The Rasputin 12 (Minus 1 Minus 1 Minus 1)

Posted: September 21, 2011 in Big East, Big Ten, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , , , , ,

As most of you all know by now, THE BIG 12 WON’T DIE.  Let’s get right to it:

(1) Pac-12 grants a stay of execution to Big 12 – Last year, I wrote the following about the Big 12:  “While the Big 12 isn’t safe in a warm and fuzzy family way, it looks like it’s safe in a maximum security prison way.  No one’s getting out of there even if they want to very badly.”

Texas A&M looks like it’s pulled off an Andy Dufresne escape (although they’re not quite out of the sewer yet as a result of Ken Starr), but Oklahoma is still stuck in Shawshank.  I’m not surprised that the Pac-12 ultimately didn’t agree to taking on the Longhorn Network with Texas, but for Oklahoma to not end up moving west is a shocker and an instructive note on how there’s still a fair bit of inertia in college sports (despite all of us here going through scenarios of how everything is supposed to blow up).

Back in January, I noted that the Longhorn Network was actually going to save the Big 12.  That looked like that was going to be a very wrong prediction for the last month (and A&M is obviously out the door), but what we’ve seen is that Texas now has golden handcuffs to the Big 12 as a result of the LHN, thereby giving it prison-like stability.  No other conference that could conceivably be attractive to Texas (Pac-12, ACC and Big Ten) was willing to budge on the LHN and equal revenue sharing issues, which meant that saving the Big 12 was always the end goal for the Longhorns.

One Oklahoma source claims that the school was simply using the Pac-12 to obtain more leverage in the Big 12.  If that’s the case, it failed spectacularly.  The latest developments have effectively provided Texas even more of a hammer than it did previously.  The Oklahoma demand to fire Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe looks like it will be fulfilled, but that was probably going to happen no matter what considering the breakdown of the league over the past year.  (All that I ask is that the @DanBeebe Twitter account continue to live on.  It’s my favorite fake Twitter feed outside of the now-dormant @MayorEmanuel.)  Other schools such as BYU, Louisville, West Virginia, Air Force and/or even TCU (which was the school that the Big 12 seemed to avoid as if it were though Patient Zero for the past 20 years) may be added to provide some more stability.

(2) My Partial Revenue Sharing Plan for the Big 12 – Now, let’s say that Texas actually decides that it wants to work in good faith to keep the rest of the Big 12 relatively happy (as it certainly has a large self-interest in keeping the league alive).  Equal revenue sharing for the national first and second tier TV rights is certainly a nice start to get some goodwill in the league, but that’s obviously ignoring the real source of contention of the LHN.  That being said, it has to acknowledged that the thought of Texas sharing all of its LHN revenue with the rest of the Big 12 is completely unrealistic.

So, what I’d propose is a local TV revenue sharing system based upon what Major League Baseball does today.  In MLB, all teams pay 31% of their local revenue into a pot that is then split up equally among all franchises.  As a result, the Yankees keep the lion’s share of their YES Network revenue (which is really where the team gets its financial power over the rest of baseball), but the Devil Rays get at least a little bit of benefit from the YES cash.  Just as the Yankees will always have an advantage in TV revenue in MLB due to its location in the New York City market, Texas has the same advantage within the Big 12.  No one can fault either the Yankees or Longhorns for maximizing that advantage, yet they also have to acknowledge that the fact that no one else can do the same (even successful programs like Oklahoma) is going to engender a ton of acrimony.  That might be fine for a school like Texas to say, “So what?!” in a pure free market business setting, but in a sports league (whether pro or college), the wealthy teams still need the plebeians to be competitive or else such wealthy teams aren’t going to be able to offer a very compelling product (interesting games) in the long run, which ultimately hurts revenue down the line.

Once again, it’s unrealistic to think that Texas is going to submit to equal revenue sharing for the LHN and third tier TV rights in the Big 12.  However, a partial revenue sharing plan for those third tier rights where all Big 12 members put in 31% (or some other agreed upon figure) of their local TV revenue which would then be split equally could go a long way in creating stability in the league and may actually make the league attractive to expansion candidates (outside of those that would take an AQ invite anywhere at anytime).  Regardless, the Big 12 lives, whether it deserves to or not.  BYU could logically be plugged in and the league could move along merrily, except…

(3) Remember the SEC: Realignment chaos isn’t over – Much of the media would have you believe that conference realignment has halted as result of the Pac-12 announcement, but there are the small matters of the SEC standing at an uneven 13 schools along with a possible collapse of the Big East that could put Notre Dame into play (which I’ll get to later on).

With respect to the SEC, Missouri was reportedly given an invite on Tuesday that was conditional upon the breakup of the Big 12.  What’s unclear is whether the SEC will still try to get Missouri into the league now that the Big 12 has survived or if the Baylor lawsuit brigade has given Mike Slive a reason to keep it on the down-low for awhile.  My impression over the past year is that the Missouri fan base had the most vitriolic collective anger toward the Big 12 besides Texas A&M, so if Mizzou effectively turned down an invite to the stable and wealthy SEC in favor of staying in the Big 12 prison (which I would personally characterize as the dumbest business decision in the history of college sports if that’s the case), I’d expect a whole lot of pitchforks in Columbia.  Missouri alums may very well push the school over the coming months to approach the SEC again just like the Aggies just did and we’ll go through realignment chaos all over again.

As long as the SEC is at 13 schools, there’s inherent instability in the same manner that the Big Ten having 11 schools always had other conferences on edge.  I thought the ACC was safe long before it added Syracuse and Pitt, but I’ve stated previously that Florida State is the one school from that league that I could see taking an SEC invite.  (Forget about Virginia Tech and NC State for political reasons.)  West Virginia from the Big East may also end up being a target again after being supposedly rejected by both the SEC and ACC (which happened before the Big 12 got its reprieve, meaning that Mizzou might not move).  Speaking of the Big East…

(4) Service academies in the Big East? – A list of targets for the Big East to replace Syracuse and Pitt is reportedly topped by Navy and Air Force as football-only members with the hope that Army could be convinced to join, as well.

With football-only members being the primary targets, this means that the Big East football members (at least for now) want to maintain the hybrid format with non-football playing Catholic schools.  The Big East would be looking for all-sports members if the schools really wanted to split.  In turn, this makes Notre Dame extremely happy as it looks like the Big East will continue to be a viable home for its basketball and other non-football programs and allow the Irish to maintain football independence.

I’ve seen a number of comments on Twitter and elsewhere openly wondering whether the Big East ought to keep its BCS AQ status if it ends up adding some combo of Navy, Air Force and/or Army.  What those commenters need to do is look at the big picture (AKA the entire BCS system).  The Big East is going to have its AQ status through 2013 as long as it still exists.  The published “AQ criteria” for ranking conferences does NOT apply to the 6 AQ leagues, who all have their status due to a combination of bowl and TV contracts.  Thus, that criteria is SOLELY a mechanism to see if there could be a 7th AQ conference and NOT to kick out any current AQ league.  This means the Big East can’t be yanked of its AQ status prior to 2013 unless it actually dissolves.

What’s important is what happens to that AQ status after 2013.  Let’s assume that the Big East has added all 3 service academies as football-only members.  Considering all of the constant political scrutiny with respect to the BCS, if you were a BCS commissioner, would you feel very comfortable going into a Congressional hearing and trying to explain why you just screwed over a league that has Navy, Air Force and Army?  I certainly wouldn’t want to be in that position.  See where I’m going here?  Adding all of the service academies would provide a ton of political protection for the Big East when its AQ status is reviewed in 2013.  That’s worth more than any other expansion candidates the Big East could possibly consider.  The other BCS leagues are likely going to end up continuing granting the Big East an AQ auto-bid as the cost of doing business to keep massive political heat of them.  It’s chump change compared to putting the entire tiered BCS system at risk.

So, don’t worry if you’re hooked on realignment crack.  There’s still plenty to come over the next few weeks.

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

(Image from Alexander Palace)

About these ads
Comments
  1. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Geaux Fightin’ Tigers!

    Beat the couch burners.

  2. Hopkins Horn says:

    Big Zombie Conference. I won’t compromise.

  3. Hopkins Horn says:

    So as a practical matter, how quickly could a wanna-be expansionist conference like we think the Big Zombie could be (in terms of poaching one or more Big East schools) if, in between the time I write this comment at 1 am Central and by the time most of you wake up and read this, Beebe is fired and a new commissioner is installed. How quickly could a conference go poaching with that sort of administrative turnover? Doesn’t that slow the process down just a little bit?

    • @Hopkins Horn – I’m sure your AD would be happy to provide some expansion input!

      Now, from what I’ve seen, Chuck Neinas, who was commissioner of the Big 8, would serve on an interim basis until a permanent replacement came in. You’re right that it might slow down the process a little bit, although the Big 12 also wouldn’t want to have a lame duck out there running point on expansion.

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        I guess my question/point (hell, it’s late) is whether the inherent delays the administrative issues the BZC has to go through might provide the Big East enough of a window to get its ducks in order first before the BZC can act.

        Except, of course, if Dodds really has been in charge all along, in which case nothing has changed. :)

        • zeek says:

          Not really sure that would matter in all honesty.

          A conference with Texas and Oklahoma will never be denied AQ in any form of the BCS.

          The Big East is too much of a risk for losing its AQ the next time around, even if they get all the service academies.

          I think if you’re WVU or Louisville or whoever, you have to jump to the Big 12. It’s a do-or-die situation.

          I’d like to see the Big 12 back to at least 12 by the end of all of this…

          • zeek says:

            The other thing is money, the Big 12 will pay out at least 75% higher than the Big East in all honesty. And with equal sharing of T1, T2; who’s going to turn that down?

            Could be looking at 17-20M per year in the Big 12 versus 11-13M per year for the Big East. That and the certainty of AQ for the Big 12 with Texas/OU; it’s a no brainer…

          • bullet says:

            Sounds like the BE may invite all the service academies this week, but the service academies may want to let things settle down. So Marinatto thinks he can keep AQ with the service academies and Villanova. Navy apparently is convinced they need a conference from what I have been reading.

  4. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Frank – if the Big East is interested in football only schools, how about Boise St.? Sure, they’d have to quit the MWC and join the WCC or some other non-football conference for other sports, but it would be worth joining an AQ football conference. We could also stop the annual “Is Boise worthy/” debate if they joined an AQ conference. Also, the Big East needs some football cred and Boise brings it.

  5. Damian C. says:

    I have to say that I’ve been completely fascinated by all of the conference realignment discussions. Before I start my rant, I have to provide full disclosure. I grew up about an hour west of South Bend and have always been a Notre Dame fan as it was the “home” team growing up. Even as a Purdue alum, I’ve found that childhood loyalties die hard. It is with this Midwestern bias that I have followed all of the discussions on FranktheTank, MrSec, & Purple Book Cat as well as the usual SI & ESPN. To add to that, there is a second disclosure: I’ve been living in Dallas for over five years and and have also grown partial to the Longhorns over time; however, I will always favor the blue & gold.

    With that said, my primary interest in all of this realignment has always been seeing the domers join the Big Ten and trying to think of the different scenarios in which Notre Dame might join the B1G. I realize that this scenario would really be the option of last resort for ND, especially now that the PAC-16 appears to be dead in the water…for now, anyway. The PAC-16 is really the primary avenue in which I see a hammer being taken to the conference realignment scenarios and forcing ND to choose a conference. It wasn’t even two days ago that I was thinking about how Delaney must be squirming in his pants having to watch the ACC attempt to creep up and steal ND from under his feet. I agree with most sentiments in that ND will never join the Big Ten or any other conference for reasons solely related to football. They would only join a conference (as a football participant) in the event they didn’t have any other choice in finding a suitable home for their other sports. Anyway, that’s neither nor there.

    What I found myself thinking about today is I that still have no idea WTF is going through the minds of those folks down in Austin. The Big 12 was put on life support last summer after the Colorado and Nebraska defections. ESPN dropped a godfather offer into Beebe’s lap and, voila, the Big 12 suddenly pulled through. At that time, all of the member institutions agreed to the method of revenue sharing while also allowing UT to keep the option of the LHN on the table. What they didn’t realize at the time was the kind of Franken-monster that the LHN would become.

    Fast forward to this year and the firestorm started by UT’s plans to showcase prep talent on their network to go along with the extra $15 million annually in undivided revenue. A&M finally decides to step away from the table and give UT the finger. After A&M speaks up, OU decides to man-up and second that motion. Crisis in full effect. All sorts of options were then discussed…first Arkansas (or ND or BYU or Pittsburgh or whatever flavor of the day it was) to the Big 12…then UT, TT, OU, OkSt to the PAC-12…then UT to the ACC…oops, UT to ACC no longer on the table…double oops, PAC-16 no longer on the table. Evidently, the PAC-12 would take OU and OkSt, but only if UT came along for the ride; however, PAC-12 didn’t want any part of the LHN with its UT-only content or without any revenue sharing of the LHN proceeds. UT didn’t want any part of divesting the LHN or having to split the associated proceeds. The PAC-12 basically tells UT to piss up a rope, thereby eliminating any chance for OU and OkSt to receive PAC-12 invites on their own accord. At what point will UT realize that the LHN has been the main source of consternation during this latest round realignment talk? It was the primary catalyst in the latest episode of Big 12 instability and it was likely the primary factor in the PAC-12 deciding to not expand. I mean, who wouldn’t want the prestige of the University of Texas in their conference? The PAC-12 appeared to be willing to deal with the extra baggage of UT (Texas Tech) in the trunk, but when UT stated that they weren’t going to pitch in for gas money, the PAC-12 said (in Rick Perry fashion) “adios mofo” and left them on the side of the road. When it comes down to it, you can’t really fault UT for wanting to create the LHN. They’re simply trying to maximize their brand and do what’s best for the students, athletes, faculty, & university as a whole. But just because you can do something doesn’t necessarily mean you should. At this point, it seems like it’s more of a headache than it’s worth. Yet, according to the latest scuttlebutt pertaining to the hopes of saving the Big 12, they still insist on not sharing any of the LHN proceeds with other universities. Unbelievable. The Iowa States and Kansas States of the world might be fine with UT being the 800 pound gorilla because they don’t have any other choice, but OU and A&M are a different story. Seriously…UT is fine academic institution. Surely, there must be *somebody* with some brains down there. Big picture guys…big picture. Money can’t be everything in this case.

    I would find it downright hilarious if OU was to suddenly turn their attention to the SEC. Up until now, they’ve turned their nose up at those folks down south. However, with the PAC-16 no longer a viable option, what else are they going to do? Stick with the Big 12? Ha! With UT still wanting to throw its weight around? Who would want that deal? The Big Ten or ACC aren’t an option for OU, so the SEC is the only viable alternative left. Anything has got to be better than the Big 12 (or Big Least), right? A&M is basically in the SEC already. So, suppose that OU decides that the SEC doesn’t look so bad after all. The SEC would love a brand like OU and would be willing to let OkSt tag along to get a piece of that action. That puts the SEC at 15 schools. From there, it’s either Missouri or WV with Mizzou being the better option. Think about it…the SEC gains access to the fertile recruiting grounds and TV markets in the state of Texas (not to mention the solid academics of A&M), a national football brand with OU, and additional TV markets in St. Louis & KC (the SEC needs all of the markets it can get). A&M and OU are solid and Mizzou, while not quite stout enough to justify a conference expansion on their own, isn’t exactly chopped liver. So yea…they have to swallow OkSt…big deal…the good still dramatically outweighs the bad in this scenario.

    What does UT do in that scenario? They would find themselves on an island having only bad options or worse options. One option is that they would become a football independent and stick all other sports in a conference like the Mountain West. Yeah right…UT in the Mountain West? Then, of course, there is the Big Least (if they continue to exist). But first, maybe we should ask the Big Least how having ND as a non-football member has worked out for them. I’m willing to bet that if ND had joined as a football member back in ’95 when they joined for all other sports, the conference would likely still count Miami, VaTech, and BC among its members and schools wouldn’t be jumping ship today like they were on the Titanic. In fact, they’d probably have to be beating schools off with a stick just to keep them out. Imagine that…major universities that are actually in the eastern timezone wanting to join the Big East.

    The alternative option for UT would be that they would have to check their ego at the door, divest the LHN as we know it, and crawl on their knees to the PAC-12, Big Ten, or ACC. Of course, if they had done that to begin with, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. This show isn’t over until the fat lady sings.

    • bullet says:

      There seems to be some strong belief by the administration that TLN (NOT the current money from TLN) is somehow going to become more valuable, directly or indirectly, to the university.

      There are a number on the UT boards asking the same question as you.

      I don’t think any of it has to do with sharing the money. If you read Chip Brown’s leak regarding Pac 16, basically the money would be shared once Pac networks generated the same $. If UT joined the B1G, $ would be no issue as BTN is starting to generate a lot of money. The problem with the Big 12 is that UT would be giving assets away in sharing TLN revenues because the other schools don’t bring as much to the table as the B1G and Pac schools. They have a fiduciary duty to protect the school’s assets. Personally, I think its kind of offensive that Big 12 schools, who refused to start a conference network, refused to spend money studying it (UT and UNL did it on their own), refused to spend time, effort and money setting it up, would now want to share in the results.

      Again, I think its unknown and unknowable future revenues or branding that they value. Its not clear what they wanted from the Pac. From Scott’s comments you can’t tell if he was asking for UT to take a cut in revenue on the promise that the Pac networks would generate more money. The Pac could be that arrogant to refuse a temporary deal when they just did the same thing for USC and UCLA, but I doubt it. I suspect the hangup was that UT valued control over the regional network and that didn’t fit in the Pac model. It might fit into a future B1G model and the ACC model isn’t well defined. But obviously, it fits just fine into the Big 12 model (and would in the SEC as well).

      I think the HS stuff is all driven by ESPN to get better carriage for the network. That seems to be a real source of friction.

  6. Danimal says:

    My goodness…Oklahoma has been spectacularly emasculated in all of this…major egg on their face.

  7. wolverines says:

    With the Pac 12 -> 14/16 blowing up, the Big East is where the action likely happens next…

    I think the Big East would like to keep it somewhat of an eastern league, doubt you’ll see many mountain/pacific time zone programs added (Nevada, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, etc) unless its Air Force. Boise State might be needed to bring the Big East’s ‘football’ brand back up enough to keep BCS status, especially if the SEC starts flirting with the Mountaineers…

    From there I think they’d look at the usual suspects: Navy, UCF, ECU, Houston, Memphis, Villanova, etc. Ten teams is probably ideal for TV inventory purposes. Even with Boise as a football only member, I have a tough time seeing the Big East keep BCS automatic qualifier status.

  8. wolverines says:

    Just wondering what those fans of Baylor, Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, Missouri, etc feel about four of there fellow members preferring to be in a competing conference? Two off-seasons in a row, they’ve endured lengthy negotiations of potential and at one time likely doom for the Big XII…

    This isn’t a healthy conference and I can’t see it working much longer.

    • plague.of.crickets says:

      I don’t know about the other schools, but based on forum posts (for what that’s worth), I think many Missouri fans are angry and fed up with the conference. They just want out.

      • ccrider55 says:

        A fair and growing number of OU posters seem to think likewise. I doubt Boren or the regents post often so I don’t think what the fans post matters much.

  9. I’ve never thought of “pro-active” moves by the new Big 12…but I suppose they need to do SOMETHING instead of just waiting for riga mortis (sp?) to set in. Some kind of an equitable sharing system needs to be established if they are to survive. No one will join them if they don’t create a stable and fair system for the “serf” schools they want to keep on board.

    If Texas actually WANTS to keep the league together, i expect to hear news of this sort soon. If we hear NOTHING, I think Texas still has eyes for another conference (Big Ten, ACC). Texas has got to move with this thing.

    My personal opinion? The Pac-12 wants to avoid litigation from the Big 12 remnants. All the legal shotgun blast will be aimed at the SEC right now. Once that all passes (weeks, months, years), then the Big 12 borders will be open for poaching again.

    • wolverines says:

      Not sure his scenario can work, Both the Big Ten and Texas don’t want to see the lawyers from the Big XII members. Yet the Big XII programs are holding Texas tight and won’t let go. There is little threat for most of the Big XII programs leaving other than maybe Oklahoma to Pac 12 and Missouri to the SEC…

      The once common scenario here of Oklahoma in the SEC has no basis when Oklahoma desires to be an ‘academic’ conference to improve its academic reputation.

      • joe4psu says:

        If academics is the deciding factor then maybe they should consider the SEC. The SEC is adding A&M, a very good university and a very good research institution while the B12 has lost Colorado, UNL and A&M. If OU would wait and let Mizzou take an SEC bid the B12 would be down to UT, ISU and Kansas as AAU members while the SEC would then have AAU members UF, A&M and Mizzou. Even now the SEC’s average rank in the USN/WR rankings is 50 and the B12′s is 51.

        • vp19 says:

          And with A&M in the SEC, Oklahoma would still have ties to Texas for recruiting purposes.

          Of course, the fly in the ointment is that South Carolina, Vanderbilt and Florida have little desire to send their athletic teams to Stillwater, Okla., a Starkville on the plains. As long as Okie State is attached to OU, there’s the problem, and the probable reason the Bedlam series will never be held under SEC auspices.

          • joe4psu says:

            I agree 100%. This has me thinking that OU may finally consider joining another conference without OSU. They have tried working things out as a tandem but how far will they be willing to be pushed by UT? The politicians have made grumbling noises when the idea of the schools splitting has come up but do they have the political will to mess with OU when the majority of their voters are OU fans?

          • Other Mike says:

            @joe4psu

            This has me thinking that OU may finally consider joining another conference without OSU.

            Do we know whether they’d been denied by the B1G, or had they only ever inquired about joining with others? I realize we’re only working with hearsay, but has there been talk regarding the B1G CoP/C vetoing Oklahoma period, or just if they were to join with others?

          • joe4psu says:

            Other Mike,

            This is the problem. I’ve read different things about OU inquiries but have no reason to believe any of them. This is all mental masturbation and anyone that says they KNOW what will happen is probably full of crap.

            What I read first was that OU inquired about membership with 2 or 3 others and were told no. Later I read that they were turned down again and that may have been after a request to come aboard alone. That is hard to believe since they have continued, up to this point, to make it clear that they and OSU will stay together. There are people who post here that are convinced, without any proof that I know of, that OU has no chance regardless. When I see the proof I’ll believe them.

            For now I’ll need some cold hard proof to convince me that OU cannot become one piece of the B1G puzzle if that is what it is necessary for Delany to get UT. My rambling in the other post was just a thought that OU may come to realize they cannot stay in the B12 with UT as it is and will have to make a hard decision about OSU. Any chance at joining the B1G would almost definitely require that. And as much as they may want out of the B12 situation as it stands, they may feel that they can live with UT in the B1G as apparently they did about the Pac.

    • derek says:

      I find this PBC post harder to believe than all the rest. I don’t think I am a believer in him anymore. Texas has to approve any B1G expansion even though they aren’t a member? Eh…

      • wolverines says:

        I don’t find that hard to believe, the B10 likely has already had enough talks with Texas to say its only priorities for expansion are Texas and Notre Dame.

        • derek says:

          “Texas, we really want to invite Rutgers since the BE just imploded…do you mind?”
          “Actually, we do.”

          Two weeks later they could bolt for the PAC. Makes no sense.

          • But you’re assuming that the Big Ten would do something that would NOT make them (and therefore Texas) a boatload of money. It’s a basic thing for Texas to ask…hey, we’d like to know what decisions you guys make to cover our bases.

            Let me rephrase your question more realistically…
            “Texas, we really want to invite Rutgers along with Notre Dame to corner the NYC market and add 9 million New Jersey viewers. We’ll probably make another 5 million dollars per school every single year going forward. Do you mind?”
            “Actually, we don’t.”

          • Bob in Houston says:

            I think it was a matter of offering them a chance to get out of the terms of the LOI if they didn’t like the pick.

    • metatron5369 says:

      Sigh. I really just want Texas to go away.

      First Powers talking about Texas and Notre Dame being in the same coference someday, and now this.

      • royaloaker says:

        If ND ever does join a conference, I bet Texas will be there with them, because only a new conference with UT/ND would be special enough for ND/UT. (In other words, getting ND into the B1G would give Texas more rea$on to jump ship and getting Texas into the ACC would give ND more reason to join up.)

    • cutter says:

      I enjoy his posts because not only do they have enough “insider credibility” in them to be somewhat believable, but they also stir the pot enough to have a conversation around.

      At this point, I’m hard pressed to imagine any scenario in the near future that includes Texas as a member of the Big Ten. UT has been consistent in its insistence on keeping the Longhorn Network in its present form, although that’s also the basis you want to start with in any negotiation (which will be happening starting today with the Big XII leadership and members). But if Larry Scott and the Pac 12 twice couldn’t get DeLoss Dodds to step awya from the LHN, I’m thinking it probably won’t work with Jim Delany and the Big Ten either.

      Missouri is certainly in the catbird’s seat. They would definitely be a prime candidate for the SEC and the Big XII would want to have them in any ten- or twelve-team conference they can reconstitute once Texas A&M leaves. They’d also be a candidate if the Big Ten does opt to expand in the future, irregardless of their conference affiliation at the time.

      It’ll be interesting to see what happens when the Big XII does meet today. The revenue sharing plan for the Longhorn Network Frank puts out certainly makes sense, but will Texas make concessions to the other teams in the conference on it or will they just say “nyet”. They’d also have to accept restrictions on the conference’s content regarding high school football, the number of football/basketball games televised, etc. I don’t really see Dodds making those sorts of concessions on the matter.

      • In response to Purple Book Cat’s newest post…
        Mere mortals like you and I look at today and can’t fathom the landscape three years from now…but what if…

        The long-rumored BTN2 channels are actually school specific. Certain schools may end up sharing, but most will have their own content. Thus, PSU, the only Big Ten school in Pennsylvania, will have one offering of BTN2 that features 80% Penn State content. Nebraksa…same deal. Michigan/Michigan State will choose to partner up or fly solo. Same with Indiana/Purdue and Northwestern/Illinois and Wiscy/Minny/Iowa. Guess what? In 2014, TEXAS WALKS IN and GETS THE SAME DEAL! It will be called LHN from 2011-2014; then, it will change to BTN2. Each school keeps any revenue off of their “third tier” rights, while the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights belong to the league. Ultimately, the revenue stream from BTN and contracts with ABC/ESPN will be 90-95% of what the Big Ten schools makes. However, there will be some discrepancy between what, let’s say, Texas or Nebraska or Penn State makes and what Indiana makes.

        Of course, there is no reason that the Pac-12, which is also looking at regional networks, couldn’t engineer the same proposal. But their geography is a little different. The USC/UCLA channel would make tens of millions of dollars more than the Utah/Colorado channel…or the UW/WSU channel. When you do the math, USC/UCLA might make 80% off of Pac-12 conference income and 20% off of the PACLoco channel…whereas OU/OrSt might be a 95/5 split b/c their cable channel would be so, so much smaller. Even Stanford/Cal would trump Arizona/ASU.

        But the Big Ten population balance is better. Again, here’s the rough population breakdowns.
        PA 12mil.
        OH 12mil.
        MI 10mil (two schools…)
        Indiana 6 mil. (two schools)
        Illinois 13 mil (two schools)
        WI/MN/IA 13 mil. (three schools)
        Nebraska 2 mil. (not proportionate but those fans are rabid)
        Texas 25mil. (but a smaller number would be interested in a “Big Ten Texas”)

        • Another scenario…
          The channels aren’t only school specific, but they cover larger population bases (thus asking for a higher fee). (Numbers in millions of people)
          Rutgers/PSU channel…(PA 12+NJ 9)

          OSU/UM/MSU channel…(OH 12+ MI 10)

          ND channel…(available everywhere)

          Indiana/Purdue/Illinois/Northwestern…(IN 6+ IL 13)

          Wiscy/MN/Iowa/Neb channel…(WI 5+MN 5+ IA 3+NE 2)

          Texas channel… (TX 25)

          • drwillini says:

            I think you are on to something here. This sort of arrangement rewards the geographic outliers a bit more, which is only fair since they incur more direct travel costs and indirectly because they have fewer natural rivals nearby.

            I’ll see your regional BTN2 concept and raise you another expansion candidate that makes a ton of sense in this scenario: Florida.

            B1G would go to B16 with UT, UF, and two of ND/Rutgers/Maryland

          • Adam says:

            First “Florida to the Big Ten” sighting!

          • bullet says:

            I think B1G will continue to equally share Tier 3 rights $. But they may have school specific sub-channels. I think everyone is going to at least try to do some variation of the Pac model.

        • Richard says:

          This would make the B10 TV arrangement somewhat like the SEC (where third-tier rights are controlled by each school).

          What I find interesting is this section: “the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions”.

          Does this include internet distributions? We know that the B10 schools have decided to pool all their web rights together to create the “Big Ten Digital Network” (currently without UNL, but presumably with the Huskers joining after whatever current deal they have runs out). Delany and company may be betting that distribution over the internet would eventually be more important than TV, making the whole LTN kertuffle little more than a historic curiosity.

          I certainly hope that’s the case.

          • bullet says:

            What exactly did they pool? I remember CBS was managing their portals, but don’t remember if the article specified what assets were shared.

          • bullet says:

            And I think that is part of what UT’s issue with the Pac model was. I suspect they see TLN as the first part of a change in how revenues are generated.

          • PSUGuy says:

            Speaking as someone who has the BTDN I can say the Big Ten treats it as a red headed step child.

            Replay of football and men’s bball is ONLY available via BTN streaming. NOT BTDN.

            Not all sports are televised on the internet. This is completely mind boggling since if they have the tv infrastructure to put one men’s soccer game on, why not all? And why not women’s soccer to boot?

            The BTDN is trumped by the BTN…I could not watch the PSU v Nebraska women’s volleyball match on the BTDN (like I paid to be able to do) last night because it was on the BTN.

            I already canceled by subscription for next year in the hope my nasty email and cancellation will get them to change prior to next year so I can re-up. In the end though they need to just start charging a flat fee for people to access the BTN online in areas where its not on expanded basic cable, if for no other reason than for leverage to use against the local cable companies.

          • Richard says:

            PSUGuy:

            I think that the problem is that the BTN and BTDN are owned by separated entities. Fox owns 51% of the BTN (with the B10 schools owning the rest). Don’t know what the ownership structure of the BTDN is like, but as their partnered with CBSSports, I don’t think Fox owns any of it.

            Figuring out how the BTDN profits are divided by be useful.

    • Peter says:

      After what’s happened every time the subject has come up, I can’t see Texas agreeing to the pooled media rights and pooled revenue that are the cornerstone of the B1G. Granted the B1G has nowhere near as much dead weight as the Big 12, but still, Indiana is Indiana.

      The other non-negotiable from the B1G’s perspective is Texas Tech. The answer is no and will always be no unless Texas Tech turns itself into Texas A&M.

    • mike in st. louis says:

      Just in case the post gets pulled down at Rivals, here is the PBC post. I found the last para the most interesting. I think the ACC’s move to add Syracuse and Pitt really spooked the Big Ten, fearing that Texas and ND could be next (“a similar unexpected move following the Texas BOR meeting”):

      “Tonight, the University of Texas president Bill Powers co-authored a letter of intent with the Big Ten conference.

      The key terms include:

      - the University of Texas will in good faith conduct discussions with the Big Ten conference and no other conference related to its post-2012 conference affiliation
      - the Big Ten will not invite any other institution to join the conference without the prior approval of Texas
      - before joining the Big Ten, Texas will have assurances that it can schedule four non-Big Ten conference football games per season
      - the requirement that any final arrangement be designed to increased revenues among all Big Ten conference schools, with no discrepancies in distributions unrelated to television network distributions among conference institutions
      - Texas will become a full CIC member
      - Texas and the Big Ten will jointly approve any third party media arrangements related to Texas athletics moving forward
      - the goal that Texas participates as a full member of the conference beginning in the fall of 2014

      Texas’ intentions with regard to the Big Ten will remain without official announcements until a specific group of universities, including the current Texas’ Big XII schools, solidify their own conference affiliation status. Neither the Big Ten nor Texas wishes to be seen as the primary driving force in conference realignment.

      The decision of Syracuse and Pittsburg to join the ACC came unexpectedly to the Big Ten. Certain leaders of the conference remained uncertain that a similar unexpected action could take place on the heels of the meeting of the Texas Board of Regents, particularly given the lack of uniform communications between Texas stakeholders and the conference. These individuals no longer have such uncertainties.”

    • frug says:

      In a related story USC, Florida and Notre Dame will also be joining the Big Ten while Harvard Stanford and Oxford all become members of the CIC. The Big Ten will then use it’s extra revenue to purchase a medical school for Notre Dame so they can become AAU members.

      Oh and, PBC will be awarded a Pulitzer for his investigative reporting on the matter.

  10. Phil says:

    Interesting Big East strategy — “If you try to take our BCS bid that just means you hate America”

  11. derek says:

    @Frank – FYI the Devil Rays changed their name to the Rays eight years ago. “Devil” sounded too negative they said.

  12. herbiehusker says:

    add

  13. vp19 says:

    Late in the previous entry, I considered a possible expanded Big 12 with Cincinnati and Louisville joining Brigham Young. Soon after posting it (but after going to bed), it became obvious to me that West Virginia would bump Cincy in that scenario; not only is it a bigger, more established “brand,” but it’s one that’s desperate for a home and as such would probably be amenable from any proposals from its new Texas overlords.

    While obviously football rules the roost, several members such as Kansas, Missouri, Kansas State, Iowa State and Baylor, which have had relatively better success in basketball since the Big 12 began, would get a boost from adding Louisville, WVU and BYU; UL’s hoops profitablility gives it value far beyond its middling football program. (If Missouri and the SEC finally summoned the courage to consummate their relationship, I suppose Cincinnati would be as good a replacement candidate for #12 as any, assuming Dodds has ruled Texas Christian verboten.)

    Here’s the conference as it could be + BYU/UL/WVU:

    East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Missouri, West Virginia
    West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

    Finally, while the scrambling Big East may be able to get Navy as a football-only member (and possibly Army down the line), I have my doubts about Air Force. Its philosophy, unlike West Point and Annapolis, is to participate in an all-sports conference — something I doubt the Big East would agree to — and that, plus geography and little need to become a BCS member (which also applies to the other service academies), likely takes it out of the picture.

  14. osu>um says:

    I’m not quite sure about the the BTN2 concept. Is the B10 watering down their product and is there really this much demand for 2 channels dedicated to the B10 teams? If the BTN2 is designed to be more team specific, then being a Ohio State fan, that’s pretty much the only channel I’m going to watch. There is a misconception about B10 member schools. Just because we give the appearance of “one for all, all for one” doesn’t mean we really care enough about all the schools to watch them. When I look at the BTN schedule now, if Ohio State isn’t on, I don’t watch. I just don’t care about Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.

    • joe4psu says:

      I’m agree. I rarely watch anything that doesn’t involve PSU.

      • jj says:

        i’m surprised. i like watching the other schools’ stuff. I wish there was more non-sports programming about what the schools are up to. I think a one-school channel would be boring as hell.

      • greg says:

        I also don’t watch much non-Iowa stuff on BTN. I probably watched more general B10 stuff in the past, since it was harder to get. Now that there are a bunch of BTN studio shows, I DVR them and fast forward through looking for Iowa stuff. Lame, I know.

    • zeek says:

      I think the point is to cover a lot of the events that don’t get covered by the BTN because you don’t care about watching such a localized event. The BTN will still cover the events of importance to the entire footprint (or presumably would be watched by people outside the schools’ footprints themselves).

      i.e. like the Pac-12 Networks. National network + 6 regional networks for pairs of schools (i.e. North Cali, South Cali, Utah/Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Arizona).

      It will cover a lot of the events that aren’t covered by the national network; i.e. olympic sports or whatever. Obviously, we’re not talking about activities that are worth a ton, but you might as well monetize them for the schools and show them on some form of TV.

      For the Big Ten, could just have 3 networks for 4 schools each. (BTN2-West of Wisc/Minn/Neb/Iowa, BTN2-Central of Michigan/Illinois/MSU/Northwestern, BTN2-East of OSU/PSU/Indiana).

      I think the point is to fit with what you’re saying about certain things only having regional interest.

    • cutter says:

      I could see the BTN1/BTN2 channel concept working. I assume both would share the same “conference wide” content the BTN currently produces, but would include more broadcasts specific to the schools belonging to one of those two channels.

      For me right now, the BTN is where I go to watch live Michigan sports coverage when it’s on the network–like last week’s football game against Eastern Michigan and next Saturday’s game with San Diego State. But outside that, it really doesn’t have a lot of much see programming for me at this point.

      While I like the football shows with Revsine, Dinardo, etc., I usually find myself going away from the program until the coverage about Michigan comes up. I should put those programs on the DVR, but frankly, I haven’t done it yet.

    • mushroomgod says:

      I wonder about quantity of content.

      Right now, the programming is high quality, but there is not enough of it. The same programs/games et al are repeated many times.

      If that issue can be mangaed I’d watch more BTN in totla than at present….but obviously if I’m watching the second and not the first it hurts ratings for the first….

  15. jtorre says:

    Dodds has said that tier 3 are off the table, but sharing some of the LHN especially if it is a limited window (say until 2014) might be cheaper than trying to entice conference teams with $5million per game. Once the LHN is has had 2-3 years to mature it may be a completely different scenario.

    P.S. if you haven’t seen it check out YouTube Texas Football Practice 9.20.2011 – the production is great and probably most hornfans could spend hours watching the content they have now.

    • bullet says:

      Those few who do have the Longhorn Network say ESPN has done a great job on it.

    • Personally, I’d watch BTN2 that had PSU as its only focus or one of maybe two or three teams. If I knew I could flip there and watch my “home school” or could root against (or scout :)) our closest conference rivals, I’d find myself gravitating there more frequently than I would with the BTN1. BTN1, as it gains more and more viewers, will become like an ESPN2 type channel that frequently carries intriguing events.

      And if BTN2 and tier 3 stuff goes digital, well then it can become even more specialized.

      To answer an earlier question, no, PA people would not get Michigan’s BTN2. They wouldn’t give a crap about it. (Nor would Michigan care to receive BTN2 for PSU!) Each region would carry BTN1 and BTN2 for that region only. Maybe the mondo-sports carriers would have all of them available (doesn’t DirectTV already carry “empty” channels for the spill-over BTN games on busy weekends? Those might turn into BTN2 Nebraska or BTN2 Illinois if people want to pay for them…). But I could see BTN2 sneaking into basic cable in home markets.

      • PSUGuy says:

        My problem with the BTN now is its heavy preference for taped football games over live (or much more recently taped) non-football/men’s bball sports. I mean a women’s volleyball or wrestling match has to be a big draw for it to make the BTN. If the BTN2 channel(s) would alleviate that problem I’d be all in favor.

        • M says:

          That’s a production issue, not a channel issue. There’s no limiting reason why they couldn’t put more non-revenue sports on other than the cost of production.

      • M says:

        Again, the current BTN is not suffering from a surplus of content. I would like to see BTN actually have stuff other than “Greatest Running Backs of the ’90s” rather than spread out the same content even further.

  16. metatron5369 says:

    If there actually are documents between the Big Ten and the University of Texas, they would be subject to a FOI request no?

  17. John says:

    @Frank
    You said: “the thought of Texas sharing all of its LHN revenue with the rest of the Big 12 is completely unrealistic.”
    A question on this statement: Would the PAC or more to you, the BI6 be willing to invite Texas with some sort of your MLB rev sharing plan? Seems to me that from everything we heard the PAC’s answer would be NO. If no other conference would accept the thought of Texas NOT sharing 100% of LHN rev, then this is the rub as to why the Big XII has no chance to survive.

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, that’s the “golden handcuffs” that Frank has referred to in the past month or two.

      The ACC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 view revenue sharing as sacrosanct.

      In the Big Ten, the big schools accepted revenue sharing as a principle even before Penn State was admitted. With partial gate sharing (and the fact that the Big Ten goes beyond everyone else in that fact), I’d say the Big Ten is maybe more unlikely to cut an unequal deal for anyone else.

      The ACC has already said that they won’t cut special deals for anyone and that equality is a rule for them.

      The Pac-12 made that clear in this round of alignment that they view equal revenue sharing in a similar way to the Big Ten and ACC.

      Only choice is really the Big 12 since Texas doesn’t want anything to do with the SEC. In a sense, Texas’ “greed” (not sure that’s the right word, maybe self-interest) is the reason the Big 12 could survive for a long time.

      • Peter says:

        I think this is much more realistic than the PBC post of Texas putting out a LOI to the B1G after the Pac-12 blew the idea of expansion out of the water. The Pac-12 was always the biggest question mark as to how far they would go to accommodate new members. Now it seems that the answer is “we won’t.”

        The B1G was always the longest-of-long shots to get to actually break from its principles because they are both the first and by far the most serious. They also can afford to be. They have a huge research incentive that no other conference has, and they have previously integrated two football kings with no issues.

      • cutter says:

        This is about to be a test of the “special friendship” between Texas and Notre Dame.

        The Daily Oklahoman today has an article identifying eight possible expansion candidates: Brigham Young, Texas Christian, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Air Force, Boise State and Houston. Note that four of those possibilities are in the Big East.

        http://newsok.com/big-12-expansion-targets-byu-tcu-west-virginia-likely-at-top-of-list/article/3606336?custom_click=headlines_widget

        If Texas is watching Notre Dame’s back, then Dodds will advocate adding one team behind closed doors (BYU?) and publicly extolling the virtues of a ten-team conference to everyone who will listen. If the conference were to go to 12 (and UT is directing the shots), I wouldn’t be shocked to see it be something like BYU, AFA and Houston with no BE programs being poached. Whatever happens, Texas’ main goal is to keep the Big XII together in some form and to make as few concessions as possible to see it happen.

        If the Big XII were to one or two of those Big East teams listed above, then the BE would be going thru another freefall episode with the individual schools scrambling for the lifeboats. It’s pretty clear that Rutgers, Connecticut and West Virginia would probably jump at the chance to join the ACC (RU, UConn) and the SEC (WVU).

        Additonally, of course, if the Big XII does reconsititute itself, it takes the option of a Big East/Big XII merger off the table. Without that possibility, the Big East’s options going forward are rather limited. We’re reading about the BE inviting the service academies and there might be C-USA programs who would be willing to go to what is currently an AQ conference. Conversely, the reamining members of the BE (which would be USF and perhaps Lousville/Cincinnati) might opt to just go back to C-USA unless a major conference (like the SEC for Louisville) were to add them as a 15th or 16th team.

        This board has discussed Notre Dame’s possibilities ad infitum if the Big East no longer provided ND a conference setting to put its non-football sports–we’ll see if that possibility does emerge in the coming weeks.

        • vp19 says:

          Of course, there’s also the possibility that picking off a few Big East members might spur Notre Dame to join the Big 12 for non-football competition. The 12-member Big 12 I previously envisioned, with Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia added, could certainly benefit from ND as basketball #13.

          • cutter says:

            Why would all the members (and not just Texas) of the Big XII agree to that sort of set-up? Texas and Oklahoma already have football games scheduled with Notre Dame, so it’s not a necessity on the football side. With twelve teams and eight or nine conference games, the Big XII wouldn’t need ND for football scheduling. Notre Dame hasn’t helped the Big East in its non-BCS bowl lineup, so I don’t think there’d be much benefit for the Big XII in that department either.

            Would the Big XII need to add Notre Dame for its non-football sports? That’s a mixed bag–perhaps ND’s men’s and women’s basketball teams (WBB was in Final Four last season), but are there any others? If you add Louisville and West Virginia in MBB, that would be two quality adds right there.

            You could make the case this would be a strategic move–get ND into the Big XII as an associate member in anticipation of further expansion to 14 or 16 teams. Notre Dame talks about not being regionalized, but most any conference they join full time would regionalize them in some manner. Would it make sense for ND to join the Big XII based largely in the Plains states, the ACC that spans from Boston to Miami or the Big Ten that currently goes from eastern Pennsylvania to Nebraska? It’s pick your poison at that point, but I doubt it’d matter much if ND went in as an associate/non-football member with any of those three.

            One other thing to mention is Missouri. Even if the Big XII might get onto a path of getting everything together, it’s also been on the brink of death two years in a row. If the SEC wants Missouri, I think the Tigers make the leap–and that’s yet another team that the Big XII would have to replace as well. Maybe that’s a good thing then–the other team comes from the Big East and Notre Dame would be in a “less regional” conference.

            We’ll see what happens. First off, the Big XII figures out if it’s going forward and what it’s final form will be. In the meantime, the SEC works out its 14th team and the ACC looks at its options as well. Finally, of course, is what happens to the Big East.

          • bullet says:

            @cutter
            It could also be a strategic move to keep Notre Dame from joining the B1G which would require the B1G to take someone else. Even if it wasn’t a Big 12 school, it would likely trigger the SEC and Pac to start looking at expansion again.

          • jcfreder says:

            I doubt the B12 would turn down a Notre Dame non-football application; after all of the instability, adding ND would be a PR coup.

            One of the major subplots emerging from the latest round of expansion is the strain put on Notre Dame — if the BE goes away, there’s not an obvious place to park the non-football sports.

        • Eric says:

          There was also an article somewhere saying Oklahoma had wanted 1 or all 3 of Air Force, TCU, and/or BYU. I’m beginning to think that’s more likely.

      • bullet says:

        I suspect $ are really a non-issue with the Pac and B1G. The BTN and, eventually, the Pac networks will make more than TLN. Texas has no problem sharing if its a win-win. I suspect the issue with the Pac was school control over the regional network. The B1G doesn’t have regional networks yet and so hasn’t decided how that would work, or even if, they will do it.

        • zeek says:

          That’s a fair point re: school networks in the Big Ten.

          With the Noah’s Ark in place in the Pac-12, I’d tend to agree that it’s going to be a total non-starter in the future.

          Most of us have seen it as unlikely that Texas would be willing to put its content up equally with Texas Tech.

        • Eric says:

          Good points. If they’d make more equal revenue sharing than not, I’m sure they’d be willing to shift to that model. They liked the exposure the LHN gives to the school in a lot of ways though and didn’t want to lose that which seems like a necessity if it was integrated into a PAC-16 Network.

        • jtower says:

          My impression is that the Texas administration is interested in the LHN for its value to the University (content) more than it does the revenue it generates. It seems that if a conference opportunity presented itself that involved an equitable revenue sharing of tier 3 Texas would be interested. Asking conference mates with little national appeal to join in a cooperative network, have them decline and let you do all the work and then want a piece of the pie is NOT equitable.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            This is correct. Texas wants the LHN for its ability to show Every Last Bit of Tier 3 material… women’s soccer, golf, track, swimming… They don’t want to share that.

            They like the money, too, for sure. But they want the outlet.

    • Eric says:

      Disagree. If the Big 12 goes to first and second tier equal sharing and 3rd tier staying with the schools (LHN, etc), that’s exactly the model the SEC has that no one has ever voiced any problems with to my knowledge.

      Long term, I’m willing to bet completely equal revenue sharing will create instability even in some of the conferences that appear stable now (maybe even the Big Ten). Economic times will get tougher than they are now and schools will look for ways to make whatever money they can. For the big schools, that’s going to mean either a) pairing together with other big schools or b) less equal money sharing arrangements. I’m not saying any particular conference is going to fall apart or be stable, but the logic that unequal revenue sharing of some rights creates more instability than equal revenue sharing of those same rights is very very questionable long term in my opinion.

    • bullet says:

      Again, I don’t think the issue is revenue sharing. The issue is giving away revenue. With the B1G, it would be a win-win. The B1G has a valuable network and UT could add additional value to that network. Everyone gets more money. With the Big 12, Texas would be giving away school assets. Noone else has much right now as far as networks.

      It isn’t clear what happened with the Pac, but from Chip Brown’s post, revenue sharing seemed to simply be an issue of transition. I suspect the issue was control over the portal. That was what I believe was the sticking point with the Pac. UT control over the portal didn’t mesh with the Pac model.

  18. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Does anyone else think about that scene from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail when they think about the Big East or the Big 12?

    Lose Pitt and Syracuse… “Oh, come on and fight!”

    Lose Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M… “Tis but a flesh wound!”

    Those leagues just won’t die!

  19. Nile says:

    What about the B1G? Are they going to stand pat for awhile?

    Still have a hard time believing that the Irish would choose the ACC over B1G if they give up their independence.

    • Peter says:

      B1G is not predatory, not threatened, and already has a lucrative TV setup and very high per-institution value and so will not expand without either Texas or ND.

      Everyone else doesn’t add enough value and/or is academically unacceptable and/or involves raiding a conference. Put another way – if they wanted Missouri & Rutgers to go to 14, it would have happened last year.

      In terms of who is angling for the B1G & might realistically get in – Maryland all but stated they wanted to be able to do it at some point. That’s the only reason why they would join FSU in resisting implementing an exit fee that would actually stop someone.

      • michael says:

        Many have commented along the lines of “if BIG wanted X and Y they would have done it last year.” This reasoning is fallacious, of course. The game has progressed. If one believes the big goal is to get TX and/or ND, then why move on smaller but desirable pieces unless they play a role in achieving the main goal. MU, RU, MD (if gettable) are still strong possibilities and the noise about RU to the ACC or MU to the SEC is a new dynamic.

        Any game is played from the current situation.

        • Peter says:

          What you are saying is more “they don’t want these but would take them to round out Texas/ND at an even number of schools.” That’s exactly where everyone thinks the B1G is at. The B1G doesn’t expand for the sake of expanding or because other conferences are doing so, for a bunch of reasons:

          – They’re a destination brand with an ironclad traditional core & the oldest bloodlines of any now living conference in the NCAA baring the Ivy.
          – They don’t have to do it financially (BTN was making trucks of money at 11 schools)
          – They are unpoachable due to the CIC & pooled media rights.
          – Their CEO’s strongly object to football-only moves and outright reject/will not even consider poor academic schools.
          – Any new addition needs to be above-average for the B1G in revenue to not be dilution and there are very few schools that meet that and the above academic mark .
          – They don’t seem to believe in poaching. You come to them.

          The BIG isn’t going to be forced to go to 16 by any other conference’s move. They’ll sit at 12 if there isn’t anyone who makes sense for them. Look at how long they sat at 11 despite the obvious incentive to get a CCG. It’s a whole other dynamic from conferences that are playing defense (ACC, Big East) or who have lousy media deals (Big XII, old Pac).

          • mushroomgod says:

            All that’s well and good, but the common perception, that I see on ALL of the fan forums from at least some % of the crowd, is that the BIG is a rust belt conference that plays boring football and is becoming less relevant…..I don’t see how being stubborn and staying at 12 addresses the demographic issue that JD talked about….and how staying at 12 in the face of everyone else getting bigger doesn’t make us the Smaller 10…

            If everyone will recall, Delaney said changing demographics did not necessartily mean that the BIG had to take soutern or western schools…..but rather that larger schools within the current footprint or cintiguous thereto could be taken……BIG should add Rutgers and Missouri , and ND in the olympic sports and CIC only, with no interest in the BTN, no Rose Bowl etc….and be done with expansion.

          • Adam says:

            mushroomgod, the Big Ten’s unwillingness to do the things you’re recommending are precisely what makes it a destination brand.

          • EZCUSE says:

            Nothing says non-boring football like Rutgers and Missouri.

            Of course, at least Missouri has played a football king in the past 10 years. When is the last time Rutgers played a football King? Miami as a Big East game? Meanwhile.. Pitt has played Notre Dame, WVU plays SEC schools, UConn played Michigan, Syracuse played Penn State and USC, South Florida has played the Florida kings, Louisville has played Miami, CIncy played Oklahoma, and so on. Rutgers is the only one that lacks the stones to play anyone. And despite the cupcakes they STILL aren’t exciting.

          • Pezlion says:

            “the BIG is a rust belt conference that plays boring football and is becoming less relevant”

            Sorry, but the conference that sports more viewing alumni than any other cannot become less relevant. Those fans aren’t going to stop watching.

  20. Ag1 says:

    Look on the bright side. This past 15 months has given us all a very clear picture of the character of Deloss, Inc. They couldnt get an invite to quite literally any conference at this point. B1G said “nein”. ACC said “nyet”. Pac-12 said ‘hells no’. SEC said don’t even bother calling.

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Yeah, that’s exactly what the SEC said to Texas. Excellent insight.

    • Eric says:

      Actually the SEC is the really odd one in the bunch. It’s probably the only other major conference that wouldn’t have had a problem with the LHN (those rights are already controlled by the schools in the SEC), but UT wasn’t interested. Heck, ESPN may have even liked that as it would have made creating an SEC Network down the line more difficult.

      • ccrider55 says:

        I don’t think the Big 12 had a problem with the LHN…as long as it stayed within the limits that had been suggested from the start, or the limits that the SEC has. The problem is ESPN has an investiment in it requiring considerably more. Will ESPN be happy with 6 BB games and UT/Rice as the max? Doesn’t seem like that is worth the half to one billion estimated cost to them over the life of the contract.

    • zeek says:

      Texas never looked at the SEC.

      The SEC though is the most lenient towards treatment of 3rd tier rights. Florida has its own huge deal for 3rd tier rights, etc.

  21. M says:

    “That might be fine for a school like Texas to say, “So what?!” in a pure free market business setting, but in a sports league (whether pro or college), the wealthy teams still need the plebeians to be competitive or else such wealthy teams aren’t going to be able to offer a very compelling product (interesting games) in the long run, which ultimately hurts revenue down the line.”

    You’re not thinking like a Texan. DeLoss would probably respond “Sure the games might be less competitive, but they would be less competitive in our favor. I don’t see what you’re point is.”

  22. EZCUSE says:

    Wouldn’t the Big XII’s best play be to go to 14 or 16 teams? If you are Iowa St. and you know that have the conference members have eyes on another conference… wouldn’t you want the confidence that you could lose a few teams and still be viable.

    Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., and Baylor should all be advocating for 5-7 more teams. Picture this:

    South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
    West: Oklahoma, OSU, BYU, Boise St.
    North: Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St.
    East: WVU, Lville, Cincy, and USF

    The South and West would alternate joinder with the North and East.

    The Pac -16 potentials get the cover if they ever decide they have to leave. They leave behind a Big XII that can keep its seat at the table for quite a while. If Boise St. and TCU have staying power, they can be perennial ranked teams to cushion the blow.

    I am not sure that this conference wouldn’t match up favorably with all other conferences anyway.

    Texas, Oklahoma as anchors. WVU, TCU, Oklahoma St, and Boise St. in the next tier. A Baylor, USF, Missouri, BYU or Kansas always able to make a run.

    Compare:

    Texas (#19 AP) – Ohio St (unranked) – Florida (#15 AP)
    Oklahoma (#1 AP) – Nebraska (#9 AP) – LSU (#2 AP)
    Okie St (#7 AP) – Penn St (unranked) – Alabama (#3 AP)
    WVU (#16 AP) – Michigan (#22) – A&M (#8 AP)
    Boise St. (#4 AP) – Wisconsin (#6) – Auburn (unranked)
    TCU (#20 AP) – Iowa (unranked) – Georgia (unranked)
    Baylor (#17 AP) – Illinois (#22 AP) – South Carolina (#12 AP)
    USF (#18 AP) – MSU (unranked) – Arkansas (#14 AP)

    Obviously, most years will have Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee (in theory), Iowa, MSU, PSU, Ohio State somewhere between “ranked” and “top 5.” But if you can put 8 ranked teams together ANY year, that’s a pretty good start.

    • EZCUSE says:

      At the very least, this BVI would have to leapfrog the Pac-12 and ACC in football.

    • bullet says:

      I don’t think they will go beyond 12 because they want to maximize revenue. Personally, I think 14 might be a more stable number and worthwhile because of that. 16 is too many mouths to feed as well as too hard to treat as 1 conference.

      • zeek says:

        Agreed, I’d throw out 16 on face value.

        12 or 14 is where this is going to go.

        10 is too small right now in a world with multiple 14 team conferences (assuming the SEC ever figures out A&M…). It just doesn’t feel safe.

        12 is probably the closest to revenue maximizing with safety in numbers. 12 might make slightly less per team than 10, but the appearance of safety and the CCG are important.

        14 might be more stable than 12 but the question is whether that stability is worth enough to give up a bit of money.

      • jtorre says:

        Coincidentally, IIRC at the formation of the Big XII they copyrighted both Big 12 and Big 14 in case of future expansion. I do not know if Big 16 is held by any conference.

  23. Hopkins Horn says:

    So let me break down the logical of the typical national college football writer:

    (1) Realigning towards mega-conferences is bad.

    (2) It’s best for all involved to slow the process down. Don’t let it spin out of control.

    (3) Texas stays in its smaller, geographically-concise conference.

    (4) Ergo, Texas is evil.

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      You’ve got it backwards, HH. Start with the fact that Texas is evil and the rest falls out logically. ;)

    • bullet says:

      Actually its;
      1) I’m lazy so I constantly put out false information without realizing it;
      2) I like to generate controversy so I take extreme positions;
      3) Texas is big and successful so they make a good target;
      4) Texas is evil is my theme;
      5) Superconferences are bad since it makes it harder for me to be lazy-I have to learn new things; and
      6) I don’t care that its inconsistent to say Texas greed is causing superconferences to form when Texas doesn’t want superconferences, since I’m too lazy to be logical.

      • bullet says:

        As I posted on the last thread, its just amazing how often I read flat out false info related to Texas by sportswriters. Its easy to understand why Texas is viewed as evil on bulletin boards everywhere. Several falsehoods that I constantly see:
        1) Texas demanded and got the leftover 5 exit fees. In fact, Texas and OU (but not brave, self-less A&M) refused guarantees offered by the others and inequitable distribution of exit fees.
        2) Texas demanded guarantees and concessions last year to stay in Big 12. In fact, the only things that changed are that Tier 2 rights were split equally instead of 50% equal, 50% earned and in a Texas proposal, ADs approved a proposal to equally share Tier 1 rights as well (which hasn’t been approved by the Presidents-and its not Texas, TT, OSU, ISU, KSU or Baylor holding it up). There have never been guarantees in the Big 12. It was based half on what you “earned” by TV appearances. While that favors the “brands” and big market teams, UNL learned last year that’s no guarantee as they were slightly below the average for the conference for probably the 1st time. Oklahoma led in $ last year.
        3) UNL left because Texas would not equitably shared revenue. Reality is that UNL and Texas were the most tightly tied on revenue proposals.
        4) Everyone but the Big 12 shares revenue equally. In fact, the Big 12 used to be somewhat in the middle. The Pac 10 (which has changed their model) was the most unequal and the Big East was next. The SEC doesn’t share Tier 3 rights and Florida made $8 million on that last year while MS St. made about $300k. And while the ACC says they are equal, UNC led the nation last year with $11 million in Tier 3 rights per Dosh’s article. The Big 10 was the only conference that was essentially equal (but they have been joined by Pac 12).

  24. 1. Full disclosure: I am both a Northwestern (undergrad) and Texas (grad) alum. My objectivity should therefore be taken with an appropriate grain of salt.
    2. Despite the amazing recent ups and downs of the conference realignment carousel, I still believe that a compelling case can be made for a University of Texas move to the Big 10. Here’s why.
    3. Although there is much discussion of geography on message boards obsessing (as am I) about realignment, I believe geography is consistently underestimated as a factor in conference stability and an outcome determinative factor in conference alignment.
    4. All the major athletic conferences were exclusively defined geographically, based on familiarity and the need to minimize travel distance and expense.
    5. This initially produced some (what now seem) unlikely conference bedfellows (e.g., Sewanee in the SEC, Idaho in the PAC-8). Over time, some of these academic, cultural and/or scale “misfits” have moved on (e.g., Georgia Tech left the SEC, University of Chicago departed the Big Ten), but many have stayed (e.g., Vanderbilt in the SEC, Northwestern in the Big Ten, Cornell in the Ivy League).
    6. Three of the most successful major conferences have over the years maintained geographically-defined cores: the Midwest for the Big Ten, the old Cotton South for the SEC and the Pacific Coast for the PAC-whatever and the Middle Atlantic for the ACC. In recent years, a relatively few geographical outlier programs have been added to these geographical cores (e.g., the Arizona schools in the Pacific-10, Miami and Boston College in the Middle Atlantic, Penn State in the Big Ten), but not many.
    7. If there is one lesson to be derived from the long history of conference affiliation, it is that conferences work best when geographically rational and when the constituent colleges share compatible academic profiles, cultural values and scale. Schools which are outliers for one reason or another generally don’t last as members.
    8. The Big 10, SEC and PAC-whatever until recently ignored the one-third of the country situated between Iowa City (Big 10’s Iowa) and Tucson (PAC-12’s Arizona), east to west, and Canada and Mexico, north to south. Although it’s relatively sparsely-settled, this “Heartland” (or “Great Plains”) region was the home to not one, but two, major conferences: the geographically- and culturally-well defined Big 8 and the geographically concise, but academically/culturally quite diverse, former Southwest Conference.
    9. The real issue for the two Heartland conferences (other than the fact the old SW Conference contained as mismatched a set of colleges as likely ever shared a football field) was that despite its size, the Heartland has over the decades supported only three schools which have been consistent winners in football: Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.
    10. Although there have been other reasons cited, these three universities, which have either left (Nebraska) or have publicly considering leaving (Texas and Oklahoma), have departed (have considered departing) the Big 12 for the simple reason that there aren’t enough successful, major football programs in the Heartland to put together an economically viable conference.
    11. The three Big 12 schools which have already departed, Colorado (leaving, in fact, because of culturally affinity for the west coast and their inability to compete), Nebraska (leaving, in fact, because of their inability to beat Texas and Oklahoma) and Texas A&M (leaving, in fact, because of their inability to beat anyone good consistently and their desire to leave the house of more successful big brother Texas), have been able to exit relatively easily because they are located on or near peripheries of the Heartland/Great Plains.
    12. Colorado, Nebraska and A&M are located close enough, respectively, to the PAC-12, Big Ten and SEC conferences’ traditional geographical cores to be readily assimilated as relatively modest geographical outliers. It is no coincidence that Colorado was the furthest west, Nebraska was the most northeastern and Texas A&M is (was) the most southeastern of the Big 12 teams.
    13. Geography, however, presents a more much significant obstacle to any effort by Oklahoma and Texas to realign into another conference. Texas is located almost exactly equidistant from either coast and further south than any other major football program outside the State of Florida. OU is located smack dab in the middle of the country, distant from any major conference core area. Thus, the simple geography of both Texas and Oklahoma, located distant from even the periphery of the major conference cores, make them problematic potential conference mates.
    14. But there are other ways of thinking about geography and one of them is chronological– travel can be measured not only in miles, but also in time. Oklahoma and Texas are situated in the Central Time Zone. So are six of the current Big Ten teams (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin). Although the mileage between Texas/Oklahoma and these six Big Ten schools is significant, team travel in an expanded Big Ten including Texas and Oklahoma as measured in time would be reduced considerably by the fact eight schools would be located in the same time zone.
    15. The same cannot be said of a combination of Oklahoma/Texas and any of the schools the current PAC-12 or the current ACC. (Although a critical mass of SEC schools are located in the Central Time Zone, the academic/cultural differences seem insurmountable between, on the one hand, where Texas is now and where Oklahoma aspires to be, and the SEC schools, on the other.)
    16. Realigning Texas and Oklahoma with the Central Time Zone schools in an expanded 14-team Big Ten would, of course, require that conference to abandon its current Legends and Leaders divisions. Substituting geographically-defined Central/Eastern [Time Zone] Divisions for Leaders/Legends Divisions seemingly designed in part to enshrine a current (but ephemeral or, worse yet, actually nostalgic) competitive balance makes a great deal of sense.
    17. However, given how unsatisfying the similarly geographically-asymmetrical (and similarly, lamely-named) divisions in the ACC have proven, as well as the persistent criticism of the new (equally asymmetrical and equally lamely-named) Big Ten Divisions, realignment of the Divisions might not prove a major hurdle. A realignment which results in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas competing in the Central Division and Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State competing in the Eastern Division would be an almost-too-metaphysically-perfect allocation of those traditional, football power programs.
    18. An expanded 14-team Big Ten into Eastern/Central [Time Zone] Divisions would, of course, leave eight teams in the Central and only six in the Eastern Division. Surely one team in the proposed Central Division could be induced to switch. Perhaps Northwestern would be a good candidate, since it is located near the eastern edge of the Central Time Zone and has easy access to one of the world’s most convenient and busiest airports.
    19. So there it is. Texas and Oklahoma should move to a geographically-rational Big Ten Conference with the potential for long term stability. No one can quarrel with the quality of Texas’ and Oklahoma’s athletic programs or Texas’ academic programs. Those in the Big Ten who sniff at Oklahoma’s academic programs might profit from another look. OU is making great strides in an ongoing academic upgrade. Does any major football power other than Oklahoma currently offer free rides to any National Merit Scholar no matter where they hail from? Not coincidentally, Oklahoma is reported to have more National Merit Scholars enrolled than any other university. They’re not where they ultimately want to be, but they are making significant progress. If the Big Ten was willing to take Nebraska, which promptly lost its prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU) membership, it should be able to welcome OU.
    20. I went to undergraduate school in the Big Ten and have visited a majority of the conference campuses. My advice to fellow Longhorns (and any Sooners willing to listen) is that you have a lot more in common with the Big Ten schools than you probably think. In terms of athletic tradition, academics and scale, in fact, everything but weather, Texas would fit in extraordinarily well. I have also attended an ACC university and lived for years in both ACC and PAC-12 country, and while I believe that Texas could comfortably be part of either of those conferences, I submit that the Big Ten is the far better cultural/academic fit.
    21. The best realignment strategy for the University Texas? Forget the Longhorn Network if need be, and join an expanded Big Ten conference which offers: (a) long term stability because it would be both geographically rational and composed of 14 schools remarkably consistent in terms of institutional cultures and scale; (b) academic affiliations with which your faculty and administrators would feel comfortable; (c) excellent major and Olympic sports competition; and (d) if Oklahoma accompanies us (we’ll even let OU through the door first since that seems to matter so much to them), continuation of the Red River Rivalry.
    22. Even without the LHN, Texas will still be the richest kid on the block, and, if the current level of play continues in the Big Ten, all we’ll have to do to reach an annual BCS bowl game will be to beat Oklahoma.

    • Jefferson says:

      Instead of moving over two Eastern teams, then Notre Dame likely is added to the East, leaving a 16th to join the fun.

      Rutgers?

      Florida?

      Florida State?

      Maryland?

    • EZCUSE says:

      That’s fine.

      But what about Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.?

      • dchorn says:

        Future conference mates wiith kansas St & Baylor in the lesser Heartland Confernce of land grants and wealthy Southwestern privates…

    • mushroomgod says:

      I’m waiting for the movie………

      • Patrick says:

        The movie would only be shown in back alley theaters, NC-17 type stuff. Cause it seems like most of the people in this film are getting screwed.

    • London Ruffin says:

      Texcat,

      This is an excelllent post. Posts like yours are one of the reasons I love this blog. I am a big ten alum (undergrad), attended an ACC grad school, lived in the bay area for five years and lived in Houston for 7. I completely agree with you on how similar Texas and Oklahoma are to BIG institutions. I also agree with you on the importance of geography. Much like the cost of living factor, it is sorely underrated and its importance is never fully realized until after the fact.

      Thanks for sharing…

    • jtorre says:

      Perfect. Someone call Delany.

      I think Texas is extremely interested in the B1G currently (despite travel and LHN). The addition of OU and ND would make it impossible to pass-up. Throw the LHN revenue into the pot – equal sharing all tiers. Re-establish the Neb/OU rivalry. I would vote for Mizzou over Rutgers. You have a contiguous conference that would be the premier academic and athletic conference locked-up regardless of further realignment. The B1G supporters talk about the B1G having a 50 and 100 year plan. Put OU in that situation and they’ll make AAU in 10-15 years.

      • joe4psu says:

        So do you want Mizzou over RU because it’s a better academic school or because as a more populous state it will generate more money for the BTN and has better recruiting grounds?

        Oh wait. That would be RU.

    • osu>um says:

      I didn’t read where you had the solution to the “Tech” problem or the Oklahoma State problem. Both of these schools are politically chained around Texas and Oklahoma. In addition, the LHN is a channel Deloss Dodds has already said there will no negotiation. If the BTN2 is a legitimate option for TLN, then fine. But until or if the BTN2 gets up and running, those are 3 poison pills that will prevent expansion to the B10

  25. KnightTower says:

    So instead of adding full members from worthwhile schools, the Big East is going to drape itself with the American flag and DARE the other conferences to light them on fire?

    Why not add the service academies AND a good team or two? Oh, that’s right, they’d still rather have Villanova move up. *puke*

    Maybe you’re over-estimating the leadership of the Big East, Frank. Maybe they’re just idiots.

    • EZCUSE says:

      You cannot serve two masters. In the Big XII, the problem is serving the interests of Texas and the interests of everyone else. In the Big East, the problem is serving the interests of football and the non-football schools AND Notre Dame. It’s hard enough to lead a group of people who all generally want the same thing. I cannot image doing it when people have entirely different motivations altogether.

      The Big East leadership is idiotic though. In trying to satisfy everyone, they satisfy nobody. You have to at least figure out your alpha leadership. Oklahoma’s best play would have been to give Texas one more chance LAST WEEK. Before the Pac-12 Presidents made their thoughts known.

      • bullet says:

        Like the SWC as mentioned by Texcat, the Big East is too much of a mish-mash to be stable. Providence, Louisville, USF, Notre Dame and Rutgers are 5 very different schools.

        The SWC had the largest school in the nation in Texas (40k undergrad and 50k total) and the smallest I-A in undergrads, Rice, the “Harvard of the South” (2500 undergrads and 4k total at the time). It had 1 out of state school, 2 good but not great metro mostly upper income religiously founded schools, 1 small town middle class religious school, 1 commuter school, 1 large Ag school with a military tradition and previous all male history and 1 mid-size outlying state school. TCU and SMU were really the only schools with much similarity to each other at all.

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          Well, I would say Texas and aTm were similar enough to be indistinguishable. But neither will admit that.

          • bullet says:

            Culture was pretty different. They were becoming more alike in the 90s. But they were very different schools prior to A&M’s rapid growth in the 80s.

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Oh no you didn’t…

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Huge schools. Wealthy. Good teams. Fine academics. Incredibly arrogant. I can’t really tell them apart…

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            Look for the sheep, loki. It’s not really that hard.

          • mike in st louis says:

            Aggies are the ones who sound like they have Tourette’s anytime somebody says “Texas A&M”. Longhorns are the ones who get teary-eyed when they hear “I’ve Been Workin’ on the Railroad”.

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            No, Mike, those songs are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!!! There’s an entire extra note at the beginning of “Eyes.”

          • Mike says:

            Hopkins, that reminds me of how Vanilla Ice used to explain the differences between “Ice, Ice, Baby” and Queen’s “Under Pressure.”

          • mike in st louis says:

            @HH – LOL. Went to a UT game in Austin with my wife in the Mackovic era. When they were playing “Eyes”, she commented, why are all these people so invested in “I’ve been workin’ on the railroad”? Fortunately, she didn’t say it too loud, and I explained.

          • Jake says:

            Still better than SMU. If I ever hear “She’ll Be Comin’ Round the Mountain” again it’ll be too soon.

          • vp19 says:

            N.C. State’s fight song is derived from “The Caissons Keep Rolling Along.” A Kate Smith version of the latter was part of a movie showing World War II-era propaganda at the University of Maryland in the ’70s, and at one point in the song, I yelled “Go State!” and the crowd cheered.

          • vp19 says:

            There is also a parody of the NCSU fight song called “And The Tractors Keep Rolling Along.” Lyrics I recall include “Through the woods, through the sticks, N.C. State’s a bunch of hicks, and the tractors keep rolling along…Through the fields, through the herds, N.C. State’s a bunch of nerds, and the tractors keep rolling along…For it’s pitch that hay, the ‘necks are on their way…”

    • vandiver49 says:

      While I’ve always thought Navy leadership would reject the notion of joining a conference for football, the fact that its even under consideration and that our admission would be essentially a shield to protect AQ status, disgusts me. I was at USNA when our football sucked, let me tell you, nothing is worse than going to a game you KNOW you have no chance of winning. (BTW, its mandatory for the Brigade to attend ALL home games.) Its a thoughrly depressing experience.

      I knowe some might look at the current BEast and believe thats a league Navy might have a chance to compete in, but I doubt it. Not because of familiarity of our offense, (though that will happen) nor due to the height/weight and service commitments (but that will also be a factor) but mostly due to that fact that Navy has a mission diametrically opposed to the other 117 FBS schools in the country. We aren’t trying to compete for a MNC. While Navy is independent, we don’t have a special exception like ND does with regard to the BCS. We’d have to be ranked in the top for top even get consideration and Navy will never put together a schedule that would merit such a ranking.

      Navy football serves one purpose, to generate enough money to ensure our athletic department doesn’t cost to the taxpayers any extra money. Our success in the past 8 years has ensured the AD is fairly revenue positive, to the point that we can upgrade to our sailing and rowing facilities. Moving to the BEast will not further that goal. The fear of somehow being ‘locked out’ is irrational when you were never ‘in’ to begin with. Unless schools move to a 10 game conference schedule, there will always be teams available for Navy to play.

  26. jokewood says:

    Aside from the issue of whether or not the Big East can remain a viable home for its non-revenue sports, Notre Dame could be facing an additional problem with future scheduling. The Pac-12 will be moving their OOC games to the beginning of the season. The B1G will be reducing their OOC games from 4 to 3. The Big 12 have reduced their OOC games from 4 to 3 (and will remain that way if they find a replacement for A&M). Now BYU, Army, and Navy are all being discussed as future conference members. If the remaining independents all join conferences, scheduling in October and November will become increasingly difficult. Notre Dame will never have problems finding schools willing to play them. But they may have problems finding schools able to play them in late season games. Notre Dame fans may find themselves watching more non-AQ schools show up in South Bend.

    • Eric says:

      USC and Stanford were both given permanent exceptions to the rule so that they can continue to play Notre Dame in October and November. Navy takes up another spot. That leaves 5 games in October/November/December (if Notre Dame decides to start playing on the first week of December) and I think they can find them. The Big 12 seems like will be acomidating and the ACC is probably going to remain open to some late season games. If they offered, I’d bet the Big 12 and Texas would work for a 1st week of December game between Texas and Notre Dame.

      • jokewood says:

        wasn’t aware that Stanford and USC had been granted permanent exceptions. I thought the exceptions were just through the length of the existing contracts.

        • frug says:

          Those two games were grandfathered in ad infinitum. The conference also has a clause allowing the no OOCs during conference play to be waived by (I believe) a 3/4 vote.

    • jtorre says:

      I am sure that ND could get an exemption from the Big 12 for OOC games anytime of the year with any of the members. Or join aas a non-ffotball member. Or even as a full member (see – Domer Law).

  27. BearForce says:

    Frank,

    I just leave you with a thought…do you think if then PAC-10 could do it all over again they would have told Colorado to get lost and taken Baylor which then would have meant they would have had the whole Big 12 South (Texas, A&M, OU, OSU, Tech, & Baylor). I think per capita that would have been of way more value than what they have now and remember at that point the LHN was still just an idea that could have been squashed

    • Eric says:

      I’m not sure they would have taken Baylor (as the voting was still unanimous at that point and Cal or Stanford may have sadly said (not bad because Baylor is deserving, but because of their reasons for voting no)).

      That said, I bet they wish they had been a little more open with 3rd tier rights. The schools still controlled them last year and coming up with a model that would have given Texas a little more control of its own rights (along with the rest of the members) would have been a small price to pay then to get them in. This year it would have been much harder with all of those rights already assigned (especially when that was a major concession from USC and UCLA).

    • ccrider55 says:

      Creationism research could have blossomed at Cal and Stanford…

    • zeek says:

      If Scott could do it again, yes he’d have completed the Pac-16 the first time around…

      • ccrider55 says:

        He could have. But at the cost of adopting the Big 12 framework and stability, he (and the CEO’s) chose not to. We have not suddenly reached an ending point. If the Pac expands it will be on their terms, if not…well, they sat at an equalibrium for over 30 years before 2010.

    • frug says:

      As one of the conditions for granting Scott unilateral authority to pursue expansion, they gave him a no religious school order. There was no way the PAC would have accepted Baylor.

  28. Kevin says:

    I can’t imagine the non-football sports at ND are too pleased with what’s likely left of the Big East. I would have to imagine there is some internal politicking going on to move ND into full conference membership.

  29. Frank, I think you actually read my blog! I am truly honored. While my discussion of the service academies did not involve the Big East so much as the theory of the “4 SuperConferences,” the point is still valid. Anyone trying to leave the service academies behind (whether it’s from a BCS arrangement or a new tier of Division I) will face seriously bad PR and a lot of Congressional hearings. Imagine the “Tech problem” multiplies by the full weight of the federal government.

    http://singlewhitealcoholicseekssame.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/my-best-frank-the-tank-impression/

  30. zeek says:

    I think the Tech problem is misunderstood.

    To me the Tech problem is more complex than just bringing along Texas Tech. I think it’s become a problem of how to handle 3rd tier rights in a future where more conferences will look at television networks to distribute those rights.

    It’s easy enough to say that for the Big Ten or ACC, the Tech problem is one of academic heft. That might be a copout but it’s probably true for those two.

    However, for the Pac-12, the problem isn’t academic in nature (Texas Tech and OSU are indistinguishable from the other OSU, WSU, ASU, etc.).

    The problem is Texas is going to want control over content in a regional network situation. As a poster said in one of the previous threads, “no way in hell is Texas going to share a regional network with Texas Tech.”

    So that is part 2 of the Tech problem in some sense… even if you get past the academics issues, the Noah’s Ark model is going to be incompatible with Texas’ aims.

    • mike in st louis says:

      I think it’s more simple than that. The “Tech” problem is that Texas Tech and Baylor need a soft landing in an AQ conference when Texas finally leaves (and make no mistake, they will eventually leave) the Big 12.

    • ccrider55 says:

      OSU, WSU, ASU, etc. probably feel a bit slighted…

  31. mgrimes says:

    Here is some firepower to go by. While not perfect if anyone asked me how I would list each school that is about right:

    http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?src=twrhp

  32. I am puzzled by why so many posters are willing to assume that The University of Texas and Texas Tech are necessary or desirable partners in any realignment to the PAC-whatever. Now don’t get me wrong, TT is a wonderful school full of even lovelier people. In many ways, Tech’s the true Texas state university, not the pretender in San Marcos nor the defector in College Station. But why does UT need/want to move to the PAC-16 with TT in tow? Perhaps I’m missing the reason(s) in the answers to one or more of the following (largely rhetorical) questions:

    1. Is it because Texas politics is forcing it? Not likely. Neither the current Governor, nor Lt. Governor, nor Speaker of the House is a TT alum. This isn’t the breakup of the old Texas-centric Southwest Conference and TT surely doesn’t have the clout that Baylor (then, momentarily,) did. Interestingly, nobody influential in Texas politics seems to be demanding that A&M take TT (or anyone else for that matter) in tow to the SEC.
    2. Is it because something in UT’s makeup actually requires a “little brother”? If so, I’m really, really sad for us. I would also owe an awful lot of apologies to an awful lot of Aggies.
    3. Is it because UT somehow would needs to demonstrate/maintain its “Texan-ness” by playing an in-state conference rival every year? I hope not, but if so, couldn’t we just schedule TT, or (God forbid) A&M, every year OOC?
    4. Is it because of TT’s football prowess? Sad to say, the quality of Tech’s football will likely prove a passing artifact of the Mike Leach era. (The TT fans, if not the Regents, probably already regret the sacking of Leach largely because he wasn’t interested in kowtowing to wealthy alums).
    5. Is it because Texas or the PAC-whatever need to lock in the crucial Lubbock/West Texas television market? Please.
    6. Is it because UT would require/want three Central Time Zone opponents in some likely PAC-whatever divisional or pod structure? If so, I get Oklahoma — they’re essential. I also get OSU — Oklahoma politics apparently would demand it. But TT? Surely the University of Kansas would be an infinitely better choice for UT and an infinitely more acceptable option to the old PAC-8 schools. KU is significantly better in basketball than TT is in football. TT and KU are roughly comparable in enrollment and presumably have roughly equivalent fan bases. KU would bring the Kansas (and presumably part of the Kansas City) TV markets, while TT brings however many televisions there are in West Texas. As a member (since 1909) of the Association of American Universities (the “other” AAU), KU would be an academically palatable conference mate to the PAC-whatever Presidents.

    Near the onset of the First World War, officials of the German Empire, referring to its ally, the decadent, ill-prepared, militarily-inept Austro-Hungarian Empire, are said to have lamented: “We are fettered to a corpse.”

    Are the Longhorns handcuffed to TT? Do we need or want to be?

    • zeek says:

      Texas’s mindset is what’s important.

      Texas is a big dog. They don’t want to enter a conference and be without allies.

      I think a big part of the appeal of a Pac-16 is having OU/OSU/Tech in Texas’ corner. The geography also really helps regardless of whether it’s a pod situation or Pac-8/SWC divisional approach.

      Those are important reasons for wanting the little brothers to come along…

      In a sense, the reason why the Big 12 is optimal is that Texas practically runs the conference, has the LHN, and is in a “prestigious” conference (always going to be a respected conference as long as it has Texas and OU; as bullet says, competitiveness has never been the Big 12′s problem).

      • Zeek:

        If, in fact, as you convincingly suggest, UT actually wants “little brother(s),” why wouldn’t KU serve the purpose far better than TT, especially given that the PAC-whatever Chancellors/Presidents couldn’t colorably complain about adding an AAU member school on academic grounds?

      • mushroomgod says:

        One factor I do think people are overstating is the ND-TX connection….

        ND and TX are buddies now because, as independents, they have similiar interests.

        If both decide to join a conference, whether together or not, that bond is broken. What difference would it make to ND that they were in a conference with TX v. Michigan, FSU, USC, OK et al….? Obviously if they join a conference together, that’s adding a lot of firepower to that particular conference….otherwise, the decision to join a conference with TX in it isn’t much different than joining one with other top programs………

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “ND and TX are buddies now because, as independents, they have similiar interests”

          —When did TX go independent?

    • bullet says:

      I think there is some politics involved. They may not be forced to keep them, but they need all the allies down the street at the Capitol that they can get.

      I also think UT believes it is in its interest for TT to get to be a stronger academic school for two reasons (and that being in an AQ conference helps them achieve that):
      1) Another area research partner and
      2) Pressure valve to relieve enrollment demands, possibly allowing UT to be more flexible on who it enrolls. Before they changed the law requiring UT to take everyone in the top 10% of their class to 8%, 73% of the freshman class was enrolled by that law. With politics requiring UT to take JC transfers, the school is really handicapped. Even if Texas Tech doesn’t give UT that flexibility, it relieves pressure to expand beyond the 50,000 students UT thinks is the most it can reasonably serve.

      I also think the state is very interested in Tech’s rise in academic stature beyond the additional research. A lot of good students at good schools can’t get into Texas or A&M because there are too many good students at their school for them to be in the top 10%. As a result, a lot of kids are going out of state to Oklahoma, LSU, Alabama, Georgia and others. Many will stay out of state after they graduate. My friends with HS kids are all now including out of state schools on their list. Tech rarely gets considered. And of course, Houston is a commuter school, so it doesn’t get a lot of attention either, even though it has significantly improved.

    • mike in st louis says:

      OU doesn’t NEED oSu, but T Boone Pickens can make a lot of trouble for OU if he isn’t happy. Now Texas Tech doesn’t have a T Boone, but they do have Ed Whitacre (former Chairman of AT&T and former Chairman of Government, er I mean General Motors), so they do have clout.

      And BTW, what does the Southwest Texas Teacher’s College have to do with realignment?

    • Eric says:

      It’s actually a combination of things in mind. For the a PAC-16 specifically, twin nature of the conference (every team has a partner nearby) makes 2 Texas schools slide in nicely while just UT would have a little more awkward arrangement. Also if you are losing access in California, it makes sense to gain it in California and with 2 Texas teams, you could guarantee everyone a game in either California or Texas every year.

      For Texas itself, it’s mostly politics. A&M was allowed to go because the rest of them were thought to be OK at that time. Texas leaving the Big 12 would leave the same impression and they would be under considerable pressure to bring on at least 1 member.

  33. Let Texas in with Oklahoma – and if the Irish are coming bring Mizzou too.

    ND/PSU/Indiana/Purdue
    Texas/Oklahoma/Nebraska/Iowa
    Mizzou/Illinois/Wisconsin/Minnesota
    M/MSU/NW/OSU

    Talk about a Super Conference!

    • vp19 says:

      What part of “needs AAU-level academics and must shake off Okie State” don’t you understand?

      • zeek says:

        I believe that’s Ohio State not Oklahoma State.

        Regardless, why have so many kings in one conference.

        That’s an awful lot of losses piling up in games between kings…

      • Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied at 101 in the US News College Rankings and neither is an AAU member. I know that has been important, but I think the stars are aligned to overlook the requirement. OU and NU are, in fact, academically equivalent. The Irish are not members and have indicated they have no interest in joining AAU.

        I think at this point it’s every man for himself. I can see the Sooners being forgiven for heading to the B1G with Texas and leaving the Cowboys behind. It’s rather obvious that OU’s position has been weakened.

  34. imho says:

    Can you imagine the size of the shit-storm that will erupt if the Big East tries to partner with the United Stated Government… Maybe next, Google will partner with the IRS and perhaps HUD and Exxon can get together…

    It’s an impossible scenario

  35. After OU’s recent humiliation, would they have the stones to stick it to Texas and walk out of the Big XII with the other five remaining former Big 8 members and start a new confenece along with TCU, BYU, Air Force, and (just to make it exciting) Boise State? I know it wouldn’t be sexy to the TV networks as the current Big XII (no UT), but it would be more stable as it would be a conference of relative equals with better revenue sharing and it would still have a “King” in OU. Yeah, total fantasy scenario, but I thought I should still throw it out there.

  36. bullet says:

    http://espn.go.com/colleges/oklahoma/football/story/_/id/7004850/oklahoma-sooners-staying-big-12-conference-caught-guard-pac-12-decision-not-expand

    Another story from Sooner side on why there is no Pac 14. Leans towards Scott’s version and clearly contradicts the “bluff” theory, but source clearly doesn’t know definitively what happened at the end.

  37. Mike says:

    Mr SEC on Missouri

    http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/mizzou-curators-take-no-action-for-the-moment-the-sec-looks-to-be-a-13-school-league/


    It seems the folks who’d come to believe chancellor Brady Deaton might get the ax and that MU would rush headlong toward the SEC have probably just watched one too many episodes of “The X-Files.” No conspiracies were afoot.

    [snip]

    UPDATE – Hmmm. Maybe we need to start watching “The X-Files” ourselves. The folks at PowerMizzou.com — the Rivals site that covers Missouri — claims a source has told them that this morning’s meeting was set up to discuss Deaton’s future at the school. Deaton will “provide an update to the media on the Big 12 Conference and Mizzou Athletics” at 7:45 ET tonight, according to a school release.

    So really, really stay tuned, I guess.

    For the record, it still seems rather doubtful that the SEC would yank Mizzou just as the Big 12 is about to save itself. Especially considering how the league slammed on the breaks with Texas A&M due to Baylor’s previous threat to sue. Not saying it couldn’t happen, but it would require a surprising change in attitude for Slive and his league. After all, Starr could claim that the SEC damaged the Big 12 in August, then sat back and allowed the league to pull itself together, only to come back a month later for the final kill.

    If we had to put a little money on Deaton’s presser, we’d bet that he’s going to announce Beebe’s resignation. As you know, Deaton is also the chairman of the Big 12′s board of directors in addition to his duties in Columbia.

    Our SEC sources have gone stone silent on this one, by the way.

  38. duffman says:

    Navy to the SEC

    http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/navy-sec-14th-team/

    Guess that USC game made somebody think

    Would this mean Army to the B1G, and Air Force to the PAC?

    • Bo Darville says:

      Coast Guard to the Big XII and Merchant Marines to the Big East?

      • vp19 says:

        I guess that means Marine Corps University at Quantico is getting back into football. (Hey, Villanova once played a game there — someone call Marinatto!)

    • Mike says:


      As a matter of fact, we asked former Navy basketball coach Don DeVoe — who spent 12 years in the SEC before coaching the Midshipmen for 12 years — if he thought Navy would be a good fit for the win-at-all-costs SEC. His take:

      “There’s no chance in Hell the brass at Navy would ever go for that. They just couldn’t compete at that level. They couldn’t compete for SEC-caliber recruits (due to government-mandated height/weight and academic restrictions). And there’s also the military commitment. No kid who could play at Florida or Tennessee is going to sign up with Navy. You don’t see many pro-caliber kids go that route. (Navy) would have a hard time keeping pace with Vanderbilt.”

      http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/ex-navy-hoops-coach-no-chance-in-hell-navy-enters-the-sec/

  39. duffman says:

    Since there is actually still football going on this weekend:

    WEEK 3 summary – Top 25 and conference alignment – teams with loss in bold

    SEC 7/25 = 28% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, MSU, Florida, Auburn
    7 wins vs 5 losses = 58% : losses to SEC schools = 3 : OOC losses = 2

    B1G 5/25 = 20% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State
    9 wins vs 3 losses = 75% : losses to B1G schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Missouri, Texas
    9 wins vs 1 losses = 90% : losses to B12 schools = 0 : OOC losses = 1

    PAC 3/25 = 12% : Stanford, Oregon, Arizona State
    6 wins vs 5 losses = 55% : losses to PAC schools = 1 : OOC losses = 4

    ACC 2/25 = 8% : Florida State, Virginia Tech
    8 wins vs 4 losses = 67% : losses to ACC schools = 2 : OOC losses = 2

    MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
    5 wins vs 2 losses = 71% : losses to MWC schools = 0 : OOC losses = 2

    BE 1/25 = 4% : West Virginia
    4 wins vs 3 losses = 57% : losses to BE schools = 0 : OOC losses = 3

    .
    .
    .
    .

    WEEK 4 beginning – Top 25 and conference alignment – Conference games in bold

    SEC 5/25 = 20% : Alabama, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida
    11 teams : 4 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR

    B12 5/25 = 20% : Oklahoma, oSu, TAMU, Texas, Baylor
    7 teams : 0 SEC : 2 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 2 OTR

    ACC 5/25 = 20% : Virginia Tech, *Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, UNC
    11 teams : 0 SEC : 1 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 2 ACC : 0 MWC : 1 BE : 0 IND : 5 OTR

    B1G 4/25 = 16% : Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, *Michigan State
    10 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 1 PAC : 0 ACC : 2 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 7 OTR

    PAC 2/25 = 8% : Stanford, Oregon
    9 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 1 B1G : 4 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 0 OTR

    MWC 2/25 = 8% : Boise State, TCU
    8 teams : 0 SEC : 0 B12 : 2 B1G : 0 PAC : 0 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 0 IND : 6 OTR

    BE 2/25 = 8% : West Virginia, USF
    7 teams : 1 SEC : 0 B12 : 0 B1G : 0 PAC : 1 ACC : 0 MWC : 0 BE : 1 IND : 4 OTR

    moved in : Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Michigan
    dropped out : Auburn, Mississippi State, Ohio State, Arizona State
    * teams losing in previous week in bold

    Notes:
    + Oklahoma wins on the road, Ohio State does not
    + 3 ACC teams move into the Top 25, 2 SEC fall out

    Undefeated teams left:
    B12 = Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TAMU, Texas, Baylor, ISU, KSU, TT
    SEC = LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
    B1G = Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois
    ACC = Virginia Tech, Clemson, Georgia Tech, North Carolina
    PAC = Stanford, Cal, USC
    MWC = SDSU, Wyoming, Boise State
    BE = USF, West Virginia
    CUSA = Houston
    MAC = Ohio
    SB = Florida International

    So what are your 3 must see games for WEEK 4?

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Duff – All of the AQ conferences have games of consequence this weekend, except the B1G.

      Games featuring 2 ranked teams include:

      #2 LSU at #16 West Virginia – prime-time ABC game and host to ESPN’s College Game-day, as well as your truly.

      #14 Arkansas at #3 Alabama – 2:30pm CDT kick-off on CBS.

      #7 Oklahoma State at #8 Texas A&M – 2:30pm CDT kick-off on ABC.

      #11 Florida State at #21 Clemson

      Other games featuring ranked teams against AQ opponents include:

      Mizzou at #1 Oklahoma

      #10 Oregon at Arizona

      Undefeated Vandy at #12 South Carolina

      #15 Florida at Kentucky

      #23 USC at Arizona State

      North Carolina at #25 Georgia Tech

      • duffman says:

        Alan,

        As we start entering conference games, the number of undefeated teams will start to drop quickly, as 1 team must lose. The oSu vs TAMU game is a perfect example, but I think Missouri playing at OU will not go well for the Tigers.

  40. Read The D says:

    If the Big 12 really wants to survive and be stable (and who knows if OU and Texas really do) then they must make a bold move in expanding the conference and must get to 12 teams. Kicking around potential candidates I thought of this:

    Louisville
    Kentucky
    Arkansas

    Thought would be Kentucky could move into a very basketball-centric Big12 North with Louisville, KU, K-State, Mizzou and Iowa State while actually having a chance at competing in football.

    Arkansas goes Big12 South in a very good football division.

    I know for most discussion purposes the SEC is off limits in regards to a school leaving but if there’s any school that might look at leaving, I would think it would be Kentucky. If Arkansas were to see one conference mate jump, maybe they would jump too and be in a more geographically sensible conference.

    Please shoot this down quickly.

    • vp19 says:

      Duly shot. Louisville is a genuine possibility; Kentucky, in a safe, wealthy conference, wouldn’t dream of leaving, and likely Arkansas wouldn’t, either.

      It looks as if Brigham Young is a certainty, and Louisville and West Virginia could tag along. That’s not a bad trio to add.

      • ccrider55 says:

        You sure the Mormons will prostitute themselves for material gain? They have their needs met through independence. ESPN exposure, rights for BYUtv, ability to stand above the unseemly scramble. Remember, for them its about positioning the LDS church, not about college sports affiliation.

        Then again, I’ve been way wrong on so many things. Another wouldn’t be a big surprise.

    • Mike says:

      Arkansas already said no.

    • duffman says:

      Read The D,

      We had this discussion back in 2010 about Kentucky. Their stadium (and ability to maintain Top 20 – Top 25 in national attendance numbers) fits only in the B1G or SEC in their passion for football and size. According to Dosh they are #3 in the county in Tier 3 money and have been pushing hard to upgrade their academic standing. It would be slim for them to switch to the B1G, but going to the B12 is impossible. IU is UK’s historic rival not UL.

      Arkansas wanted to get away from UT and the Texcentric SWC, so it is highly doubtful they would go back. Frank made a comment about the B12 being a prison, and I tend to agree with him on this. On the basketball end, the rivalry brewing with UK was quite intense, and folks in Fayetteville would like to see it return. Broyles is still alive, and I think he would reach from beyond the grave if Arkansas ever thought about going back to the SWC crowd. If TAMU gets in the SEC, I think that is all Arkansas wants of the old SWC.

      • Read The D says:

        Duffman,

        I’m from Texas, the state not the school, and have some family in Kentucky. I went to the Louisville – Kentucky game at U of L last year. (The game was terrible, U of L especially but it was Charlie Strong’s first game and I noticed they improved as the season went on.) There is an in-state rivalriy there, and from talking to family while in Kentucky the football rivalry is definitely more recent; the basketball rivalry is older.

        My train of thought for those 3 into the big 12 was this: if B12 can get Louisville, which seems to be a decent possibility, maybe UK would consider if approached. Like I said the basketball in the B12 would be an upgrade, which is what UK is all about. Then if 1 SEC member came on board, maybe Arkansas would re-think their “no” and consider a more geographically aligned conference and one with traditional rivals. Even Broyles admitted at one point that it was a mistake to get cut out of Texas recruiting.

        I admit this is a stretch but if Big Zombie wants to do it right they have to make a splash and not just pick up leftovers.

  41. Justin says:

    The Big 10 should add Oklahoma, and strike while the iron is hot.

    I really like the idea of an Oklahoma / Rutgers combination.

    Big 10 East
    Michigan
    Ohio State
    Penn State
    Michigan State
    Indiana
    Purdue
    Rutgers

    Big 10 West
    Oklahoma
    Nebraska
    Wisconsin
    Minnesota
    Iowa
    Northwestern
    Illinois

    I just don’t see Texas or Notre Dame ever joining the Big 10. You add Oklahoma and its hard to see the Big 10 ever slipping below the SEC as the #2 power conference, and if its big five ever get going at the same time, it would arguably be as powerful as teh SEC.

    • No schools other than ND or TX are accretive to conference coffers. Any other teams take more from the pie than they add. So – other schools may make sense as package with ND or TX, but not otherwise. OK would add a ton on the field, but not so much for TV$, which is the primary concern. I think I am parroting FTT a little here…

      • Mike says:

        I think financially Oklahoma could work. However, it just has to leave OSU behind which it seems unwilling to do. The academics of Oklahoma are near the line for acceptability. Is it over the line? I don’t know.

        • Peter says:

          Oklahoma has been as clear as they possibly can be that OSU comes with them. It’s nonnegotiable, probably moreso than the LHN is for Texas.

      • Patrick says:

        Just to be clear, television households matter – but only about the same weight as Women’s Basketball anymore. For the Big Ten Network now, it is much more about ratings increases and viewership then the old argument about adding tier 1 subscribers. The Big Ten Network views themselves as a national entity – like ESPN or CNN now, not like a regional entity like CLTV or NECN. As a national entity they are looking for programs that have a large following, and I believe a rabid following – the kind of fans that are re-watching classic games, coaches shows and other sports (because of their love for football). Oklahoma fills all of those easily. When I looked at tv dollars 18 months ago, I analyzed everything as a regional cable network when in reality the BTN was already going toward a national entity. Even looking at the numbers as a regional network – Oklahoma would have been a huge get, a little behind Notre Dame. Saying that the BTN is trying to be accretive, well, I just don’t see the BTN looking at it like that. The BTN could be accretive with Northern Illinois. They only see a few possible spots left and they want to MAXIMIZE those spots by adding the most cash they can, while getting a school that is like the Big Ten Schools.

        My 2 cents.

    • @Justin – This is really the only setup that I could see that would be somewhat possible and would work financially without Texas and/or Notre Dame. The question is whether Oklahoma is academically acceptable to the Big Ten (I think they’re at least in the discussion and not automatically disqualified) and if they can move without Oklahoma State (which is the biggest issue).

      • mike in st. louis says:

        @Frank – now that @danbeebe is out of the way, maybe @mayoremmanuel can convince his old boss to order a drone strike against T Boone. That’s the only way I see OU ever getting loose from oSu.

    • joe4psu says:

      Justin,

      I recently came to the conclusion that the OU and RU scenario is the best shot the B1G has to successfully expand without UT and ND. I believe that it would successfully raise everyone’s income, atleast if done in conjunction with the next network negotiations. It would add a homerun in OU that is especially important for the national stage and a state in NJ that is populous enough, and talent rich enough, to support RU’s admission.

      I agree with what Patrick and Frank had to say about this scenario. I’ll add that I think OU could be key to finally getting UT to join the conference as well. Who knows for certain what it will take to get ND to join the B1G, or any conference, but there has been alot of speculation that reaching an agreement with UT will help do that.

  42. vp19 says:

    Ah, Lenn Robbins and the New York Post...

    http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/big_east_could_face_tv_trouble_78itnUARcTmR1z4JUkyMEL

    In a story dated at 2:10 a.m. and last updated at 9:08 a.m. today, he writes:

    Sources said the league also is evaluating the benefits of inviting Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri. The quality of the basketball programs at Kansas and Missouri would offset the loss of Pitt and Syracuse from a competitive standpoint but will never fill the void created by the loss of rivalries.

    Guess the Post’s sports wire must have been down for a while. And here’s his previous paragraph:

    The Big East has already begun moving to add Navy and Air Force, which because of their presence worldwide contain significant value. As technological advances of delivering content and platforms continue to emerge, the academy’s presence on ships and on military bases is a huge potential market.

    If that isn’t grasping at straws, what is?

    • zeek says:

      That last statement is totally clueless.

      • imho says:

        Your statement is clueless.

        There is no way the United States Government can be legally bound and partnered up with a Football Conference… Not only is it totally stupid (What will the Department of Defense do with all of it’s ESPN dollars… ridiclous)… I’m sure it’s illegal. Imagine all the Top-Secret Navy Grants that could get funneled to Rutgers… Jesus, there would be congressional inquiries within 6 months.

        Think People

        • zeek says:

          I was referring to “The Big East has already begun moving to add Navy and Air Force, which because of their presence worldwide contain significant value. As technological advances of delivering content and platforms continue to emerge, the academy’s presence on ships and on military bases is a huge potential market.”

          See every post I’ve written the past 2 days…, I wasn’t really for Syracuse/Pitt going to the ACC until I heard about this nonsense out of the Big East.

        • frug says:

          Ummm….. They already are. Air Force is currently in the MWC and Army and Navy their non-football sports in the Patriot League.

  43. Hopkins Horn says:

    I haven’t been one to say that I “know things” at all on this board, so bear that in mind when I say I’ve just heard something offline that will have me paying a helluva lot more attention to Mizzou’s press conference than I had been planning on.

    That is all.

  44. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    “Texas kicked out of Big XII?”

    http://cardsandcats.com/2011/09/22/texas-kicked-out-of-big-xii/

    —I probably wouldn’t put any money on that one happening.

  45. TX_Andy says:

    Not sure if Jake will be excited to read this or not.

    http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1269088

    TCU may be rising up the list of candidates to become No. 10, two key sources said Thursday.

    Expanding outside the current geographic footprint of the Big 12 has always been seen as a priority of the league (it was verbalized by Dan Beebe last year) to draw more television sets. But it appears the TV partners of the Big 12 (ABC/ESPN and Fox) would be comfortable enough with TCU replacing A&M to continue paying out the money in their current contracts with the league, sources said.

  46. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Horn, bullet, any other Texas Exes & Jake – what’s the Longhorns’ beef with TCU?

    • zeek says:

      It’s not different than Delany’s “beef” with Pitt.

      There’s no beef, it’s just that TCU is squarely in Dallas which is 100% delivered by Texas.

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Best I can tell, there’s no specific beef with TCU. I think there’s just a reluctance to bring yet another in-state school to the big boy table, with the potential to muck up recruiting, etc. In other words, if TCU had taken the fourth spot in 94 instead of TCU, you’d probably be asking the same question about what our problem with Baylor was.

      • EZCUSE says:

        I still say that taking TCU would be a nice “F__ You” to A&M. Instead of Texas playing A&M, they can just play TCU. Make A&M irrelevant in their own state.

        I have no skin in this game either.

    • bullet says:

      I don’t think it has anything to do with recruiting. Its just that they add no value (they do to the Big East with no Texas schools). Also in the SWC they were at the bottom of the pack and had a half empty stadium. Texas didn’t like its Houston and DFW fans skipping season tickets because they could see the Horns at their opponents stadiums and get better seats.

      • jtower says:

        TCU has a small fan base, small stadium and don’t deliver tvs like the RRR (sorry Jake, personally I like TCU and had them on my list for college applications). I would worry more about UH as the SEC might see thm as a way to try lock things up in the east (Texas).

  47. imho says:

    I have the PERFECT move for the B1G…

    Since we all believe it’s possible for the Big East to partner with Army or Navy (Part of the US government). I think the B1G should call dibs on the Federal Reserve and the House Budget Committee. I’m sure they have at least a flag football team. They may not be competitive on the field, but imagine the perks!!! :-)

  48. zeek says:

    I know we’ve said that TCU doesn’t bring new markets to the Big 12. But other than BYU, is it necessarily a bad addition?

    The question is, which schools do bring markets? Cincinnati won’t (come close) to carrying Ohio. WVU is 3rd in Pittsburgh. Louisville is second in Kentucky, although it has pretty good fan support.

    UConn and Rutgers are so far away that travel costs have to be a consideration (for both sides even though I think UConn or Rutgers would take it in a heartbeat).

    So if BYU says, no, is it such a bad thing to take TCU to get an extra game in Texas for recruiting (for the rest of the non-Texas based schools)?

    Of course, TCU would probably get a significant bump in recruiting, so that’s a concern, but it’d be a relevant team nationally, that’d help the Big 12 more than it’d hurt. You’d save a lot of money on travel as well, etc.

    Just rationalizing here…

    • Jake says:

      As much as I’d like to believe it could really happen, UT, Tech and Baylor have compelling reasons to oppose TCU’s membership in the Big 12. Basically, they don’t want to put TCU on the same level as themselves. That’s less of a concern for UT, but a big concern for Tech and Baylor, who don’t have (m)any other recruiting advantages over TCU. And TCU would take (so we’re told) an even share of Tier 1 and Tier 2 TV revenues without bringing in a new market. Why would UT agree to that? Because Deloss Dodds felt a sudden longing for the Southwest Conference?

      I would think that, aside from BYU, Louisville or West Virginia would both more attractive to the Big 12. Maybe Air Force or CSU to get the conference back into Colorado.

      • bullet says:

        The various rumours say Texas doesn’t want TCU but many of the rest do, which is odd. TCU would be a threat to everyone except UT and OU in recruiting. Maybe with their success they have already become one, but it doesn’t seem that way. Jake-is TCU pulling people away from schools like Missouri and Okie St.?

    • bobo the feted says:

      Texas will never let another Texas based school into the Big12, TCU UH, SMU are all out. Those schools bring nothing in terms of TV sets.

      BYU brings the LDS market which is big in Utah and in pockets elsewhere in the country, but they’re not really the Notre Dame of the West and they make a terrible stand in for Texas A&M, both in academic clout, football brand and viewers. Big12 is still unstable and will continue to be so long as ESPN continues to pay Texas 15 million a year.

      • bullet says:

        TCU isn’t even 2nd in DFW. Probably 5th or 6th (although probably 3rd in Tarrant County). Big 12 doesn’t want to compete with the pros.

  49. ohiomarc says:

    The MO and OU pressers are just gonna be a reaffirmation of their dedication to the survival of the Big 12 imo.

  50. EZCUSE says:

    What’s worse… having to invite Navy or Navy saying “not yet”?

  51. metatron5369 says:

    Frank, you need a message board.

    There are too many topics to keep track off and discussions lost when a new post is made.

    • Redwood86 says:

      The moral of this chapter in the story is that conference realignment will have to occur slowly. The apples will have to be picked off in small enough numbers so as not to disrupt too many carts.

      Losing only Texas A&M for now enables the Big-12 to stay cobbled together until somebody makes Missouri an offer it can’t refuse or until the economics of the Pac-12 become compelling enough that Texas wants to move there. For those who have ascribed high value to Oklahoma, I say “wake up and smell the coffee”. Oklahoma is a mediocre school in a small market that has the worst bowl game viewership relative to bowl game averages. In other words, it ain’t no national brand. I mean really, where did this idea come from anyways? How many Oklahoma alums are in your neighborhood? This ain’t no Notre Dame, Penn State, or even Colorado. There are A LOT of CU alums in the Bay Area and L.A. People here talk about Mizzou being okay paired with somebody more attractive. Well that applies to Oklahoma in spades too. Oklahoma makes sense paired with UT. Period. UT is valuable enough to the Pac-12 that it can support 3 piggy-backers to come along – on the right terms. But for the ACC & Big-10 , it appears only valuable enough to support one piggy-backer.

      Speaking of the ACC, boy are they looking a bit hasty now. My take-away from their shock additions of Syracuse and Pitt now is that Florida St. will be #14 for the SEC. Otherwise, i just don’t understand the logic of their move at this juncture. Yeah, I know, better to do unto than be done unto, but still, why now?

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        “that has the worst bowl game viewership relative to bowl game averages.”

        In fairness, you need to consider Oklahoma’s opponents before saying, “Oklahoma drags down bowl viewership.” OU makes bowl games’ ratings BETTER, considering the opponents they’ve been facing of late.

        2010 Season: Orange Bowl vs. 8-4 UConn. UConn
        2009 Season: Sun Bowl vs. 8-4 Stanford. (Not last year’s 11-1 Stanford.)
        2008 Season: National Championship game vs. Florida. I’d be shocked if the ratings were enormous for that one.
        2007 Season: Fiesta Bowl vs. 10-2 West Virginia. WVU isn’t exactly a blue blood.
        2006 Season: Fiesta Bowl vs. 12-0 Boise State, before Boise State was making covers of Sports Illustrated.
        2005 Season: Holiday Bowl vs. Oregon, before Oregon’s recent breakout seasons.
        2004 Season: Orange Bowl vs. USC. Ratings were bad because the game was lopsided.

        Let’s get real. When you put Oklahoma on national TV against a top 20 team that isn’t a no-name (like Boise was back in ’07), and if the game isn’t lopsided, their ratings are huge. FSU vs. OU = Monster ratings. OU vs. Ok. State last year = Huge ratings. OU vs. Missouri last year = Huge ratings. OU vs. Texas any year = Monster ratings.

        I’ll go on to say that, living in North Carolina and having lived in Indiana, I’ve known more OU alums than Penn State, Colorado, or Notre Dame alumni. They’re a very popular program. Maybe they aren’t as massively popular as the biggest SEC or Big Ten programs, but they draw casual fans’ interest as well as anyone does. I’m not a fan of any of the teams I’ve named above except for FSU, yet I watched almost all those games because, hey, it’s Oklahoma, and you don’t get much more relevant in college football than Oklahoma.

      • curious2 says:

        Re: ACC (Redwood)

        “Speaking of the ACC, boy are they looking a bit hasty now. My take-away from their shock additions of Syracuse and Pitt now is that Florida St. will be #14 for the SEC.”

        —————-

        If FSU wants to enter the SEC, sees itself as an SEC school, if Florida says ok, then they will join SEC.

        Who was the ACC going to add: consistant with their academics, geography: please don’t say PSU, UT, ND; please don’t say UL, WVU; please don’t say Georgia, Florida; please don’t say OSU, Michigan.

        • zeek says:

          ACC got the 2 most sensible additions that were available.

          And the Big 12 would have surely gone after Pitt at least if ACC left them on the table…

      • jtower says:

        Redwood,
        I certainly believe that OU’s value is being psired with its rival Texas. That being said they do have a national brand, strong athletic program, one of the premiere football teams and they are THE team in the state of Oklahoma (similar to Alabama or LSU). They also have a fantastic car sales program.

  52. Jeepers says:

    [Trying this again]

    Very well-made interactive conference map if you haven’t seen it. Apologies if it has already been linked.

    usdirect.com/college-football

  53. Hopkins Horn says:

    Concise Larry Scott: We didn’t want OU without Texas.

    “Scott also said that adding only the Oklahoma schools by themselves wouldn’t have been as attractive, as Texas was the market the Pac-12 was really interested in adding to the fray.”

    • Redwood86 says:

      If you listen to the full Scott interview, you learn that Scott was thinking pods if the Pac-12 went to Pac-16. Interesting.

      Also, Scott cannot give special deals to any potential new members. He needs to make 1/16th of Pac-12 revenues + Texas, OU, OSU, and ?? compelling to Texas. I think that is going to take a long time – if it is ever achieved.

      Scott also kind of dissed the ACC, relative to the Bigger 10 and SEC, stating it is not as stable or attractive.

    • zeek says:

      I’ve been critical of Scott over the past couple of days.

      But, I have to say that the Pac-12 has the best long-term solution to commissioner if he’s willing to stay there for 20-25 years.

      • Redwood86 says:

        Not sure why you have been critical of Scott. Pac-14 was a non-starter, but he could not say so publicly without destroying chances of achieving Pac-16. If anyone behaved irresponsibly, it was OU President Boren. Why did Boren go public about “considering all options” 3 weeks ago? Why was OU leaking its interest in the Pac-12? I believe it was an attempt to pressure Texas into moving with them. If not, Boren should have been discreet about his options-exploring.

        • zeek says:

          Oh without question Boren is the biggest goat in all of this.

          But Scott’s sources were leaking to Wilner and other Pac-12 sources that the Pac-14 was basically a done deal. Maybe that was aimed at Texas. But those same sources indicated that Texas was nowhere near a deal to join…

          He had a little egg on his face from all of this backtracking the past two days.

          But by far Boren and co. look like they were left at the altar by the Pac-12. And then this press conference to take political credit for getting rid of Beebe. And making those demands of Texas and losing leverage within hours of making the demands.

          Boren and co. played extremely small time on a big stage.

          • zeek says:

            Not to mention that OU’s antics may have scared off the best expansion choice in BYU…

          • Redwood86 says:

            You are probably right about Wilner’s sources being from the Pac-12, since he had the scoop on last year’s TV contract negotiations, but we don’t know that for sure. As a Stanford alum and fan, I can tell you that Wilner is NOT a respected reporter in the Bay Area.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Only sources saying “nearly done deal” were citing Texas sources, including Wilner.

          • zeek says:

            I meant on the Pac-14 not the Pac-16.

          • bullet says:

            And OU’s delay lost any chance at Pitt. The ACC acted while everyone in the Big 12 waited on Boren’s act. PItt was supposedly OU’s 1st choice. If they don’t act quickly, WVU may be gone to SEC.

          • bullet says:

            Wilner was very anti-Texas. I guarantee he didn’t have any Texas sources. The majority of his sources were clearly from the Pac office or Pac schools. He may have had an OU source, but it was clear he had never ever talked to anyone from Texas. He didn’t understand the school at all.

          • Richard says:

            bullet:

            Pitt would have placed a call first to the ACC before accepting an invite to the B12.

          • bullet says:

            Maybe Pitt would have called ACC. But ACC might not have been ready at that point in time.

        • Redwood86 says:

          In any event, it was a great round of poker. The Big XII-2 is now the Big IX. A&M will be free to go to the SEC without a legal threat from Baylor. Yet, everyone now knows that Missouri, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State are there for the picking – especially whenever we get close to the next Big XII contract negotiations. We also know that Texas will only move if all of its worthy conference -mates desert them (namely Oklahoma at this point) AND it is not forced to make many sacrifices. Meanwhile, the ACC appears to have panicked. This once again emasculates Big East football, and may have undesirable football repercussions for the ACC down the road.

          • EZCUSE says:

            Gotta figure that there were football repercussions coming down the road no matter what. Who could the ACC land to placate Florida State? If the SEC is such a raise, then they were jumping anyway.

    • StevenD says:

      Rather than pairing Texas-Oklahoma, perhaps we should be considering Oklahoma-Nebraska? This used to be one of the premier rivalries in college football (before the Longhorns undermined it). I think it would make a lot of sense for the B1G to restore this rivalry and anchor its western flank with Oklahoma-Nebraska, much like the eastern flank is anchored by OSU-Michigan.

      However, there is a problem: Oklahoma is substandard academically. The B1G presidents have already swallowed a toad (Nebraska). It is too much to ask them to swallow a second (Oklahoma) so soon after the first. I imagine the presidents are thinking that after a few years in the CIC, Nebraska academics will improve to the point where they are no longer an embarrassment. But if they had Oklahoma (or, god forbid, Oklahoma State) at the same time, it would lower the standing of the whole conference.

      In my opinion, the only way to get the B1G presidents to swallow Oklahoma is to pair it with an academic institution of the highest standing. Delany should get on the phone immediately to Vanderbilt. The B1G presidents would love to get Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt would love to be in a conference with academic equals, and Mike Slive would be thrilled to see his #14 problem disappear. Everybody wins.

      If Vanderbilt declines to join the B1G (which I think is unlikely), then Delany should get Maryland, another top notch academic institution. By bringing one of these institutions to the B1G presidents, Oklahoma could sneek in under the radar.

      With a fifth king (Oklahoma) joining the conference, the B1G can go to a straight geographical split (at the Illinois-Indiana border). This will be nicely balanced with two kings in the west (plus Wisc and Iowa) and three kings in the east. All major rivalries would be played within the divisions, so fixed crossovers would not be necessary (thereby allowing faster cycling of crossover games).

      • StevenD says:

        I almost forgot. PSU would be especially happy to see Maryland join the B1G. It has lobbied hard for an eastern partner and would be a strong supporter of this addition. Similarly, Nebraska would be a strong supporter of the Oklahoma addition.

      • metatron5369 says:

        It’s not fair to blame the OU/NU split on Texas; it was entirely Oklahoma’s idea from what I hear.

        • zeek says:

          Oklahoma wanted to be in the South with Texas. Nebraska wanted either a protected rivalry or to continue it non-conference.

          Oklahoma said no to both because they already had to play Texas and A&M annually…

          • zeek says:

            Meant to add, so yea it was all on Oklahoma that it wasn’t continued. Didn’t really have anything to do with Texas or anyone else…

          • StevenD says:

            I don’t blame Oklahoma for the collapse of the Nebraska rivalry. It was seduced by the Longhorns. Texas has big assets and Oklahoma was weak, but hopefully it has learned its lesson and will return home to Nebraska..

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          No no meta, if something goes wrong, it’s alwaysTexas’ fault.

      • Josh says:

        Granted, Nebraska is the least impressive academic institution in the B1G, but I don’t think that any of them would call it a “toad,” or claim that Oklahoma is on par with Nebraska. Nebraska hangs around the bottom end of the top 100 universities in the U.S. and so it’s not shabby at all. I think Oklahoma is a much tougher sell to the conference, especially considering their history.

  54. hangtime79 says:

    I just died laughing…if you haven’t read Fake Dan Beebe’s send-off go read it…
    http://twitter.com/#!/DanBeebe

  55. zeek says:

    RT @PeteThamelNYT: This is biggie. 6-yr grant of TV rights agreed by all schools.

    Forget about Boren calling these handcuffs (can we get that guy a teleprompter?).

    To me, the most funny thing about this is that the Big Ten will have a new deal in place for its first and second tier rights and the CCG right as the handcuffs are coming off…

    2014-2015 negotiations for contracts that start in 2017…

    • Redwood86 says:

      Gee, ya’ think Mizzou negotiated that point? LOL

      • bullet says:

        Or Texas and OU?

        To 2022 would be more inspiring. 2017 could get messy with 5 years left on the contract, but its not a surpise.

        I was thinking B1G was up in 5 while committment was for 6, but if its 2017, its the same time.

        Same time, not next year or the next or the next, but the next after that.

  56. duffman says:

    I was watching the talking heads this past week saying that the ACC needs to show the country they can be viable for the 4th “super conference” slot. Right now the opposite is happening as UC is already up 3 TD’s and we are not even at halftime yet. If FSU beats Clemson this weekend, the water will get even muddier.

  57. zeek says:

    Frank, you should make your next blog about the #14 for the SEC.

    No way they’re going to wait for 6 years at 13 teams (grant of rights of Big 12), so it’s got to be an ACC team or WVU…

    Things just got interesting in the East.

    • metatron5369 says:

      That’s why the ACC took Syracuse and Pitt. They figure the SEC will take Florida State, at least.

      They’re at 14, if they lose two they’re at 12 and do nothing.
      If they lose one, they add WVU, UConn, and Rutgers (or Louisville if WVU is taken).
      If they lose none, they take UConn and Rutgers.

      It was a very shrewd move.

    • @zeek – Recall what I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the SEC:

      http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/how-far-north-will-the-dirty-south-go/

      If West Virginia and Missouri are out, then Florida State is really the main ACC target. I don’t find either Virginia Tech (state politics with UVA) or Clemson (doesn’t have national name to overcome overlapping market like FSU) to be realistic.

      • zeek says:

        What’s the ACC going to do since they practically know that such is the case? I mean raising the penalty to $20M inspired confidence as well as adding Pitt/Syracuse.

        But when you find out FSU, Maryland, and another school brought the proposed fee down from $34M to just $20M (and only a raise of $4M from the original $16M), all of a sudden that’s not such a confidence inspiring outcome.

        I’d still take the ACC to remain whole, but if the SEC is really that focused on FSU, something has to give. I can’t see the SEC staying at 13 for longer than 2-3 years…

      • duffman says:

        Frank,

        vincent and I were discussing the ACC 3 based on who limited the fee to 20 Million, which was just 4 Million over the current number.

        #1 was FSU
        #2 was MD
        #3 was “not identified”, so the big question is who this was – If it was VT, I would not dismiss them so quickly. The TAMU boards like VT, and the VT boards like TAMU. I still think a 3rd ACC school is considering leaving, or why worry what the higher exit fee would be?

        • vp19 says:

          I’m guessing it’s either Virginia Tech or Clemson; the latter may be closest in pure culture to its SEC brethren, and would probably be a cinch if it was located in the other Carolina. Not that I think Clemson has a chance of an invitation…

        • @duffman – I’d guess Miami. Even though they might be hammered with NCAA penalties for a few years, it’s still a top tier football brand with solid academics that has options.

          • duffman says:

            Frank,

            If that is the case then 2 of the 3 are B1G jumps! The last is an SEC jump, which means 2 of the 3 football jewels in the ACC are gone, so how long till VT pulls out and leaves the ACC with no football values?

      • gaffer says:

        Frank, I think you’ve misinterpreted what happened in the 2003 ACC expansion. VaTech is not tied to the hip to UVA due to VA politics.

        Warner stepped in and forced UVA to vote FOR ACC expansion, but only if VA Tech was one of the invitees. He did that b/c VA Tech did not wished to be left in a (as they say on the MD boards) a BoD (bag of d***ks) conference (which is what the BE was looking like after Miami, BC and VaTech left but before the BE raided C-USA).

        In other words – VaTech created the political pressure.

        So, if VaTech, came to the conclusion it was in its own best interest to move to the SEC, there would no political backlash, nor anything to stop it. There is no UVA : Tech dynamic in Virginia, similar to want you see in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, or even NC between UNC and NcState.

        • frug says:

          You are assuming UVA wouldn’t create their own political pressure. I mean, if UVA thought that Tech’s departure would do serious damage to the ACC, and by extension UVA itself, then they could lean on the state pols. to keep Hokies from leaving.

  58. plague.of.crickets says:

    Many Missouri fans seem to be irate about the possibility of being stuck in the Big 12. Oklahoma fans seem resigned. The Missouri reaction reminds me of the A&M reaction last year when Loftin initially dashed their dreams of the SEC. Given the lack of a firm commitment to the Big 12 by Missouri’s chancellor in today’s press conference, I think there’s a chance that Missouri may still be in play. See also: http://twitter.com/#!/Dave_Matter

  59. zeek says:

    OU fan on Rivals:

    “And now, judging from the fact that Castiglione is now out front for OU, it seems OU’s President has gone from crafty political genius to a guy who escaped his bed restraints at the nursing home long enough to make a few prank calls to the Pac 12.”

  60. zeek says:

    bullet, you bring up a good point. If the Big 12′s 9 schools have all agreed on the 6 year grant of rights, then it is imperative that they move quickly on WVU if they want them. No reason to leave them for the SEC to change their mind on…

    All of the Big 12 schools have a right to be pissed with OU’s antics (Missouri’s President/AD seemed miffed) because of how it’s really harmed their expansion options.

    Losing A&M is one thing, but OU’s harmed their already narrow chances for long term survival.

    • bullet says:

      I never heard WVU mentioned 3 weeks ago when the Big 12 was looking at replacing A&M, but I saw other discussions not related to the Big 12 saying Pitt and WVU were being viewed as a pair. I could have seen BYU, Pitt and WVU in the Big 12.

      • bullet says:

        Back when the SWC was breaking up, there was discussion of SWC expansion. In addition to the Oklahoma schools, Tulane, Memphis and Louisville were mentioned. And Louisville is stronger now in football than they were back then.

        • zeek says:

          Louisville is much stronger all around than they were back then. Their basketball program is by far one of the strongest. And they’ve put huge money behind their football program since then. They’d be a legit addition.

          • vp19 says:

            If Missouri somehow manages to escape the burnt orange work camp known as the Big 12, and the conference is down to eight, who becomes #12 if Brigham Young, Louisville and West Virginia join? Is it Texas Christian, hardly UT’s first choice? Houston, perhaps, as a way to assuage state officials seeking to elevate UH to higher status? Or does it go out of state, to Cincinnati or South Florida?

          • zeek says:

            I’d say Cincinnati would be the first choice, since they’d pair well with Louisville and West Virginia. But TCU would be a good way to get an extra game in Texas for the rest. But Dodds may veto that.

            Doubtful on USF because of distance.

  61. metatron5369 says:

    Can we just not take Texas? Please?

    Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Notre Dame.

    How can anyone not like this?

    • zeek says:

      Texas won’t join a conference for the foreseeable future. They have no reason to…

      They wanted a “fake” independence the entire time. Now they have it in a Big 12 in which everyone is a vassal, including even OU which has backed itself into that kind of status even though they keep trying to puff out their chests.

      Notre Dame won’t join a conference as long as Texas is in the Big 12. No reason to…

      That leaves you with Missouri and Kansas. They’ll be vassals of Texas for a long time to come…

      We may be at a stable endgame kind of scenario right now…

      • Richard says:

        Stable west of the Mississippi, perhaps. If FSU leaves the ACC, Miami (+ much of the rest of the ACC) would be in play. I’m actually much more in favor of adding FSU & Miami, schools who want to be equal partners, than Texas & ND under special terms. The B10 could stop at 14 at that point and wait and see if ND and/or Texas is willing to join as an equal partner some time in the future.

    • Richard says:

      Awful, awful. Academics are awful. Even if we are going to 16 without taking Texas, I’d much prefer ND along with Miami, FSU, & one of GTech/BC/Rutgers/Maryland. I consider them to be more peer institutions than any of OU/MU/KU. Plus, while OU is as much of a brand name as FSU, I’m much more excited about playing Miami and either Mizzou or KU, and I currently reside in MO.

      • Richard says:

        That should be “than either”, not “and either”

      • Richard says:

        Oh, and FL has more people than MO, KS, and OK (none of which are growing states) combined. Adding in one of NJ/MD/GA would be a cherry on top.

      • metatron5369 says:

        Not this again.

        We have nothing in common with those schools or their fanbases. It’s the Big XII all over again.

        • Richard says:

          Speak for yourself. Miami’s student body is closer to Michigan’s than KU’s. GTech is closer to Purdue than Mizzou is.

          Note that the death blow to the B12 was nearly delivered by TAMU, who’s as Texan as UT, and OU, who’s just across the river from Texas, so I’m not sure why you think being in the same geographic area (rather than sharing similar views and ideals) is what makes a conference strong & cohesive.

      • plague.of.crickets says:

        I think we need to be careful about characterizing the academics of a given school. What metrics are we talking about? A US News ranking that is mostly based on irrelevant measures? I’m not aware of any reliable measures of educational outcomes, which is the real test of a school’s educational quality. Research productivity? Total or per capita? Texas has a lot more faculty members than Missouri, but per faculty member, the most recent statistics that I’ve seen indicate that Missouri outperforms Texas in both research spending and academic journal publications (and Nebraska outperforms Texas in per faculty research funding and is nearly equal in per faculty publications).

        • Richard says:

          ARWU rankings, which give a good indication of how universities are perceived by university presidents.

          • plague.of.crickets says:

            Perception is not necessarily reality. And while the ARWU rankings include some real metrics of research productivity, there’s no way (that I know of) to see the per capita productivity. Size causes major distortions. For example, Texas is ranked much higher than Rice. Is Texas really a higher quality university?

          • Richard says:

            Perhaps not in undergrad, but in research, I wouldn’t doubt it. I also know that Texas’s b-school is higher-acclaimed.

            BTW, in engineering (which should be Rice’s forte), USNWR ranks Texas 8th and Rice 34th.
            Incidentally, the B10 has a quarter of the top 20 in engineering (PSU is 25th), which is more than any other conference, including the Ivy League.

            http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings

          • Gopher86 says:

            You have to be careful with ARWU. Quality schools with missions outside the research track do not score well. Examples would be Notre Dame and Boston College. When you use ARWU, it’s a good idea to take a look at endowment, as well.

        • Richard says:

          OK, I wasn’t able to find rankings for all research (or even all engineering), but the following site has both Mizzou and UNL trailing Texas substantially in research expenditures per faculty member in EE. I’ll see if I can find more comprehensive data. BTW, where did you read statistics that Mizzou had greater funding per faculty than Texas, if I may ask?

          http://www.uscollegeranking.org/engineering/electrical-engineering-graduate-school-rankings.html

          • plague.of.crickets says:

            @Richard

            Of course you may; I should have posted a link to evidence when I made the claim. It is from a 2009 report from the research office at Oklahoma:
            http://vpr-norman.ou.edu/files/vpr/reports/RSA/2009%20Annual%20Report%20Web%20View.pdf

            I was looking for comprehensive data on per faculty research productivity (all universities), not just data on Big 12 universities, but this is all I was able to find in a quick search. The data are in figures that compare Oklahoma to other Big 12 universities. Note that this is a one year snapshot, and data from other years might show different patterns.

            Full disclosure: I received my undergraduate degree from Cal, graduate degree from Texas, and I’m currently at Nebraska. I’m not biased for or against Missouri, but I have other biases.

          • Richard says:

            Thanks for the link. Without knowing what makes up the denominator, it’s hard to compare. Ideally, we’d have department by department per capita comparisons, but I don’t know where we’d get that information.

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        How do you see Boston College & Miami as ‘more peer’ than Missouri & Kansas?

        Is it the private status, small enrollment, fickle of fan support or small research budgets?

        • Richard says:

          Granted, BC would be as much of an outlier as ND. Miami, despite its small size, is already knocking on the doors of the AAU (and are higher in the research ranking than MU or KU, both of which may very well lose their AAU designation as UNL did in the next few years) and have better undergraduate academics.

          • plague.of.crickets says:

            What is the evidence for this? I’m not trying to harass you, just point out that these sorts of statements are rarely based on anything other than someone’s perception. The reason for this is that “educational quality” and “undergraduate academics” are hard to define and even harder to measure in a meaningful way.

          • Richard says:

            Sorry, I should say “better undergraduate student body” using SAT scores and acceptance rates.

          • Richard says:

            BTW, while it may be elitist, it does matter in the B10 more than other conference because both graduate students and undergrads can take courses in other member schools through the CIC.

          • Richard says:

            “conferences”

            I need to sleep.

      • frug says:

        Adding Miami would be a disaster. There fan base is terrible, there facilities are below average for a “name” school, and the NCAA is about to set back its football team at least a decade.

        • Richard says:

          I think Miami would be a better add than the “non-name” schools, though. I agree that Miami shouldn’t rank ahead of ND, Texas, OU, & FSU in desirability (though ND & Texas have their oen issues; actually, all 4 do), but certainly Mizzou, KU, etc.

          • RedDenver says:

            Geography alone makes Miami a TERRIBLE addition. That’s not even counting the fickle fans, small school, mediocre facilities, and the repeated history of NCAA trouble. I’d advocate Youngstown St. before Miami.

          • frug says:

            The problem is it’s not clear if my Miami is going to remain a name. It’s quite possible that the NCAA sanctions will be so devastating that by the time the football program recovers, which could very well take a decade, that they will just be another school.

          • Richard says:

            frug:

            Well, Miami will always have an amazingly rich local football talent pool (probably the richest, per capita, in the country) So long as they manage to remain in a BCS conference, I think they’ll do well enough to be a draw. Plus, I don’t think you can discount the fact that they won multiple national championships. The only school that’s won multiple championships in the past half-century who wouldn’t be considered a king today would be MSU (and they won their back-to-back MNC’s in the mid-60′s).

            So unless the dynamics of football somehow shift again (MSU benefited from there being segregation in the south and the gameplans emphasizing brawn more than now; I doubt we’ll see resegregation and it’s hard to envision football where speed is less important than now), I think the U will continue to be a top TV draw.

          • joe4psu says:

            frug,

            Expansion decisions are being made for the next 50-100 years. As painful and damaging as NCAA sanctions could be, Miami will be back.

    • joe4psu says:

      It’s easy. Mizzou? Kansas? Why in the world would I have any interest in these schools? And for B1G academic purists, RU and UMD are WAY ahead of those two.

      • Richard says:

        This. If we’re going to add geographically proximate non-kings just because they’re geographically proximate, at least they should fit the B10 academic/research profile.

  62. bobo the feted says:

    so total Big12 reforms done today:

    1) Dan “Sacrificial Lamb” Beebe fired

    And that’s it…nothing about LHN, nothing about signed over media rights, nothing about anything and Mizzou is still on the hunt…great…

  63. bullet says:

    From what I can tell they thought they had killed Rasputin at least 6 times. Does that mean the conference has at least 4 more lives? This is kind of fun, but we’ve had enough drama with this conference for this year. Rasputin, in that picture does look kind of like a Big Zombie. Frank do you and Hopkins need a mediator on the conference name? There’s a guy currently living in Dallas….

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      You mean me? Or Beebe? Hey, maybe I can grab a bite with him for lunch tomorrow. Let me send him a tweet and set this up…

      (BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE! BIG ZOMBIE CONFERENCE!)

    • frug says:

      Hopkins and I had a discussion about this in the last thread. I recommended the Rasputin Conference (I knew I should have trademarked that idea before Frank had time to steal it!) and I actually noted that Rasputin looked like a zombie. I even linked to the same picture Frank posted above!

  64. Hopkins Horn says:

    Hmmm. Thamel tweet:

    After a confusing night, this much is clear. Missouri hasn’t signed their rights away, and the door remains ajar for them to go to the SEC.

    • zeek says:

      Interesting development to say the least…

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Since it looks like the Big 12 will stay intact in the absence of SEC action, would it really be worth it at the end of the day to poach A&M and Mizzou if the end result was the creation of a three-time-zone, 16-team monster with Texas, OU and USC on your western flank?

        It’s not guaranteed that a Mizzou departure would be the tipping point that would force Texas’ hand, but why take the chance?

        So I think this means less than I originally read into it.

        • zeek says:

          I tend to agree. Hard to see the SEC forcing the action at this point. The Big 12 is still in a teetering stage.

          • jcfreder says:

            I just don’t see the B12 imploding if Mizzou leaves. The P12 won’t take Oklahoma without Texas, so the question is whether Texas would head west if Mizzou leaves. I don’t see why the Horns would do that.

        • bobo the feted says:

          If you’re the SEC you don’t care what the Pac or Texas does, you know you have the best brand as a conference and you play the best football. It’s unacceptable for you to be 3rd in revenue (behind Pac, behind B1G). Taking Mizzou opens up KC and StL, taking A&M opens up DFW and Hou. Thats four top 50 markets added to the SEC’s ATL media market, I would say it’s worth it. I doubt Slive wants to kill a conference but after all this ridiculousness it’s time for the gloves to come off. They need a 14, Texas isn’t coming, ND isn’t coming, FSU probably won’t be coming (depending on how ACC media renegotiation go). This is Mizzou’s time to to go to the promised land and they had better take it, or else they will be like OU this year (wishing they had gone to a different conference a year ago).

  65. hangtime79 says:

    Yea, we’re going to be here not just next year but inside three months. If Baylor had any other alternative we should take it, but we don’t so therefore we are stuck here. We should be able to sue for emotional distress.
    Some of the Tweets from Pete Thamel tonight below.

    Deaton asked, if Big 12 issues can’t be fixed, could MU leave: “That’s a hypothetical that could occur.”

    So the latest from the Big 12 on grant of rights is “an agreement in principle.” Another told me its in a “position philosophically.”

    I’ve gotten three different stories from four different schools.

    Now I really don’t know what to believe. Two Big 12 schools says yes on grant, and two others say just talking and need approval.

    • hangtime79 says:

      I mean man what a turd blossom this night has been. Boren should have shut his trap and let Deaton speak. The fact that nobody has agreed to anything and then go announce. That’s just stupid. This conference truly made up of misfits, morons, and arrogant SOBs.

      • hangtime79 says:

        BTW, if you are Mike Slive do you want anything to do with TAMU? This conference is going down next year at this time. Without any stability and no waiver, he will be staring down the barrel of big time lawsuit come next year. I wouldn’t touch anyone or anything in this conference with a ten-foot pole.

      • zeek says:

        From a PR standpoint, OU’s implosion the past 3 days has been nothing short of spectacular. The level of embarrassment everyone associated with OU must be feeling should be staggering.

        There was absolutely no reason for OU to step all over Deaton’s press conference. The total lack of respect was obvious with OU rushing to break the news on Beebe as if to take all of the credit for their bumbling actions of the past week that’s only made them seem weak. To top it all off, Beebe was never the problem. He was merely a symptom of the problems of how dysfunctional that set of schools has been for the past 15 years.

        The Big 12 had a chance to come out of this decently when it all started with A&M leaving, but instead of sticking together and pursuing BYU or Pitt and other schools that they might have had a legitimate chance to get, they wasted 4 weeks on an OU powerplay that went absolutely nowhere. OU has no more power than they did 4 weeks ago and the Big 12 is in a much more precarious spot now that the ACC has raided the Big East and Missouri may be squarely in the SEC’s focus. Good schools that would have considered the Big 12 have to be afraid of what an imbroglio that might turn into if they turn over their rights for any period of time. What a mess.

        • Logan says:

          Boren knew that Mizzou had not completely signed on yet, so he jumped ahead with his press conference to make it look like everyone is together and everything has been finalized. And now MU will look bad if they show interest in the SEC.

        • hangtime79 says:

          I absolutely agree with you zeek. I cannot tell you how much respect I have lost for David Boren over the last few weeks especially since I grew up just outside of OKC and remember him as a governor and a US senator. He has definitely lost his fastball and quite possibly his mind given all this. I cannot imagine how much worse this could have come out for OU and I have no idea what they were trying to accomplish. Instead of Pitt or BYU; we’re probably stuck at 9 or maybe we get ECU or Memphis. This truly was the nail in the coffin of this conference. Tonight just curb-stomped this conference. If I am a Mizzou alum, I am totally ticked at my administration and I know they will end up just like TAMU did this year if not in the next three months inside a year. What a cluster. My only hope is Baylor is starting to plan. I just do not see how this is going to last three months let alone six years.

          • zeek says:

            The good thing for Baylor is that you have a capable president (not like most of the saps running these institutions who have no clue how to play hardball with anyone, and I’m no fan of Starr, but you could do far worse in this situation), and that your football team is playing well at such a crucial point in the Big 12′s history. Just 4-5 years ago, you guys probably would have had no chance in an event like this. But because those two things have come to pass, you guys won’t end up in the worst possible outcome; you’ll have a much better chance at ending up packaged with Kansas/Kansas State/Iowa State, etc. It obviously sounds hollow to say this right now, but at least you have those things going for you right now when it’s so important to have those things.

        • bullet says:

          Regarding Beebe: He wasn’t the cause, but he could have done better. He was in the background on a lot of this instead of getting people to work together.

          Boren said losing the 3 schools wasn’t inevitable. I don’t agree with Boren. A&M might have been saved. They needed some serious ego stroking. But CU has been inevitable for 15 years, just whenever the Pac called. Nebraska was inevitable once OU/UT et al started flirting with the Pac and Nebraska realized they were vulnerable and the B1G took their call. There was no way they would turn down more $, academic prestige and stability. And realistically, they only had CU has an every year rival in football so they weren’t leaving a lot behind. They had dominated the other north schools with decades long win streaks. In the B1G they’ve got at least Iowa and Michigan.

          • Sportsman says:

            Agreed… mostly. As I understand it, when the Big 12 formed, CU had offers to join the Big 12 and the Pac. I believe the vote was close, but they chose the B12 (a decision that I believe they regretted, shortly after making it). When the B12 South were thought to be going to the Pac, what was anyone in the B12 North supposed to do, wait around to see what happens? No, I’m sure they were all looking for an out, but only UNL received & took one. Idk that I agree on TAMU, though. I believe that like CU 15ish years earlier, they regretted their decision to remain in the B12 almost immediately.

  66. Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

    “I will bring my experience as a conference leader … in taking the Big 12 to the next level of success as from a competitive and financial standpoint”
    – Dan Beebe, Sept 5, 2007, at the press conference announcing his appointment as Big XII commissioner

    • zeek says:

      Hard to pin this on Beebe.

      Weiberg, one of the most talented guys in the field, couldn’t get it done as Big 12 commissioner for the better part of a decade.

      The schools run that conference because they’re all looking at self-interest and don’t see themselves as a set of equals.

      But the problem is the grouping themselves. Texas controls most of the TV sets. OU sees themselves as an equal to Texas on the field but never had the same power as Texas in the conference offices. Colorado always yearned for the West Coast. Nebraska got out because they were the same as Oklahoma except they actually tried to resist the rest of the conference more. Missouri’s tried to sell themselves to every conference. The Aggies are the Aggies; always bristled under Texas’ reign and wanted a way to build their own brand.

      OSU and Texas Tech are just along for the ride.

      Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State were always at the whims of the rest.

  67. duffman says:

    They need to disband the B12, and reform it as the Big 16. Either UT comes along or it does not, but at least it starts on an equal footing.

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Again, good luck with that.

    • zeek says:

      That sounds like a Big 8 but with 16 mouths to feed and without Nebraska.

      You seriously want to try to feed 15 other mouths off of just Oklahoma when Nebraska + Oklahoma couldn’t even feed 6 others?

      • duffman says:

        zeek,

        The Big 8 was OK, KS, NE, MO, IA, and CO

        right now they are OK, KS, MO, and IA

        adding UL + UC + WVU adds 3 new states
        adding TT + BYU + AF adds 3 more

        that leaves 4 more slots (1 reserved for UT)

        will it be at the level of B1G / PAC / SEC, no, but neither was the B12 in the first place

        you could build a solid conference just below the Big 3 and probably upgrade most of the schools from their current values (ie, making more than they are now). UT could keep the LHN, with limits on broadcasting (such as HS games, and taking tier 1 or tier 2 games from the conference deal), and OU could have OUN. KU already has a nice Tier 3 deal with IMG, and the others could bundle theirs to increase value)

        If the other option is CSUA or Sun Belt, I think the deal could get done. Boise State or TCU would get a better deal than they have now.

  68. Hopkins Horn says:

    So let me look at this a little differently:

    If the Big 12 (with perhaps an assist from the SEC) doesn’t step up to the plate and kill the Big East as a viable football conference by poaching multiple teams, is the most likely consequence that the Big East will seek to replenish its ranks by adding a number of schools currently non-BCS (service academies? Nova?) to its ranks? If so, does that lead to an even greater difficulty in getting to an eventual 4×16 model if there are that many more schools which would have to be demoted in such an evolution? And if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    • vp19 says:

      Texas keeping the Big 12 alive as a fifth conference in itself probably killed the 4 x 16 concept, which frankly didn’t have much of a chance to begin with.

    • zeek says:

      I don’t think it would lead to greater difficulty in getting to the 4×16, but it depends on whether you believe that it’d be politically feasible to leave those schools behind. There’s 4 scenarios:

      Scenario 1: Big East expands with service academies and non-AQs; Big 12 goes to 10.

      In all honesty, I think it’d be easier to get to the 4×16 later if the Big 12 stays at 10 as Dodds prefers. None of the service academies’ brass views them as football factories in need of a route to the national championship or the BCS. If they did, we already would have had this outroar, so I think they’d be willing to just let it go. I think the Big East could legitimately be left behind in the next BCS contract or the one thereafter. As others pointed out, it’s mostly a group of promoted non-AQs from the past years at this point.

      But if you believed that it would make it harder to shake off the Big East, then yes you’d be adding more BCS schools to the picture, and you’d still have 6 AQ leagues with around 70-75 teams.

      Scenario 2: Big 12 raids Big East to go to 12 or 14. Big East adds service academies or whoever they can find.

      In this scenario it’s much easier to see the Big East getting left behind. They’d probably lose Louisville and WVU or Cincinnati or TCU or USF, so it’s hard to see why they’d be kept AQ in the next one.

      I think this round showed how far away we are from 4×16 if anything. Texas and ND are nowhere close to joining the 4 presumed leagues of the 4×16 (ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC). You need them in those conferences to get close to it. Texas may in fact be moving away from the 4×16 endgame due to the LHN, and if that’s the case, then ND is not moving closer to joining a conference.

      You could in fact see stable 12-14 team leagues for the long haul after this.

      In the scenario 2 case, that means you end up with 5 stable leagues and a playoff. 5×12-14 is a more plausible endgame instead of 4×16 at this point.

    • @Hopkins Horn – That was the crux of my argument for the past year of why I didn’t think the SEC would go after Texas A&M… and yet they did so anyway. If Oklahoma is locked into the Big 12 with Texas, then losing Missouri (while bad) still won’t kill that conference. It appears that Texas is perfectly fine with a Big 12 as long as there’s OU and the LHN – everyone else seems to be replaceable filler. The fact that the Big 12 still isn’t dead is a medical marvel.

      • loki_the_bubba says:

        @Frank the Tank

        I still think the SEC did not go after aTm. aTm forced their hand.

        • zeek says:

          That’s a very fair point.

          The SEC may have been trying to work on FSU or Va Tech (boosters/pres or others) because they’ve known of the A&M interest for a long time and almost admitted them last year.

          My guess is the groundwork on the ACC raid has been weakened significantly and now they’re in plan B mode.

        • duffman says:

          loki,

          I agree 100%

          I think when the administration said no in june 2010 is set off a s**tstorm in College Station that continued to grow over the whole year. In june 2010 the administration thought only 20% of the fan base wanted the SEC. Over the next year they have come to understand that the fan base is more like 80% in favor of the SEC. Point being, it still took over a year for the administration to make their move to the SEC.

      • mike in st. louis says:

        @Frank – It isn’t Texas that keeps Oklahoma locked in the Big 12, it’s the big orange turd called Oklahoma State.

    • bullet says:

      If the Big 12 doesn’t effectively kill of the Big East there will be more AQ schools and it will be determined totally by the whims of Providence College alumni. It will also make the MWC closer to AQ status since they may be better than the BE. That has to make the Pac, B1G, SEC and ACC unhappy.

      Does that encourage the B1G to move? Does that encourage the ACC to be the 1st to 16?

  69. Logan says:

    KC Star: SEC still in sights for Missouri as Big 12 tries to unify

    Quotes:
    “We either stick in the Big 12 because everything came about the way it needs to, the right way, with all the differences being settled in Missouri’s favor,” a university administrator who asked not to be identified told The Star on Thursday night. “But what are the odds of that happening?

    “The other option is to join another conference and I believe that is something that we’re very open to.”

    Asked if the SEC was still in play, the administrator, who contacted The Star, said: “You will not look stupid by insinuating that.”

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161027/sec-still-in-sights-for-missouri.html

    • @Andy – If they have the opportunity to do so, they need to pull the trigger. The SEC is certainly taking its sweet time, though. If they’re still waiting for those waivers, they’re never going to get them.

      • Andy says:

        A lot of sources at Mizzou are saying it’s looking increasingly likely. I would put the chances at above 50% right now.

        I agree that it’s the right move at this point. Most of us wanted Big Ten, but we can’t sign on for another 6 years of this mess. We need to get out, and if it has to be SEC, so be it.

        • duffman says:

          Andy,

          Your comment sums up why the SEC will not invite MU! Arkansas, South Carolina, and TAMU all wanted to go to the SEC. MU does not, and Slive will want a school like VT or FSU first because of the sports culture. I really feel like listening to Alan and Bamatab on here that the SEC does not want to be anybody’s second choice or “last resort”.

          • Andy says:

            SEC already has invited Mizzou, and are currently trying to persuade them to join. Plenty of Mizzou fans are thrilled. I attended the University of Michigan so naturally I’m more of a Big Ten fan, but the fanbase is split on this.

          • duffman says:

            Andy,

            I have not seen one official word out of Birmingham. All the chatter is sources inside MU about this “invitation” and so far I have not found 1 credible source from the folks actually issuing the invitation. I call BS until I see proof from the other side. My gut feeling is that MU was bluffing an SEC invite to see if they could get one from the B1G the same way OU did with the PAC. Look how that just blew up in their face when Scott issued his public statement. I feel MU’s bluff is about to be called and they will be stuck for forever like OU is now. The big winner in all this is UT knowing they own the conference now. They got rid of TAMU – who was a real threat to them long term – and UNL, who would have fought them in the future. The rest just showed how weak they are instead of standing up to UT and making their demands. Deloss Dodds and Powers must be laughing at all this, and knowing the LHN is safe.

          • Andy says:

            re: Duffman below. For some reason the blog is not letting me reply to his post.

            You won’t see anyone on the SEC end officially say anything about an invite to MU unless we accept it. They have no motive to announce it as long as MU might turn them down.

            But it definitely exists, and it is the main focus of decision makers in Columbia this week.

          • duffman says:

            Andy,

            When was the last time Slive was in Columbia?

            Who is the MU to SEC connection?

            answer both of those questions, and I have more faith. Missouri is the “show me” state, so show me.

          • jtower says:

            All the SECers on Fbaum want WVU. They are hot hot hot for SEC, calling in and pleading their case for admission. Does that mean Slive will listen?

          • Bamatab says:

            @duffman,

            I think that Mizzou does offer the SEC one thing that they desire, and that is a large tv market. There was a rumor going around that Slive was not a happy camper with the Mizzou folks because of the leak about their offer. According to the rumor, Slive yanked the offer because they leaked it. I’m not sure how true that is, but Slive would prefer to act stealthly from here on out. I’m betting that even if that rumor has and amount of truth to it, if Mizzou comes back and expresses an earnest desire to come to the SEC, then Slive will accept them based on the markets they provide. After reading there message boards, there is no doubt in my mind which conference their fans want to be in. So if they were to join, I don’t think there would be a big risk of them leaving the SEC for any other conference.

    • Sportsman says:

      If/when the SEC goes to 16, then I believe MU is the frontrunner for #16. I think that #14 # 15 will be from the east. Pick two of FSU, VT, NCSU or WVU. That keeps the E/W divisions the where they are. Unless, of course, they go to pods/sub-divisions…

  70. duffman says:

    Some common sense in the realignment drama

    George Downes: Michael’s chasing Kimmy?
    Julianne Potter: Yes!
    George Downes: You’re chasing Michael?
    Julianne Potter: YES!
    George Downes: Who’s chasing you… nobody, get it? There’s your answer. It’s Kimmy.

    I could care less what anybody from a “chasing” school says. The only question to answer is what are Delany, Scott, or Slive saying?

    Scott: “we are staying at 12″
    Slive: “we are only adding TAMU”
    Delany: “I have been playing golf”

    All the chatter filling the media is from schools looking for homes, bloggers with “sources”, or media folks who can’t find snow in a snowstorm. OU was bluffing, WVU was bluffing, and I am willing to bet MU is bluffing their a$$ off. I could be made to be a liar tomorrow, but for right now I think the Big 3 are done unless ND says yes to Delany, UT says yes to Scott, or VT / FSU say yes to Slive. Outside of any of that happening, the only realignment going on will be lesser schools in lesser conferences, which will mean very little to the big media companies.

    UT has won, ESPN has won, UNL has won, PAC has won, B1G has won, TAMU should win, and the SEC has won. What else could drive a major movement?

    • @duffman – Did you just bust out a scene from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”? And do I lose my man card for recognizing that right away?

      (To be clear, my wife is a massive Julia Roberts fan.)

      • duffman says:

        No, you do not lose your man card, once you are married sometimes you have to do stuff to keep peace in the barnyard. Braveheart is a chick flick disguised as a flick for guys. If you get no man cave in your house, or she nixes poker night, then it may be time to turn in you card.

      • bullet says:

        My wife also is a big Julia fan.

        I do think Mizzou is being pursued, simply because the SEC has discovered they are Julia Roberts.

        Also the WVU getting turned down means someone else is in the lead. But I don’t know how long the SEC will pursue Mizzou when they are George Downes (best male friend Ken Starr). How does the scene go? There won’t be love, there won’t be sex (shudder), but Mizzou and the SEC will be dancing.

        • vp19 says:

          I do think Mizzou is being pursued, simply because the SEC has discovered they are Julia Roberts.

          I dunno — with Missouri’s track record, one senses they’re more the Ralph Bellamy type (the third wheel, not the heroic FDR “Sunrise At Campobello” Bellamy), and will wind up playing the sap once again.

          (Trivia note: Bellamy’s last film was the one that made Julia Roberts a star, “Pretty Woman.” In the early ’30s, he made a movie or two with Jean Harlow, as well as with Irene Dunne, Carole Lombard, Rosalind Russell and other stars of the era.)

    • M says:

      You forgot Dan Beebe:
      “I WAS TRYING TO GO MOSTLY IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BUT I FORGOT MISSOURI. IMAGINE THAT, SOMEONE FORGETTING ABOUT MISSOURI. MISSOURI THROWS MORE PANTIES THAN THE CROWD OF 8TH GRADERS AT A JONAS BROTHERS CONCERT AND YET NOBODY EVER PICKS THEM UP.”

  71. glenn says:

    college football needs to find a way to get rid of these stupid football games that get in the way.  it was barely acceptable when realignment was confined to the off-season, but now that realignment has gone full year, the games are an annoyance.

  72. Guido says:

    Has anyone ever been a greater fail than Mizzou Administrators? How many times do you need to be embarrassed before you understand nobody likes the desperate one and nobody likes the tattletale. A desperate tattletale is just annoying.

    I still think it all shakes out with them going to SEC with A&M and the OK schools, but the constant “leaks” is not very SEC like and could shut them out in the end….or they never had a chance and it just looks sad.

    All that said, 99% of all anonymous sources cited by the media are completely made up in hopes of guessing something right.

    • Andy says:

      These are not made up. They aare 100% legit. As for leaks, I’m pretty sure every school is doing this, not just Missouri. Texas A&M leaked like crazy.

      It’s only a fail if they don’t get what they want, which is to be members of a stable conference. If that doesn’t happen, then they failed. Right now it’s a work in progress.

      • duffman says:

        Andy,

        The difference was TAMU had a former SEC coach on their board back in 2010 to be the conduit between the schools. In addition, back in 91 TAMU would have joined the SEC with Arkansas, but they were bribed with Reed Arena. Going even farther back TAMU was in the SEC back when it was the SIAA. The point is, all along TAMU has wanted to go to the SEC. This time they had UT’s blessing and no threats to their funding. Remember, UT and TAMU share the PUF. TAMU has a long football history with Arkansas and LSU and some history with almost every other SEC member school. Where is any of this in Missouri’s history with the SEC?

        • Andy says:

          Mizzou has no history with the SEC. They don’t really belong, except that they boarder 3 SEC states: Arkansas, Tennessee, and Kentucky. Also, Missouri was a slave state and a large portion of the state fought for the confederacy.

          But as far as history with the SEC, there isn’t much. Mizzou has played SEC schools in football 29 times, and holds a 20-8-1 record. They had a basketball rivalry with Arkansas for many years.

          The main reason Mizzou would go is because they’re a strong addition, and the SEC wants to add someone. Mizzou has won 40 games in football in the last 4 seasons. They have top 25 football attendance. Their basketball typically makes the NCAA tournament. Nate Silver’s recent NYT analysis of # of fans ranked Missouri #23, which would place them in the middle of the SEC. Mizzou is an AAU school and ranks 90th in the latest USNWR rankings, which would place them in the top third of the SEC. Bottom line is Mizzou is good enough that most any conference would be happy to have them. SEC invited Mizzou, now they’re thinking it over and they’ll probably take it if only because the Big 12 is a complete mess right now.

          • duffman says:

            Andy,

            The SEC has a good old boy system and who you know matters. Gene Stallings and Frank Broyles went to bat for TAMU, who went to bat for MU? My friends in Arkansas said Ken, Frank, and RC were all at a function in Arkansas together – which means they were not in Columbia lobbying for MU, or in Birmingham bending Slive’s ear. That tells me a great deal about the interest level of MU to the SEC really has. Mike Slive was in College Station in 2010 when the 6 were headed to the PAC in June, has anybody seen Slive in Columbia in the past 24 or 48 hours? MU was one of the schools not waiving rights after UT, OU, and TT did. Do you really think that won favor with the SEC folks actually casting votes for an invite? If I am reading the SEC folks, it just does not jive with the MU “sources”. Who on the board of trustees of MU has a long and deep relationship with someone at the top of the SEC?

            I am not trying to shoot you down, I am trying to see something that fits the SEC profile in how they conduct their business. I never remember MU being one of the 6 schools in the discussion back in 91′, while many given serious mention – including TAMU – were on the short list back in 91′. The SEC really is a family so culture matters way more than AAU status or some guy from the NYT with a skewed fan analysis. Right now MU would be in the bottom quartile of the SEC with Vanderbilt, Mississippi, and Mississippi State. These 3 are original members, and may not be invited if they were trying today. I have empathy, because I know if IU was not already in the B1G, it would probably not make the cut today. You quoted ~30 games between MU and SEC schools, but TAMU has ~150 games against SEC schools. They are currently in a decade long neutral site (JerryWorld) series with Arkansas. What similar history does MU offer?

          • Andy says:

            The SEC approached Missouri last year and they turned them down. Missouri has been focused on joining the Big Ten for about 30 years. The SEC may have taken us earlier but our sites were set elsewhere. The current instability in the Big 12 is forcing them to make a move, so now they’re making ourselves available, and due to MU’s overall strength as a school and as a football program, the SEC is eager to take them.

            Truly, the only schools the SEC could get that would be better than Missouri would be North Carolina, Virginia Tech, or Florida State. But none of those schools are offering themselves up, and Missouri is, so they’re shooting for Missouri right now. The SEC presidents have already approved the move. They’re just waiting on Mizzou’s decision, and it’s looking very likely that Mizzou will take the SEC’s offer.

          • glenn says:

            ‘SEC already has invited Mizzou, and are currently trying to persuade them to join.’

            ‘The SEC approached Missouri last year’

            could you speak a little louder, andy?  ken starr is a tad hard of hearing.

    • bullet says:

      I think most anonymous media sources have small pieces of real info and extrapolate. I don’t think they really make it up. Your 99% may be true on internet posters with information.

  73. zeek says:

    Gotta say I’m with duffman and Hopkins Horn on this.

    Considering Missouri’s actions last year and Oklahoma’s actions this year, I will be totally shocked if Missouri is doing anything other than making a blatant power play on the Big 12.

    Yes, Boren made a fool of himself and OU this past couple of days, but that’s still not a good enough reason for Missouri to jump the boat. The general dysfunctionality of that group is a good enough reason, but why should we believe that the scenario of Missouri -> SEC is any different from Missouri -> Big Ten? Stalking horse anyone?

    And the only way the SEC definitively goes after Missouri is if they’ve totally given up on Va Tech and FSU. Maybe they’ve given up on Va Tech because of how strongly they struck down those rumors.

    But FSU’s chairman of the board has been all over the place and stated several times that they haven’t been approached yet by the SEC. He even went so far as to blatantly show FSU’s hand in that they brought down a $18M raise on the exit fee (from $16M) up to $34M down to only a $4M increase to $20M.

    I find it highly suspicious that the SEC is just going to offer a spot to Missouri like that if it hasn’t yet contact FSU which should be its true target. No one else is at 16 and although Auburn has indicated it is open to moving to the East, I just find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t make a play on FSU first when FSU has left themselves open entirely to a play due to the loose lips of their chairman.

    Missouri was a stalking horse last time for Nebraska; they might be a stalking horse this time for FSU.

    Perhaps I’m wrong about all of this, but it just seems really suspicious that the SEC hasn’t made a move on FSU before going to Missouri…

    • Andy says:

      Chancellor Brady Deaton would not have said what he said at his press conference today if Missouri didn’t have a rock solid offer from either the SEC or the Big Ten. All sources are saying it’s the SEC, and Missouri will likely join within a week or two. You don’t have to believe me, but that’s what’s going on.

      • frug says:

        That’s what they said about OU to the PAC and we saw that played out…

        • bobo the feted says:

          yeah but just because it’s happened before, doesn’t mean it will happen again. i think mizzou brings a couple of things the SEC wants – tv markets and academic prestige. no way the presidents of vatech or fsu leave an elite academic conference like the ACC to go to the SEC, no matter how good the football is. these guys are academics first, football fans second.

          I think the threat of Mizzou leaving is quite real, after getting burned last year so publicly I think the Mizzou admin will play it closer to the vest this year. If they think this is the only chance to get out from Texas – they’ll take it. Texas so far hasn’t given up anything.

          • glenn says:

            if the big ten bemoans missouri’s academic standing and the sec covets it, that tells you all you need to know about those two conferences.

          • Peter says:

            The SEC also has more need of Missouri than the PAC did, solely because of taking Texas A&M. Thirteen is a mess for a divisional format They want to go to 14 and want to do it soon.

    • mike in st. louis says:

      @zeek – Mizzou only takes SEC to 14, not 16 (yes, I know I’m stating the obvious). Point being: adding Mizzou now does not preclude adding VaTech and FSU down the road. So if you view Mizzou as the 16th member, their addition makes sense.

      Now if the SEC thinks they can eventually get Oklahoma or Texas (very unlikely), then that changes things for Mizzou. But Mizzou is a better candidate than WVU or Clemson.

  74. Sportsman says:

    To recap conference realigment from Dec. 2009 to Present…

    Big Ten:
    + UNL (from B12)
    – none
    Atlantic Coast:
    + Pitt (BE)
    + SU (BE)
    – none (yet?)
    Big East:
    + TCU (or… B12 or MWC, even)
    + ‘Nova, Temple, USMA, USNA and/or AFA (?)
    – Pitt (ACC)
    – SU (ACC)
    Stalag 9:
    + Boise, Cin, CoSt, UL, USF, TCU, WVU and/or someone else (?)
    – UNL (tBT)
    – CU (P12)
    – TAMU (SEC)
    Pac-12:
    + CU (B12)
    + UUt (MWC)
    – none
    SEC:
    + TAMU (?)
    + FSU, MU, VT or WVU?
    – none
    Mountain West:
    + Boise (WAC)
    + Fresno (WAC)
    + UHi (WAC; FB Only)
    + UNv (WAC)
    – BYU (WCC/Ind)
    – TCU (BE?)
    – UUt (P12)
    Western Athletic:
    + Denver (Non-FB)
    + Seattle U. (Non-FB)
    + UT-Arl (Non-FB)
    + UTSA (FCS)
    + TxSt (FCS)
    – Boise (MWC)
    – Fresno (MWC)
    – UHi (BWC/MWC)
    – UNv (MWC)
    * UMt (FCS, Big Sky; declined their invitation)

    Notes:
    * Big Ten & Pac-12 appear to be done… for now
    * BE & B12 are looking for new members/prisoner(s)
    * ACC is at 14 (but I believe they are poachable)
    * SEC is looking for #14 (which I think will come out of the east)

    Side Notes:
    * UMass (FCS) is moving to the MAC (FB Only/A10)
    * USA (FCS) is moving to the Sun Belt

    Did I miss anything?

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Great summary.

      The Sun Belt is adding South Alabama, who has already been a member for several member for other sports, for football in a couple of years. The MAC is adding UMass for football only in a couple of years also. App State has stated its intentions to move up and all but stated that C-USA is where it wants to go. Lamar is debating whether to move up and is a potential new member of the WAC.

      That’s pretty much it at the FBS level.

  75. Josh says:

    The folks at Okie and Okie Lite need to get on their knees and beg for the PAC-X to take them. That’s their best solution and the ultimate vengeance against Bevo. Texas should be left and marginalized alone in some strange hybrid of the BXII and the SWC. Recruits will flock away from the Lone Star State or to Texas A&M.

    I am really starting to think that college football is better off with a weak UT.

    • glenn says:

      ‘The folks at Okie and Okie Lite need to get on their knees and beg . . .’

      wrong verb.

    • glenn says:

      i’ve done a bit of reading on sooner boards, and the majority there seem to be trumpeting the boren story.  you need to understand that revisionist history is a core course in oklahoma secondary education.

      whatever chance there was for the two ok schools to head to the pac on their own (minuscule, apparently), i think boren’s behavior the past several days thoroughly eliminates it.  given boren’s response to the pac decision, scott’s comment on boren’s response, and the upstaging press conference yesterday with them parading poor stoops in a buttressing role, i’m betting baylor has a stronger shot at admittance to the pac than either oklahoma school and especially both.

  76. prophetstruth says:

    I haven’t seen this posted here. Frank and the board, what is your take on Notre Dame’s continued delay in announcing where it will play Hockey? Yesterday, Western Michigan and St. Cloud State joined the new National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC).

    From the college hockey news website:

    “Notre Dame, meanwhile, has been investigating for months now which conference it wanted to join. That decision was further affected by the recent decision of Syracuse and Pittsburgh to leave the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference. Notre Dame is in the Big East for all of its other sports except football, but now may be looking for a new all-sport conference, a decision that may or may not impact its hockey decision.

    According to the Herald, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick told a radio station over the weekend that his school will make a decision within 10 days”

    http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2011/09/21_wmu,_st_cloud_to_join_nchc.php

    • OT says:

      Notre Dame is going independent in men’s ice hockey because NBC Sports Network will sign ND to a separate contract for ice hockey.

      There is no need for ND to join Hockey East and have to play road games at Lowell, Merrimack, or Vermont.

      There is no need for ND to join the NCHC and have to play road games at Grand Forks, Colorado Springs or St. Cloud.

      ND will play road games at major ports of calls only. That means the likes of Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Denver, Omaha, Boston College, Boston University.

      ==

      (The WCHA will NOT be classified as a Division I entity by the NCAA if Bowling Green does NOT join that league. However, Bowling Green really doesn’t have a choice if it wants to keep men’s ice hockey.)

      • Mike says:

        @OT

        (The WCHA will NOT be classified as a Division I entity by the NCAA if Bowling Green does NOT join that league. However, Bowling Green really doesn’t have a choice if it wants to keep men’s ice hockey.)

        What will it be classified as?

        • OT says:

          If Bowling Green does not join the WCHA, the WCHA will consist entirely of Division II schools “playing up” in Division I men’s ice hockey.

          The NCAA will then put the WCHA in the “unclassified” category so that the WCHA will have no vote in any Division I or Division II matter.

          • Mike says:

            Has there ever been an unclassified category? I’m going to assume you know there is no DII hockey. The WCHA is fully secure as a DI hockey conference according to everything I’ve read.
            By the way, it’s been rumored that Bowling Green is deciding whether or not to keep hockey.
            It’s a mistake to apply the same logic and motivations and logic that apply to football to hockey. That is why you won’t see the Notre Dame be independent in hockey. No one wants to be independent in hockey. Ask Alabama Huntsville.

          • OT says:

            The WCHA will need to have at least one Division I member school in order to maintain its classification as a Division I conference for the 2013-2014 school year.

            If Bowling Green does not join the WCHA, then the WCHA will consist entirely of Division II schools. Because the NCAA does not offer ice hockey at the Division II level, the WCHA will become “unclassified” for the 2013-2014 school year and the WCHA will lose its voting rights in any NCAA Division I matter.

            There is a possibility that Bowling Green will decide to drop ice hockey (a la Wayne State or Illinois-Chicago.)

            Being “unclassified” is not good for the WCHA, as the other Division I men’s ice hockey conferences can vote to strip the WCHA of its autobid to the NCAA tournament and the WCHA will have no vote in the matter.

          • Mike says:

            I would like to see any support for your claims about this “unclassified” category.

      • jj says:

        this would never work. it’s just way too small of a draw. people in the hockey hotbeds won’t even watch this. i give this a 1% chance of happening and it would be an epic disaster if it did. the OHL draws better than college hockey.

        • jj says:

          furthermore, i think those schools you mention would tell ND to get bent. they are not in hockey what they are in football. ND has refused to schedule MSU in BB for a very long time. it cuts both ways. The UM and MSU crowds are excited as hell about getting MN and WI. ND cannot afford to try to grandstand here or they may well regret it.

          • OT says:

            Oh, really?

            ND will have a national TV deal with NBC Sports Network.

            What does Hockey East have? NESN?

            What will the NCHC have? ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain?

            What will the WCHA have? Alaska Public Television?

            ND will hold its TV deal with NBC Sports Network over the other hockey schools like a club: if you want to play on NBC Sports Network, you have to come to South Bend to play Notre Dame.

          • Ross says:

            Er, not only that, but why the hell would they be given access to the playoffs. This isn’t football, and it certainly is not the BCS. ND needs a conference.

          • jj says:

            Send me whatever you’re smokin

          • vp19 says:

            OT, if Notre Dame maintained that policy, I wonder what its chances of landing a berth in the NCAA hockey tourney would be? Barring a really stellar record, not very good I would think.

          • metatron5369 says:

            @OT – I’m sorry, but you’re out of your mind.

            Comcast has said that they feel that NBC overpaid for Notre Dame’s football rights, and the NHL’s ratings have been awful since before the lockout. They can and will fill that television slot with cheaper programming that will get higher ratings.

      • greg says:

        OT, congrats on not accidentally posting about ND hockey as Karl Benson. Good job getting your multiple logins under control.

      • Richard says:

        OK, so who will ND play in hockey as an independent when conference play starts? Will they play UAH 20 times?

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        I love ND hockey, but I can’t see ANY way that is going to happen. Notre Dame hockey doesn’t have anywhere near enough fans. Heck college hockey as a whole barely has enough fans. I have a hard enough time believing VersusII would pick up the NCHC game of the week on Friday or Saturday night.

        The rumor has always been that which *conference* would get the NBC deal would also get the Irish. Going independent would hurt scheduling, hurt the pair-wise, and hurt recruiting.

        IF ND joined “the Nat’l”, I would imagine they would bring BG as a eastern travel partner and to get them to ten teams. The WCHA remains at 8. UAH, as always, remains on the outside looking in.

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          What’s the speculation among ND hockey fans regarding where they finally end up?

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Generally, we think we are waiting for Comcast to decide on who’s getting the TV deal before we make a decision.

            Most who are willing to guess are guessing NCHC. I think part of that is because they are made from the old CCHA and the WCHA teams we’ve played since hockey regained varsity status, and partly because with the Midwest, Great Plains, and Denver metro they think they’ll be more likely to get the NBC deal.

            Folks seem to worry more than realistically think we’re joining the B1G. No one seems to think independence is a good idea for hockey.

          • Richard says:

            Well, the NCHC would be the only other hockey conference with teams that draw enough support to turn a decent profit, so it’s hard to see Versus choosing another conference.

          • OT says:

            I expect NOTRE DAME to get the TV deal with NBC Sports Network on its own, as an independent. That will force teams (other then members of the B1G) which want exposure on NBC Sports Network to come to Notre Dame to play.

            ==

            Hockey East is stuck on NESN because Hockey East basically consists of 1 major TV market: Boston.

            NCHC will probably be stuck on ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain with televised games mostly from Denver and Colorado Springs. The lack of big TV markets will hurt the NCHC.

            (FOX Sports North has no interest in Duluth and St. Cloud by themselves. Minnesota was the big attraction.)

            The B1G will be on BTN. Don’t know yet whether FOX Sports North, FOX Sports Wisconsin, and FOX Sports Detroit will be allowed to simulcast a handful of games. (Forget FOX Sports Ohio, as Ohio State men’s ice hockey does not sell. The jury is still out on Penn State so we don’t yet whether ROOT Sports Pittsburgh will be involved.)

            The WCHA will be stuck on either PBS affiliates owned by the schools, or on cable access channels. The WCHA will be the western version of Atlantic Hockey, a league of leftover schools, mostly Division II, which have nowhere else to go.

            Reminder: if the WCHA does not lock up Bowling Green, the WCHA will no longer be classified by the NCAA as a Division I entity as of the 2013-2014 season. The WCHA will lose its vote on all NCAA Division I matters (even though WCHA members will still be eligible for the Division I tourney.)

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            But WHY would Comcast take ND hockey alone? They are not a traditional power. They’ve only been competitive for NCAA bids for just over a decade. They only recently started selling out <2,900 seat arena. No one in the history of the world has ever used the phrase "Hockey-mad Indiana". Hockey fans hate the fact that WSOP has higher ratings that NCAA hockey.

            If Comcast tries to turn ND hockey into hockey equivalent, there's no way Delaney and the ADs will allow BTHC games @ ND. ND frankly NEEDS those games against the Big Ten to keep that new barn we just built full, because there's not enough die-hard college hockey fans in South Bend to fill the place, and the average non-hockey sports fan has only heard of hockey schools that have BCS football teams (BC and BTHC) and the Ivies, but they don't know that the Ivies aren't that bad.

            I hope that TPTB don't get cocky and attempt independence for Irish Hockey.

          • OT says:

            Comcast (NBC Sports Network) has three choices:

            1. Sign Notre Dame on its own

            2 Sign the NCHC

            3. Sign with Hockey East, B1G, or ECAC Hockey for Tier 2 rights

            (NESN has Tier 1 rights to Hockey East, BTN will have Tier 1 rights to the B1G, and I believe CBS Sports Network has Tier 1 rights to ECAC Hockey. I believe NESN also has the Beanpot.)

            Assuming that Comcast do NOT want “Tier 2″ rights (meaning no marquee games such as BC-BU, Michigan-Michigan St, or Harvard-Yale) Comcast is left with the choice of signing Notre Dame hockey on its own or with the NCHC.

            The problem with NCHC: lack of “brand names” in big TV markets. The biggest TV market for the NCHC is Denver:

            Denver
            Colorado College (technically part of the Denver TV market)
            North Dakota (small market)
            Omaha (small market)
            St. Cloud (small market)
            Duluth (small market)
            Western Michigan (small market)
            Miami of Ohio (completely irrelevant in a medium market)

            This is not a difficult decision for the programming executive at NBC Sports Network. The logical choice is to 1) sign Notre Dame on its own as an indy so that Notre Dame hockey will appear every other Friday night and 2) sublicense a handful of “Tier 1″ games from Hockey East, B1G, or ECAC Hockey to fill out the schedule.

            The likes of BC and BU would want to play at Notre Dame for the national TV exposure. Ditto everyone in the NCHC and ECAC Hockey.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            @FLIP_NDRox – Thanks!

          • Richard says:

            Uh, OT, you still haven’t explained who exactly ND would play if they went independent once conference play starts in college hockey.

            Do you realize who and how many people actually care about college hockey? Markets aren’t of any importance if no one in those markets actually watches college hockey.

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            It’s down to Hockey East and the NCHC according tweets from Irish hockey Media Day. Dan Murphy of Blue and Gold Illustrated reports the Coach Jackson says independence is not an option.

            The take-away I have is that there is no smoke for a ND-B1G merger in the next 12mo. Also that Versus is interested in a conference deal, not the Irish alone. None of this is surprising, but it is nice to see.

            My guess is that the Irish will end up in the NCHC because they’ll be more likely to get the Versus deal. Why, because HEC is Eastern time ONLY, and the National can give double-headers on Friday and Saturday, since local start time are from Eastern to Mountain.

            The big question remains of who, if anyone will come in with the Irish. Will it be CCHA refugee Bowling Green? Will it be long-time target BC? Or will it be no one? Stay tuned =D

  77. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb and make some comments on the actual, um, season that’s taking place…

    - Man, is Tom O’Brien’s hard-line stance not to allow Russell Wilson to return to the NC State team looking dubious now or what? NC State is 2-2 with wins over Liberty and South Alabama (which is only its third year of existence as a program) and losses to Wake Forest (projected as the ACC’s #12 team) and a Cincinnati team that went 4-8 last year. I was hoping maybe, somehow, the Wolfpack and Badgers would end up with a win-win situation, kinda like when the Chargers released future Super Bowl MVP Drew Brees but got to keep an excellent quarterback of their own in Phillip Rivers.

    - Speaking of Wisconsin, they’re looking really good right now, but I’m ready to see them face a real test. Penn State looked great prior to facing top-notch competition, but they need to face a top 25 team before I’m completely sold on them as a national title contender. I do think, though, that October 1 will be only the first meeting this year between Nebraska and Wisconsin. Lots of red in the Big Ten this year.

    - It’s a shame that the Big 12 is so danged dysfunctional. We do focus a lot on the fact that certain schools don’t bring much of a market (Iowa State, Baylor), but let’s face it: winners bring eyeballs from everywhere. I watched some K-State games in the 90′s when they were really good, even though I have zero connections to the school, and I know that I was not alone. I’ve done the same in recent years with Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma State despite their lack of tradition. Heck, I even watched TCU-Baylor with great interest, even though everyone tells me they don’t add a new market. I’m convinced that there is always an audience out there for winners, and outside of the SEC, this league has had as many or more of them as any league in the country.

    - Despite Florida State’s hard-fought effort in a loss to OU, I believe they’re back to top ten status, and that they’ll stay there. Jimbo Fisher has handled an awkward succession plan to one of the game’s most legendary figure with as much class and on-the-field success as anyone could ask for. I’m very, very excited about the team’s future, which, personally, I hope remains in the ACC.

    - Speaking of FSU, I do not buy the notion that it’s “good” for college football that they’re getting better. The return of one dormant power to the national spotlight almost always coincides with the setback of another. When FSU’s power waned starting in the early 2000′s, Oklahoma returned to prominence. As Miami, Notre Dame, and Nebraska fell back, we saw the return of Texas and USC to prominence and the rise of LSU and Wisconsin as true powers. The only argument I’ll buy is that a better FSU is good for the ACC, but better college football itself? No. As long as there are a good handful of the national powers are doing really well, whether it’s Michigan and Ohio State, USC and Texas, Florida and FSU, and/or Oklahoma and Nebraska, the game won’t be in “need” of any particular teams to do well.

    - I feel like throwing my shoe at the TV set each time I hear some “expert” saying, “Ya know, the SEC is the strongest conference in America. There’s not even a debate about that anymore. They’ve won the past five national championships.” I mean, wow. That’s Emmy-worthy analysis right there. We get it. The SEC is the best at football. Tell me something I don’t know.

  78. lightseeker01 says:

    At Joe Pa’s Tuesday press conference, he left the door open for PSU to “Get into something different.” Is Penn State seriously considering leaving the Big Ten for the ACC “North?” Or is this just Joe dreaming about playing Md, BC, Pitt and ‘Cuse every year again?

    • Peter says:

      Unless JoePa can cut a few billion in checks to buy back PSU’s TV and pay off PSU’s researchers for the CIC loss, he’s just being wistful.

      • joe4psu says:

        While the CIC saves the schools money through cooperation that doesn’t mean that a B1G school could not be as, or more, successful outside of the B1G. Take a look at schools like UNC, Duke, Stanford, Cal and so on. They aren’t members of the CIC but they earn more in research money than most B1G schools. The uniqueness of the B1G is having so many successful schools in one conference. That doesn’t mean that a school has to be in the B1G to be successful.

        • Peter says:

          It’s not so much that a school can’t be successful outside of the CIC – although there are probably fewer schools outside the CIC than in it in that tier of research universities – its that PSU *is* a member of the CIC and it’s a gross breach of fiduciary duty to try to break away from it. The ACC doesn’t have anything comparable either – it would be a straight financial and academic loss, every year, forever.

          Even if PSU to the ACC made financial sense (it doesn’t) and PSU could take their TV rights with them (not without someone cutting a nine-figure check), the cost to the university of losing CIC access would far exceed any financial gain on the football side. As it stands in reality, PSU would get less TV money, less bowl revenue sharing, pay a hundreds-of-millions penalty to unwind their TV rights, AND likely be booted from the CIC.

          It’s nonsense.

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          “The uniqueness of the B1G is having so many successful schools in one conference.”

          —Think about what you just said for a moment, really think about it. WHY do you think the B1G is unique in this regard?

          It is in large part because of the CIC.

          If Penn State really is missing beating up on east coast patsies so badly that they are willing to hurt the university by throwing away the benefits of membership in the nation’s premier academic consortium then more power to them…but I sincerely believe that the actual administrators at the school aren’t nearly so foolish.

  79. Show Me ESS EEE CEE says:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/22/3161236/sec-still-in-missouris-sights.html

    Mizzou fans are singing:

    Show me the way to E$$ EEE CEE.

  80. EZCUSE says:

    Rasputin.

    The one certainty. Just one you think they are dead… they come back.

    Wait… a second certainty. Just when you think they have survived… something puts them back on death row.

    Given that… I think it has to happen this way. Several weeks of BigIX calm. Paperwork drawn. Everything sounds great. All is quiet.

    And just when you think it is all resolved… THEN Missouri flees to the SEC. At that point, the paperwork gets held up. The Pac-12 starts talking to Oklahoma again. Baylor and Iowa St. look at the Big East with Wellesley and CCNY as rumored candidates and figure that the MWC may just be better than the Big VIII or the Big East. But, in the end, we end up with the Big VIII.

    Until Kansas decides that it is fed up with the Big VIII…..

  81. Playoffs Now says:

    Just thought we should take a minute to note and give credit to LSU for playing a tough non-conference slate this year, and that isn’t unusual for them. On the road at WV and a neutral site Oregon game, definitely worthy of respect. You could argue that DFW is sorta a home game for nearby LSU, but it still isn’t the same as playing in Baton Rouge and sleeping in your own bed.

    Contrast that with gutless Florida’s same ol’ ridiculous nonsense of never leaving their state and copout excuses of how FSU is such a burden and the SEC is so tough. Yet LSU, Bama, Auburn, Arkie, UGA, and Tenn don’t have a problem traveling to tough OOC opponents.

    So raise a glass to LSU, scheduling the way college football should.

    • greg says:

      I raise a glass to LSU not only scheduling up, but also pulling off #3 in the Oversigning Cup. Top 5 are all SEC. Clemson is #6 and trying to prove their SEC worth.

      http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/the-oversigning-cup/

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, I agree. Florida’s schtick is among the lamest in all of college football. So many great out of conference games that could be schedule with them, and yet it’s Alabama, LSU, and Tenn (somewhat) doing the heavy lifting for the SEC in terms of ooc matchups.

      I noticed LSU at WVU this weekend and was like “damn, that and the Oregon game easily has to be the hardest non-conference slate this year)”…

      • Richard says:

        Eh. FSU usually _is_ tough. Most kings usually schedule only one high-profile OOC game a year, which is why ND is is almost always the only high-profile OOC game Michigan plays while tOSU plays a rotating set of kings/near-kings (though props to the Wolverines for playing Alabama OOC next year and bringing in Utah and Appy St. in the recent past). BTW, Florida is set to visit Miami in the future, though they’ll still not have left the state of FL to play an OOC game in several decades.

  82. hangtime79 says:

    @FrankTheTank

    Frank. Are we ironclad sure that if for some reason one of the Big 10 schools left tomorrow that their rights would not go with them automatically and that they would have to either be released by the Big 10 or would have to be repurchased by the exiting school. The question came up over at Mr. SEC in reference to what the Big 12 is looking to do with their pledged media rights.

    • Sportsman says:

      The question is moot… no one is going to leave the Big Ten.

      • hangtime79 says:

        Agreed. Hence why its come up in a discussion surrounding the Big 12 doing the same thing where it absolutely could happen. I am more interested in the mechanics and if the Big 10 is under the agreement as its been represented.

        • zeek says:

          Yes, it’s ironclad.

          I’ve mentioned this several times in responses to the Penn State -> ACC stuff.

          If Penn State leaves the Big Ten, all of its TV sports rights are still owned by the Big Ten until 2027 or 2032. So any game that Penn State (is the home team for, I assume), any TV money from that game would go to the Big Ten, even if Penn State is in the ACC…

          • EZCUSE says:

            I still want to see that language.

          • Peter says:

            No “seeing the language” necessary, this is a very elementary legal concept. It’s the assignment of a legal right from one legal entity (PSU) to another legal entity (B1G). The legal entity that is getting the right then owns that right as its personal property.

            PSU has as much input with the B1G on its TV rights as you do.

          • mushroomgod says:

            Thanks Peter for your leagal analysis….but show me the language.

          • joe4psu says:

            Does the contract lock the schools into the conference or require the schools to give up the rights as long as they are part of the conference? It may help to actually see the EZCUSE, er, I mean language.

          • Boomershine says:

            Don’t have the language, but Delaney said back in 2007 that “…the Big Ten had extended the grant of rights in 2007 for either 20 or 25 years…” (out to 2027 or 2032, as zeek stated above).

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/sports/ncaafootball/ncaa-strife-could-be-eased-by-real-revenue-sharing.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=petethamel

            The Big Ten and Pac-12 members have signed grants of rights, which basically give all of the television rights from each university’s sports to the conference for a specified number of years. If a member switches conferences, the rights cannot be transferred.

            The Big Ten has had this arrangement since 1988, the year before Commissioner Jim Delany arrived. The Pac-12 members did so, soon after Scott took office.

            In a phone interview on Friday, Delany said the Big Ten had extended the grant of rights in 2007 for either 20 or 25 years. That he could not remember says a lot about how secure the league is. When the Big 12 situation is settled, it will make sense for the A.C.C. and the Big East to push their members to make such a commitment.

          • joe4psu says:

            Thanks Boomershine.

          • EZCUSE says:

            Peter… thanks. I am a lawyer and can draw my own conclusions regarding the actual agreement itself after reading it. Just because a PR release and a newspaper regurgitation of same placate you, that does not end the analysis.

            Let’s try just one simple escape approach. Does the language require Penn State to obtain media rights? Suppose Penn State hosts Wake Forest. Logic says that this is a Penn State home game that gives it TV rights. But what if Penn State says… “you can have them.” Now Wake Forest has the TV rights and can do what it pleases with them. Nothing gets assigned to the B1G. The B1G cannot get what PSU never had in the first place.

            Conversely, perhaps the agreement mandates that Penn State assign its rights and guarantees that this will include a minimum of 6 games per year. OK, good for the B1G. Well… what if Penn State just does not do so? What does the agreement state regarding a penalty? Maybe it is nothing, which would default to damages. But what are the damages for B1G not having TV rights to Penn State v Wake Forest? And so on.

            But let’s suppose it is all ironclad and the B1G has the rights to all of PSU’s games for 20 years. If a network was willing to pay for PSU to slide to the ACC–without regard for the inability to have a full TV slate for 20 years–the contract wouldn’t matter. ESPN gave a crapload of money for the Rasputin conference last year. Who is to say that someone wouldn’t pay extra just to get a portion of Penn State games. After all… Penn State visiting Miami–where the ACC would have the rights–would be a big TV draw. So what if they lose Virginia Tech @ PSU and other PSU home games.

            And the ACC could just agree to let the B1G televise PSU games and reach the Midwest market. Exposure without even having a network. And it could cause ACC markets to pick up the BTN–another win for the B1G. Alternatively, would it embarrass the B1G to televise a non-conference game? If so, maybe getting what they bargained for is not a great deal in the end.

            And this is without even seeing the agreement. So, yeah, I would want to see it. KTHANKS.

          • EZCUSE says:

            Now… maybe the agreement assigns PSU’s TV rights to the B1G to negotiate. In that scenario, a Penn State-Wake Forest conference game would be negotiated between the B1G and Wake Forest (or the ACC somehow).

            That could cause the B1G to say… we want the rights and will not agree to anything else. Good luck playing the game without it on TV anywhere. And that’s assuming we don’t decide that a track meet is better programming. But it’s 100% our right or PSU doesn’t play. (If they even have THAT power).

            Or would it? If there is no agreement, does that mean both schools get the rights to televise? I don’t know. Maybe the end result would be that any PSU game would be televised on the BTN, but it could also be on ESPN. Sucks for ESPN, but better than nothing.

      • mushroomgod says:

        Unless it’s PennState because they’re pissed at the BIG for ignoring them for 20 years about adding an eastern travel partner……….

        • frug says:

          The Big Ten hasn’t ignored them, they just haven’t found an eastern team. There simply aren’t any schools that border Pennsylvania that would, by themselves, make more money for the conference.

        • EZCUSE says:

          Why do they need a partner? I have never understood the idea of travel partners. Not like they ride the bus together. Not like USC can fly up to Washington for a football game…. stay the week… and then play Washington St.

          And if they needed one, why not get one when first being added? And somehow they have survived. After 20 years, pretty clear that Penn State can hold its own without one.

          Suppose they add Rutgers. Now Rutgers is the Easternmost team. Do they need a team in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean for a partner? No, they can look west to Penn St.

          Well, Penn State should just look west to Ohio St. And they should be more concerned that Ohio State has been so much better on the field.

          • zeek says:

            I really don’t understand this.

            Penn State was an independent for decades. Now they need a travel partner because some of their alumni live on the East Coast?

            For the ACC, it made sense to connect the region to Boston College and make the Northeast de facto ACC territory. Going after the top basketball schools with good football tradition made sense in terms of synergy with the UNC/Duke and that region is much more basketball intense anyways when you get games in front of MSG (way more than they care about college football anyways).

            Big Ten has asked ND like 3-4 times to join; they didn’t want to. It’s not for a lack of effort that Penn State doesn’t have another Eastern school…

          • EZCUSE says:

            Is ND even East enough? I think it is west of me, which is west of Lansing, which is west of Ann Arbor, which is west of Columbus, which is west of PSU…

          • Read The D says:

            Travel partners are not for football. They are for non-rev sports and basketball. Ohio State’s volleyball team could travel to Penn St and their “travel partner” and have an easy Thursday-Saturday road trip and go home. Not having a easily driveable travel partner complicates non-rev scheduling.

          • EZCUSE says:

            Fine. Wait, what does PSU care about the travel plans of teams coming to them?

            Are they hoping that the Iowa tennis team would play Rutgers on Thursday and be home sick by Saturday?

          • ccrider55 says:

            “Travel partner” probably should be renamed “destination partner”, enableing a traveling team 2 games/matches/whatever for esentially extending a trip by a day or two.

          • zeek says:

            I think mushroomgod’s use of the term travel partner are being misunderstood.

            Most of the Penn State arguments about this are that they want an Eastern team in the conference so they can send 10k alumni based in the Eastern state of that team to the game and for recruiting.

            Of course, the fact that they could just do this out of conference seems entirely lost on that group of posters advocating for Penn State -> ACC.

          • PSUGuy says:

            Ok, speaking as a PSU fan the idea of “travel partner” or school where they can “send some alumni” is completely off base. It has only to do with recruiting…

            PSU has traditionally pulled its football recruits from Northern VA, MD, New Jersey, Eastern Pa, Central NY, Western PA, Eastern Ohio. A quick look over those regions shows only two areas listed are covered by the Big Ten conference schedule and even then only by one game a year (and its a heavily recruited area anyway). Where as tOSU can guarantee its games can be seen in areas where it recruits most heavily (Ohio, Western PA, and Mich) PSU can guarantee its games won’t be (at least on the highest ranked channels).

            No other school in the Big Ten has this problem of recruiting and PSU as the sole mid-Atlantic team has long pushed for another team on “this side of the conference” to help increase the conference’s presence in the mid-Atlantic.

          • Richard says:

            PSUGuy:

            Eh, no other B10 school has as many fertile recruiting grounds so close by either, so forgive me if I’m not too sympathetic. NJ and greater DC are probably the most fertile recruiting grounds in the entire north, and PSU also has western PA (not to mention what should be a stranglehold on eastern PA).

            No other B10 school can compare. NE Ohio is as good as eastern PA, and there’s also Detroit (which is why tOSU has done so well) Otherwise, there’s only Chicagoland (fought over by all the B10 schools east of PA), which doesn’t compare to NE Ohio, much less NJ or greater DC.

            PSU’s recent recruiting woes have more to do with JoePa being ancient and not being able to relate with the young’uns (or draw up offensive gameplans that entice skill players; or have the energy for recruiting) than with PSU not making more trips out east.

            The only other potential football power in PSU’s area is VTech, but Frank Beamer is 20 years younger than JoePa. At his age, JoePa was still rattling up double-digit win seasons and 3 years away from another undefeated season.

            Once PSU replaces The Ancient One with a decent coach, I can’t see PSU losing recruiting battles in the mid-Atlantic.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Besides Ohio the region that the Buckeyes focus on the heaviest is Florida, not PA (and certainly not that state up north). That doesn’t mean we should add UCF to the conference.

          • PSUGuy says:

            @Richard
            If this were 2000 you’d be right, but in the current days you’re pretty wrong on your assessment of our recruiting woes.

            Since PSU got Bradley and Johnson we’ve been able to recruit the Western PA mildly well (simply too many schools fighting over the same territory to “own” that area) and Northern VA very well. The problem is with Rutgers, UConn, MD, Temple etc. placing more emphasis on football these teams have been sucking up more of the local recruits in the area. You don’t need those schools to be “great”, just good enough to make a kid want to stick close to home (Rutger is a perfect example).

            What’s more, just becuase recruiting grounds are close, doesn’t mean they are viable. Say what you will, but the rest of the conference plays 10+ games where it (largely) recruits while PSU plays at most 2. Part of what made PSU so dominant prior to the Big Ten was it went anywhere in the mid-Atlantic and regularly beat the home team. If a kid wanted to play for the best they were given ample proof PSU was the that “best” to play for. Nowadays, you see Rutgers/UConn/Pitt/Syracuse/Temple/Maryland regularly beat each other which means local recruits are likely to stay local since all the teams have a relatively equal chance to making it to a bowl game and they get to play in front of “ma and pa” every weekend. Those same kids playing at PSU might spend a large portion of the season not even on tv in their home market.

            Listen, I’m not saying “woe is PSU” and don’t think anything should really NEEDS to be done, but there are real issues with the geographical footprint of the Big Ten and PSU’s strengths and weaknesses because of it. They knew what they were getting into, but in the end I don’t think people should be all that surprised on why PSU has traditionally pushed for another Mid-Atlantic school to be added to the Big Ten.

          • Richard says:

            PSU:

            Hey, I’d like one of Rutgers/UMD in the B10 as part of my Big16 dream scenario as well (lucky you, I have PSU in a pod with tOSU, Rutgers, and Miami), but both DC and Newark are a 4 hour drive from State College. Surely ma and pa can drive 4 hours . . .

  83. duffman says:

    Going forward I will treat all rumors as rumors unless someone can offer up one of the following.

    a) Delany, Scott, or Slive in the city of the rumored school

    b) Person of “substantial” credibility in the city of the rumored school

    c) Media boss that can affect outcome

    TAMU was serious from day 1 because Broyles and Stallings had history with TAMU. Uconn to the ACC seems possible because of ESPN’s history with both. Delany showing up in South Bend would tell me the Irish are serious. I know all this should be simple, but the more I watch realignment, the more you can tell who is pushing whom. Aside from TAMU, I just see a bunch of B12 schools begging to get away from UT, but not being man enough to stand with each other and be masters of their own domain. I still think UT is laughing all the way to the bank and will be the winner of all of this.

  84. vp19 says:

    The good news: The Washington Post has come up with a “choose your own college football realignment” survey:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/choose-your-own-college-football-conference-realignment/2011/09/21/gIQArnYWnK_blog.html

    The bad news: Not only are some of the candidates (and omissions) ridiculous or not timely (Boise State to the Pac? Cincinnati. Louisville and West Virginia — all also listed for the ACC — Big Ten candidates and not Maryland?), but you must select 3 for the SEC, 4 for the Pac and Big Ten, and 2 for the ACC in order to register your choice. (Someone at the paper must be a firm believer in the “4 x 16″ setup.)

    Sad to say, but I think even Lenn Robbins from that “other” Post could have designed a more sensible survey than this.

    • zeek says:

      It’s still funny to see people who just act like the conferences will do the whole “go to 16 in 15 minutes approach” (courtesy of Slive).

      I mean I’ve seen so many ridiculous suggestions that the Big Ten will just leap to 16 with whoever doesn’t have a seat.

      I’m beginning to think that 5×12-16 is the actual outcome and it’s pretty much under our noses…

      • joe4psu says:

        I’ve been saying this (5×12-16) for some time. It is more likely that we end up with 80 or more “BCS” schools than it is that 64 schools break away from the NCAA. I wouldn’t be surprised if we continue to have 6 conferences of 10-16 schools throughout the lifetime of everyone who posts here.

        Consolidation is about making more money for those schools in the expanding conferences, not taking the opportunity to make money away from others. Atleast not directly. We’ll continue to see conferences like the MWC and C-USA on the fringes if not elevated directly to AQ status. The BE may shoot itself in the foot, again, with service academy additions but unless all of the current fb schools switch to other conferences the BE will continue to reload and limp along. Same with the B12.

        Heck, if OU and the others had jumped to the Pac and the B12 merged with the BE I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a conference made up of MWC and C-USA schools quickly formed to eventually become AQ #6. It would make alot of sense for the top schools in those 2 conferences to form a new conference today in an attempt to become AQ #7.

    • duffman says:

      vincent,

      I agree, the way it is set up greatly limits actual reality.

  85. ChicagoRed says:

    “A look at how the Big 12 was formed”, excellent read in the Manhattan, KS Mercury, based on interviews with Jon Wefald, who served two terms as the Chair of the Association of Big Eight universities from 1989-93 and also was K-State’s President during the formation of the BigX11.

    http://themercury.com/K-StateSports/article.aspx?articleId=3d2af06db8284de69292e4bd5d8d69a2

  86. Wethorn says:

    Frank,

    I have to disagree with you on sharing of tier 3 rights. Equal sharing of tier 1 and 2 make sense. Not tier 3.

    Everyone should read this post on barking carnival that does a great job o summing up where we’ve been, amd dispels some of the misinformation about Texas in this.

    http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/realignmentality/

    And the money quote on tier 3 revenue:


    In the previous school year to these discussions, the other 11 Big 12 schools had made $28.5M from their Tier 3 rights while Texas made less than $340K. What does that mean? IT MEANS THAT WHEN TEXAS WAS MAKING LESS THAN MOST OTHER SCHOOLS NONE OF THEM CARED ABOUT SHARING THIRD TIER MEDIA REVENUE. Did Texas ever complain that Jayhawk TV revenue wasn’t being shared? Did Texas ever ask T. Boone why his school wasn’t voluntarily giving up some of that $6M they were making? No, because Texas has always said and continues to say that third tier media revenue belongs to the school. Texas did not whine about how other schools were making more money and not sharing it, instead Texas went to work developing their own third tier distribution concept. Let’s be honest, folks, the other Big 12 schools don’t care about everyone sharing their third tier media revenue. No, they care about Texas sharing Texas’ third tier media revenue. And to that Texas has quite justifiably said “No thank you.”

    • ccrider55 says:

      Perhaps I’m missing something. I don’t think the Big12 has/had a problem with schools retaining and using tier 3 rights, but the LHN is not a tier 3 platform. When did conference games become tier 3? in any BCS conference?

    • kmp59 says:

      Trusting those numbers is a big mistake. It’s one of those areas where how individual schools choose to do the accounting makes a big difference because the methods of accounting vary from school to school.

      If you use those numbers, you’re concluding Oklahoma State somehow has Tier 3 rights that are 18 times more valuable than Texas. Think that’s accurate?

    • M says:

      Summary: Texas isn’t evil, they just lost the PR battle to the media wizards at Texas A&M and Oklahoma.

    • bobo the feted says:

      The money isn’t actually the biggest issue with the LHN, it’s the other stuff that ESPN does that gives UT such a big edge and makes the other schools angry. In the near future the LHN is a 24/7 channel on basic cable that will be spreading the gospel of UT, UT propaganda, UT influence and keep UT’s profile high in the public zeitgeist. No way any school in the Big12 can compete with that. Just as the BTN promotes the BigTen’s “brand”, the LHN will do the same but only for UT. Makes it hard for other schools to compete, A&M hopes to do it by marrying their “brand” with the SEC’s.

      If you’re a recruit or college football fan how can you not be influenced by an always on, deeply integrated cable channel that by it’s very nature can’t say anything bad about UT (there are contract clauses to this effect)? UT already has the most money, the most influence and the most media coverage in College Football – they’re about to get a whole lot more.

      This is exactly why the Longhorns refuse to give it up, share it or let it be folded into a conference network.

  87. greg says:

    And now for something completely different. (stolen from the ESPN B10 blog)

    http://www.ncsasports.org/about-ncsa/power-rankings/%28year%29/2011/%28tab%29/1

    NCSA Collegiate Power Rankings
    2011 NCSA Collegiate Power Rankings

    The Collegiate Power Rankings from NCSA are calculated for each college/university at the NCAA Division I, II and III levels by averaging the Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup ranking, the NCAA student-athlete graduation rate of each college/university and the U.S. News & World Report ranking. The collegiate power rankings based off of the Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup rating evaluates the strength of NCAA athletic departments, while the U.S. News & World Report rating recognizes institutions of academic excellence. The student-athlete graduation rates are based on those provided by the NCAA.

    The top 20 is stacked with Ivies and near Ivies. Duke #1, Stanford #2, ND #3.

    10 of 12 B10 teams make it with Nebraska and Indiana missing out. Iowa at #41.

    Too lazy to count up the other conferences. Pitt #74, Syracuse #38! Clemson 56. WVU, Rutgers, Missouri, Oklahoma unranked.

  88. coldhusker says:

    The Big Cigar’s (connected dude at Texas) latest realignment take from Barking Carnival:

    “I continue to laugh at all the surprised chatter with respect to OU and realignment. I told you to watch for Boren taking the lead on this issue, and the instability it would cause. Of course the Okies called bullshit, so now it’s good to get a laugh at their expense. Boren is under tremendous pressure to not appear to be Texas’ little brother and this pressure caused him to run his mouth which ended up making the whole school look foolish. I’m told the California schools had a mild revolt at the thought of taking OU and OSU to begin with. Boren should have continued to let Joe C do the talking and back-channel partnering with Texas. The partnership was going to lead to some really cool things for both schools but Boren has probably spent all of that goodwill.

    Now not only do the Okies have no place to go, but their relationship with Texas is strained when it didn’t have to be.

    As for Texas, they’re partnered with Notre Dame long term now, when OU should have been part of the equation. Short term, the Longhorn strategy is to hold the Big 12 together until LHN gets established and then go superconference. If another Big 12 school goes loony and blows the thing up, then B1G is a likely option with indie in football close behind as the other sports join the ACC. I’ve been told the groundwork for both scenarios has already been done. We have a lot of options and are as confident as ever. We just need one major carrier to grab the LHN and we can write our own ticket if we couldn’t already.”

    http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/mondays-in-the-humidor-2/

    • Richard says:

      Indie in football is an option only if the ACC is willing to become the BE to Texas. Considering that they rejected the Longhorns already, well, something would have to change.

    • Gopher86 says:

      Sounds a lot like sour grapes. Like it or not, OU successfully took UT down a peg or two with their little gambit.

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Um, how, exactly?

      • zeek says:

        Not buying it. If by “took UT down a peg or two” you mean they tripped over UT’s leg and fell face first into a pie, you’d be right.

        OU got completely outfoxed by UT, although they seem to have outfoxed themselves.

        They tried a powerplay on UT, and it backfired completely on them. What have they really achieved? The removal of Dan Beebe? He’s just a symptom. What leverage do they actually have with respect to their demands of UT? Why can’t Texas just take a hike knowing that OU has baggage that the Pac-12 didn’t want…?

        OU misplayed their hand and was left to stumble all over Deaton’s press conference to assuage their ego that they accomplished something by sacking Beebe.

        • glenn says:

          actually, they did accomplish one thing.

          after the flurry of almosts last year, nobody knew for sure whether just the oklahoma schools could get an invitation from the pac.  not even them.  now we all know, and i’ll bet dodds/powers are pleased to have that information.

          • zeek says:

            Hah, that’s a good point. I mean talk about a loss of leverage here.

            At least before, they had the unknown of a Pac-14 possibility to scare UT with…, now what? Is Texas going to be afraid of OU bolting to the SEC? Does the SEC even want OSU?

          • glenn says:

            that’s exactly right.  they blew their wad over nothing.

        • zeek says:

          er *UT tell OU to take a hike* is what I meant…

        • glenn says:

          another thing.

          i don’t think ou was outfoxed by the longhorns.  i think texas has put a lot of effort into building a good working relationship with the sooners over the past couple of years.  we’ve been hearing some promising things about that for a year or more, so, as has been reported, the longhorns are none too happy with this turn of events.

          several years ago, the univ of houston pulled a slick one on deloss.  a game that had been penciled in for reliant stadium was switched almost at the last moment to their little on-campus stadium, and lots of longhorn ticket-holders were out of luck.  that on top of some crappy, in-your-face behavior whereby uhouston made it plain they were not impressed with texas.  uh has never stepped onto a playing surface with the longhorns since then and may never again in our lifetimes.  i have to wonder if uhouston would like to turn back the clock on that.

          this latest dancing hippo act by the sooners may prove to be equally damning if we ever find out what deloss and crew had in mind to do with the sooners as business partners.

          • bullet says:

            What increased the problem was that some temporary seating they put up for the game was condemned the week of the game. Some UT fans had been questioning it and got the city to inspect it and they determined it was unsafe. So about 4,000 tickets couldn’t be honored.

          • glenn says:

            that’s right.  but that’s not the fundamental issue.  the agreement was to have the game at reliant, and the uhouston folks knew that mattered to texas.  the move thoroughly flew in the face of the agreement, and the dangerous bleachers would have been horrible seats even if they had been usuable.  the whole experience was distasteful and texas officials were disgusted.

            expect texas to play uhouston about when we next play a&m.  we’re likelier to do a home-and-home with the nebs than either of those schools.

    • mike in st louis says:

      That’s pretty darn close to what PBC has been saying.

      Texas and ND working together? Check. B1G a likely destination for Texas? Check. Integrate LHN within BTN framework? Check. Groundwork already completed on this? Check.

      And for the first time, we’re hearing it from the Texas side as well as the B1G.

      • Bob in Houston says:

        That’s the way I’m reading it, Mike. The ironic thing is that the crazier it is, the more likely it is to be true when someone from both sides references it.

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Interesting read, but I think Big Cigar is better described as “connected” rather than connected. NO one at BC really knows any more than the rest of us.

      • glenn says:

        that guy seems to get really good information, but sometimes, by the time it gets to us, it’s no longer true.  no knock on anyone.  it’s just how fast things can change.  but his insight has shown time and again to have some hard validity.

        i wouldn’t bet against him.

        • zeek says:

          Wasn’t he the one saying earlier that the Pac-12 would never happen as long as they had the shared networks model (Texas/TTech)? If so, he was 100% correct on that information.

          • glenn says:

            i believe that’s right.  there are a couple of inside sources, and i mix up which said what.

          • glenn says:

            we’ve been hearing for a good while, now, about the tight relationship with notre dame, but i don’t recall that the big ten has specifically been mentioned before recent word.  perhaps i forget.  i read so much so many places.  anyway, it has dovetailed beautifully with pbc’s insights.

            as i mentioned, we’ve also been privy to a good deal of talk regarding texas and oklahoma working together.  many — including me — thought the sooner gambit was something they and deloss cooked up.  i was very unhappy that subsequent snippets from the sources indicated that was not so and that the promise of a great future working with them had evaporated like so much ether.

          • glenn says:

            like the ags, they are difficult people, by and large.  just in different ways.

          • glenn says:

            this from a question and answer session at recruitocosm, a barking carnival member site.  jesus shuttlesworth is the guy who has big cigar connections:

            Can you further comment on the long term relationship between TX/OU?  Hopefully, they can now mend fences as the long term stability is vital to one of the great rivalry’s in college today

            Sure, when Joe Castiglione was working with Deloss behind the scenes in preparation for the impending demise of the Big 12, OU was in on talks involving a loosely affiliated group of schools that would make up the first superconference.  OU, BYU, Texas, and Notre Dame were the core that would attract other like minded schools to the party.  Schools that wanted their own network and their own pie all to themselves.  Hell, Texas speaking with ESPN and OU officials about a Sooner network, was the rumor floating around out there.

            In August, the Big Cigar told us that Joe C was probably going to get kicked to the curb because of perception from OU’s big money guys after the LHN launch was announced.  To those guys, it looked like Texas was pulling a fast one on OU and Joe C was just UT’s pawn in the game.  Enter David Boren and his peacock chest and the rest is history.  It pissed off Texas because it made us do serious contingency planning with the ACC and to an extent the B1G when we were simply trying to get the LHN launched before moving anywhere.  That was the plan all along and OU was aware of this every step of the way.  They screwed us over and now they’ve been moved to the back of the line.  At least they’re in front of A&M, who we will never play again by the way–at least if Deloss is still around and it’s not televised on the LHN.

            http://recruitocosm.fantake.com/2011/09/23/qa-is-here-for-reals/

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            It’s interesting that all along Longhorn fans have talked up the “Texas is just doing what is best for the school” & “In the same position any other school would do the same”.

            Now suddenly when Oklahoma is trying to do what’s actually best for the itself as a University the story suddenly becomes “Oklahoma is screwing Texas”.

          • glenn says:

            texas didn’t scuttle the efforts of several programs.  texas, notre dame, and probably byu had put considerable thought and effort into developing an approach that would include the sooners and would establish some sort of network arrangement for them that would have been a good deal for all the schools.

            it would have required key people in that program to keep the paranoid among them happy and quiet, and that didn’t happen.  i gather the whole operation has now been abandoned, and all the other schools are having to make other arrangements.  i’m sure notre dame, byu, and whoever else may have been involved are no happier with the sooners than are the longhorns and feel that trying to involve and elevate the sooners was a royal waste of time and effort.

            lessons learned.

          • Richard says:

            OK, here’s the problem I see with that dreamt up, now stillborn “superconference”:

            No one in the B10 wants to (or can, having given up TV rights to the conference) join. USC may have been interested, but they also are now locked in to the Pac. I don’t see such a concoction attracting any SEC schools. Who else is there? There’s the ACC, but the top football schools there actually have trouble monetizing their appeal locally. Miami certainly can’t. An FSU network would likely make less money for the ‘Noles than as a member of the ACC as well (look at their athletic department revenue; it’d be in the lower half of the B10). I believe that’s true for VTech as well (and in any case, they’re not leaving the ACC, as we’ve seen from the SEC courtship). The heart of the ACC (UNC & Duke) won’t abandon the ACC either.

            So who exactly did DeLoss and company think would join their “superconference” that would be so super that it’d still have fewer brand names than either the SEC or B10?

          • glenn says:

            richard, i don’t think it was ever envisioned as a conference of ‘kings’.  the plan was to attract a group of relatively like-minded organizations.  the foundation group would likely be the programs i mentioned.

          • glenn says:

            i might add that i was highly skeptical of the sooners fitting in with that group, but over a period of time the word was that they were enthusiastic supporters, and i assumed some corners had been turned by that group. my suspicion was that the impetus there was boren.  i could easily see, given his background, that he might be a visionary with the clout with that crowd to convince them to see things in a different light.

            i was never so surprised to discover — just now — that it was castiglione who was the visionary, and that boren is apparently a real cluck.

            this is very disappointing to me.  i have never had much hope for the aggies, but i could really see the sooners as possibilities to help forge something better.

            wie schade.

          • Richard says:

            OK, but then, if you’re a non-king, why would you even consider leaving a conference where revenues are shared equally for a conference where you’d have to be able to generate money from your own TV channel? Basically, you’d only be able to get schools that are mediocre yet still manage to have a large following. Other than BYU (and again, putting the B10, Pac, and SEC off-limits), who comes to mind? What other schools could generate more money on their own TV channel than by taking an equal conference distribution? _Maybe_ Clemson (and I doubt they’d leave the ACC unless that conference is heavily raided by the SEC). Other than those Tigers, who else? I suppose the military academies. Hawaii. I’m having trouble thinking up of even non-AQs who can generate more money from their own TV channel than from taking an equal conference distribution.

            So your “superconference” would look like this:
            ND
            Texas
            OU
            BYU
            Army
            Navy
            AFA
            Hawaii

            Well, at least you’d have the requisite 8 to get a BCS slot. Travel costs would be a b*tch, though. Now only would Bill Powers have to fly his softball team in to the snowy Midwest, but also the snowy Northeast, snowy Colorado, and the middle of the Pacific.

          • Richard says:

            I forgot: Potentially Boise St.

            BSU brings a tiny home market, but their current drawing power is such (and the MWC TV payout is so little) that the rest of the schools in the “superconference” could potentially pay Boise enough money for its home game TV rights for the Broncs to defect from the MWC. A national channel would likely pay at least $4M for a BSU vs. ND/Texas/OU game (assuming Boise remains good). If even $2M of that for each game (total of $6M) goes to Boise, it’d more than doubt their MWC TV payout.

            Of course, Boise would have to remain good for that scheme to work.

          • Richard says:

            Thinking about it more, though, I highly doubt ND would want to have more than 7 conference games, and Hawaii gets the nod over Boise because that gives the Domers an extra game every other year to fit in their myriad rivalries, so sorry Boise.

            Assuming they’d still play USC, Stanford, and Purdue every year & Michigan and MSU 2/3rds of the time (which I think will happen once the B10 goes to 9 conference games, as the 2 MI schools want to keep at least 7 home games and still play some AQ school other than ND some of the time), that leaves 7 games over 6 years for everyone else (BC maybe half the time; maybe Pitt/GTech/Miami intermittently). They’d get good coverage of the country every year though: 1 game on the west coast, 1 in the mountain west, 1 in Texoma, 1+ in the Midwest, 1+ on the East Coast, half the time in Hawaii, and every so often in the southeast.

          • glenn says:

            i should also say that by saying ‘just now’ i didn’t mean this week.  i meant in the past month or so.  the word that the wheels were coming off the sooner schooner came from the ol’ stogie in august, and a month or so would qualify as ‘just now’ because we’d been hearing about this for quite some time.

    • Farva says:

      Like others on this site, I really enjoy the conference reallignment talk and also have no clue where all of this is going (which I suspect is consistent feeling with many of the key player in all of this). From my own biased point of view (Illini grad), I do continue to see Notre Dame and Texas as a reasonable possibility to the Big 10.

      - I feel that the Longhorn network is more about branding than it is about money. I do not think that the Tier 3 rights are going to be a deal breaking issue for the Big 10 (which I understand historically has NOT shared this revenue) and the LHN could be integreated fairly seamlessly into the Big 10 as a regional BTN2 (allowing other schools the opportunity to do the same or have regional networks).

      - If this is about branding, remember what the Cowboys did with the NFL by insisting that they have to be included within the East division in order to be America’s team. By going along with Notre Dame into the Big 10, Texas would be rebranding itself from state/region centric to a (nearly) nation-wide following (such as NYC market).

      - There are other academic and revenue benefits for both if they would be interested in joining, which has been discussed ad nauseum.

      I would say that there is at least a reasonable chance at all of the above happening, but who knows. In this scenario, I see Rutgers coming along to lock up NYC market (and to provide a team to beat) and the 16th spot to be held open for a last school to once and for all join what would be the premiere academic and athletic conference in the nation. Under this scenario, I see Maryland as the most realistic – but quite honestly, most schools would have to at least consider that 16th slot.

      • Richard says:

        Miami for 15/16 along with Rutgers. B10 would be in 4 regions of the country (Midwest, northeast, southeast and southwest).

        • frug says:

          I do not think that the Tier 3 rights are going to be a deal breaking issue for the Big 10 (which I understand historically has NOT shared this revenue

          I believe that the Big 10 gained control of member schools Tier 3 rights back in ’80′s and have been sharing them for at least 20 years (though I could be wrong on this)

          • Farva says:

            You are likely correct regarding Tier 3 rights. I made the above post based on various things that I have read – many of which are contradictory.

            Regardless, I do not share the viewpoint that some do in respect to the LHN being a non-starter for the Big Ten.

          • frug says:

            I doubt the “lower” schools would sign off anything that would set a precedent for uneven revenue distributions. At the same time, I suspect the top schools would resist an arrangement where they continue to prop up the other schools (at the cost of millions of dollars a year to themselves) and Texas does not.

            Best deal I could see the Big Ten offering is letting UT keep all LHN revenue in exchange for a reduced conference payout until the expiration of the Big Ten’s TV deals in 2016. Beyond that, Texas would have to be “all in”.

          • Richard says:

            frug:

            If, say, a BTN2 with content from the original members goes out nationwide (except Texas) and the LHN is confined to Texas with money from the BTN2 only being split by the original members and money from the LHN kept only by Texas, it may be suitable to both sides, as the money coming from the BTN2 could very well be more than the money generated by the LHN (which, you have to keep in mind, is really only $5M a year, as the $15M includes all media rights, which are worth $10M by themselves).

            Plus, the key thing you have to remember about the B10 is that the sum is greater than it’s parts. tOSU can get more money from an equal share of the BTN than it can from a Buckeye Network that is available only in Ohio because the BTN gets value from tOSU/Michigan/etc. fans in Chicagoland that otherwise would be unextracted (as well as OSU fans in Indy, Wisconsin fans in the Twin Cities, etc.) So the kings of the B10 actually aren’t subsidizing the lower-drawing schools (except NU; I fully admit that my alma mater is subsidized).

          • frug says:

            Point taken, but the “name” schools are losing money they could make by insisting on unequal revenue distribution for the BTN.

            While it is true that Ohio St. and Purdue both make more money from the BTN than they would by operating a Buckeye Network and a Boilermaker Network, the difference is far larger for Purdue than OSU. Moreover because conference distributions make up a larger percentage of the operating budgets of the Purdues of the conference than the OSUs, the top dogs could have leveraged unequal payouts even if they insisted the have nots put up the same original investment.

          • Richard says:

            frug:

            The top dogs could have insisted, but they actually lack the leverage to force through an unequal revenue split because they’d be outvoted. In that case, what are their alternatives? Leave the B10 (and likely make less money)? Start their own networks (and make less money)?

            In the Pac, USC & UCLA actually had far more leverage, with a home market that was several times bigger than any other Pac pair’s market + the only football brand and only basketball brand in the conference, yet they ended up with an equal share as well and gave up more of their TV/media rights.

            Long-term, it’s actually in the interest of even the name schools to share and build up the Big Ten brand. None of them have the market power of Texas (which has over twice the population of any B10 state). Plus, note that an equal share of the BTN already brings in more income than all of the LHN (which pays an average of $15M/year but includes media rights, which are worth $10M, so the TV part is worth only $5M annually). tOSU’s 3rd tier rights (equal share of BTN) and media rights brings it more money than Texas’s 3rd tier rights and media rights (the LHN). In the future, equal shares of either the BTN or PTN will likely dwarf what 100% of the LHN brings in. If the Longhorns want to make less money just to have their pride-and-joy, so be it. I don’t think any current B10 school would be so short-sighted.

          • frug says:

            The difference is that when the when the PAC was instituting its new revenue rules it was 10 vs. 2. When the Big 10 was setting up the BTN was set up it would have been 8 vs. 3 (UM, OSU and PSU). Now the rules between the PAC and Big 10 are probably different, but USC and UCLA were able to maintain unequal revenue sharing 8-2 and the B1G schools might have been able to do the same.

          • frug says:

            Let’s try this:

            When the Big 10 was setting up the BTN it would have been 8 vs. 3 (UM, OSU and PSU).

            That said, I agree it is in the interest of the schools for branding purposes to promote an all for one mentality and promote competitive balance.

            (That’s the reason they are the only conference that has sharing of gate revenue.)

    • wully says:

      If this is the case…and big 12 schools( they all out vote UT) are listening..they need to add TCU, Houston, Louisville, SMU and Cincinnati now….wait for Texas to push the button in 2014/15…and protect the Texas market, and have a viable conference without the big bad UT. OU and the rest (maybe…MAYBE..Mizzou goes big ten)…have nowhere to go!

      I still think ND is off to the ACC…as stated two weeks ago!

  89. kmp59 says:

    The B1G and Pac-12 schools agree to sign over their top tier media rights to the conference, correct? Does the SEC also have that policy?

    • zeek says:

      Big Ten has had it since 1988 (renewed for 20-25 years in 2007).

      Pac-10 got it when Scott arrived, so probably late 2009.

      Those are the only conferences with it as of now. ACC, SEC, Big East, Big 12 don’t have it.

      Big 12 will presumably have it for 5-6 years whenever Missouri agrees to stay…

  90. bodarville says:

    It just fascinates me that University Athletic Departments remind me of teenage girls. Oklahoma was like all over USC and Texas was like all whatever and then the SEC kids were all like totally hitting on Missouri but everybody knows she’s a skank.

  91. hangtime79 says:

    Another good read from Barking Carnival:

    http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2011/09/22/realignmentality/

    Sums up the last 1 1/2 from the UT perspective. Good read.

    • PSU hockey says:

      I am a bit tired of every Texas or Oklahoma or whatever big 12 or espn blog or what not making up bs reasons why the Cornhuskers left the Big 12. Partial qualifiers? Really. Nebraska joined for one reason and one reason alone: Money. Thats it. Big Ten schools make the most money from tv and more importantly the most money from research, which is way more than any other conference. Look what the Big Ten did for Penn State’s research funds. They exploded. So for every writer that says Nebraska left cause they couldn’t beat Texas, or lost the Sooners rivalry, or partial qualifiers let me give you the facts of the situation: the Big Ten is the only conference, and that includes the great SEC apparently, that could get to 16 teams in 15 minutes right now without taking the little sisters of the poor. And why is that? Money, with tv revenues being simply the cherry on top.

      • vp19 says:

        PSU hockey, you just explained why Maryland voted with Florida State in knocking the ACC exit fee from a proposed $34 million to a more manageable $20M. College Park officials are dreaming of having their M Square research park (close to the Green Line Metrorail station, IIRC) amplified with CIC bucks.

      • drwillini says:

        PSU hockey, I think you have a better handle on the situation than JoPa.

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        “Partial qualifiers? Really. Nebraska joined for one reason and one reason alone: Money. Thats it.”

        —Amen

        • BoilerTex says:

          PSUHockey, please head over to the Rivals PSU board and explain that to your fellow alumni. They seem to be lost on that concept.

        • frug says:

          I’d say stability was also a reason. After you factor in exit penalties, added travel costs and the fact they won’t receive a full share of the BTN revenue about 5 years, NU won’t actually start making more money than they would have by staying in the Big XII for at least 6 years or so.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            I would go with ‘growth potential’. The B1G offers more of that (academic, all around athletic, financial etc) than any other conference. But ultimately we’re all talking about the same thing.

      • bullet says:

        The 1-9 comments aren’t serious. They’re just digs at the Nebraska fans who say Texas control of the conference drove them out. Osborne and Pearlman asked for that type of stuff by using their exit press conference to lay out their case for reducing exit fees by criticizing Texas instead of using it to point out all the benefits to Nebraska from joining the Big 10. Their press conference was an insult to the Big 10 as well as Texas.

  92. osu>um says:

    I just read the barkingcarnival article. What is the B10′s poilcy regarding partial and nonqualifiers? Does anyone know?

    • bullet says:

      Back in the 90s only the Big 12 and SEC had restrictions. The Big 10 didn’t have a restriction because they knew nobody would abuse it. The Big 12 and SEC had restrictions because they knew a number of their schools would abuse it. In 1995 Nebraska had 23 on their football team which was more than any other conference in the country.

      But I believe the whole thing was rendered moot as the NCAA raised its standards and then later did away with the old definitions. They’re relying on the APR now to make sure schools bring in somewhat academically qualified students. So I think the writer is off-base in claiming that was a motivation for UNL to the B1G.

      • London Ruffin says:

        To add,

        The BIG academic requirements are currently higher the NCAA requirements, so I think the writer is being disingenious to suggest that was part of Nebraska’s motivation. Personally, I think the folks at Nebraska saw the writing on the wall a little sooner than did everyone else in the room. Good kings are always aware of shifting attitudes and perceptions in t heir kingdom, which I think is one of Delany’s real strengths. Texas underestimated this shift, and while they will be fine, the gnashing of teeth that is the Big 12 has been the result of the last 18 months or so….

      • schwarm says:

        1995 Nebraska had four starters that were PQ’s, and I’ve seen a source that said they had “at least 12 total” in ’95. I’m curious where you got the number 23, bullet.

        • bullet says:

          There was at least one article at the time. That’s 15 years ago so I don’t remember the source and I’m sure I couldn’t find it. It was probably either the Houston Chronicle or on-line ESPN. And, of course, it was 15 years ago (when the Big 12 PQ battle was being fought) so memories aren’t perfect, but the numbers stood out because there was such a gap. 2nd was a Big East school with 8 or 9, either VT or Miami.

      • schwarm says:

        Interesting that some conferences restricted PQ’s, while now I think there are few restrictions on JUCO’s., the modern version of PQ’s. I guess JUCO’s are somewhat self limiting because you normally only get them for a few years. I suspect that for most schools PQ’s were limited because of academic prestige issues or because of the added administrative overhead needed to get the PQ’s qualified. While most “kings” probably thought PQ’s were not worth the trouble, I’m surprised there were not more K-State type schools (that have used JUCO’s extensively) that didn’t pursue the PQ route with more prospects.

        • bullet says:

          Baylor always had good signing classes in the 90s, but most of their top 4-5 recruits never qualified at all. They still have a few of those. I remember one prospect went JUCO and ended up at Oklahoma State. It was part hoping they would qualify and part Houston Nutt’s strategy of signing them now and hoping they will re-sign after JUCO.

          With the JUCOs, they have proven they can stay eligible. Most usually have at least 2 years of college under their belt when they transfer. So they’re less of a risk than the PQs were.

          • Patrick says:

            I thought Oklahoma State is JUCO?

          • schwarm says:

            PQ’s were a bit more risk, but more reward. One year to prove themselves in the classroom, and you get them for four on the field.

          • Richard says:

            schwarm,

            What risk?

          • schwarm says:

            Richard – more risk in the sense they are academically deficient when they get to campus, and that needs to be cleared up before they see the field. Also HS players I think are a bit more of a gamble in general; a fair number are just not going to pan out (true of all HS recruits). Usually top 50 JUCOs will contribute on the field.

          • Richard says:

            OK, I wasn’t clear if you were comparing PQ’s to HS or JUCO.

            Of course, the caveat is that most top talent generally make the academic grade so relying on JUCO’s likely puts a ceiling on your talent pool (this is assuming that you could get top talent out of HS).

  93. bullet says:

    Interesting interview with South Carolina President. Wants 14 and only 14 in SEC but not necessarily right this minute. Major reforms coming in NCAA.
    http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/sports/college/football&sa=NCF&eid=7009433

  94. frug says:

    Quick question, could the SEC still withdraw there acceptance of A&M if Baylor and co. don’t back down? As I understand it, they approved admission contingent on the granting of legal waivers, but what happens if the SEC changes their minds before the waivers a granted? (Let’s assume they didn’t put any time stipulations in the contract they made with the Aggies)

  95. jtower says:

    Or if they’re smart, call Ken and make some deal (home and homes with SECers for several years?) to help extricate themselves from aggygeddon. No waiver no tickee.

    • duffman says:

      it would have to be the lesser SEC children, as having LSU or BAMA roll into town and lay 50 to 100 points on the Baylor faithful may bury their image for quite some time.

  96. drwillini says:

    One of the things surprising to me in all this is that no conference has tried to duplicate the BTN. It seems to be such an amazing asset to the B1G, and yet several conferences have gone through negotiation cycles and not retained these rights. Why:
    1.) B1G is the most national conference?
    2.) B1G alumni are more nationally dispersed?
    3.) B1G simply has bigger alumni and fan base?
    4.) B1G alumni/fans are wealthier (i.e. the pro tennis effect)
    5.) BTN is the result of a personality clash between Delany and the ESPN dude.
    6.) ESPN realizes their mistake and will not let another conference directly distribute.
    7.) B1G is unique as they balance revenue disbursement.
    8.) Major B1G metro area (i.e. Chitown) is not aligned as LA to USC/UCLA and bay area to UCB/Stanford.
    Your thoughts?

    • zeek says:

      Pac-12 is trying to take it one step further though, with 6 extra regional networks. I’d like the thought of 3 BTN2s with 4 schools each for further rights.

      We’ll see how well the Pac-12 does at it, there’s always room for improvement.

      • drwillini says:

        Maybe. Will you equate the LA (USC/UCLA) regional network with the Oregon (UO/OrSU) regional network. I think B1G can avoid this dilemma more than most based on its fortunate (?) structure.

        • zeek says:

          Well, they’ll be able to go a step further in showing events that won’t reach the main Pac-12 Network.

          I think the BTN will look into the possibility of a further regionalized structure for even more events.

          The Big Ten’s advantages in terms of the sheer size of its schools and the dispersion of its graduates have been among its strong points.

          The weakness of that though is that it necessarily doesn’t match what you’re saying. The Big Ten makes the most money off the BTN from its footprint. It only gets a tiny amount from subscribers to higher tiers who have the BTN outside of the footprint. Yes, having more alumni outside the region does help availability outside of the footprint, but in terms of payoff, alumni outside the footprint help most with national ratings on ABC/ESPN. I’d probably argue that having more fans outside of the footprint is an advantage for the Tier 1/Tier 2 rights negotiations.

          The one advantage that the Big Ten has in terms of time is a nice advantage; being out in front by 5 years is a big advantage in terms of carriage inside/outside the region due to the sheer mass of channel offerings nowadays and how saturated some carriers are in certain markets with specialty sports networks (i.e. NYC).

          Of course, the advantage to coming in 2nd is that you can improve on the ideas. I think the Pac-12′s model will be an improvement over time, but there’s no reason why the Big Ten can’t work in some of their improvements. They’ll also own their entire networks, which is something the Big Ten won’t be able to say. But that’s the cost of being a first mover, so it’s not anything worth really worrying about… and besides, that’s only for another 20 years…

      • metatron5369 says:

        I really dislike the idea of a regional network. It segregates sports and teams when I really want to consume everything.

        A BTN2 would be preferable, even if it was more expensive.

    • metatron5369 says:

      2 – 5, though 1 soon enough.

      The Midwest is unique in the country, in that we’re the only region that actually cares about all sports at all levels. Consider the fact that our universities are prestigious, world-class institutions, we attract a number of alumni that are well dispersed in all of the major cities of the United States, plus there is an undeniable emigration to the sun belt.

      There’s a reason why the Detroit Tigers are a great road team. It’s the same reason why the Big Ten stands above all the others. We have demand for sports that only the SEC could ever hope to match (and they won’t come close). The Pac-12 and the ACC just don’t have the same kind of connection with their fans; there’s relatively few people clamoring for the non-”king” schools’ programming.

      • zeek says:

        Well, baseball is the one sport where the Big Ten has really fallen off the map.

        As for the rest, the SEC’s football strength outside of its footprint makes it somewhat different. They don’t need a network that would only get basic carriage in the footprint. They need as much as possible on CBS/ESPN in order to max out their monetary gains.

        It’s just different.

        • metatron5369 says:

          I have a pending post about national exposure, and how the Big Ten can emulate the SEC’s use of it.

          I would be interested to watch more college baseball, even if the talent is terrible (I mean at the collegiate level, not just the Big Ten).

          • zeek says:

            One thing I can’t wait for is the BTHC. Would be cool to get another school or two into hockey. Someone needs to get Mark Cuban on that ASAP.

          • metatron5369 says:

            Well, the beautiful thing about making all of this money is that it can be folded back into athletic departments.

            Maybe Illinois and Indiana can promote their club teams?

          • Richard says:

            metatron:

            Hockey’s an expensive sport, and with Title IX, any new men’s athletic scholarships need to be offset with women’s athletic scholarships. While some women’s basketball, volleyball, and gymnastics programs manage to be revenue-neutral (and an even smaller number even turn a small profit, you’d likely need someone to donate a big chunk of money to get a DivI hockey program off the ground.

            BTW, if any B10 school starts a hockey team besides Illinois, I would think that Iowa would be more likely.

          • zeek says:

            Not to mention you also need an arena for it.

            For a school without an already dual-purpose arena, we’re talking like at least $30-40M for a hockey arena/regulation ice rinks/staff/offices as well as $20M+ for scholarship seed money.

            Pegula’s gift was around $90M to give Penn State top-of-the-line everything in that respect.

            Even if you wanted to do it on the “cheap” using a dual-purpose arena; you’re still going to need a big time benefactor to grease the wheels.

        • wmtiger says:

          Talent in baseball all comes out of the south as they play baseball 12 months of the year in the south…

          B10 teams due to NCAA scholarship limits (not every baseball player gets a full scholarship, far from it); tons of players are left with partial scholarships. Decision to play baseball in the SEC, ACC, Big 12 or Pac 12 versus the B10 is an easy one for those kids only offered a partial scholarship. Cost of in-state versus out-of-state at B10 schools is enormous…

          Until the B10 is allowed to offer a lot more full scholarships to its baseball recruits, they’ll continue to be abysmal at baseball. Even then, the southern conferences will hold a huge advantage through tradition & location…

          I’d love to become a fan of B10 baseball but its difficult when there is so little hope of them competing nationally.

    • M says:

      3 plays a very large role. Alumni are the core of any fanbase and the Big Ten has the largest alumni group of any conference (I don’t think any other conference is even close).

      Big Ten alumni might be wealthier, but I think a larger factor is just the population. A lot of “rust belt” jokes are made, but the Big Ten has a substantially larger population base than any other conference.

      5 and 6 also played a role, but a relatively minor one.

  97. metatron5369 says:

    I still don’t think the Big Ten’s deal is tiered enough. There are six (eight soon?) conference games in any given week (unless a bye); and a number of networks with available programming holes.

    As I’ve noted earlier (see links below):

    - ABC/ESPN is overloaded.
    - FOX has MLB commitments until November (usually 7pm EST, no?).
    - CBS shows a SEC game during the day.
    - NBC only shows Notre Dame home games.

    While none of these are perfect fits, we can work around FOX’s and CBS’s schedule for games (a day/night game respectively) and Notre Dame has a no-night game clause built into their contract (they will make an exception for USC this year).

    My point is, the Big Ten needs to maximize their exposure. It’s fine to have regional games from time to time, but the major networks can give us national broadcasts and are virgin territory as far as I’m concerned and we’re the first to get there. Even if we could make more money by dealing with one network, I think we ought to lock up as much air time as we can.

    We have four “kings” (six if the rumors are true), plus a stable of up and coming programs. If Texas and Notre Dame did come onboard, we could offer viewers across the nation a week of Ohio State/Michigan, Penn State/Nebraska, Notre Dame/Texas. Think about that for a second. We have alumni and fans around the country, and parts of the nation with little or no college football presence. Exposure creates demand.

    The world is ours for the taking.

    http://www.the506.com/ncaaf/
    http://lsufootball.net/tvschedule.htm

    • zeek says:

      Delany’s going to try to do something about that in 2014-2015 for the 2016-2017 starting contract.

      With Fox owning 51% of the BTN and paying $22+M per year for the CCG, they might want to take the first tier rights of the Big Ten. At the very least, there would be a lot of synergy to owning the national rights to the Big Ten games and making it like “BTN on Fox” like how you see “ESPN on ABC”.

      Either way, we just have to wait and see what happens to the next contract…

      • metatron5369 says:

        ABC/ESPN has a distinct advantage over the competition, in that they are the largest name in sports and they have three channels available to the average consumer (ABC, ESPN, ESPN2). FOX has their FSN Regionals, NBC has Versus, and CBS has CBSSN, but they have their share of problems.

        If I’m Jim Delany, I’d keep as much as I can off of cable.

        • metatron5369 says:

          I should point out that barring a renegotiation/renewal, MLB on FOX will end in 2013.

        • Richard says:

          Fox has FX, which is where they’re starting to put some B12 and Pac12 games.

          Virtually everyone has cable now and no matter which network the B10 first tier goes to, at most only 1-2 games a week will show on network channels.

          For instance, if the Fox got the B10 rights, they could show an afternoon game (and primetime, before November) on Fox + both noon and afternoon games on FX.

          Even if the B10 expands to 14 or 16, they could easily limit to at most 6 conference games a week (besides the final week) given an 8-game conference slate by spreading conference games out (sprinkling byes liberally in the schedule).

          • Richard says:

            So, in the new Pac12 deal, FOX/FX will get 22 games a year, or roughly 2 a week. Let’s say the B12 is still around and also gets a game a week on FX. Fox probably has 2 slots (afternoon and primetime) while FX has 4 (noon, afternoon, primetime, and west coast). That means there would still be 3 of the 6 available slots for the B10, and the Pac is going to have only 10 games shown on Fox/ABC total each year. Say Fox shows 5 of them. Essentially, that means that if Fox lands the B10′s first and second tier rights, the B10 will have about 20 games shown on Fox, with almost all weeks before November featuring 2 B10 games, in both the afternoon and primetime.

            Incidently, if ESPN loses the B10, ABC would have awful little to show in both the afternoon and primetime. They’d have solid SEC teams to show on ESPN and ESPN2, but would have to choose the best from the Pac, ACC, and depleted B12 to put in the prime slots.

          • metatron5369 says:

            I’m not interested in just selling first or second tier rights.

            This is the realm of fantasy and speculation, so I take liberty to be creative, but I would try to get as much air time on the traditional networks as possible.

          • zeek says:

            I don’t think the Big Ten would leave ESPN completely.

            More like cut a deal to put first tier on FOX and second tier on ESPN.

            You want some presence on the WWL for promotional purposes even though they are ESECPN…

          • Richard says:

            zeek:

            The Pac was ready to take everything to Comcast/NBC until ESPN/Fox worked out their hybrid offer.

            However, you have a point; another hybrid offer between ESPN & Fox for the B10 first and second tier rights is probably in everyone’s best interest.

  98. M says:

    Now that’s it’s been a week since any actual conference moves, I figured the comments here could go back to what they do best: unsubstantiated rumor and conjecture.

    A Louisville radio station is reporting the Big East will invite Navy, Air Force and ECU, all as football-only invites.
    http://www.whas11.com/sports/university-of-louisville-sports/Future-of-Big-East-Conference-still-uncertain-130452258.html

    My theory is that the rumor that the basketball schools planned on splitting is true, and they are forcing the football-only nature of the invitations.

    • zeek says:

      Why invite for football-only if the basketball schools are splitting off? Isn’t the whole point of football-only schools to limit the total number of basketball schools for the benefit of the non-football schools.

    • vp19 says:

      Why would Air Force join the Big East for football only when it’s already part of an all-sports conference with comparable football a lot closer to Colorado Springs?

      And if I’m East Carolina, I insist on all-sports status, especially since I’m in an area with no other Big East teams. Being treated like a Temple vassal doesn’t cut it.

      • zeek says:

        Exactly, especially considering that most of the other members were C-USA just a few years ago; at this point, I dislike the second-hand citizen approach…

      • frug says:

        Plus if Air Force moved to the Big East football only they would have to move their other sports to a D-IAA conference.

  99. GreatLakeState says:

    The argument I’m hearing over and over for why ND belongs in the ACC as opposed to the B1G is (to my shame) really starting to irk me. It revolves around the false impression that east coast schools are so OBVIOUSLY more ‘cosmopolitan’ than the B1G because, as everyone knows, the midwest is backward. This coming from the southern fried ACC of all places.
    There’s a joke they tell all Freshman at UofM orientation that ‘if you’ve walked more than two blocks without hearing five languages, you’re no longer on campus’. I mention this only because it also happens to be true -and pretty annoying to be honest. Anyway, I apologize for using the world ‘cosmopolitan’ in a football thread. Definitely a banning offense.

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Is that coming from ACC fans or ND fans? I was under the impression that ND joining the conference wasn’t on most ACC fans’ radar.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        My rant came after reading the Boston College Rivals message board. Wow. I guess when a school has lost as much stature as BC has over the last twenty years a superiority complex is expected.

        • redwood86 says:

          Your previous post highlighted the problem with the midwest: the people generally are narrow-minded socialists.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            Well thank goodness we have your completely unbiased broad brushing stereotypes to show what open minded right thinking look like. :|

          • GreatLakeState says:

            The Midwest is now a hotbed of socialism? You can’t be that stupid.
            Madison and Ann Arbor perhaps, but the midwest? Not even close.

          • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

            @GreatLakeState – Absolutely. The free market solution would be to allow slave labor.

  100. duffman says:

    Brian,

    where are you?

    http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N525MB/history/20110924/1300Z/KOSU/KCLL

    from the where is Jim Delany today file?

    plane is in air now

    • bullet says:

      Battling the SEC for A&M?

    • hangtime79 says:

      VERY interesting….

    • glenn says:

      this plane is owned by a flight service and is based out of columbus.  i gather the ohio state airstrip is its home.

      is delany based out of columbus?  i know the league hq is in the chicago area.  why do you guys suspect delany is on board?  why not an ohio state representative who might not even be involved with athletics?

      • duffman says:

        it was more of a question of who might be on plane? thats why I asked brian. Buckeye’s are playing @ home today so what Buckeye fan would be flying to College Station? Hoping Brian might know something about the planes Ohio State uses? Like the big booster for Oregon using his plane for Larry Scott in 2010.

        • glenn says:

          makes sense.  that would certainly be my question, as well.  that also explains why your question is directed to brian.  i was just curious whether the assumption would be that delany is in college station, and, if so, why we would be pretty certain that is so.

          further, i am curious.  where is delany based?  chicago area?

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            I would presume he lives in Chicago. The HQ are in Park Ridge, Illinois. Delany has to travel a lot for his job, but it would be awfully hard on his family to if he lived he didn’t live in driving distance to the place where he works the most frequently.

          • glenn says:

            thanks.  that stands to reason, assuming he goes to the hq frequently.  i know so little about how conferences function that i have no clue whether a commissioner needs to be at the office much at all.

            my suspicion is that plane was carrying an ohio state employee on a visit having nothing to do with athletics other than possibly just to attend the game.

          • duffman says:

            He lives in Hinsdale, but I feel he is on the road a lot. Being in Columbus would not be out of the question, especially if he was using a booster plane to cover movement as Scott did in 2010.

          • glenn says:

            thanks, duffman.  he’s not that far from where frank lloyd wright lived, i see.

          • duffman says:

            FYI: plane update

            http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N525MB/history/20110925/1415Z/KCLL/KOSU

            flew back today early this morning!

            Ohio State to College Station to Ohio State in 24 hrs when both were at home?

            Brian, can we get any more idea of this plane from the Ohio State end?

          • Richard says:

            Duff:

            Putting my conspiracy hat on, College Station to Austin is a mere 2 hour drive. A B10 representative (Delany or Gee or both) could have flown down to College Station, confirmed that the Aggies are really going to the SEC, and then drove to the outskirts of Austin to meet with Texas reps. As the Horns have this weekend off, pretty much all the powerbrokers would been available to meet. Why not fly directly to Austin? Probably to throw off suspicions. San Antonio and Waco are just as far from Austin as College Station, but at least flying in to College Station may throw people for a loop.

          • glenn says:

            that’s as reasonable a guess as any, richard.  the timing suggests that it was for someone to attend the tamu/ok st game, but, as you say, the longhorns having a bye week opens the possibility that texas reps could have met with whoever was on the plane.  it wouldn’t have been much trouble for texas people to hop over to college station.  if they wanted to talk with a&m people, it almost surely would have to happen in bryan or college station.

            it does seem odd to me for someone in columbus to miss the ohio state game there in columbus.  and given that it was a commercially-owned business jet, i tend to think it was something involving fairly high stakes.  beyond that it’s anybody’s guess.

  101. michael says:

    A thought re: the LHN and the issues it creates for relationships between Texas and, well, everyone who might want to deal with Texas.

    There seems to be two sources of concern:
    1) recruiting advantages that might accrue from showing HS football
    2) competitive advantages that accrue from the profits of running the network (the NY Yankees effect)

    1) can be handled by decree/agreement. Do not allow HS football to be distributed alongside the Texas brand name. Regionalize and brand it as ESPN-whatever, for example.

    It is interesting to note the reflexive assumption that (2) is, in fact, an issue. It rests on the assumption (which may well be the Longhorn intention) that profits will flow to the athletic department.

    Texas is a world class research and academic school, it ranks a bit above the middle of the B1G (by AWRU ratings). The cuts in state funding etc. have concerned many in Texas with respect to maintaining affordability, access, and academic standing. The LHN is a way to monetize the brand — the question we have glossed over is: To what end should the profits be used?

    Texas could warrant whatever profits are derived from the LHN will go to the general university fund and that its athletic budget will grow by no more than inflation from its current (presumably generous) level. They are a public institution — why not open the books to show such a pledge was being kept? Would anybody argue seriously that Texas is not now competitive in recruiting, facilities, etc.?

    Universities can have a nice little money-maker with some understanding. [Things I'd like to know: In how many states is the highest-paid state employee the coach of a university team?]

    It’s time to recognize that monetizing university brands via athletics need not be also a commitment to ramping up the (cold) war. Texas can be Nixon to China.

    (Apologies for that rhetorical flourish. My defense: I watched “Dr. Strangelove” again last night.)

    • M says:

      I always roll my eyes at the idea that the LHN will give Texas a recruiting advantage. Texas doesn’t lose recruiting battles now. In the last 5 years, 5 recruits with a Texas offer have gone to A&M (as opposed to 60 who went to Texas with an A&M offer). Texas was 49-5 against Oklahoma and 155-6 against the rest of the Big 12 combined. Against the SEC, Texas was 76-13.

      A&M only gets 1 UT recruit a year now. I don’t see why the LHN would do them irreparable damage in that area.

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        Did Texas win all of those battles during the 80′s & 90′s?

        If Texas HS players saw their games on TV associated with the Longhorn brand during that time would it have made a difference in their thinking? If it had existed in the 70′s would seeing the Longhorn brand associated with ‘football’ have had an influence on the next generation of players that would be going to college ten years later?

        “Now” is an awfully limiting data set when discussing issues that will be influential over decades.

      • glenn says:

        i agree with m.  i don’t think many texas people — and probably none in any official capacity — have viewed the network as a tool to improve recruiting.  at least, not directly.  it’s all about establishing an identity.  i have lived extended periods in many parts of the country and have been startled a few times by people who obviously didn’t realize texas and a&m were different universities.

        i think a major goal of the network is to produce quality programming that helps promote a more focused and, of course, more positive impression on people in general.  one might argue that that could improve recruiting, particularly in non-revenue sports, but so do facilities upgrades, etc.

        i think the doomsday responses by several organizations have been misguided.  moreover, my guess is that if the project is a success, that most schools will move toward having their own network calling card in fairly short order.

        • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

          I don’t disagree with you glenn but it does need to be repeated that building a platform to build the Longhorn identity (which I don’t think any reasonable really has a problem with) & then using said platform as a vehicle for HS football runs a very real risk of conflating the two in the eyes of viewers.

          • greg says:

            @Scarlet_Lutefisk

            I totally agree about conflating the Longhorn Network and HS coverage. Coaches can’t in any way, shape, or form discuss recruits until they have sign a letter of intent. Yet a channel branded as the Longhorn Network can televise recruits that are specifically selected due to being Texas recruits? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

            I also don’t think BTN or PACN or any other conference network should be allowed to televise high school athletes. It totally crosses the line.

  102. bullet says:

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/09/24/neinas-to-make-last-ditch-attempt-to-keep-aggies-in-big-12/

    After being asked about expansion candidates, Neinas comments “In the Big 8, the Big 12, there was a connection with the natural resources and agriculture. In the Big Ten, the SEC, the ACC, there was a flow of commerce between the states. Now conferences are reshaping to scheduling opportunities, TV and revenue. Conferences had a culture of their own. Now its amalgamated. Bottom line: I don’t know which direction we’ll go.”

  103. bullet says:

    A little different take. Suggests Notre Dame and Texas will eventually join another conference, but on their own terms.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20110924/COL08/109240411/Drew-Sharp-Big-money-Texas-has-earned-right-call-its-own-shots

  104. GreatLakeState says:

    Another guy over at Barking Carnival who seems to take the TX/ND to B1G semi-seriously. In a long article about realignment he said:

    Big Ten – They stayed quiet this time around but did see possible future targets in Pittsburgh and Syracuse move to the ACC. There are some unsubstantiated rumors about discussions between the Big Ten, Texas, and Notre Dame, but certainly not enough to rely on at this point. The thing that makes me most likely to believe this rumor is the fact that the Big Ten has been almost too quiet, as has Notre Dame. Meanwhile, Texas has been the quietest of the Big 12 schools involved. When institutions of this magnitude are keeping quiet in the face of this much activity, I get suspicious. Of course, that’s just how some people do business. Or don’t do business. Your guess is as good as mine.

    • David Brown says:

      Here is the reality of the matter, and I say this from the perspective of a Penn State fan. I really wanted to see Pitt in the Big 10 (We need a major rival), and I am sure Pitt fans feel even stronger about this (They are losing the “Backyard Brawl” against West Virginia, as well as not having PSU in the Conference). However, deep down, they also know that the probability is the Big 10 was not going to invite them to join (They had 20 years to invite them, and they also know what happened to Missouri, when the Tigers wanted to join), and they (Like the University Administration (Whose opinion really matters)) did not want to take a chance that they would be left without a chair when the College Football music stops.
      Being a PSU fan, I know the logic behind the Big 10 Conference has never changed (And never will): They only want schools that will upgrade the entire Conference (Which means academics & research $$$$ as well), which is why they only added three schools (Michigan State, Penn State & Nebraska) since World War II. It goes without saying that Texas & Notre Dame would do just that, and if their academic standing would increase, so would Oklahoma, but Rutgers, Pitt & Missouri would NOT (So I am not getting my rival back (I will have to reserve my dislikes for the three R’s: Red Sox, Ravens & Rangers (I am a Yankee, Steeler & Islander fan). The Big 10 thought process probably is that is better to wait five years (Or more) to possibly get schools of the caliber of Texas, then just simply “Settle” for the likes of Pitt. If it turns out they can’t, they will simply remain right where they are, which means tons of profit for all schools involved

      • zeek says:

        Why I agree with your points, I’d just add that the Big Ten’s not really in a position to be adding at this very moment.

        Nebraska could get paid easily because of the added CCG and general growth of the BTN combined.

        That’s why Nebraska could be added with no immediate dilution.

        However, if we added two additional schools, we’d probably see immediate dilution in the next 2-3 years. It’s much easier to just wait till 2014-2015 when we’re negotiating the next contract and then look around.

        Nebraska was a special case because you always lock up a king looking to move even though we were only halfway through the current ABC/ESPN contract; we also go the $22M per year boost from the CCG. So Nebraska’s addition won’t result in any loss to any other school. You can’t really say that about #13 and #14 until we get to the next contract.

        From my understanding of it, the addition of Nebraska did not cause a renegotiation of the ABC/ESPN contract…

        • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

          Which really fits PBC’s little “reports” well…in other words…”We’ll let all of this conference stuff ebb and flow, but when it’s over, Texas and ND will be ready to join the Big Ten.”

        • David Brown says:

          If you noticed, I did mention that the Big 10 would be willing to wait 5 (Or more) years to have the right school become available, and if they do not, they are comfortable to remain the way they are. On the other hand, if (And I know this would not happen), Notre Dame called, and said they would want to join the Big 10, they would be voted in Tuesday (If not earlier), despite any short-term dilution of dollars. As far as dilution is concerned, there are certain schools within the Big 10 (See Minnesota as exhibit A), who essentialy suck off the rest of the Conference when it comes to football revenue (Guess why the Golden Gophers had to join the Big 10 Hockey Conference, when Michigan read them the riot act?…… Because they are total pikers whose competitive presence in the Big 10, is on the level of Iowa St in the Big XII, and there is no way that the Gophers were going to take money away from the Wolverines Hockey Program).

          • osu>um says:

            David Brown says:

            As far as dilution is concerned, there are certain schools within the Big 10 (See Minnesota as exhibit A), who essentialy suck off the rest of the Conference when it comes to football revenue (Guess why the Golden Gophers had to join the Big 10 Hockey Conference, when Michigan read them the riot act?

            Source of “Michigan read them the riot act ” please.

          • Ross says:

            Yeah I’m curious what you’re referring to. I follow Michigan sports pretty closely and never saw anything about that.

          • Josh says:

            I’ve seen that “Michigan reads the riot act” thing over Big Ten hockey, but not from any source but rather speculation on fan boards along those lines. I’ve never heard any real source say that happened.

            Before the Big Ten Hockey Conference was announced, there were several reports that the Gophers were against it because of their concerns about playing the other Minnesota schools. But it sounds like they just worked out an agreement where the Gophers could regularly play Duluth and the others non-conference rather than the Wolverines (or Badgers) reading them any riot act.

        • Madison Hawk says:

          @Zeek: Both the ABC/ESPN and the BTN agreements were renegotiated when Nebraska joined. The BTN agreement resulted in approximately $7M annually, approximately the per team amount. I have not seen the amount of additional money from ABC/ESPN but part of the non-financial renegotiation was that ABC/ESPN lost its exclusive broadcast windows for football and basketball and received additional basketball games for ESPNU.

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        Pitt has always been the first program I wanted to see admitted as well. Strong academics, a solid history in FB, burgeoning basketball success…. and it would slam the door on any other conference gaining a foothold in PA (pats Temple on it’s cute little head).

        All that being said I certainly acknowledge the arguments against…very small athletic department overall, no on campus stadium, middling fanbase & the stake through the heart….already within the existing conference footprint.

    • allthatyoucantleavebehind says: