for schools.
The fact of the matter is there is a 0% chance that Texas doesn’t find a dance partner.
There may be a chance that A&M gets left out (yes a very remote chance, probably like 5% odds) but it could happen.
A&M’s president/AD would be doing malpractice if they weren’t engaging all offers.
Texas can say “we’re going to join the Big Ten or Pac-10 or SEC” tomorrow, and the doors will swing wide open.
A&M doesn’t have that luxury. Yes A&M is the 2nd or 3rd most desirable team in the conference, but that’s not the Texas guarantee. Texas will be in the conference it wants to be in…
Nebraska and A&M are going to have to look out for themselves.
We always discuss how Texas stopped the Big 8+SWC from going to Big 16.
Why couldn’t Texas just announce in 4 months they want to go to the Big Ten and take it to 12? It could happen (yes a very obvious remote chance), but Texas probably doesn’t want the Big Ten to go to 16 if it means smaller pieces of the pie, etc. A Big Ten with just Texas may be the most optimal solution if Texas doesn’t want more pieces to the pie, etc. Obviously, the Big Ten Network changes the calculation since the pie actually grows when schools get added, but my point still has some merit.
Every school needs to decide what’s in their best interest. Texas is being rational by not talking to the Pac-10, whereas A&M is locking down its options in the event of a shake up.
Most likely A&M and Texas go together, but there are a few scenarios where A&M needs to have its back covered.
LikeLike
To put some perspective on A&M’s value, the Bloomberg news released an article discussing AD revenue today.
The article comments:
“Among the largest schools — the nine with at least $90 million in operating revenue — the biggest winners were Texas, up 32 percent to $138.5 million; LSU, up 32 percent to $100.9 million; and Texas A&M, up 33 percent to $98.1 million, according to a review of athletic department financial records.”
A&M is thriving despite being in downcycle for football (a really, really bad one) and the economy.
The link is:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=aPDM7_6FJ6aw
LikeLike
The nice thing for A&M is that only Texas is a bigger fish that’s moving. Since Notre Dame doesn’t seem to be going anywhere, Texas and A&M are dominating the stage in terms of speculation along with Nebraska for the Big Ten.
I hear a lot of Aggies say that the team wouldn’t fit the Big Ten, but I don’t really understand it. I could see A&M being a better fit in the south with the SEC schools, but the Pac-10 teams seem like they’d have far less in common with A&M than the Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
Interesting article about SEC expansion:
[The SEC Empire: Why the SEC should take the lead, not the backseat on Expansion]
LikeLike
Sorry let me try it again
The SEC Empire: Why the SEC should take the lead, not the backseat on Expansion
LikeLike
He lost all credibility when at the outset he described the Big Ten expansion currently rumored to include West Virginia. Otherwise quite grandiose.
LikeLike
I said this elsewhere, but I’ll post it here too:
1. The idea wrongly assumes that the SEC can get any team they want. Now while all of the athletic departments in question may be willing to join the SEC (outside of Notre Dame and some of the ACC schools mentioned in the second scenario), a lot of the universities in question would absolutely refuse to be associated with the SEC for academic reasons. For instance, Texas has and will continue to refuse to be associated with the SEC because the SEC’s academics are so far below theirs. Academics would also be an issue with Virginia, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Miami, Georgia Tech, and possibly Virginia Tech. While this may not be a game-breaker for every school on the list, it certainly will create issues.
2. The purpose of this plan is SEC dominance, meaning that the focus is not improving the situation for the individual member schools, but improving the profile of an organization that’s sole purpose is too promote the welfare of its members. Unless the presidents of the SEC universities decide to be loyal to the idea of SEC supremacy to the point of making financial sacrifices, this will never be the goal of expansion.
3. To follow up on point #2, a number of potential expansion teams do not add enough to the conference to merit inclusion in expansion. In the first model, I would cut out Clemson, Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, and Miami, because a 16 team conference with the other teams mentioned is better for each individual member than a 20 team conference with those said teams. In the second model, I would cut out Louisville, Virginia, the NC State/West Virginia option, and 1-3 of numerous other listed expansion teams (Duke, Clemson, and/or Georgia Tech).
LikeLike
Rumor du jour:
“WVU is currently in talks with both the SEC and ACC with possible expansion talk.”
According to someone’s ‘inside sources’ on another board.
LikeLike
WVU is not a candidate for the ACC for the same reason it isn’t a candidate for the Big Ten: it doesn’t meet academic standards. If the ACC does expand, it will not be able to add any SEC or Big Ten schools, and it won’t add schools who don’t have credentials that match others in the ACC. That rules out WVU, Cincy, Louisville, USF, and any C-USA school.
So the only realistic candidates would be UConn and whoever the Big Ten doesn’t take among Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse. In other words, the ACC won’t ever be larger than 14, assuming the Big Ten takes two Big East schools.
I’d be surprised if the SEC took WVU, either. It’s waaaaay outside the footprint; Morgantown is 5.5 hours from UK, which itself is somewhat a geographic outlier in the SEC. Besides, the SEC would consider UT, A&M, FSU, Miami, Ga. Tech, Clemson, OU, OSU, TCU, and Missouri before looking at WVU.
LikeLike
Hey, I resent that CUSA snub. Rice and Tulane are peers to Duke and Wake Forest.
LikeLike
As a Tulane Law School grad, I’m with you, but while Rice, Tulane & SMU are all great schools, CUSA has a wide spread from an academic and athletic point of view.
LikeLike
No doubt about that. I’m looking for some scenario to play out where Rice, Tulane, SMU, TCU, Tulsa, Wake, ZDuke, Vandy and some others make a real academic conference for the south.
LikeLike
On a side note. According to Forbes magazine’s 2009 rankings after expansion the top 10 places to raise a family will all fall in Big 10 country. Currently 2 in NJ and one south of Kansas City are the only ones not in the footprint.
LikeLike
As an Oklahoma alum, I have some connections, and finally I talked to one of them. He’s not heard one word about the OU big shots talking about conference realignment. And he knows the people that would know. Personally, I thought the total lack of news was interesting.
LikeLike
Oklahoma’s options are Big 12 not collapsing or SEC in the event that it does collapse. There’s really nothing to discuss.
Texas determines what happens to Oklahoma at this point.
The best thing going for Oklahoma seems to be the notion that SEC schools will not allow more in-state members. That almost guarantees Oklahoma a seat at the table should they go west or north.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree, but I would assume that these guys would be looking at, and discussing possible options depending on various scenarios.
The only rumor my friend had heard was on the “NEW Southwest Conference”. It would be based on a new tv cable package. It would have OU, OSU, Arkansas, LSU, Houston, TCU, A&m, Texas, Tech, Baylor, Kansas, and Kansas St, as the answer to the conference losing Neb, Missouri, and Colorado. He heard that from a source in the Tulsa media, so I’m not sure how much weight it holds.
LikeLike
Arkansas can’t come along because the SEC has too much money on the table.
The problem with trying to reform the Big 12 after losing Missouri and Colorado is that you lose all the major media markets outside of Texas as well as one of the three big draws.
At that point the next Big 12 contract will be much smaller.
Oklahoma is probably just going to wait to see if Nebraska/Missouri do leave. After that, I’d imagine they put a call in to the SEC.
LikeLike
I wanted to add ditto LSU.
It doesn’t make economic sense to leave the SEC or Big Ten or Pac-10.
And it’s impossible to replace Denver/St. Louis/KC.
LikeLike
@Zeek
Again, I’m not disagreeing. I was just sharing what I had heard. There are a few other things going on here, then just pure population numbers. Part of it is market penetration. A huge part is cultural, and another is travel costs for the 2ndary sports.
What you lose in TV set numbers in certain markets, is off set with what you gain % in Texas or so I assume the thinking is. It’s also based around UT not being able to go anywhere with out a big block of Texas schools. The trade off is Denver and St. Louis adding all of Arkansas, and Louisiana and getting huge penetration in the state of Texas. (you keep KC with KU and Kstate)
I’m not saying it’s what will happen, but I’m hearing the rumor now in a couple of places. Personally I think there will be issues that the old SWC had, in being too regional and thus easy to dismiss.
LikeLike
I’m only saying that because a rebuild of the SWC with all of its major markets in Texas is only worth a maximum of $5-7M per year in TV revenues per team. You need more metro areas, that’s why a state like Arkansas doesn’t add anything.
That’s why it’s so easy to dismiss. The league would have a TV contract only 20-25% the size of the Big Ten or SEC contracts, which are probably going to be aiming for 25M+ sooner rather than later.
Travel costs are easily overcome by those kinds of TV revenues.
And at that point, everyone’s going to scramble off the ship.
I’m not trying to dismiss the argument on face value, but there’s just not a real justification. No one can justify rebuilding a league that pulls in less revenue.
Maybe the Big 12 can stay together if just Nebraska and Missouri leave, but I still find it hard to believe that the schools would all just sit around.
Even if Texas decides to go it with the Longhorn Network, what about A&M? or Oklahoma? etc.
They get none of that, yet the Big 12 TV contract is going to be worth less. That means that only Texas is going to be able to say they’d want to stay…
LikeLike
@zeek
First off, I don’t think it flies either. I’m just sharing. But there are a few reasons the rumor holds a little water:
1) It’s not the Big 12.That dies…but where does those left over go?
2) it’s not about a contract with ABC/ESPN, it’s about a cable network. Not just for UT, but for the new-SWC. At $5 or $10 per month, everyone in the state of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas would buy it. It becomes viable (more viable) through the subscriptions and the penetration.
3) UofTexas isn’t going to get to make the decision where they go on their own. Would the Pac-10 take Houston, or Tech or Baylor, or TCU? Would the SEC? UTEP could be forced into this mess as well. With A&M and UT, there could be as many as 6-8 teams getting added to UT in a package deal. The point is that kills UT going to any Super-64 conference. Many people got hurt when the SWC folded, and the Big 12 formed. Those people now can make sure it doesn’t happen again. A Super-64 means schools like Houston, and Tech or TCU become even smaller fish, so there is an interest to keep that from happening.
4)Texas (the state, and the University) actually thinks they are great enough, pull something like this off.
again…I’m not the one that came up with this, but I’ve now heard it in a few places. I don’t think it works either. As an OU fan, I’d hate this.
The fact that I heard it more than once and from credible sources made it seem worth while to share.
LikeLike
Yeah, I appreciate any kind of information or rumor, since there’s always an angle that we may not have thought of…
The only other thing is, Texas vetoed a Big 12 network before, why would they revisit the issue after losing Denver/StL/KC; that makes the Texas contribution even more lopsided than it was when the Big 12 network was first proposed.
It’s just so hard for me to see why Texas would share when it bring more than 50% of the footprint of a theoretical SWC. That means that Texas is bringing in over 50% of the cable sets in a SWC network, and that’s pretty much why they vetoed a Big 12 network before.
Logistically they’re going to try their own Longhorn network first probably and see if they can make $10M+ a year off it just putting it on every box in Texas.
That’s what they’ve been talking about the past couple months.
The problem for Oklahoma/A&M is that they’re going to take the same hit on the Big 12’s revenue due to the potential loss of Colorado/Missouri/Nebraska (if those three bolt). Texas will make it back up and then some with a Longhorn network, but I find it hard to believe Oklahoma won’t get the heck out and go to the SEC.
As for the other schools, they’re going to be shafted. I could easily see Iowa State/Kansas/Kansas State/Baylor ending up on the outside.
Sure, Texas and A&M may go along as a group, but there’s no way that they’re going to allow themselves to be dragged back down by anyone else.
They left behind those 4 the first time. All that’s left to do is leave behind Texas Tech and Baylor; I could see that happening in a heartbeat.
Anyways, Oklahoma ends up worse off if it sticks around in a Big 12 regardless of the scenario at this point, so I have trouble seeing them sticking around since they’re most likely going to be able to net an SEC invite.
LikeLike
LSU would NEVER replace home games with Alabama, Florida, and Auburn for home games with Baylor, Kansas, and Houston.
SEC RULE NO. 1: No school is quitting the SEC.
SEC RULE NO. 2: No school is getting kicked out of the SEC.
SEC RULE NO. 3: The SEC will only expand if CBS & ESPN pay for it.
SEC RULE NO. 4: For CBS & ESPN to pay for expansion, the SEC needs at least two “Home Run” schools to create more compelling games.
Home Run schools are: Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech & Texas A&M.
Stand-up double schools are: Clemson, West Virgina, Georgia Tech, Oklahoma State & Texas Tech.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with your rules.
Instinctively, I think VT has as much chance of winding up in the SEC as Texas does, which, as you know from our discussions, I believe is just slightly north of zero. If VT really wanted into the SEC, it will learn that the politically-related deal it struck with UVa to get into the ACC will have been a deal with the devil, as I can’t see UVa or the Virginia Legislature allowing VT to bolt the ACC after all the levers which were pulled to get them into the conference in the first place.
LikeLike
Hopkins – I really don’t think VA Tech is realistic either. They are stuck with UVA. For that reason, I almost didn’t include them. Obviously, UNC would be a “home run” school, but I just can’t see Tobacco Road getting split up.
LikeLike
I think you nailed it Alan.
LikeLike
Missouri living large at the center of Big Ten expansion talk
Article from Detroit Free Press
LikeLike
Here’s the deal: 4 super conf’s of 16 schools that break away to form their own division of 64 only happens if Texas and/or aTm goes to the P16. Otherwise the P10 can’t economically go beyond 12, and thus your left with a minimum of 5-6 conf’s and 76+ teams. If the P10 doesn’t go to 16, then the ACC also likely doesn’t, which means the B12 and BEast could both likely survive and reload.
If the P10 and ACC do go to 16, with Texas out west, the options fall in line where all the major remaining schools fit into the SEC and ACC, and just a couple of bubble schools get left behind (the only ones with any conceivable chance at ever winning a football nat’l title.) Not only do nearly all the BEast schools get taken to kill that conference, 9 of the B12 would likely be grabbed. I’m not certain on this, but get the impression that 9 votes would be enough to dissolve the B12. Thus the only remaining BCS AQ conferences would be the ACC, B16, SEC, and P16. A much better scenario for fending off lawsuits if these 4 depart. The loss of Utah would set back the MWC’s bid for AQ status at least 5 years, well beyond the next BCS negotiation. A tidy reduction just in time to make major changes easier and realistic.
Makes me wonder if the B10+’s delay and silence is a result of Texas telling Delany and Scott they’d like to pursue moving to 64 ASAP. Think of it this way: Would the B16 make more money with a Texas block of schools in a 77-120 BCS school division of 5-7 BCS AQ conferences, or dominating the North without Texas in a 64 school division of only 4 conferences? All BCS slots filled by those 64, almost doubling the number of B16 teams getting BCS bids on average?
P10 plus Utah, CO, TX, aTm, TT, UH
B16 plus NE, MO, Rut, Syr, Pitt (or ND)
That basically seals off the west and realistically leaves a pool for the ACC and SEC of only CT, ND (or Pitt), WV, Lou, Cin, KS, KSU, OU, OK St, and TCU. CT, ND, Cin, and KS are all probably academically acceptable for the ACC, which might compromise a bit for geography/travel and the big payout of getting to 64. Most likely in danger would be Cin, Lou, TCU, KSU, and OK St, but if one of the latter two is taken that leaves the B12 with only 3 and the departing schools can probably vote to disband. Not only eliminates the B12 as competition and a fly in the ointment, but saves all of them the hefty departure fee.
SEC plus TCU, OU, OK St, KS (Gets a Texas school, OU for marquee TV, and 2 decent schools that aren’t a fb threat. T Boone buys in OK St, KS raises Bkball profile. Miss schools move to SEC East, balancing power and easing expansion complaints of East schools.)
ACC plus CT, ND/Pitt, WV, and Lou/Cin (Partner for BC, WV if this plays out before Sen. Byrd croaks, and a midwest partner for ND. If the ACC moves first they might could grab the academically superior combo of CT, ND, Cin, and KS, but the SEC money will be hard to overcome and the SEC might raid FSU.)
Royally screwed would be the two left out of the above 10, plus Boise, BYU, and maybe S. FL, UCF, and Fresno. I can’t see any beyond those that would ever have any possible shot at winning a fb nat’l title. For political reasons I don’t see the 4×16=64 withdrawing from the NCAA Bball tourney, though threats would be made to change the revenue allocation.
Doesn’t mean expansion would play out this way, but I could see this being a plan under consideration. Don’t need many schools inside the negotiating loop for now. Pretty much just UT, aTm, Delany, Scott, and maybe a few of the P10 & B10+ power schools. If the P10 and Texas schools can reach an agreement, then the 64 package can be introduced to the SEC and ACC without their having many good options beyond the 4×16 plan.
LikeLike
your = you’re
LikeLike
Why is UT likely demanding to bring a local block of schools to any new conference? Travel costs (not just $), conference politics, state politics, maybe academic vision.
UT’s travel costs have increased more than 50% in only 4 years. Remember, they have all the minor sports and the huge dead weight of Title IX sports, and would prefer to improve their performance in the Director’s Cup. UT and aTm in the P16 or B16 would have the about the most arduous travel of any schools in the 4-6 surviving BCS AQ conferences. Much more than the existing P10 and B10+ schools would face, thus a competitive and financial disadvantage. Here are the numbers:
Travel costs:
08-09 – 7.6
07 – 7
06 – 5.6
05 – 6
04 – 5
Net Revenue after expenses:
08-09 – 10.8
07 – 9.3
06 – 8
05 – 7
04 – 7
Revenues have kept pace with the increased costs, but the travel still takes a hefty bite and the balance could worsen in down years. Bottom line, travel isn’t a deal killer but it is an important consideration.
In conference matters, Texas doesn’t want to be a frontier outpost and wants enough potential like-minded votes to either hold a veto or be as close to that as possible. With TX legislature looking over their shoulders, TX schools are more likely to vote with UT on critical issues.
The dynamics and players are different, but there is some political buzz that TX politicians will keep a close eye on any moves. The TX legislature recently made a big effort to boost TT, UHou, and perhaps 2-5 more schools into Tier One status and eventual AAU membership. This was a major expenditure of political capital on the part of many Reps and Senators, since it required not only legislative passage but also voter approval in a down economy (which it got.) Several fiscal conservatives lobbied hard for this last year, which might be unexpected to some. The TX House is evenly split Dem/GOP, thus every voting block can cause problems. The point being that some heavy hitters are invested in the improvement of TT and UH, and are going to be proactive in making sure they don’t get left behind in realignment. Doesn’t necessarily mean they have to go with UT and/or aTm, but any move better make sure those schools end up in a good conference.
UT, aTm, TT, and UH are set up as different university systems, unlike in CA, thus the 4 systems at times compete with each other. Perhaps UT thinks of it this way: If they have to go to 16 in a conference, why not let a fellow state school get that big conference payout and thus potentially reduce the state dollars flowing to them instead of UT? UH athletics receives about $15 mil/year from the school, moving into a super conference could wipe out that deficit and redirect more funds into research facilities. Once they and Tech reach Tier One, more state dollars funneled toward them may be opened back up for UT to grab. Plus UT bringing aTm, TT, and/or UH would bank some major political goodwill for the Horns in the state legislature.
A stronger UH and TT make better partners for UT to collaborate with. Texas could join CA and NC as the only states with 4 BCS AQ conference schools. If 4×16 comes about, 4 out of 64 votes is more powerful than 2 of 64. Same for 4 of 16 vs 2 of 16.
In a consolidation to 64 or even 80, TT and UH are desperate to not be left behind. Thus UT could probably reach an agreement with them to vote for merit-based revenue distribution and perhaps come to the P16 at some kind of discount.
UT bringing all the big state schools to the P16 pretty much locks out the SEC from TX. TCU would still be available, but they have a smaller fan base. Both aTm and UH in the SEC could siphon off a lot of high quality recruits. A Texas 4-pack to the P16 would also go a long way towards balancing out college football, and thus reduce the discrepancies in TV contracts.
Hence I tend to believe the rumors that TX wants to bring along several local schools, even if that waters down the academic average a bit. Currently 70% of the P10 is in the AAU, with CO (AAU) and Utah (not) it would be 66%. Add a Texas quad and that becomes 63%, 10 of 16 schools. B16 will be 14 to 16 AAU of 16 members, but the next closest is the ACC with just 5 of 12, and a potential of only 6 or 7 AAU members out of 16 schools, not even a majority. Since the P10 already has 3 non-AAU schools, and soon a 4th, I doubt UT will accept the much worse travel just to have 12 of 16 AAU instead of 10 of 16. Especially if such compromise allows them to separate into a top tier field of 64, instead of the current 120 BCS schools.
Lots more money to be made at 64 than 80+, so it is also in the P10’s interest to compromise with UT. Might also be the prime argument to convince aTm to go west instead of into the SEC.
And once again, UT President Powers has been a huge backer of the state boosting TT and UH to Tier One status. His vision may include them in whatever conference the Horns end up in.
I can’t see the B16 agreeing to a TX block of UT, aTm, TT, and UH or OU, but I can see the P16 compromising. Certainly the SEC would, which gives UT leverage and a backup plan. UT might even could use that to bring in the Texas 4-pack plus OU instead of Utah, but I think for political reasons Utah needs to be included in a 4×64, if that is UT’s goal.
LikeLike
I only see the SEC accepting all 4 if that kind of demand was made.
The Big Ten and Pac-10 are only looking at Texas and A&M. There’s no way anyone but Texas and A&M can get unanimous votes in the Pac-10, regardless of what USC or anyone else says. I could easily see Stanford or Berkeley voting against UH and/or TT.
But that kind of demand seems extremely unlikely to me. Texas is going to do what’s in Texas’ best interest.
I only see Texas going with A&M of all the Texas schools if it does go paired with someone.
Texas would be able to extract buy in concessions and a requirement of A&M.
Those are the only things the Pac-10 and Big Ten will put on the table; Texas would probably have the heft to force the Big Ten into adding 5 in the west if it really wanted but you’d better believe those 5 are going to be Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas, and even then, I’m not sure they could get Kansas in over Rutgers if the Big Ten really wanted to add an eastern team.
LikeLike
@playoffsnow
Well, this is actually interesting. As I posted above, I have a pretty well connected friend. He has really only heard one rumor (he said from a Tulsa media source), and that was Texas was wanting to reform the “Southwest Conference” if Nebraska, and Missouri, and Colorado left.
The big issue he had heard: travel costs for the 2ndary sports.
LikeLike
@ zeek – Depends if their studies indicate that the NYC market is penetrable by any college team or group of teams. They may well conclude, as many suspect, that it’s a fool’s errand.
@ Redhawk – Both points make a lot of sense to me. Certainly Texas has a big bankroll, but it’s a lot of sports and a lot of travel and a lot of downtime for the scholar side of scholar/athlete. And when push really comes to shove, does Texas really want to be an outlier school of a northern conference (with equitable distribution), when they haven’t tried their pet project, which could pay off quite well for them? I really doubt it.
LikeLike
I personally have never seen the “travel costs for secondary sports” issue as being too much of a factor for Texas. If Hawaii has been able to exist in the WAC, and Washington State in the Pac 10 (try getting anywhere from Pullman quickly), and BC in the ACC, I don’t think the costs to an athletic department as rich as UT’s would drive this.
The difference in those situations and UT’s is that WSU and Hawaii have no choice but to pay high travel costs if they want to compete in intercollegiate athletics, while UT would have an option of some sort of regional conference, no matter how weakened that conference was, if travel costs really did drive this.
LikeLike
Would Texas be happy playing in this conference?
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Houston
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
+/- Colorado State
+/- BYU
+/- Oklahoma State
If Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado are pulled away by other conferences, then I can’t see Texas A&M and Oklahoma sticking around for much longer. The Big 12 TV payouts will be even worse than they are now. Even if Texas is able to make big money from the Longhorn Sports Network, this does nothing to keep Oklahoma or Texas A&M happy. Both of those schools would be attractive to the SEC in a reactive expansion move. Oklahoma State may be able to come along for the ride as well.
So, this brings me back to my question – would Texas be happy as the sole major player in an otherwise borderline-AQ BCS conference? This set-up would allow them to…
— win their conference most years (in football)
— play Oklahoma & Texas A&M OOC
— keep travel costs low
— maintain BCS status
— avoid the scheduling hassles of an independent
LikeLike
Let’s say the LSN nets Texas $20 million per year and this new conference gets them an additional $5 million in TV revenue.
LikeLike
Would Texas be happy playing in this conference?
No.
That’s a conference that has all of the academic firepower of the SEC but with none of its athletic prowess.
Let’s not get carried away with the extent to which a theoretical LSN will drive realignment. Yes, Texas would like to maximize its television revenue, as would any other school in the country (except ND, apparently), but it wants to maximize its television revenue within the larger goals of being in a geographically-logical conference which is top-tier competitive both athletically and academically.
LikeLike
Seems to me that Texas really wants to maintain the status quo and then add on the LSN. But once the status quo changes, Texas has less power than they think they do. As the golden goose, Texas has their pick of conferences. But they don’t have control of who comes with them if staying put isn’t an option.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’ve been saying.
But it’s just not going to happen. Texas would be able to do fine with an LSN supplementing declining Big 12 payouts, but they’re not going to stick around.
Texas will be one of the first schools out once the first domino is pushed.
I have to believe that if Colorado goes to the Pac-10 before the Big Ten does anything, that Texas puts in a call to Delaney to at least extract an offer before the Big Ten does anything.
The Big Ten has pretty much broadcast that it will let Texas make the call if it wants to; at this point, Texas is waiting to see if the dominoes get pushed.
Once you look at the cascading effect and realize that A&M is planning on decreasing Big 12 payouts as will the rest of the schools, Texas has no real reason to sit around.
Texas will always have an advantage regardless of when it moves, whether it’s second (they’re not moving first) after Colorado but Texas has to put some sort of plan into action before the Big Ten announces anything otherwise doors slowly start to close.
Hence, the Big Ten at this point is just calculating payouts from various teams in the East and West in the event that Colorado goes nowhere and the Big Ten has to start the dance.
LikeLike
Playoffs Now – Your “Texas 4-pack” idea would work only for the SEC. I have a real hard time seeing Stanford, Cal UCLA & UW taking in Tech & Houston.
This idea of a SEC/Texas 4-pack has been floating around some SEC boards as well as the Rivals main board. Supposedly, the SEC would offer UT membership and let them pick the other 3 Texas schools.
I doubt the SEC would delegate that authority to any school though . . . even Texas.
LikeLike
PlayoffsNow, I don’t see that any of the schools that you have listed could play tag along with A&M or Texas. No clout, no reason. They were left behind the first time and won’t be picked up now. Their ship ship has sailed, period.
LikeLike
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse, playoffsnow.
The cart–four mega-conferences of 16 teams each.
The horse–no current mega-conferences beyond 12 teams.
I don’t think the powers-that-be have enough gumption to presume upon each other what is best for EVERYONE. The Big 10 is looking out for #1. So is the SEC…the PAC10…on down the line. At this point, to start theorizing ways that they ALL can go to 16 and can then break away from the NCAA is a bit hurried.
If the Big 10 goes to 14 in the next year, the SEC expands too, the Big East implodes and the PAC 10 goes to 12….then maybe someone, somewhere might start looking at your “breakaway” scenarios. But even then…it’s a CRAZY huge merger you’re talking about, worth gabillions of dollars…and it’s not going to all miraculous happen at once.
LikeLike
You’re right.
Plus there would be two superconferences and two WACs.
It’s not like the 4 conferences would be merging into an NFL. They’d be merging into a mess where two much stronger conferences dominate two conferences that are held together by bonds only a bit stronger than the WAC-16 bonds.
It’s hard for me to see the Pac-10 and ACC turn themselves into WACs with frills and bows for the hell of it.
I’m pretty sure Stanford and Berkeley will say no if the schemes get too out of control.
LikeLike
Well, the alternative, would be 2 super-conferences dominating in money and recognition because of their size, and 3 little sisters lost in the the 2 bigger one’s shadows.
That’s not sustainable either.
If Stanford starts to balk, the Pac-10 will find a way to work around them. There are some schools really, really hurting in the Pac-10 right now. (in case folks haven’t noticed California isn’t rolling in money as a state right now).
LikeLike
I’ve argued that a 4×16 realignment seems plausible if a massive realignment starts, and suddenly there are some BCS-worthy schools out there (Kansas? WVU?) who might not have a BCS home otherwise in some of the scenarios we’ve spelled out. But I’m not sure there’s a strong desire from the outset that a 4×16 is wanted. It just might wind up working out that way.
(But even if a 4×16 were desired from the onset or evolved naturally once realignment started, UH isn’t going to be included. Please, take off those Cougar-colored glasses you’re wearing!)
LikeLike
I think a 4×16 realignment IS the desired out come for some people. Many of the “powers” were a little miffed when the NCAA had D-1 and D-1A schools, and now there are 120 D-1 (FCS) schools. Some wanted far less, and more money in fewer hands. I think they see the 4×16 set up as the solution.
However, your comment on Houston I think is important. As you said, UH wouldn’t be in a Super-64. I agree. However, I think there are interests in the state of Texas that want to make sure the Super-64 doesn’t leave out “their school” wither that be Baylor, or UH, or Tech, or UTEP, or TCU or even Un. of Texas South of Austin when their program is up and running.
The best way would be for them to leverage and save their schools from being even more 2nd class programs would be to band together in the Texas Legislature, and block UT and A&M from leaving with out taking all of them. That requirement would effectively kill the Super 64 or the 4×16 alignment, cause like you say, UofH won’t be in that group.
What happens in Texas I think will determine wither a 4×16 super-64 could occur.
(and in the Pac-10 with Stanford’s veto vote possibly blocking all Pac-10 expansion)
LikeLike
However, I think there are interests in the state of Texas that want to make sure the Super-64 doesn’t leave out “their school” wither that be Baylor, or UH, or Tech, or UTEP, or TCU or even Un. of Texas South of Austin when their program is up and running.
It’s important to remember that Texas and Texas A&M have already demonstrated that they could successfully leave everyone but Tech and Baylor behind, so I would consider the probability that any of those other schools could force their way into the discussion via the Texas Legislature as close to zero.
It’s also important to remember that UT was less powerful in the Legislature 15 years ago than it is today, and Tech and Baylor were more powerful. And also keep in mind that the stakes were higher 15 years ago: even though the term “BCS” didn’t yet exist, the fight 15 years ago was over who would become a BCS school, and who wouldn’t. Today, even if Texas and A&M were to go their separate ways, Baylor and Tech would still almost certainly be BCS schools somewhere, even in the worst case scenario of joining what would be an upgraded MWC.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
In a 4×16 Super-64 set up, I think the stakes are just as high if not higher, as with the 4×16 we are looking at a playoff system, that could include ONLY those 64 teams.
And in any 4×16 set up I’ve seen, Baylor would be on the outside, and Tech on the bubble and usually outside as well, as they don’t fit in the Pac-10 or the SEC.
If there is a 4×16 Super-4 set up, any football program not in that group is now the equivalent of Sam Houston State, and no school that thinks it’s D-1 wants to be there.
So, can UT and A&M just walk away, cause they want to? I think there will be one hell of a fight to make sure that the smaller Texas programs are in the Super-64..and there just isn’t room for them in that kind of set up. If that means trying to kill UT’s and A&M’s leaving, I think that is what it comes down to in the fight.
LikeLike
Well, also recall that the fight in the 1990s meant less to Texas and A&M. Although they obviously preferred to leave Tech and Baylor behind, it wasn’t that big a deal, all things considered, to let those two schools jump aboard the liferaft, and I doubt there was much incentive for pro-UT and pro-A&M forces in the legislature to mount much of a fight.
This time around, the stakes could be the difference in UT & A&M being allowed to join a top-tier conference or being forced to stay behind in a dying conference. If those are the stakes, one can assume that the big dogs which weren’t called in the 1990s would be called this time.
LikeLike
Redhawk, I seem to be missing a link of thought some where. The Big Ten has announced their conference will expand. Yep, that is public knowledge. But only from you have I seen an insistance about an whole nation four 16 team conferences. Say What?
LikeLike
@ Wes Haggard
the SEC commissioner said last week, that he could see 4 conferences of 16 teams each, and that they could break away from the NCAA.
LikeLike
Some interesting TV contract numbers, if true:
Big XII
* ABC/ESPN: $60M/yr, 19 gms/yr, 8 year deal
* FSN: $19.5M/yr, 4 year deal
* Total: $6.625M per team per year
Big Ten
* ABC/ESPN: $100M/yr, 41 gms/yr, 10 year deal
* BTN: $112M/yr, 25 year deal
* Total: $19.272M per team per year
SEC
* CBS: $57M/yr, 15 gms/yr, 15 year deal
* ESPN: $150/yr, 15 year deal
* Total: $17.222M per team per year
Note the average pay per game:
SEC-CBS: 3.8
B12-ABC/ESPN: 3.2
B11-ABC/ESPN: 2.4
The B12 gets a higher payout per game than the B11, closer to the SEC. However the B11 has more than twice as many games broadcast.
LikeLike
Do you have a source?
LikeLike
“The B12 gets a higher payout per game than the B11, closer to the SEC. However the B11 has more than twice as many games broadcast.”
Well, one leads to the other. The first game the network chooses each week is the one they think will get the most viewers; this is the game they’ll pay the most money for. The second game is the one they think will get the second most viewers, and is thus worth less money.
So each game they buy per week is somewhat less valuable. If they reduced the number of Big 10 games they bought per year, the average price per game would rise.
However, it’s still possible that the best games in the Big 12 would be more valuable than the best games in the Big 10. The top teams in the Big 12 are quite attractive from a national standpoint.
The problem is, the Big 12 doesn’t have the depth of the SEC or Big 10. The SEC has more quality schools and a bigger population base to follow those schools; the Big 10 has the largest population base, giving them a bigger audience for all their games.
LikeLike
Also the BTN money isn’t set in stone. they own 51% of it. Everytime the BTN makes more money so do the schools. unlike the SEC/Big12/Pac-10 tv deals.
LikeLike
How about a new rumor? Oklahoma/Oklahoma State to the Big East. OK, I just made that up. But if you want to spread it around, just say that I heard it from an old girlfriend who works for OU. Or maybe it was a Big East school.
But the thinking is this. The Big Ten snags Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers. The Pac 10 take Colorado and Utah. At this point, UT and TAM think the Big 12 is doomed. A&M starts looking at SEC or Pac10 membership and Texas looks to go independent or maybe take A&M along into a 16 team Big 10.
The Big East still has seven football schools that are desperate to remain relevant. They need another school and ND won’t join for football. OU then becomes the biggest free agent left. They’ve already got South Florida in the Big East–is Norman all that much farther? (Not for Louisville, I’m sure.) Oklahoma won’t go without OSU, both for travel and political reasons.
Now this scenario doesn’t work if the Big Ten goes to 16 and takes Syracuse and Pitt (or UConn). Why? Because at that point, the Mountain West Conference becomes more attractive than the Big East and Oklahoma would go west with the Kansas schools to a new MWC, which would be a helluva basketball conference. They’ve even already got their own TV channel, which the Big East doesn’t.
Crazy? Yes. But a lot less crazy than some of the proposals that have been floating around like UNC and Duke to the SEC and Arkansas and LSU leaving the SEC for a new SWC.
LikeLike
Q&A on Big Ten expansion with Teddy Greenstein in the Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-big-ten-expansion-qa,0,5827329,full.column
LikeLike
I though this was an interesting question:
I’m a big Northwestern fan. They seem to be on the cusp of becoming more than a perennial Big Ten cellar-dweller in basketball. I don’t see expansion helping NU in basketball, or football either for that matter. NU is already a bit of a fish out of water in the Big Ten, sports-wise. Isn’t expansion to 14 or 16 teams going to push them further down the ladder?
I point that out because, for some reason, something I read in the wake of the ACC expansion stuck in my mind. Someone sorting through the pros and cons on one of the major websites was questioning why Wake Forest would ever support expansion. WF had trouble enough competing in a 9-team ACC. Add FSU, Um and BC to the mix, and how was Wake’s football team ever supposed to win more than one or two conference games a year?
Six years in, and Wake has as many ACC football titles in the ear of a 12-team ACC as Miami and FSU combined.
So you never no how well these things will work out for any individual school.
LikeLike
As an NU fan myself, I’m fairly pro expansion because NU relies the most (I believe) on the TV revenue for its sports teams.
Thus, NU will get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of % revenue expansion due to TV revenue increases. Sure the conference will get harder.
But I’d love to see NU play Nebraska or even Texas if that ends up happening. They’d be fun games even if we end up on the losing end most of the time.
I was at the game in ’04 when we beat Ohio State for the first time in 33 years (28 straight losses). I’ve never been a part of anything as crazy as that.
I still think expansion helps NU the most, which is why I think NU fans would be short sighted to not want teams like Nebraska or Texas to join since it would end up helping out our sports programs more than anyone else.
LikeLike
He mentions an article next week about the revenue created by the BTN. I’ll be very interested to read that, and compare it to the blog on here that talks about TV revenue.
LikeLike
The $22 million per school revenue figure is quoted in the article in yesterday’s Minneapolis-St. Paul. The source of the quote is Minnesota Athletic Director Joel Maturi. The $22 million dollar figure comes from television rights (including ABC, CBS and ESPN contracts) alone, according to the article.
http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/92558764.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
What do we know? According to that article, the Big Ten Network paid the conference $60 million in rights fees plus an additional $66 million in profits that were shared equally among the conference members for a total of $126 million. That translates into $11.45 million per school.
Sports Business Journal has an article dated March 3, 2008 that describes the different revenue streams to the various conferences. Go to: http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/58254
According to the article, Big Ten schools also receive TV revenue from the league’s deals with ESPN and CBS. ESPN will pay an average of $100 million per year over 10 years, starting at $83 million in the first year and escalating over the life of the contract.
CBS’s 10-year deal is worth $2 million annually. Each Big Ten school will reap an average of $9.27 million from those two deals, but again, those revenue numbers will be significantly less on the front end of the contract when the guarantees are smaller.
Adding the $11.45M and $9.27M figures and you get $20.72M. That’s not quite $22 million, but we’re getting closer. Where does the rest of the television rights revenue come from?
According to the BCS website, the Pac 10 received $22.2M from the Bowl Championship Series for the 2009/2010 season. Go to: http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4856975
The other bowl games generated $14M in revenue per this article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/12/15/bigten-expansion/index.html
If you take the combined bowl revenue of $36.2 million, then each school potentially gets $3.29 million. I say potentially because as I recall, the Big Ten confernce allocates part of that revenue to each school participating in a bowl game for expenses, then takes the remainder and gives an equal share to each porgram. That could easily make up the remaining $1.3 million or so.
To sum up, here’s what we’re looking at when that $22 million dollar figure is quoted:
Big Ten Network Profits/Rights Fees – $11.45 million per school
ABC/ESPN/CBS contracts – $9.27 million per school
BCS/Non-BCS Bowl Payout – Approximately $1.3 million per schools net revenue after expenses. Total revenue before expenses are $36.2 million.
Let’s now look at what the conference would need to do to keep its average revnue per school ($22M) with the addition of five members. The obvious breakeven point is that these sources above would have to add an additional $110M to the conference ($22M times 5).
Assuming the conference puts together a championship game. Putting the revenue on rough par with what the SEC receives, which is $14.3 million.
Would the BCS/non-BCS bowl payout be greater? Obviously this fluctuates depending on how many Big Ten teams get BCS bowl berths and the number of total bowls the conference gets with 16 teams. Assuming the BCS bowls per conferences maxes out at two per the current rules, let’s be conservative and say the bowl payout will increse by another $5 million total.
That leaves the remaining $90 million to come from a combination of the Big Ten Network, ABC, ESPN and CBS.
If Patrick’s figures (in parens) from the earlier blog are correct and assuming the Big Ten does add Nebraska($54.48M), Missouri ($45.90M), Syracuse (w/o NYC $43.50M), Pittsbugh ($34.37M) and Rutgers (w/NYC $67.80M) , then the value of these programs totals $246.05M. Obviously, that puts the conference well past the $90M mark required from the television contracts to break even.
If you add in additional bowl revenues plus the Big Ten championship game (not including semi-final games in this number), you’re now looking at roughly an additional $265M extra across the board with those five schools to add to the current $248M in shared revenues per Stewart Mandel’s article–that’s a back of the envelope calculation of $513M for 16 programs or a little over $32 million per school.
That comes down to $10 million more for the current Big Ten schools.
Per Mandel’s article, ACC schools get $5 million in shared revenue, so if Maryland were truly interested, there’d be plenty of financial incentive (Maryland would add $50M additional to conference, so this number might be slighly higher) to go from $5M to better than $30M.
The Big East is a bit higher at $8 million per program. The Big 12 varies a bit between schools because part of the money is based on television appearances. Schools of interest are Nebraska ($9.1M), Missouri ($8.4M), Kansas ($9.2M), Texas ($10.2M) and Texas A&M ($9.2M). Again, there’s a huge financial incentive for all these programs to join in an expanded Big Ten from the television rights reveue side alone.
LikeLike
@derek – I’d be interested to see that, too. We’ve been assuming all along that the Big Ten’s TV revenue was far above everyone else (particularly Notre Dame), but that may not be the case. ND’s NBC contract apparently gives them $15 million a year, which in addition to the $2 million they get from the Big East for basketball gives them $17 million. The Big Ten, according to Greenstein’s article, gets around $9 million from the networks and maybe $8 million from the BTN. That’s $17 million. And that $220 million figure he threw out (which included bowl revenues) would make each school’s take even lower. Maybe the Irish don’t have as much to gain from joining the Big Ten as we thought.
LikeLike
Also note from the article that ESPN’s Outside The Lines will address realignment today (Thursday 5/6) at 2 pm Central. I work at home, so I’ll try and watch.
LikeLike
Damn LT rape story bouncing conference realignment discussion.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn that was my first reaction too, but then noticed the number sixteen came up prominently in the story. Coincidence? I think not.
LikeLike
Ooh, good point! And LT went to UNC, and the alleged crime was in NY, so I’m thinking that this a clear signal that Syracuse will wind up in the ACC after all after its Big 10 dreams are wiped out.
LikeLike
That Teddy’s a pretty smart guy:
“The Cuse never made sense to me because of the smallish enrollment, tiny media market…subpar football facilities, and mopy comments from Jim Boeheim”
Good job Teddy, but you forgot the frozen tundra and lack of research $ problems
LikeLike
Still hating, I see.
LikeLike
Still right…..in fact, why don’t you go back through my posts and tell me where I’ve been factually inaccurate? If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
LikeLike
Didn’t say you were inaccurate, just observe that you have a real issue with Syracuse.
LikeLike
Re Teddy Greenstein’s recent article (5/6) on expansion (Frank)
Another interesting article.
Teddy’s claim to fame is not that he is smart but he is supposed to be well connected.
So in yet another article it appears he is again listing RU and SU as his “best guess” to be included as expansion targets in a likely 16 team expansion.
Equally interesting, he is now listing UConn as his best guess instead of Pitt perhaps because Pitt doesn’t add much of a unique footprint.
“We know that Delany wants to make a huge splash. And we know that TV revenue is driving expansion. If the Big Ten really wants to make an impact on the New York market, it will add Syracuse and UConn to go along with Rutgers. So I’ll go with 16 teams. More on divisions later.”
Another trial balloon for UConn?
LikeLike
@c Excellent observation. Pitt is the one school of the five mentioned by Dienhart that does not extend the Big Ten measured by state footprints (since the conference already has PSU in Pennsylvania). If the expansion is mostly about extending network reach and markets, UConn makes more sense than Pitt (or Kansas for that matter). One possible concern about UConn is that it is not really contiguous with the Big Ten unless Syracuse follows through and joins. Recall that Syracuse accepted, but then later reneged, on a commitment to join the ACC when that conference expanded.
LikeLike
Re SU and prior ACC expansion (Ron)
SU didn’t “renege” on a committment to join the ACC. They said yes and accepted the invitation.
Don’t you remember the ACC first “invited” Miami, BC and SU to be considered to begin the process of voting to expand the conference and even sent a team to inspect the schools. This was after years of study and informal conversations.
UNC and Duke were opposed to any expansion beyond Miami. UVA, the key 3d vote, then was told by the governor it had to vote for VT.
So the ACC invited Miami and VT and then after failed last minute discussions with ND, voted to invite BC to hold a conference playoff.
LikeLike
My memory is evidently faulty on that point. Had the impression at the time that Syracuse pulled out of the ACC expansion in hopes of eventually becoming the Big Ten’s 12th team. Looks like the blame for Syracuse being dropped really fell on inept ACC political handling of their expansion.
LikeLike
Syracuse never received an official invite to the ACC. Virginia politics and Duke/UNC trying to stop expansion beyond Miami prevented SU from ever coming up for a vote.
After that, SU admins at that time said they would never consider the ACC again.
LikeLike
Does point to a possible pitfall for Big Ten expansion. Plan should be for the Big Ten to present the entire expansion invitation package to the members for one straight up and down vote. Politicking over who to invite did not wind up serving the ACC well.
LikeLike
Re Big 10 voting (Ron)
The ACC expansion process indicates once the “experts” like Delany make their recommendations and outline options based on their studies and analysis and informal discussion with target schools, then the fun begins.
Wonder how involved are Big 10 Presidents at this stage? Do they have a President’s committee? Has a tentative consensus been reached? Do they now have the outlines of what is possible with respect to ND and others?
LikeLike
Latest musings from the Omaha paaper.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100505/SPORTS/705059807#shatel-expansive-range-of-reactions-to-big-ten
Love the reference to B10’s silly rivalries: ‘Getting to the conference title game and a shot at the National Championship should be worth more than fighting over the “Old Aluminum Spit Bucket” or “Paul Bunyon’s Log.”‘
LikeLike
Second attempt to post the link to today’s comments in the Omaha paper.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100505/SPORTS/705059807#shatel-expansive-range-of-reactions-to-big-ten
LikeLike
Take this with as much salt as befits an open ESPN poll, but they have “Would BCS conference expansion be good for college sports?” as one of their questions
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls
(click on college football in the lower left)
Right now it’s 60/40 yes. The only states opposed are WV (understandable), Maryland (not sure what to make of that), and Kansas (presumably Kansas and K-State fans worried about being left in a Big XII without Missouri).
LikeLike
Maryland now lies in the “yes” group.
LikeLike
This link is for Notre Dame fans who claim that the Big 10 (16) schedule would be too boring and regional if they were ever to join the Big 10 (16). Scroll down to “MicahAndMe” post.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=5598641&p=9
I want you to look at your current schedule(s) and look at those and give me your honest feedback. (Keep in mind that you’ll be without a conference for your other 15 sports in a few years as well.)
LikeLike
@ the people questioning the “$22 million a year” number
I believe the original source for that number is this Outside the Lines report:
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4757335
It says that the Big Ten received $242 million from television contracts per year. $242/(11 schools and 1 share for the conference itself)~= $22 million per school. They don’t particularly document how each contract (e.g. BTN, ESPN/ABC) contributes to that total.
LikeLike
The idea of Big Ten expansion is fueled by BTN money. And as our friends Frank and Patrick point out, the lion’s share of that money comes from football. Basketball is secondary. For the BTN to make money, they need to schedule more live events. More schools means more games available, and more money generated.
When we look east or west to what sort of football teams there are out there, to the east we see Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt. To the west, we see Nebraska, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas.
Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska are 5-star programs. These would be fantastic additions on the football field. The next tier would probably be Missouri, Pitt and A&M. I think this group is where the Big Ten should begin.
As much as I want to like Rutgers and Syracuse for their supposed market strength and academcis, from a fan’s perspective, it’s just hard to get excited about their football programs. Hoping they may get better someday doesn’t mean they deserve an invite today. Any invitee anywhere might get better someday.
Personally, I’m much more likely to turn on the TV to see good football teams–even if they’re not from my area. I have no connection to Texas, Oklahoma or Nebraska, but I’d rather watch their games than anyone Rutgers or Syracuse is playing. Ijust can’t help but feel the quality of the product on the field should be the most important thing to the BTN. Not geographic location of weaker programs.
If the NY market is really so important to making expansion work, (which I doubt–remember, the BT is generating more than anyone else without that market now), and if it’s determined that Rutgers and Syracuse hold the keys to untold riches, I think adding them should mean going to 20 and go with Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri TAMU, and Kansas.
There’s no reason not to consider 20. There’s nothing magic about 14 or 16. Plus with 20 you add huge markets, fantastic football programs, and fantastic basketball programs for non-stop BTN programming. There would be something good on all the time. Almost any football fan would like to have a network showing Ohio State versus Texas, Oklahoma against Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State. The Big Ten would be hands-down the best conference in the only two sports that matter. The BTN would be appealing even in the southeast and west coast.
The difficulties would be, first, to convince the Texas schools to join. But I’d imagine the prospect would be much more appealing with this configuration, given the market and quality of product and the amount of money to be made. The other issue would be to get Oklahoma’s academics in line.
But that would be a cataclysmic shift in college athletics.
LikeLike
Great comment. I completely agree. I could live with Nebraska, Missouri, and Pitt. But Rutgers and Syracuse provide no excitement to folks west of Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
pass
LikeLike
One thing from my perspective:
My enthusiasm for Texas joining the Big 10 has always been under the assumption that Texas would be the 12th member of a 12-school Big 10. I would be very disappointed if the Big 10 invited only one school, and that school were one other than Texas.
But if Texas weren’t to be included in a 16-team Big 10, I’d still be disappointed, but not to nearly the same extent. Part of it is a little weariness as to the 16-school model can really be pulled off in football (the failure of the WAC doesn’t phase me, as I see it as a completely apples-oranges situation), but I think a bigger part of it is, frankly, when I get excited about joining the Big 10, road trips to Syracuse and Piscataway don’t factor in at all to that excitement.
LikeLike
Re Texas as 12th team (Hopkins horn)
Another interesting yet surreal post that comes when being on the outside and getting caught up in a guessing game.
Does anybody anywhere have any reason to believe Texas is in play? Not logically but actually; not reasons why it may be or could be or might be?
Does anyone really believe if Texas wants in they wouldn’t be accepted yesterday or tomorrow?
Does anyone believe if Texas wants in, the Big 10 wouldn’t try their best to accommodate them? Same with ND?
Seriously what does the “possibility” that RU or SU may be invited have to do with Texas joining or not joining? Is Texas waiting to see if RU is first invited before they decide?
LikeLike
@C,
Of course there’s no actual reason to believe Texas is in play right now, just as there is no actual news about virtually any school speculated about on this board.
Seriously what does the “possibility” that RU or SU may be invited have to do with Texas joining or not joining?
My point was from my personal vantage point as a UT booster who wants to see US wind up in the Big 10 and not what I believe the school is thinking. I was making the point that I, personally, would be less disappointed if Texas didn’t wind up in a sprawling 16-team Big 10 than I would be if Texas didn’t wind up in a 12-team Big 10.
Who knows what the powers that be at UT would prefer sizewise if the school did want to move to the Big 10.
LikeLike
UT & TAMU fans,
Assuming the BT expands beyond 12 and UT &/ TAMU joins… Would you prefer 14 or 16 teams? Who would you like to see come in w/ them? Would you like to join w/ or w/o your in-state rival?
I’m curious what would get Longhorn & Aggie fans the most excited about joining? As a BT/Hawkeye fan, I’d love to have both/either join. They are both tradition-rich universities, on and off of the field. And, we BTers love or tradition(s).
LikeLike
Longhorns & Aggies,
As a Hawkeye & BT fan, I’d love to see UT & TAMU join. They each are tradition-rich universities that hold their own, both on the field and in the classroom. Each of them, on their own merits, would be quality additions to the BT.
I agree w/ many, that universities like RU aren’t the most exciting candidates, athletically speaking. I also understabd why they are candidates. I’m curious as to what additions would most excite UT & TAMU fans.
What I’d like to know is, assuming the BT goes to 12+ teams…
1. Would you like your team to join the BT & why?
2. If yes, what other universities would you most like to join w/ you & why? Would you like your in-state rival to join, or be left out & why?
LikeLike
I didn’t realize my original post went through, all apologies.
LikeLike
If the Big 10 were to nab Texas and A&M, I would like the expansion to stay at 14 and have Nebraska be the 14th team. And if Nebraska says “no” to being in a conference with Texas, settle for Notre Dame.
(Just kidding Irish fans! Nobody would be merely “settling” for you. You guys are the most important people on the planet and I would be in awe just to walk the same conference ground as you!)
And would I prefer Texas be in a 12-team Big 10 without A&M or a 14-team with A&M? I really don’t have much of a preference either way. I assume that the two schools would continue their rivalry in all sports regardless of conference affiliation.
LikeLike
I would like A&M to join with UT because it would offer the best combination of athletics, academics, and money. As someone who doesn’t live in Texas, it would also be nice to see more games from A&M’s conference on TV. If academics were taken out of the picture I might lean more towards the SEC.
Probably the most appealing expansion for me was the 14 team ‘pod’ setup proposed by commenter Brent months ago:
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/template-for-shooting-down-any-argument-against-texas-going-to-the-big-ten/#comment-55445
Playing everyone over 4 years while still having 4 non-conference games would be appealing.
Of course, if the money is better with 16 schools, I wouldn’t be opposed. Colorado/Nebraska/Missouri would be the 3 schools that I find most appealing.
If schools were taken from the East, I suppose I would rank them 1)Maryland 2)Rutgers, then a drop to 3)UConn 4)Pitt 5)Syracuse. I don’t see Notre Dame as having a lot of long term potential.
If they took multiple teams from the East, I would be less enthusiastic depending on who A&M had for annual rivalries. If they were willing to break up some Big 10 rivalries and make a pod of UT/A&M/Nebraska/Iowa, I’d be much more excited than if the 2 schools were paired with Illinois and Northwestern.
LikeLike
Since we all know that Frank is actually Jim Delaney, we’ve just about got it figured out as to the institutions that the BT should extend invitations to.
The invitees SHOULD be…
* UT (Home Run)
* TAMU (Triple, at least)
* NU (Stand-Up Triple)
* Pitt (Solid Double, at least)
* And one of…
* East: MD, RU, SU or UConn
* West: MU or KU
I think the UT/TAMU combo would satisfy the entire BT (athletically & academically). NU would satisfy the entire BT, especially the western states (and Iowa, in particular). Pitt would provide PSU with a travel partner & restore a natural rivalry, while possibly satisfying the eastern states, especially academically.
So… who SHOULD be the 5th invitee (assuming we’re going to 16)?
LikeLike
I think your list of top four preferred invitees is exactly right.
Texas
TAMU
Nebraska
Pitt
Your list of Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Missouri, Kansas could have Colorado and UConn added as well.
I don’t have overly strong feelings about most of the other schools on the 5th invitee list as none are really great football schools.
And that’s the appeal of Oklahoma.
While I understand the academic objection, (I could argue the opposing side as well), but their football is VERY appealing and any football team in the nation would look forward to a game with the Sooners. So let’s look at them for a moment.
On the academic front, I would point out that they’re tied with Syracuse, Georgetown and Wake Forest at a ranking of #113 in the US on ARWU. Why dismiss Oklahoma if you don’t dismiss Syracuse?
(I mention Wake Forest because you might recall that one of our domer friends told us earlier that Wake Forest has passed Michigan academically.)
To put this #113 rank in further prospective, Kansas, Notre Dame and Missouri are all tied at 91 (the group just above Oklahoma on ARWU) and #113 is ahead of UConn and Boston College, other schools which have gotten some serious discussion on this board.
Oklahoma’s research is at lower-than-BT level of $192 million, yes, but that’s one spot below Princeton and double that of Notre Dame, 4.7 times that of Boston College, and 5 times that of Syracuse.
Again, why dismiss Oklahoma if you’re still discussing Notre Dame, BC and Syracuce?
So as a football fan, I’m going with Oklahoma as my fifth team.
Beyond OK, I’d go with Colorado (great college town to visit for games, good academics, very good research contributor) or Maryland (good academics and research, good basketball).
Next, I’d go with Missouri (good combo of football and basketball) over Kansas (great basketball, but of lesser value than football).
I don’t mind Rutgers as a school, but I just can’t warm up to the sports. UConn would be next on my list, followed by Syracuse. (I don’t dislike any of these schools–it’s just what appeals to me as candidates.)
As Texas and TAMU likely won’t come aboard, I think you need three from the 2nd group. I don’t think Oklahoma or Colorado will actually get an invite, nor do I think Maryland would come if asked. So that leaves three spots for four teams. I’d leave out Syracuse, but I think Kansas will be the actual team that doesn’t make the cut.
My guess as to who eventually joins is Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse.
LikeLike
Scott S/djinndjinn,
I agree with you about UConn, but they were already on my list. I didn’t include CU, because my understanding is that their best cultural fit is w/i the P10 (better than the Bt or B12). And, apparently CU has many more alums in the P10 footprint vs. the BT footprint (or the b12 footprint, for that matter).
LikeLike
Yes, you’re right. You did include UConn. Living in Canada, I must have been looking for Yukon.
Regarding Colorado, I’m not sure about their cultural fit being closer to that of the Pac 10, but most people do feel they’re more likley to go west.
Boulder is a great place to visit for a game, though. Scenic, pedestrian-friendly, quirky. And it does appeal to me for academic and research reasons.
LikeLike
@Djinn (aka Scott C)
I agree the impetus for this expansion will be more $$$ for athletics. However, I doubt it will be the “be all end all”. To that end, I simply cannot see certain teams (Oklahoma, which is the lowest ranked in ARWU of any expansion candidate school, not a member of the AAU and in general “not a Big10 school”) being included.
Once we remove the “no chance in hell” teams we have a grouping to work with (speaking to those teams specifically you mention)…
Texas is a great school with a great sports following.
Nebraska has a national following whose entered a decade of mediocrity and whose total state population is 1.7 million. Point being is they have “zero” local markets and their lack of production on the football field (recently) makes it harder to project future earning and guarantee a future national product. What’s more, outside of football, they are exactly how good as a national brand?
Oklahoma…I’ve already mentioned why they won’t be invited to the Big10…
Moving on to the “second tier” teams…
While you may be correct in that the “national audience” would be more interested in the marquee names mentioned before (but then again, only if they are playing other national programs) the fact remains local markets tend to be interested in local teams, especially so if big program (with alumni in the local markets) are coming to play. Right now the Big10 enjoys a surplus of OSU/UoM/OSU alumni in the mid-atlantic region. While you may not find the prospect of NJ/’Cuse/UConn football appealing (and from a national football perspective I’d agree), I’d say from a “secondary game getting on the BTN” standpoint this is a very appealing game (is likely to get on the BTN and to attract decent $$$). In point of fact, its not about “hope” its about knowing what your own “big programs” can provide in areas that are not yet part of your geographic footprint and making sure those markets become part of your “footprint”.
As for 20 vice 16…first off I tend to agree and have mentioned quite a few (unlikely) scenarios in which 20 is the outcome. Here’s the thing…
4Teams x 4Divisions has a very nice schedule where any single team plays everyone in its division plus one other division and plays a total of 7 conference games…which allows the same 4 OoC games currently scheduled to be played. Whether they be “national name building games” or “cupcakes to increase the home game numbers/$$$” it doesn’t matter. Moving to a 20 team league (assuming the same 4 Divisions) would require a 9 game conference schedule. While some programs may not care about the reduction, those that depend on the OoC games to provide “home game filler” might not prefer the loss of revenue stream.
Point being, going to 16 is actually pretty easy so long as the conference has a tv channel, IMO. Once you decide to go to 20, the conference puts itself right back where it started in that it needs to make “more money from the conference games” to offset the fact that each team is losing x2 OoC games (potentially home games) and all the revenue streams that would go with them.
That being said…if every division has x1 National program ,x2 “Second Tier” programs, & x2 “Doormat Programs” I think the 20 team conference could in fact work (as it would make up in the in conference games what the individual school lose in the OoC games).
LikeLike
Patrick,
I think you’re overly downgrading Nebraska’s value as far as their recent football performance and national brand.
They have been down recently by Nebraska standards. Even so their winning % ranks 3rd since 2000 and 4th in the last 5 years compared to the other BT powers. So in Nebraska’s worst period in 50 years, their football would still be BT top tier.
And keep in mind, EVERY top program, including Texas, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc has similar low points. What makes them all such valuable “football brands” is their resilience over time.
Thanks for your excellent contributions on Frank’s blog, I’ve enjoyed them very much.
LikeLike
PSUGuy, my mistake addressing you as Patrick:)
You’ve both posted so many outstanding comments.
LikeLike
Oklahoma will never, ever, be in the Big Ten. Nor should they be.
LikeLike
Pez, PSUGuy–I know Oklahoma is an unlikely candidate school, but based simply on the rather beguiling appeal of their football team, I’ve made an argument on their behalf in the post just above, followed by my actual predictions.
PSUGuy–as for your commments on the bloom being off of Nebraska’s rose are well taken. However, any school would stumble a bit following Osbourne’s departure. Bo Pelini seems to have them back on track. They finished 9-4 in 2008 (his first season) and they ended last season’s 10-4 record with their highest ranking in a decade (#14). He’s also 2-0 in his bowl games.
And while their state population is low, they have a good regional and even national following, to the point where they have been ranked 4th in football brand value in the NCAA. So someone is watching. Just as small-city, smallish state Notre Dame and the Green Bay Packers are followed well beyond the levels that might be indicated if one went simply by the local population.
LikeLike
It looks like the Pac 10 & the Big 12 are starting to discuss some sort of partnership.
Here is the link to an ESPn article about it:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/9790/expansion-what-about-a-pac-10-big-12-partnership
One of the paragraphs states “Big 12 and Pac-10 administrators and athletic directors met Wednesday in Phoenix, and afterwards Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott used terms like “strategic alliance” and “pooling TV rights” and “joint network.”
Now that doesn’t sound so much like they are looking to merge into one conference, but it does sound like they are looking to at least team up on a TV rights deal and to form a political alliance.
Speaking of political alliance, I though the phrase “strategic alliance” was interesting. The first thing that popped into my mind when I read that phrase was that if the Big 10 does get both Mizzou & Neb, both the Pac 10 & the Big 12 conferences will have only 10 teams and not very many options as far as gaining more schools in order to expand (without one conference killing off the other). Neither conference would be able to play a conference championship game, and more importantly they wouldn’t have enough leverage to broker a TV deal that would come close to the Big 10 or the SEC. If they made a “strategic allaince” they could set up cross conference matchups to go along with their inter-conference round robin type of schedule to help bolster their TV leverage. Plus they could combine their efforts to try and change the 12 teams requirement for conference championship games.
I thought this was interesting in that it might be a sign that the Big 12 knows it is about to get hit and is starting to formulate their reaction to a Big 10 raid.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. There have been some in the Longhorn camp other than me who have been foreseeing some sort of Western Alliance like this which stops short of either a merger of the two conferences or one conference (presumably the Pac 10) consuming the most desirable members of the other.
Instinctive, I would think that, if such an alliance were to form after the Big 10 grabs two Big XII members (presumably NU and Mizzou, but I think this still works if the Big 10 successfully lures Texas and A&M), an alliance would reach the following agreements:
(1) the Pac 10 doesn’t invite Colorado, or any other school from the Big XII, to join;
(2) the two conferences each agree to remain at 10 schools for the time being — the unspoken reason being to prevent any MWC school from being promoted to BCS level as replacements; and
(3) as you note, joint lobbying for permission to stage a championship game with only ten schools. If the implied response to a negative answer is even more realignment madness, I think the answer from the NCAA would have to be “yes.”
It could also include a Pac 10-Big XII challenge weekend, much as they already do in basketball. (You didn’t know the Big XII and the Pac 10 have the same sort of challenge series the ACC and Big 10 have? See? Great example of our conferences’ relative exposure problems.)
I would wonder if the two conferences would look to bolt the ABC/ESPN family of networks, at least the ABC half of the equation, given how crowded that network can be for regional coverage on Saturday afternoons. NBC College Football Saturday Night has a nice ring to it, and NBC can show a Pac 10/Big XII double-header weeks ND isn’t at home. And if such an alliance takes place, maybe NBC would encourage the Irish to cut back on their Big 10 OOC games in favor of scheduling more games against Big 10/Pac 10 games.
LikeLike
I think that if in the efforts of self preservation (Big 12) and willingness to attempt anything to increase any available revenue (Pac 10) that a western alliance of some kind is created AND the Big 10 snakes 2 from the Big 12…..then the MWC will be destroyed. I don’t see them staying at ten each and creating a championship game. Just my opinion but TCU, Utah, BYU, and UNM would probably find there way into the conferences somehow. Maybe even a Colorado to Pac 10 agreement in the process (if they decide to combine forces anyway).
LikeLike
That maybe another (although I think a somewhat lesser) motive for forming an allaince. Now I can see the Big 12 taking on two more teams like BYU and TCU, but I just can’t see the Pac 10 adding two more teams. I can see them taking Utah, but it is that 12th team that is the tough one to figure. If they form an allaince with the Big 12, I very seriously doubt that they continue to go after Colorado.
I think that staying at 10 teams each is a better scenario for the two conferences starting out (especially the Pac 10). Now depending on the size of the TV contract that they get and how successful they are in lobbying for the lift on the 12 team requirement for a conference championship game, that could change. If they can’t get the 12 team requirement lifted and if the new tv contract is under the range of the Big 10/SEC contracts, they may be forced to go to 12 teams in order to get the money for the championship game.
Now if they are forced to go to 12 teams, getting teams may be a little difficult for the Pac 10, although the Big 12 may have some options. The Big 12 could get TCU, BYU, Utah, Boise ST, and (if the money they get from the TV contract is anywhere close the SEC’s money) maybe Arkansas. The Pac 10’s options, on the other hand, would be Utah and in order to add any other school, it would have to “lower their standards”. It could go after BYU, but that would be a last resort. I guess they could go after New Mexico or UNLV, but those schools aren’t headline grabbers.
LikeLike
You can’t just bolt the ABC half of ABC/ESPN. I’m pretty sure it’s a joint deal. While I like the ring of your NBC Saturday Night double header, you’re assuming NBC wants back into the arena for CFB. They’ve paid peanuts to ND compared to CBS’s and ABC/ESPN’s deals with all the other schools. I think creating their own Western Alliance Network (with primary rights still going to ABC/ESPN) is the best way for the two conferences to make money. Stay small so there are less teams to share with (after all, there aren’t a ton of “slam dunk” teams in the MWC or WAC)…ten teams each. Petition for the championship game. Do the “challenge” game on the second weekend of the year. That sounds like marketing gold to me.
Nebraska and Mizzou can fly the coup…and the pieces will really be nicely in place.
One thing is for sure…the Big 12 has got to do SOMETHING to keep Texas inside. This may be it.
LikeLike
Actually the SEC conference games are on ESPN and not ABC. In cross conference games in which the non-SEC teams have the rights to the games may be on ABC, but SEC vs SEC games are not on ABC.
LikeLike
Also, the Big 10 and Pac 10 only play a handful of cable games on ESPN; FSN gets a bulk of the business. And up until 2008, both conferences were off ESPN for cable entirely for several years. So the broadcast and cable rights to ABC/ESPN seem severable, though it wouldn’t surprise me if the company wanted to make them less severable on a go-forward basis.
LikeLike
How would a theoretical challenge weekend look?
I assume the best way to set it up would be matching up the schools by the previous year’s conference record (or, perhaps, by extrapolated BCS rating, if such ratings can be extrapolated into the 90s), with slight adjusting allowed to prevent duplicate games (for example, Texas and Cal already have a home-and-home in 2015-16). Home site alternates annually: Big XII hosts all games one year, the Pac 10 all the games the next.
LikeLike
@ jokewood
I don’t think a western TV network would get much traction in SLC or Vegas (can’t speak to New Mexico but I think its the same) without teams from those cities being included in the Pac-10 or Big 12.
I lived in Utah for a number of years and live in Vegas now. Although not large cities, the fans in these cities follow their local sports teams closely and I believe the Pac-10/Big 12 games would mostly be an afterthought–at least in terms of TV ratings. Also, I don’t get the impression that many Big 12 or Pac-10 alums live in the Utah, New Mexico, or Vegas footprint, which would also contrbute to very modest ratings.
LikeLike
Oneforthemoney,
That may be enough incentive for Pac 10 & Big 12 to expand to 12 teams and add Utah, BYU, and UNLV to make sure they have those western markets. I could see the Big 12 getting BYU and possibly TCU, and the Pac 10 getting Utah and UNLV (I’m not sure what UNLV’s academic reputation is and that would be a deciding factor). The if they formed a TV allaince, they would then hold most all of the major TV markets in the western half of the US.
LikeLike
@Bamatab:
The Pac 10 wouldn’t even sniff UNLV.
LikeLike
I’m sure it would be matched up YEARS in advance between similarly prestigious universities. For example, Oklahoma would NEVER play WSU. Likewise, USC would never play Kansas St.. They’d rotate opponents though after every 1-1 series was complete. Each school would lobby for its opponent. But it would be set up 4-6 years in advance.
LikeLike
If Colorado is off the table, then I cannot see the Pac-10 expanding. While Larry Scott has previously said that a title game is a high priority issue, I think that simply keeping up with the Joneses financially is the bigger picture. Individual members don’t want to expand the conference if they don’t have to. Stanford, Cal, and UCLA are picky about academics. The Washington, Oregon, and Arizona schools all want to play as many games in California as possible. And USC likes being the top dog. The schools seem to get along well, and the conference has a unique West Coast identity. It’s a stable and powerful conference. They just need to be smarter and more aggressive about money.
We all like to dream up 4×16 conference scenarios, but no one is going leave out a 10-team Pac-10 or 10-team Big 12 from a post-NCAA college football landscape. If the Big Ten expands to 14 or 16, the only conferences that will follow are those for which expansion is athletically, academically, and financially attractive.
If a Pac-10/Big-12 TV alliance is formed, then I’m not sure either conference will have a huge incentive to expand. CCGs are nice, but they are not the end-all-be-all. It would be interesting to see if a Western Alliance Network could pull in the Salt Lake, Las Vegas, and Albuquerque markets by flanking them with Pac-10 / Big 12 schools but having no direct penetration.
LikeLike
One additional note:
If a Western Alliance Network becomes a highly successful revenue source, then I think the “Arkansas will never leave the SEC” rule moves from carved in stone to penciled on paper.
LikeLike
@jokewood
I think you are right about that. A Pac-10/Big 12 network could work without those schools, but it would likely be more profitable if it were contiguous and did not leap over Utah and Nevada. BYU and Utah make sense as expansion targets for this reason, in addition to having good atheltic programs (though I think everyone agrees BYU would have to go to the Big 12, not the Pac-10).
The real problem is UNLV. It is not an academically respected institution, and I reall think the Pac-10, would have major qualms about taking them. Honestly, I think it might rather invute BYU than UNLV.
Although now that I think about it, New Mexico might make the most sense. It also falls geographically between the two conferences. New Mexico, I think, is viewed more favorably than UNLV. Again though, the Pac-10 is so academically minded, it just seems like a stretch for it to want anyone other than Utah and CO. Maybe the network would just leap over UT, NM, and Vegas. Or let the Big 12 plug in whomever it wants after the Big 10 expands.
LikeLike
@Jokewood:
To be honest, even with these discussions I don’t think Colorado is necessarily off the table for the Pac10. It would depend if they see this alliance as solely for broadcasting or if they see it as a merger of sorts.
If it’s solely for broadcasting, it still might not make sense for the Pac10 and Big12-2 to remain at 10 teams (assuming two Big12 teams defect). As the NCAA rules state, you can’t hold a CCG with less than 12 teams. They could attempt to change it, but the ACC already tried with 11 and failed this decade.
To be frank, with the Big12’s current “flexibility” regarding academics (compared to the Pac10 for sure), it might make sense to “give” Colorado to the Pac10 if CU wants to go anyway. It would leave the Big12 needing 3 teams now, but there’s no saying they wouldn’t be interested in adding some of the teams the Pac10 refuses to touch — such as BYU, TCU, UNM, or even a Boise St. perhaps.
We talk about there being little interest in expanding the BCS pie by “graduating” teams from non-AQ conferences. But in the current political climate that might be necessary if a large reshuffling is slated to occur. And all the teams causing trouble for the BCS are located out west/southwest. Letting Utah/BYU/TCU/Boise St. sit at the grown up’s table does a lot to release that pressure, and I imagine a lot of this antitrust hoopla goes away the second Utah gets a call from the Pac10 commissioner. Moreover, for an individual conference dreaming of their own network, adding Boise does very little for you. But as a two conference coalition based in 11-12 states, representing almost every state (and every program worth anything) in the western half of the United States?
Granted, in this scenario it feels like a lot of altruism from the Big12, and Texas in particular. I can’t really see why Texas would go along with this setup, given that they’d lose an academic peer (CU) and get the potential added burden of dealing with Boise St. for travel.
LikeLike
@Manifesto:
The “haves” need only assimilate a few of the “have nots” to kill off the anti-trust hoopla.
Utah… a Utah/Colorado expansion would make sense for the Pac 10. Utah is a solid state university located in the Salt Lake DMA.
BYU… if potential conference members can look beyond the religion component, BYU would make an excellent addition to the Big 12. Despite their non-AQ status, last year BYU football outdrew Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, Stanford, Arizona State, Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Colorado. Mormons love their football! The BYU brand would be a big seller in the Western Alliance Network footprint – both in Utah and throughout the west.
TCU… have less going for them than the Utah schools since they are smaller and located in a well-covered territory. However, Texas might want to create a Texas-only, SWC-y Big 12 south if Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri leave. TCU also gets a sizable draw (38,000) for a non-AQ school.
Boise State… I can’t see them making it to the grown-up table. Nice football team, but that’s about it. Too small.
LikeLike
The problem with these models is that the 20 schools together might not make as much money as a 16 school Big 10; probably not much more than a 16 team Pac 10 that includes Texas, Colorado, A&M, and Oklahoma. So they will be making less per school than other options.
Still, with uneven revenue sharing, maybe it will keep the big schools close enough to their competitors in the SEC and Big 10. The lesser schools wouldn’t have good alternatives.
I’m not a big fan of championship games for conferences where everyone plays nearly everybody else. If they do grant some type of waiver, perhaps each conference could form two 5 school divisions. You could play everyone in your division (4 games), 2 teams in the opposite division (2 games), and 2 teams from the other conference (2 games). You could only count division games to decide who gets into the conference title game, or perhaps only conference games. This would create more variety for an 8 game schedule, still leaving 4 games for the individual schools to schedule.
LikeLike
There could be another way to view this meeting. I remember back in the SWC days when then Commissioner Fred Jacoby was holding the same type publicly announced conferences in an attempt to keep the conference together. This could be an announced public forum in an attempt to keep A&M and Texas, maybe even Nebraska and Missouri from joing the Big Ten. I certainly think this possibilty exists.
LikeLike
I was trying to find some information regarding expansion and ran across this tidbit from wikipedia. I did not know that the Big10 was considering adding Kansas, Missouri and Rutgers back in 1993. Did anyone else know that? What do you suppose happened that killed the talks aside from the formation of the Big12?
The University of Texas also approached and entered into discussions with the Big Ten in the 1990s. After approaching the PAC-10, UT next approached the Big Ten. Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT’s profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that all 11 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.
Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away.
But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT’s overtures.
Around 1993, it was also explored by the league to add Kansas, Missouri, and Rutgers, or other potential schools to create a 14-team league with two divisions.[12] These talks died when the Big 8 Conference merged with former Southwest Conference members to create the Big 12″.
LikeLike
I was trying to find some information regarding expansion and ran across this tidbit from wikipedia. I did not know that the Big10 was considering adding Kansas, Missouri and Rutgers back in 1993. Did anyone else know that? What do you suppose happened that killed the talks aside from the formation of the Big12? There was an archived article in the Chicago Tribune regarding this, but of course it is not free.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/7969636.html?dids=7969636:7969636&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+10%2C+1993&author=Sherman%2C+Ed&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Kansas%2C+Big+10+a+good+fit%3F&pqatl=google
From wikipedia:
The University of Texas also approached and entered into discussions with the Big Ten in the 1990s. After approaching the PAC-10, UT next approached the Big Ten. Having added Penn State in 1990, the Big Ten was now made of universities that, in the view of UT officials, matched UT’s profile — large state schools with strong academic reputations. Berdahl liked the fact that all 11 conference members belonged to the American Association of Universities.
Yet, distance remained a disadvantage. Iowa, the closest Big Ten school to Austin, was 856 miles away.
But after adding Penn State in 1990, Big Ten officials had put a four-year moratorium on expansion. Although admitting interest, Big Ten bosses ultimately rejected UT’s overtures.
Around 1993, it was also explored by the league to add Kansas, Missouri, and Rutgers, or other potential schools to create a 14-team league with two divisions.[12] These talks died when the Big 8 Conference merged with former Southwest Conference members to create the Big 12″.
LikeLike
I also did not know that West Virgina inquired of the Big10 back in 1990. To read the full article, you must register for a free trial. Apparently, they inquired about what they would need to do for Big10 membership. Maybe WV to the Big10 may not be far fetched.
From the article:
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. West Virginia has talked with Big Ten officials about joining the conference should it decide to expand its membership, Mountaineer athletic director Ed Pastilong says.
“We have had informal talks with the Big Ten. We have talked with (Big Ten Commissioner) Jim Delany and with some of the other member schools.” Pastilong said.
“I think if the Big Ten does consider adding a 12th team that we would be given serious consideration,” he told the Charleston Daily Mail.
The Big Ten presidents have invited Penn State to join the conference, but that situation reportedly has grown shaky because of opposition from some members.
There also has …
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3997402.html
LikeLike
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/06/1929542/big-12-pac-10-look-at-alliance.html
More on the Big 12/Pac 10 alliance that is in the works. Does this ‘light a fire’ under Delaney to maybe speed up the process? If this comes to fruition; then the destablized Big 12 and its prospective teams may not be as unstable and ripe for the picking.
LikeLike
It only lights a fire under Delaney if the Pac-10 isn’t going to take Colorado as a result of all this.
That’s the only thing that matters.
The Big Ten is content to wait for the Pac-10 to move on Colorado and then make its gambit.
But if the implication of these Pac-10/Big 12 talks is that there won’t be any Pac-10 movement, then we’re going to see the Big Ten have to make its move first.
So, we should wait for the dust to settle. This doesn’t really light a fire under anyone though because the talks on revenue don’t come for another 2 years.
Sure it’s a warning shot at Delaney, but it only matters if the Pac-10 doesn’t poach Colorado as a result of this.
If that ends up happening, then the Big Ten will need to destabilize the Big 12 by taking Nebraska and Missouri.
LikeLike
Er, another year before negotiations start.
LikeLike
zeek, I have a feeling that the Pac 10 may have crunched the numbers and figured out the even if they add Colorado and Utah, they won’t have enough leverage to warrant an TV deal that it in the SEC’s ballpark (much less in the Big 10’s ballpark). Again, the Pac 10’s options are limited and without adding Texas, I don’t see how they can gain a new TV deal without some sort of allaince/merger with the Big 12.
LikeLike
I agree. Texas/A&M are the only additions that can improve the Pac-10 revenue per team to the $15-20M range.
But I’m not really sure how an alliance would do that unless they’re guaranteeing USC and Texas v some Big 12 and Pac-10 teams respectively or something.
It’s just hard for me to see this doing that much for either league short of a merger.
A network alliance is interesting but unless it increases the number of games that networks would want to carry for each conference, it won’t do anything.
But yeah, I do agree that taking Colorado/Utah won’t do much other than give the Pac-10 a championship game.
We’ll know whether this meeting met anything by the end of July if the Pac-10 doesn’t announce anything about Colorado.
LikeLike
You know, guys. I reread what Teddy Greenstein wrote in his most recent article and I really question if he has any insider information at all. I see items in it that look practically copy/pasted directly from Frank’s blog.
I’m calling BS on that guy.
LikeLike
@Jeepers:
I’ve said that before as well, though not specifically about Greenstein.
I have no doubt that some of these journalists are using the infamous “anonymous source” as a cover for just using this blog. They’d be smart to anyway; it beats just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, which is what seems to be happening 95% of the time right now.
LikeLike
FWIW, I am a Rutgers fan and there is an RU message board where a former RU and Michigan beat writer (Jim Carty) occasionally posts and said Greenstein is the most tied in reporter to the Big 10 conference, in his opinion.
Doesn’t make me think anything he says is a lock, but it carries some weight. He’s not just talking out of his ass.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, regarding the Pac 10 – Big 12 meeting, Nebraska (Osborne), Texas (Dodds) and Kansas (Perkins) did not attend due to “scheduling conflicts”. Hmmm.
LikeLike
See my post above about the breakup of the old SWC and the similar scenario.
LikeLike
Well, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar…
LikeLike
Yeah I know, but where’s the fun in that? It’s much more entertaining to overanalyze every comment these guys make and read too much into everything they do. Work with me here.
LikeLike
Oh, of course!
So it looks like we have a Pac-19 on the drawing board. Any truth to the rumor that Osborne, Dodds and Perkins were all seen this week with Mike Silve?
LikeLike
Heh, that says more than anything else about it.
Although for our purposes, the most important thing is whether this means the Pac-10 won’t take Colorado. Until we know that, the meeting doesn’t have much of an impact on anything.
Moreso now that you’ve pointed out the absence of two of the most important people in the expansion talks.
LikeLike
College Football Live is saying some dumb things about mega conference expansion options right now.
LikeLike
This is the worst discussion I’ve ever seen on ESPN about conference expansion.
The only one who added anything of value was the Pac-10 beat reporter who called in and said that Utah and Colorado were the only ones that made sense. And that they dream of getting Texas/A&M.
Other than that, the scenarios mostly make no sense.
Leaving Rutgers out of the Big Ten mix in favor of Syracuse and then adding BYU and TCU to Pac-10 is a big lolwhat.
And then the most egregious part of this discussion was the whole “LOL ACADEMICS WHAT ITS ALL ABOUT FOOTBALL PASSION” and “wouldn’t Harvard be the most valuable school if this was about academics?”
This is horrible.
LikeLike
Wow, interesting developments!
As for those saying that if a Pac-10/Big 12 alliance happened, they wouldn’t go after the MWC teams, I think that’s not true at all.
the MWC will be a BCS auto-qualifier, by adding Boise St, unless the BCS changes it’s rules. In fact I think the MWC moves first and takes Boise St. I also wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t go to 12 teams and add 2 more from: Fresno St., UN-R, Houston, and UTEP. The hold up in the MWC is 1) adding just Boise St, or should they add more. 2) Do they add only to lose Utah, and BYU forcing them to add more mid-level WAC programs?
So unless the Pac-10 and Big 12 want a BCS conference between their two areas, they almost have to go after Utah, and BYU and maybe even Boise St. These programs have been competing with Pac-10 schools in California for recruits. TCU on a side-note, doesn’t add anything to the Big 12 foot print, or one TV not already covered, IF, Texas and Texas A&M stay put. TCU is superfluous.
Another point: The Big 12 would trade Colorado for Arkansas. The loss of the Denver market would hurt, but if you look at the whole of Arkansas, vs Colorado, I think it’s pretty close (metro area no, it’s not). Arkansas fits better geographically and culturally in the Big 12 than does CU.
LikeLike
Arkansas will not go to the Big 12 when they make more money in the SEC and have a decent rival there in LSU, not to mention the superior bowl tie-ins and other perks from being in the SEC.
Also, the MWC may become a BCS conference, but it still won’t be able to get very good TV contracts because none of the schools in the conference bring in a very large fanbase or local audience. As such, it is still very easy for both the Big 12* and Pac 10 to pick off its members.
This ceases to be true if the Big Ten, Pac 10, and/or SEC expands in such a way so as to severely destabilize the Big 12, which would likely require three major teams (or Texas) to be poached.
LikeLike
I have to laugh at all the certainty here by some posters. “Texas will never,” “The P10 can only,” “X is the only,” “Y is not an option,” etc. You really sure about that, eh?
Especially since one possibility seems to have been written off (perhaps because it would be disappointing too many): Even if the B10+ goes to 16, the SEC might not expand and thus not many dominoes fall.
One scenario: If Texas expresses disinterested to SEC offers while CBS and ESPN decide to not reopen contracts, it may be hard for the SEC to justify any expansion. If so, an untouched ACC probably stands pat and a P10-B(12-2) non-merger TV alliance starts to make more sense. Do they partner at 10, play round-robin, and share a championship game featuring the P10 and B12-2 champs? Perhaps. Getting an exemption to play champ games with just 10 conf teams is possible, but anything but assured. Splitting the pot 10 ways instead of 12 is a benefit, but that likely means a 9-game conf schedule and just 1 game per school of the P10 vs B12-2 moneymaker match ups per year.
So each going to 12 may make more financial sense. At 12 with a 5-3 conf schedule you can fit in 2 P12-B12 match ups per school per year, or 1 of those and 1 eastern team game (B16, SEC, ACC.) BTW, not sure why some think it would be a single weekend P12-B12 event. Why not spread it out over 4 weeks and get 4 times as many marquee games? And since MLB playoffs don’t start until October, wouldn’t Fox’s broadcast network potentially have 4 or 5 Saturday night primetime slots available in Sept? So the synergy of combining the conferences marquee possibilities for a shared TV package is the first of the incremental revenue bumps.
Same goes for cable, at 12+12 you’ve more than doubled the value schools/match ups available. But are we perhaps misreading UT’s intentions with their potential LSN channel? If they stay in the B12, it is hard to see them getting both a LSN and a WAN (Western Alliance Network, for now) channel on the expanded basic in Texas. Possible, with Fox pushing a 3-pack of those and their current FSN, which is primarily the local pro teams and then filler in Houston and Dallas and already on exp. basic. But is UT perhaps looking more at FSN & WAN on exp. basic and LSN simply being a supplement on the sports package? That would bring in less $ for the LSN, but is realistic and can be implemented far faster (and thus cheaper.) No different than the several Fox options currently in the sports package, such as Fox-Pacific, Fox-Central, Fox-College, etc. I just can’t picture a single school provide enough content to every justify getting their own channel above a sports package tier. Also easier to replicate this for an Aggie channel, which might help keep them in the B12 instead of the SEC. Perhaps this whole Alliance thing is a Fox-driven initiative, offering to set up individual channels for heavy hitters in their footprints, such as USC, UCLA, OU, and OR. Los Angeles could have WAN on the top-tier and UCLA and USC channels on the sports package, in Oregon it would be just OR on the sports package, etc. All channels administered primarily from a central site, with small local offices for content collection. Maybe, maybe not, but perhaps an option to feed more direct $’s to the power schools and keep them together.
What teams to add? In a non-merger Western Alliance (which was the topic of the recent P10-B12 meetings) Utah & CO still make the most sense for a P12. May not work on its own, but might with the incremental revenue boosts and synergies of an alliance and its joint TV and cable bids. If TX, aTm, and OU stay in the B12, then it seems there are 2 likely strategies. The first is the footprint, to try and get into FL with S. FL and UCF and perhaps BYU for more out west. Not sure that the risk/reward pays off on that, and doesn’t help the travel situation (which is one of the reasons for staying in the B12 instead of going P16.) More likely a combo of BYU, TCU, and UH. The latter 2 may not increase the cable footprint, but all 3 give a big boost to the inventory of high-profile match ups. Recall that in 2007 TCU-TX was an afternoon ABC game that went to the majority of the country, because both were ranked teams with a good reputation. UH-OK St. last year was an ABC regional split, as was TTech-UH in a night game (or was it ESPN?) So it seems likely that most or all UH, TCU, and BYU games against TX, aTm, TT, OU, OK St, Utah, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stan, OR, and probably OR St, ASU, and AZ would be picked up by ABC, ESPN, Fox, WAN, or whatever TV/cable group they contract with.
Match ups matter, so I bet the added value to the contracts well surpasses any $’s from adding a footprint with NM or UNLV. Those markets are still just too small, so even if TCU doesn’t carry DFW or UH carry Houston, at 6 million vs 1 to 2 million the incremental audience increase in those TX markets may be equal or better (and there are grads of both schools in Austin, San Antonio and elsewhere in TX. Incremental revenue adds up.) Plus you have less travel costs, less time loss for the athletes, more local games for potential TX recruits and the current players families to attend, and fundraising opportunities in these cities packed with UT alums.
Again, if they are going to add 2 teams to the conference and its bigger payouts, why not benefit TX schools that UT competes with for funds in the legislature? Get the political goodwill and get them to Tier One status faster so the state $’s going to that can become available again to UT bids. Plus it wouldn’t hurt to keep the SEC locked out of Texas. And, oh yeah, some local sportswriters have heard off the record discussions for a couple of years now that this might be an option if the B12 expanded or had to replace teams. But of course those reporters who actually talk to those in B12 programs, who’ve learned how to read them and how they think, apparently don’t know jack compared to our internet experts.
Perhaps UT thinks that if the big conferences can’t get to 4×64 and there are still going to be 5 or more BCS AQ conferences, why not have an easier road to the BCS games by staying in the easier 5th conference, instead of turning the B12 over to schools like KS, TCU, BYU, Louisville, etc? Perhaps they don’t think the political battles are worth it, or that a P16 is financially lucrative enough? Who knows. But I’m pretty sure that there are lots of factors involved in any decision to move or expand.
Not a prediction, but a possibility the tea leaves may be pointing to right now. Hard to read how interested Texas is in this alliance proposal.
LikeLike
Tons of great points here. I’ve been one to say I think the 4×16 super-64 is coming to replace the BCS. But, there are a ton of hurdles for it to happen, so many I would give it only a 50-50 chance, and that is me thinking it will happen…..so the final shake out, like you say, know one knows.
You make a great case for TCU and Houston. However, there is one hurdle, for both, and that is the Big 12 requires a minimum seating capacity for football stadiums for a team to join the Big 12. I want to say it’s 50,000 seating, but it might be less. Both TCU and Houston play stadiums that would need to add seats, or the league would have to waive that rule.
LikeLike
The odds are way less than that.
Considering that Big Ten expansion odds are only a bit above 50-50, the chances of 4×16 any time in the next 10 years is below 1-3%.
I tend to agree with Playoffs Now! though about most of what he said.
The Big Ten will only expand if it really thinks the teams are worth it in the long run, which right now is north of 50% but not that far above.
The SEC probably can’t really justify expansion without Texas or something else that dramatically expands its boundaries. the WV/VTech strategy seems like it wouldn’t do that much for the SEC, FSU/Clemson would run into problems of just being redundant as well as coming in on UF/USC territory, and Oklahoma doesn’t add much to the SEC.
Expanding for the sake of expanding makes no sense; big money has to be on the table.
Utah/Colorado seems to be sensible for the Pac-10, but I don’t see how they go above 12 without Texas.
Texas still controls the keys to all of the dominoes.
Unless Texas is going somewhere, which right now doesn’t seem that likely, it is hard to justify any conference going above 12 or 14 (for the Big Ten).
LikeLike
Oklahoma does make sense for the SEC. Despite having a relatively low population base to draw upon, Oklahoma is a top-tier football program with a large and dedicated fanbase. As such, Oklahoma is able to draw large TV ratings. This is especially important when it comes to television contracts, as the addition of yet another top tier school makes the SEC even more valuable to the national networks, which could allow the SEC to attempt to renegotiate its current contracts or add new, relatively lucrative ones with networks such as Fox, NBC, the Turner Broadcasting channels, and Versus.
LikeLike
The SEC needs population and markets to catch the Big Ten if “the paradigm changes” as stated by Mike Slive.
Taking Oklahoma only does some of that. The Big Ten is comfortably ahead in terms of population and TV markets for now, which is why it can consider Nebraska.
National teams are nice, but a national team with big markets to draw upon in its state is the real prize.
Sure expansion could extend the number of national games that the conference would have, but it doesn’t change the way the game works. Only Texas can vault the SEC ahead of the Big Ten.
Oklahoma would work as an addition, but it’s hard to see the justification in an expansion west without Texas.
LikeLike
@ Seth and Zeek
Well, Oklahoma, can’t join a conference with out taking Okla. State as well…it’s actually a statute I found out today….yep it’s a law in Oklahoma, and has been for like 50 years.
OU just became a lot less desirable huh?
LikeLike
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have been in separate conferences before. Do you have a source on that “law”?
LikeLike
@zeek
OU and OSU haven’t been in sperate leagues since OSU joined the Big 6.
The source was on WWLS Raido Show with Jim Trabor, host and an OSU grad, talking about alignment. The show was all about how OU could be screwed, cause no one wants Okla. St. and he talked about that statute.
LikeLike
@Redhawk:
Yeah, I’d love to look at that actual statute as well, if it exists.
LikeLike
@Redhawk
Even if that statute exists, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of it being overturned if OU wanted to make the move.
LikeLike
@Seth9:
That’s very true, but keep in mind that, barring special sessions, the OK legislature only meets the first 160 days of odd-numbered years. So let’s say this plays out in such a way that OU needs to bolt and whatever conference grabs OU does so next year, in June 2011. If there were a law to be overturned, the OK Legislature couldn’t address it, barring a special session, until January 2013.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horns and zeek
Sorry guys, I have no idea how to find that statute. I’d guess there are lawyers here that know how to research that more than I would. I heard about it, listening to WWLS Radio, which is a sports talk radio out of OKC. The hosts were Jim Traber, an OSU grad, and Al Eshbach an OU grad. It was Traber that talked how the statute hurt OU and OSU, and how none of the conferences wanted Ok. St.
It apparently was done after OSU joined the Big 8 in 1960 after OSU was independent for 2 years after they left the Missouri Valley and OSU didn’t want to get split up from OU again.
LikeLike
“the Big 12 requires a minimum seating capacity for football stadiums for a team to join the Big 12. I want to say it’s 50,000 seating, but it might be less.”
ahhh… you’ve found a loophole to draw Rice back into expansion talk. excellent.
LikeLike
40 years ago, Rice had a world class stadium. They also have a great baseball program, and have great academics.
You know…I might push the Rice for the Big 12 rumor.
LikeLike
We covered both endzones with tarps so now it officially only seats 45,000. So, yet again, we won’t qualify.
LikeLike
Interesting. I have to keep laughing at posters who post nonsensical speculation like this:
More likely a combo of BYU, TCU, and UH.
Although I admire your tenacity in following your strategy: (1) keep posting over and over again that your beloved University of Houston is a likely expansion target, no matter how loony that idea is; (2) hope that another lazy sportswriter skims this blog for ideas, sees that idea keep being written about, and reports it, citing an “anonymous source;” (3) other reporters see this an repeat the rumor, pushing “UH to the Big XII” speculation to the top of the realignment rumor mill; (4) hope that Powers and other influential players in the state of Texas get put on the spot and are asked about UH; and (5) hope that this speculation becomes a self-fulfilling reality.
In reality, you’re the best hope UH has!
LikeLike
You also need to get your facts right.
The latter 2 may not increase the cable footprint, but all 3 give a big boost to the inventory of high-profile match ups. Recall that in 2007 TCU-TX was an afternoon ABC game that went to the majority of the country, because both were ranked teams with a good reputation. UH-OK St. last year was an ABC regional split, as was TTech-UH in a night game (or was it ESPN?)
The TCU-Texas game was at night on FSN, and before crediting that it was a national game because of TCU, please remember that FSN broadcast Texas’ games last year against UTEP and UCF nationally as well.
UH-Okie State was on FSN.
UH-Texas Tech was a 9 pm-ish start on ESPN2.
LikeLike
Fair enough on the FSN vs ABC, but c’mon, there is practically zero difference between ESPN and ESPN 2 for Saturday college football. BTW, ESPN has already scheduled both TCU-Oregon State and TCU-SMU. The latter is between teams in a single market, one of them not even in a BCS AQ conference. That’s a pretty good testament that TCU in the Big 12 would be attractive to ABC/ESPN or Fox, or whomever gets the B12 rights. Oh and lookie here, ESPN has also picked up UH-UTEp and UH-UCF. Seems pretty clear that UH and TCU in good or even average match ups can get on TV and thus bring value to a conference.
So far for 2010 ESPN has schedules games for:
2 – UH, TCU, OK St, TX, aTm, AZ
1 – NE, TT, KS, KSU, Lou, ASU, Cal, OR, OR St, UCLA, USC
0 – OU, MO, CO, Bay, ISU, BYU, Utah, NM, UNLV, CSU, AirF, SDSU, Mem, Stan, WA, WSU
Obviously not a perfect measure of relative worth because of so many factors that go into scheduling, but still provides some insight. TCU and UH look better than pretty much all the other schools that have been suggested be taken instead, such as NM, CSU, UNLV, and Lou. If the B12 loses 3 schools to the B16 and P12, who are the better candidates than TCU, UH, and BYU?
BTW, I have no ties to UH other than proximity, being a native Houstonian. Actually I find many of their fans to be delusional and annoying yappy trash-talkers, far worse than Ags or Techsters.
At first I wasn’t sure, but the buzz now is that the political angle will be important. UH and TT don’t have to go to the same conf as UT and aTm, but they better end up in one of the 5 or 6 surviving major BCS confs. Too many Senators and Reps want to protect their Tier One-boosting investments.
Look, if academic prestige and the highest cable payout are UT’s top interests, why wouldn’t they go to the B16 or P16? Now I’m not sure if the recent alliance talks are meaningful or not, but if they are and UT chooses to stay in the B12, then you have to ask “Why?” To me that would suggest one or more of: travel issues, state politics, revenue increase not suffcient, preference to play a few more TX teams for a variety of reasons. If none of those, what exactly do you think would be their reasons to forego a P16 or B16 for a reloaded B12?
LikeLike
Middle Tennessee already has 3 games on ESPN this fall, so I guess they are a better national name than TCU or UH or any of those other schools.
LikeLike
The ESPN schedule already has the weeknight games set, while the weekend games are in flux as the bigger conferences still have to have the biggest games placed on ABC or not.
One of TCU’s two ESPN games is on Friday, both of Houston’s games are on Friday. Middle Tennessee has three games: Tuesday, Tuesday, Thursday.
The current ESPN schedule has an inverse relationship to their national draw.
LikeLike
“The ESPN schedule already has the weeknight games set, while the weekend games are in flux as the bigger conferences still have to have the biggest games placed on ABC or not.”
Yeah, A&M’s 2 games that are already scheduled for ESPN are a September 30th Thursday night game and the traditional Thanksgiving night game versus UT. It would be surprising if none of the other games get on national TV, even if they have a bad year.
LikeLike
Commentators on this blog seem to be very caught up in possible Division and Pod layouts. I’ve only been a Big Ten fan since I enrolled at Wisconsin four years ago, but I know that one of my favorite things about the conference is the lack of Divisions and the free flowing schedules in football and basketball. I think a lot of fans and coaches agree with me and would hate being pigeon-holed into a Pod with three other somewhat arbitrary schools.
It seems to me that if the Big Ten goes to 15 or 16, the best way to do the scheduling is to keep the current approach of one or two permanent rivals and play the rest of the league as often as a varied schedule allows, with no Divisions.
With 15, each school would have two permanent rivals and play six of the other twelve teams in years A and B and the other six in years C and D.
With 16, each school would have one permanent rival and play seven of the other fourteen schools in years A and B and the other seven in years C and D.
Again, the format is similar for 15 or 16 schools, so the league could start with Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, and Pitt and hope to add Texas or Notre Dame later. In either case, everyone gets to keep at least one rival, maybe two. For schools like Minnesota who claim a bunch of rivals, no rivalry will truly die since they play a home-and-home two out of every four years. Everyone gets to play Michigan and Ohio State (and every other school) at least two out of every four years. Michigan and Ohio State can still play the last week of the season.
The season could end the week before Thanksgiving and the league could lobby to pair the two best teams in a Conference Championship Game two weeks later. If the Big Ten goes to 16 and a bunch of other leagues expand (or shrink to 10), I think they could scrap the Divisional requirement for a Championship Game. Most conferences with more than 14 schools will want to scrap it, and every conference with less than 12 will want to scrap it. Even the new Pac-12 might prefer to avoid Divisions so that every school gets to keep playing USC and UCLA regularly.
LikeLike
@angryapple
I think one of the aims of the pod proposals are to maintain a lot of the “free-flowing” nature of the schedule and still allow for ad-hoc divisions. Nearly everyone dislikes the idea of fixed divisions. I also I agree that a championship game is not a necessity, though it seems highly likely.
However, having a conference championship game without some sort of divisional setup would be a disaster. Lots of strange events could happen like 3 teams with the same record who haven’t played each other or 2 teams deciding for the second spot with the same record who haven’t played. While divisions cannot eliminate all issues (e.g. the Big XII’s cyclic issue), having a head-to-head as the first tiebreaker eliminates many problems. Missouri is upset with the Big XII over getting a lesser bowl bid; imagine how upset a team would be over losing a shot at the conference title.
LikeLike
These five additions make very little sense if viewed as an enhanced revenue model. What additional money they might bring to the BTN would, in my view, make the pie a little bit bigger but the per-team revenue slice smaller than the current model yields to the member teams. Would Darth Delaney do that? Would the presidents let him in this economic climate?
LikeLike
I would recommend you (re)read some of the earlier postings on Frank’s blog concerning the possible profitability of various teams to the Big10.
If even remotely correct, the least profitable, Pittsburgh, would add ~$35 million to the Big10 pool…covering the ~$20 million per team already handed out while adding ~$15 million to be split among the 12/14/16 teams.
IMO, the right expansion for the Big10 is very likely to result in large revenue increases to all the teams and the five mentioned fit well within that “right expansion” category.
LikeLike
His numbers were based on how much money would go to the Big Ten Network. About half of that goes to Fox, so Pitt would actually be a bad move for athletic departments. That said, they would bring a ton of research opportunities to the CIC, so the university presidents probably want them.
Also, those numbers probably can’t just be added together, as I’d be willing to bet that there would be some population overlap when looking at markets that would be added, especially in the case of Syracuse and Rutgers. Finally, it’s an open bet as to what kind of cable subscription fees the BTN could get in NYC, where there is sure to be a battle with the cable companies.
LikeLike
Thought they were straight up “profit estimations”, but good call if they are otherwise. Still I think the point is if the Big10 can add a solid, but unspectacular school already in its footprint and “just about break even” then schools elsewhere are going to add even more.
Also, I think the adding depends on the schools in question. Adding Nebraska and NJ, where there is little or no overlap, is probably fine. Adding UConn and Rutgers however, yes would probably require careful market research to determine the exact penetration each program achieves and its likely draw from it.
LikeLike
From the post:
“For the Big Ten to get to 12 schools the addition would need to equal $38,200,000 to break even, for 3 schools they need to reach $114,500,000 combined, and for 5 schools a whopping $190,800,000.”
With regard to expansion, while I agree with you that expansion of five teams is likely to be profitable. However, I don’t think that expansion of five teams would be the wisest course because it would dilute the current Big Ten brand, especially if there aren’t multiple big names among the five schools. I personally would favor expanding with Nebraska, Kansas, and Syracuse, as such a move would give a decent increase in subscribers (particularly if New York could be captured by the tandem of Syracuse and Kansas basketball) and greatly strengthen the Big Ten’s athletic brand. This would also have the happy effect of setting up the Big Ten to expand again to 16 teams when such a move could lead to the Big Ten Network becoming a national network if the right teams are selected.
LikeLike
The one thing I don’t think we’ve had anywhere near enough discussion on is how all this works out in terms of the means as opposed to just the end. Just as a general point, most of Frank’s posts have focused on the end result as opposed to the process under the assumption that we can get at the result while the means are secondary. But shouldn’t we do a marginal value analysis based on how much the team will add if it’s the team that moves us from Big 15 to Big 16?
Every day that passes makes me feel less likely that we’re going to see a “big bang” invite of 5 teams at the same time.
Doesn’t it totally change the equation based on how the Big Ten moves (in terms of order) to 14 or 16 rather than what the 14 or 16 are?
Personally, I think the make up of the teams changes dramatically if the Big Ten only invites one or two or three teams this year as a way of stirring the pot?
I know that allthatyoucantleavebehind and I have pointed out that the entire game changes based on whether you stagger the invites…
If you believe that we go to 14 as a stepping stone to 16, then the 16 in the “stepping stone” scenario is vastly different from the 16 in the “big bang” scenario.
For example, if the 2 or 3 to be invited this year are Nebraska/Rutgers or Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers, then doesn’t it become a lot less likely that teams 15 and 16 will be Pitt and Syracuse because they look a lot weaker in terms of their marginal value as the 15th and 16 teams as opposed to 2 of 5 teams going from 11 to 16.
Whereas if you assume we go straight to 16, it’s a lot more likely that Pitt and Syracuse get invited immediately.
In that case, the Big Ten is far more likely to just stay put at 14 teams than to invite Syracuse and Pitt unless we’re having trouble locking down the New York market. But at that point, we’ll have realized that only Notre Dame can create the requisite interest necessary to move the numbers since sending Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State into a stadium 25 miles away from Manhattan isn’t enough.
I would argue that if the Big Ten goes to 14, at that point we will absolutely not go to 16 unless Texas/A&M or Notre Dame/someone is on board…
It just seems to me that if we don’t go to 16 immediately, I find it a lot harder to ever see Pitt or Syracuse ever joining if they’re not in the initial invites this year…
LikeLike
I agree zeek.
I expect Rutgers and Nebraska invites to come first with Delaney trying to manage the ensuing uncertainty to benefit the Big Ten. I think they haven’t given up on Texas and A&M, but it must be done delicately. Removing revenue-ally Nebraska would really change the power structure of the Big 12. If the Pac-10 would then take Colorado, it might be enough to get the Texas schools looking north. Rutgers is a logical choice, big state school with decent research in a fantastic market. It also sends the clear message that the Big Ten is looking east, which could send enough fear through the Big East to get Notre Dame thinking hard about how few spots are left.
LikeLike
Re expansion sequence and strategy (Zeek)
1) According to the latest Teddy Greenstein article cited above, his sources indicate an expansion to 16 is more likely vs 14 or 12.
2) One possibility is the Big 10 may be delaying any move to allow ND and perhaps Texas additional time to decide what THEY want to do. If they want in then the Big 10 will no doubt find a way to work with them. If they don’t want in then the Big 10 may well move on.
3) Frank covered this subject in his prior post: “Multiphase Big 10 expansion” which suggested the best strategy might be to invite Nebraska and SU to put pressure on ND and Texas or more likely give them an excuse to make a move if that is what they want to do.
4) Texas or ND may well be in play or maybe not.
But the statements by these schools indicate they may be exploring other opportuunities.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing…right now the Big10 is in the perfect position. With the Pac10 expansion decisions needing to come first, it can see what happens on the Big12 front and adjust its strategy accordingly (I do not see any invites to the Big10 coming before the probable Pac10 invites come out this summer). From those invites the Big10 will easily be able to see how “in play” the Texas teams were and thus what its “best course of action” is.
From there, the Big10 stands in a position of understanding as much as its going to in who is up for addition and what that means for the conference. At which point…why go peace-meal to 13 or 14 teams and then allow for another round of expansion a little bit down the line, most likely when the “best of the rest” have been picked over.
Case in point…
Assuming Pac10 takes Colorado and one other non-Big12 school (though to be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if they went after TAMU), Big10 takes a likely scenario of Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers. The BigEast loses NJ, but overall is not overly effected. The Big12 on the other hand has lost 1 of its 2 national programs, and 2 of its 3 major population centers and Texas now finds itself right back in the old SWC (for all purposes). Teams like Oklahoma (and maybe even Kansas) might start wondering if maybe the SEC would want to entertain them moving in and the SEC talks hard about Texas/TAMU. Texas doesn’t wan’t in, but then again it’d be in a tough situation and might entertain another “Big12” scenario where it joins a conference it doesn’t want just to maintain.
Even if the SEC doesn’t get all 4 teams from the Big12, maybe it starts to look North…WVU? Cinci? If for no other reason to enter new markets and with the addition of Cinci now the SEC and Big10 are fighting for the same turf (admittedly with Big10 having advantage, but it still makes Ohio partially SEC country). Or maybe it snags an ACC school? Personally think this is lower possibility, but it could happen which then forces the ACC back to “Raid the BigEast” mentality, maybe grabbing Pitt, UConn, and soothing Sryacuse to come back.
Now that that all settles down…who exactly is left? ND sure, but the BigEast basketball conference, while hurt, would probably still be alive and with the mass exodus of its football teams maybe entertains becoming a “all sports but football” conference that ND becomes an official member of.
Other than that though, the Big10 is now “stuck” at 14 with plenty of schools newly signed up to other conferences who are very unlikely to want to swap again (within a couple years) and those that are left would definitely be geographic/population/athletic/academic outliers for the Big10 brand…ironically, now the “Iowa State’s” of the college landscape are legitimate possibilities for the next round of Big10 expansion.
Point being, the Big10 wait for the Pac10 to make their move, sure, but once the invites are out, I don’t think the Big10 will make another moves for decades…and they know this fact which is why they say things like “long distance future” when evaluating the schools in question.
LikeLike
Frank, I love the blog, but I have to disagree with the way you organized the “pods”…I mean, you’re basically gift wrapping three automatic wins for OSU every year. So here’s my solution to a 16-team conference, using the schools you mentioned. I think it succeeds in maintaining traditional rivalries, respecting geography, AND achieving balance. Permanent rivalries are in parentheses.
————
NORTH
Wisconsin (Illinois)
Minnesota (Missouri)
Iowa (Nebraska)
MSU (Michigan)
————
WEST
Missouri (Minnesota)
Nebraska (Iowa)
Illinois (Wisconsin)
Northwestern (Syracuse)
————
SOUTH
Michigan (MSU)
Ohio State (Penn State)
Purdue (Pitt)
Indiana (Rutgers)
————
EAST
Penn State (OSU)
Pitt (Purdue)
Rutgers (Indiana)
Syracuse (Northwestern)
————-
As I said, this setup preserves established rivalries, while maintaining balance, and it makes sense geographically. With regards to the “permanent rivals,” I matched up MSU and Michigan, and OSU and Penn State for obvious reasons. I figured Cuse and NU would make sense as the only private schools, and the rest are allocated according to geography. So that’s my take, let me know what you guys think.
LikeLike
If the Western Television Alliance is anything other than just a casual chat, I would think it may be a sign that the PAC10 recognizes it can’t get the votes for adding anyone, and are trying to find another way to enhance the television value of the conference. The drawback to the BT in this is that (I think) the BT really is waiting for the PAC10 to take Colorado, opening the door for its moves. If that doesn’t happen, Texas may be out the door.
LikeLike
Or its just due dilligence to look at all options…
LikeLike
If the Pac 10 does not take Colorado, the best way to make more money is to make a deal that grants them additional leverage in TV contracts, as well as more quality games that they can put on the air. If the Pac 10 does take Colorado, the same applies. Now, while taking Colorado (or any other team) may poison relations between the two leagues, I still give a fair chance to both leagues agreeing to such a deal, because it would net both leagues more money.
LikeLike
The proposed Neb/Miz/Pit/Syr/Rut seems like the floor of what the Big Ten could get if it really wants to go to 16. The question is how to make this better. I’ve seen the proposals to go to 14 first, but I think the B10 is going to have to make some tough choices if the goal is to get Tex or ND. I’m not sure a move to 14 can be done that applies enough pressure on both schools. If you get two of Neb/Miz/Kans, and perhaps the Pac10 grabs Colorado, I see how you put pressure on Tex (and TAM). But then you probbaly don’t have a spot open for ND (nor will you have put enough pressure on them by inviting only say 1 BE team). Or, you can invite 3 of Syr/Rut/Pit/UConn and you rip up the Big East, thus putting pressure on ND, but then you haven’t done anything to loosen up Tex. Perhaps the worst case is a move like Neb/Syr/Rut, which probably doesn’t kill either the B12 or BE. So as far as strategic considerations go for a staggered move to 14, the B10 faces a dilemma. I might suggest a move to 13, say Neb/Rut. Then hope COL bolts for the P10, and then you still have three slots open to grab ND/Tex/TAM as things evolve. I know the B10 hates an odd number of teams, but it appears that the MAC (with 13) has an exemption to the round-robin rule in order to stage a championship game. If 13 loosens things up a bit, be careful of who that 14th team is, because the B10 will be painting itself into a corner by going to 14.
LikeLike
If Big Ten expansion destroys the Big East, why wouldn’t Notre Dame’s non-football teams simply join the catholic league that will result? Do these other teams, like Georgetown and Providence, not play the same Olympic sports?
Also, if Texas is so all-powerful, then why would it let the Big Ten’s actions (such as taking Missouri and Nebraska out of the north) dictate its future?
If Texas wants into the Big Ten, then it can join now. I’m sure Texas has already game-planned what it will do if the Big XII North disappears. If these plans include joining the Big Ten, then I’m sure Texas has already communicated this to the Big Ten. I just can’t picture the Big Ten forcing Texas’s hand on the issue by how it decides to expand.
LikeLike
Let’s spice things up! At first this smells like BS, but if you think about it a bit you can actually make a plausible case for all the points. Unless you’ve boxed yourself in with too many ‘rules.’ Since negotiations are ongoing (if there’s anything to this message board rumor) some of the sticking points could be resolved:
http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=142885732&mid=142885732&sid=901&style=2
…the Big Ten has focused their efforts on and is getting hot with three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and Nebraska.
A few things stood out about what he told me. First, contrary to my understanding of the benefits of expansion, the Big Ten is NOT pursuing a playoff system in football. Instead of a playoff, the football teams would all be required to add an additional one or two out of conference game, which would push the regular season back one week or two. The Big Ten wants to maintain the end of season rivalry games at the end of the football season as opposed to adding a playoff.
Second, the Big Ten, Texas and Notre Dame are discussing a special rule to accommodate both of those schools. Instead of playing 8 games, both Texas and ND would play 7 to enable each school to play 6 out of conference games. That’s apparently the caveat that brought both to the table, and Texas and ND also want to play each other every year. The tradeoff is that an 8-0 Big Ten team would always trump a 7-0 ND/Texas as conference champion, which is a potential logistical sticking point for the Big Ten and these teams. But apparently ND and Texas value the extra OOC game more than the conference championship potential, and ND and Texas want to play each other every year making the tie between two 7-0 teams impossible. They’re also looking at potentially giving a automatic BCS slot for a 7-0 ND/Texas Big Ten team that loses the conference championship to an 8-0 team as a carrot, where the 8-0 team could still get the at-large but isn’t guaranteed.
Finally, the Big East is essentially pushing ND to discussions with the Big Ten. The Big East has presented an ultimatum to ND to play football or get out of the conference for the other sports in order to protect the integrity of the remainder of the conference. Apparently discussions have taken place between the Big Ten and the Big East, and the current understanding is that the Big Ten will not accept any other Big East schools if ND joins the Big Ten. ND also will retain a national schedule, particularly with Texas joining, where it would have the ability to schedule 6 OOC games plus one game with Texas. This means they’re picking up only three additional games with Big Ten schools while playing in the conference…
LikeLike
Oh yeah, further down:
…The other interesting thing I forgot to mention was that he didn’t think some of the conference presidents would allow Nebraska into the league on its own on academic grounds, but that the league thinks that Nebraska packaged with ND and Texas will be enough of a positive trade-off that it could work. He mentioned there was some serious push-back on Missouri from a few members of the Big Ten, including Northwestern, for that reason.
LikeLike
Re “secret” new Big 10 strategy revealed by yet another insider (Playoffs now)
1) According to this “inside” source, objections to Nebraska and Missouri are being raised by multiple Big 10 members based on academic grounds.
“If true”, then one cornerstone of most of the posts and speculation are in question.
2) So if Texas and ND get special exemptions for losses against each other, what about OSU and PSU and Michigan? Do ND or Texas get exemptions for losses against OSU and PSU as well?
3) 7 games in conference for ND and Texas except one of those games is always ND vs Texas which isn’t counted as a loss for the conference championship????????
Are the other Big 10 teams going to be playing 9 in conference games and ND and Texas only 7? Like to see how that scheduling works and its impact on the conference champion. Love to listen to the Presidents discuss such a proposal.
4) The Big East includes 8 BB schools plus SU, Pitt, UConn and so on. There is no way ND is or has been or will be presented an ultimatum to be a full football member of the Big East.
LikeLike
I’m calling 100% BS on the original poster on the NW board for this:
Second, the Big Ten, Texas and Notre Dame are discussing a special rule to accommodate both of those schools. Instead of playing 8 games, both Texas and ND would play 7 to enable each school to play 6 out of conference games.
Anyone who thinks Texas would value the ability to schedule an extra game against Florida Atlantic over winning a conference championship is smoking something serious.
And again, PN, be careful about the copyright infringement issues of wholesale cutting-and-pasting whole sections of material from another board.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t cutting/pasting in this context be considered a fair use?
LikeLike
I agree that the original post has got to be 100% made up. First off, the expansion is based on the NCAA allowing a 13th game for every team, as if the B10 controls the NCAA. Secondly, the B10 is now also controlling the BCS automatic bid process, and giving a 7-1 Texas (after losing the title game) the BCS bid over a 9-0 OSU (after winning the title game).
Gimme a break.
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks Texas would value the ability to schedule an extra game against Florida Atlantic over winning a conference championship is smoking something serious.
Might help to think before reacting. Those extra OOC games aren’t about FAU, but making slots for OU and aTm while leaving room and flexibility in scheduling rotations for local TX games, enough home games, and still have marquee nat’l games like UCLA, NC, USC, AR, Utah, etc. UT wants the flexibility of its current 4 OOC slots plus keeping OU and aTm. Equals six.
UT would be keeping the same control to keep the overall schedule from being too difficult or too watered down. OU, ND, NE, IA, WI, NW, MN, IL, plus rival aTm (who probably gets better after the shakeout) is already a tough annual base schedule. UT will probably keep at least 1 more good OOC game, like it has always tried to do. FAU gets mixed in when they can’t find anyone better to keep enough games in Austin, or someone drops UT and they need a quick replacement, or they want a game in FL for potential recruiting reasons, or they were cheaper than others.
And again, PN, be careful about the copyright infringement issues of wholesale cutting-and-pasting whole sections of material from another board.
Fair use excerpts, subject to interpretation. Seems that you’ve only had an issue with that here when the posts conflict with your ‘Expansion worldview.’
And no, I have no ties to UH, other than being a native Houstonian. Hard to fathom, but I simply have different opinions than you do.
Anyway, someone else mentioned the 13th game being unlikely. I disagree. Since it would be a money maker for virtually all schools, I can see the NCAA members voting for it in these times of tight budgets. To me the bigger question is if the members would go even further to a 14th game. My guess is no, they’d try 13 and revisit it later, but that would solve the TX/ND 8 vs 7 conf game issue.
As long as the original BT’s 8-0 trumps a ND/TX 7-0, or 7-1 over 6-1, then it shouldn’t be a deal breaker. That’s basically making NE the 12th team, then all west teams getting a money maker game with TX and the east teams get ND. Sell it as a compromise that is rectified when the 14th game is added. But the auto bid exception for ND/TX seems more likely to be nixed.
Yeah, the post smells like BS, but OTOH it does fit with some of the other rumors out there in several regards. Other rumors completely conflict with it, too, so there ya go. Interesting times.
LikeLike
Michigan and Ohio State (and Penn State and everyone else) would never agree to a deal that gives preferential treatment to other schools in the Big Ten, much less when such a deal would not include them. Also, I fully agree with the notion that ND and Texas wouldn’t risk conference championships for an extra non-conference game.
LikeLike
Why no aTm? Perhaps they are more interested in the SEC. FSU in the east and aTm in the west is simple, or perhap aTm and TCU or UHou to the west with MS St shifted to the east. The east schools would like that schedule breather.
Or perhaps they think that with UT gone they’ve got a better chance to win the B12, certainly easier to winning the SEC. Depending on who the replacement schools are, they could shift at least OU to the north (modify conf rules to keep the Sooner-OSU game annual and it works) and have an even better shot at playing in the conf champ game regularly. That’s a big step up in success which could be just as big a recruiting boost as going to the SEC. The best way to recruit is to win lots of games.
If aTm stays in the B12 they probably can still pull off the W. Alliance cable channel. Say the P10 nabs CO to go with Utah, NE and TX leave, and the replacements are BYU, and two of UH/TCU/Lou/Mem/UNLV/CSU. Not quite as lucrative as with UT, but that still provides a critical mass in the state of TX and 1 more TV draw team than the B12 loss (until they get it together CO is a dog.) As long as the B12 survives as a BCS AQ conf with TV deals and UH is one of the B12 replacements (or to the SEC or a BEast reload with TV contracts) the TX politicians should be satisfied.
LikeLike
The SEC has to like an A&M addition, with or without Texas. I wouldn’t assume Texas and A&M are joined at the hip on this.
LikeLike
I have absolutely no faith in anything this poster said, as I give absolutely no shot to ND and Texas being given an exemption. I cannot believe that even Northwestern would seriously entertain such a proposal, much less Michigan and Ohio State.
LikeLike
Why, he got it straight from the horse’s mouth. The internet is serious business.
Reads more like some guy testing how goofy a scenario he can come up with that people won’t immediately dismiss as bogus. What passes as entertainment for some, I guess.
LikeLike
So if (The Big IF) there’s anything to the TX & ND to B14 rumor, might that lead to aTm in a P14? Recall that the Memphis AD recently said a P10 AD told him that UT and aTm were their big targets and that aTm was interested but UT was not. I blew it off because it seemed backwards, but perhaps that’s the case. Easier to win in a P14 than a SEC14, and if done right would give aTm a boost in the academic reputation department that it may be sensitive about.
Perhaps a P14 of the P10 plus aTm, CO, MO, and KS? All AAU additions. Could substitute NE if available or still Utah, which isn’t even AAU but appears to be academically sufficient.
14 makes a good stopping point if schools don’t want to mess with pods. Keeps the same scheduling flexibility as a 12 team conf if we go to a 13-game season. If the BEast survives and perhaps splits off the football schools and goes to 14, you could end up with a tidy set of six 14-school conferences ready to break away from the NCAA if they can’t get their DI-$$ division. 84 members is enough that hardly any schools get left out that would have any chance of ever winning a fb nat’l title.
LikeLike
Link to the Memphis AD’s comments:
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=433045
LikeLike
I think this is most likely made up. However, I think there is some chance this is an actual discussion that the person misunderstood.
“A few things stood out about what he told me. First, contrary to my understanding of the benefits of expansion, the Big Ten is NOT pursuing a playoff system in football. Instead of a playoff, the football teams would all be required to add an additional one or two out of conference game, which would push the regular season back one week or two. The Big Ten wants to maintain the end of season rivalry games at the end of the football season as opposed to adding a playoff.”
Now, I think this might really mean the Big 10 is not pursuing a championship game. Instead, it will play games the week after Thanksgiving, when other conferences are playing their championship games.
The extra BCS bid and the extra regular season game (instead of a championship game) might be stuff they say they’ll try to get, but I would be surprised if they expect to get either of them. Still, this conference would always get 2 BCS bids, even if only 1 was automatic.
So this would seem to schedule like the current Big 10, with teams having 2 or 3 permanent opponents (Texas and Notre Dame being 1 pair), and rotating games with the other schools. Conference champions would be almost always controversial, as you would have very different strengths of schedule.
Still, you would have very appealing regular season schedules which would make a lot of money for the Big 10 TV deals. The bowl agreements would also improve with these 3 schools added.
For UT, if we assume the NCAA doesn’t give them an extra game, they’ll have 7 Big 10 games (1 vs. Notre Dame), 2 games against A&M and OU, and presumably 3 games against schools that will travel to Austin.
LikeLike
One possible way to schedule the conference, if Notre Dame doesn’t care too much about keeping it’s current Big 10 rivals as annual affairs.
Notre Dame and UT would each play each other but have no other permanent rivals. They would play 6 of the other 12 teams every year. This would give them 7 game per year and let them play everyone home and away over 4 years.
The other 12 schools (including Nebraska) could each have 3 protected rivalries, plus 1 game against either Notre Dame or Texas each year. That leaves 4 games to play against the other 8 teams in the conference. So they would also have a home and away series with every school in the conference over 4 years.
LikeLike
A few guesses on the 3rd protected rivalry schools might get with this arrangement.
Iowa – Nebraska
Wisconsin – Nebraska
Minnesota – Michigan
Illinois – Ohio State
Northwestern – Michigan State
Indiana – Penn State
Purdue – Nebraska
LikeLike
Yes, you may be on to something. IOW:
Current B10+ teams and NE would play:
3 protected rivals every year
5 per year of the remaining 10 schools
ND and UT would play:
each other every year
6 per year of the remaining 12 schools
That makes sense. (You could also argue that it is the current B10+ schools that are getting special treatment, by having 3 protected rivals instead of just 1.)
LikeLike
My guess on the protected rivalries would be:
mn-ia, wi, mich
ia-mn, wi, ne
wi-mn, ia, nw
nw-wi, il, pu
il-nw, iu, osu
pu-nw, iu, ne
iu-il, pu, msu
msu-mi, iu, psu
mich-msu, osu, mn
osu-mich, psu, il
psu-osu, msu, ne
ne-ia, pu, psu
tx-nd
nd-tx
Every single other conference combo is played twice per four years.
Nothing really unfair about that to the current B10+ schools, especially since all ties in the loss column go against UT and ND. 8-0 trumps 7-0, 7-1 trumps, 6-1, etc. Since UT is going to keep OU and aTm OOC, and ND will keep USC and at least one of Pitt, Stanford, etc. OOC, you can’t really argue that their schedule would be easier because of the 1 less conference game.
I’m starting to think this rumor is legit, and for the first time think that the odds are in favor of Texas going to the B14.
LikeLike
Illinois is our 3rd protected game? We Buckeyes look down our noses at the Illini.
LikeLike
Illinois is our 3rd protected game? We Buckeyes look down our noses at the Illini.
Oh, I’m sure OSU places the same importance on the IlliBuck that they do on OSU-UM.
LikeLike
Here’s another possibility. They could just have every team play 7 “official” conference games. But the original Big Ten teams can schedule some “non-conference” games against in-conference rivals.
They did this in basketball a few years back, when Michigan and Michigan State only had one conference game scheduled against each other for a couple of years in a row. Both schools felt it was important to have a home and home in the same year, so they scheduled an additional “non-conference” game for each year.
In football, whether they go to 14 or 16 schools and whether they go to divisions or pods, it may not work out to a “two-years-on and two-years-off”. Maybe it works out to twice every six years, or twice every eight years. Nebraska, Texas, and Notre Dame might not care if they only see some schools twice every eight years, but I’m sure some rivalries that are unlikely to be protected, like Minnesota-Michigan or Iowa-Penn State, would want to play each other more often. So these schools schedule a home and home in September as a non-conference matchup, so that they are playing each other four times in six years or four times in eight years.
Additionally, this gives the Big Ten network a few more interesting matchups in September, as opposed to the normal filler against MAC schools and worse.
LikeLike
Regarding the 3 team rumor today:
It may be BS but I think it still makes a number of good points
1)I do think the first legitimate rumors we´ré going to hear are ones like this: ¨I was have a beer with my friend¨ as opposed to leaks from the schools or journalistic sources. There´s too much at stake for anything to be released in official manners, and, more often than not, the stuff coming from university sources will be planted rumors.
2) A lot of these ¨candidates¨ don´t make much sense. The only reason the list has grown so long is because all these schools can supposedly increase the size of the pie — but even then those are very rough estimates.
The fact of the matter the three schools in this rumor are the three that make sense across the board. The other candidates are either athletically challenged, academically challenged or spatially challenged. As long as these three candidates are still on the board (and maybe aTm, as well), it doesn´t make sense to settle.
3) There´s no real reason why we assume that aTm and UT are a package deal. Nothing of the sort has ever been said officially from anyone in any position of authority, as far as I know. We´ve assumed that they´d be brought along for political reasons, but as this rumors highlights, there are ways around that.
4) Concessions – Are Texas and Notre Dame special enough to make backroom deals? If so, where does that leave Ohio St, Michigan and PSU?
5)If you get your three biggest fish, do you stop at 14? If there is some type of implicit Big East-Big 10 deal in place for ND, that still leaves a big chunk of the Big 12. At that point, does it make sense to add two of these three: MU, KU and aTm?
Who knows if this rumor is BS, but it does have some interesting ideas and it makes much more sense than the five team rumor we´ve been talking about.
LikeLike
There is no way the Big Ten will extend any “special offers” to anyone, including Texas but especially Notre Dame. One of the reason that the Big Ten has been so successful is that it is a tightknit organization that has adopted an all-for-one attitude that has focused on building the Big Ten brand rather than individual schools. Everyone has benefitted from this, including the big names of Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. They will not sacrifice the Big Ten brand or cohesion to gain new members.
LikeLike
While I like the additions of NU, UT & ND; I don’t see how TAMU & Pitt could be left out.
TAMU brings…
* high-quality Academics
* substantial Research $s
* an historically strong CFB program
* a travel partner for UT
* prevents UT from being a geographic outlier
* solidifies tBT in Texas
Individually, UT & TAMU are Home Run candidates (academically & athletically), but together they’re a Grand Slam!
Pitt brings…
* high-quality Academics
* substantial Research $s
* solid athletics, particularly mBB
* prevents PSU from being a geographic outlier
* gives PSU a travel partner
* prevents other conferences from getting any kind of foothold in PA
Pitt fits perfectly into the BT in every way, except they bring no new markets.
I think adding aforementioned triumverate would be great, but also adding TAMU & Pitt would be exceptional. The SEC (or any other conference) would be hard-pressed to match this new BT.
LikeLike
And it it would eliminate UT’s need for only 7 conference games.
LikeLike
What’s the point of Nebraska in this proposal?
Notre Dame, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State would give the conference a lot of national names. Though a popular school, Nebraska doesn’t guarantee a large population base and is unlikely to increase cable rates any more than those 5 name brands already do. Why not go after Rutgers and the TV sets in New Jersey? Rutgers plus Notre Dame and the 4 other major name brands should give the BTN a decent shot at the NYC market.
LikeLike
Re-reading the proposal… if part of the “deal” with the Big East kicking Notre Dame towards the Big Ten is that the Big Ten can’t go after Big East schools (thus eliminating Rutgers), then I think Texas A&M would still make a better addition than Nebraska. Academically, A&M is several notches above Nebraska. It’s a much larger, wealthier school that better fits the Big Ten profile. Though A&M wouldn’t increase the Big Ten footprint (not that Nebraska would to a significant extent), A&M could help the BTN extort higher subscriber rates in Texas.
I can’t see why Texas would want Nebraska instead of A&M. Texas has no real attachment to Nebraska. With A&M as an in-conference rival, Texas would have more freedom in their OOC scheduling. Finally, bringing A&M into the same conference would prevent the SEC from gaining entry into Texas by pursuing a left-behind A&M.
As for A&M, I don’t think it would be hard to convince them to follow Texas.
LikeLike
I’ve been traveling for the past few days so I just saw this rumor from Northwestern’s Rivals board. I don’t believe for one second that the Big Ten would provide special scheduling considerations to ND and Texas. Maybe the conference has talked about it with both schools as a negotiating point, but there’s NFW that ever gets approved by the university presidents. The only thing that I could see is that some current Big Ten schools (such as Illinois and Michigan) have long wanted to increase the number of conference games up to 9 (especially if there was an expansion) and the compromise would actually be to simply keep the conference schedule to 8 games even in a 14 or 16 school conference.
Now, the particular 3-team combo isn’t surprising to me at all and that’s not just me dreaming about a Death Star Conference. I’ve heard some rumors from multiple places that the Big Ten’s best case scenario would be a 3-school addition that would increase per school revenue payouts to over $40 million per year with Texas as a centerpiece and does NOT include Rutgers or any other Big East school. Texas, Nebraska and Notre Dame almost certainly seems that magic combination. I just can’t imagine Ohio State and Michigan agreeing to allowing ND in particular a shorter conference schedule. It also doesn’t make sense to me with respect to Texas since the Texas A&M game would presumably take up one of the non-conference slots, in which case the Big Ten would be better off just inviting Texas A&M, too.
LikeLike
@Frank: what do you think the reaction of Pitt, RU, and SU would be to the Big East undermining them by back-room dealing their exclusion from Big Ten expansion, confining them to a future of Big East poor bowl tie-ins, feeble TV deals, and a BB centric conference administration? What do you think Nancy Cantor would think about this? Do you believe this would cause a long lasting and irreversible animosity from these schools towards the Big East? This just seems like the Big East is throwing these schools under the bus to save their butts while at the same time destroying any future they have with these schools as loyal members.
LikeLike
Re Big East, ND and expansion (Rick)
There is no way the Big East BB schools are going to pressure ND to do anything and with ND they have half the votes in the conference.
If ND wants to remain football independent and the Big East splits the other BB schools are their partners.
If ND somehow decides it actually wants to join the Big 10, they may want to shape the expansion package. Would RU, Pitt, SU want to force ND to do what it doesn’t want to do, assuning they could which they can’t.
The real issue is what does Texas and ND and the Big 10 want to do. Absent actual information, it’s a time for imagination to run wild.
LikeLike
Perhaps it is because Texas A&M is more interested in joining the SEC?
There still seems to be the mentality by some that if Texas joins the B10, A&M can always be added. That simply is not the case.
TAMU AD Bill Byrne was quoted in the Houston Chronicle stating as much. He would like to preserve the 100+ year old rivalry but he isn’t really worried about being in the same conference.
LikeLike
This is like a Tom Clancy novel filled with plot twists … and you just want to keep on reading until you know the ending. I found this story interesting – especially since Texas & Nebraska were the only two schools that did not attend this week’s Pac 10/Big 12 meeting that discussed a strategic TV alliance between the two conferences
LikeLike
Where did you get this tidbit? Very intriguing that Texas didn’t show up.
LikeLike
I have to wonder why would Notre Dame care more about scheduling Texas than, say, Michigan, Michigan State or Purdue, with which it has more history?
However, to solve the dilemma, instead of Texas and ND having a 7-game BT season and everyone else having 8, why not make it so everyone gets a 7 game BT season. No special deals required.
Fourteen schools mean two 7-team divisions. You play six teams in your division, plus one additional protected rival in the other division each year. The rest of the games in a given year can become OOC games.
Eastern Division:
Penn State
Ohio State
Notre Dame
Indiana
Purdue
Michigan
Michigan State
Western Division:
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Texas
If Texas and ND really love each other so much, that would be their cross-division protected rival.
LikeLike
This division is actually a pretty even distribution of power, IMO.
Penn State, Ohio State, ND, Michigan (eventually bouncing back) with Michigan State and Purdue not being so bad.
Texas, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa on the other. Northwestern isn’t too bad a lot of the time, and both Minnesota and Illinois are superior to Indiana.
LikeLike
Yes, I guess the main problem being the higher risk of ties with 7 conf games than with 8.
Also, it appears that the B10+ has two options to get a 13-game season:
1) Have all BCS conferences go to 13
2) Allow conferences that don’t play a conf champ game to adopt a 13-game schedule.
The latter would get the B14 7 games on the conf champ weekend when only a handful of other games are played. More $’s. It would also bulk up the strength of schedules for these teams, so they aren’t at as much of a disadvantage when competing for BCS bowl slots. (Or BCS playoff spots that incorporate the bowls once a Plus One or Plus Three system is adopted.)
Hence I think either #2 is their preference or they’ll try for both to get 14 per year. That would allow 8 conf games and 6 OOC.
LikeLike
They could invite Hawaii to join too, since games in Hawaii don’t count against the 12 game limit. Of course, that’s not going to happen.
LikeLike
“I have to wonder why would Notre Dame care more about scheduling Texas than, say, Michigan, Michigan State or Purdue, with which it has more history? ”
Well, if I understand how this might work, it will play in each region of the Big 10 every year.
Every year ND would play (Nebraska or Iowa), (Minnesota or Wisconsin), (Michigan or Michigan State), (Illinois or Northwestern), (Indiana or Purdue), (Ohio State or Penn State) for 6 games. ND may find playing Purdue the same year it plays Indiana unnecessary, and I’ve heard some ND fans say they enjoy the Michigan & Michigan State games, but they wouldn’t miss them too much if they were stopped.
Texas is the only team that doesn’t have a geographic counterpart, so I could definitely see that being the one school ND wants to make sure is on the schedule every year. They can then add USC and Navy as the 8th and 9th game. The 10th game can rotate between Miami and BC to give them their ‘national’ schedule: games across the Midwest, as well as Texas, California, Florida, mid-Atlantic, and New England.
LikeLike
What is the point of having teams belong to the same conference if they would never play each other?
Once again, no team in the Big Ten would agree to this proposal.
LikeLike
You could have two divisions of seven teams. One year you play one division (seven games). The next year you play the other division, plus one in your own division. You play everyone every other year.
LikeLike
I misspoke. One year you play the other division (seven games). The next year you play your own division, plus one in the opposite division, making seven games.
Each school gets another OOC game, which, unfortunately, would mean another cupcake for a home-site cash grab, 10% of which would go to those of us on this blog who came up with this schedule.
LikeLike
The problem I would have with this proposal is that it would mean that every other year, the winner of a division would determine without the teams having played a single game against each other, meaning that there would be no head-to-head metric for deciding who gets to play for the championship. It would create a system that is analogous to all the problems with the BCS, particularly when it comes to tie-breaking procedures.
LikeLike
Jokewood,
I haven´t bought into the ¨Rutgers can get you NYC¨ argument. Little to no sports history, little to no fanbase (even though you´re talking about a large public).
And maybe more than anything, if you aren´t taking Syracuse, UConn or even Pitt, I don´t see the point to Rutgers. If you think Texas is isolated in this scenario, Rutgers would be a whole other beast. At least Texas has a great tradition and traveling fan base. Bring in Rutgers, watch them struggle and you´re stuck with a pariah of sorts on the geographically extreme portion of the Big 10.
And even though Rutgers is a decent research university, we´re not talking about adding a Wisconsin or Michigan here.
So 1) they may or may not bring in a new audience, 2) they will likely become a conference pariah 3) they are geographically isolated and 4) are only a decent research university. Who exactly is going to vote for them? The presidents? Athletic directors? Maybe the BTN?
Nothing about that blows you away like the trio of NU, UT and ND.
LikeLike
@Michael:
Rutgers alone likely doesn’t deliver NY metro to the BTN. But it does deliver a populous state with decent recruiting base. That’s a tidy sum.
However, Rutgers plus Notre Dame plus Texas plus the rest of the Big Ten might get the BTN into New York. What does Nebraska bring to the table? For starters, the state of Nebraska has 20% the population of New Jersey. With 5 elite football names (Tex, ND, OSU, PSU, Mich) already in the mix, Nebraska would not be the difference between a channel with compelling content and a channel without compelling content.
Might as well take New Jersey’s TVs and swing for the fences.
LikeLike
Nebraska brings the 4th winningest program in college football. The fourth most valuable football brand. A very avid fanbase that travels very well. A fanbase that is not, as you suggest, limited to Nebraska (1.8 million), but includes much of the prairies (2 million in the Dakotas and Wyoming alone, not to mention eastern Montana, eastern Colorado and much of Kansas, western Minnesota and western Iowa. The University of Nebraska region is probably a good 5 million or more, or half of New Jersey, even if you don’t inlcude markets where a lot of alums live, like Denver and Phoenix.
But beyond just the population, Nebraksa offers very high saturation of TV viewers in its home markets. In other words a much greater percentage of the population watches Nebraska football in Sioux Falls (where my 85-year-old aunt watches Nebraska) or Omaha or Kansas than the percentage watching a mediocre Rutgers team in New Jersey. Meaning you can charge more for the BTN in Nebraska than you can in New Jersey. People would pay almost anything to watch Nebraska through the prairies.
Nebraska would also be a much more enticing brand for anyone across the country to watch than Rutgers, which not only doesn’t get much appeal in football, but in any sport.
If you’re a football fan in California, Arizona, Virginia or Maine, a network that features Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska and Notre Dame would get you a lot of subscribers, even if the BTN couldn’t get on basic cable. How many more in these non-BTN areas will be enticed by swapping out Nebraska for Rutgers?
Bottom line, if there were just 1.8 million people following Nebraska, it wouldn’t be the 4th most valuable football team. Where does Rutgers rank in this regard?
I agree that TAMU and Pitt would be great additions, as well.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree that Nebraska is an extremely strong football brand.
However, there’s a difference between the incremental value of Nebraska to the current Big Ten lineup and the incremental value of Nebraska to a Big Ten lineup that already includes Texas and Notre Dame. A BTN with Texas, Notre Dame, Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State will have half of the top 10 historical football programs. The BTN would not be lacking top brand names or content.
Perhaps you could sell the BTN at a higher rate in Nebraska than in New Jersey. But that rate difference won’t make up the population difference. Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Penn State can fetch a good rate in New Jersey.
Certainly, Nebraska will get the BTN more satellite subscribers and more premium tier subscribers than Rutgers. But the school won’t get the BTN onto basic cable outside of Nebraska and the northern plains. Rutgers, in conjunction with Notre Dame and Texas and the Big Ten, may have the ability to help deliver the parts of the NYC metro to the BTN.
Rutgers alone pales to Nebraska. But the comparison doesn’t occur in a vacuum.
LikeLike
additionally, I think that conferences need competitive balance. pack 6 elite programs into the same conference and soon somebody is going to get upset because they are losing too many games. only in the SEC would Mark Richt be on the hot seat.
every conference needs low- and mid- level opponents. bring 3 elite schools into the Big Ten without any matching mid- or low- level teams and you will screw up the balance.
this is the beauty of Texas A&M. they deliver a large population base, a rabid fan base, and a relatively underachieving football team.
LikeLike
@Jokewood
You hit the nail on the head with that last statement…
You simply cannot have a 16 team conference with 12 top teams. By definition someone has to lose and in the long run that will hurt their brands, and thus the Big10.
Though I’d also mention Rutgers fits the same qualifiers you mention for TAMU.
LikeLike
I don’t understand the logic that argues it is preferable to have a bunch of weak teams to maintain the existing balance of power.
Preferring a league with a bunch of weak teams so schools like Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State win the BT every year might be entertaining for a guy named PSUGuy, but it’s not entertaining to anyone else. Nor does it make for many interesting games. And it hardly maintains the “brand”.
The SEC is considered a better football league because it has very good teams top to bottom. The Big Ten is more interesting of late since Wisconsin and Iowa have improved, giving a litle competition to the bigger football schools.
If you want a league where only two or three teams have the chance to win in any year, you’ve got Major League Baseball, which I never bother to watch. I’d reather have a league where, over time, everyone has a chance to win the BT and more games are a good match up.
Bring on Texas and Nebraska!
LikeLike
“The SEC is considered a better football league because it has very good teams top to bottom. The Big Ten is more interesting of late since Wisconsin and Iowa have improved, giving a litle competition to the bigger football schools.”
Um … you do realize that Forida and Alabama have won 10 of the 18 SEC championships since they added the championship game, right? And only 6 of the 12 teams in the league have won a title in that time. Not exactly what I would call parity.
Over the same time period, the Big Ten has had 8 of 11 teams win or share the title, and 6 different Rose Bowl representatives.
LikeLike
Pez – you fail to mention that Florida & Alabama played each other in the first 5 SEC Championships. Since that time, which also coincides with the beginning of the BCS, The SEC has had 6 different champions (LSU & Florida 3 each, UGA & Tennessee 2 each, Bama & Auburn 1 each). Its impossible to compare outright championships in the SEC, to shared championships in the Big Ten, but 8 SEC teams have played in the SEC championship game since the 97 season with 6 different champions. While Kentucky, Ole Miss & South Carolina haven’t made it to Atlanta yet, they have all played in New Years Day bowl games. Even Vandy made to a bowl game a couple of years ago, and Vandy is rarely an easy win – decent starting talent but no depth.
But yes, from top to bottom the SEC is VERY tough.
LikeLike
@djinn
No I don’t want a bunch of Indiana’s dotting the Big10 landscape, but on the other hand how profitable is Texas (or a very real point is Michigan) if it ends up losing 4+ in conference games and can’t make a bowl?
Facts are performance makes or breaks recruiting and if Texas can’t win regularly it will start to lose some of those precious recruits its able to maintain so well of late to whichever conference its in (or maybe to other close by conferences.
I mean the only reason why Notre Dame can maintain its independence is because it still wins. You think NBC would have paid out that contract if Notre Dame started string along 4-6 loss seasons?
I’ve said elsewhere the “perfect” conference schedule consists of 1 of the big time programs (with a Top15 ranking), 2-3 “Second Tier” programs (Top15-30 ranking), with the remainder having the popular belief that they are “tough to play”. Anything more makes it increasingly unlikely a conference champion will have an undefeated, or even a 1 loss, season and thus makes it increasing improbably the conference ever gets invited to a National Championship game.
The SEC figured this out long ago and look at the success they’ve had with it.
LikeLike
If you add Texas, Nebraska & ND – your footprint includes 10 states. Big Ten name remains intact
LikeLike
BTW, could UT-ND become a permanent game for the final week of the season? Would it draw more viewers (and thus contract dollars) earlier in the Fall where it could be featured with relatively little competition, or on champ game Saturday for ABC to counter program CBS’ SEC champ game?
LikeLike
Why would you put UT-ND against the SEC Championship when you can just put the Big Ten Championship against the SEC Championship. Or better yet, why would you even bother competing with the SEC Championship when you can just put it in in the opposite time slot to the SEC Championship and thus not have to compete with it. The point is to get higher ratings, not fight an idiotic battle over conference supremacy.
LikeLike
Why would you put UT-ND against the SEC Championship when you can just put the Big Ten Championship against the SEC Championship.
Um, because one of the rumor’s major premises is that the B14 wouldn’t play a conference championship game. Instead they would play 7 conf games that last weekend.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that Texas would want to move its traditional rivalry with A&M away from the last regular season game in order to play ND in the same slot.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that Texas would want to move its traditional rivalry with A&M away from the last regular season game in order to play ND in the same slot.
That was also my initial reaction, however if aTm moves to a different conference with a championship game, they can’t play Texas any later than Thanksgiving weekend. One would think UT would wisely negotiate a permanent off week the Saturday before Thanksgiving, and then be able to keep aTm on turkey night. With the extra 2 days of preparation that last weekend would be perfect for playing ND, from the Horn’s point of view.
BTW, there’s a rather obvious scenario where this ‘ND/TX/NE to 14’ rumor and the ‘NE/MO/3 others to 16’ rumor could both be correct. Say the NW poster was accurate in that he met with a B10+ office guy and was told this. Perhaps B10+ guy can’t give out current info, but tosses out some prior negotiation tidbits that are no longer in play. Friend gets a tantalizing leak that is less likely to get B10+ guy in trouble, and he probably won’t be able to figure out that it was already nixed when told it. As in TX/ND were discussing all this but ultimately it didn’t work out and TX is no longer in the mix. I wouldn’t be surprised if TX was having concurrent discussions with the P10 and perhaps even the SEC.
Or maybe the ‘NE/MO/3 more to 16’ guys have it wrong. Who knows.
LikeLike
BTW, same for the “aTm is interested in the P10 but UT isn’t” statement the Memphis AD says a P10 AD told him. As in UT isn’t interested in joining the P10, but may have suggested taking 7 or 8 P10 schools in a new 12 to 16 team conference of all or mostly AAU schools. Perhaps the P10 major players said no, UT started heavy negotiations with the B10+ around the time of the BCS meetings, the P10 majors thought about it and told UT, “We can work this out,” and subsequent negotiations led UT to drop the B10+ discussions. Or a million possible variations.
Parse, parse, parse.
LikeLike
One thing to keep in mind is that there have been rumors that talks on a home-and-home between Texas and ND supposedly broke down over the last few years over the timing of the games. Texas wanted them in September, and ND wanted them later in the season. FWIW.
By the way, the lack of the championship game makes this half-baked rumor perhaps not baked at all. Imagine for a moment, Pres. Powers trying to sell this to his school’s athletic department and alumni base:
“Well folks, I’ve struck a deal to leave some of our traditional rivals behind to join a conference in the Midwest. But, don’t worry, I’ve arranged it in such a way that the Longhorns can go 12-0 and wind up not even tied for the regular season championship. Oh, and don’t worry about having to travel to Indianapolis to settle it on the field, because we won’t even allow that 12-0 team to have a shot in a conference championship game.
Oh, and that whole decades-long tradition of ending the season with A&M. We decided we don’t need it any more. We hope you enjoy those road trips to northern Indiana the first weekend in December instead.”
LikeLike
I could see how it might work for UT, as long as the bowl system stays the same. The current system has non-conference games count just as much as conference games for the BCS rankings, so UT isn’t handicapped by substituting an extra non-conference game for a Big 10 game.
It’s the automatic BCS birth that matters most, even if they don’t get to call themselves ‘conference champs’. If they go 12-0 they’ll advance straight to the national title game, perhaps to play a ‘Conference Champion’ Big 10 team that also was undefeated in conference play. UT would almost certainly get at least a BCS birth on its own merit at 11-1. Really, the provision would only come up in years when Texas was 7-0 in conference but had at least 2 losses out of conference (A&M + OU?) that might keep them out of a BCS at-large bid.
The thing about this alignment is that there will be questions about the ‘Conference Champion’ title most years, as you can easily get 2 teams who go 7-1 and didn’t play each other, or several 6-2 teams while UT and ND go 5-2. The conference would mostly be about lots of great regular season games and getting its teams into big bowls across the country.
UT would get the academic reputation boost, keep its most important 2 rivals on the schedule while still having 3 games to play with, and get the big money upgrade from the Big 10.
LikeLike
Weren’t there discussions around the Big XII where they were looking at eliminating the two divisions and playing the confernce championship game between the two schools with the highest seeds or overall records?
I don’t think the Big XII went ahead with it, but I do think that discussion made the rounds within the conference.
If the Big Ten opted not to play a conference championship game, I could see them wrapping up the season on that first Saturday in December with the B10 plus 4 rivalry games to go against the SEC, Big XII (if it exists) and ACC conference championship games.
Just imagine the season wrapping up with Michigan-Ohio State, Notre Dame-Penn State and Nebraska-Texas. Play one game at noon, one at 3:30 and one in prime time. Put them on ABC, ESPN and the BTN.
Then you add Iowa-Wisconsin, Illinois-Northwestern and Purdue-Indiana. And yes, there would be the oddball matchup with Minnesota and Michigan State, but does anyone really care about the MSU-PSU rivalry?
It might not be as decisive as a conference championship game, but the results of these matchups could ultimately decide who the regular season conference champion would be.
The Big Ten has lived for a long time with co-champions and scenarios where teams didn’t play one another but had the same records. Was there some grumbles? Sure, but nothing so bad that the conference didn’t cope (and was able to maximize the number of BCS bowl game appearances for the conference).
The other thing to keep an eye on here is the scheduling, or more specifically, the number of weeks available to play college football.
For example, in 2010, there are 14 weekends between Labor Day and the first weekend of December. If the NCAA goes to a 13-game season and you schedule a bye week, then that takes the schedule up to tht first Saturday in December.
Obviously, if you go with a 12-game season with the bye, there is time to put in the conference championship game on the first Saturday in December. But what that means is the confernce “gives up” on fourteen possible non-conference games to get a conference championship game.
The SEC gets 14.3 million for its conference championship game. Imagine what the conference could do revenue wise with 14 home non-conference games revenue wise. Its no contest–you go with the extra non-conference games in order to get the schedule completed in the first week of December over splitting $14.3 million from the conference championship game fourteen different ways.
LikeLike
Let me try a Big 10 twist on this.
Imagine it were the Big 10 which were splitting apart, and Ohio State appeared as though it were SEC-bound without Michigan.
Now there would be a good segment of the alumni base which would be disappointed to leave the Big 10 and Michigan behind, no matter how much (theoretical) sense the move made for OSU.
Now add on top of that a requirement that OSU could no longer close its regular season with Michigan (even as an OOC game) but instead had to extend its regular season by a week to start played its “new” rival, Tennessee.
I don’t think for a second that it would fly.
That’s the same thing as suggesting that Texas (and perhaps A&M as well) would be willing to move their rivalry game away from the end-of-regular-season slot.
LikeLike
Other than you sitting in the corner sulking your thumb, I doubt anyone would make a huge deal about that, since that has already happened several times. 7 times in the last 14 years UT or aTm has played a game the week after they played each other.
In fact it happened a few months ago, but the only grumbling I heard was from those who couldn’t count to 60:00. Nothing about how UT was supposedly disrespectin’ the Ags by playing the week after their game.
LikeLike
7 times in the last 14 years UT or aTm has played a game the week after they played each other.
Reading comprehension, dude. I was clearly talking about regular season games. Conference championship games don’t count. The only time Texas & A&M didn’t play the last game in my lifetime was in 1994, when A&M’s being on a probation which barred television led to the game’s being moved to earlier in the season so that Texas could play a non-cheating team Thanksgiving weekend on national television.
LikeLike
Well, a couple of thoughts. First off, your analogy may be a bit off in that Texas playing Nebraska isn’t exactly a new phenomena. They might not be bitter rivals in the Michigan-Ohio State mold, but I don’t think they’re blood brothers either. Heck, they played each other just last season in the final game of the Big XII season, albeit in the conference championship game. And judging from some of Osborne’s comments, he isnt exactly a fan of Texas either.
My idea isn’t set in concrete. If Texas wants to play A&M as its regular season finale over Thanksgiving or the first week of December, I’m cool with it. If the Big Ten is willing to have UT play one less conference game as a concession to get Texas into the conference, I doubt they’re going to have much problem with Texas wanting to play A&M on such-and-such a date at such-and-such a time.
I think I’ve also written this earlier, but as a Michigan fan, I’m not welded to the idea that the Ohio State game has to be the last regular season game for the Wolverines. If it makes sense to move it because of a pod system or because of a conferenece championship game, I’d be fine with it.
I was just putting forth an idea which I thought would give the Big Ten maximum publicity at season’s end. Heck, a triumvirate of Michigan-Ohio State, Penn State-Notre Dame and Wisconsin-Nebraska would still rock (I have images of semi-froxen Nebraska and Wisconsin fans doing “Jump Around” at Camp Randall Stadium even as I write this . . ..)
LikeLike
If this rumor has legs, I’m not sure we see that much displacement throughout the other conferences. There’s a decent chance it will shake out as:
B10+ adds UT, NE, ND
P10 adds CO, aTm
SEC does nothing (for now)
ACC does nothing
B12 loses 4 and adds TCU, UH, Utah (or BYU) and Lou (or Cin/WV/ColoSU)
BEast may lose one, if so adds UCF
P12 and B12 move forward with joint TV channel and bids.
Now to go out there a good bit further on the speculation. BEast explores creating a channel, perhaps jointly with the ACC. BEast looks into expansion/detaching to 12 for stability and income, but there are only iffy candidates. Then looks at partnering with a new West 8 division that would grab the best of the MWC, WAC and maybe Memphis. The other 5 BCS AQ conferences grumble about dropping the BEast AQ unless it expands. Talks begin among the 6 BCS AQ conferences about forming a separate D-I$$ division, and pressure the BEast to grab up a few schools out west that would be the most politically troublesome to leave behind. SEC decides that if we are going to the next level, it may want to go to 14. ACC similarly explores adding northeast BE schools to reach 14. B12 looks west and at 14. P12 would take Utah but can’t find a suitable 14th unless KS can leave KSU behind or MO will travel.
Hey, it could happen.
LikeLike
One more thing I just thought about. If the Big Ten teams are playing 7 or 8 games against each other instead of 9 games each other (like has been proposed for a 16 team league), then there is going to be one more week each season when ALL 14 Big Ten teams can have home games against OOC opponents (twice as many games), which will create more and varied programming.
LikeLike
Actually, I rather think TAMU might do better on their own. At present, they exist quite unnecessarily in UT’s shadow. If they were in a Texas-free Big 12 or the Pac 10 or the SEC, they could set their own course, independent of UT.
Or course, I’m an outsider to anything Texas. But I think it’s good to get out of your big brother’s shadow.
LikeLike
But I think it’s good to get out of your big brother’s shadow.
You don’t understand. They need us. 🙂
Does any other school’s fight song focus as much on a rival as A&M’s?
Good bye to texas university
So long to the orange and the white
Good luck to dear old Texas Aggies
They are the boys who show the real old fight
‘the eyes of Texas are upon you’
That is the song they sing so well
Sounds Like Hell
So good bye to texas university
We’re gonna beat you all to Chigaroogarem
Chigaroogarem
Rough, Tough, Real stuff, Texas A&M
Saw varsity’s horns off
Saw varsity’s horns off
Saw varsity’s horns off
Short! A!
Varsity’s horns are sawed off
Varsity’s horns are sawed off
Varsity’s horns are sawed off
Short! A!
LikeLike
It is an interesting theory though. It does fit in with A&M seemingly being more open to the Pac-10 and SEC than Texas (if that’s indeed true).
A&M could be the big dog from Texas if UT goes elsewhere, even if you do lose the A&M-UT synergy.
Who knows though, seems unlikely that they’d split up. Together they pretty much bring the state where they’d go, so it seems like a better idea to keep them together.
LikeLike
I do agree with you, zeek, that the two schools aren’t necessarily tied at the hip and could wind up going in different directions. It was just as good an opportunity as any to introduce the uninitiated to the you-know-what envy emanating from College Station. 🙂
LikeLike
It is an odd fight song, to be sure. It shows a certain unhealthy preoccupation with UT.
Of course, you don’t expect clear thinking from a school named Texas A&M (Alchemy and Magic).
LikeLike
Hopkins, the tu arrogance never stops does it. I think the envy you guys have for our closeness as a school is known far and wide. And speaking of can’t do with us………..here are the words to your fight song sung to the new of “Hail, Hail the Gangs all here. At least we have an original tune…
“Texas Fight,” which goes: “Texas fight, Texas fight, and it’s goodbye to A&M! Texas fight, Texas fight, and we’ll put over one more win. Texas fight, Texas fight, for it’s Texas that we love best. Hail, hail, the gang’s all here, and it’s good-bye to all the rest!”
LikeLike
BTW, Horn, the Aggie boards can’t wait to be separated from Texas. I have been a voice or reason, but when that true orange shows, well, might be time to go with the majority.
LikeLike
I’m curious how our resident domers would feel about this. It’s probably safe to seay that they won’t like it.
There is a certain sense to the proposal, though. The three biggest-name football schools out there, giving the Big Ten 6 of top 7 winningest teams. (Penn State is one behind Alabama, otherwise it would be the top six.) It would be a pretty big splash, and it probably wouldn’t wreck the other conferences. I think even the Big 12 would survive.
While I still don’t see Notre Dame fitting in particularly well or ever seeing a happy ND alumnus, snatching Texas and Nebraska is certainly appealing. Those are my preferred candidates–as I’m sure they are to many of us.
LikeLike
While there are obviously some problems with the Northwestern internet board rumor, there are a lot of things about the proposal that make sense.
1. Adding three top-rated college teams is a major homerun. A lot of problems can be overlooked when you get six of the top seven teams of all time in the same conference.
2. A standard 14-team schedule with two divisions and a protected cross division rival is NOT a good deal. It would mean that some teams only play each other one out of six years (assuming 8 conference games). If OSU-PSU-UM are in one division and ND-TEX-NEB are in the other, and Texas and Notre Dame are a protected game, that would mean Texas and Ohio State would only play once every six years. There is no way that the Big Ten could be happy with that.
On the other hand, if we ditch the divisions and allow Notre Dame and Texas to play one less conference game than the other teams, then all teams can get interesting schedules with good matchups and never go more than a one year off from playing each team in the conference. This would be GREAT for the regular season TV matchups.
Here is how I think it would work. Teams would play each team in their group every year and one team from each line out of the other groups each year (alternating to the other team during the other year).
Group A
1. OHIO STATE/PENN STATE
2. MICHIGAN STATE/MICHIGAN
Group B
3. PURDUE/INDIANA
4. NORTHWESTERN/ILLINOIS
Group C
5. NEBRASKA/IOWA
6. MINNESOTA/ WISCONSIN
Group D
7.NOTRE DAME/TEXAS
Under this scheme, Ohio State would play each team in group A every year. On even numbered years it would play the first team listed on lines 3-7. On odd numbered years it would play the second team listed. So, every year we have Ohio State against either Notre Dame and Texas.
Notre Dame and Texas would play each other and one team from each line. This would allow for an additional OOC game and a fairly national schedule.
As noted, while Notre Dame and Texas would have one less conference game, the advantage to the other teams would be that 7-1 beats 6-1.
Bottom line: This configuration would maximize (1) the quality of the conference top to bottom (2) the number of quality regular-season match-ups, and (3) the ability of all Big Tens to play each other on a fairly regular basis (without the nasty five year gaps that a divisional schedule would yield).
There is a lot to like about this and certainly a lot of money to be made.
LikeLike
Again, it strikes me as being a complete non-starter that Texas would willingly handicap itself as to its chances of winning a conference title.
It ain’t happening.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that it would be a disadvantage. First you would get the cupcake ND every year. Second you would have one less opportunity for a conference loss. Going 8-0 is harder than going 7-0 and 7-0 would beat 7-1.
LikeLike
ND isn’t always going to be a “cupcake.”
And don’t forget that 7-1 beats 6-1.
LikeLike
I think it’s an open question whether more or less games is an advantage. Taken to the extreme, going 1-0 is a lot easier than 13-0. The downside is that not all teams are playing the same type of schedule. Whoever lost out on a given year would blame the schedule–but isn’t that kind of whining what we love about college football?
LikeLike
Paul: First of all, very nicely laid out. You are a scheduling guru.
Second, when you start going through the list to create a sample schedule, you really see what an appealing schedule this would be.
My Badgers, for instance, would play Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota one year. That’s five opponents who I’d consider 4- or 5-star opposition.
Then Penn State, Texas, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota the next. Again, five 4- or 5-star opponents.
I’m not really buying the “what I heard in a bar” story, but the implications would be a very entertaining schedule. Yes, I’m sure it would make more money for the BT, but it’s also an improvement for the league and the BT schedule.
Still, it would be fun to see TAMU come to Madison.
LikeLike
Dont know if its true, but the new popular rumor among Nebraska/Missouri fans is that both teams have been offered and should be public around July 1st. I’m guessing thats right before the new academic calendar year.
LikeLike
Without saying anything about what the ultimate chances of NU and Mizzou are, but I can’t imagine, in this era of leaks and wild and crazy message board rumors, that there would have been an offer and possible acceptance with the understanding that it would remain hush-hush for nearly two months.
And writing this, wouldn’t acceptance at this point be an impossibility, since these are public institutions and there would have have to have been a vote?
And perhaps someone who understands the nuances of Open Records laws can comment better, but if there were any sort of offer in writing, wouldn’t that be subject to a state equivalent of a FOIA request?
LikeLike
There hasn’t been any offers though. Delaney’s made clear that he hasn’t submitted his recommendations to the conference presidents…
Right now the Big Ten conference, aka Delaney’s office, is researching and talking to candidates (like Texas).
Until Delaney submits his recommendations to the presidents, nothing happens. The presidents have to invite schools to apply…; it’s not a very public process at all, but the Big Ten doesn’t seem to be anywhere near July 1 announcements.
LikeLike
Can I ask the Big 10 experts a fun little question, in light of the rumors reported above that there could be pushback on Mizzou and NU on the academic issue:
Is there a consensus as to which school is the worst, academically speaking, in the Big 10 as of today? And if there is no consensus, which schools would be in the running for that title.
And would the academic baseline for potential expansion candidates be “at least as good as our worst school,” or do you think it’s a bit higher than that?
LikeLike
Worst B10 academics by AWRU ranking:
Michigan State 51
Iowa 60-77
If they are inviting 5 schools, I think they’d have to be accepting someone lower than Iowa. Or maybe not.
LikeLike
I don’t know that there is a consensus. My gut reaction to the question of “who’s the worst” was Michigan State. And I guess that’s backed up by the US News rankings (tied for #71 with Indiana, Iowa and several non-B10 schools). But they’re all good schools (all are members of the AAU, all are strong research schools and all are top 75 nationally in both US News and AWRU), so the subject of “worst” doesn’t come up much.
LikeLike
Michigan State is the worst. They suffer from being the only university in the Big Ten that is overshadowed by a vastly superior public institution in the same state, which has resulted in a relative lack of ability to attract strong undergrads and grad-school students. Furthermore, their rankings are typically low.
LikeLike
That’s, I think, one of the lynch pins of why expansion is such an intriguing proposition.
Fact is of all the schools mentioned only 3 meet the academic levels of the current Big10. Texas, Pitt, & Rutgers (and MD of course if you consider that school also in play). Next in line would probably be UConn, followed by Mizzou/Neb/Kansas (all tend to be ranked similarly) followed dead last by Syracuse.
If schools like Neb or Syracuse are deemed to be acceptable to the current Big10 presidents, then it completely opens up the possibilities for expansion. If they nix those schools from the get go, there simply aren’t that many left to choose from.
LikeLike
Then again, the Big Ten spent the better part of the past 20 years chasing Notre Dame, and Syracuse is similar in its academic profile to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
True enough on that one…
LikeLike
Any analysis that leads you to conclude that SU is a similar profile to ND is what I expect from the new Big 16.
Schools rankings are lagging indicators of the talent of your student body. Which is why I have emphasized trends (such as that Wake Forest has moved from 42 to 29 in a decade while at the same time Michigan has plummeted from 20 to 27).
This is where the future is:
http://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/act_75pctl_rank.html
or
http://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/sat_75pctl_rank.html
Again not perfect metrics and obviously influenced by the size of enrollment but at least it discusses something that
is relevant for the future reputation of the schools in question.
LikeLike
And yet ARWU rankings show Syracuse and ND being roughly the same as far as World rankings are concerned (admittedly ND better though)…
Point being both schools (ND and Syracuse) share the trait of having smart students come to their schools then leave, but don’t have a particularly deep professor base that acquires Nobel/Fields/etc prizes nor publish a large number of papers in their fields of research.
In any case, its a dead horse that schools like ND and Syracuse would be academic outliers for the Big10..not necessarily in quality of undergraduate education, but in their post-graduate levels of expertise.
LikeLike
Rich,
The lists you provide are about entering tests scores. They’re about selectivity.
I can see why you continually bring up rankings emphasizing selectivity instead of the ARWU rankings– Notre Dame, like most any decent, small private school, will be quite selective, and so, will rank highly.
Of course, large state schools, even very good ones, are selective to a point of being practical, but they’re not there to keep people out. They’re there to educate the masses and to advance society as a whole, which is why they’re paid for, in part, by tax money. It’s a completely different mindset than that of a private school, which emphasizes selectivity.
In looking at average SAT or ACT scores, you could make a good case that they speak to the quality of the average student at a school, but if you think about it, it has little to do with the quality of teachers, what they teach, the quality of facilities, the numbers and diversity of programs offered, how good their graduates are or what the university produces for society in terms of research or numbers of graduates. In other words, ACT scores do not equate to the actual quality of a school.
Now, let’s examine your claim about how Wake Forest has catapulted themselves from #42 to #29 while Michigan has “plummeted” from #27 to #20. First, Wake Forest is #73 on the SAT list. They are #64 on the ACT list. Michigan is #59 on the SAT list and #57 on the ACT list. So where you get current rankings of #29 (Wake Forest) and #20 (Michigan) is a bit of a mystery.
However, let’s agree both schools have nearly identical admittance scores, and both are in the 97th percentile on average SAT scores and both are in the 96th percentile in terms of ACT scores.
You haven’t provided previous rankings from previous years to know what that means in terms of progression of hard numbers over time. You’ve provided just a rank (that doesn’t match your links). But let’s look at the ACT scores for the year provided. The top score, a 36, is in the 99th percentile. And every school listed on your chart has an ACT of at least 30. Meaning a composite score in the 96th percentile (top 4%) or better. Is there really a lot of difference between the quality of an entering student if you scored in the top 1% or 4%? Have you ever seen a study that examines professional success between students in the top 1 or 4%. If so, maybe you could provide a link.
If Michigan’s average ACT is now in the 96th percentile and their average ACT score is in the 97th percentile, where were they in years past? In other words, how far could it possibly have plummeted, if they’re now in “just” the 96th or 97th percentile? From the 98th percentile? From the 99th? Please provide that number so we can know the definition of “plummet”.
Or maybe there are just more, very small schools that have become more selective over time. Like the “New College of Florida” ranked above Michigan with 800 students and an entire faculty of 87. Or Scripps College with under 900 students and 95 faculty. Or Whitman College. Or Macalester. More Middlebury. Or Bowdoin. Or Grinnell. Each of these schools (and a host of others on your list) is well smaller than my high school. Yet you’d have them ranked above Michigan, which anyone in the world would rank as a world-class university. Do you honestly think they’re similar sorts of schools to compare by looking at very marginal differences in ACTs?
What about Wake Forest? Where were they in years past? Is their ascendance in rank a case of all these Big Ten schools like Michigan plummeting? Or maybe Wake Forest has become slightly more selective? In fact, assuming ACT scores don’t fluctuate wildly over time, if Wake Forest were dead last on your ACT list years ago, they’d have a score of 30. Today it’s a 31. Meaning unless you can show something much different, in actual percentages, it would appear they went from something like the 96th percentile all the way to the 97th.
Frankly, like much of what I hear from Notre Dame alums on these posts, you’re trying to sell a story you’d like everyone to believe, maybe even yourself. But it’s not supported by objective evidence.
LikeLike
ARWU has schools like Cincinnati and UCF ranked above a school like Georgetown. This shows how incredibly flawed the list is, regardless of which criteria they’re using to get their numbers.
LikeLike
I have no first-hand experience with Cincinnati, UCF or Georgetown, but all these rankings are flawed.
At least ARWU tries to use objective criteria (research levels to indicate cutting-edge staff, NAS members, Nobel Prize and Fields Medal winners, etc.), but it’s clear that methodology is better with large universities.
I do think they give you a good ballpark estimate of those sorts of schools. Of course, it’s harder to find objective yardsticks with smaller, liberal-arts colleges that don’t do research, can’t afford or support Nobel prize winners. So schools that don’t specialize in hard sciences (Georgetown, eg) will fare more poorly. So how can ARWU (or anyone) objectively measure smaller, private, religious institutions?
The main problem with USN&WR is that the objective criteria they use (e.g. teacher to student ratios) can be fudged (and they are fudged, which is a criticism of USNews), and the majority of its criteria is actually simple subjective opinion, with the smaller private schools, themselves, being the majority voice.
Guess what sort of schools they favor? Tiny private schools with small class sizes get ranked over large, international universities with well-known professors, even if they offer a fraction of the majors and have no one of renown on staff.
I’ll give you one of USNews’ conclusion–they rank Lehigh over Wisconsin, even though Wisconsin has nearly as many majors in the top 10 in the nation (seventy) than Lehigh has majors in total (see Gourman). And Lehigh’s most well-known science professor is a creationist, whom even the university itself disavowed as not being scientific. What does that say about their science department? What does that say about USNews’ ranking system?
So when domers tell us how Wake Forest is better than Michigan or that the Big Ten universities are all slipping, you know theyre going by a USNews or similar ranking system that favors small, private schools. They’re certainly not slipping according to ARWU.
And when you can’t find a small, private school on ARWU’s list, I’d go by other ranking systems. Though I don’t know what ranking system you’d go by if you want any objectivity. Maybe for those schools you have to have a subjective opinion poll.
LikeLike
There’s no real consensus as to something like that.
You can whip out any rankings you want, but informally, no one thinks about which is the “worst.” Maybe you could put them into tiers, but the fact that a lot of them are clumped together in most rankings means that every other year a different school would be at the bottom of some sort of rankings.
As for the second question, it’s hard for me to see where the pushback would be on Nebraska/Missouri other than US News rankings.
And that tends to miss a lot of the story, Nebraska and Missouri may be lower than Syracuse but they’re far better fits in terms of research capabilities, and synergy with CIC should take precedence over US News rankings…
I still think the US News rankings are more of a snapshot, and that the presidents will take them into account as a very minor part of the education factor.
For example, if Nebraska doesn’t make it, it’s because there aren’t big enough TV markets in Nebraska, not the 30 spots on the US News.
There’s not going to be a standard based on academics that requires a school to be at least as good as the worst. I just don’t see that as being realistic considering how good a fit some of the schools are.
AAU membership and CIC synergy should be enough to put schools like Nebraska or Missouri over the top since they’re not out of the same region.
I would note that the ACC did accept FSU, and the ACC tends to pride itself on academics similarly, so the US News rankings aren’t necessarily binding.
Moreso for the Big Ten where the Big Ten’s academics are mostly research focused…
LikeLike
Can we stop with the USNWR rankings? Rating universities is difficult because they are complex. AWRU favors hard sciences and publication bibliometrics, so schools strong in biosciences probably get a bump and there is no question excellence outside of the hard sciences is not as well measured. Some combination of the several ratings and direct impressions of the quality of research and influence in various fields is what carries the day.
However, one can be certain that when the academic prestige of expansion candidates is evaluated, USNWR rankings carry no weight (though everybody looks, to be sure, because it affects the academic brand). USNWR simply is not a valid measure of peer academic prestige when one is talking about the academic league in which the Big Ten plays.
It is obvious ND is an outlier. It is not an academic peer by the measures Big Ten schools apply to themselves. Talk about selectivity and relative quality of the undergraduate teaching (and I absolutely agree ND is a fine university in these respects) is irrelevant in this context.
LikeLike
I’m not sure there’s a clear weakest BT school. In fact, I don’t think there are any bad schools in the bunch, and every school has at least some very strong departments. That’s why the Big Ten is rightfully so picky about new members, (and why I might like Oklahoma’s football brand, but it’s not really going to get an invitation).
As people have mentioned Iowa, Indiana and Michigan State, which are the lowest rated by ARWU, I’ll point out the following:
Wikipedia states “IU has 120 majors and programs ranked in the nation’s top 20.”
USN&WR states Iowa has 21 graduate programs in the top ten in the nation.” Iowa is also very well known for a great writer’s workshop, which has produced several Pulitzer-prize writers.
Michigan State has several departments ranked #1 in the nation and it ranks #48 by ARWU in the Americas and #34 by Washington Monthly.
Each of these schools is also considered a “public ivy” in the book “The Public Ivies: America’s Flagship Public Universities”. In fact, in addition to Iowa, Indiana, and Michigan State–Indiana, Ohio State, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Penn State are also on this list. Only Purdue was left out from the list. And of course Purdue is also a good school, (#48 by Washington Monthly, #42 ARWU) with a particularly strong reputation in engineering.
And while Iowa, Indiana and Michigan State are the lowest ranked schools by ARWU, the lowest rated school in the BT (Iowa) is still tied at #56 in the nation, according to ARWU.
Here’s their ranking: #15 Wisconsin, #18 Michigan, #19 Illinois, #20 Minnesota, #22 Northwestern (that’s five in the top 22), followed by #32 Penn State , #41 Ohio State, #42 Purdue, #48 Michigan State, #52 Indiana, and #56 Iowa (tied with 14 others). So no one is really an outlier.
As a comparison to some candidate schools, according to ARWU, Maryland is ranked #28, Texas is ranked #29, Pitt is #37, Rutgers is #38, A&M is #50, Nebraska is ranked tied at #71. Notre Dame is ranked in a tie at #91, along with other candidate schoools of Missouri and Kansas. (Though US News loves Notre Dame in their rankings, as they do many small private schools.)
LikeLike
In Greene’s guide: “The Public Ivies..America’s Flagship Public Universities 2001” linked below a description and lists from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy
Expansion candidates on the list:
Rutgers
Texas
UConn
Maryland
Colorodo
LikeLike
Interesting responses, and it helps reinforce to me why I personally love the idea of UT moving to the Big 10. When the first response is a plausible argument for Iowa, for crying out loud, being the worst school academically in the Big 10, you know you have a strong, top-to-bottom conference.
LikeLike
What I like about this rumor (that’s an odd statement) is that it brings us back to Frank’s very first post and its premise. The Big 10 will aim big.
They won’t add five good teams to make a 16 team league. They will add the perfect five. If they can only land one of the perfect five at this point, they’ll add one. If they can only get three, they’ll just add 3.
Nebraska, Texas, and ND would be the perfect three. Like other commenters, I think that Texas A/M would be a tie with Nebraska. And my fifth team is Rutgers…not for their football prowess and not for “grabbing the NYC” market, but for their university and the NJ recruiting ground and the NJ state population.
As for the “special rules” for ND and Texas, nuh uh. Nope. No way.
Expanding to 13 team regular season instead of CCG, I could see that. The Big 10 could keep an 8 game regular season and offer more flexibility to ND and Texas. (As a PSU fan, I can testify that we’d love to get an extra home game for the huge revenue we get from those. That would be worth more–even if we schedule Florida Atlantic–than a share of the Big 10 CCG.)
LikeLike
At this point, Rutgers is the only school in the east that really makes sense other than Maryland (which seems like a pipe dream). Pitt would be the best fit if it wasn’t in Pennsylvania (still might get an invite depending on what the Big Ten presidents want), and Syracuse/Conn seem to require Notre Dame in order to really be worth it…
As for Notre Dame, I’m not entirely sure we’d need Notre Dame if we can get Texas. Texas makes the Big Ten the de facto national conference in terms of breadth.
I think getting Texas (and Nebraska/A&M as part of the deal) should take precedence over everything else.
Even if Texas wants Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri/Kansas, that’s what we should do. You can always add Rutgers (and Notre Dame when it comes around) to go to 18 or 20, etc. in the distant future. Getting Texas along with Nebraska/A&M seems like the best way to lock down the future whether it’s going to 14 teams with those 3 or 16 with two others from Missouri/Kansas/Rutgers/Pitt, etc.
I just don’t see what other strategy really locks down the future of the Big Ten.
I can easily see Delaney calling Texas one of these days and asking “what do we have to do to get this done?” and if Texas gives an unequivocal no, then we can go to Nebraska/Rutgers and a 14th (Missouri or Pitt).
Until Texas crunches the numbers and decides what it wants to do (weaker Big 12 contract + LSN versus Big Ten versus Pac-10 versus SEC), it’s hard to see the Big Ten doing anything.
Right now though the money and academics all seem to point to the notion that Texas should be at least open to Big Ten overtures; the only question would be whether a deal can be sealed.
I just want to point out that I don’t see Texas waiting. Texas is in the driver seat; I could see Delaney almost letting them determine who they bring, as opposed to being reactive. Thus, if we do see invites for other teams, it’ll probably mean Texas said no.
LikeLike
I’ve been out of the mix for the last few days, but wanted to comment on this proposed 13th game nonsense. The NCAA would have to approve a 13th game, and if anyone really thinks the SEC, ACC, Big XII (if it still exists) CUSA, or the MAC would allow the entire Big Ten to play a 13th game, in lieu of a championship game, you really need to take a step back and re-examine the issue.
The NCAA just approved a 12th game a few years ago. While it highly doubtful, if the NCAA ever were to allow a 13th game, they surely wouldn’t do it for the sole purpose of allowing the Big Ten to make a deal with Texas and Notre Dame. The Big Ten is not the only conference run by college graduates. The people running the other conferences aren’t stupid. The Big Ten does not operate in a vacuum.
LikeLike
Whoa..whoa…whoa..Alan!!! Are you saying that some of the characterizations and insults hurled at some if not most of the expansion candidates as crappy, cupcake, pushover, meh, brand diminishing, inept, and generally not worthy in one way or another may be a function of some kind of BIG TEN VACUUM EFFECT by some posters? No..not possible.
LikeLike
Rick, every school other than Texas has a blemish somewhere on its resume in terms of whether it’s a good candidate to join the Big Ten as the 12th/13th/14th/15th/16th member.
That said, no one is saying that we’re measuring the schools based on any one criteria, and no one is saying that the current Big Ten schools would all pass the bar that we’re setting for expansion candidates.
The whole point is that the current 11 Big Ten schools are already in, yes some of them have the same problems that we’re pointing out about expansion candidates but that’s not to mean we’re necessarily demeaning the candidates…
Every school that’s a candidate could have been a Big Ten team before we already went to the current configuration of 11. We’re measuring the value of the 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th; the bar to get those slots is inevitably higher than the bar to have been the 1st, 2nd through 10th schools.
Penn State itself had to meet a pretty high bar to join as the 11th school.
The 12th team has a lower bar in the sense that the Big Ten Network makes the profitability requirement a lot easier to meet, but the rest of the criteria have gone up due to the success of the league.
LikeLike
The NCAA just approved a 12th game a few years ago. While it highly doubtful, if the NCAA ever were to allow a 13th game, they surely wouldn’t do it for the sole purpose of allowing the Big Ten to make a deal with Texas and Notre Dame.
A 13th game is adding a money maker for most D1 programs in times of budget deficits, so why wouldn’t they vote for it? Obviously a 13th (or 14th) in lieu of a champ game would be more controversial, but there are plenty of conferences that don’t play a champ game.
Don’t know for sure what the vote requirements are, but if it is a simple majority out of what, 120 BCS schools, then 61 suffices. Perhaps a coalition of:
16 – New B16
8 – BEast schools out of an agreement that the B10+ wouldn’t raid them if they vote for a 13th (and 14th game for non-champ game conf, which they would be)
10 or 12 – P10 usually votes with the B10+, surely Delany can broker a deal, perhaps vote and lobby for lowering the champ game limit from 12 teams per conf. With their current round robin the P10 would be probably be in favor of a 13th and 14th.
12 – Have P10 convince B12 to vote for 13th/14th as part of negotiations on a joint P10-B12 cable channel venture.
16 – An expanded SEC with more conf games would also benefit from a 13th that would bring back their 4th OOC game, (Florida loves its cupcakes!) So they can probably be convinced for at least the 13th.
Right there you’ve got 62 to 64 votes for a 13th regular season game.
Drop the SEC, maybe the B12 votes and add a few conferences with less than 12 members and you’ve probably got 61+ votes for a 14th game for non-comp champ game conferences.
LikeLike
a Texas insider at orangebloods has said the northwestern message-board rumor is probably true. He’s heard that Texas has told the Big 10 that they will come to the Big 10 with A&M, Nebraska & Missouri if ND is the 5th team. He hadn’t heard anything about 7 game conference schedule.
He also said in another post that the PAC-10 had already approached Texas to join and Texas rejected joining. Texas wanted PAC-10 to drop some of the dead weight teams then they could talk.
LikeLike
oh, he also said Texas wanted to play ND every year.
LikeLike
Let me say that, if one strips away the nonsense of setting the football team up for a chance to go undefeated and still not win the conference by voluntarily playing one less conference game, this is an intriguing line-up.
And to take the spirit of the blog and to analyze anonymously-spread rumors as though there’s more than a kernel of truth in them, I would have to wonder if the Texas play on ND (we want a guarantee that we play ND & A&M every year) is just throwing a bargaining chip on the table. It’s hard to imagine that, as ideal as a guarantee of an annual game might be, not being able to play ND on an annual basis would be what would keep Texas from joining the Big 10 if all other terms of entry are acceptable.
LikeLike
I don’t really understand why it has to get all that fancy for Notre Dame and Texas to play every year. Texas, A&M, Notre Dame plus whomever in one of the pods of the four-pod scenario, or if the conference splits into two divisions, Texas-Notre Dame and Texas-A&M as protected rivalries, likely the former out of division and the latter in division. Should cover what Texas needs out of the deal.
LikeLike
I don’t really understand why it has to get all that fancy for Notre Dame and Texas to play every year. Texas, A&M, Notre Dame plus whomever in one of the pods of the four-pod scenario, or if the conference splits into two divisions, Texas-Notre Dame and Texas-A&M as protected rivalries, likely the former out of division and the latter in division. Should cover what Texas needs out of the deal.
I think the only major reason the 6-1 protect vs 5-3 protect schedules are being discussed is to give ND enough OOC games. The big hurdle preventing ND from joining is their fans and donors insisting on staying independent. If ND can join but still have 5 or 6 OOC games plus a conf game in Texas, then they can argue that this was a decent compromise (and a face-saving measure for ND brass.) That’s how deals often get done, each side makes major concessions.
My guess is that if this can be worked out they’ll probably settle on ND and TX playing the same type of schedule as the rest of the conference once (if) 13 or 14 game seasons are allowed. Perhaps they start with just 14 schools, adding 2 later as the 13th game is added, then go to everyone plays 6-3 when the 14th game is approved.
BTW, perhaps aTm doesn’t want to come along with UT but instead go the SEC or P10. Doesn’t want to be seen as UT’s little brother, sees joining the P10 on their own as a highlighting the Ags’ academics and boosting their reputation. That might explain the rumor of it only being ND, NE, and UT for now. Would aTm have knocked out NE until a 13th game is added? Starting with 16 schools and just 12-game schedules would likely leave ND with only 4 OOC games to start with (7-1 conf setup.)
Who knows.
LikeLike
I actually think the UT-ND arrangement is more for Notre Dame’s benefit than Texas. In fact, my feeling is that this might be the chip UT is putting on the table to get ND to agree to the deal.
There have been recent statements out of Notre Dame where they’ve talked about maintaining independence and having a national schedule. We realize that the first relies upon the Big East remaining intact and cooperative with their current arrangement. The second is a fiction in that its extremely difficult for Notre Dame to get a game with a major BCS program in October and November (outside their longstanding rivalry with USC). Look at their schedule next season–games with Army and Navy (which is traditional) along with Tulsa and Western Michigan. That’s not exactly earth shaking.
Well, if you want to bring Notre Dame into the conference and give them a temporary measure of independence while upgrading their overall schedule, you do what the conference and UT may have done–agree to six conference games, get a guaranteed game with Texas and allow Notre Dame six non-conference games.
What it does for Notre Dame is strengthen their schedule and allows them to spin the moving into the Big Ten in a positive matter. Texas is #2 in overall wins and #3 in winning percentage–as a Michigan (#1 in overall wins and winning percentage!!!) fan, I know how important that stat is to Notre Dame and I imagine they’d love to make Texas a regular fixture on their schedule (especially since they need to recruit nationally–another reason to get that exposure).
The ND admins could also point to regular games with Michigan (which they actually alredy have), Penn State, Ohio State and Nebraska–all teams that someone on NDNation would call Tier 1.
It also allows ND to say their schedule is “national” because of the flexibility with the six non-conference games (two of which undoubtedly be USC and Navy). If these non-conference games are played in the early part of the season, it would also better allow Notre Dame to get another major BCS program onto the schedule.
If the ND admin came and said our future schedules will include Texas and USC as annual fixtures and some combination of Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State and Nebraska on the schedule, it would go a long way to selling conference membership. Add in, for example, a non-conference games with Alabama or Florida State or Oklahoma to that slate and it becomes very marketable to ND’s constituents.
For Texas, having that one less conference game probably gives them the scheduling flexibility to play A&M late in the season. I’m not the Longhorn expert here, but I have to imagine a second non-conference game fixture would be Oklahoma. As far as the four others are concerned, if travel is really an issue, they can be with schools close by like Arkansas or perhaps the smaller Texas programs like Baylor or Rice or Texas Tech or Houston.
LikeLike
From a Longhorn perspective, leaving A&M and OU behind for a new conference would be problematic from a scheduling perspective. I assume that we would still try and schedule both schools as OOC games, and I assume both schools would want to continue scheduling us (though I’m not 100% sold on OU continuing to play us for reasons which really have no bearing on realignment so I won’t bore you with them here).
Assuming a move to the Big 10 for these purposes (though the same logic holds if Texas moves without the other two school sto the Pac 10) and assuming the most likely scheduling regimen (still 12 regular season games; eight conference games for all members of the expanded Big 10), having A&M and OU as OCC games, especially in years when both programs are up, gives Texas a deliciously difficult schedule when combined with the slate of Big 10 conference games.
Also, such a schedule would almost certainly be the death of any other interesting OOC games down the road. If we’re already playing A&M and OU OOC, I can’t see Texas ever adding any other BCS-level competition to its OOC slate. We’d most like be scheduling a Sun Belt gimmie and an in-state patsie (Rice/UTEP type schools) to fill out the schedule.
I don’t think these OOC scheduling concerns would be enough to kill Texas’ chances of moving by itself, but it does lend credence to the argument that Texas would prefer to bring its in-state rival along for the ride. (Remember that OU was an OOC game for Texas for decades.)
LikeLike
Pretty impressive lineup if they can get it done. As others have proposed, maybe the best way to get NYC is through Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I don’t think it will happen, but that’s probably the best scenario for a semi-realistic 16-team Big Ten. It would certainly have a diminishing effect on all the other conferences save the SEC.
LikeLike
AlanFromBatonRouge, Suppose that this wild bar rumor has some kernels of truth to it confirmed by an Orange Blood Insider, what ever that is.
Would you think the SEC would have a proactive reaction. If so, what? May be a lot of supposing?
LikeLike
Wes- the one thing I know is that when the smoke clears, there will be two Super Powers left . . . kind of like, well, right now. The Big Ten isn’t going to pull away from the SEC, and nobody is going to catch up to the Big Ten or the SEC.
But let’s say the Big Ten wet dream becomes a reality, and they get Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and somebody else. The SEC will respond with Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, and somebody else. The Big Ten picks up one team with a BCS championship, while the SEC picks up three. Added to the current membership, the SEC would then have 9 of the 12 BCS Champions.
Going back 30 or 50 years, the Big Ten’s teams look better, but going back 20 years, the SEC’s teams look better. I’d call it a draw.
LikeLike
Big Ten would be picking up two teams with BCS championships, not one.
LikeLike
Nope. Just Texas. Nebraska lost to proposed new SEC pick-up Miami. Notre Dame still hasn’t recovered from the Sugar Bowl thrashing at the hands of LSU of few years back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCS_National_Championship_Game
LikeLike
Alan’s right. Nebraska’s last national title (1997) was the year before the BCS began.
LikeLike
Forgive me. For some reason I though the BCS was active in ’97, just with out the Pac 10/Big Ten & Rose Bowl which was why Nebraska played #3 Tenn. instead of #2 Michigan.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to why exactly the SEC would “obviously” pick up Miami and FSU…the SEC has already stated if it expands it would not add new schools already in its footprint (well for what the internet mongers are worth) and Miami has never considered itself a southern school, so why would it leave the academically better ACC to join the SEC?
I could see schools like WVU, Cinci, Louisville, Oklahoma etc maybe being interesting to the SEC, but the remnants of the BigEast (if they can’t find replacements that is) who have any academic chops would most likely drift to the ACC making it more solid in its geographical footprint and less likely to give up members.
LikeLike
PSUGuy -I’m a SEC guy and follow expansion pretty closely and have never heard that the SEC wouldn’t expand in states already in the SEC footprint. I have heard that the state schools would have veto power over a new school within their state, i.e. UF for FSU/Miami, UGA for GA Tech, South Carolina for Clemson.
The SEC doesn’t have the same sort of contractual TV arrangements as does the Big Ten. Game #1 goes to CBS, Games #2 & #3 go to ESPN. Game #4 goes to syndicated ESPN-produced SEC Network. I think game #5 goes to ESPNU. The CBS & ESPN games are national, not regional like most Big Ten ABC games. The SEC Network is carried throughout the SEC footprint and in at least 15 other states. The SEC Network is carried either on broadcast or basic cable in almost every market its in.
If the SEC expands, its because CBS & ESPN are willing to pay for it. CBS & ESPN would only be willing to pay for expansion if they thought SEC expansion would bring more compelling games that would get higher ratings. FOOTPRINT IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE SEC. Their footpring is everywhere. The primary reason ESPN did the deal with the SEC was to get more cable companies to pick up ESPNU. Mission accomplished. That’s why Miami, FSU & Oklahoma would be targets. Why those 3 teams would be willing to go is obvious. . . more money & more exposure.
FSU almost went during the early 90s, but Bobby Bowden thought the ACC would be an easier path to championships. He was right, but the money wasn’t such a big difference back then. The latest ACC expansion has been underwhelming, at best. They don’t have a good TV contract. ACC Championship game is a disaster. Miami wasn’t selling out the Orange Bowl for Rutgers & West Virginia when they were in the Big East, and they aren’t selling out Dolphin Stadium for Wake Forest & NC State now. If FSU goes to the SEC, Miami would be marginalized in the state of Florida if it didn’t follow.
Also, just like I’ve said on many occasions that Texas could still have their own network under the SEC TV contracts, UF, FSU & Miami could probably cut a much better deal with the Sunshine Network if they were all in the same conference.
Don’t get me wrong, the ACC is a collection of fine schools, but I’m not aware that they have anything like the Big Ten has with the CIC, and the way they run their conference is light years behind the SEC and the Big Ten. Miami was in a conference with West Virginia before, so I’m sure being in a conference with Ole Miss won’t be a deal killer.
LikeLike
@Alan
The B10 ABC games are national via the reverse mirror.
LikeLike
Fair enough on the difference between “no school in zone” and “veto power”…I could have been mistaken on that.
However, I still make the point that the schools mentioned (at least Florida ones anyway) are no automatic SEC recruits. You are right in the Miami v WVU, but then again it was always using its BigEast games to recruit out of NYC and took an academic upgrade to go to the ACC. Even FSU I could see staying out for the same reasons Bowden didn’t want to join in the first place. Then again, money talks so I could see them jump the fence again (just can’t see Miami doing so though).
I simply disagree however that the SEC will only expand if the tv channels pay for it. Simply put, there are only so many slots on a Saturday tv schedule and only so many teams to fills them (spread across several conferences). At some point there will be a point of diminishing marginal returns and tv just won’t pay (much) more no matter which teams are added.
The Big10 however has seemed to crack that problem by allowing an outlet for non-national teams (and like-wise “excess” national teams) to gain revenue for the conference. The SEC, one of the innovators in the NCAA with the championship game, must see this and simply cannot allow this opportunity to go (at least I can’t see how).
I mean, the Big10, with its 5 year old “lesser” tv contract and a barely existing conference channel is paying out (supposedly) more than the biggest tv payout to any conference ever (the recent SEC one). When (and notice I don’t say if) the SEC conference is formed how likely are they going to allow a team like Texas or Florida its own channel and allow the rise of who owns the revenue, who pays the costs, takes the risks…etc.
Again, the SEC was never dumb and it knew long ago it needs to work as equals, even if its understood not all are on the football field, if for no other reason than to maintain harmony among the conference. I simply can’t see it allowing “the big programs” to have their own networks and collect their revenue streams while the Villinova’s etc are left behind.
Maybe it won’t be in even a couple years, but I really see the SEC network getting up and it expanding accordingly, regardless of the tv contract.
LikeLike
I thought I might as well speculate on the scheduling of this rumor.
North
Michigan >> (Out-of-Division Game: Ohio State)
Michigan State >> (Out-of-Division Game: Penn State)
Wisconsin >> (Out-of-Division Game: Nebraska)
Minnesota >> (Out-of-Division Game: Iowa)
South
Texas >> (Out-of-Division Game: Missouri)
Texas A&M >> (Out-of-Division Game: Indiana)
Northwestern >> (Out-of-Division Game: Illinois)
Notre Dame >> (Out-of-Division Game: Purdue)
East
Ohio State >> (Out-of-Division Game: Michigan)
Penn State >> (Out-of-Division Game: Michigan State)
Indiana >> (Out-of-Division Game: Texas A&M)
Purdue >> (Out-of-Division Game: Notre Dame)
West
Iowa >> (Out-of-Division Game: Minnesota)
Nebraska >> (Out-of-Division Game: Wisconsin)
Missouri >> (Out-of-Division Game: Texas)
Illinois >> (Out-of-Division Game: Northwestern)
Divisions cycle every two years: Alpha, Beta, then Gamma.
Alpha Year
Division A: North & South
Division B: East & West
Beta Year
Division A: North & East
Division B: South & West
Gamma Year
Division A: North & West
Division B: South & East
Teams will play every team in their division for a total of 7 games. The additional 8th game will be the rival game. In the event that rival teams are in the same division, the game will be played with a team in the other division.
Alpha Year Out-of-Division Games
Michigan vs. Ohio State
Michigan State vs. Penn State
Wisconsin vs. Nebraska
Minnesota vs. Iowa
Texas vs. Missouri
Texas A&M vs. Indiana
Northwestern vs. Illinois
Notre Dame vs. Purdue
Beta Year Out-of-Division Games
Michigan vs. Missouri
Michigan State vs. Northwestern
Wisconsin vs. Nebraska
Minnesota vs. Iowa
Texas vs. Ohio State
Texas A&M vs. Indiana
Notre Dame vs. Purdue
Penn State vs. Illinois
Gamma Year Out-of-Division Games
Michigan vs. Ohio State
Michigan State vs. Penn State
Wisconsin vs. Notre Dame
Minnesota vs. Purdue
Texas vs. Missouri
Texas A&M vs. Nebraska
Northwestern vs. Illinois
Iowa vs. Indiana
This ensures 8 conference games a year. All teams will play each other at least twice every six years. You could take it a step further and introduce another rivalry game or add a game with an out-of-division team that cycles from year to year if you want to go to 9 conference games instead of 8.
I highly doubt these will be the five teams invited, but it is fun to speculate on the possibilities. I will say this, though, it’s a lot harder to spread out pods with these teams than it is with a Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pittsburgh selection. There’s a lot of traditional power to go around.
LikeLike
Traditional power, yes. In today’s terms, in football, your South is a division Texas would have every prospect of dominating. Today’s Notre Dame or A&M doesn’t leave them quaking by any stretch of the imagination. Northwestern, well, fantastic academics, to be brutally honest about it. Some rebuilding/upgrading years will be required for that to change.
LikeLike
And what if ND isn’t the last team…
Facts are that school has already made it clear it wants to be independent and will remain so unless something catastrophic happens. The only thing I could see that would force this is the BigEast totally went away (unlikely) or the BigEast made an official ultimatum to join or leave with the thought that this could keep the Big10 from taking too many BigEast teams. The problem with this is it removes, literally, the only national brand the BigEast has and while it isn’t truly in the conference for football, ND plays enough BigEast teams for it matter come tv contract time. Does it really make much sense to get rid of the golden goose because the wolf is after some of your chickens?
Next, since ND isn’t a given (we could argue whether its even likely) how does Texas have any leverage to say “we’ll do this if…”? If the Pac10 takes Colorado (we’ll find out about that in a couple months IMO) and the Big10 were to take Nebraska and Mizzou (a moderately likely outcome of expansion) the Big12 has lost 2-3 of its major population states and 1-2 of its national brands. While I’ve marginalized the academic prowess of Neb/Mizzou, they are still solid, research oriented, AAU universities (along with Colorado) that will have to be replaced by 2nd tier schools in every meaning of the word. Does Texas want to be stuck in another SWC and shotgunned into yet another conference that it doesn’t feel itself a part of? Does it really want to face the possibility of joining the SEC?
Texas is smart enough to see this, and smart enough to listen when the Big10 comes calling, no matter what the offer is. Maybe they have to look it over, perhaps ask for some consideration to be made, but only after it has had a chance to work up some logical arguments to present to the Big10 on why their original plan may not work (for Texas), and then, yes, some haggling could be done, but to think any school (let alone Texas) is going to be walking to the Big10 saying “this is how its going to be” and chance being left behind in a conference it no longer desires is just ludicrous.
LikeLike
Just to be contrarian, I would submit that it’s entirely possible that if Notre Dame is listening, it’s possible they what they would put out for public consumption might be the flat denial we’ve heard. They don’t want to look like they’ve been buffaloed into something they didn’t want, they have, if the reports have any truth to them, a minefield to negotiate with alumni and boosters should they actually desire to accept an invite, etc. Their situation, if interested, is the most delicate by far, and just putting a lid on speculation while buying some time could be the strategy.
LikeLike
Maybe…but then again maybe ND will continue to believe its “Us Against the Rest”?
Fact is for the past 20+ years the Big10 and BigEast has been trying to get ND to officially join its ranks to no avail. IMO there is only one way ND consents to join a conference, and that’s if its impossible to get a national title outside of one. Their alumni base is just too “Insert Derogatory Term Here” to accept otherwise.
And considering its private status and endowment…ND can afford to be stubborn on this account.
LikeLike
Assume the Big 10 adds Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska to get to 14, as has been rumored (and which makes sense from a money angle). If the Big 10 wanted to ditch the championship game to maximize scheduling variety and get the most exciting regular season matchups, here is a way that it could work (with each team playing a full 8 game schedule):
Rules: Divide teams into three scheduling groups of 4 teams each with ND and Texas left over as a pair.
Teams would generally play other teams within the same group every year and the rest of the teams on alternating years. Notre Dame and Texas get an extra game from one line each year, which would rotate over 12 years.
Group A
1. UM – PSU (during years 1 & 10, skip line partner to play both ND/TEX)
2. OSU – MSU (during years 4 & 7, skip line partner to play both ND/TEX)
Group B
3. MIN – NEB (during years 2 & 11, skip line partner to play both ND/TEX)
4. IOWA – WIS (during years 5 & 8, skip line partner to play both ND/TEX)
Group C
5. IND – NW (during years 3 & 12, skip line partner to play both ND/TEX)
6. ILL – PUR (during years 6 & 9, skip line partner to play both ND/TEX)
Group D
7. ND – TEX (play one from each line, alternating between right and left columns)
SUMMARY
Groups A-C:
Each team in would play line partner 5 out of 6 years.
Each team would play the other 2 teams in group every year.
Each team would play teams in other groups on alternating years. (Right column/left column)
In a 12 year period, each team would have one extra game with both ND & TEX (to make up for ND & TEXAS having a smaller group)
Group D (ND & TEX):
Would play each other every year.
Would play all other teams on alternating years.
Would play one extra game against each other team during 12 year period.
LikeLike
Let me just say, as an outsider, that if the B10 brings in Texas ,and ND, and then lets some combination of teams play fewer games than the others, I will lose a lot of respect for all parties. That’s just not the way a conference is supposed to work.
LikeLike
As for a Big East-Big 10 backroom agreement, remember that Delany and Big East commissioner John Marinatto are very close. Over the BCS meetings, Marinatto called Delany brilliant and described him as his mentor.
Delany has also talked about not wanting to sound a death knell for any other conference and create a Big 10 image as the ¨bad guy.¨
Whether or not a potential candidate like Rutgers would give ND an ultimatum at the expense of its own seat in the Big 10 is very questionable. But it is not difficult to see the Big East doing everything in its power to survive and coming to some sort of ¨agreement¨ with the Big 10. In this scenario, it may not be realistic to actually kick ND out of the conference, but would Domnrs really want to be in a conference that didn´t want them? Even if a public divorce is out of the question, an unhappy marriage would not be in anyone´s best interest.
And let´s be honest, the Big 10 doesn´t really want Rutgers or Syracuse. Notre Dame is the big fish here and have been for the past 20 years.
LikeLike
Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, and UConn are going to have a big problem with any back room deals cut by the Big East with the Big Ten to preclude them from being considered for expansion. What may be in the best interest of the the Big East (although they have shown they care very little about the Football schools) is not in the best interest of RU, SU, Pitt, and UConn. There will be a titanic fight over this, I guarantee that. Do you think Syracuse is going to want another political back room back stabbing happen to them and let it go uncontested? I don’t know what they could do about it but it could turn ugly. This just doesn’t sound right to me and I am sure the schools in question here are going to feel the same way.
LikeLike
Wow I’m take a break for a couple of days and everyone goes nuts over a post on a Northwestern board.
My gut reaction is that I would hope that the conference would reject the unequal scheduling part of the idea. I am all for making accommodations for incoming members; I would even be ok with new members having a large say in how divisions or protected rivalries would be drawn up, or giving the newcomers network equity. However, having an inherently unequal setup can lead to nothing but problems either immediately or further on and I would assume that enough schools in the conference would object.
LikeLike
Another thing that just pooped to mind…Texas looked more than willing to leave behind all its old rivalries and join the Big10 alone when the SWC fell apart and before it got pushed into the Big12.
Why exactly would it be pushing for not only TAMU, but Neb and Mizzou when it seemed more than willing to ditch all before?
LikeLike
Why exactly would it be pushing for not only TAMU, but Neb and Mizzou when it seemed more than willing to ditch all before?
My best guess:
If Texas were inclined to join the Big 10, and the Big 10 were inclined to expand to 16 schools, Texas might want to use the expansion of four additional teams to bring a bit more geographic rationality (from Texas’ perspective, of course) to the conference. If four schools were to come in, why not encourage the adding of four schools which are much closer to Texas geographically (and historically?) rather than three or four additional East Coast schools even further away from Austin than existing Big 10 schools?
LikeLike
Theta above posted…
“He’s heard that Texas has told the Big 10 that they will come to the Big 10 with A&M, Nebraska & Missouri if ND is the 5th team.” Then he said that UT also wanted (as in a request?) to play ND every year. Duh, who wouldn’t 😉
Those words don’t suggest that Neb, Tamu and Mizzou were UT’s idea. UT simply said yes to them as additions, but the yes is conditional upon also adding ND.
These are all internet rumors. I don’t think we should take any very seriously and certainly not exact wording and meaning.
Anyway, this rumor along with the other recent rumor that UT wants the Pac10 to cut some dead weight before they would considering joining, does sound plausible. UT has power and they like to use it. I suspect they are. Pac 10 is probably a better fit for them actually (culture, weather, baseball, recruiting, not-rust-belt), but they no doubt also see the unique benefits of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
he other recent rumor that UT wants the Pac10 to cut some dead weight before they would considering joining
I’ve missed that one in the plethora of rumors flying around the board. Instinctively, again, it makes no sense. First, it seems like every school in the conference one could conceivably consider “dead weight” would be legislatively protected by a partner school from the same state within the conference, so ditching a school seems like a non-starter, even if Texas really wanted that.
Second, I know that Texas is implied to be a bully at times, but even if it were, it’s a politically-savvy bully, and it would know that forcing its way into a conference by forcing out a school that had been in the conference for decades would most certainly not be the best way to ensure a warm welcome from other schools.
LikeLike
“Why exactly would it be pushing for not only TAMU, but Neb and Mizzou when it seemed more than willing to ditch all before?”
One way to look at this is that with Mizzou, and Nebraska it would show that the Big 12 has been hit hard. Then the aTm addition would allow for any other political pressure that might occur. Throw in Notre Dame and they also have the excuse to leave behind the rest of the former SWC schools by claiming that there isn’t any more room in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
M,
Like loki, I’m an outsider but I can’t imagine a conference giving individual teams special “accommodations” when it comes to competition (like allowing certain teams to play fewer conference games). It would seem that this would lead to animosity between the teams. I think that the Big 12 is a prime example of that with their tv revenue distribution. When you start treating certain teams unequally than the rest, it is no longer a conference of equal peers. If the SEC was the conference that was rumored to be offering this to a team like TX, I’d be highly irrate over it. JMHO
LikeLike
M,
Yeah, this is getting weird. Earlier in this thread, you see posters mocking ESPN talking heads for simply downplaying the importance of academics in the realignment equation, yet an even greater number of posters seem to be running with an absurd-on-its-face rumor of unequal conferences games posted anonymous on a Northwestern message board as though it is a serious suggestion in need of serious analysis to determine how it would work.
LikeLike
IMO the NW board rumor is 95% bs. Are you telling me that ND, TX, and the Big 10 ate having these kind of talks and NOTHING has leaked out from the ND and TX camps? And ND hss been given an ultematum and we’ve heard nothing of it from any BIg East school or the ND camp? Nonsense.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten adds Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska, and Notre Dame to get to 16, and ND & Texas have to play each other every year as part of the deal, then it would be quite easy to put together an 8-game schedule, using a pod system (with one protected rivalry) that would make for roughly even strength pods and maintain nearly all important rivalries.
Here is what I envision, showing the protected rival after the dash and a back-up rival in parenthesis (for when the protected rival’s pod is on the same side). I tried to maximize marquee match-ups between the “Big Six”. (Due to the division arrangement, Notre Dame and Penn State would have to play either Minnesota or Iowa as their backups, as the other protected rivalry games would all be active during the years when South plays East.)
East Pod
OHIO STATE – Michigan (Texas)
PENN STATE – Notre Dame (Iowa or Minnesota)
INDIANA – Wisconsin or Mich. State (Illinois)
PURDUE – Mich. State or Wisconsin (Northwestern)
North Pod
MICHIGAN – Ohio State (Nebraska)
WISCONSIN – Indiana or Purdue (Missouri)
MICHIGAN STATE – Purdue or Indiana (Texas A&M)
MINNESOTA – Iowa (Notre Dame or Penn State)
South Pod
TEXAS – Nebraska (Ohio State)
TEXAS A&M – Missouri (Michigan State)
NOTRE DAME – Penn State (Minnesota or Iowa)
NORTHWESTERN – Illinois (Purdue)
West Pod
NEBRASKA – Texas (Michigan)
IOWA – Minnesota (Penn State or Notre Dame)
MISSOURI – Texas A&M (Wisconsin)
ILLINOIS – Northwestern (Indiana)
LikeLike
This alternate version saves the Wisconsin-Iowa rivalry at the expense of the Michigan-Minnesota rivalry. The divisions are also a little less even, but not overly so. I’m not sure which would be better.
East Pod
OHIO STATE – Michigan (Texas)
PENN STATE – Notre Dame (Wisconsin)
INDIANA – Minnesota (Illinois)
PURDUE – Northwestern (Texas A&M)
North Pod
MICHIGAN – Ohio State (Nebraska)
MICHIGAN STATE – Wisconsin (Notre Dame)
ILLINOIS – Missouri (Indiana)
NORTHWESTERN – Purdue (Iowa)
South Pod
TEXAS – Nebraska (Ohio State)
TEXAS A&M – Iowa (Purdue)
NOTRE DAME – Penn State (Michigan State)
MISSOURI – Illinois (Minnesota)
West Pod
NEBRASKA – Texas (Michigan)
IOWA – Texas A&M (Northwestern)
WISCONSIN – Michigan State (Penn State)
MINNESOTA – Indiana (Missouri)
LikeLike
Frank, I think it may be foretelling the future that your initial link here was to explain the reasons for the Big Ten taking Mizzu and Neb plus three eastern team. In reality, the popular opinion of most posters favors rumors and other reasons to support your Deat Star COnference. Could be that the majority opinions are what the powers that be will support? Interesting turn of events.
LikeLike
OSU already has 2 protected games in Michigan of course and PSU. I like the idea of picking up Texas but would PSU be wiling to drop the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
Very unlikely that would happen. Like Michigan and Ohio State, Penn State and Ohio State are natural border state rivals. PA and OH have played each other in the Big33 high school all-star game for 53 years. In addition, while the Ohio State-Michigan will always have the history and prestige, the OSU-PSU game has become the most competitive and compelling (i.e. most at state) rivalry in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Craig, I like your style but I’d swap Illinois and Notre Dame and a few of the rivalries
East Pod
OHIO STATE – Michigan (Illinois)
PENN STATE – Michigan State (Nebraska)
INDIANA – Wisconsin (Iowa)
PURDUE – Notre Dame (Texas A&M)
North Pod
MICHIGAN – Ohio State (Minnesota)
MICHIGAN STATE – Penn State (Wisconsin)
NOTRE DAME – Purdue (Texas)
NORTHWESTERN – Illinois (Missouri)
South Pod
TEXAS – Iowa (Notre Dame)
TEXAS A&M – Minnesota (Purdue)
ILLINOIS – Northwestern (Ohio State)
MISSOURI – Nebraska (Northwestern)
West Pod
NEBRASKA – Missouri (Penn State)
IOWA – Texas (Indiana)
WISCONSIN – Indiana (Michigan State)
MINNESOTA – Texas A&M (Michigan)
LikeLike
Rutgers at major crossroads as possibility of Big 10 gets closer.
“Some Rutgers professors worry that joining the Big Ten would be one more sign that their school is willing to pursue big-time football at the expense of academics — a topic that has led to tension between faculty and administration in recent years. Rutgers is still recovering from the scandals of two years ago, when internal investigations found the athletic department was operating like a rogue elephant, with little oversight into how it spent money, all in the name of becoming a national football power.”
http://www.nj.com/rutgers/index.ssf/2010/05/rutgers_at_major_crossroads_as.html
LikeLike
Rutgers will certainly have to “pony up” more money for its athletics if it joins the Big 10, but at the same time, I would think its academic side would get a huge push too from research coalitions and such.
It’s definitely a defining moment for Rutgers. They are about to go from an afterthought in the Big East to an equal member and Eastern anchor for the Big 10. Pretty substantial shift all around.
LikeLike
Rutgers is not still recovering from the supposed “scandal” you have referenced again. It is a non issue they are flogging. The Newark Star Ledger (ie: NJ.com) is a failing newspaper that is trying to make something out of nothing again. Rutgers professors worried about whether joining the Big Ten will compromise academics? That is completely ridiculous. If anything it will very positively effect the academics. There is no “Major Crossroads” as you title this post. This is junk thrown out there by The Star Ledger that you are running with.
LikeLike
BTW: this was a very lengthy article with alot of various topics covered. I found it interesting that you chose to cut and paste only the ridiculous comments referencing some professors concerns. Out of all the information in this article THAT was what you chose to post? That is the most important insight from this article in your opinion? Interesting.
LikeLike
@Rick
Blame WGN sports talk in Chicago — they picked up on the faculty vs. athletic budget issue that was the narrative glue in the Star-Ledger article (which was yet another example of poor journalism from a sad paper). There was no mention in the article of the awareness of the benefits of the CIC.
There is no doubt that if the Big Ten invites Rutgers, Pres. McCormick will accept in a heartbeat and the Rutgers University Senate will overwhelmingly approve. A complete no brainer.
LikeLike
Here’s some interesting tidbits from a post over at Orangebloods.com:
http://texas.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=902&fid=61&style=2&tid=142526369&Page=2
Basically proves that A&M was invited to the SEC during the SWC breakup, uncovered in a court doc:
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/135499a.htm
Humorous story of aTm’s chair of the BOR getting busted for using a state plane to attend his son’s graduation from LSU. He tried to claim the trip was to discuss the SEC possibly inviting aTm to join. That gets shot down in several ways, and in the process proves an invite was extended to aTm.
But the Orangebloods poster also claims that the P10 vote to invite was 10-0 for UT but an unsuccessful 9-1 for aTm, with Stanford blocking because of aTm’s numerous NCAA infractions (No convenient court docs offered to prove that claim.) UT then backed out, afraid aTm would bolt to the SEC and get a recruiting advantage. P10 attempt gets leaked, state pols get involved, and presto, the B12 forms.
LikeLike
If aTm goes to the P10 with CO, could that end up being a P14 that also adds two of Utah/KS/MO also? A P14 would make for some nice symmetry to its brother conference the B14 (if the TX-NE-ND rumor is true.)
All but Utah are AAU schools, and that would reduce the otherwise big travel for aTm. Memphis AD said a P10 AD told him aTm expressed interest when approached by the P10 on expansion.
Gets aTm out of the shadow of UT and helps bring the P14 closer to equal with the B14 and SEC. Answering the question of “Why the P10 instead of the SEC” would help market aTm’s often underestimated academic and research heft. Provides near equal cornerstones in Texas for 2 of the now Big 3 conferences. Easier path to the high-profile conf champ game in the P14 than the SEC (in fact easier than the current B12) and thus more appearances and the recruiting strength that comes with winning. And wouldn’t UT and aTm fans whoop and holler big time about the chance to meet in the Rose Bowl, likely with a shot at nat’l title game on the line.
If UT and aTm instead join ND for a B14, could we then see a P14 from adding 4 of Utah/CO/NE/KS/MO instead? Harder to make the numbers work, and would be a poorer conference than if aTm joined. But there would still be the option of a joint cable venture with the ACC or a reloaded B12, which surely would add TCU, and UH (maybe even SMU) to try and keep a foothold in the TX market.
LikeLike
Why not a BIG20, a 20 team Western alliance & a 20 team ACC/Big East Alliance. Maybe the rumor is true with Texas, Notre Dame and Nebraska headed to the Big10. And maybe there is also truth to the eastern teams coming. The BTN will need lots of live content all year long. That makes the case for eastern teams with basketball, lacrosse and hockey, southern teams with football and baseball.
The Big20
Eastern Pod
Penn State
Ohio State
Syracuse – AAU
Rutgers – AAU
Pittsburgh – AAU
Western Pod
Iowa
Nebraska – AAU
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Northern Pod
Michigan
ND
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Southern Pod
Texas – AAU
Texas A&M – AAU
Missouri – AAU
Kansas – AAU
Illinois
9 conference games
4 against your pod, 3 against your cross pod mate, 1 against each pod in other division
4 against your pod, 3 protected rivals from other pods, rotating pods playing other 4 teams in pods every 3 years
4 against your pod, 5 against cross pod, rotate pods every three years
It can be configured in whatever manner
4 OOC Games
1 Division Championship game
Game 1 @ Dallas new stadium
Game 2 @ NY new stadium
1 Conference Championship game @ Indianapolis
1 Bowl game semi-final
1 Bowl NC Championship game
Each Pod Champion Plays for division title
Each division title plays for conference title
Minimum games = 14 9 CONF, 4 OOC, 1 Bowl
Most games played = 15 Conf and DIV Championships, 17 for NC
In my scenario, all of these conferences consolidate and we no longer see a Big East or Big12. The negotiations are about who is coming with Texas & Notre Dame. I have not thought about schedules, protected rivalries, etc. I am thinking only big picture, splash and cataclysmic changes. If I was Jim Delaney I would want to stick it to ESPN more than anything. I would have the BTN offer ownership in the following manner to:
Offer:
Western Alliance = 51% ownership Western Network (BTN2)
Eastern Alliance- 51% Ownership Eastern Network (BTN3)
The BTN already has the infrastructure in place. Kevin Weiberg did work for the BTN. At least a Western Alliance network seems plausible based upon the same Big20 model. Teams can be switched however anyone sees fit.
Each Conference receives 2 guaranteed BCS slots
The SEC and the BIG20 receive 3
Orange At Large vs At Large
Sugar SEC 2nd vs ACC 2nd
Rose Pac20 2nd vs big20 2nd
Fiesta Big20 3rd vs SEC 3rd
Semifinal BCS ACC vs Big20 – Rose
Semifinal BCS SEC vs Pac20 – Sugar
National BCS Winners – Fiesta
JD can show the other conferences and schools several things via this route:
Every one can be a winner
Bowls get extra games to host semifinals
Schools win with extra revenue in tight times
No Schools are excluded although conferences are
Affords playoff proponenets with a quasi playoffs
SEC supports because they get 3 guaranteed BCS spots and potential 4th
4 schools previously excluded make it to the table
The Boise State rule will still be there for fairness
Congress supports more people at dinner table
Conference supports a quasi playoffs that you can control via the conference division and/or championship games however you structure them.
Only Problem, I could not find a place for USF – ACC, SEC – not sure.
WESTERN ALLIANCE
Pac10 Division
Pod 1
USC
Arizona
Washington
Standford
Oregon
Pod 2
UCLA
CAL
Oregon State
Arizona State
Washington State
Big12 Division
Pod 3
Utah
BYU
TCU
Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
Pod 4
Iowa State
Kansas State
Texas Tech
Baylor
Colorado
The new Western Alliance forms with new members TCU, BYU and Utah along with Oklahoma, Colorado and Oklahoma State as the anchor marquee team. Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Baylor are also part of the Western Alliance.
6 games against other Big12 opponents,
4 against your division
2 against other division
3 against Western Alliance teams
4 OOC
Champion of Big12 plays champion of Pac10 for Western alliance championship and right to play in Semifinal.
Winner-up plays in Rose Bowl against Big20 winner-up
Eastern Alliance
ACC
UCONN/ND/PITT
Florida State
Miami
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Duke
North Carolina
Wake Forest
North Carolina State
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Maryland
Boston College
Georgetown
Villanova
St Johns
Providence
DePaul
Marquette
Seton Hall
The ACC forms with the Big East basketball schools in a joint alliance for basketball only to create content for a Eastern Alliance Network. It’s the only option left for the ACC to boost and monetize it’s content and it becomes even more of a Basketball powerhouse. It provides great content for the BTN3 during the ACC-Big10 challenge. The ACC adds ND (4-6 conference games in football only & USF or UCONN & USF as part of the agreement to get 2 guaranteed BCS spots and potential for 3rd.
SEC
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Auburn
Alabama
Tennessee
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Kentucky
Vanderbilt
South Carolina
Arkansas
Louisville
WVU
Memphis
Cincinnati
SEC and ESPN needs to boost it’s basketball content in the wake of the alliances being formed. They already have 6 marquee football programs but only 2- 3 attractive basketball properties in Kentucky, Florida and Tennessee. They take Louisville, WVU, Memphis and Cincinnati in unequal revenue sharing in an effort to boost the basketball side of the equation to compete with the ACC/Big East hybrid and the BIG20 in basketball.
LikeLike
@prophetstruth: “SEC and ESPN needs to boost it’s basketball content in the wake of the alliances being formed. They already have 6 marquee football programs but only 2- 3 attractive basketball properties in Kentucky, Florida and Tennessee. ”
I would aver that Arkansas is the clear #2 basketball program in the SEC. Yes, Florida had a recent stretch of success. But Arkansas has been a top20 program for maybe 50 years or more.
LikeLike
@Loki:
I’ll grant you that Arkansas may be the #2 basketball property in the SEC behind Kentucky. But my premise would still hold that the SEC could use a boost in the basketball department. Even with 3-4 basketball properties, with alliance/conference networks showing most of the 2nd and 3rd tier games of conferences, The SEC would need basketball content to provide to ESPN. ESPN is heavily invested in the SEC and needs content not only for football but all year. If most of the attractive basketball teams are in the ACC Hybrid, WA20 and the BIG20, the SEC would need a boost.
LikeLike
Agreed that the SEC is top-heavy in basketball. Once you get past the top couple of teams the quality drops quickly.
You know, it might make sense for the SEC and ACC to just do a swap of a few teams. Improve both ACC football and SEC basketball.
LikeLike
prophetstruth,
I very seriously doubt that if the SEC expands, basketball will be in the top 3 considerations for expansion. Basketball is almost an after thought at all of the SEC schools except for Kentucky. Plus, the revenue pulled in by the schools in football far outweighs the revenue pulled in by basketball. I was just reading somewhere the other day that showed this to even be the case at Kentucky. CBS/ESPN will not fork over the money that the SEC will need to justify expansion if the teams we add are of the likes of UL, Cincy, Memphis, and WV. Make no mistake, the number one reason for expanding the SEC (if it even expands) will be to increase the money generated by football.
LikeLike
@bamatab:
Sure, football drives the bus. The SEC has plenty of good football – that is indisputable. I agree that football revenue outweighs basketball. However, it seems to me that adding Miami, Florida State, Clemson and/or Virginia Tech would do little for those programs as well as the SEC. Why add 3-4 great football schools to go with the 6 already in the SEC? It would be much more difficult to navigate the SEC schedule with the other 6 big dogs in the SEC more so than the current situation in the ACC. Why have a conference filled with nothing but top football programs? Someone has to lose. There are already 6 marquee football programs in the SEC. Adding 4 more would do little for the SEC. I could see adding one of Florida State/Miami and one of Clemson/Virginia Tech. Adding more than 1 Florida school would be redundant. Why have 3 football properties in FL? Especially schools that are not good at the other revenue producing sport. IMO, adding two at most would be the best so that you could have no more than 2 power programs per pod. So, maybe they would add Virginia Tech and Florida State for football, Louisville and WVU for basketball. The SEC will need basketball content, especially in the scenario that I propose. In that scenario where the SEC already has 6 football properties, bringing in lesser football programs will allow the marquee teams to have more wins and better positioning for rankings/bowls. It also allows for the SEC to gain something they desperately need for their media partners, basketball content. As I understand it, just like the Big10 needs content for the BTN, ESPN is heavily invested in the SEC for all sports not just football and thus needs good content in other sports.
LikeLike
Expansion scenarios from the point of view of far-off UTEP.
http://www.elpasotimes.com/sports/ci_15001487
Interesting note:
“As a result, though, UTEP finds itself in an interesting position that may be unique in college athletics. The nearest school to here and UTEP’s biggest rival, New Mexico State, is now in the WAC (it joined when UTEP left). The next closest school is the MWC’s New Mexico.
After that, the next two closest schools are the Big 12’s Texas Tech and the Pac 10’s Arizona. The nearest school in the Sun Belt, North Texas, is only a few miles further than the nearest school in Conference USA, SMU. “
LikeLike
Interesting article. This could be a key statement and is in my memory as exactly the same scenario that happened with the announcement of the Big Twelve.
On May 26, 1998, a few months into Stull’s tenure at UTEP, eight schools from the “old WAC” staged a jailbreak to form the Mountain West Conference. Two hours before their news conference to announce their plans, they called UTEP president Dr. Diana Natalicio to let her know UTEP wasn’t coming along.
I expect that when all the back room deals are done, there will be a lot of surprises to a lot of schools just like this article states.
LikeLike
Couple of interesting notes.
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/05/09/football/doc4be60739ed730837493901.txt
{Perlman says leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten “most likely” would enhance Nebraska’s prestige as an academic institution. NU already is among 64 members of the Association of American Universities research consortium — something Big Ten presidents/chancellors want in all new members — “but overall I suspect the Big Ten has the better academic reputation,” Perlman says.
And a trusted source told me Colorado could land an invitation from the Pac-10 by the end of June.}
AND
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=2&articleid=20100509_202_B1_THEBIG930189
{ That’s definitely the case in the Big 12, where nerves are getting frayed as some members continue to talk about leaving for the Big Ten.
“We’re getting tired of their act,” one Big 12 source said. “It’s starting to tick people off.”
History suggests it isn’t a surprise that Missouri and Nebraska are doing the saber-rattling.
Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne has never been an enthusiastic Big 12 fan }
Comments at the bottom of the Tulsa article start to show some animosity between Big 12 members fans.
LikeLike
Guess anything’s possible at this point, but news the PAC10 may be inviting Colorado to join soon would seem to fly in the face of any speculation the Big12/PAC10 are going to form a joint network alliance, let alone that they might form some overall “Western Alliance”. Even granting losing Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado would be a blow to the Big XII, it still looks like a much more viable football conference than either the Big East or the ACC even with just nine members left (unless the University of Texas decides to leave for either the Big Ten or Pac10). Any Texas school leaving the Big XII (particularly by itself) risks a huge state political backlash, which means the core of the conference should be sound. Know there is speculation out there that Oklahoma together with Oklahoma State might bolt for the SEC, but to my mind Arkansas joining the Big XII once an opening arises seems more probable (and neither scenario is likely). Know there is a certain amount of skepticism about the “new Southwest Conference”, but if the old Southwest Conference had somehow been able to add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Kansas State, it’s pretty clear to me that it likely would still be with us.
LikeLike
The proposed joint network alliance has one fatal flaw. West coast games ending early in the AM for the Central Time Zone. I would suspect a check of ratings of Pac 10 games available currently on Fox Sports channels in the Central Time Zone would bear that out.
LikeLike
You have that backwards. It’s not a flaw, it’s a boost.
Live sports, even late night live sports, will do better than studio shows, so the network will look to air as many as possible.
On football Saturdays, the Big 12 would always have an early (10 or 11 am) game, and the Pac 10 would always have a late night game. In between, the 2 conferences could mix and match which conference has games airing.
During the workweek, the Big 12 could air a basketball or baseball game starting at 6 or 7, with a Pac 10 late night game to follow.
The differences in time zones is an opportunity to air more live sports than they would if they had 2 conferences in the same time zone.
These opportunities would be even greater if the Pac 10 allied with the ACC. Since the Big 12 looks to lose at least some of its most desirable members, I think the Pac 10 might wait to see who is still in the Big 12 in a few months before making a commitment.
LikeLike
The thing is…who else does the Pac-10 besides Colorado (they aren’t going to sit at 11 like the Big10)?
If the Pac manages to steal TAMU (which would make a lot of sense from a tv/academic viewpoint and if you believe some of the rumor mongering might actually happen) that means the Big12 is now wide open since none of the rest are going to want to stick around.
LikeLike
Per 810 WHB in Kansas City, Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Notre Dame have received invites to the Big Ten.
http://www.810whb.com/article/3527
LikeLike
That post is about a half hour old, but no one else is running with the story. I wonder why.
LikeLike
Now I’m starting to see it getting picked up around the country. Most of the leaks the last couple of weeks have been from Missouri. Can anyone in that school keep a secret?
LikeLike
More likely I think its a “if we say it often enough it has to turn out to be true…”
LikeLike
A St. Louis paper has a chart comparing Missouri to both the Big 10 and Big 12.
So you can look at several Big 10 candidates, not just Missouri:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/mizzou/story/5D0FA768B78B59288625771D0008086E?OpenDocument
LikeLike
Posted in pursuit of “fair and balanced” analysis:
http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=76189;d=this.
LikeLike
The numbers aren’t “smoke and mirrors”, but I don’t think the numbers we’ve seen are accurate. Even within Frank’s blog, we are getting a positive feedback loop on some “conventional wisdom” items.
The $22M wasn’t ever reported as “BTN revenue per school”, as the NDNation post suggests. Maybe it was repeated on forums as such. However, $22M appears to be incorrect. That number was initially floated from the ESPN BTL special that reported $242M of B10 shared revenues. Everyone divided by 11 and yelled “$22M!” But the B10 offices take an equal cut, meaning the schools and office each get $20.2M.
LikeLike
The 22M has to be pretty close to correct. We know the abc/cbs contracts are in the 8.5M-9.0 range. Rights fees per school from Fox were 6.3M, and the BTN paid out 66M (6.0M per school) to the 11 schools in profits.
LikeLike
Boom goes the dynamite:
http://www.810whb.com/article/3527
Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers and Notre Dame have been extended initial offers.
LikeLike
Gotta love completely unsourced articles.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
Agreed. We’ll see. This feels an awful lot like the Pitt-to-BigTen rumors from a few months back.
Like I said a while back, it’s interesting that the majority of “leaks” is coming from Missouri.
LikeLike
Yeah, boom exactly. Quote “according to multiple sources close to the negotiations.”
This sounds real to me, but to each his own. We will likely know soon.
As an IU and Husker guy myself, this looks really strong to me and I so much hope that ND joins. Wow, adding ND and Neb football to the Big Ten would be fabulous. And frankly no UT (or any Texas school) I strongly prefer. It’s a different world down there and one I would be pleased to be largely separated from (and that has nothing to do with football power today…it’s about attitudes and behaviors…of course IMO).
LikeLike
You’re right. You see no attitude and behavior issues with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Are you serious or joking? I don’t know much about ND off the field so I have no opinion on it in that context.
LikeLike
I think that we all have learned that anything we read on here is to be taken with a grain of salt. 810 sports has run with a few stories in the past, but it’s certainly a step up from message boards or blogs.
LikeLike
If this 810 radio report is true, then the Texas, Notre Dame rumor on the Northwestern message board is false. Other sources online have started repeating this report, although there are still no affirmative sources to this. I imagine if Notre Dame says no, then it opens up Texas and Texas A&M for the 15 and 16 spots.
LikeLike
more likely stop at 14 or add Syr. and Pitt…..if there was fire to the TX rumor, there’d be more smoke.
To me, this has the look of giving ND one more public chance to join before moving on…..I don’t think they’ll join….
LikeLike
For whatever it is worth….
Our tv station sports department is reporting it at 5 PM. We are in Big Ten country and have some secondary confirmations from ‘sources’. Our guys can’t run the story without a secondary confirmation.
They are reporting if ND agrees they will add 1 more. If ND says NO they may (or may not) add two more to bring the total number to 16. Missouri & Nebraska would have to pay some stiff fines because they want to start playing a new conference schedule SOON. Source claims they want to start the new football conference schedule for the 2011 football season.
I haven’t read all the posts today, but saw this in the newscast scripts.
LikeLike
Interesting…thanks. Give us an update after the story runs, if you don’t mind. My local news guys are incompetent, so I doubt they even know this story exists yet.
FWIW, I love the addition of Nebraska and I’m fine with Mizzou, but the thought of Rutgers in the Big Ten makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
LikeLike
Wow, they actually might want to start playing for the 2011 season? Can that be done? Surely the Big 10 can’t setup a new conference schedule for 3-5 new teams in that short of time, can they?
LikeLike
I think the Big East is supposed to require 2 years advance notice.
But for the Big 12 teams, it can be done in one year. Since they would be switching 8 conference games for 8 or 9 conference games, it isn’t that hard to change schedules.
LikeLike
The Kansas City sports radio station reporter who posted the story has an afternoon show and gave some more information about the other teams invited.
He said that if Notre Dame says yes, then the final team to be invited to the conference would be Connecticut. That makes the five teams joining the conference Connecticut, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, and Rutgers.
He said that if Notre Dame said no AND if the Big Ten opted to go to 16 teams, then the conference would invite Syracuse in lieu of ND. That makes the five teams joining the conference Connecticut, Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers and Syracuse.
If this report is accurate, Texas will not become a member of a 16-team Big Ten conference in the immediate future.
But if the B10 opts to stay with just three additional programs (provided ND says no), it still leaves open the possibility that UT will be invited to the conference along with Texas A&M at a later date. That makes the five teams joining the conference Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, Texas A&M and Rutgers.
Absent all those scenarios, then:
If Colorado joins the Pac-10, it means the Big XII will be down to nine members. What the remaining members plan to do–including Texas–will now be up for speculation.
If this does happen, then there’s a clear possibility for SEC expansion, the dissolution of the Big East and the reorganization/expansion of the ACC.
Regardless of what happens concerning Notre Dame, its clear that the Big Ten will try to expand the BTN in the NE/NJ/NY area with a combination of ND/RU/UConn or SU/RU/UConn–if the decision is made to go to 16 teams.
IMHO, the addition of Nebraska and Notre Dame (along with Missouri, Rutgers and Connecticut) is the better of the two options. One interesting note–two of those five schools are not in the AAU. If Texas is brought in, it’ll mean Notre Dame said no.
I don’t think the Big East survives in its present form with the loss of three members or two members plus Notre Dame for bowl tie-ins, etc.
The ball would now be in the SEC’s court. If they expand, do they go westward into Big XII territory (Texas, Oklahoma, etc.) or do they stay internal and invite programs from the ACC (Florida State, Miami-FL, Clemson, Georgia Tech, etc.).
The ACC also has to decide if there are programs in the Big East available as possible expansion candidates. The pool would include Syracuse (if ND joins the conference), West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville and South Florida. If Syracuse is not available, then perhaps they also try to make a deal with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Ugh. Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn would be a major fail, as far as I’m concerned.
LikeLike
I have been reading Frank the Tank blogs and related posts since January. I’ve been retired for over ten years and it’s nice to finally be fully occupied on rainy days.
After reading all of the posts, I have concluded that the list of candidates having a relatively good chance of being invited to join the Big 10 are Rutgers, Pittburgh, Syracuse, Nebraska, Missouri, and Notre Dame. This list is not necessarily in order of preference when considering % chance of acceptance by Big 10 Presidents.
As much as I would like to see Texas, and possibly, Texas A&M in the Big 10, I don’t think it’s a very high probability. First, Texas considers themselves too big of a fish(and rightfully so as it stands today)to share the football spotlight with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and, possibly Notre Dame. Secondly, if the price of admitting Texas into the Big 10 is some back-room deal that flies in the face of the conference’s long-standing members, I hope the Big 10 Presidents are more loyal than that. I think they are. The same holds true for Notre Dame.
That brings me to my final comment. In his very first blog, Frank laid out what most of us have agreed was a well thought-out list of criteria that could be used to select the final invitee(s). I can’t help but think that the most important instruction to his readers when they evaluate candidates was, and I’m not quoting: don’t think like a football fan but more like a university president.
LikeLike
Not quite a done deal, nor is a four-team invite, if true, the end of the expansion story.
Unless the BT wants to stop at an unwieldly 15 teams, I’m guessing the last, unmentioned fifth invited team may be Texas, as any other candidate school would likely say yes and they’d go to 16.
I’m also guessing that if this is true, and not just another trial balloom, Notre Dame must already be on board. I don’t think the BT would offer an invitation if there were a chance it would be refused.
I’d be pleased with having Nebraska football, okay (though not ecstatic) with Missouri, but disappointed that Texas isn’t listed. And slightly disappointed Pitt isn’t listed.
I kind of hope Texas is still a candidate for #16. And if Notre Dame says no (or wasn’t actually invited), A&M or Pitt comes in its place.
LikeLike
From reading that, it’s not a 4-team invite. It’s a 3-team invite, with Rutgers’ invite begin conditional on Notre Dame declining. At that point (I don’t see any of NU/MU/Rutgers declining), you’re at a 14-team league, which begs the question of whether the BTPTB go hard, once and for all, at Texas and A&M or to an eastern Syracuse/Pitt push.
LikeLike
It’s not clearly written. It says if ND declines, Rutgers would be the 14th team, but it also says that if Notre Dame accepts, one more school would be offered a spot, making it a 16-team league. That sounds like Rutgers’ invitation has been extended no matter what ND does.
Of course, I’m not sure how any invitations could have been extended if the BT presidents and chancellors haven’t met to approve it.
LikeLike
I reread, and you’re right – Rutgers’ alleged invite does not appear to be conditional.
LikeLike
@Albino Tornado – I also read this report/latest rumor that the Rutgers invite is not conditional. If ND accepts, then the Big Ten will go up to 16 schools. If ND doesn’t accept, then it will likely be a 3-team expansion with Rutgers/Mizzou/Nebraska.
LikeLike
Our sports department has a secondary confirmation that it IS a 4 team invite. If ND accepts they will invite 1 more, if ND declines they will then decide whether stay at 14 or invite 2 more teams. Sounds like the two team invite if ND declines is likely but not a sure thing.
LikeLike
@Patrick:
How comfortable are you with this? Seems like people are starting to run with the story, but they’re all citing the original article which cites a bunch of unnamed sources. Do you think your sports department has gotten a credible confirmation?
This just feels so much like the Pitt rumors from before that it’s hard to get worked up.
LikeLike
I don’t know who the source is specifically, but I would bet it is pretty strong.
My guess is it is somebody inside a Big Ten Athletic Department. Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota or Michigan State. That’s where our people have connections. If there are leaks this extensive, and this many people seem to know…. and after reading the Nebraska statement…. I bet the Big Ten makes an official annoucement soon, maybe tomorrow or Wednesday
LikeLike
Yeah that’s how I read it. This report actually squares with the Northwestern board rumor.
If Notre Dame accepts as the 15th school, then the Big Ten will likely look at Texas to be #16, and if not Texas, then we can look for another to be 16. Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers gets us to 14 though either way.
That’s a good way of resolving the two (if any of this recent flurry of reports is true and not idle rumor).
LikeLike
I’ve been asked to contribute some realignment-related blog posts over at my UT home, Burnt Orange Nation.
What I’ve decided to try and do with this forum, rather than to continue to endlessly speculate on what Texas might want to do, is to try and do some research into what Texas can do.
I first tackle the political realities Texas will face. I can write all day long about how Texas should pursue the Big 10, but if Texas Tech remains legislatively tied to UT, I’ve gotta give up the dream.
And it’s been frustrating for me, as a Texas fan, to see article after article pay lip service to the “political hurdles” Texas will face if it seeks to leave the Big XII without defining what those hurdles, in 2010, are.
So, with that in mind, I have had a chance to have a conversation with one of the leading and best-known observers of Texas politics. I have allowed the observer to express thoughts freely and anonymously, but I can say that this is somewhat the Texas equivalent to trying to guess what the U.S. Congress will do and having a chance to speak with Michael Barone to gain a better insight.
You can click here to read my report.
The key takeaways:
(1) Yes, Texas and A&M are tied at the hip and can probably exercise a mutual veto against the other.
(2) The personal relationship between the Texas Tech Chancellor and the Texas governor could play an important role.
(3) At the end of the day, Texas + A&M should trump Tech and be able to leave, but it’s not a complete slam dunk.
(4) Baylor is doomed.
For what it’s worth…
LikeLike
Thanks.
Interesting insight into some of the most uncertain dynamics in allo fthe this expansion talk.
LikeLike
Thanks, Hopkins. That must have been an interesting conversation.
LikeLike
To Hopkins Horn
I realize that you are on record as saying that Texas would never join the SEC (for academic reasons). However, if the information in your recent post is correct, doesn’t that increase the possibility that Texas might be willing to join the SEC.
Let me explain:
If the SEC could get a footprint in Texas, I would think that a potential SEC network would be just as profitable as the BTN.
So, what if the SEC approached Texas with the following proposal:
(1) We want to expand our conference to 16 members, and form a SEC network.
(2) We want Texas to be one of the additions to the conference.
(3) We will allow Texas to ‘recommend’ the three remaining teams to be added to the conference. (Texas might recommend Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma.)
(4) You can create a Longhorn Network, but of course it would have to be secondary to the SEC network.
Wouldn’t this be an extremely tempting offer. The benefits to Texas would be:
(a) Profits from the SEC network (potentially as lucrative as the BTN)
(b) Profits from the Longhorn network.
(c) This would solve the Texas A&M and Texas Tech issue.
(d) Texas would be able to maintain in conference rivalries with Texas A&M and Oklahoma without having to schedule OOC games.
Of course, the benefits to the SEC would be the establishment of a footprint in Texas, plus they would be adding four solid (or even better) football teams.
In my opinion, this sounds like a win-win situation for both the SEC and Texas.
Or, would Texas reject the offer out-of-hand due to academic issues.
LikeLike
Good points to consider, but I still can’t overcome the academics in my mind. I instinctively believe that UT would rather try and make a go of it in a rebuilt albeit weakened Big XII than head east if Tech’s political power proves to be too formidable.
I do have to agree with my observer that Texas+A&M should be able to trump Tech’s political power. It’s just a matter of getting the two schools to agree on a conference which will in turn accept them.
LikeLike
Yes, TX, aTm, and two more of their choosing seems to be an unwritten standing offer from the SEC. If nothing else, those two plus TT and UH would be a fallback option for political reasons. However TX to the B16, aTm and TT to the P16, and UH and TCU to join Baylor (and maybe even SMU if TCU goes to the SEC) in a rebuilt B12 would likely find little political opposition. Going from 4 to 6 or 7 BCS schools in state will please many lawmakers.
Allegedly the P10 had a chance to get both UT and aTm if they trimmed the dead weight but refused. So if the P10 wants into Texas with 3 non-AAU schools, then they can probably compromise and take a block of aTm, TT, Utah, CO, KS, and ISU (academicly sound, or maybe OU, TCU, or UH instead.) Taking TT with aTm should quiet most political issues, as long as the B12 is allowed to reload and keep its AQ. Or maybe it is just a P14 that adds aTm, TT, CO, and either KS or Utah.
State politics shouldn’t be insurmountable.
LikeLike
I’m dubious of that “dead weight” report, or if it is true, the Texas schools did it as a way of saying “No thanks” while still claiming they didn’t actually decline.
I assume it’s Washington State that is the “dead weight” here. Of course it’s not any of the California or either Arizona school. Oregon brings in Nike money. Washington brings in the Seattle market. OSU has been competitive in football and Texas baseball would love to take on OSU baseball.
If UT and TAM would have to know that the P10 would never just kick out Wazzu. For political reasons, UW would never stand for it, so you’d have to kick them out too. And then you lose the Seattle market.
On top of that, no conference would ever let a new member tell them they had to kick out an old member for them to join. It would just be considered rude.
In fact, the P10 is perfectly composed of five pairs, tied to the hip just as much as UT and TAM are. None of them are leaving and Texas would know that. So there’s no way this UT and TAM to the P10 report was accurate the way it was presented.
LikeLike
Except various versions of the story appeared on different message boards from different posters. 2 Horns and an Ag board that I recall, and seems like there was another one.
Who says they suggested kicking a school out? More likely they suggested select schools from various conferences would be invited to form a new conference. Parse, parse, parse.
LikeLike
I’ve found your report to confirm what I’ve read/thought all along. I’ve actually been FAR more surprised of late to read about Texas going one direction while aTm goes another direction. One to SEC/One to PAC10. One to Big 10/One to SEC. Etc, etc.
If this Big 10 announcement is true, then I think the Texas door is closed.
Unless ND says no… 😉
LikeLike
I think the most important takeaway on the UT-A&M dynamic is that one school couldn’t bolt while the other stays behind in a weakened and dying Big XII. It reduced the chance of, say, the Pac 10 successfully inviting CU and UT alone.
I would also read that the schools were prefer to stick together but that they would consider going their own way if it made sense for both schools. Given the dynamic with Texas Tech and its chancellor, though, and since there would be safety in numbers, it seems as though Texas and A&M heading their separate ways would almost have to do so in sync. And that sort of coordination would require not only the coordination of the schools but also the coordination of the targeting conferences. That’s a lot of moving pieces to pull that off.
LikeLike
How about Texas to the Big 10…on condition that a/m and TTech go to the SEC? If the SEC is as bent on not losing this pissing match as Slive’s most recent comments implied, maybe they are talking…?
LikeLike
Maybe the chances of Texas saying yes are greater if Notre Dame also says Yes.
LikeLike
That’s possible, but as you note, it would require the SEC and the other two Texas schools to already be talking.
Maybe the Big 10, SEC and Pac 10 will have one giant press conference to announce how they’re dividing up the Big XII. Maybe they could style it like the NFL Draft. “With the first pick in the Big XII Disbursement Draft, the Big 10 selects…”
LikeLike
I could still see TAMU and Colorado going to the Pac, Neb/Mizzou/Texas going to the Big10, Oklahoma/Kansas to the SEC.
The Big12 then adds BYU, Utah, NM, TCU and maybe one more Texas team to re-form a glorified 10 team SWC (maybe Boise St, and another Texas team to bump to 12 and allow a conference championship game) which the Texas politics might actually allow as its gets more Texas schools into conference spotlight (with teams like Boise, TCU, BYU, Utah that have had recent college football success) while bumping up with academic prestige of its two flagship universities (and spreads the Texas state academic profile across the country due the Pac/Big symbiosis).
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn, what about the scenario that’s on the table right now?
What if the Big Ten invited Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Notre Dame, and Notre Dame said yes? Thus, we’d be at 15…
Would Texas come along as #16 or do you think A&M would still be able to stop them?
I find this to be the most appealing scenario to Texas the more I think about it because Texas would only be looking to preserve itself since the Big 12 has officially imploded due to Nebraska/Missouri leaving.
LikeLike
With the huge caveat that I’m calling BS on the rumor that’s on the table. 🙂
If the Big 10 has expanded to 15, and the last slot is offered to Texas, I think the political answer has to be “no” unless A&M is simultaneously working out an SEC or Pac 10 escape plan.
We also have to assume at this point that Nebraska and Mizzou would be receiving invites because word has already come back informally from Texas that the two big Texas schools aren’t interested for whatever reason, so I think Texas would already be off the board.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think A&M is working out alternative options right now. I mean, that’s what I read from the fact that A&M is taking the Pac-10 phone calls, while Texas seems to have foreclosed the Pac-10 route.
Personally, I could easily see something shocking like Colorado and A&M being invited to the Pac-10 this summer.
That would easily give Texas the ability to do what it wants to do…
I still think Texas and A&M are a package but the more we hear, the more it seems like only Texas is interested in the Big Ten. Maybe we just haven’t heard anything about A&M and the Big Ten, but still…
LikeLike
Taking Hopkins work at face value, if both schools like their options (in different conferences), nothing said precludes them moving in separate directions. The veto power they might exercise would be if one felt like they were getting the shaft. I’d think a way would have to be found to preserve the Thanksgiving game, but other than that, going their own way would still be in play.
LikeLike
@eapg:
That’s the best way to read it: the two schools would prefer to be together, but if each felt more comfortable moving in another direction, each could do so, so long as they acted in tandem in leaving.
LikeLike
Can A&M move, politically, BEFORE Texas? That would be something I had not considered before.
LikeLike
@loki:
It’s hard to foresee a scenario in which A&M would be invited with Texas being invited as well. As such, if there were a situation in which A&M were to move first, I would think it would be a situation in which Texas has informally rejected an invite before one was officially offered. In that case, I think A&M could move unless Texas has plans for a Texas-centric conference and wants A&M as a part of that. I think that’s highly unlikely, to say the least, but it’s the only way I can concoct such a scenario.
LikeLike
I’m sure that in the current political climate in the B12 conference, Nebraska and Missouri would just love having Texas tag along as team #16.
LikeLike
To put it diplomatically, I don’t think either school would be as concerned with Texas power in the Big 10 as they are currently.
LikeLike
@ eapg – good point. In the Big Ten, Texas would not be weilding the hammer.
LikeLike
As much fun as it is to see all this complaining mostly directed at UT, can we put to rest this silliness that Texas is out to get the north?
It comes primarily from Missouri and Nebraska fans; the thing is, on many of these issues, they are actually as much at war with each other as they are with Texas!
Missouri has some complaints:
1) They want full revenue sharing. Note that Nebraska does not want full revenue sharing. I’m fairly confident both UT and Nebraska would be OK with revenue sharing if they moved to a conference where there was a greater percentage of quality teams.
2) They are upset that the Big 12 lets bowls choose which team from the Big 12 goes to their bowl. I’m pretty sure that Nebraska wants no part of changing this rule, which benefits them. I believe the Big 10 does it the exact same way. If Missouri is getting passed over by Kansas for bowl spots in the Big 12, it’s only going to get worse for them in the Big 10.
Nebraska has some complaints:
1) The old head coach is still upset because Texas lead the campaign for stricter educational requirements for athletes. Yes, they’ll escape such tyranny in the Big 10!
2) Nebraska stood up for the North by voting against the conference championship staying in Dallas. The other 5 schools from the North (including Missouri) saw it differently and voted for keeping it in Dallas. So who’s being selfish?
3) They’re upset instant replay was used to make the correct call in a Conference Championship Game. I haven’t seen anybody who isn’t a Nebraska supporter argue that overturning it wasn’t the right call. I did see a few people argue that it really would have been nice if they didn’t make the correct call, which I found abhorrent.
Note that on both of Missouri’s complaints, Nebraska is on the other side; on Nebraska’s second complaint, Missouri voted against them. I don’t remember how Missouri voted on Nebraska’s first complaint, and the third doesn’t really affect them at all.
Jealousy over UT’s national success has lead to fans at these 2 universities using UT as a scapegoat, but it’s not really based on reality.
LikeLike
NU has five NCs. Jealousy over UT’s success has nothing to do with it. If other conference members have no problem with handicapping themselves by rolling over for Texas, that’s their call. Once we’re gone, at least they won’t be handicapping us, eh?
And, just for the entertainment value:
I’d have every expectation such wouldn’t fly in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@m(Ag)
Only one comment regarding the Bowl selection process for the Big10…
Its my understanding there are flexible, but fairly strait forward rules governing the selection process for Big10 bowl game invites. For example a school with a lesser record could be invited over a better record school, but only if the leap-frogged school also has a bowl to go to.
Combined with the equal revenue sharing, this guarantees a school with a good record goes to a bowl game and all teams share equally.
I don’t pretend to know the intricacies of the Big12, but how are bowl monies split (if at all)? Mizzou might have a very justifiable reason for being upset at a bowl snub if it cost it $$$.
LikeLike
PSUGuy-
Bowl monies are split among all the teams; teams that go to bowl games get extra money for travel and expenses based on the distance and prestige of the bowl.
Again, I believe this is how the other big conferences do it.
Here is an article from the year Missouri got passed over by Kansas for a BCS bowl bid:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/dec/07/kus_bowl_payout_about_4_million/
Kansas got about $1 million more from the Big 12 than Missouri for Bowl payouts, but at least some of that would have gone for the greater expenses.
LikeLike
A couple interesting links through the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/93250574.html
LikeLike
Harvey Perlman (Nebraska chancelor) says the Kansas City report of the inital offers to 4 teams is false.
http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/perlman_report_untrue.html
LikeLike
Annnnnnd back to the drawing board. Looks like folks are throwing stuff out there to see what sticks. Journalism at its finest.
LikeLike
Has no bearing on whether it’s true or not, but Perlman would not be in a position to confirm at this point even if true.
LikeLike
Agreed– some wiggle room exists. It just seems like he was a bit over the top in his denial. If I were in his shoes, I’d just downplay them as internet rumors and ask for a source.
LikeLike
Now, Herbie, what do you think he’d say, until it’s official?
I sure hope this one’s “for real.” Regardless of what Notre Dame does, this is a good start on the way to the Big Sixteen.
Oh, and Herbie, a warm welcome to the Big Ten. It’s where Nebraska belongs. Just this tip from a Penn Stater, keep a close eye on those clock-keepers when the Huskers play at the Big House in Michigan…
LikeLike
And we’ll be keeping a close-eye on the line- and side-judges in Happy Valley. *cough*1982*cough*.
LikeLike
It’s too bad we did not have instant replay in 1982. I believe the sideline judge that year was a former Jedi master from the planet Degaba.
LikeLike
Actually, it has been subsequently confirmed that he was in fact a shapeshifter whose powers in fact even extended to matter and space within close proximity to his 😉
LikeLike
I thought it was a Big Eight crew that did that ’82 game…or maybe one of the crew borrowed Joe’s glasses! 😉
LikeLike
As a PSU guy, maybe you can find the answer? IIRC, the same ref called a late ‘Bama TD out of bounds and they did not score. Bama beat PSU pretty good, at PSU, but one more score would have made it even more difficult to move back to No. 1 that year. IIRC, it was a standard home PSU hired crew and that ref was fired. I did see the Bama game it for sure it was the wrong call. But, I have no idea if that ref (any refs) were ever fired as a result of these calls.
LikeLike
Eastern independent crew, if memory serves. And we have long memories for that game.
LikeLike
@84Lion – I love the great Michigan posters here, but you’re right about Michigan either employing Tim Donaghy or using some Jedi mind tricks on the Big Ten officiating corps.
LikeLike
Please Big Ten give Dr. Tom one final important football assignment. Appointment him to head an officiating education, monitoring, and corrections subcommittee. Sounds like not only Husker and Mizzou fans (Colo got a FIFTH FREAKING DOWN to beat Mizzou in Colo’s extremely underwhelming MNC year), but also some Big Ten fans would like to see improvement (understated intentionally to make me sound more calm about the topic than I really am).
LikeLike
Please Big Ten give Dr. Tom one final important football assignment. Appointment him to head an officiating education, monitoring, and corrections subcommittee.
Well, Osborne does have a history of interfering with the Nebraska state correctional system:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1007153/index.htm
Ah yes, all those memories of Christian Peter, Lawrence Phillips, Riley Washington, Tyrone Williams, and Reggie Baul. “Tampering Tom.”
LikeLike
84Lion:
I realize that your comments were directed to Herbie, but regardless, I will say “Thanks” for the warm welcome. I really want Nebraska to join the Big 10. Also, I have always thought that Penn State should be Nebraska’s OOC rival. Now maybe Penn State and Nebraska can be in conference rivals.
LikeLike
I agree! Keep a watch on the clock keepers at Michigan stadium, especially in the final minute of play. Welcome to the Big Ten Herbie. We are glad you are a member, unlike your Big Twelve counterparts.
LikeLike
84PSU, Thank you for the welcome! If this is true then I’m looking forward to watching my Huskers on the BTN instead of having to pay $40 a pop for PPV…I really would be estatic if this story really has legs; and i agree with you that Perlman would be reluctant to confirm these reports until they are made official….but I doubt he would blatantly deny them either. I would expect a ‘no comment’. I’m just being safe here and not getting my hopes up too soon!
LikeLike
If Notre Dame accepts, the last spot is most likely left open for Texas. If they decline then there will be some interesting choices for spot #16. I think the leading contenders would be Kansas, Texas A&M, or Pitt.
LikeLike
If ND accepts, UT makes a lot of sense as #16 (OU,KU to the SEC; A&M to the Pac 10)
If ND declines, UT + A&M/KU/Pitt to the Big 10?
LikeLike
Another possibility:
If ND accepts, they then invite Pitt. If ND declines, they consider Syr and CT instead, and perhaps rerun numbers for a Pitt and Syr combo.
LikeLike
If ND accepts they’ll push hard for Texas, assuming ND has the North Eastern markets. If Texas says no (which I doubt) they’ll go UConn/Pitt in that order IMO to ensure the NE lockdown.
If ND bails, Texas becomes even more important, but that makes the final choice definitely UConn or ‘Cuse, again to try and lock down NYC.
LikeLike
So it begins. . .
http://www.810whb.com/article/3527
If Sports Radio 810 WHB is reporting it, it must be true.
LikeLike
Rutgers in, Notre Dame out:
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2010/5/10/1466034/bhgp-exclusive-big-ten-offers-five
LikeLike
@Playoffs:
Sounds about right. Love the new logo.
LikeLike
Excellent!! A must read.
LikeLike
Dear ND, JOIN THE BIG TEN! SAY YES!
LikeLike
I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that you are either not a Domer or admissions really dropped the ball.
LikeLike
Nebraska issues an official statement:
http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/nu_theres_been_no_offer.html
Read into that last part what you will.
LikeLike
It means that there may be a lot of talking going on between Nebraska and the Big Ten, but that we’re not at the offers phase.
The thing is, everyone knows we won’t be to the “official” offers phase until the Big Ten presidents meet.
Delaney and the Big Ten offices on the other hand can do whatever they want with respect to expansion talks except make formal offers, so we don’t really know where the process is…
LikeLike
An invitation to apply for membership (which would be the logical first step) is not the same thing as an offer to join (which has been reported). That distinction gives them some room to make a denial.
LikeLike
That Nebraska statement reads like a Freudian slip.
LikeLike
Lol. I had to look again, closely, to see that. Either you’re extremely intelligent or extremely something else. Oh wait, now I see your name! Heck you knew that was coming. Now, tell us what the final Big Ten will be.
LikeLike
That’s what I was thinking. Nothing like denying the conference invitation by conference name!
LikeLike
Mizzou responds:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/10/1936612/mu-officials-discuss-big-ten-but.html
Sounds like Beebe is getting tired of his members being in the press– he probably told them both to issue statements.
LikeLike
Don’t know how much Beebe has to do with it. Should this be true, it’s the Big Ten’s call as to how and when to announce, and it’s the prospective invitees job to make like Sergeant Schultz in the meantime. Nobody just fell off the turnip truck here.
LikeLike
Report: Big Ten extends offers to Notre Dame, Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers according to the Chicago Tribune. Of course they site the initial radio report out of KC.
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/05/missouri-mulling-big-ten-expansion-issues.html
LikeLike
FWIW, the Tribune was very quick to throw cold water on the Pitt and Texas rumors but has been willing to repeat today’s story in full.
LikeLike
Although I still think that the “offers have been made” portion of the rumor du jour has to be BS, there’s another angle to consider if we want to consider if there’s a fire from where this smoke is originating.
Remember that Delaney has said that the Big 10 would expand in such a way that didn’t cripple any other conference? (Delaney did say that, right?)
I kind of think this particular group of schools might be the only logical way to have a multi-school expansion without outright killing the Big East and the Big XII.
The Big East could probably survive as a football conference by losing one, and only one, school. And if you had to pick a school to be poached, I’d argue that Rutgers is the best from the Big East’s perspective, particularly when you consider the disproportionate importance of basketball to the conference. The Big East can probably plug-and-play yet another basketball-oriented, mediocre football school (hello Memphis?!?) and retain its automatic BCS bid.
Meanwhile, as I’ve argued before, the Big XII can probably survive the loss of two schools not named Texas. It could probably stand pat at 10 or seek to add a Utah and BYU (so long as the Pac 10 doesn’t poach Utah first), but the Big XII survives as a BCS-level quality conference if Texas decides it’s in its best interests.
Of course, this conference expansion could be the first of several dominoes to fall, and the Big 10’s actions might eventually lead to the demise of either of the two most adversely affected conferences, but the Big 10 could plausibly argue that its actions weren’t the proximate cause of death.
LikeLike
But remember there’s one more school for expansion and the Pac-10 still needs to expand as well.
If the Pac-10 decides the “Western Alliance” would work come tv contract time and decides not to expand, then the Big10 still needs another school (why would they stay at 15 at that point since they already have ND?) and it would most likely look east to find it.
On the other hand if the Pac10 does decide to go for Colorado, the Big12 really is a dead man walking while turning into the SWC II (thanks to whoever above coined that term) and Texas, TAMU, & Oklahoma are all going to be looking for new homes.
TAMU to the Pac10, Oklahoma to the SEC, Texas to the Big10 for that last spot anyone?
LikeLike
Add TCU and a smallish SWC II could look pretty tough. aTm (should they remain) one would think should rise again soon enough as well. Their recruiting has appeared to be quite good and so coaching must have been the main problem. And yeah I’m a Husker homer but I expect Turner Gill will make waves at Kansas.
LikeLike
You’re welcome. 🙂
I will argue that Texas will not wind up in a “dead conference.” If the rumor du jour winds up being true, Texas is Pac 10 bound unless it determines that the Big XII can remain a living, breathing creature even if CU departs as well.
LikeLike
Let me take your thoughts in a slightly different (and far more speculative) direction.
What if the Big 10 finds it important to APPEAR not to do those things at this point? I heard one radio talking head on ESPN (very uninformed by the way) say that he’s sick of expansion talk already. If this does drag on for another 12 months somehow, can you imagine how bored non-college football junkies will be of this story? Why not allow the rumors of the Big 10 taking bites out of two conferences (killing 12 percent of the Big East and 16 percent of the Big 12) to linger out there?
Meanwhile, the true negotiations are going on. The Big 10 is still after the two big fish in all of this–prom queen Texas and her hot little sister Texas A/M. With the prospect of losing their third most populated state (MO) and their second most popular sports franchise (Neb), the Big 12 will be on life support.
I still see a TON of political intelligence in my prediction.
Rutgers and Nebraska are officially invited in June. Sitting at an unstable 13 will foreshadow more additions certainly. Big East and Big 12 are “officially” off kilter. The entire CFB season 2010 centers around the question of “who will the BIg 10 go after next?”.
After the season, Texas and Texas A/M are officially invited.
Now, with a fifteen team juggernaut and over a year to get “used to” the idea of Notre Dame joining a conference, Notre Dame will have enough support from their alumni to join at team #16. Their official invite will come (to the chagrin of Mizzou and Pitt) in June 2011.
LikeLike
The only reason why I think it might be sped up a bit more is that Texas and A&M probably won’t want to sit around with a lot of suspense on their intentions.
Pac-10 and Big 12 TV negotiations start in Spring 2011, so Texas/A&M will probably want to decide where they’re going this year instead of creating a whole lot of drama next year while the Big 12 is negotiating the TV contract.
Plus, Texas/A&M will have to decide what they want this year; in reality if you already know how the dance is going to shake out, wouldn’t you already have the plan in mind?
Thus, I think Texas will be a part of a package if Colorado is announced in the next 2 months. Colorado’s announcement means that Texas isn’t killing the Big 12, it means they’re escaping an already dead conference; for them the distinction is of importance.
I think realistically we could see Nebraska/Rutgers, and then Texas/A&M almost immediately after, and then we go to Notre Dame and say “the 16th slot is yours, or we’re going to Missouri or Maryland or whoever…”
It’s not really in anyone’s interest to drag the process out another year. To put it another way, the Big Ten will finalize itself at 14 or 16 this year…
LikeLike
@ ATYCLB
It’s cute how you think that ND will warm up to being in a conference, particularly the Big Ten, merely because Rutgers and Texas are joining.
Those schools joining doesn’t help ND win Nat’l Championships, get to BCS bowls, does little to address the “regionalizing” argument, and only adds to the concerns that ND’s internal affairs will be controlled by 14-2 and 15-1 votes against. And that’s just off the top of my overtired and painkiller full head.
I know it’s probably impossible for y’all, but before you start speculating what any school will do if, try thinking about it from their point of view.
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox – I certainly don’t think that ND will ever warm up to being in a conference. However, the “regionalization” argument continues to perplex me, especially if Texas is added. Outside of the Big Ten adding USC and Florida, how could anyone possibly get a more national conference than that?
LikeLike
@ Frank
For major BCS conferences? You are correct. That’s why independence looks SOOOOO good to ND.
@ No2ND
We agree. Why you gotta be like that about it?
LikeLike
Here’s to hoping ND never warms up and y’all freeze in………………….South Bend!
LikeLike
Nothing personal! You are very good at attempting to infuse some insight into NDs reluctance to give up its independence in football while associating with the rabble of the BE football schools in all other sports.
It was very late at night and I guess my Scotch heritage with my scotch whisky made my head say what my heart feels. Besides, I’ve been to SB many times in the winter. 🙂
LikeLike
So what you are saying is that the Big Ten wants plausible deniability regarding the death of the Big XII.
The Big Ten takes Mizzou & Nebraska, leaving the Big XII on life support and letting the Pac 10 pull the plug when it takes Colorado.
Putting it another way, the Big Ten brought the silver cross, garlic cloves, and Holy water, but will let the Pac 10 drive a wooden stake through the Big XII’s heart.
LikeLike
Like I said, I don’t believe the conspiracy theory stuff, but why leave that last slot open?
LikeLike
So that ND can handpick BC? Cuse? Pitt? Ball State?
LikeLike
You might not be too far off…realistically though I think it’ll be a “try for Texas” spot and if not available they’ll have their pick of the remaining North East teams to help lock up the NE/NYC DMA.
LikeLike
That last slot is for Texas if A&M can get set up somewhere. That seems to be what a lot of the Texas boosters have implied on this board, that Texas would be free to go its own way if A&M is set up with the SEC or Pac-10…
LikeLike
If the rumor du jour turns out to be true, I would edit your post to read:
“The Big Ten takes Mizzou & Nebraska, leaving the Big XII on life support and letting the Pac 10 pull the plug when it takes Texas and Texas A&M.”
If Texas really is the belle of the ball, I think this is illustrative on why going second would be beneficial.
LikeLike
Which is always why I’ve felt the Big10 would pick after the Pac10 makes it play.
If the Pac10 gets Colorado and TAMU the Big10 is easily the best home for Neb, Mizzou, and Texas and the “joined at the hip” schools are already seperated. If its only Colorado and another team, the Texas Twins would at the least be a paired deal, if even on the table.
LikeLike
At this point, the ideal situation is the Pac-10 grabs Colorado in the next 2 months and possibly A&M, although A&M doesn’t seem like it would be a first mover. That would set off a scramble that would destroy the Big 12 but let the Big Ten get the pieces it needs.
Once/if Colorado moves, the die has been cast and the Big 12 is a dead man walking.
LikeLike
Big 10ers, if the rumor du jour is correct, is this good enough for you? Does this have the requisite “wow” factor? And if yes, does it still have the “wow” factor if ND says no?
LikeLike
You mean Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers? That’s the three that most of us have targeted right now in a move to 14.
For most of us, Texas or Notre Dame has to be included to go 16. Thus, I would think most of are happy with what it looks like is shaping up…
LikeLike
So if I’m reading you right, you’re OK with the NU/RU/Mizzou three-pack because it still leaves the door open to luring a more attractive school down the road?
LikeLike
If the rumor is true, then I am very happy with the Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers combo. Nebraska is in the top 5 as far as brands go. I would have been disappointed if they were not included in any expansion scenario. I like the rivalries that will appear with having our neighbor, Missouri, in the conference. I know that some of you have been upset with their academics, but they have a top-rated journalism school. And their basketball and football have been competitive of late.
Despite all the negative comments about Rutgers, as a Penn State fan and alum, I am very happy to see them included. They have the academic credentials, Penn State will no longer be the most eastern member, I will look forward to attending games at Rutgers home stadium, and they have an enormous alumni base. I am confident that it will translate into TV eyeballs.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t really see it like that.
It’s more like, those three are the best way to go to a 14 team conference if there is no more expansion.
LikeLike
And I agree with the other commenters. Nebraska easily adds another school that has is a national power in the league of Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State.
Nebraska makes a 14 team expansion worthwhile.
I’m just pointing out that a lot of us are critical of expansion to 16 without the addition of a 2nd football power: Texas or Notre Dame.
Nebraska alone doesn’t justify going to 16 because we can have Nebraska as #12 and stop there or #14 and stop there.
For me, we can go to 12 or 14 with Nebraska and be perfectly happy. We can only go to 16 if we have Nebraska and Notre Dame or Nebraska and Texas or all three…
LikeLike
If it were only Neb, Mizzou, Rutgers I’d be happy in that those schools are all good in every sense of the word (if not exactly “wow” in every sense of the word).
I’d still be disappointed because I think the Big10 is the first conference that can make a legitimate play for 16 teams and show it will work. If they would go for 16 now, then spend the next 2 decades solidifying their station (as they did with PSU) they could then move to even bigger things…as was mentioned else-where, possibly the first conference to span from Texas to New England (with possibly 20 teams) and encompass every major state research university in their area with the belief athletic prowess on the field and academic prowess in the classroom/research laboratories are legitimate, and achievable, goals.
Maybe in the long run it doesn’t matter , but to me, not moving to 16 now is a lost opportunity that allows the rest of the NCAA to catch up.
LikeLike
@Hopkins:
If it stays at 14 without ND I’m fine with it. But to reach 16 I’d want ND-Texas or Texas-TA&M as well.
I’d be disappointed if the Big Ten opted to increase its size by almost 50% and only had one big name out of five. I can live with a land grab, but there has to be some sizzle somewhere. And Nebraska has that, but not enough to justify five new teams and a 16 team league.
Moreover, I hate the fact that in this scenario we’re leaving the Texas hydra to whomever. I don’t believe Texas would end up in the SEC, but I sure as hell wouldn’t leave it up to chance. It would be a major miscalculation on Delany’s part (IMO) if that came to pass.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with this.
Texas will be lost to the Big Ten forever if it joins the SEC or Pac-10.
Let me put emphasis on “forever.”
I’m sure Hopkins Horn knows this as well.
It’s just really hard for me to see Delaney folding a poker hand while Texas is one of the chips on the table.
Not only does it not make sense, but it allows any of the other conferences to catch the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@zeek:
Seeing “forever” and “SEC” in the same sentence makes my heart hurt.
LikeLike
Lol. I didn’t mean for it to have that effect.
I really do hope that Texas ends up in the Big Ten in this round of expansion, as I’m sure all Big Ten posters here are hoping.
I look at the fact that Texas didn’t want to talk to the Pac-10 as well as the Big Ten’s overtures in February as giving the Big Ten a really strong chance of grabbing Texas.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Texas would demand Notre Dame as the latest rumors suggest but you never really know…
And for what its worth, I think the most realistic scenario (if Texas says no) is that the Big Ten goes to 14, and Texas tries its hand at a Longhorn network instead of joining the SEC or Pac-10. Then we get the deal done in 5 or so years if the Longhorn network isn’t as successful as Texas hoped it would be…
Of course that’s a whole lot of ifs…
LikeLike
If this is true I think Nebraska ads enough football “wow” for me. I’m a Michigan fan, but I am looking forward to a Nebraska-Iowa rivalry.
If this is true it may be the staggered expansion that Frank was talking about. If ND says yes, then invite another Big East school. If ND says no, then try to get Texas and aTm. If they say no, grab two from the Big East to get to 16. I think Delaney will succeed in getting BTN on basic cable in either NYC or Texas.
LikeLike
I think you have it right with one additional thought. If ND says no, I can see the B10 waiting 2-3 years to see how things go with the BTN with 14 and how UT and the Big 12 and the LSN do. You could then revisit UT/A&M and, I hate to say it, ND. Then, and only then, would I want Pitt and Cuse. Personally, I would prefer they try MD again and look at UCONN.
LikeLike
“If this is true it may be the staggered expansion that Frank was talking about.”
Yeah. In fact, if they know already that Notre Dame will say no, this whole thing could be the Big 10 coordinating with Texas to give them the political cover to move to the Big 10. If the Texas papers come out tomorrow with articles that say sources at UT and A&M are saying ‘The Sky is Falling!!!’, then this is probably a setup so they can then move to the Big 10 when the an offer is made.
If the papers have a more calm anonymous sources, like ‘this sucks, and we’re carefully evaluating what to do next’, then they either didn’t have any plans to join the Big 10, or they were never offered a spot.
I’m really interested if the reports are going to try and stir up a panic, or play down the move.
LikeLike
I’d be very happy with Nebraska. Mizzou is a lot like Pitt for me…I can take them or leave them. I hate the Rutgers pick though. They bring nothing athletically, and I’m still not convinced the NY market is worth it. Based on what I’ve read and what I’ve been told by my friends who live there, New Yorkers, as a whole, don’t give two craps about college football. If we were adding Nebraska, Mizzou and ND, I’d be pretty happy. If Rutgers is part of the expansion though, whether to 16 or to 14 (especially to 14), I don’t like it.
LikeLike
Here’s the thing about Rutgers…ignore NYC. Simply ignore it.
NJ (the state) has some very good football recruits (as does Missouri), lots of population (for expanding the BTN), and top notch academics, with a solid (though admittedly unexciting) football program. They are the perfect “second tier” school to add on the east coast.
Anything Rutgers adds in the NYC DMA is icing on a pretty decent cake.
LikeLike
I would be very happy.
Nebraska adds one of the most storied names in football history. Missouri and Rutgers have each been to 5 straight bowl games, and both schools have the home recruiting base to maintain mid-pack Big Ten performance. Over the past 10 years, these three schools are a combined 13-5 versus current Big Ten football teams.
LikeLike
Yes. Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers is fine. I love Nebraska for all of its tradition and success. Missouri is a solid state university in the Midwest that fits nicely into the conference and helps make the bridge to Nebraska a little bit wider.
Rutgers is an eastern piece (to go along with Penn State) that seems to be positioned to grow in the future. It is a large state university in a contiguous state with many residents. In this three-pack, Rutgers plays a role.
If Syracuse and Pitt are 15 and 16, then the whole thing starts to feel a bit watered down. Nothing against those fine universities, but it would mean getting only 1 bona fide star program out of the 5 new additions.
I think the Big Ten needs to get either ND or Texas (or both) to make 16 work.
LikeLike
Nebraska is an A+ football addition. That’s a “wow” team and going to 12 or 14 with them is great. Missouri is a B. They fit with the Big Ten and have decent football and basketball, but it’s not like a home run. Rutgers–if it brings in enough eyeballs, I guess it’s worthwhile, but it adds nothing more in my eyes.
What I’d be very disappointed in is adding UConn and Syracuse for the next two. They add basketball prowess, okay, but if the BT goes to 16, what I want is at least one more top-notch football team. To me, leaving Texas, A&M and Oklahoma for the SEC to pick up means the Big Ten has squandered a huge opportunity. Go Texas and A&M next. If Notre Dame is actually invited and actually accepts, then I think we need to go Texas.
LikeLike
With the way this is being reported now, here´s the problem:
I don´t think Rutgers, on its own, on the East Coast is an acceptable outcome. I also really dislike the idea of any of the following group: UConn, Syracuse or Pitt. By adding either UConn or Syracuse, along with Rutgers, you water down the Big 10´s product too much – from a research and athletic perspective. As for Pitt, it does nothing to give you NYC. If you´re going to add Pitt, you don´t add Rutgers.
That said, if Rutgers is really on the list, I think one of two things is going on:
1) Notre Dame is in. If you are sure of ND, then Rutgers is a good choice: an up-and-coming school augmented by the top drawing university in that city.
2) If Notre Dame is not in, I think there must be something to the rumors Katz is reporting. Rutgers plus Maryland and GT or another one of the ACC powerhouses would be a grand slam.
So, as it stands, if Rutgers is really the 14th team, I think it´s pretty clear that we´re not standing pat at 14. But it should also be clear that, by taking Rutgers, you are paving the way for at least one more big fish from the East Coast (or ND).
LikeLike
Can you imagine the TV ratings if BTN will air life the conference meetings between Delaney and the B10 universities presidents. Speaking of must see tv; that will be it.
LikeLike
It might be an indication of how far my Big10 expansion addiction has gone, but I think I’d drive across the country to see that…
LikeLike
New Greenstein article cools down some of this steam:
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/05/big-ten-denies-report-its-reached-out-to-3-schools.html
LikeLike
I don’t think it really cools down the steam.
All of this “OMG EXPANSION IS IMMINENT” talk just helps Delaney down the road if he really wants Texas or Notre Dame because it ensures that they’re actively looking at the Big Ten option. That’s all he wants right now.
LikeLike
Oh jeez, I didn’t realize KK was the guy who broke it. That guy is a total HACK– he’ll run with any story he gets. Especially if it is something that he can rub in KU fans’ faces.
LikeLike
@Patrick:
If there’s really some legs to this story and your station is preparing to run with it, why would there still be nothing on espn.com, sportsline.com or si.com (as of 4:45 PM PST)?
Not being snarky — just curious if there’s a logical reason why the big guys would be ignoring this — not even reporting on the rumor why nailing down the specifics — if it appeared to be true?
LikeLike
On College Football Live! (or whatever its called), they mentioned the story, cited the radio station (evidently, its an ESPN station), and talked about it a little while. The story wasn’t verified by anyone else, though.
LikeLike
@Hopkins,
They did run it, but attributed to the radio station. Other Big Ten sources had told them that they had informal talks with several schools. The source did not mention any schools.
What wasn’t reported, more on the gossip side… unsubstantiated…. is that the schools would need to petition to enter the Big Ten conference. So any overtures to any schools would be under-the-table. The word is that the Big Ten presidents would like to vote on additional members at the meetings in June.
Sometimes a large national outlet like ESPN, will leave these types of discussions to the college football blogs until they have concrete sources. I’ll bet they are busting up phone lines and working everyone they can get in touch with. If it is true, it will come out soon. There are too many people asking too many questions.
LikeLike
@Patrick – That “petitioning” gossip actually makes sense. Everything that I’ve seen is that the process is for each school to submit an application to join the Big Ten first. If a school never applies, then it can’t be voted on by the current members to be invited. Now, from a practical standpoint, the Big Ten is going to provide pretty strong feelers to the candidates that it wants to join and only invite those that it’s certain will accept.
LikeLike
It would also make sense if it was something implemented to save any getting stood up type embarrassment. Make a school :coff: Notre Dame :coff: file paperwork first so as to have an action by them to point to should they later change their mind.
LikeLike
@ Frank,
I think these under-the-table feelers are what we are hearing about now with this latest report. That would make all of the “we have not been invited to join” talk the absolute truth. I think the better to ask question would be “are you going to petition to join the Big Ten?” OR “Has the Big Ten asked you to apply for admission?”
LikeLike
@FRANK,
PS – After 1,000 posts aren’t you obligated to create a new blog entry? LOL
LikeLike
Re new blog post (Patrick and Frank)
1)Frank should repost part of his prior blog (“Getting krunk on expansion news”): “you lie”
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/05/big-ten-denies-report-its-reached-out-to-3-schools.html
2)Patrick and Frank:
I have seen more than a few posters here and elsewhere quoting from your original blog post on “value of expansion candidates”.
Given the wide viewership of this blog, you may want to consider posting Patrick’s summary update of his views in reply to my questions as a separate blog post including where the “60/40” conclusion derived from Patrick’s original post now stands.
LikeLike
Second the motion!
And if Big10 expansion is getting boring (though I don’t know how…) how about any rumors about the Pac10 expansion…
LikeLike
Looks like Tom Shatel is a believer. He almost sounds like some of us. 🙂
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100510/SPORTS/705109822
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m taking this report seriously, however. First, the way it was presented. The four schools listed make the most sense. And the Notre Dame caveat — if the Irish accept, the Big Ten looks for a fifth school; if they turn it down, it’s three schools to make 14 — is perfectly plausible. When you think about that, it’s very logical.
Another reason to take this seriously: not just that the UNL administration sent out a statement on the matter — there have been countless reports the past several weeks on Big Ten expansion, and UNL didn’t issue statements on those. Moreover, it was what Chancellor Harvey Perlman said — or didn’t say.
UNL offered your basic nondenial denial. It said no offer has been made to join the Big Ten. It also added that “we remain committed to the success of the Big 12.” But in the next sentence, the statement said “until the Big Ten makes an announcement, we’ll have nothing to say on the subject.”
In other words, NU is committed to the Big 12 — until the Big Ten tells you otherwise.
This is about semantics. Technically speaking, UNL is probably telling the truth. Has NU been offered a spot in the Big Ten? No. According to ESPN’s Big Ten blogger, Adam Rittenberg, schools must apply for admission into the Big Ten. Anybody got a pen?
More than likely, what is happening here is that NU, Mizzou and others have been contacted by a middle man or headhunter and asked if they would be interested in entering discussions about Big Ten membership. Meanwhile, they were told that if they did apply, their application would be given all serious consideration, looked upon favorably, wink, wink.
So while I don’t believe NU has been made an official offer, it looks as if the application process may be about to begin. The Big Ten will hold its spring meetings May 17 to 19 in Chicago, and expansion is expected to be discussed (possible candidates will be run by the athletic directors and football and basketball coaches). The league’s Council of Presidents/Chancellors will meet in early June, and a vote could take place then. Candidates would need 70 percent (eight of 11) of the votes for approval. Stay tuned. This is just beginning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Makes me wonder if the fast-tracking rumor was true after all.
LikeLike
Thought I posted this already, but it hasn’t shown up. Anyway, it looks like Tom Shatel is a believer. He makes some interesting points and almost sounds like some of posters here. 🙂
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100510/SPORTS/705109822
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’m taking this report seriously, however. First, the way it was presented. The four schools listed make the most sense. And the Notre Dame caveat — if the Irish accept, the Big Ten looks for a fifth school; if they turn it down, it’s three schools to make 14 — is perfectly plausible. When you think about that, it’s very logical.
Another reason to take this seriously: not just that the UNL administration sent out a statement on the matter — there have been countless reports the past several weeks on Big Ten expansion, and UNL didn’t issue statements on those. Moreover, it was what Chancellor Harvey Perlman said — or didn’t say.
UNL offered your basic nondenial denial. It said no offer has been made to join the Big Ten. It also added that “we remain committed to the success of the Big 12.” But in the next sentence, the statement said “until the Big Ten makes an announcement, we’ll have nothing to say on the subject.”
In other words, NU is committed to the Big 12 — until the Big Ten tells you otherwise.
This is about semantics. Technically speaking, UNL is probably telling the truth. Has NU been offered a spot in the Big Ten? No. According to ESPN’s Big Ten blogger, Adam Rittenberg, schools must apply for admission into the Big Ten. Anybody got a pen?
More than likely, what is happening here is that NU, Mizzou and others have been contacted by a middle man or headhunter and asked if they would be interested in entering discussions about Big Ten membership. Meanwhile, they were told that if they did apply, their application would be given all serious consideration, looked upon favorably, wink, wink.
So while I don’t believe NU has been made an official offer, it looks as if the application process may be about to begin. The Big Ten will hold its spring meetings May 17 to 19 in Chicago, and expansion is expected to be discussed (possible candidates will be run by the athletic directors and football and basketball coaches). The league’s Council of Presidents/Chancellors will meet in early June, and a vote could take place then. Candidates would need 70 percent (eight of 11) of the votes for approval. Stay tuned. This is just beginning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Makes you wonder if the fast-tracking rumor was actually true.
LikeLike
@Patrick:
Thanks for the clarification.
I liked this sentence as well:
Sometimes a large national outlet like ESPN, will leave these types of discussions to the college football blogs until they have concrete sources.
I noticed that my hometown newspaper from growing up, the Dallas Morning News, also linked to and discussed the article today, but in blog format and not in a regular article.
It’s interesting to watch how traditional, mainstream media handle blogging. The DMN approach is one similar to how I see many newspapers handle stories like this. It’s almost as if they hold blogs and blogging in contempt: “Hey, this story isn’t strongly enough sourced for a traditional article. But we can blog it. You can blog anything!”
LikeLike
Mr. Horn, you’ve been a consistent voice of reason, calmness, and integrity throughout the rumor filled course of the last couple of days. The only school that makes any sense for the B10 to align itself with is Texas. Period. I simply cannot see OSU Pres. E. Gordon Gee and Michigan Pres. Mary Sue Coleman along with the other members voting for a grab bag of mediocre athletic and academic schools with the thought of “maybe” someday adding the NY cable market or trying to entice ND. Some of the posters act is though the B10 is in a position of weakness and should be honored to have these not so legendary and not so illustrious schools join our conference.
LikeLike
Thanks Chris, I appreciate it!
LikeLike
What’s your guys’ best guess on announcement timing? I know the Big Ten meets in June. Can we expect something to come from that? Sooner? Later?
LikeLike
If Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska are in the as the 12th-14th teams, there are three scenarios.
1) Notre Dame turns down the Big 10 overtures, and the Big 10 remains at 14 teams, keeping the possibility open for ND to join at some point.
Chances of this scenarion: slim. The Big 10 cannot tell ND this is their last opportunity to join and then eschew adding the 15th and 16th schools. My guess if ND turns down the Big 10, the Big 10 will add two more schools that they are very comfortable with to increase TV revenues.
2) The Big 10 tentatively stays at 14 schools to make a play for Texas and Texas A&M.
Chances of this happening: Possible. The Big 10 was never going to add Texas as the 12th school. However, a devastated Big 12 North will have Texas considering its options. I’m not convinced Texas would go to the Big 10 over the Pac 10, or even stay in a reconfigured Big 12 if the Longhorn Network is successful, but the Big 10 may give it a try. I would read a reluctance to go past 14 teams as a direct play for Texas and Texas A&M.
Scenario #3 – Rebuffed by ND, the Big 10 adds two more schools.
Chances of this happening: strong. If Texas is out, there are realistically four schools in play here, Syracuse, Connecticut, Pitt and Kansas. Kansas is out because of the political mess of trying to separate Kansas from K-State. Plus, its been consistently clear from media reports that the Big 10 has eyed the NY market. I think its realistically a three team battle between Syracuse, Connecticut and Pittsburgh for 2 spots, and right now, I’m starting to believe that Connecticut and Syracuse may get the call.
Uconn, Rutgers and Syracuse basically gives the Big 10 the BCS school in every state of the tri-state area of NYC. Syracuse-Connecticut is also the biggest b-ball rivalry in the Big East, and if you add all three, you get on basic cable for sure in CT and NJ, and large parts of NY.
The school that has to feel uneasy right now is Pitt.
LikeLike
Wow.
Andy Katz on ESPN, after talking with officials close to the process, said other schools on the short list are “outside the box” and included these three.
Maryland
Georgia Tech
Vanderbilt
Pretty interesting. I wonder when Miami(FL) becomes a player.
LikeLike
Yes but as Manifesto points out, losing Texas means any of the other conferences can catch up.
Maryland makes all the sense in the world in the east.
Georgia Tech is only on that list because its becoming an AAU school soon.
Vandy doesn’t make sense on that list… I can’t even spin a reason out for it…
LikeLike
Oops that first part of the comment was not meant @ you… sorry.
LikeLike
Sooner?
What? OU’s on the table now? When did that happen? Walk away from the computer for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose!
LikeLike
Hey it’s OU….we buy a few drinks, tell some funny stories, everyone loves us, then we set up the important people with pictures of the cheap hookers we bought ’em
There are ways of getting stuff done if you want it bad enough 😀
(seriously, I think OU and Kansas are totally screwed by all of this)
LikeLike
I think OU will be OK. OU is way too attractive, in my mind, in an athletic sort of way to be left out. If nothing else. the SEC will find a way to gobble you up.
(And please don’t tell any of my Longhorn friends that I called you “way too attractive”!)
LikeLike
I’m shocked to see how far this story has gone today. I feel compelled to give everyone a heads up that the guy who broke this story in Kansas City at 810 WHB – Kevin Keitzman – is a total hack and is consistently wrong across the board on these kinds of things.
I live in Kansas City and am used to his shenanigans.
His “sources” for this story are probably along the same lines as ones who told him that Gary Patterson was going to leave TCU to coach Kansas State in ’08 or that prized high school recruit Josh Selby was committing to Kentucky instead of Kansas a couple weeks ago.
He’s really loving this Big 10 expansion/Big XII incompetence angle since its letting him go on endlessly about the bad hand his KSU Wildcats are being dealt by the big bad Texas Longhorns in the Big XII.
Don’t read anything in to this rumor floated today. The “journalist” pushing it just wanted to see his name all over the place. He wanted to be kind of the sports rumor world for a day and seems to have succeeded.
Sure, the schools he mentioned may end up being the ones targeted (they are the ones that keep being brought up by Frank). But Keitzman has no better idea about anything going on than any of us do.
LikeLike
Frank, just wanted to make sure you saw this rumor allegedly from a UT board (though I got it from the premium forum on SpartanMag):
I just had a few beers tonight with a friend who works for the Big Ten here in Chicago. According to him, the Big Ten has focused their efforts on and is getting hot with three schools: Notre Dame, Texas, and Nebraska.
A few things stood out about what he told me. First, contrary to my understanding of the benefits of expansion, the Big Ten is NOT pursuing a playoff system in football. Instead of a playoff, the football teams would all be required to add an additional one or two out of conference game, which would push the regular season back one week or two. The Big Ten wants to maintain the end of season rivalry games at the end of the football season as opposed to adding a playoff.
Second, the Big Ten, Texas and Notre Dame are discussing a special rule to accommodate both of those schools. Instead of playing 8 games, both Texas and ND would play 7 to enable each school to play 6 out of conference games. That’s apparently the caveat that brought both to the table, and Texas and ND also want to play each other every year. The tradeoff is that an 8-0 Big Ten team would always trump a 7-0 ND/Texas as conference champion, which is a potential logistical sticking point for the Big Ten and these teams. But apparently ND and Texas value the extra OOC game more than the conference championship potential, and ND and Texas want to play each other every year making the tie between two 7-0 teams impossible. They’re also looking at potentially giving a automatic BCS slot for a 7-0 ND/Texas Big Ten team that loses the conference championship to an 8-0 team as a carrot, where the 8-0 team could still get the at-large but isn’t guaranteed.
Finally, the Big East is essentially pushing ND to discussions with the Big Ten. The Big East has presented an ultimatum to ND to play football or get out of the conference for the other sports in order to protect the integrity of the remainder of the conference. Apparently discussions have taken place between the Big Ten and the Big East, and the current understanding is that the Big Ten will not accept any other Big East schools if ND joins the Big Ten. ND also will retain a national schedule, particularly with Texas joining, where it would have the ability to schedule 6 OOC games plus one game with Texas. This means they’re picking up only three additional games with Big Ten schools while playing in the conference.
Very cool to hear the details from the inside tonight.
LikeLike
Hey Stats,
This rumor was discussed ad nauseum a couple of days and a few hundred comments ago. Just scroll up the thread a bit. It seems to have originated on a Northwestern board. I called about 100% BS on it, especially the part about a “special rule” regarding the number of conference games, but other posters seemed to take it more seriously.
LikeLike
To be fair, the part that we were taking more seriously was the notion that Texas wants Notre Dame to also be in a 16 team Big Ten.
I don’t think that such a want is out of question. I do think it’s a bit of a stretch as a demand though since Delaney has no power over whether Notre Dame will come into the fold this time.
But yea the whole different number of games notion and the idea that Texas would somehow give up being conference champion never made any sense.
I see that rumor as boiling down to Texas will come if Notre Dame comes and the rest is someone else’s imagination.
LikeLike
HH, I thought it may have been, but there’s so many comments on here that my research to see if it had been posted was limited to a pretty drastic measure: I searched for “beers”, being that that seemed to be the most unique single word in the passage, and that search revealed no other results on this page, so I posted it. My apologies for the duplication.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten does add five new teams with only Nebraska being a traditional power, it would set up nicely for four pods, one with each of Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, and Nebraska. The protected rivalries could be Penn State-Nebraska and Michigan-Ohio State (with Penn State-Ohio State & Michigan-Nebraska as backups). That would ensure four big games between these teams each season.
LikeLike
I was sitting across the bar from John Wiley, recently retired Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. I should have known there was something afoot – he barely had time to sip his drink as he sat there alone texting all night
LikeLike
The more I think about this rumor, the more I feel it´s BS. Reread Greenstein´s comments from the Trib and remember that we have all anointed him as ¨the journalist most connected¨ in this process: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0511-big-ten-expansion–20100510,0,1457836.story
There´s a number of important passages but the key is this one:
¨While football coaches and athletic directors can make recommendations to their schools, presidents and chancellors have the hammer. They’ll meet at the Big Ten’s headquarters in Park Ridge on June 6.
Technically, schools must apply for admission to the Big Ten. Then the presidents and chancellors would vote, with schools needing the approval of eight of the 11 to be admitted to the conference.¨
The athletic department at each of the Big 10 schools will have a say in any expansion vote, but the final word rests with the presidents and chancellors.
And tell me, would any of these three schools (NU, MU, and RU) be approved by the university presidents/chancellors? Despite being AAU schools, none significantly adds to the research consortium.
Whether the NU rumor from yesterday was BS or not, I think it made much more sense than this does and has a number of important points. One of them was that NU´s acceptance was a package deal and only possible because UT and ND were such big fish. The fact that NU would significantly add to the athletic side is also a factor.
That said, I don´t think MU and RU do it for NU – or for each other.
I call BS on this rumor. And to any ¨journalists¨ who are looking for a credible rumor, it should revolve around universities that could actually be approved: UT, A&M, ND, Pitt and Maryland. Include at least two of those in the rumor and you can make compromises on the remaining spots.
LikeLike
Could we see a TX-ND-NE-MD-Rut expansion? MD/DC and NJ each have more TV sets than MO, same for Georgia.
From my neck of the words, it is hard to think of a more delicious scenario than TX, ND, GT, MD, and Rut to the B16 and aTm to the SEC. “Here’s your Big Eight back, just like you’ve always said you wanted…”
But now for the real reason I’m posting. Normally the TX legislature only meets for the first 5 months of odd years. However various house and senate committees occasionally gather in Austin to deal with matters. Lots of them are meeting this week. If UT and aTm want to broker deals that may require lobbying legislatures, this is a good week to do that.
LikeLike
Texas/Notre Dame/Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers is probably one of the dream scenarios for expansion. We would get the three biggest national brands on the board along with NYC/NJ and D.C. market access. Then you add Texas and Maryland as research/academic draws and everyone would be happy.
That said, I don’t see Maryland being on the table since the ACC isn’t really threatened by any of this unless the SEC makes a move…
But yea, for the Big Ten to get Texas, A&M needs to secure a spot with the Pac-10 in order for all of this to work out in an orderly fashion…
Best case scenario is Colorado/A&M to the Pac-10 in June/July, and then Nebraska/Missouri/Texas to the Big Ten along with Rutgers/Notre Dame if ND feels like the time is right…
My preferred expansion scenario is probably for A&M to come with Texas to the Big Ten since that totally locks up Texas but A&M going to the Pac-10 with Colorado makes Texas to the Big Ten far more likely, so I’m hoping for that scenario for now…
LikeLike
I have been following the expansion rumors for awhile. It looks like it would take a shotgun wedding to get Notre Dame to join the Big 10.
Suppose they did join. What would keep them here for the long term?
LikeLike
The fact that leaving would involve a big paycut?
There’s a reason why no Big Ten or SEC teams are willing to leave those conferences, and the main one is the TV packages are too good to walk away from…
LikeLike
ESPN just (Tuesday at 6, ET) did a piece on the 4 team expansion rumor with sportswriters from each school’s area. Yesterday’s rumor doesn’t seem to be going away. With Admin and coaches meeting next week, there should be some leaks.
LikeLike
testing
LikeLike
didn’t workLikeLike