Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: Rumors of Florida State and the Big 12

Posted: May 14, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , , ,

For long-time readers of this blog, you know how important that I consider TV rights to be in shaping the world of sports, both college and pro.  It has driven conference realignment the past couple of years, convinced the reactionary leaders of college football to finally institute a playoff, turned the NFL into a financial juggernaut and exacerbated the differences in the fortunes of franchises in the NBA and Major League Baseball.  From the first post that I had in writing about Big Ten expansion, I emphasized how important that the TV revenue from the conference’s deals with ABC/ESPN and the Big Ten Network would be in luring a football power when most fans only thought about geography and historical rivalries.

However, it feels as though the world has gone in the other direction where even hardcore football fans seem to believe that TV revenue is all that matters in conference realignment.  That’s not quite correct, either, as I also tried to indicate in that original Big Ten Expansion post.  Factors such as academics and cultural fit matter if a conference wants to be strong for the long-term as opposed to just the length of the current TV contract.

So, it was quite amazing to me to witness Andy Haggard, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Florida State spew out inflammatory comments against the new ACC television deal with ESPN and suggest that the school should explore options with the Big 12.  Never mind that Haggard was wrong about the details of that TV deal that he was complaining about, which was subsequently corrected by Florida State president Eric Barron and caused Haggard to somewhat backtrack from his initial comments.  The damage is done – the Florida State blog and message board crowd, to the extent that they didn’t already believe that they weren’t getting screwed by the Tobacco Road crowd, are now wholeheartedly ready to sign over the deed to their athletic department to DeLoss Dodds.

Before I get into my opinion, I’ll give credit to The Dude from Eerinsider.com for writing about his belief that Florida State would be going to be Big 12 for several months.  Frankly, I still don’t know how people from West Virginia could know more about the intentions of schools such as Texas, Florida State, Clemson and Louisville than those schools’ own respective insiders and beat reporters, but The Dude has certainly been unwavering in his beliefs and deserves some kudos for, at the very least, socializing the idea that Florida State going to the Big 12 is viable.  I know that I and many others have been dismissive of that speculation, so I’ll need to eat some crow for that.

As for my opinion: if Florida State is seriously considering leaving the ACC for the Big 12, then that would be incredibly short-sighted.  This is the ultimate “penny wise and pound foolish” move.  Eight months ago, the world was discussing whether the Big 12 would even exist going forward.  Texas or Oklahoma sneezing gives the entire Big 12 pneumonia and that’s something that’s never going to change.  Regardless of how large and long the new Big 12 TV contract might be, the one thing that you know about the ACC is that its core of North Carolina, Duke and Virginia aren’t interested in going anywhere.  Maybe the ACC can be weakened on the football front by defections by the likes of Florida State, but the league is going to live on.  In contrast, the biggest flight risks in the Big 12 are the members of its core itself: Texas and Oklahoma.  A blue blood athletic program like Kansas was talking to the Big East back in 2010 for fear of not having a place to land.  As a result, any complaints from Tallahassee about the supposed power of Duke and UNC over the ACC ring hollow for anyone that can remember only eight months back to the primary example of what happens when a school truly runs a conference.  The Big 12 is a power conference that has cheated death twice in two years.

This isn’t a criticism of Texas: the Longhorns have the most powerful college sports brand outside of Notre Dame, so they’re wisely leveraging the assets that they have.  Any school would have taken ESPN’s offer for the Longhorn Network in a heartbeat.  The skepticism comes in as to whether the “third tier” TV rights that are now the subject of so much consternation really have that much value for schools other than Texas.  As Matt Sarzyniak noted, the definition of “third tier rights” is vastly different depending upon the conference.  (Note that it is difficult to find accurate information about the value of third tier TV rights alone.  Many third tier media rights calculations include radio rights, coaches’ shows and Internet streaming capabilities, which all of the major conferences, including the ACC, allow schools to keep for themselves.)

Is it reasonable to assume that Florida State would automatically garner $5 million extra or more per year from selling its third tier TV rights, or is that number going to be mixed in with radio rights that the Seminoles are already selling, so the additional dollars that would be garnered in theory by going to the Big 12 isn’t as much as it would seem?  I don’t have an answer to that question, but it’s not nearly as simple as, “Texas is getting $15 million for its third tier rights, which means that Florida State has got to be able to make at least half of that amount.”  The Longhorn Network is such an outlier for third tier TV rights that it can’t really be used for comparison purposes.  In fact, the best comparison for Florida State would be what Texas A&M made off of its third tier rights in the Big 12 as school that is #2 in its home state with a large and loyal fan base.  My understanding is that amount really wasn’t that much (which is partially why the Aggies had such an issue with the Longhorn Network in the first place).  The third tier TV rights disparity ended up driving Texas A&M away from the Big 12 and now it’s being argued as a lure to draw Florida State in.  (Note that the SEC still reserves third tier rights for individual schools in a similar fashion as the Big 12, so A&M might be seeing better revenue from those rights in its new home.)  It’s fascinating to see that turn of events.

The bottom line: Florida State would be leaving the ACC for the Big 12 solely for money.  That’s the entire argument.  Now, that certainly can be a persuasive argument that will rule the day.  However, in every other major conference move, there was something more than money at stake.  Nebraska got a better academic home in the Big Ten, Colorado culturally fits better in the Pac-12, Texas A&M and Missouri received stability in the preeminent football conference in the SEC, and Pitt and Syracuse and West Virginia and TCU left even more unstable situations in the Big East for the ACC and Big 12, respectively.  Even if you were to argue that money was the driving factor in all of those moves (and without a doubt, it mattered a ton), there were still other holistic arguments that could be made to respective universities that could convince the ivory tower types that there were positives beyond the value of the current TV contract.  That simply isn’t the case when comparing the situations of the ACC and Big 12.  Academically, the ACC is higher-rated than the Big 12 and is the only power conference besides the Big Ten with a research consortium*.  Stability-wise, the ACC has stayed together since 1953 with only one defection (South Carolina to the SEC became independent in 1971**) compared to the musical chairs in the Big 12 over the past two years.  Geographically, Florida State goes from a contiguous coastal conference to one that starts looking like a big budget version of the Big East.  Market-wise for recruiting and TV, Florida State would get access to Texas but lose all of the other fast-growing states in the ACC’s southeastern footprint.  Culturally, for all of the talk about the ACC being a “basketball league” and the Big 12 being a “football league”, the ACC added Miami and Virginia Tech purely for football purposes (and drawing the ire of the supposedly almighty Duke and UNC) while pure football schools Nebraska and Texas A&M couldn’t leave the Big 12 fast enough.

(* EDIT 1: The SEC also has an academic consortium.)

(** EDIT 2: South Carolina joined the SEC in 1992.)

I know that plenty of fans will continue to believe that factors such as academics don’t matter and that it’s simply about the money.  Heck, even Haggard himself believes that when he said, “No FSU graduate puts on his resume or interviews for a job saying they are in the same conference as Duke and Virginia.  Conference affiliation really has no impact on academics.”  That’s an understandable position and considering how much university presidents are searching for every penny these days, it’s not surprising.  However, the people running universities day-to-day certainly don’t believe that, as Barron stated in a memo that the “faculty are adamantly opposed to joining a league that is academically weaker.”  My much more connected SEC expansion counterpart, Mr. SEC, also says that academic prestige is a massive issue with actual decision-makers in conference realignment.

Look – I have no skin in this game.  I’ve stated many times before that few things would make me happier than Duke being relegated to the Southern Conference.  There is no personal affection for the ACC from my end at all.  I’m just looking at this from an outsider’s point of view.  If Florida State absolutely needs the short-term revenue boost from the Big 12 (and that could certainly be the case with the school’s athletic department deficit), then I understand the Seminoles jumping.  I’m past the point of being shocked that a school would move for a few extra TV dollars.  However, I would still be surprised if they defect on the basis that every single other factor for Florida State (academics, stability, geography, markets) points to staying in the ACC, which is unlike any of the other power conference moves over the past two years.  Long-term, the TV money difference between the Big 12 and ACC on its face isn’t enough to discount all of those other factors.

The irony is that for all of the complaints that Florida State fans might have about the supposed basketball focus of Tobacco Road, if the Seminoles had performed half as well in football as they have had in basketball recently (four straight NCAA Tournament appearances, a Sweet Sixteen run and an ACC Tournament championship), no one would be talking about a “weak” ACC football league and ESPN probably would have thrown even more money toward the conference.  Regardless, don’t just look at the TV money, as important as that might be.  Nebraska would have gone to the Big Ten even if there wasn’t a clear increase in TV money.  For that matter, West Virginia would have gone to the Big 12 regardless of the TV contract.  However, the answer isn’t clear that Florida State would ever choose the Big 12 over the ACC if the TV money wasn’t a factor.  There’s a difference between taking money for the short-term (and in college sports parlance, a 13-year TV contract can definitely still be “short-term”) and determining the best choice for the long-term.

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

(Image from KC College Gameday)

About these ads
Comments
  1. Penn State Danny says:

    We Are…

  2. largeR says:

    irrepressable!

  3. Bo says:

    BUCKEYES

  4. greg says:

    Go Hawks!!!

    • John says:

      If FSU was leaving by themselves you have an argument. They’re not. They’re going to have regional conference mates and also be in a conference that cares about football. Also if this new playoff system involves some type of RPI/SOS component they stand a much better chance of making it to the playoffs in the Big 12 than the ACC. The Big 12 will also consistently play in the in the playoffs where the ACC won’t meaning more money for the member institutions.

      The whole academics argument is a red herring. Nebraska didn’t move to the Big 10 b/c of academics. They moved b/c of money and that’s not a bad reason to move. The cost of college football and athletics is rising. The disparity between the haves and have nots will grow and if FSU, VTech, GTech and Miami would like to die on the vine than by all means they should stay in the ACC.

      If they want to compete they need to move.

      • Jericho says:

        That does not make sense to me. How are FSU, VTech, GTech and Miami going to “die on the vine”. Outside of OU and UT, does the Big 12 really offer anything? It seems all the good football teams are leaving the ACC to join….the other football teams leaving the ACC. The more they change, the more they stay the same. Well, plus Oklahoma and Texas. TV wise, no one cares about the other schools, all eight of them. K-State is usually good at football. Texas Tech fell apart post Mike Leach. OSU is bound to regress post Weeden. Baylor will probably crawl back into a hole post RG3. Missouri, A&M and Nebraska, three consistent bowl teams, are gone.

        • atx1985 says:

          Uh, when has Aggy been a consistent bowl team? Also, your other points are pure speculation. If you go off of last years record, the Big 12 was the best conference in football top to bottom, and certainly the second best after the SEC in terms of power ranking.

          • Jericho says:

            A & M has made 11 bowls since the Big 12 formed roughly 16 years ago. That’s pretty good. In the same timeframe Baylor’s made 2 bowls, Iowa State’s made 7, Kansas’ has made 4, and Oklahoma State has made 8.

            Making a Bowl game a majority of the seasons and more than most of the non-Texas/Oklahoma league mates certainly speaks to their football level of play

      • Brian says:

        John,

        Wow, that’s a lot of assumptions on your part. Let’s look at them.

        1. “If FSU was leaving by themselves you have an argument. They’re not.”

        Says who? FSU isn’t even leaving yet, and you already know that another school is going?

        2. “They’re going to have regional conference mates”

        Miami officials have said they have no interest in the B12. VT said they were happy in the ACC when SEC rumors came out. GT is highly unlikely to go to the B12 (lack of desire on both sides). None of the NC schools are going. At best they might have Clemson as a “regional” conference mate, but we haven’t heard anything from either side to show interest in Clemson to the B12. WV is almost 900 miles away and certainly not regional.

        3. “and also be in a conference that cares about football.”

        The ACC cares about it, and brought in FSU, Miami, VT and BC to prove it. Maybe the hoops schools would care more if the “football schools” would win more and thus inflate the value of the TV contract. In fact, half the ACC are football schools right now (Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, BC, VT) and several more have decent football history. Even the upcoming additions have strong football resumes despite being better at hoops recently.

        The B12 is more football focused, but it’s not like hoops aren’t important to many of the schools. The real difference is that the B12 has 2 FB kings and 1 hoops king while the ACC has 2 hoops kings and 1 FB king. Both have plenty of bad FB programs that don’t seem to make much effort to compete for titles.

        4. “Also if this new playoff system involves some type of RPI/SOS component they stand a much better chance of making it to the playoffs in the Big 12 than the ACC.”

        You can’t possibly know how good all the teams in both leagues will be in the future. Playing 10 ACC teams (including CCG) plus 1 strong OOC opponent should be just fine in terms of SOS.

        What’s more important is winning 12 or 13 games, and they haven’t lost only 1 regular season game since 2000. SOS won’t matter if they lose 2 or more games every year. In fact, if you believe the B12 would provide a harder schedule then FSU is better off winning the ACC and hoping their SOS is OK than not winning the B12.

        5. “The Big 12 will also consistently play in the in the playoffs where the ACC won’t meaning more money for the member institutions.”

        Again, you have no idea how various teams will do. FSU and Miami could return to their peaks while UT and OU fall back into their 90s lulls. Then everyone would be saying the B12 was weak compared to the ACC.

        6. “The whole academics argument is a red herring.”

        Proof? There are a lot of people involved in these decisions and clearly academics matter to some of them.

        7. “Nebraska didn’t move to the Big 10 b/c of academics. They moved b/c of money and that’s not a bad reason to move.”

        Proof? Statements from NE indicate the lack of stability and perhaps some issues with TX were major motivators, and that the strong academics and cultural similarities of the B10 were important factors in choosing to join. Not losing money in the deal was significant, but getting a raise wasn’t the important thing. NE has to vest into getting full B10 money anyway, buying their way into the BTN. They could have asked the SEC and gotten full money right away.

        8. “The cost of college football and athletics is rising.”

        True, but not nearly as fast as the optional expenditures on CFB and athletics have been increasing. Schools don’t need to spend nearly as much as they have been to be successful based on the results at TCU and Boise and Utah.

        9. “The disparity between the haves and have nots will grow”

        People have been making this argument for 50 years. What’s so different about now?

        10. “and if FSU, VTech, GTech and Miami would like to die on the vine than by all means they should stay in the ACC.”

        You have zero basis for this. What those 4 teams really need to do is win more games, especially on the national stage. The ACC being 2-13 in BCS games, winning the Orange over a BE champ in the 2008 season and winning the NCG in the 1999 season over the BE champ (and now an ACC member), is what’s killed them nationally. Being in the B12 won’t magically change that.

        11. “If they want to compete they need to move.”

        Moving won’t make them competitive if they can’t win in the ACC now.

      • Brian #2 says:

        What in the world makes you think the ACC is going to be shutout from the playoffs? If FSU goes 11-1 I guarantee they would be in a playoff most years, if not every year.

        it is hilarious to me watching FSU fans try and blame the ACC for their program being mediocre the last decade.

        • Mitch says:

          FSU has not won 11 games sine the early 90′s. They have won 10 games twice in the past 10 years. FSU making the playoffs should be the last of their concerns. If they can’t win 10 games in the ACC what makes them think they could win 10 in the Big 12 or even go .500 in the SEC. FSU should stay right where they are and in the end that is what they will do.

  5. Tommy says:

    Great post! One thing: USC left the ACC to be independent. They joined the SEC in the early 90′s.

  6. Carl says:

    … Penn State!

  7. Christian in Texas says:

    Hook ‘em

  8. jj says:

    This move is madness. Makes zero sense.

  9. isachar says:

    Other top teams have slides much longer and deeper than FSU’s. However, USC has Oregon or Washington or even Stanford to step up their game. Why is it all on FSU to win or its another ACC team getting blown out in a BCS bowl?

    I am unaware of any money the ACC provides FSU for academics. There is no CIC for the ACC in any real sense. If you could point out money that will actually be lost, please do. The ACC academic reputation is mostly based on that bogus USNWR ranking that is nonsense. Truth is, by being in the ACC, FSU gets mentioned in a negative light as the worst school there a lot when we’d be in middle and higher in nearly any other conference. How is that really helping FSU? The only athletic association that provides a real academic benefit is the B!G because of the CIC and the Ivy League because it hasn’t been about athletics for nearly a century. That’s it.

    If you read Wetzel (the only sensible one on this subject) you know its a lot more than that bogus 3 million number President Barron put out there. I have heard rumor that the Big12 pays travel costs, there a lot of factors here. The ACC contract is not only back loaded but look how long it goes. The Big 12 will renegotiate twice before that thing ends. How badly will we be outspent by then? How do you expect us to keep assistant coaches, much less a HC, in this present environment when not only are the Florida and Bamas of the world outspending us but Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Washington St can hire away our people? When you guys rail against this do you think out how its really going to work out or is it just some romantic notion of the academically minded ACC keeping thier prize pig?

    Texas and OU are locked into a 13 year grant of rights and that does change everything. Unlike A&M we don’t care how much Texas outspends us, we care about how much the Bama’s and Floridas outspend us.

    People repeating these talking points are basically asking us to die slowly and quietly.

    • glenn says:

      everybody here needs to read this post.  cogent stuff, issy.

    • Frug says:

      “I have heard rumor that Big12 pays travel coats”

      Well if you have heard a rumor it must be true, just ask the Chairman of your BoT!

      • ccrider55 says:

        A conf can pay costs, or it can distribute that money to the schools so they can pay those costs? I’m not seeing the gain here.

    • Nostradamus says:

      “If you read Wetzel (the only sensible one on this subject) you know its a lot more than that bogus 3 million number President Barron put out there”
      Without reading the actual contract no it isn’t. On face value, Wetzel’s math doesn’t make sense.

      “I have heard rumor that the Big12 pays travel costs, there a lot of factors here.”
      They don’t.

      “The ACC contract is not only back loaded but look how long it goes”.
      If the ACC contract is back loaded, every single contract is back loaded. 15 years seems long, but in the grand scheme of things it isn’t that bad. The SEC deal was signed as a 15 year deal and it doesn’t looks like anyone from among the serious players getting away with less than a 12 year deal anymore (see Pac-12 12 years, Big XII 13 years).

      “The Big 12 will renegotiate twice before that thing ends”
      How do you figure? They’ll re-negotiate two years earlier than the ACC. 15-13=2.

      “How badly will we be outspent by then? How do you expect us to keep assistant coaches, much less a HC, in this present environment when not only are the Florida and Bamas of the world outspending us but Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Washington St can hire away our people?”
      If you’re athletic department is dependent on that extra $3 million a year to be successful you have bigger issues.

    • Brian says:

      isachar,

      “Other top teams have slides much longer and deeper than FSU’s. However, USC has Oregon or Washington or even Stanford to step up their game. Why is it all on FSU to win or its another ACC team getting blown out in a BCS bowl?”

      It’s not. But I don’t recall USC or UT or OU talking about leaving their conference when they were down, either. It’s pure chickenshit for FSU to punish the ACC because FSU has stunk for the past few years and sunk the value of the TV contract, though. With everyone else being down, FSU has no excuses not to win.

      “The ACC academic reputation is mostly based on that bogus USNWR ranking that is nonsense.”

      No, it’s based on the academics (school presidents and professors) who know the quality of education various schools provide. The USNWR ranking are a convenient way to pass some of that info on to laymen.

      “Truth is, by being in the ACC, FSU gets mentioned in a negative light as the worst school there a lot when we’d be in middle and higher in nearly any other conference.”

      Here’s some bogus USNWR rankings:

      Schools equal to FSU:
      ACC – NCSU
      BE – none
      B10 – NE
      B12 – KU, OU
      P12 – OR
      SEC – TN

      Schools below FSU:
      B10 – none
      ACC – none
      BE – UC, Temple, UL
      B12 – OkSU, KSU, TT, WV
      P12 – WSU, AZ, Utah, ASU, OrSU
      SEC – SC, UK, LSU, AR, MS, MSU

      FSU would be at the bottom of the ACC and B10 and near the median of the BE, B12, P12 and SEC. There is no major conference in which FSU would be above the middle.

      “How is that really helping FSU?”

      The worst house in a great neighborhood has more value than the best house in a bad neighborhood. By being in the ACC, FSU has improved their reputation some. It helps hire better faculty and recruit better students. Ask PSU about the improvement of the school’s reputation in the past 20 years, and they weren’t a bad school when they joined the B10.

      “If you read Wetzel (the only sensible one on this subject)”

      That’s all I need to see to know you’re a whack job.

      “I have heard rumor that the Big12 pays travel costs, there a lot of factors here.”

      Well, if you heard a rumor then that’s different. I’d certainly want my alma mater to determine their conference affiliation based on a rumor I heard.

      “The ACC contract is not only back loaded but look how long it goes.”

      So what? Would you complain if the deal was for $1B per year average for the next 50 years? Of course not, because the length doesn’t matter. It’s the value that matters. At least stay on point.

      “The Big 12 will renegotiate twice before that thing ends.”

      No, they won’t. Their deal ends 3 years before the ACC’s. The B10′s BTN deal is 25 years.

      “How badly will we be outspent by then?”

      TV deals are about revenue, not expenses. There’s no promise any extra money would be spent on FB.

      “How do you expect us to keep assistant coaches, much less a HC, in this present environment when not only are the Florida and Bamas of the world outspending us but Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Washington St can hire away our people?”

      Right, losing a HC has been a big problem for FSU. You’re on your second HC since 1976. As of 11/2007, Jimbo was the 15th highest paid coach in CFB (#1 in ACC) and he hasn’t won anything yet. How about you save the sky is falling routine for when it actually becomes a problem?

      “When you guys rail against this do you think out how its really going to work out or is it just some romantic notion of the academically minded ACC keeping thier prize pig?”

      If FSU was still a prize, the TV deal would have been worth more. That’s the whole problem.

      “Texas and OU are locked into a 13 year grant of rights and that does change everything. Unlike A&M we don’t care how much Texas outspends us, we care about how much the Bama’s and Floridas outspend us.”

      Right. Fans will have no issue with a rival for the conference title having millions and millions of extra dollars each year. It’s much more important to compare to neighbors in another conference that can’t prevent you from winning conference titles.

      “People repeating these talking points are basically asking us to die slowly and quietly.”

      Yes, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Everybody is trying to literally kill off all FSU fans by disagreeing with you on the internet.

      • isachar says:

        “It’s not. But I don’t recall USC or UT or OU talking about leaving their conference when they were down, either. It’s pure chickenshit for FSU to punish the ACC because FSU has stunk for the past few years and sunk the value of the TV contract, though. With everyone else being down, FSU has no excuses not to win.”

        For one thing none of these schools have their expectations of winning an MNC some day soon being dashed by lack of money. As I said their conferences don’t fall apart because one team isn’t winning 10+ games a year for a decade. This isn’t about punishing the ACC, its about money. Those romantic days of upstarts winning MNCs are gone, just look at who has won this last decade. You need money to compete. What about Boise St you say? They play other small $ schools and don’t get a shot at a MNC even if they play 2 tough games in a year.
        The fact that the TV contract is terrible is more on Swofford than FSU. How is it that the ACC has the 2nd highest Nielson ratings and yet is in 5th place (by a long shot) in terms of money. How is the Big 12 and PAC getting more money with less viewers? For one thing the ESPN deal values exposure over getting cash. That is, the ACC says “hey, more of our games are on TV and so that has value even if the dollars aren’t as high.” If you are UNC or UVA and already have money that’s great. You see, these complaints about UNC aren’t just basketball and wine and cheese snipes they do have a basis. They negotiate what’s good from their interest, not ours. And how about the fact that Raycom is in the deal with Swofford’s son as a top executive there?

        Then you follow up my contention that USNWR is bogus with a list of USNWR applied to athletic conferences which shows that FSU would be in the middle of the pack in nearly every conference. Beyond the silliness of using made up numbers to prove something, you pretty much proved what I was saying in the first place. If you used a different metric that didn’t include the vague “academic reputation” we would do even better.

        Wetzel isn’t the best college football journalist, he’s for cranks. I really love ESPN’s coverage. They completely ignore this issue that every other sports new site has been all over for days up until they have Barron’s letter that fits their spin. Why is that? Because they stand to lose money if FSU leaves an all ESPN conference for one in which FOX has half the games. Now is that great journalism or a predatory business using its resources for its own interests?

        “Well, if you heard a rumor then that’s different. I’d certainly want my alma mater to determine their conference affiliation based on a rumor I heard.”

        I was simply pointing out that you cannot asssume travel costs will be higher because of the distances. Different conferences do pay for their schools travel costs to varying degrees so stating that they will be higher in the Big 12 compared to the ACC because of the distance is not necessarily true. Plus if the closest ACC teams bolt even the distance part of this argument could disappear.

        “No, they won’t. Their deal ends 3 years before the ACC’s. The B10′s BTN deal is 25 years.”

        The Big 12 will sign one shortly and then 3/4′s of the way through the ACC’s 20 year deal they will sign another. That is very important when these things keep going up in value and when they are backloaded. The B!G owns half of the BTN, its not the same thing. The bottom line is real numbers do need to be investigated by our BoT and I can promise you they won’t be as low as 3 million. People repeating that are even crazier than the first wave of pro Big 12 folks that were claiming 30+ mill a year if FSU were to switch.

        “Right, losing a HC has been a big problem for FSU. You’re on your second HC since 1976. As of 11/2007, Jimbo was the 15th highest paid coach in CFB (#1 in ACC) and he hasn’t won anything yet. How about you save the sky is falling routine for when it actually becomes a problem?”

        What kind of logic is that? Hey, houses are always going up in value, why don’t you drop that negative attitude about real estate investing until they’re actually losing money! I suspect Jimbo Fisher might stay even if there was more money from LSU or some other big $ school, but that’s hardly a guarantee these days, and being able to put money down for assistants is arguably more important. I have no idea what to say about using Bowden as a measuring stick. Penn St won’t have to hire another coach until the 22nd century then?

        “Right. Fans will have no issue with a rival for the conference title having millions and millions of extra dollars each year. It’s much more important to compare to neighbors in another conference that can’t prevent you from winning conference titles.”

        There is no way we can beat Texas in money, or Florida or Alabama for that matter, but you might be able to keep it close enough its not the deciding factor, and you certainly don’t want to be worse off than Washington St, Vanderbilt, and really just about any of the big 4 conferences now making nearly twice the TV dollars than what ACC schools get. Again, you seem to suggest FSU just doesn’t bother trying. We should ignore the money problem even though all the MNC winners for the last decade have been big $ schools, hope that our recruiting grounds and high spirits just get us those wins. And, yes, beating Florida is more important than a conference title.

        “Yes, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Everybody is trying to literally kill off all FSU fans by disagreeing with you on the internet.”

        Look at your point of view through your whole response. You seem to believe that it is FSU’s job to win football games so other ACC schools can get more money. No one else needs to field a competitive football team? All the while sticking your nose up at its academic credentials. Now, do you see why its not in our interest to stay associated with you?

        If 3rd tier is a 1-2 mill, the difference in value between the 2 contracts as they presently are written is 4 mill, and the escalation the Big 12′s contract will get with expansion is 4 mill that could be 10 mill a year and that would be 150 million more for FSU over the course of the ACC contract. That is a very possible number. 3rd tier is not the 15 million Texas gets but a football game and some basketball games aren’t worth nothing. The Big 12 next contract is most likely going to be higher and so the last 3 years of the ACC contract will be

        • Brian says:

          isachar,

          “It’s not. But I don’t recall USC or UT or OU talking about leaving their conference when they were down, either. It’s pure chickenshit for FSU to punish the ACC because FSU has stunk for the past few years and sunk the value of the TV contract, though. With everyone else being down, FSU has no excuses not to win.”

          For one thing none of these schools have their expectations of winning an MNC some day soon being dashed by lack of money.

          Right, because money is the only factor. That explains the dominant run of IN lately since they’ve been out-earning FSU. Boise has been elite spending a fraction of what FSU spends and they have no natural recruiting grounds. Cry me a river for a brand name team in a populous state with great recruiting that plays in a power conference because another school might make a few dollars more than them.

          USC was dominant long before the P12 signed their new deal. Miami and FSU were dominant when other schools were making a lot more money. The contract is just an excuse for underperforming.

          As I said their conferences don’t fall apart because one team isn’t winning 10+ games a year for a decade.

          The ACC isn’t falling apart either. It’s just like the P10 was when USC was down. But USC didn’t cry like a little girl about other teams possibly making more money than them.

          This isn’t about punishing the ACC, its about money.

          I didn’t say it was about punishing the ACC, I said that FSU moving would be punishing the ACC for FSU’s recent failures.

          Those romantic days of upstarts winning MNCs are gone, just look at who has won this last decade.

          When were those romantic days, exactly? When upstarts like FSU and Miami were winning you mean? CFB has been dominated by the same 10-12 programs for most of its history. Ten schools have combined to 51 of the 76 AP titles, with each having 3 or more.

          AP national titles
          8 – AL, ND
          7 – OU
          5 – USC, Miami
          4 – OSU, NE, MN
          3 – UF, TX
          2 – 8 schools (youngest: FSU with ’93 and ’99)
          1 – 9 schools (last: CO in 1990)

          You need money to compete. What about Boise St you say? They play other small $ schools and don’t get a shot at a MNC even if they play 2 tough games in a year.

          Boise has played just fine against power schools, too. But beyond them, WV has greatly out-performed FSU recently and they have done it on BE money. VT has outperformed FSU on ACC money. You can play the Boise plays other little guys card, but the obvious response is FSU similarly plays other ACC schools so there is no money disadvantage.

          On a much easier schedule than FSU plays, Boise came pretty close to the top 4 several times. With the same record in the ACC, FSU would have been fine. The problem for FSU is that they haven’t lost only 1 game since 2000.

          The fact that the TV contract is terrible is more on Swofford than FSU.

          You keep telling yourself that. What was he supposed to sell to ESPN in a bad economy, 2 “brands” that are mediocre in performance or the brandless repeat champ that can’t win a BCS game?

          How is it that the ACC has the 2nd highest Nielson ratings

          Facts not in evidence. You don’t get to just throw out a claim like that without significant proof and explanation. Second highest in what metric, and why is that the relevant metric? The data I’ve seen generally says the most viewers watch the SEC then the B10 and then B12/P12/ACC.

          and yet is in 5th place (by a long shot) in terms of money. How is the Big 12 and PAC getting more money with less viewers?

          Because your ratings information is wrong? Because the B12 and P12 signed new deals after the economy improved and new competitors entered the TV rights market? Because the ACC had to make the first new deal, and that set the bar for others to exceed?

          For one thing the ESPN deal values exposure over getting cash. That is, the ACC says “hey, more of our games are on TV and so that has value even if the dollars aren’t as high.”

          It’s called advertising, and it has a lot of value.

          If you are UNC or UVA and already have money that’s great.

          So woe is poor FSU, but UNC is rich off of the same TV deal? How about you try selling out some home games and use that ticket revenue to pay some bills? You’ve been 5-10k seats below capacity on average for the past few years:

          Capacity = 82,300
          2011 ave = 77,842
          2010 ave = 71,270
          2009 ave = 74,345

          At 7814 seats per year on average, that’s about $400,000 per game (assumed $50/seat) available or almost $3M per year. That would have covered the deficit FSU has been talking about. Even last year, FSU’s best for attendance in 3 years, FSU was only 5th in the ACC in percent of capacity filled on game day (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf).

          You see, these complaints about UNC aren’t just basketball and wine and cheese snipes they do have a basis.

          Yes, in the insecurity of fans of a team that used to be good but hasn’t been for a while. I’ve heard ND fans defense their lack of success, too.

          And how about the fact that Raycom is in the deal with Swofford’s son as a top executive there?

          How about it? Do you know of anyone willing to outbid them for the ACC rights?

          Then you follow up my contention that USNWR is bogus with a list of USNWR applied to athletic conferences which shows that FSU would be in the middle of the pack in nearly every conference. Beyond the silliness of using made up numbers to prove something, you pretty much proved what I was saying in the first place. If you used a different metric that didn’t include the vague “academic reputation” we would do even better.

          You have a bad memory. You said FSU would be in the middle or above in most conferences, and that clearly isn’t true. FSU would peak at the middle, and would be in the cellar in 2 of the 6 power leagues. I used USNWR because it’s easy to find and because I don’t care that you think it’s bogus (it’s amazing how many people say that if their school ranks poorly), but there are many other rankings that generally agree with it. Nobody thinks FSU is a top flight academic school. It’s average for an AQ at best, not that there’s anything wrong with that. What you seem to forget is that that is exactly why FSU wanted to join the ACC in the first place, and being in the ACC has helped their reputation.

          I really love ESPN’s coverage. They completely ignore this issue that every other sports new site has been all over for days up until they have Barron’s letter that fits their spin. Why is that?

          Because they have an obvious conflict of interest, no matter how much they claim their business and news sides are separate? This is hardly the first story ESPN has been negligent in covering, and it won’t be the last.

          The Big 12 will sign one shortly and then 3/4′s of the way through the ACC’s 20 year deal they will sign another. That is very important when these things keep going up in value and when they are backloaded. The B!G owns half of the BTN, its not the same thing.

          You said deal length is the problem. The BTN deal is longer. Either length is the problem or it isn’t. What we both know is that length isn’t the problem. If the ACC deal was triple what it is, you wouldn’t bitch about the B12 renegotiating sooner. Complain about the real problem instead of sidetracking on non-issues like length.

          The bottom line is real numbers do need to be investigated by our BoT and I can promise you they won’t be as low as 3 million.

          Of course they should look into the real numbers, but you can’t promise anything. You don’t know what all the real numbers are either.

          If you paid attention, you’d notice that I haven’t actually advocated for FSU to stay or for them to go. I don’t think anyone knows the financial details well enough to make an informed opinion right now, let alone the academic pros and cons.

          What kind of logic is that?

          Your the one claiming retaining a coach is an issue for FSU. How many coaches have left FSU for a sideways move just to get a raise? Until that number is greater than zero, you’re just Chicken Little saying the sky is falling. You’re manufacturing a problem to try to make your case sound better.

          There is no way we can beat Texas in money, or Florida or Alabama for that matter, but you might be able to keep it close enough its not the deciding factor,

          It’s not the deciding factor. And as for keeping it “close enough” with Texas, good luck. They crush everybody. That doesn’t seem to have bought them too many wins lately, though. UT out-earned AL by over $25M and out-spent AL by over $28M last year. UT basically doubled FSU’s revenue and outspent them by over $50M. With the LHN deal, FSU isn’t closing that gap, especially since you can’t even sell out your stadium.

          and you certainly don’t want to be worse off than Washington St, Vanderbilt, and really just about any of the big 4 conferences now making nearly twice the TV dollars than what ACC schools get.

          If you expect anyone to believe that WSU will start beating FSU because of the money, you’re crazy. FSU has tons of advantages over WSU. I don’t see IN running roughshod over the ACC, and IN has been pulling more TV money for a while. TV money does not equal success.

          Again, you seem to suggest FSU just doesn’t bother trying.

          Right. Saying you should man up and fix the problems in your team instead of whining about fake money problems is saying you should just quit. Those are exactly the same thing. There are over 100 I-A schools that would love to trade places with FSU, so save me your pity party.

          We should ignore the money problem

          You don’t have a money problem, you have a winning problem. FSU’s recent lack of success probably is costing FSU $5-7M a year (ticket sales, merchandising, etc), and that’s before the deflated value of the TV deal now. Blaming anyone else is crap.

          even though all the MNC winners for the last decade have been big $ schools,

          FSU outspends OR, and OR was in the NCG and has been top 5 for several years. TCU and Boise and UC made the top 5 with much less money. VT has been dominating the ACC despite earning less than FSU. Money is just an excuse FSU fans use to console themselves about their recent lack of performance.

          hope that our recruiting grounds and high spirits just get us those wins. And, yes, beating Florida is more important than a conference title.

          Recruiting grounds will help, but some real school spirit would help more. Fill your stadium before complaining about a lack of money. And I said nothing about beating UF on the field, I talked about comparing wallet sizes with them. Money doesn’t equal winning, or ND would have a string of recent titles.

          Look at your point of view through your whole response. You seem to believe that it is FSU’s job to win football games so other ACC schools can get more money.

          No, I think it’s FSU’s job to win games so FSU can get more money.

          No one else needs to field a competitive football team?

          Other ACC schools have pumped about BCS worthy teams, even if they did all lose their games. FSU had an 8-3 2005 team that won the CCG in an upset, and nothing else since 2003. I suggest you get out of your glass house before throwing too many stones.

          All the while sticking your nose up at its academic credentials.

          FSU is average. Yay FSU!

          Is that better?

          Now, do you see why its not in our interest to stay associated with you?

          I’m not a fan of an ACC team, so FSU really isn’t associated with me in any way. I’m neutral in this, I just think you gave crappy arguments.

          • isachar says:

            Why are you arguing the point about USNWR? I said its a bogus ranking, its the worst metric for us because of the academic reputation part and you’re still not showing anything that disputes what I said. FSU is in the middle of 4 of the 6 major conferences with a bad methodology. How would we do we if it was ARWU or a different ranking system? Do any of them result in more $$ for academics or make students learn anything more?

            Using percent of stadium full is a laughable stat to use. Why don’t other ACC schools build stadium that fit more than 55k? Anyways, wins and $$ are chicken and egg, they both lead to each other.

            And you’re claiming VT is significant because they can win a weak conference and then get blown out in a BCS bowl or lose to Kansas. I dunno what to tell you if you think that’s significant. Oregon? You mean Phil Knight Oregon? They might show slightly less expenditure in some years but they aren’t going in the red and aren’t raising student fees to do it. They can keep that pace, and add some more with a new TV deal. Along with Oklahoma St they are a perfect example of how money translates to wins.

            You can say suck it up and its your fault and anything else you want, but we still have to do what is in our best interest just like everyone else has these last couple years. The fact is the TV deal we have is much less than what others have. Money and winning go hand in hand in CFB, always have to some degree, but there won’t be some little school like Miami blowing up out of nowhere in this modern era. If there’s an imbalance in what we are getting and what we can get then we should, and hopefully will close it. While the rest of the ACC can stick around and cry about how its all our fault for not winning enough over a 12 year period.

          • To be fair to the US News rankings, the academic reputation rating is actually very useful for our purposes: it specifically shows what other university presidents think of that school. That’s basically what we’re trying to assess when we talk about academics and college conferences.

            I honestly don’t think the US News rankings are that bad with respect to undergrad and they definitely have a lot of influence in law. I’ve worked in several firms (both general business and law) and their hiring practices all have a strong correlation to the US News rankings. That’s not necessarily on purpose, but it shows that the US News rankings at least pass the “smell test” in the real world compared to a lot of the other rankings out there (e.g. WSJ, Forbes), which is why those are the rankings that the public pays attention to.

          • Further to my last post, I know that when I was a senior at a competitive suburban Chicago high school, everyone in the top 20% of the class or so pored over those US News rankings. You could apply that to all of the similarly situated high schools in the area. That was 16 years ago and, by all accounts, that obsession is even more magnified today with websites like College Confidential. Those high school seniors deem the US News rankings important, and since they are the future customers of universities, the universities deem them much more important than they want to admit. The number of university administrators that have lost their jobs over criteria used in the US News rankings (e.g. yield, which is *truly* a useless metric compared to academic reputation) is very large.

          • isachar says:

            Still doesn’t convince me that that academic reputation gets transferred by being in the same athletic conference. My original argument was that the only time FSU academics do get mentioned in connection with the ACC its about being at the bottom even though it is high compared to the rest of America, and has been gaining ground. Why have FSU’s admission standards steadily been going up the last few decades? Winning at football has been a big part of it. Same reason ND is the highly selective school it is today. Its one of the ways a middle / working class college can get ahead. The rich school way is to start off with big endowments from cigarette companies or sugar and orange plantation owners. Of course, they might have a different point of view, but that’s mine.

            In short, we have an unsubstantiated claim that Duke’s high rating will rub off on FSU versuses things we know are real like the CIC and football creating enthusiasm which drives application standards up. Was it Ohio St that had the ad with kids saying its only a little about the football? One of the more honest commercials out there. I do think the faculty might believe the ACC is better but I haven’t seen anything claiming you get better professors because of that, unlike the other 2.

            And as a side argument – I don’t much care for this country’s obsession with trying to boil complicated things down to inane lists. Does an engineering degree from FSU carry the same weight as one in fine arts? What state are you going to be working in?

          • bullet says:

            I don’t think academic reputation does get transferred by being in the same conference.

            But the Presidents like hanging out with the Presidents of a Stanford or Duke instead of hanging out with the President of Troy State. So it matters to the President. It matters to the faculty. I don’t think it matters much to the school, but it still influences conference realignment.

            Now the CIC has a tangible benefit, but no other conference has something as developed as that.

            The one tangible factor is admission standards. A highly selective school would prefer not to be in a conference with a bunch of open admission schools as they would be more limited in who they could recruit. That doesn’t improve the academic standing of the school, it just keeps a more balanced playing field.

          • Matt says:

            You make several good points, Brian, but I absolutely have to disagree with you on a few things.

            You said, “FSU moving would be punishing the ACC for FSU’s recent failures.” This is incorrect. As others have noted, things are cyclical. No team is “up” forever. But every other conference has multiple teams to carry the banner: SEC (Bama, LSU, UF, Auburn, UTK have all won BCS titles, UGA has won BCS games); Big 12 (OU, UT have won BCS titles, KSt, OkSt, Neb, Kans have won BCS games); Big Ten (OSU won a title, Wisc, PSU, Iowa, Mich have all won BCS games, Neb before joining); Pac 12 (USC has won a title, Oreg St, Wash, Oreg, and Stanford have won BCS games, as well as Utah before joining). The ACC? VT beat Cincy once; UM won a title before joining. That’s it. Why is FSU responsible for carrying the ACC, like it did in the 90s? Why has no other team stepped up on a nationally relevant level? To say that FSU would be punishing the ACC for FSU’s own failings is to admit that the ACC cannot support itself in college football without FSU. That’s bad reasoning for criticizing FSU. You said other ACC teams have had BCS teams? Duh. The champ gets an autobid to a BCS bowl – but again, VT is the only other team to have won a BCS bowl (against, ahem, Cincy). All other major conferences have had at least 5 teams win BCS bowl games. The ACC has two (three, in a sense, but UM’s wins were pre-ACC).

            Also, you deflect blame from Swofford: “You keep telling yourself that. What was he supposed to sell to ESPN in a bad economy, 2 ‘brands’ that are mediocre in performance or the brandless repeat champ that can’t win a BCS game?”

            Larry Scott was able to sell the Pac for more money by offering up less product (fewer games, no tier 3); he was able to start a network system (with regional channels). The other guy’s rating numbers were pretty close: the ACC is #3 in football and #2 in basketball in the Nielsen ratings. What rating system would you prefer (this one helps decide what tv shows will be renewed and cancelled, so it should be good enough here)? The Pac finished 5th and 6th, respectively. Swofford specifically insisted on retaining the ACC’s relationship with Raycom, and thus avoided putting us on the real open market; his son works at Raycom, and Raycom admitted it probably could not survive without the ACC’s business. I have no proof someone would have paid a lot more for the ACC, but it is a fact that Swofford restricted the open market bidding by insisting that Raycom be a partner. That’s practically criminal, certainly morally questionable – he certainly did not act on the best interest of the ACC’s membership, which is his primary responsibility. The SEC left Raycom because it could not offer them competitive money; the ACC should have as well.

            Plus, for more incompetence, FSU is poised to have its best season since 2000. Yet instead of waiting to finalize the renegotiation, Swofford went ahead and signed it. He did not wait to see what the new post season (and its revenue sharing format) would be. He did not wait to see what the SEC would get for adding A&M and Mizzou. He did not wait to see if FSU could make a title run, thus giving the ACC more leverage. How is that not a stupid move? There was no rush, as Pitt and Syr won’t join until 2013 (at the earliest). He also did not secure the return of 3rd tier rights, which would enable a network – that, I might note, he decided against pursuing a couple years ago (much to Raycom’s benefit). (Reportedly the SEC’s previous contract restricted the possibility of a network, but they are renegotiating that aspect and plan to launch a network as early as 2014.)

            Third, you say, “So woe is poor FSU, but UNC is rich off of the same TV deal?”

            No, UNC is wealthy regardless of the tv money. Its endowment is 3-4 times larger than FSU’s. FSU got screwed by the Buckman Act of 1905, which made it the woman’s college and UF the man’s college. FSU did not become coeducational again for 40+ years. It missed out on decades of alumni from medical, law, business, and engineering schools. It is one of the poorer major schools in the nation because of this (instead of doctors, lawyers, etc., its alumni were teachers, secretaries and nurses, whose husbands sent donations to their own schools).

            I’ll also point out that you allow some leeway for the ACC signing its deal when the economy was down, but you chastise FSU for not selling out its stadium during the same economic downturn that apparently hindered the ACC’s negotiations. Consider that Tallahassee is pretty isolated from major metropolitan areas. Gainesville, for example, is within 2-3 hours of Jacksonville, Tampa and Orlando. It’s a bigger school, with more alumni, and many of them live within easy driving distance. FSU is about 3 hours from Jacksonville – and no other major city is within that range. Local hotels stupidly require a two-night stay on game weekends, significantly raising the cost for out of town fans. With the economy down – and, of course, the win totals not as high as they used to be – is it any wonder the stadium has not been selling out? Attendance will rise, I think, as the win total increases and the economy improves.

            In general, I think FSU would be within its rights to move not only because of the prospect of much more money, but also because of the ACC’s lack of effective leadership. The original contract was bad. Insisting on Raycom was awful. Subsequent contracts and ratings info suggest the contract was significantly undervalued. The new contract is not really better (heavily backloaded, extended). Not waiting to finalize was stupid. Eliminating the possibility of a network was stupid. Etc. My ideal would have been for the ACC to become one of the four power conferences, but Swofford proved incapable of making that happen (you can say FSU didn’t help, but neither did any of the other 11 members – something that does not happen in any other conference). If FSU leaves the ACC, it is not doing so primarily because of its own failings. It’s the failings of the other institutions to step up and of the leadership to make good strategic moves.

            (Why has the ACC not promoted itself as the best conference, athletically and academically – using the Director’s Cup standings and the USNWR rankings? Why not set up an ACCN to promote its amazing olympic sports and its academic achievements? Why not make a more serious play for ND, or for UT which was rumored to have approached the ACC when the B12 seemed about to collapse last year? Rumors say the NBC and LHN deals were something the ACC didn’t want – but why not work around them? Etc. There are a lot of things the ACC could have tried to do, but it seems it did not. There’s no reason FSU shouldn’t explore its options.)

    • Squirrelhunter says:

      Florida and Bama won’t go to any lengths to screw y’all if you start getting good. Texas can and will.

      Plus, just wait for the LHN to start showing HS games of ya’lls best recruits. I have no doubt UT and OU want FSU to be ranked cannon fodder and have no interest in a real resurgence in FSU’s fortunes.

      You would be better off in the SEC if you guys just HAVE to move.

      • Matt says:

        The SEC would be my first choice. I think it should offer us. As I’ve read elsewhere, the possibility of getting three new markets (A&M, Mizzou, a third like VT or NCSt) along with a national brand like FSU would be an excellent expansion tactic. If markets were all that mattered, the ACC would be an awesome conference. It’s not. When the Big Ten expanded, it chose a national brand over a larger market. The SEC would be wise to use a two-pronged market and brand/ratings approach to expansion, should it go to 16 (though indications are that it won’t, which I think is a mistake).

        I think VT would be mediocre in the SEC. It rarely gets any 4-5 star athletes, and it would not compete against the elite SEC schools. NCSt would do worse. Both would end up diluting the product, and the SEC’s strength is its depth of teams capable of winning national titles. FSU would help balance out the B/C-level teams it would otherwise add. Geographically, the conference would be tighter, which aids in the rivalries (and ticket sales). Think of the short-term ratings boost FSU would bring because of the story lines, including:

        - Bama (Saban/Jimbo connection)
        - UF (Jimbo/Muschamp connection)
        - UGA (Richt/FSU)
        - UT (Jimbo/Dooley, both Sabanites)
        - LSU (Jimbo/LSU)
        - SC (Spurrier/FSU)

        FSU has some established history with UF, Auburn, LSU, SC (and a potential expansion partner, either VT or NCSt – and add either one to the “story lines” section above).

        Overall, I think FSU would add immediate interest like no other team, and it would build long term rivalries to an extent not likely to happen with any other potential targets.

        Quality, ratings and rivalries are what you want; markets alone do not win the day (or the ACC would be one of the top two conferences). I see no reason the SEC should not accomplish both adding new markets AND the best “fit” out there, which would bring quality, ratings and rivalries (FSU).

  10. Bear says:

    Frank,

    How about the fact that money aside, the Big 12 far and away plays better football than the ACC? Do you not think that the relative difference might not be a consideration to the Seminoles?
    Check your 2012 preseason rankings. Once again, there are 6 Big 12 teams in the top 25.
    I suspect you are going to see Florida State and others react “like football fans” and make the logical move and take the huge upgrade in league quality and cash. Smart choice, and look for others to follow.

    • ccrider55 says:

      Wern’t UT fans saying aTm was making a competitive mistake going to a stronger FB conference? If FSU has under achieved in the ACC how is moving to a stronger conference now a good thing?

      • Bob in Houston says:

        That’s because A&M’s last top-five poll finish was in 1956. FSU did it 14 years in a row. FSU has a track record of achieving at the highest level. A&M doesn’t.

        • Brian says:

          FSU had that track record under one coach. It wasn’t good before him and hasn’t done much since. There’s no reason to assume FSU under Fisher is capable of anything approaching that sort of run, especially with more competition in conference.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            Fisher in two years has more season-ending AP poll rankings than the Aggies have in the new millennium.

        • Squirrelhunter says:

          Belmont learns fast. UT has a much more coordinated response in blog comments than in the last two go arounds.

      • jtower says:

        No. Texas fans were saying A&M had an overinflated sense of there football significance and now derive there athletic worth from their conference mates (sec sec sec.) FSU may be down but they have demonstrated a capacity to succeed. A&M not so much.

        FSU All-time record 473–235–17 (.664)
        Postseason bowl record 25–14–2 (.634)
        BCS Bowls: 1-5
        BCS National Championship Game 1-2
        Bowl Coalition 3-0
        Bowl Alliance 2-1

        aggy All-time record 681–450–48 (.598)
        Postseason bowl record 14–19
        Claimed national titles 1
        Claimed conference titles 15
        BCS Bowls: not applicable
        BCS National: not applicable
        Bowl Coalition: not applicable
        Bowl Alliance: not applicable

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          *In fairness, A&M was 0-1 in the Bowl Alliance (lost to Ohio State in the 1999 Sugar Bowl, which followed their famous 1998 Big 12 Championship upset over previously unbeaten Kansas State), and they were 0-1 in the Bowl Coalition (lost to Notre Dame in the 1994 Cotton Bowl).

      • Playoffs Now says:

        Not all Longhorns say that aTm to the SEC was a bad move for the Ags. (And there are plenty more that are happy to see them leave…)

        FSU and aTm’s situations have some parallels, but really the schools are very, very different. We’ve been trying to counsel our SEC friends and best prepare them for dealing with their new ‘special’ little brother.

        Here’s a primer:

        http://www.shaggybevo.com/board/showthread.php/94931-Tell-me-about-Texas-A-amp-M

        • Brian #2 says:

          It is downright creepy how obsessed UT fans are with A&M.

          • jtower says:

            yep
            if “obsessed” is a new synonym for “tired of” then yes we are

          • Bob in Houston says:

            What jtower said.

            Personally, I don’t start anything about Aggies. But when they start talking, there’s almost always something that needs correcting.

          • FranktheAg says:

            It is Brian. Glad that fact has come to light for more fans across the country. We left the B12 for a better conference but many of their fans (t-shirt types like playoffs now especially) can’t get over it.

    • Brian says:

      Bear,

      “How about the fact that money aside, the Big 12 far and away plays better football than the ACC?”

      They didn’t used to be better than FSU and may not be in the future, but right now FSU can’t even win a league of weak teams. Maybe they should join the BE so they can win their own conference again and put up 12-0 or 11-1 records like the old days.

      “Do you not think that the relative difference might not be a consideration to the Seminoles?”

      Are you saying FSU is masochistic and wants to lose more often and by more points, so they should upgrade their competition?

  11. OT says:

    The only move that makes any sense for FSU, if it were to leave the ACC, is the SEC.

    FSU to XII makes no sense, as it would be trading a North Carolina-centric league for a Texas-dominated league.

    • Bob in Houston says:

      Clearly, they believe that won’t happen, or Andy Haggard wouldn’t have said what he said.

    • bullet says:

      FSU doesn’t seem particularly interested in the SEC. But then Barron doesn’t seem particularly interested in the Big 12 either.

      FSU actually makes far more sense in the SEC geographically than the ACC.

  12. Tony says:

    Interesting hypothetical: Let’s say that the Big 12 does add Florida State, and then Louisville gets offers from both the ACC and Big 12. Which do you think they choose?

    • isachar says:

      The ACC won’t take Louisville. They passed on WV, so why take Louisville? That’s the problem though, they don’t think its an athletic conference even though they provide no actual academic benefits to their members, its all for show.

      • Jericho says:

        Exactly. Louisville’s only shot at a major conference is the Big 12. Same as WV. The Big 10, SEC, and ACC aren’t touching these schools.

    • John says:

      The Big 12 and they don’t think twice.

    • Playoffs Now says:

      FSU is not going to the B12 without bringing ACC partners. In fact the only way I think they go is if both the money is close to $10 mil per year more and they bring 3 nearby/ACC schools.

      (Well, relatively nearby, only GA Tech is within driving distance in the ACC. 6.5 hours to Clemson, 7.5 to Miami, 9.5 to the NC schools.)

      If FSU brings Miami, GA Tech, and Clemson, the B12 is academically even with the SEC. 13 year grant of rights means the B12 is also just as stable as the SEC. Adding those 4 schools would put them quite close to the SEC financially. So it is a bit odd to hear that FSU would be crazy to leave for the B12 because of academics, but the SEC might be ok.

      BTW, can we stop with the oversimplification bullshit? I think FSU to the B12 (or SEC) might make sense, but I still understand that academics matter. Most people open to FSU moving feel that way. And plenty of us think like a President, not just as fans. But decisions are often made in complex political environments.

      FYI, the B12 is planning to start their own CIC equivalent. Academically they did take a big hit losing CO, MO, and aTm, but this may be a chance to rebuild that somewhat. I hated the WV addition because of their lower academic standards, but as DeLoss Dodds noted the conference was in a pickle and needed a quick addition. That is no longer the case.

      I think a lot of people are struggling to fathom that parts of their worldview might have been wrong.

      Got any more PurpleBookCat scoops?

      • Playoffs Now says:

        I should clarify:

        All of us at one time or another struggle with having our worldview challenged, and usually have to adjust. Just a part of life, we’ve all been there.

        • bullet says:

          A lot of people have trouble with the concept that the Big 12 is not still falling apart. And many people can’t accept the possibility that Texas might actually be right where they want to be. I don’t see Texas ever choosing to move unless circumstances substantially change.

      • mountainerd says:

        In regards to WVU’s academic reputation, our chronically poor ranking in the U.S. News and World Report rankings stems from the fact that we are bounded, by law, to accept basically any high school graduate from the State of West Virginia. Penn State and Ohio State have fairly similar standards, but they have plenty of other campuses to send off their less desirable students. WVU does not.

        What really sticks in my craw though is that WVU also gets docked points for having a high dropout rate. So basically we get punished for giving kids a chance and then GET PUNISHED MORE when many of those kids can’t handle the coursework. That has never made any sense to me.

        • Brian says:

          mountainerd,

          “In regards to WVU’s academic reputation, our chronically poor ranking in the U.S. News and World Report rankings stems from the fact that we are bounded, by law, to accept basically any high school graduate from the State of West Virginia.”

          That’s not the only reason. You make it sound like WV is Harvard but with open admissions.

          “What really sticks in my craw though is that WVU also gets docked points for having a high dropout rate. So basically we get punished for giving kids a chance and then GET PUNISHED MORE when many of those kids can’t handle the coursework. That has never made any sense to me.”

          Admissions and graduation rate aren’t completely linked. The theory of open admissions is that rural schools may not always have all the resources needed to provide a great education, so the state university shouldn’t hold that against the students. If these were all dedicated students with all the inherent abilities needed to succeed in college, then a strong faculty would be able to turn them all into strong graduates (like Kirk Ferentz coaching up 2 star recruits). There are many other factors for drop out rate beyond admissions policy, too. That said, a high drop out rate usually indicates a lot of teaching resources being “wasted” on those who don’t graduate. That means classes aren’t teaching as efficiently as they can because the bad students hold up progress and siphon off resources that would help the real students. You learn better in a course that isn’t full of dead weight.

          • mountainerd says:

            “That’s not the only reason. You make it sound like WV is Harvard but with open admissions.”

            Where the hell did I imply that? My defense of WVU is that it’s on par with most major Land Grant Universities, but gets docked points in bogus academic ratings for it’s correlating low admission standards/high dropout rate.

            “The theory of open admissions is that rural schools may not always have all the resources needed to provide a great education, so the state university shouldn’t hold that against the students. If these were all dedicated students with all the inherent abilities needed to succeed in college, then a strong faculty would be able to turn them all into strong graduates (like Kirk Ferentz coaching up 2 star recruits).”

            Ah, so not only should WVU be punished for following state law by accepting lousy high school students , we should also be punished for not allocating limited resources to helping them pass.

            “That said, a high drop out rate usually indicates a lot of teaching resources being “wasted” on those who don’t graduate. That means classes aren’t teaching as efficiently as they can because the bad students hold up progress and siphon off resources that would help the real students.”

            Ok, so you’re assuming that the professors and TA’s at WVU are forced to spend a ton of extra time helping struggling students. That’s absolutely not the case, from what I understand, but even if it were, the vast majority of the dropping out happens within the first two semesters. Only the entry level courses are really going to be effected.

            I’m not saying that WVU is the Oxford of Appalachia, but it’s a damn fine school that unfairly gets docked points in academic rankings systems that are skewed to being with. It’s frustrating to see these rankings used to attack WVU, especially during the whole conference realignment debate, which has had practically nothing to do with academics.

          • jbcwv says:

            The real problem leading to WVU’s low academic ranking is that a significant portion of the metrics are based on subjective reputation surveys of nationwide faculties (I know this is the case for grad schools, and I think it’s the case for undergrad as well). West Virginia as a state has had an image problem for well over a century, and when people who know nothing about the University other than the state in which it is located rate it, the results are not pretty. Obviously I don’t have all the US News data in front of me, but I’d conjecture that bias against West Virginia as a state is responsible for a few dozen spots in the rankings compared to similar schools located in states with innocuous reputations.

            And I don’t think anyone is arguing that WVU is a “Harvard with open admissions.” But it isn’t such a stretch to say it’s a school with facilities and faculty comparable to other mid-ranking sub-AAU universities that is irrationally over-penalized in the rankings because it doesn’t have a huge reserve of regional campuses to which it can farm out its marginal applicants like, for example, Penn State. That is a function of the small size of the state more than anything else.

            In any event, whether the 164 ranking is really deserved or not, I hardly think that associating with WVU, Louisville, or other schools with triple digit rankings is going to meaningfully degrade educational outcomes at higher ranked institutions. Nor had those two schools being in the same conference as Pitt and Syracuse somehow elevated them by association.

          • PSUGuy says:

            Just because my “alma mater pride” has been pricked…from the same site for consistency & ease of reading, but I did double check on the universities’ websites:

            PSU Altoona (Branch), Incoming Freshmen Admissions:
            http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=601

            PSU Erie (Branch), Incoming Freshmen Admissions:
            http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=62

            WVU, Morgantown (Main), Incoming Freshmen Admissions:
            http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1589

            Long story short, the two branch campuses PSU typically shuffles kids off to have higher incoming high school GPA, SAT, and ACT averages than WVU main.

            I work with plenty of WVU grads and can easily say they are good workers and no dummies, but lets not “hand wave” away the problems WVU, and the WV public education system in general, has and it subsequent national rankings because of it (even if I think it understandable to say the “mountain hick” stigma still remains…PSU itself had to over come that at one point).

          • jbcwv says:

            PSUGuy –

            Those are two out of 19 “commonwealth campuses” that are part of the PSU system, and constitute about a fourth of the satellite campus enrollment.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_State_University_Commonwealth_Campus

            Now, for all I know, every one of those campuses has higher entrance requirements than WVU. That would not be surprising, because WVU has statutory entrance requirements that basically open the doors to any high school graduate in the state. As far as the quality of high school graduates coming out of West Virginia’s public education system- tomes could be written concerning the problems facing that system. Most of them can be traced back in one way or another to poverty and associated critical under-funding.

            Anyway, I’m not arguing that WVU is a better school than PSU, or provides a superior education to its students, or attracts a more qualified pool of applicants. I’m merely arguing that US News’ subjective reputational surveys, combined with a bias in the formula — in favor of states with a more robust lower echelon of public school options, and against WVU’s academic mission of providing WV high school graduates with an attainable route to a quality postsecondary education — serve to make WVU appear to be a worse school than it is compared to other mid-level flagship state schools.

          • Brian says:

            mountainerd,

            “That’s not the only reason. You make it sound like WV is Harvard but with open admissions.”

            Where the hell did I imply that?

            When you blamed WV’s rankings solely on the admissions policy.

            My defense of WVU is that it’s on par with most major Land Grant Universities, but gets docked points in bogus academic ratings for it’s correlating low admission standards/high dropout rate.

            How did you decide it’s on par? What was your objective measure? You do realize that some schools have to be below average from the group of “major Land Grant Universities” and WV may be one of them, right? It doesn’t mean you can’t get a good education there.

            Ah, so not only should WVU be punished for following state law by accepting lousy high school students , we should also be punished for not allocating limited resources to helping them pass.

            Rankings aren’t punishment. It’s not USNWR’s problem that WV has to obey that law. They are attempting to give an honest assessment of every school in the country, not soothe the egos of the locals.

            Ok, so you’re assuming that the professors and TA’s at WVU are forced to spend a ton of extra time helping struggling students. That’s absolutely not the case, from what I understand, but even if it were, the vast majority of the dropping out happens within the first two semesters. Only the entry level courses are really going to be effected.

            It’s not an assumption. Struggling students at every school take up more time from the TAs/profs. The only difference is in how hard the material has to be, or how fast the pace, to make them struggle.

            You don’t think hurting the intro courses is important? That it shouldn’t impact an evaluation of the school? The first two semesters are 25% of the time you should be there. That seems important to me.

            I’m not saying that WVU is the Oxford of Appalachia, but it’s a damn fine school that unfairly gets docked points in academic rankings systems that are skewed to being with.

            The problem is you view the rankings in the wrong way. WVU is #164 in the nation in 2012. That’s a good thing. Only the top 200 national universities get a ranking, and then there are regional schools below that. USNWR ranked 1600 schools this year. WVU may be on the lower end of the AQ schools, but someone has to be. There is a worst school in the Ivy League, too.

            As for unfair, that’s just you being defensive. Admitting that WVU has those weaknesses doesn’t make WVU a bad school, just one that could improve. The education you get at any school is largely dependent on the effort the student puts in.

            It’s frustrating to see these rankings used to attack WVU, especially during the whole conference realignment debate, which has had practically nothing to do with academics.

            All schools/teams are attacked for their weaknesses. For WV that was academics and the state population. For other schools it’s been the quality of the teams or the lack of fan support. Would you prefer that?

          • mountainerd says:

            @ Brian

            “When you blamed WV’s rankings solely on the admissions policy.”

            And that automatically implies that WVU is on par with Harvard how, exactly?

            “How did you decide it’s on par? What was your objective measure?”

            Total subjectivity on my part. But the Princeton Review and U.S. News rankings are largely subjective as well, so screw it.

            “Rankings aren’t punishment. It’s not USNWR’s problem that WV has to obey that law. They are attempting to give an honest assessment of every school in the country, not soothe the egos of the locals.”

            No, but they are used to dismiss WVU as an educational institution on message boards and it just gets annoying. I tend to get bent out of shape because WVU provided much of my family a high-quality, affordable education (not to mention a one-way ticket out of the Ohio Valley). Us Mountaineer fans have earned the right to be hyper-defensive and paranoid over the years.

            “As for unfair, that’s just you being defensive. Admitting that WVU has those weaknesses doesn’t make WVU a bad school, just one that could improve. The education you get at any school is largely dependent on the effort the student puts in.”

            I think the rankings are faulty. But otherwise, you’re totally right.

            “All schools/teams are attacked for their weaknesses. For WV that was academics and the state population. For other schools it’s been the quality of the teams or the lack of fan support. Would you prefer that?”

            I would rather disembowel myself with a wooden spoon than be a Pitt fan.

            And WVU has arguably gained more than any institution during the realignment sweepstakes, so yes, us Mountaineer fans should probably stop being so defensive, shut our neurotic hillbilly traps, and relax on a bed of money while making hotel reservations in Austin and Stillwater.

      • Brian says:

        Playoffs Now,

        “FSU is not going to the B12 without bringing ACC partners. In fact the only way I think they go is if both the money is close to $10 mil per year more and they bring 3 nearby/ACC schools.”

        The B12 isn’t sure they want to go to 12, and you have them at 14 at least? I don’t see that.

        “If FSU brings Miami, GA Tech, and Clemson, the B12 is academically even with the SEC.”

        If FSU brings Harvard, Yale and Princeton, the B12 would better than the SEC, too. GT isn’t going to the B12, period. Miami said they weren’t interested (could be standard spin/lies, but they said it), and as a private school with a strong academic reputation staying in the ACC makes some sense. I haven’t heard Clemson say much at all, and I’ve heard many say the goal would be VT instead. I don’t see VT going to the B12 when they said no thanks to the rumors of SEC interest.

        So maybe FSU and Clemson would go, and I don’t see that making the B12 better than the SEC. Both have a weak bottom half.

        “13 year grant of rights means the B12 is also just as stable as the SEC.”

        Not really. It means the B12 will stay together for another 13 years, but as the expiration date approaches the rumors will start up again until the GOR is extended. Nobody thinks the SEC is likely to splinter without a contractual obligation holding teams there.

        “Adding those 4 schools would put them quite close to the SEC financially.”

        Maybe. This is all based on rumors about a deal that hasn’t even been signed yet, and on top of that the SEC is in negotiations to improve their deal. The bigger problem is your assumption that those 4 schools will go.

        “So it is a bit odd to hear that FSU would be crazy to leave for the B12 because of academics, but the SEC might be ok.”

        The SEC makes sense in other ways that the B12 doesn’t. It would still be bad for their academics, but the geography and rivalries would make more sense.

        “BTW, can we stop with the oversimplification bullshit?”

        Sure. Just get us copies of all the contracts involved (ACC, B12 and SEC) as well as transcripts of all the negotiations, detailed budgets and TV ratings for all the relevant schools so we have actual facts to work with.

        “I think FSU to the B12 (or SEC) might make sense, but I still understand that academics matter.”

        Do you understand it, or do you agree with it (and to what degree do they matter)? You can reach very different conclusions from the same evidence based on things like that.

        “Most people open to FSU moving feel that way.”

        Not from what I’ve seen. I’ve seen most of them say academics don’t matter, or are a red herring, etc.

        “And plenty of us think like a President, not just as fans.”

        Have you ever been a college president? If not, do you know any personally? If not, how do you know that you think like one?

        “But decisions are often made in complex political environments.”

        Yes, but that has nothing to do with anything. You can make simple decisions in complex political environments, too.

        • atx1985 says:

          What does being a private school have to do with wanting to remain in the ACC? There are two private institutions in the Big 12.

          • Brian says:

            BC, Duke, WF and Syracuse plus smaller state schools like UVA and GT and not-quite state school Pitt, plus public ivies like UNC. Those schools are different from standard state schools. It’s a different fit culturally.

  13. Playoffs Now says:

    So basically:

    Frank = pre-war French

    ACC = impenetrable Maginot Line

  14. Jojo says:

    @Bear, you’ve got me stumped. Why would a team that can’t win the ACC want to move to a stronger football conference? So they can finish fifth instead of third?

    • acaffrey says:

      A team that can’t beat Wake Forest needs to worry about being in the top 4 in the country.

      Oh yeah, its North Carolina State’s fault that Florida State cannot win with more talent than all but a handful of teams in the country.

      No, wait, it’s Swofford’s fault. You know, the guy that brought in the ACC-carrying Va Tech Hokies, as well as Boston College (better record in the 2000′s than FSU), and Miami (another supposed elite).

      No, wait, it’s ESPN’s fault. You know, the network that will apparently pony up for FSU to swap conferences.

      No, wait, it’s the fault of Clinton, Bush, or Obama.

      Etc….

    • glenn says:

      i don’t know why people seem to think fla st is static.  it is not.  take a look at the recruiting they are doing these days.  and that’s as an acc school.  how are they going to recruit in a football conference that features barn-burner games every weekend and plenty of high-level exposure for the seminoles?

      if jimbo doesn’t cut it, somebody will.  and attracting a top coach will be much easier in a football-centric conference.

      don’t look at what they did the past ten years.  look at what they are putting together now.  the big 12 might be foolish bringing them in and encouraging their growth.

      • Brian says:

        glenn,

        “i don’t know why people seem to think fla st is static. it is not. take a look at the recruiting they are doing these days. and that’s as an acc school.”

        They’ve been recruiting that way for 20 years. It didn’t stop them from becoming average the past 6 (last championship) – 11 (last 1 loss regular season) years.

        “how are they going to recruit in a football conference that features barn-burner games every weekend and plenty of high-level exposure for the seminoles?”

        Barn-burners like their annual games with ISU, KSU and KU? Or the 50% of the time when they play OkSU, TT, TCU and Baylor? The biggest exposure for FSU in many years is the Miami game, and going to the B12 may well cost them that series (UF is a higher priority).

        At best they have WV annually and a regional partner (or 3) plus UT and OU 50% of the time (maybe locked, but I doubt it). Clearly that’s much better than Miami, Clemson and VT/GT 50% of the time, plus UF annually.

        “if jimbo doesn’t cut it, somebody will. and attracting a top coach will be much easier in a football-centric conference.”

        No it won’t, at least not directly. There are other factors that are much more important.

        “don’t look at what they did the past ten years. look at what they are putting together now.”

        Nothing different than what they had before, highly ranked classes that may or may not pan out. Get back to me when FSU actually wins something besides the off season.

    • Playoffs Now says:

      @Bear, you’ve got me stumped. Why would a team that can’t win the ACC want to move to a stronger football conference? So they can finish fifth instead of third?

      In sports, teams often play up, or down, to their level of competition. For whatever reasons.

      Additionally, teams in a conference perceived to be strong often get the benefit of the doubt and artificial boosts in ratings from the media/voters. Witness Bama’s mulligan and the annual SEC Free Pass. To be fair, the B12 has also benefited from this. Sometimes in the computers, witness the embarrassing BCS back ins of OU and Nebraska, or Texas jumping Cal to get to the Rose Bowl.

      Easier to recruit.

      Pride. A new start fuels new hopes and dreams. See aTm and Nebraska. Which usually means big new boosts in donations and attendance. Witness TCU’s stadium expansion (paid in donor cash, not credit) and a near tripling of their season ticket sales. Aggies are claiming a similar boost, so does U. Houston for their move to the Big East.

      Those who perceive themselves as undervalued, underperforming, and/or under appreciated are often willing to take greater risks. That’s why I have always held that aTm’s move to the SEC was the best thing they could do (and I’m a Longhorn.) FSU moving is a tougher call, primarily because of academics, but it might pay off.

      • bullet says:

        I do think you are looking at it simplistically Frank. We are talking potentially massive amounts of money, not pennies. We are talking about the health of the athletic programs. And there is also competing at the highest level in football in addition to other sports (ACC does well other than fb, so does the Big 12).

        And while the ACC is contiguous, it does stretch from Miami to Boston. Tallahassee is 1100 miles from Boston. Its only 1049 miles from Lubbock and 801 miles from Austin. Tallahassee is a long way from the Atlantic Coast of Florida.

        If the FSU President put together a rational list of objections, I would suspect that it would be extremely unlikely that FSU would go. But with such a set of weak arguments, I suspect there is a decent chance the BOT will overrule him. He really has no credibility. There were a lot of us who didn’t believe he actually wrote the letter. It looks like something a poster from a threatened ACC school would write who didn’t have much knowledge of the matter. I couldn’t believe a President of a major university would make himself look so bad on such an important matter.

        • bullet says:

          And while the FSU president talks about issues with academic $, Texas athletics is giving $11.6 million a year to academics. They were already committed to $6.6 million. With the LHN, they have committed at least another $5 million.

        • jtower says:

          bullet
          Weak set of arguments = wish list / negotiation points

  15. Jay says:

    Good analysis, but I think the ability to play for a Nat Championship in Football is a factor. The death of AQ status and the importance of RPI will likely doom the prospects of any ACC football team. Of course it is about money, but Big XII membership can have exponential impacts on the money equation, even if Tier 3 money is the red herring for departure. FSU apparently has material infrastructure needs and needs the kind of marquee matchups that bringing in UT or OU on an annual basis could bring along with an extra 5 to 7 million per year…that’s a lot of debt service $ if you ask me. Besides whose to say that they don’t bring along a few regional friends…like Miami, GT and/or Clemson?

    • Jericho says:

      The devil’s advocate is two fold on that. If qualification to the championship is so important, wouldn’t FSU rather be Team 1 in the ACC rather than Team 3 in the Big 12? And who’s to say FSU plays either Texas or Oklahoma annually? What if they’re stuck in the Kansas/KSU/Iowa St/WV division? And what if they have to give up Miami and/or Florida each year? Or are both of them coming too? Along with GT? and Clemson?

      I mean there are a lot of what ifs that could break well for FSU. But if they went Big 12, wouldn’t any non-OU/UT game be a pretty crappy draw? Is it really all that different from their current ACC schedule?

      And don’t get me started on RPI and the BCS. They changed that formula every two seconds once they get a result they don’t like. You can’t make long term decisions off something that may not last two years.

    • Brian says:

      Jay,

      “Good analysis, but I think the ability to play for a Nat Championship in Football is a factor. The death of AQ status and the importance of RPI will likely doom the prospects of any ACC football team.”

      Based on what? First, we have no idea what the new postseason will look like (top 4, 4 champs, 4 champ if highly ranked, etc). Second, we have no idea how they will rank teams (human poll, computers, RPI, SOS bonus, committee, etc).

      Last year, 11-1 VT was #5 in the BCS and sure to move up if they won the CCG (idle Stanford was #4, and VT would have passed them). As a conference champ in the top 4, they would have made it in the playoff. In previous years, a 1 loss ACC champ has always been highly ranked. The problem is that the champ usually has had 2 or 3 losses lately, not that the ACC gets no respect.

      “Besides whose to say that they don’t bring along a few regional friends…like Miami, GT and/or Clemson?”

      Who’s to say they will? They can’t make a decision like this hoping someone else joins them. They need to know about it in advance or act like nobody special is joining them.

  16. GreatLakeState says:

    I still believe they are going to go and rightfully so. The time to position yourself for the future is now. There are only so many slots in what will eventually be the four power conferences and once they’re locked in, the conferences are going to insure their members stay put or leave their rights behind. Football will never be popular on the East coast. It is critical for FS to keep up with the Jones’ in the SEC/B1G etc. or their ‘brand’ status will crater and their conference proximity to Duke won’t mean much. Interesting article from Staples at SI.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/05/14/florida-state-realignment/index.html

    • Jericho says:

      Am I really supposed to believe that there’s only x amount of spots in this “new elite college football” and if FSU does not go now to the Big 12 to appease the blogsphere that their spot will permanently and forever given to someone else, like Louisville? I don’t find that claim very convincing…

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Silly me for thinking conference membership might not go on infinitum. I look forward to the day when a 32 team SEC plays a twenty eight game conference schedule. I knew that oversigning would come it handy. Now if only I could convince Jericho, my ‘new elite college football’ would rule the world!!!!

        • Jericho says:

          Silly me for thinking that the entirety of college sports does not have to be aligned in 4 neatly filled 16 team super conferences that some people want. Also, silly me for thinking that “all the spots” will apparently not be gone within the next 6 months.

  17. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

  18. hangtime79 says:

    We’re not talking penny-wise, pound foolish here Frank. We’re talking serious cash here.

    Money:
    Let’s start with a long-dated, back-loaded contract the ACC has signed with ESPN. Even with the look-ins its going to be hard for the ACC to increase the contract because again, the contract’s length.

    13MM vs 20MM from either the SEC or Big12 for the next 8 years. So there is 7MM there
    Let’s be real conservative and let’s call it $2MM for FSU 3rd Tier

    So there is 9MM for the next 8 years and we haven’t even gotten to the wild cards yet.

    Big 12 + FSU + Clemson = CCG and bigger contract. Tack another 2 – 3 MM a year
    Playoffs: the difference between the Big 12, a perrienial BCS player vs ACC – an also ran is probably between 3 – 5 a year.

    So now we are talking closer to 14MM on the low-end and possibly as high as 17MM on the high end. That’s not 2.9MM dollars; and in an environment when universities need all the money they can get; how can you stare at your BOT and say your not interested.

    The SEC:
    This is another trouble spot for FSU. Yea, stay in the ACC. That doesn’t hurt the Big 12, but it will hurt FSU as the programs all around them grow stronger with bigger wads of $100 bills. How is FSU going to keep up with the rest of the folks around them with that contract given the dollars coming to Tuscaloosa, Athens, and Gainsville shortly?

    FSU and the new contract:
    Its not all on FSU to field and prop up an entire conference and Bowden was allowed to stay way too long. Fisher has them pointed in the right direction.

    Culture:
    Having spent time in both Texas and Florida, I don’t think the culture between the Big 12 and FSU is that different. In fact, I would say FSU has more in common with UT, TT, OU, oSu then they do with the rest of the ACC. In fact, if you took all the ACC schools which two stick out the most different? Clemson and FSU and I don’t think its a shock that those are the two schools we’re talking about at this point. Personally, I think the SEC would be closer fit, but nobody is talking about the SEC at the moment.

    Academics:
    IMHO, unless you are moving to the CIC the difference between conferences is negligible. If you removed Mizzou and TAMU from the equation of both the Big 12 and SEC – both conferences were just about even. How much is the “prestige” of the ACC worth while being the whipping boy and looked down upon by the UVA’s and the rest of Tobacco Road?

    FSU is valuable to both the Big 12, SEC, and ACC. FSU has more in common and can make more money is the SEC and Big 12. If I was the BOT I would be hunting for an invite to the SEC, but we have not heard anything from the SEC in terms of being interested and the silence is deafening. That means FSU has one option if wants to remain competitive in the state of Florida, the Southeast, and the country, join the Big 12 and bring their friends.

    • Playoffs Now says:

      If I was the BOT I would be hunting for an invite to the SEC, but we have not heard anything from the SEC in terms of being interested and the silence is deafening.

      I’d say it is still pretty early. There’s a heck of a lot of chess yet to be played.

      • Agreed. If “16 teams” is the end game, as many of us believe it is, then who would the SEC want as teams 15 and 16? In the footprint, FSU and Clemson and Miami are the best football schools. Outside the footprint but near…Texas and Oklahoma and Virginia Tech.

        • Brian #2 says:

          But what is the goal of the SEC? Filling the conference with football superpowers, potentially cannibalizing the league, or simply making more money?

          The SEC could be allowing FSU to go to the Big 12 to hopefully create ACC instability so they can pick off schools they really want (UNC? NC State? Va Tech? UVa?).

          I think it is a faulty assumption that the SEC’s goal is to grab every football power in the South. They want to build their brand through their current powers (Bama, LSU, Florida, UGA) and then expand exposure.

          • bullet says:

            I have long thought that moving Alabama and Auburn east while adding, say, OU & UT to go along with A&M and Missouri would be a disaster for everyone. I think the Big East basketball is an example of what can happen to individual programs when a conference is too strong in a sport.

          • Good point. Makes sense. The names I keep hearing are Virginia Tech and NC State to move the footprint north. Maybe that is their “end game”….

    • Jericho says:

      These numbers don’t seem remotely accurate. The rumored Big 12 deal would average $20 million a year, but it surely would not start there. These deals typically have escalator clauses. I don’t believe it will be at $20 million for next season (isn’t the rumored deal for 13 years?). The Tier 3 money also seems grossly inflated. Plus, not sure how you can allot the BCS money without a definite plan (and revenue sharing) in place.

    • bullet says:

      I’m pretty much in line with your numbers. Its hard to know without seeing the actual payouts each year, but the ACC is not only heavily backloaded, but it also extends for about 4 more years. So that $17.1 million would probably look more like $14-$15 if over the same term with a smaller escalation factor (as I demonstrated with sample numbers in the last thread). In addition, the ACC sold naming rights to championships that the Big 12 keeps for itself. So I think the Tier I & II difference is $5-$6 million. KSU just signed a new Tier III deal for $3 million a year. OU is talking in excess of $5 million in new $. While its hard to compare, I would expect there would be $5 million or more in new $ for FSU. Otherwise you are saying all these schools were leaving massive amounts of money on the table. So that gets to $10-$11 million + $2-$3 million for the team additions and ccg. So I’m at $12-$14 million a year before factoring any differences in the new BCS money.

      Their President is complaining about a $105 million cut in funding and then leaving $120 million or more on the table in the next 10 years?

      • bullet says:

        Academics matter to the Presidents, but is he giving up $120 million so he can go to Ameilia Island 4 times a year with the Presidents of Duke, UNC and Miami instead of WVU, KSU and Texas Tech? Is he worried that if he goes to the Big 12 with academic lightweights that he will have to hear of their athletes having wild parties with strippers and getting accused of raping them; or athletes hanging around with agents and having a department give students credit for classes that didn’t even exist; or having a booster act as a pimp for the athletes while spending hundreds of thousands of $ on them? Wait! That was the academic heavyweights of his current conference!

      • Jericho says:

        Again, your Tier 3 stuff is way off. FSU already makes $6.5 million on its Tier 3 stuff. Is it supposed to make an additional $5 million (to bring it to $11.5) million on the small differences between ACC Tier 3 and Big 12 Tier 3?

        • greg says:

          Bullet’s numbers are all off. I agree with nostradamus’ estimate that FSU’s 3rd tier could go up $1M to $2M in the B12.

        • bullet says:

          Texas makes $21+ million. Florida is making around $10 million on an old deal.

          If you don’t think FSU can make the additional $3 million Kansas State is making, you are saying that FSU is maximizing its potential (right-$2.4 million deficit and an AD who was already viewed as incompetent by many FSU fans) and Kansas State didn’t know what it was doing. I can’t say I understand how 1 fb game, a dozen basketball games, Olympic sports and replays are worth so much, but its happening.

          • greg says:

            Link for KSU deal? Its certainly covers more than their extra football and basketball games.

            I didn’t realize that the B12 would make the FSU athletic department competent.

          • Nostradamus says:

            @ Bullet,
            If Florida is making $10 million off of an “old deal” Ohio State has a $11 million a year deal with IMG, Nebraska $8.65 million/IMG, and Michigan a $7.16 million a year deal it suggests that at least in the past The value of the football game and assorted basketball games isn’t as high as most are making it. What remains to be seen is if the Longhorn Network is a one-off fluke or not.

          • bullet says:

            @Nostradmus
            I think the Pac 12 deal is showing that these things have more value now than in the past.

          • bullet says:

            @greg
            Couldn’t find an official link on the KSU deal or the source where I got that number. There was something on it this summer. They have a PPV streaming HD on-line video along with a number of other initiatives, so its possible that $3 million may be their estimate.

          • Nostradamus says:

            “I think the Pac 12 deal is showing that these things have more value now than in the past.”

            I’ll agree that the Pac-12 deal shows that media rights in general have more value than they did in the past. We’ve seen that in all of the contracts starting with the Big Ten’s 2007 deal on. I’ll preface this by saying I agree the 1 football game and assorted basketball games a Big XII like schools receive will likely increase in value as well. It stands to reason that is the case. One of the problems though is that other than Texas we haven’t seen anyone massively cash in on this yet. And I’m not sure that anyone is going to see a Texas like deal anytime soon.

            But back to the Pac-12 example. The Pac-12 obviously signed a $3 billion 12-year deal. That deal includes 44 football games 68 basketball games and assorted Olympic sports, etc.

            $3 billion over 12 years is an average of $250 million a year. Ignoring the basketball games and other content included in the ESPN/FOX deal, the implied value of a Pac-12 football game is $5.7 million ($250 million/44 games annually). Although the Pac-12 network will occasionally be allowed to pick ahead, by-and-large these 44 games are your premium, above average, and average inventory. The other obvious factor is that the Pac-12 contracts do cover more than football. Your average Pac-12 football game may be worth $3.5 to $4.5 million to the contract.

            I have a hard time getting from there to somehow having one football game against your worst opponent and some basketball games getting you a significant paycheck. Like I said, I have a feeling the 3rd tier rights are increasing in value along with the primary contracts. But we really can’t say with any certainty what is happening until we start seeing more schools IMG or Learfield contracts up for renewal.

          • FranktheAg says:

            Bullet: “Couldn’t find an official link on the KSU deal or the source where I got that number. There was something on it this summer. They have a PPV streaming HD on-line video along with a number of other initiatives, so its possible that $3 million may be their estimate.”

            You’re guessing then. Show me a link where an individual school (other than Texas) has been able to sell its one additional fball game and OOC bball games for significant money. The proven method is to combine these rights and let the conference sell them in a block (see B1G and P12). The B12 will never be able to do that since the LHN excludes the most marketable content. So what you are seeing is programs like KSU and ISU looking at marginal revenue streams created by streaming these games over home grown internet tools. The ACC model has opted instead to go for national exposure (vs. a marginal revenue source) via ESPN. I think many fans would prefer that option.

          • greg says:

            ISU’s tier 3 game every year is either not televised or shown on the cable access channel reserved for high school sports. They are probably making $25k for that game.

            I’ve yet to see any real number for B12 Tier 3 broadcast content. It includes all the other stuff (coaches shows, etc.) that teams from B10 and other conferences also make money on.

          • bullet says:

            Florida is the example. They have a deal with SunSports for their Tier III that’s several years old. I’ve seen $8.2 million, but I don’t know if that is all their Tier III or just that deal.

            There are lots of models. The Pac 12 is unproven. The LHN is unproven. The BTN, while doing well, I would say is still unproven. Its just beginning to make profits. And it might be a special case as the Big 10 has a lot of huge state universities with alumni all over. This stuff is all in its infancy and the cable market is changing. If a la carte pricing is mandated, the BTN model has to completely change. In the Pac 12, they are partnering with cable companies, but essentially taking all the risk themselves. The Big 10 is sharing risk with Fox. Texas put all the risk on ESPN but still has the opportunity to make more if it does well. Florida’s model puts all the risk and all the reward on SunSports, much like a traditional Tier I and II deal. Long run who knows? In the short run there seems to be a lot of money available.

            OU is close to a deal. It will be interesting to see what their financial side is.

          • greg says:

            The Florida deal is like all the other deals that include lots of stuff, not just broadcast content.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            BTN has been increasingly profitable and last year almost reached the primary contract payout.
            P12N is not partnering with cable, other than carriage agreements. It is BTN 2.0 ( learn and improve on others inovation). And it’s said to be in the black before it even starts.
            LHN is an ESPN channel created to keep UT from moving while not requiring payment to the rest of the conference.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            Frank the ag: Kansas makes a bundle off of Tier 3 basketball.

          • Nostradamus says:

            bullet,
            Florida is the example. They have a deal with SunSports for their Tier III that’s several years old.
            I posted this on Frank’s last post, but you may have missed it.

            “The University of Florida and Fox’s Sun Sports have signed a media rights deal that is not only one of the most lucrative in the country, but also could end the likelihood of an SEC channel being created any time soon.

            The deal will pay Florida’s marketing arm, the University Athletic Association, roughly $10 million a year for the next 10 years.”

            “To help manage the Gators’ property, Sun Sports has brought in IMG College, created when IMG acquired Collegiate Licensing Co. and Host Communications. The overall value of the deal is believed to be just less than the 13-year, $112.5 million agreement that IMG College recently guaranteed the University of Nebraska for its rights, making it among the most lucrative college rights deals. “
            http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2008/07/14/daily4.html

            That SBJ article makes it pretty clear that it is $10 million all-in.

  19. jbcwv says:

    Concerning the “flight risk” of Texas and Oklahoma leaving the Big 12 in 2025:

    If the Big 12 expands to create a sizable eastern lobe, the idea of UT and OU departing becomes a lot less devastating than the dire outlook facing Baylor, ISU and the Kansas schools last year. A conference with some combination of FSU, Clemson, Louisville, WVU, Notre Dame (in the optimistic scenario) and two or three other ACC schools, combined with whatever remained out west, would still be a more formidable conference than the ACC/Big East conglomeration that would result from the defections.

    • Jericho says:

      That’s not true. It’s really arguable if the current Big 12 would actual get more than the ACC on a true open market (remember that the Pac 12 and Big 12 deals came after NBC entered the picture and upped the fees. The ACC can only renegotiate their existing deal). But that conference is held together by OU and UT. If both leave, then conference, even with FSU, turns worse than the ACC by a significant margin. There’s not one other school that another BCS conference wants among the remaining 8. So the “strength” of this remodeled conference is whomever joins it now.

      • jbcwv says:

        Right- your last sentence is accurate. I didn’t say just the remaining eight. My point is that if the Big 12 expands by 4-6 teams in the east (most of which would be from the current ACC), that eastern nucleus on its own would be superior to whatever would be left of the ACC, and hence UT/OU leaving would no longer be as catastrophic a prospect as it is now.

        • Jericho says:

          But my point would be instead of all the best ACC schools joining the Big 12 (as in your scenario), why don’t they just stay in the ACC? Cause if they’re choosing who fills out their conference, a UNC/NC State/UV/VT/Duke/Maryland group beats out a KU/KSU/ISU/UWV/TCU/OSU group

          • atx1985 says:

            Why does the ACC group beat the Big 12 group? You can’t just go on making assumptions and not list facts and arguments. People don’t just automatically assume that your opinions are true.

          • jbcwv says:

            I’m looking at this from the perspective of a WVU fan, so I’m seeing a potential ACC exodus as something that will be caused by a desire to associate with UT and OU, but will have the beneficial secondary effect of creating a solid eastern football nucleus even without those two schools. But I agree that if the ACC schools are anticipating UT and OU leaving the Big 12, they would almost certainly want to remain in the ACC.

          • Jericho says:

            Because the ACC group has attractive properties. UNC, UVA, Maryland, VT, and possibly even one of Duke/NC State would garner attention from other conferences.

            No one from the existing Big 12 outside out Oklahoma/Texas garners any attention.

            That’s not my opinion. That is a fact.

      • bullet says:

        What the ACC could get on the open market is irrelevant, because that open market is 15 years away.

    • Squirrelhunter says:

      Texas wants what ND and BYU have. Trouble is there is no WCC or Big East type home for their non football sports in the region.

      UT will always be a unreliable partner because they more than any other school understand what it means to be shackled to ne’eer do wells that are a drain on a conference.

      • bullet says:

        Texas never has had any interest in being an independent. Dodds and Powers have repeatedly dispelled that myth.

        • Jericho says:

          Wait. Are we supposed to believe them at their word? Cause didn’t Dodds also say FSU wasn’t on the table. Or are we only supposed to believe what we want to believe? CAuse the whole thing seems confusing….

          • bullet says:

            If you had actually seen them say it and heard it dozens of times over several years, its pretty convincing. Its not like they are saying it during the middle of a negotiation. Besides that, it really doesn’t make sense. Texas doesn’t have the Irish Catholics’ or Mormons’ or militaries’ national draw. We’ve been in a Texas centric conference. It doesn’t work with today’s media. The days of many independents is over.

            As for Dodds comments about FSU, while you have to be suspect of statements in a time like this, I think he is pretty much telling the truth. There are no negotiations yet. No decisions have been made. Some people think the FSU President has already made up his mind to go and is just covering, but that is a pretty hard sell. I don’t think he would write a memo that makes him look stupid (he’s already backtracking on some of his comments) in order to cover up a decision he had already made.

        • Brian #2 says:

          Don’t play stupid. Texas has said repeatedly they will do what’s in the best interest of Texas, and many have speculated that the Longhorn Network is a precursor to that move.

          • bullet says:

            Because I have more knowledge of what UT is thinking because I read a lot about my alma mater and have a different opinion than you doesn’t mean I am “playing stupid.”

            If you actually had ANY knowledge of the history of the LHN you would know it was never designed as a money making entity. UT thought they might have to subsidize it. It was designed to promote the university and the non-rev sports.

            Just because people have speculated its a precursor, doesn’t mean they are right or even guarantee that they know what they are talking about.

          • bullet says:

            And yes, Texas will do what is in the best interest of Texas as will every other school. Personally, I think going independent would be stupid. And I know Deloss Dodds is not stupid.

          • mountainerd says:

            Many have also speculated that Notre Dame will one day join a conference for football. That’s about as likely as Texas ever going independent.

            Texas’s best interest is to be king shit of really powerful conference. They can’t get that anywhere but in the Big 12.

          • Brian #2 says:

            “If you actually had ANY knowledge of the history of the LHN you would know it was never designed as a money making entity. UT thought they might have to subsidize it. It was designed to promote the university and the non-rev sports.”

            EXACTLY. Thank you for making my point. UT wants to promote the UT brand – not the Big 12 brand. If they believe the time is right to go independent and push the UT brand further, they will do that. Stop pretending like a decision on going independent is static; they could easily decide to go indy in 2, 5, or 20 years down the line.

          • Frug says:

            @Brian2

            2 years? Really? What us it about a GOR you don’t understand. The Big XII owns UT’s broadcast rights until 2026. Texas isn’t going anywhere.

      • Frug says:

        You do realize Texas could have gotten the EXACT same deal that ND has with the Big Eat with a single phone call prior to the GOR don’t you? And while the WCC wouldn’t want to travel to Texas the WAC, MWC and CUSA would have jumped at the chance to add UT.

        The reason Texas did’t pursue these options is instututional pride. Texas takes it’s non-FB sports very seriously and will never let them going slumming with a mid-major or even weak major like the Big East .

  20. Mike says:
  21. Jericho says:

    As to the Tier 3 rights issue, this article outlines it pretty well:

    http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/05/third-tier-rights-defined-perspective-on-their-value/

    Basically, FSU currently makes $6.5 on Tier 3 rights. Moving to the Big 12 will not really change that. The Big 12 does guarantee 1 football game makes it to Tier 3 (the worst game on the schedule). And a few more basketball games should fall through. But if that even gets 500,000 more for FSU it would be amazing to me.

    The financial difference between the Big 12 and the ACC is going to be based largely on the Tier 1 and Tier 2 deals. Right now that number is at about 3 million. The proposed Big 12 contract is slightly shorter than the ACC’s current deal, but only two years. The escalators are fairly similar per year. At a reasonable estimate (not super high end or low end), you’re likely talking about a $5-$6 million dollar difference. That’s it. And the question FSU has to ask is if it’s enough.to move?

    My opinion? I agree with Frank the it does not make too much sense. I certainly don’t think half the ACC is leaving, as some on the blogosphere want to claim. The move, it is happens, would be oddity. The entirety of the moves to this date have been fleeing problem conferences. The Big East had a structural problem, combining football and on-football schools. That’s never gone away. The Big 12 had significant administrative issues. They’ve seemingly ironed that out to an extent, but it did not stop Missouri of A&M from leaving just recently. But there’s nothing wrong with the ACC.

    Everyone believes what they want to believe, so even denials are taking as sure signs the speaks mean the exact opposite. But I think there are clearly factions of FSU that want to stay. Just not sure they win out in the end.

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Your referencing an article from Chaddddddddd? LOL, he’s a shill. When he says ‘just a few men’s basketball games’ in the B12, I believe the actual number is as high as 8. His math is also off when he says UTx gets $15 mil, all told it is closer to $24 mil. He’s picking and choosing and excludin’ in order to spin. If in reality Kansas is already getting $10 mil and Ok St $7 mil from their Tier III and other associated rights, I’m quite confident that FSU can approach $10 mil.

      Then there’s the conf champ game, and the inevitable escalation that bringing over high TV value schools add. Not just $ transferred from the ACC to B12, but depending on how scheduled the additions could also have a synergistic increase. And while for ESPN it is just a content transfer (albeit with some loss to Fox), for Fox it could be much more lucrative because it is a much bigger value and content boost for their affiliated stations/networks in the expansion states. Hence while ESPN might just offer the same rate for FSU/Clemson/GATech/Miami in the B12 as they did in the ACC (but I wouldn’t bet on it staying that low) Fox may be able to offer a bigger premium when renegotiating for additions.

      So even if FSU decides to stay put, if they look long enough to negotiate with the B12, I bet we eventually learn that the expected differential between the ACC and B12 payout was more than $6 mil, probably much more.

      • Playoffs Now says:

        Your = you’re, obviously

      • Jericho says:

        Why is FSU going to get at least ten million for Tier 3, when they’re not getting much more content? Even the elite basketball content is not getting 3 million per year per school. What are FSU’s worst games and one football game getting that much?

        And where’s this $24 million figure coming from for Texas? Any info to back that up? My understanding is they get $15 millionf rom ESPN, and not all of that even goes to Texas.

        • Playoffs Now says:

          In Frank’s prior article I reposted someone’s post that addressed much of that. Would link but that appears impossible in this format.

        • bullet says:

          Texas gets $9.4 average from IMG (10 years is what I believe Nostradamus showed) and $15 million from the LHN ($300/20 years). 17.5% of the LHN money goes to IMG, so Texas ends up with $21+ million.

          • Jericho says:

            Are you sure they’re getting the IMG deal and the LHN deal? Didn’t one replace the other? Otherwise, I really don’t know what the LHN gets other than sports no one cares about (swimming, track, volleyball, women’s basketball, etc…). It was my uderstanding that Texas’ one Tier 3 football game was not even promised to the LHN.

          • Mike says:

            @bullet, Didn’t ESPN buy out IMG?

          • bullet says:

            ESPN bought out certain rights IMG had. That’s why the 17.5%. But ESPN is not doing all the stuff IMG does. IMG is described as a “marketing partner.” It sells advertising, does afinity programs (branded Visa cards, etc.). It had the right to sell all media rights which is why ESPN had to buy them out. But IMG is still doing all the other stuff and has a 13 person staff.

  22. mountainerd says:

    @Frank The Tank

    Excellent, well reasoned piece as usual.

    I was skeptical of Homer “the Dude” Snead as well, and still am to a degree, mainly because he tends to sensationalize and self-promote. However, I was told by people I trust, who I know are legitimate insiders when it comes to WVU athletics, that “the Dude” has some good sources and they had heard similar things in regards to possible ACC defections to the Big 12. This was in January.

    Back then I engaged “the Dude” in a debate on the WVU Scout site over the merits of these rumors. I basically had the same opinion you had that the ACC was stronger than anyone thought and that raiding them of FSU or Clemson was a pipe dream. He responded with a pretty strong argument about how much more ESPN and Fox were going to shill out for the Big 12 rights than ESPN was going to pay ACC. Also, he emphasized that a lot of folks in Tallahassee were upset with the Pitt and Syracuse addition, as well as with Swafford’s leadership in general. It looks like he was at least partially right on both accounts.

    As for how any of us hilljacks would have access to the inner workings of conference realignment (a better source than “the Dude” has been a poster on the Scout site who goes by “MHver3,” who was on top of the Big 12 deal a week before it happened, nailed just about every detail of the Big East lawsuit settlement well in advance, and has been on top of the new TV deals and the possible ACC raid for a while now), the explanation is fairly simple :

    - West Virginia is a small state where it’s hard to keep any secrets. Our athletic department is naturally leaky.

    - No school had more to lose or more to gain than WVU when the great conference shuffle started. We started off in the Big East, tried like hell to get into the ACC and the SEC, and then found our way into the Big 12. People within our athletic department obviously have contacts inside the Big 12 commissioners office, as well as contacts remaining within the Big East, and, it appears, some second-hand sources within the ACC. If conference realignment has been akin to World War One, then WVU is Belgium.

    - Oliver Luck has already become a major player within the inner workings of the Big 12. If the ACC raid does happen, I’m positive that Luck will have a big hand in pulling it off.

    Now obviously nothing has officially gone down yet, and there’s still a fair chance that nothing will. But kudos to you, Frank, for acknowledging that “the dude” was at least right about there being some smoke surrounding Tallahassee.

  23. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I understand that these moves are 70% money-driven, 20% reactionary, 10% ego-driven, and almost always (except in the case of TCU joining the B12) 0% about finding a school’s natural “home,” but man, this one gets to me.

    I’ve been an FSU fan all my life. I went to what I believe was the first ever ACC football game for Florida State. It was at Clemson in September of 1992, when I was in the fifth grade. I remember it was actually a close game, with FSU winning by a field goal, 20-17 or 24-21. I sat in the end zone. When Clemson had the lead late in the game, some drunk redneck yelled sarcastically, “Welcome to the ACC!” Growing up close to Clemson and spending the better part of the past 12 years in North Carolina, I’ve developed a sense of emotional attachment to FSU and the ACC.

    I understand most FSU fans live surrounded with even more SEC fans & teams in their faces than I have/do, but I’m still a little stunned that there’s no sense of history or attachment to the conference. 20 years is not long compared to the ACC’s history overall, or especially to the Big Ten’s, but it goes back about as far as I, a 30-year-old, can remember. You would think people weren’t still pining away for the idea of playing Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, etc. and would actually look forward to playing the ACC teams on the schedule. Miami, Clemson, NC State, and, yes, Wake Forest have given FSU some great games (and tough losses worth avenging) over the years.

    And I just can’t help but wonder why there isn’t more of a sense that “the grass isn’t always greener.” The truth is that the NC schools’ dominance of conference politics is just about as mythical as Haggard’s ideas about the way the league did its third-tier rights; however, there is no myth about Texas’ enormous influence over the Big 12.

    • bullet says:

      Look at how long it took any ACC team to beat FSU. And how long it took any school other than NCSU to beat FSU twice. Nebraska fans can relate. They dominated ISU, KSU, KU and MU. That was the reason it was so easy to leave a 100 year old alliance. FSU’s biggest rivals are out of conference. The closest league school isn’t even in their division.

      I’m just amazed when Big 12 fans suggest zipper division alignments using the ACC model. I think they’ve demonstrated the weaknesses of that.

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “FSU’s biggest rivals are out of conference.”

        I’ll give you UF as their #1 rival, but Miami is a clear #1a. They’ve played both 56 times.

        • bullet says:

          Quick typing. I was still thinking of Miami as being out of conference like they used to be, particularly since Barron’s argument is that they will be if FSU moves. And again there are those zipper divisions. Would that rivalry be fiercer if they were directly competing?

  24. I’d like to get some thoughts from the Longhorn posters here. DeLoss Dodds has been increasingly outspoken about how there’s nothing to the FSU rumors and that he wants a 10-team conference with some further quotes today:

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2012/05/14/dodds_pour_wate.html

    A line from Chip Brown (who is clearly excited by these FSU rumors) earlier tonight was that Dodds wishes that the FSU talk would “shrivel up and die”, so it’s not just Kirk Bohls getting that vibe.

    Now, even though I spent an entire post talking about how FSU should turn down overtures from the Big 12, it certainly would make sense the other way around for the Big 12 to (1) go full bore after FSU or (2) at least let these rumors last as long as they can to make the Big 12 appear to be the stronger conference by comparison.

    What exactly is the M.O. for Texas here? I understand why Texas wouldn’t want to expand for a school like Louisville, but Florida State is about as good of a get outside of its hopes for some type of relationship with Notre Dame. Is it really simply about not having a conference championship game or is there more to this? Is Dodds trying to manage fans’ expectations in the event FSU doesn’t come? I’m just curious because I don’t see why he is very direct in his opposition to expansion today as opposed to some of the more nuanced responses that he has had in the past few months on this subject.

    • Christian in Texas says:

      At this point, I don’t believe any carefully crafted, measured comment from any AD, president, conference commissioner, regent, or trustee (except for guys like Haggard, who was speaking so much from emotion that he seemed sincere). They’re all so worried about tortious interference that there’s no way you’re going to get the truth out of them.

      Regarding DeLoss’ comments, I think it’s 50/50 on whether 1) Texas really does want to stay at 10 for the purpose of an easier road to the championship or 2) he’s been appointed as the Big 12 mouthpiece to say all the right things about the Big 12 not wanting to expand, so as to avoid the tortious interference issues. I don’t believe that Dodds has ever leaked anything to Chip (Bellmont doesn’t care much for Orangebloods), but he frequently gives nuggets/propaganda to Bohls.

      • bullet says:

        I agree. I don’t think he leaks to Chip. Clearly someone relatively high tells Chip a lot, but I really don’t think its Dodds.

        I’ve got mixed thoughts on his comments. My best guess is 1) Manage expectations. If no ACC schools come and the other 9 want to expand with Louisville +1 or even if they stay at 10, they don’t want dissappointment (I’ve never believed the done deal people and the FSU President’s comments drive that home); and 2) Make it easier to do a deal than you can with all the publicity.

        People are doing plane tracking. They were tracking a plane that went from Dallas to South Carolina to Camilla, Georgia, which is 1.5 hours north of Tallahassee. And they were talking about all the plane landings in Camilla that week. Maybe everyone was just going for the annual Gnat Days Festival. But people are reading things into every move. An FSU official was in Austin week before last comparing athletic facilities. That was probably scheduled long before. Its kind of crazy and makes it hard to do a deal. It also puts up the antenna in the SEC who might make a play for FSU (I just don’t believe they would turn them down if they would come). It might also complicate the Big 12 TV deal which hasn’t been signed yet. It certainly complicates things for ESPN.

        What I’ve read on the Texas boards tends to think it is posturing. But those people also tend to believe the done deal theory. One idea is that the posturing is to keep it at 12 and not go to 14. Dodds does like 10, but he’s clearly stated he’s amenable to 12 if others want 12. I strongly doubt he is opposed to FSU. Someone quoted an unnamed Texas official saying expanding by 2 was good if it was “the right two.”

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Maybe there’s nothing to these rumors and a savvy FSU BOT chair decided to take advantage of them to pressure the ACC and/or SEC to see what he could get.

      Maybe the other B12 schools are for expansion but Dodds is not. Perhaps he believes the current college football setup of 5 power conferences is perfect, since for the moment it appears the B12 will be the clear 4th power, close to the top 3 in money, and close to the SEC in best positioned to make the new playoffs and BCS bowls.

      Maybe Dodds only wants 12 max (that rumor has popped up a time or two) while FSU wants to bring 3 or 5 ACC schools, so shots are fired through the press. Perhaps he thinks 12 maxes the $, or really doesn’t want to kill the ACC, or doesn’t want to trigger the SEC and B1G to expand, perhaps worrying that the SEC might get FSU.

      Maybe ESPN is fighting back by threatening to torpedo the LHN if the ACC is raided.

      Maybe it is all about tortious interference. (BTW, what is it called if he talks to Maryland…?)

      I dunno. Recall how inexplicably grumpy he was right before the BCS meeting that pretty much assured us of a playoff, and his quote to the effect that nothing was going to change. He’s made plenty of mistakes in the past, so who knows.

      • bullet says:

        It reminds me of Purple Cats story of dueling Texas delegations. Perhaps there are boosters out there trying to do a deal before they involve official people and that makes DeLoss grumpy.

      • glenn says:

        what is it called if he talks to Maryland…?

        shame on you, p-now.  : )

        i agree with those who suggest that deloss’ comments can’t usually be taken at face value.  for numerous reasons.

        my suspicion is, however, that deloss truly would like to stay at ten.  he has been very vocal for a long time regarding transporting his kids long distances on a routine basis.  i think he really does like the smaller conference with the ability for all members to play each other every year.

        he seems to genuinely like the big 12, especially now that fractious parties have moved on.  this is probably the most comfort we have known in the past 60 years, anyway.  i think deloss is hoping that the big 12 can be developed into a more-or-less permanent home.

        numerous longhorn fans who are much better connected than i am believe that, once the network is fully developed, texas is going to look to joining with other like-minded programs to generate a new conference.  if so, it is pretty sure to happen after the assignment of rights expires, after most of the present leadership has retired or moved on.

        • glenn says:

          one more comment regarding what deloss is saying.  don’t forget that the acc was strongly considered last year as a new home for the longhorns.  that possibility is still out there, and deloss isn’t going to say anything incendiary regarding that conference or anything that could be deemed harmful to that conference.

          i think we very genuinely like the acc and might well buddy up with those guys someday.  deloss isn’t going to harm that prospect nor do anything to generate ill will with them.

      • nathan says:

        “Maybe Dodds only wants 12 max (that rumor has popped up a time or two) while FSU wants to bring 3 or 5 ACC schools, so shots are fired through the press. Perhaps he thinks 12 maxes the $, or really doesn’t want to kill the ACC, or doesn’t want to trigger the SEC and B1G to expand, perhaps worrying that the SEC might get FSU.”

        Ohh… I like it. Total pie-in-the-sky, but how great would it be for the BIIX to grab FSU, Clemson, UMD and maybe peel off the likes of Pitt (who hasn’t officially joined and could probably bolt easier) and run to the Big XII+2. That would give the Big XII+2 a better geographic east/west split, keep WVU from traveling as much, and do to the ACC what it did to the Big East over the last 10 years.

        Will never happen, but a boy can dream.

    • cutter says:

      Dodds may be concerned about what Larry Scott and the Pac 12 might do in the future when he talks about keeping the Big XII at ten members largely located in four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa) and one time zone with West Virginia being the solitary outlier.

      One of the questions that came up the last two times Scott wooed Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to join a new Pac 16 Conference was what would happen to the other members of the Big XII. Since the first time this happened, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M have moved to other conferences. If that matter came up today, then the six schools looking for new partners would be Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Christian and West Virginia.

      But what would happen if those partners were already in the Big XII and included a combination of Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Virginia Tech or Louisville? Would that make a move of Texas and the three other schools to the Pac 16 more palatable to the decision makers at large knowing that they left behind a core of ten (or more) teams behind that would form a viable conference even after they left? Does Dodds feel that he’d be setting the stage for Texas to ultimately leave the Big XII for the Pac 16 if more eastern programs were added to the conference? After all, we were talking not too long ago about Kansas looking to join the Big East if UT, TTU, OU and OKState went to the Pac 16. Would the situation be changed if Kansas was already in a conference that had FSU, Miami, Clemson, VTech and Louisville already in it? Would Baylor be suing the four programs headed to the Pac 12 if the Big XII had those eastern teams already in it?

      This seems counterintuitive to me because one would think that a stronger Big XII in terms of overall membership would be a counterweight to any moves by the Pac 12 in the future. Adding the Florida television market and getting a better presence in the eastern time zone should be things that would help the Big XII.

      OTOH, recent history has shown that the Big XII has had problems with its recent leadership and perceived Texas bias. Perhaps Dodds feels that adding more programs into the mix would take the conference back down the same road it just travelled over the last few years. There’d be the same sort of squabbling, etc. that led to Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M to leave. Maybe Dodds is embracing the ten-team conference model simply because it’s the most stable one for Texas to operate within given its budget, the LHN, etc.

      It’ll be interesting to see if perceptions change based on the playoff model that’s ultimately adopted later this year for implementation in 2014. I don’t think a 12-0 Texas team would be shut out of any of the playoff models being discussed (Plus One, top four teams in polls, top four conference champions if in top six of polls, etc.), so that might not be an issue. But would it be better to be 13-0 or even 12-1 in order to get into such a playoff? We’ll see how the perceptions shake out on that issue.

      It’ll also be intersting to see how the Pac 12 develops its network and other media deals going forward. Larry Scott is likely going to be on the scene much longer than DeLoss Dodds, and it the Pac 12 model turns out to be wildly successful while the LHN flounders (even with the financial largesse of ESPN backing it), then we may see a future Pac 16 with a presence in Texas and Oklahoma along with a new Big XII Conference encompassing not only members of the current conference, but former ACC and Big East programs as well.

      • bullet says:

        At least one thing with Texas and Dodds that consistently gets overlooked is that the Big 12 is Dodds’ baby. He and the OU AD at the time basically created it and he feels that pride of creation. Now Dodds is close to retirement, but he has no desire to see it disentegrate or see Texas leave. I suspect the Pac 16 deal was more Powers doing than Dodds.

    • Larry says:

      There is a lot of speculation that the LHN deal was made by ESPN to put a stop to the “super conference” movement by keeping the B12 together. ESPN is overpaying UT now to keep from having to pay more for future conference TV contracts since there would be fewer and more powerful conferences with which to bargain. The BE is already perceived as sub par – and has been for a long time. Pulling FSU into the B12 brings college football that much closer to having only 4 major football conferences. ESPN hates this idea.

      I would imagine some of the undisclosed clauses in the LHN deal give ESPN the right to renegotiate if the college football landscape changes – especially if the B12 causes the disruption. This would explain Dodds’ comments regarding FSU. It would also explain the “we’re happy with 10″ statements that don’t seem to make financial sense.

      • vp19 says:

        If FSU fans come to the belief that ESPN is blocking its entrance into the Big 12 as much as its administration seems to be doing, all hell will break loose.

    • ChicagoMac says:

      Not UT affiliated but…The Tier 3 model demands more inventory to be successful, does it not? Doesn’t that mean there are no two entities that have more to gain from XII expansion than ESPN and Texas?

      Adding one King and at least one more good baseball/basketball program is probably the best fit from a business standpoint. I think you have to add an FSU to get ESPN and Fox to open things back up. If that happens you have a bunch of interesting possibilities.

      Bowlsby was riding shotgun for the Pac12′s changes, and it wouldn’t surprise me to see the XII backdoor their way into a Pac12 type model.

    • BigTenFan says:

      The only angle where Deloss Dodd’s plea to stay at 10 make sense to me is that he doesn’t want schools in the league that won’t depend on Texas – he likes being the BSD in the room.

      Adding FSU, while exciting a majority of the conference, means that there is a second school in the conference that will have significant sway.

      Consider for a moment that, under the current Big 12 setup, SEVENTY PERCENT of the population base of Big 12 states comes from Texas. Seventy Percent!

      Texas signed the grant of rights for 13 years to keep the conference stable and protect the longhorn network – but Texas is perfectly happy with the status quo. Adding a school like FSU in a state like Florida adds significant power player to the conference…perhaps he doesn’t like schools in the conference that have options.

      Just a thought.

    • Bob in Houston says:

      Frank, I think Dodds is taking a step back because he realizes he’s in a minority position regarding 10 versus 12 or 14.

      Additionally, he knows, based on the recent months, that any statement he makes that tends to push expansion is going to be seized upon. His “anti” comments certainly have been.

      However, I think he’s willing to go with the crowd. If they want to expand, and it’s the “right two,” it’s hard to make an argument against it. If you want to be a “good partner,” this is one to be good on.

  25. Quiet Storm says:

    The question is will Florida State be comfortable with annual games against Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia and Clemson/Louisville while playing Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State every couple of years. I don’t see the Texas schools or the Oklahoma schools not being in the same division and the Texas Legislature probably doesn’t either.

  26. bamatab says:

    Add

  27. Pat says:

    Texas athletics overwhelm rivals in revenue and spending. Good luck FSU!
    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/texas-athletics-spending-revenue/54960210/1

    • cutter says:

      While Michigan isn’t at the level of Texas, UM Athletic Director David Brandon said yeaterday that the AD’s master plan calls for an additional $250M in spending on facilities above the $420M that have recently been spend on football ($300M), basketball ($100M) and hockey ($20M).

      http://www.freep.com/article/20120515/SPORTS06/205150444/Red-Berenson-John-Beilein-Brady-Hoke-chat-with-Michigan-fans-in-Chicago

      Brandon mentions the new lacrosse stadium, renovations to the swimming facilities and an expansion of the academic support center as being part of the project. Michigan recently approved $25M for two projects to expand Schembechler Hall (football offices/museum) and renovate Yostt Ice Arena earlier this year.

      While details of the master plan aren’t out, incoming Michigan football recruits have been saying that there is a plan afoot to add more seating to the south (endzone) side of Michigan Stadium. In addition to adding 8-10,000 more seats, I imagine that project would enclose that end of the stadium and link up the two concourses on the east and west sides of the stadium. There are no plans (yet) on what to do with the north side of Michigan Stadium.

    • Kevin says:

      Not sure I believe the subsidy numbers. I know Wisconsin receives $0 in subsidies and actually contributes about $15 million to the academic general fund. There are no student fees for athletics etc…

    • PSUGuy says:

      That subsidy for Rutgers might just be the main reason why they’ll never get a B1G invite…

    • Richard says:

      12 of top 14 in revenue are B10 or SEC (only Texas & OU aren’t). 17 of top 21 in revenue are B10 or SEC (Louisville & Oregon join in as well).

  28. jbcwv says:

    Noticed a realignment oddity when looking at that USA Today data. UNLV is the only college in the ~60 million revenue range not in a power conference. I’m curious why they’ve been so far off the realignment radar when every other school above 40 in revenue (except New Mexico, which is the lowest school in that category) has moved into one of the erstwhile-AQ conferences. Being bad at football is no bar, after all (see Memphis).

    • Jake says:

      Dunno. Gambling?

    • @jbcwv – UNLV’s academics would prevent them from getting into the Pac-12, while the Big 12 wants flagship/flagship-equivalent schools (Louisville is kind of the cusp of that). Now, I think UNLV could be a Big East target as the 14th western football-only member. The issue is that UNLV’s highest and best value is as an all-sports member with its great basketball program – the Memphis comparison is apt as UNLV is essentially the western version of the Tigers. San Diego State is also a strong overall play as an all-sports member, but their football has definitely been a step up over UNLV in the past several years (and thus palatable to the Big East as a football-only member).

      • Jake says:

        Also, there’s this:
        “UNLV was the only non-BCS school to finish in the top 51 public schools for revenue, but it did so largely thanks to a $32.2 million subsidy. It was the least profitable program on the chart and, I’d bet, in the country.”

        http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/15/3021940/chart-revenues-profits-college-athletics

      • Richard says:

        I don’t think the B12 cares about flagships. The B12 does want members that raise the average, though, and if Louisville (top 20 in revenue) is on the cusp, UNLV is too far away (both geographically and money-wise) to interest the B12.

        • Jake says:

          I think the question was why UNLV couldn’t get in the Big East. What does SDSU have that the Rebels don’t? Other than a larger city that actually cares about their football team, that is.

          • Richard says:

            The BE is expanding west of Texas only in football, so that’s probably it. . .

            If they were east of the Mississippi, they’d be in the BE as full members already (ask Memphis).

          • Jake says:

            If they were east of Texas, they could join the Big East, but they wouldn’t be able to get Coors beer. Unless they called the bandit …

          • Richard says:

            Huh? I’m quite certain you can buy Coors anywhere in Chicagoland these days (and have been able to for a while now)

  29. Jake says:

    And here’s a totally scientific poll proving that 96 out 100 FSU fans prefer Big 12 football over the leading brand:

  30. nathan says:

    As much as I think the BSC conferences (with the exception of the Big East) will be fairly conservative in any moves they make, I can’t shake the feeling that something’s brewing in the ACC; or at least people in the ACC believe something is brewing. Otherwise, why raid the Big East for Pitt and ‘cuse when they did? My understanding is that it was a bit spur-of-the-moment, “how would you like to join the ACC, you have 30 seconds to decide” offer. Other than a fear that an existing member would/could be poached why grow?

    It always reeked of a defensive move to me.

    • Jericho says:

      I don’t know why the ACC added those two schools, but it allowed them to do one thing – reopen and renogiate their TV contract. And that added money they otherwise would not have had.

  31. SuperD says:

    In regards to the mystery of Dodds vocal opposition to the FSU rumors, you really do have to wonder how much of it has to do with how ESPN feels about the idea. I’m generally not one to buy into some of the wilder conspiracy theories, but we know that most of this expansion stuff is driven by TV and ESPN is heavily involved behind the scenes. ESPN and Fox have essentially saved the Big 12…twice. By all accounts it looks like they overpaid what most folks thought the Big 12 was worth after losing it’s (arguably) second biggest brand and its two largest TV markets outside of Texas. They also threw an ungodly amount of money at Texas for a TV channel that at the moment no one can watch and will only carry one / maybe two football games consisting of UT vs whichever Little Sisters of the Poor team they happen to have scheduled that year in order to keep them out of one of the leagues looking to start their own non-ESPN channel.

    I think it is fairly rational to believe that the relationship between ESPN and Texas is pretty cozy. Is it cozy enough for ESPN to ask Dodds to help repay them for showering Texas with money, or is Dodds just playing the bad cop so it doesn’t look like Texas is running the show and Bowlsby is in charge? The ACC has all but admitted that they extended expansion offers to the teams that ESPN told them to invite, so we know ESPN doesn’t really take a hands off approach to conference membership.

    Why exactly would ESPN be interested in re-opening TWO contracts it literally just negotiated in order move the premier football team from the conference whose content it owns lock, stock, and barrel for the next 15 years? ESPN has a vested interest in promoting the Big 12 and ACC in order to avoid a proliferation of the super-conference model, particularly if things follow the B1G / PAC model where a significant portion of the media rights are retained for conference TV channels. Personally, I think ESPN’s actions regarding Big 12 have been significantly motivated by opposing this vision from Scott/Delany.

    Maybe Dodd’s motivation is simply that he prefers the 10 school round-robin format, that is the likely answer without the conspiracies, and it doesn’t introduce any strong new players in the conference politics. However, it certainly doesn’t sound like him given all the ‘long term single super conference brokered by Texas’ chatter that was coming from insiders on Texas’s boards a while ago. However, if his opposition is at least partially…umm…influenced by his LHN broadcast partner’s preferences, then it raises some interesting conflict of interest questions regarding Texas doing what is best for the conference as a whole. Dodds did say if that is what their conference mates wanted they would be a good partner and go along…but he sure didn’t sound enthusiastic about an idea that sounds like a home run for the Big 12 on its face.

    • Playoffs Now says:

      However, it certainly doesn’t sound like him given all the ‘long term single super conference brokered by Texas’ chatter that was coming from insiders on Texas’s boards a while ago.

      But it is important to remember the context. At the time it was not clear if the B1G, SEC, and ACC would go to 16. Once OU got slapped down by the Pac and things settle down, I think his outlook changed. As long as none of the other 4 power conferences expand, there really isn’t a good reason for the B12 to. Maybe BYU and a Big East team would add a CCG and $ bump, but it sure doesn’t sound like it would be anything too exciting.

      Personally I’d just assume we stick with the status quo of two 14-school power conferences, two 12, and a 10. Also hope the Big East solidifies so that Boise (or sometimes Houston or USF or other surprises) has a solid platform to make runs into the playoff, which will happen if they stay together. Just get the playoffs expanded to 8 (Top 5 conf champs and 3 wildcards) and life is about perfect.

      OTOH, colonization is fine, would be nice to soon know that the sun never sets on the Longhorn Empire…

    • bullet says:

      “By all accounts it looks like they overpaid what most thought the Big 12 was worth….”

      If you are simply saying they paid more than most people expected, that’s also true of the ACC contract everyone is disparaging, the SEC contract that is now in 4th or 5th place and the Pac 12 contract. If you are saying they deliberately overpaid, you have been listening to too many Missouri and A&M fans. The idea that ESPN would do a $1.3 billion deal and overpay in some sort of machiavellian plot is ludicrous. Its comparable to the Pac 12 deal with better recent ratings than the Pac 12. There are no serious accounts that they are overpaying for the Big 12. And if you were listening to the conspiracy theories two years ago, one comment kept coming up. “They aren’t ready for superconferences now.” ESPN & Fox didn’t like the idea in 2010 when there were a lot of contracts in existence, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t ready now. They have or are in the process of reworking 5 of the 6 AQ conference contracts.

      • Richard says:

        “The idea that ESPN would do a $1.3 billion deal and overpay in some sort of machiavellian plot is ludicrous”

        I don’t think it is. I also don’t find it terribly Machiavellian (unless you think pursuing your best interests in a business negotiation/relationship is “Machiavellian”.

        “Its comparable to the Pac 12 deal with better recent ratings than the Pac 12.”

        The Pac12 being a conference that has complete allegiance in a footprint that is roughly double the population of the B12′s.

  32. nathan says:

    Frank,

    Don’t mean to threadjack here (but I’m going to try anyway) but what are your thoughts on all the current conference shenanigans and the growing concern about head trauma in football?

    Just as the power conferences are going through a one-a-generation realignment in order to maximise the value of their football product, there’s a not insignificant chance that within the current generation football as we know if very well may be marginalized, if not outright disappear. Between the legal / ethical / financial liability the universities could potentially shoulder and a generation of kids whose parents won’t let them play football, shrinking the pool of kids who play in high school, thus college, football may be in a real lot of trouble.

    Assuming it is, what happens regarding all of the recent changes driven by football? Interested to know your thoughts.

    • @nathan – This will be interesting to see. Personally, I know that I have great hesitation in allowing my own son (who will turn 3 this summer) to play football in the future and every subsequent story about head trauma gives me even more pause (and I’m someone that loves the game). Could the cumulative effect of millions of parents like me cause football to look drastically different in a generation? That’s more than possible. I didn’t grow up in the ’60s, but my impression is that it would have crazy during that time to think that boxing would ever become a minor sport and that the World Series would eventually be outdrawn on TV regularly by the NBA Finals. Participation in baseball has dropped precipitously over the past few decades due to factors completely outside of potential injuries, so there’s definitely the prospect of football seeing a similar decline.

      However, there’s also the counterpoint that we might say one thing and do another as fans and that the law of supply and demand will rule. Look at the rise of mixed martial arts over the past few years, which makes football head trauma looks like child’s play. An economist’s viewpoint would be is if the reward is high enough in the NFL, there are going to be people who are willing to take physical risks to try to get that reward (and in turn, that means that there will be people who want to play at the lower levels in high school and college). Many people take many other jobs with great physical risks, such as being in the military, fighting fires or fishing for Alaskan King Crab, for a lot less money than they’d make in the NFL.

      One thing that I believe: the issue isn’t going away, no matter how much the NFL (or the NCAA and the college conferences) might want it to.

      • bullet says:

        I think the more immediate risk is alternative entertainment. More kids are sedentary and playing computer games. There’s been no stop in ratings and attendance improvements. But there’s no guarantee that continues. And the cable TV market has already started to shrink and that is driving much of the revenue growth.

        I did grow up in the 60s and the NBA was a small mostly regional league that didn’t take off until challenged by the ABA. College basketball was a mostly midwest, northeast sport with a few outposts like UCLA and the Phog Allen connections-Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina. Baseball is a sport that has been hurt by entertainment alternatives (in addition to its own stupid decisions). Its too slow paced for a lot of younger people. I remember daytime World Series baseball games when we listened in the classroom (and it wasn’t a local team). Boxing is an example of what not to do as well. They went the opposite of KISS. They had multiple champions so noone could keep up. There was corruption casting doubts on the credibility. There was the avoidance of serious competition. All lessons for college football.

      • Other Mike says:

        @Frank

        As a guy (now 23) whose parents never let him play football growing up, yet is still a passionate fan, my first question would be how dependent overall fandom is on overall participation.

        Secondly, it’s hard to see any one sport dethroning football as the premier sport in high school. Irrespective of how the pro leagues are doing, that much seems to be on auto-pilot at this point.

      • acaffrey says:

        That’s a very good point.

        Think about it from a liability standpoint. It may reach the point where it is too expensive to insure a football team.

        It’s one thing for high schools kids to bang into each other. When you are talking the size and speed of college players, another story altogether. Plus, as the high schools kids grow in size/speed, the cumulative effect could lead to issues manifesting themselves with college players more often down the road. Not all college football players are bound for the NFL. There will be plenty that planned to use their brains to be successful–and concussions may deprive them of same. And the numbers are just that much greater–with 120 Division 1 schools and rosters around 80-100, a lot of kids practicing and playing every year.

        If a school is paying their coach $4M, but using subpar helmets, how is that going to look to a jury? If a school is making $25M in TV revenue annually, but coercing 21-year-olds to return from a concussion too early, how is that going to look to a jury? Meanwhile, with the colleges operating their football teams like businesses, the sympathy will be low.

        Finally, it’s a great point about the cyclical nature of sports. Football is popular now, but it may not always be.

  33. http://www.nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/may/if-the-acc-implodes-big-ten-expansion-scenarios.html

    How does the Big Ten fit into the ACC crisis? (Plus, thoughts on Notre Dame’s position now)

  34. Eric says:

    I will give this defense to the Big 12, I think it was about a perfect storm of things going wrong and it survived. While I think the odds still slightly favor the Seminoles staying in the ACC, I still maintain that the Big 12 is a lot more stable long term than people give it credit. They have 13 years guaranteed and as long as this works out OK, I don’t see Texas or Oklahoma seriously considering anywhere else. That’s more than long enough for the new status quo to reemerge and those two greatly benefit from being able to anchor a conference. The risk of them leaving is certainly greater than North Carolina and Duke leading an ACC exodus, but long term I think Virginia Tech to the SEC or Maryland or northern member to the Big Ten are greater risks than Texas/Oklahoma leaving soon.

    • bamatab says:

      As some of the other posters have said, I think the fact that the Big 12 feels it has to hold the schools tv rights hostage seems to prove that the Big 12 doesn’t truely believe itself that the conference is all that stable. What other conference has felt that they need to force its member institutions into turning over their tv rights? The conference may be stable as long as the “grant of rights” deal in in place, but once that is through all bets are off. Let’s say at the end of the grant of rights has expired, and the LHN turns out to be a flop, do you honestly believe that UT won’t be gazing back over to the Pac 12? IMO, conference stability should be measured over the long haul, not over the next 13 or so years.

      • Bob in Houston says:

        “What other conference has felt that they need to force its member institutions into turning over their tv rights?”

        The Big Ten? The Pac-12?

        • bamatab says:

          @Bob in houston,

          You’re right. I guess I worded that question wrong. What I meant was what other conference has felt the need to force its member institutions into turning over their tv rights for the express purpose of keeping the schools in the conference. The B1G & Pac 12 schools granted their tv rights for the express purpose of creating a conference network, not as a way to stablize their conference.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            You do what you have to do to keep things together, I guess. The ACC looked like a king six months ago without a GOR and now half the league is nervous.

          • ccrider55 says:

            While both have started networks the, GOR would have given the conference far greater bargaining power when working on normal media contracts. I may be wrong but I believe those conferences have had some level of a GOR for some time.

      • OT says:

        Boss DeLoss prefers ACC (or BIG EAST) over B1G or PAC if LHN were to fail and Texas would need to move to another league.

        Boss DeLoss is all about control. He can’t control either the B1G or the PAC. He might be able to control the ACC. He will be able to lord over the BIG EAST.

        • acaffrey says:

          Can Texas control a Big XII with high-maintenance Florida State and Clemson (a prince that thinks its a King)?

          • ccrider55 says:

            Even what would be a king anywhere else (OU) has to play the prince in the longhorn conference. Not saying UT shouldn’t have great influence, but don’t think a couple newbies to the conference will change the power structure.

        • bamatab says:

          I doubt that. At one point two summers ago, the entire Big 12 south was poised to jump to the Pac 12 at the whim of UT. Heck back when UT left the SWC, if it wasn’t for Texas politicians they would’ve probably been in the Pac 12.

        • Bob in Houston says:

          Why would the LHN cause Texas to look around? It’s not Texas that is keeping the thing away from providers, it’s ESPN. All the crap that’s on DirecTV? They could have it on tomorrow, if they lowered the price. ESPN bought the option and they’re going to keep it.

  35. [...] Penny Wise and Pound Foolish: Rumors of Florida State and the Big 12 (Frank the Tank’s Slant) [...]

  36. Other Mike says:

    All,

    I’m having trouble finding definitive research dollars figures/rankings. Should I be looking at federal grants? University expenditures? Links/info from anyone who’s in the know would be greatly appreciated.

    Note: I mean to look at this from the angle of the Big Ten evaluating prospective candidates’ academic/institutional contributions. (I don’t know what bearing that might have, but I expect you might.)

    P.S.– Any sort of profile on Penn State, before and after bulking up on CIC?

    • Mike says:

      Everything you’ve been looking for has been posted/discussed before in the comments to Frank’s posts. That should narrow your search a bit.

    • Sorry, Other Mike. I’m a novice at this stuff. I don’t have hard data, but like Mike said, it’s all been documented here in the past. UNC/Duke/UVA are upper echelon academia in the ACC (which is a strong academic conference to begin with). They’d be new markets for the Big Ten.

      Like TAMU and Mizzou are to the SEC, they’d be good but not great football additions, but are otherwise a perfect fit. The question is…who would get spot #16?

  37. [...] when you are not even sold on marriage at all, like Texas apparently is, all the more reason to ignore Florida State’s overtures.  Someone else can marry that [...]

  38. Michael in Raleigh says:

    Frank,

    What do you think the ACC should do in order to convince Florida State not to leave? Short of renegotiating the ACC/ESPN deal, which is impossible at this point, is there anything it can do?

    Here are some of the things I’d do:

    - Realign the divisions to make geographic sense. Miami with schools north of NC, FSU with schools south of Virginia. This gets Ga. Tech in the same division, which would help since Atlanta is home to more FSU grads than any city outside of Florida.

    - Listen and respond to the supposedly petty complaints about scheduling tough Thursday night games after non bye weeks or tough conference road games after tough non conference games. League members can consider the scheduling complaints whining all they want, but it is worth considering if it helps keep its most valuable football TV brand.

    - Consider distributing TV money based on national TV appearances. Granted, this supposedly caused consternation in the Big 12 (even though that model actually benefited the schools who departed), but it may help retain a school it can’t really afford to lose.

    That’s all I can think of. Some FSU fans blame John Swofford for not being a good enough TV negotiator and for not being pro active enough. I think that’s not the answer. Swofford negotiated the original $155M/year deal with horrific timing, as many have pointed out. It was before Comcast/NBC entered the market, before the Pac-12′s game-changing deal, shortly after the crash of the economy, and in the middle of three of his four biggest football brands’ weakest stretches (FSU, Miami, Clemson). As far as being pro-active, Swofford went after Miami, VT, and BC years before Delany grabbed Nebraska or Scott went after the Big 12 South. Furthermore, he responded to the Pac-12′s new deal by adding Syracuse and Pitt before any other league expanded in 2011, a move which at least allowed the conference to re-open the ESPN contract. So I do not think Swofford is responsible for the shortcoming in TV value. Rather, it’s the product he has to work with and the terrible timing he had.

    If you were the ACC, what would you do now?

    • acaffrey says:

      They should have done the north/south anyway. Never understood the zipper. Protect Miami/FSU, Virginia/UNC, etc. Win-win.

      Maybe allow schools to keep a greater percentage of post-season revenue. You get to the BCS FSU and you’ll reap the benefits. An incentive to avoid mediocrity.

    • bamatab says:

      I think your restructuring of the divisions would probably help ease some of FSU’s angst, or at the very least moving GT into their division. I think they have actually been pushing for GT to move to their division for sometime.

    • ChicagoMac says:

      No special deals for FSU, if the decide they want out wish them well.

      If FSU leaves, the ACC would add UCONN and probably offer ND and Georgetown membership to all non-FB programs. UCONN, ND and GTOWN strengthens the already excellent basketball inventory. ND+ACC would have more clout in Bowl game negotiations than either party does today.

      As long as the ACC doesn’t lose more they will thrive.

      • Michael in Raleigh says:

        ChicagoMac,

        Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t favor the idea of uneven revenue distribution, based on the principles of membership equality and unity, but that may be what it takes to keep FSU. And make no mistake about it: Florida State is the ACC’s most valuablevTV brand. The ACC would hurt from losingthem, badly. And UConn basketball/football would be a wildly insufficient replacement of FSU football/basketball, in terms of TV.

        Furthermore, your ideas of adding Georgetown/Notre Dame only adds fuel to the fire that FSU fans have in their perception of the ACC as a basketball-driven league.

        As far as “thriving” goes, basketball viewership would rise marginally, but that would hardly help matters since football is where TV ratings are truly driven. As for football, the league would have lost its most valuable asset. It wouldn’t be like the Big 12 losing Nebraska. It would be like the Big 12 losing Texas, or the Pac 12 losing USC, or the Big East losing Miami. (How’s that working out for the Big East, by the way?)

        I won’t defend the immaturity displayed by FSU’s leadership, but now would not be the time for the ACC to be stubborn. The least it can do is work with the Nobles on scheduling and getting Ga Tech into the division, if not consider appearances-based revenue distribution.

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          *Noles, not Nobles. The pitfalls of typing on a smartphone are on full display in just about all of my posts. ;-)

        • ChicagoMac says:

          Understood. What I’m saying is that the ACC protected itself for this possibility when it poached Syracuse and Pitt.

          Doing so destabilized the BigEast/ND relationship which could go a long way to softening the blow from the potential FSU departure. The conference would only have to give ND a BigEast type deal and the Irish would run into Swofford’s arms. Its a much better fit for ND than what is left of the BigEast and it would substantially help each(ND and the ACC) in future negotiations with Bowls.

          The way the playoff discussions are headed it looks like a conference’s ability to negotiate with Bowls will be critical for success. Adding ND’s voice to those discussions will help the ACC even if it is only for partial membership. (ACC#2/ND, ACC#3/ND, etc.)

          For TV purposes, ND would likely do something similar to what it agreed to with the Big East where it plays one or 2 games each year against conference foes. Obviously, the road games in that setup would fall into ESPN’s lap and help out the aggregate ratings accordingly.

          From a TV perspective, adding ND, UConn and Gtown helps out the basketball side quite a bit. Not only do you add three good basketball brands but you get a little bit of the sum of the parts are greater than the whole at play. BC/Syracuse/UConn create a great inventory of games for the New England area and Gtown/Maryland/UVA would do the same for the Wash. DC market. When you sprinkle in the occassional Duke/UNC game against the above names you have a nice little content package to sell to regional sports networks.

          So, no doubt that losing FSU would hurt but I think Swofford and the boys have some creative avenues to cover the hole nicely.

        • Brian #2 says:

          While FSU is valuable to the ACC, it would be a slippery slope to begin changing revenue distribution rules simply to help convince them not to leave.

        • Eric says:

          One question that I have never understand. Why are most people so for complete TV revenue equality?

          I understand it as a means to an end, but not as an end itself. In the Big Ten is works and shouldn’t be dropped. In the PAC-10 though, they could probably have had Texas and Oklahoma and become the PAC-16 if they weren’t hell bent on going to complete income equality. In the ACC staying completely TV revenue equal may mean they lose their most valuable pieces. If not being completely revenue equal can gain/stop you from losing important members, I don’t get why any conference should stick with it on principle. It’s not like every school contributes equally and this is some form of theft.

          • ccrider55 says:

            And we see how solid B12 was under a much more individualized system. Trying to attract teams using the system (although even it had to be made much more equal to save the conference) seems like trying to smother a fire with wood.

          • frug says:

            The PAC didn’t institute equal revenue sharing until after Colorado and Utah were added (and even that required them to fight the LA schools).

            Last year the Oklahoma schools were set to join the PAC-12 (which had equal revenue sharing by that point) but Larry Scott couldn’t get the votes.

            Revenue distribution had nothing to do with those deals falling apart.

          • Eric says:

            Ccrider, the Big 12 wasn’t stable, but I’d offer the argument that non-equal revenue sharing was nothing but a red herring. Texas A&M and Nebraska certainly weren’t for it and I don’t think Missouri or Colorado’s decisions were based on it at all either.

            frug: True it didn’t come out until after they joined, but reading the the things that came out later, it sounded like Texas would have come if they had been able to keep their tier 3 for the Longhorn Network (although that could certainly be wrong). They could have had Oklahoma still (a chance I don’t think they will ever have again), but Texas was likely contingent on tier 3 rights staying with the schools. The PAC-10 could have become every bit as big as the Big Ten and SEC from a marketing standpoint, but its unlikely to now. It worked out this round anyway thanks to rising contract values, but that’s not permanent.

          • bullet says:

            @Eric
            President Powers basically said they figured out a Pac 16 with divisions to reduce the travel demands on student-athletes was something they could do in the Big 12 and get similar money. So why do it? Why move to a new conference for similar money if you were just swapping AU and ASU for KU and KSU? You could still schedule USC and UCLA out of conference.

    • Brian says:

      Michael in Raleigh,

      “- Realign the divisions to make geographic sense. Miami with schools north of NC, FSU with schools south of Virginia. This gets Ga. Tech in the same division, which would help since Atlanta is home to more FSU grads than any city outside of Florida.”

      I realize Miami has a lot of ties to the northeast, but don’t you think they might take issue with their nearest division mate being over 1000 miles away? What if that just shifts the disgruntlement to Miami from FSU? If Miami was OK with it, it might work.

      As you know, the original concerns were two-fold. First, the football schools and the recruiting grounds were much better in the south and the ACC didn’t want to basically have a FB division and a hoops division. Second, Miami and FSU were the most valuable brands with Clemson and GT next and they wanted to get valuable CCG match-ups. The best way to achieve that was to split them up equally.

      Miami, VT, BC, MD, Pitt, Syracuse, UVA vs FSU, Clemson, GT, NCSU, UNC, WF, Duke

      I think that’s asking for balance problems, but nobody watches the ACC CCG anyway.

      “- Listen and respond to the supposedly petty complaints about scheduling tough Thursday night games after non bye weeks or tough conference road games after tough non conference games. League members can consider the scheduling complaints whining all they want, but it is worth considering if it helps keep its most valuable football TV brand.”

      This should be a universal policy, not something special for FSU. A Thursday night game should always follow an off week for both teams. No conference should get in the business of deciding which games are tough and which aren’t. That always ends badly. As for OOC scheduling, that’s the school’s fault. All the ACC should do is tell schools way in advance what weeks they will play ACC games and let the schools deal with the OOC issues.

      “- Consider distributing TV money based on national TV appearances. Granted, this supposedly caused consternation in the Big 12 (even though that model actually benefited the schools who departed), but it may help retain a school it can’t really afford to lose.”

      The problem with this is that it may punish more deserving teams just because FSU is more popular. It also leads to arguments as the opponents also get a bump just for playing FSU in a week when TV had an opening. At some point the other schools have to have enough self-respect to say keeping a school isn’t worth devaluing ourselves any more.

      “If you were the ACC, what would you do now?”

      Do a behind the scenes soft sell to FSU but let them know you won’t be held hostage.

      • Jake says:

        Of course, one might argue that simply being more popular is what makes a team deserving.

        • Brian says:

          It doesn’t mean the less popular schools will support it. How would you feel if 6-6 UT got double the TV money as 11-1 TCU because they made more TV appearances?

  39. BigTenFan says:

    Can someone analyze the mathematical data used to evaluate the value of the ACC schools in this blog:

    http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc#comments

    I’m not very good at math, but I’d be very intrigued to see an analysis like this of the Big 10 if the numbers used in the analysis make sense.

    It’s basically a team by team breakdown of the value each school adds to the TV deal.

    • Brian says:

      It looks OK, but it is only based on one year and a whole lot of assumptions since ratings data is so hard to find. To do this right, you really need years of data for all the games televised. It would be even harder with the B10.

  40. Guido says:

    I’m still having a hard time understanding all this talk about ACC/Florida St to Big 12 rumors. It all started in its current rabid state based on the comments of a single BOT member’s comments. If the BOT were actually looking at this, they’d have kept quiet at this stage in the process. An individual member saying something outlandish out of frustration, looking for political or personal attention, or some other reason is very different than official Board action, even if it’s early stage committee exploration of a topic. It’s really not far off on the scale of unreliable speculation than if a booster had made the comment.

    The ACC is a healthy growing league with at least 3 premier football names and several others capable of joining the elite. Those schools have been down lately, but will eventually rise up again.

    The Big 12 has lost 4 significant schools who couldn’t run away fast enough, and only added back 2 schools who needed to find a BCS level home. AD’s and Presidents talk to each other, any school in a healthy conference is going to be extremely diligent and cautious about joining the Big 12, where clearly something is wrong. Add in geography, which matters to the extent that fan based like to travel to certain areas and alumni live in certain areas (There is a strong $$ component there, see Colorado to Pac 12 and their strong alumni base on the West Coast), and Florida St to Big 12 makes no sense. Traveling to Ames, Lawrence, Manhatten (KS), Waco, Stillwater, Norman, Lubbock not exactly going to work out for Florida St fans and alumns.

    If the glove don’t fit……

    • bamatab says:

      I think from the fans’ and booster’s perspective, it all stems from the fact that they are surrounded by SEC schools and crave that same sort of football focused atmosphere/enthusiasm. In reality, most ACC schools don’t have the same level of football passion that the FSU fans do (or at least how the FSU fans perceive that they do). I’m not sure going to the Big 12 will help that, but they feel that they need to do something. I think a lot of the fanbase truely regrets not joining the SEC back in 1992 when they had the chance. Bowden spearheaded the move to the ACC over the SEC for the most part because he felt that it was the easiest path to a NC. But what ended up happening is that they started shifting down to the level of the competition, and haven’t been the same since. Not only has their record suffered, but their fan and booster support has also suffered. I think that is the main catalyst in the angst that they have with the ACC currently.

      • Guido says:

        fan passion either exists or it doesnt, and amazingly seems to surface when a team is winning and for a few seasons after they begin to fall off. There is no greaty passion in the Big 12 overall for football than the ACC, even if that conference gets more positive press from the media. You have your Texas and Oklahoma’s (when winning) just like you have your Florida States and Virginia Techs. I’ve seen just as many empty stadiums at Iowa State and Kansas as I have at Duke and Virginia. Chatter and frustration from the internet board segment of a fan base is not going to lead a school to switch conferences. And switching conferences isn’t the way to getting back to the good times of being a national power. Florida State will be in any future playoff if they win 11 or 12 games a year, regardless of which conference they are in.

  41. Harf says:

    I believe Bob Bowlsby has a goal to raise the academic prestige of the conference. UT is already there, Kansas and ISU are not slouches. FSU will push the needle in the right direction. It makes sense on a recruiting front as well, the SEC has invaded Big12 country pulling out A&M and the Big12 will look to tap into Florida. FSU now knows they have no shot at the SEC thanks to UF (the same can be said of the Cocks blocking Clemson) so if they want to make a move, the Big12 offers their best opportunity. Being in the ACC has hurt FSU, in part due to the competition in the conference and their conference schedule. FSU would also fit in the Big 12 in basketball and baseball pretty well as a top tier team in both sports.

    The cultural argument has gone by the wayside with the Big12 bringing in West Virginia, and with a third of the membership being new members in the next two seasons, a new culture will be born anyway.

    From many accounts re-alignment is spooling up in the background until the playoff discussion is settled and will start up again once everyone knows where they stand.

    • Jericho says:

      1) “FSU will push the needle in the right direction.”

      It does not hurt the needle, although it does not really seem to be moving much one way or the other

      2) “It makes sense on a recruiting front as well, the SEC has invaded Big12 country pulling out A&M and the Big12 will look to tap into Florida.”

      It’s always made sense for the Big 12, getting a presence in Florida only puts icing on the cake

      3) “FSU now knows they have no shot at the SEC thanks to UF (the same can be said of the Cocks blocking Clemson) so if they want to make a move, the Big12 offers their best opportunity.”

      I don’t diagree about the SEC comments, but whats the “if they want to make a move” all about? It’s not like either school has to move.

      4) “Being in the ACC has hurt FSU, in part due to the competition in the conference and their conference schedule.”

      Not sure I buy that at all. FSU was competing for national titles a decade after joining the ACC. They still get top recruting classes. How are they hurt?

      5) “FSU would also fit in the Big 12 in basketball and baseball pretty well as a top tier team in both sports.”

      True. Same as they do in the ACC

      6) “The cultural argument has gone by the wayside with the Big12 bringing in West Virginia, and with a third of the membership being new members in the next two seasons, a new culture will be born anyway.”

      Disagree. Even assuming the Big 12 went back to 12, this is still Texas’ playground.

      • texmex says:

        I will state up front I am a Texas fan. After reading this thread and the sub topics that came out. Several thoughts

        1) Third Tier Rights – FSU is getting about 300K for true 3rd tier MEDIA rights. The 6.5 million dollars is a separate contract similar to those that teams have with IMG, Leafield, etc for other services that are provided like marketing, advertising, etc. Those are not MEDIA rights. So yes, FSU does stand to gain from a true 3rd Tier contract they can bundle together. My hunch is they would do something similar to what OU is doing. OU will be signing a contract with Fox Sports Net to broadcast 1000 hours of Sooner programming. This ranges from sporting events, replays, coaches shows, all-access shows, etc. This programing will appear on FSN affialites like FOXSW and Fox Sports Oklahoma. I’m sure FSU could find a similar deal. Kansas has a deal for 3rd tier coverage for their basketball program that averages about 6.5 million. For anyone who has questions about third tier rights, go to the business of college sports site and do a search and it will provide some interesting breakdowns from the 2009-10 school year.

        2) When comparing the ACC vs Big 12 TV deals, The average BIg 12 team payout will be 18% higher than the ACC payout. This despite the fact the ACC has 4 more teams, a championship game, and a population of footprint of 58 MILLION MORE people than the Big 12. It’s kind of embarassing for the ACC as their deal should dwarf the Big 12. And the Big 12 deal hasn’t been signed yet…just approved. If a pending expansion is about to take place, that will open up discussions, and if ESPN doesn’t want to pay, then FOX sure as hell will. The Big 12 has a relationship with both entities since FOX already broadcast Tier II content. The 18% gap would stand to increase signifcantly

        3) BCS Playoff – if the conference revenue distribution of the new system is based on playoff particpation, then ACC members better start praying FSU gets good again. Cause under any of the playoff proposals presented, the ACC would have had 1 team qualify in the last 10 years – Virginia Tech 2007. Ouch. The SEC would have had the most with the Big 12 2nd. Again..that’s another potential gap in revenue

        4) Two years ago, the Big 12 had a TV deal paying 7 MILLION DOLLARS PER TEAM. Think about that for a second. If anyone is wondering why the Big 12 was unstable, there’s your reason and root cause. We were falling significantly behind the other conferences. That was the foundation of instablity with all the other stuff pouring salt on the wound. Again, 7 MILLION DOLLARS PER TEAM PER YEAR. It took a threat of the PAC 12 to get our TV contract up to par. If people are wondering how the Big 12 can more stable now..this is how……when your TV media contract increases by 300% in 2 years…that’s how…that’s something Frank seemed to omit in his original post.

        Yes I know, I know. it’s not all about money…….but it’s driving the train in realignment. The SEC didn’t expand to add Missouri and Texas A&M because of superior athletic achievement. Missouri won the least number of Big 12 conference championships in all sports…dead last. Texas A&M hasn’t finished in the top 5 since the 1950s. But the 30 million person population footprint will help the future SEC network kick some ass with subscriber fees.

        • Mike says:

          My hunch is they would do something similar to what OU is doing. OU will be signing a contract with Fox Sports Net to broadcast 1000 hours of Sooner programming. This ranges from sporting events, replays, coaches shows, all-access shows, etc.

          I keep pointing out that those things have already been sold by FSU. The only thing they will get from the Big 12 that the ACC doesn’t already give them is the worst football game and a handful of basketball games. For example, under the ACC contract, FSU sells the rights to its baseball games and gets to keep the money.

        • Brian #2 says:

          Actually Kansas State is dead last in total Big 12 championship at 7. Texas Tech and Iowa State are right there too, and I can’t imagine what random sports those championships are in.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Conference

          And honestly, using total conference championships as a proxy for value is misguided and not at all how presidents and commissioners view expansion candidates. Frank has covered this ad nauseam.

        • Brian #2 says:

          Also A&M has the second most Big 12 championships, so it makes you look silly and devalues the entire Big 12 by arguing that they are not a top tier athletic department.

        • Jericho says:

          I seriously cannot imagine Kansas is getting 6.5 million just for their Tier 3 basketball rights. Because if the bottom of the barrel basketball games are getting 6.5 million, shouldn’t the actual good basketball stuff (Tier 1 and 2) be worth at least twice that at 12 million? And shouldn’t the Kansas football games be getting at least that much (I know Kansas football sucks, but any football is exponentially worth more than bsketball and Kansas is a state school). At that rate, Kansas would be pulling in $24 million for Tiers 1 and 2, yet the entire Big 12 is pulling less than that. If Kansas was such a hot property, they would have picked up by someone (when the Big 12 looked to be collapsing, only the Big East was interested). The simple fact is Kansas is not a hot property.

          Therefore, logically I cannot buy Kansas gets that much for Tier 3 basketball. If must include a fair amount of typical IMG content.

          • Mike says:

            I don’t know the specifics of KU’s deal with IMG, but if it’s like similar deals IMG signed then it includes things like radio, coaches shows, marketing, stadium signage.

  42. bullet says:

    Since we’re talking academics again, here is the London Times international university listing:

    http://www.times.highereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/top-400.html

    Some expansion candidates for the B1G and Pac 12!
    22 British Columbia
    28 McGill
    100 Alberta

    Cal Tech is 1, Harvard and Stanford tied for 2. Football and other relevant or interesting schools in the top 100:
    9 Chicago
    10 Cal
    13 UCLA
    14 John Hopkins-there Hopkins Horn?
    18 Michigan
    22 Duke
    24 Georgia Tech
    25 Washington
    26 Northwestern
    27 Wisconsin
    29 Texas
    31 Illinois
    33 UC-San Diego
    38 UC-Davis
    42 Minnesota
    43 UNC
    51 Penn St.
    55 USC (surprised they are this high)
    57 Ohio St.
    59 Pitt
    64 UMass (surprised with them as well)
    70 Vanderbilt
    72 Rice
    77 Colorado
    81 Rutgers
    86 Cal-Irvine (lots of Cal)
    89 Notre Dame
    94 Maryland
    96 Michigan St.
    97 Arizona (who generally doesn’t seem to get much respect)
    98 Purdue

    Quick count-Pac 12- 7, Big 12 -1, Big 10-9 (excluding Chicago), ACC-5, SEC-1, BE-2, MAC-1, CUSA-1
    Also, all 8 Ivy Leaguers.

    • Robber Baron says:

      Cal Tech to the Pac-12! (kidding) At least Cal Tech is right next to the Rose Bowl and they even have an awesome Rose Bowl Game history.

    • Mack says:

      All are also AAU members except UMass, Notre Dame, and Dartmouth

    • OT says:

      Toronto to the B1G.

      British Columbia to the PAC.

      McGill? Try the Patriot League.

      • Mike says:

        Perhaps the ex-patriot league would be a better fit for McGill.

        • OT says:

          McGill would have been a fit for the B1G if Montreal were 80% English-speaking instead of 80% French-speaking.

          McGill does not bring much of a TV market to the B1G. 80% of the Montreal TV market does not identify with a snooty English-speaking private school.

          Toronto is at least 20 years away from being ready for the B1G.

          British Columbia thinks it can be competitive in the PAC right away because of its dedicated fleet of helicopters to service boosters, but the NCAA won’t budge on UBC’s demand to go into Division I directly without having to spend at least 1 year in Division II, 4 years in the transition penalty box between D-II and FCS, 1 year as an FCS independent, and 2 additional years in the football transition penalty box between FCS and FBS before being bowl eligible (minimum of 8 years from start-up to bowl eligibility.)

      • metatron5369 says:

        As much as I’d love Toronto in the Big Ten, I’m not sure they’d leave the CIS and their rivals.

    • frug says:

      Worth noting that the THE rankings are held back by the fact it relies on self-reported data that not every school provides (that’s why Texas didn’t make the list last year). As such a few schools (like FSU I suspect)do not appear.

  43. Mike says:

    Good analysis from Mr. SEC

    http://www.mrsec.com/2012/05/internal-fsu-battle-playing-out-externally-more-proof-that-the-tails-been-wagging-the-dog/


    All the above — Barron’s email, Dodd’s comments, etc — appear to further prove our “Wag the Dog” theory. Reports of a done deal were the nonsense everyone in the traditional media said they were. But those very reports have led some to start thinking more and more about a move and now those against a move are having to make their cases against an FSU-Big 12 marriage. Regarding the traditional media in all of this, isn’t it likely that at least one — one! — reporter working the rumors would have found someone to fess up before Haggard’s rant? No one from The Topeka Capital-Journal to The Tallahassee Democrat to The Dallas Morning News to Yahoo! Sports to ESPN could get a single source to confirm any of this. Then it blew up Saturday thanks to Haggard’s reaction.

    • Mike says:

      IMHO – “The Dude” was a bit miffed at the Pitt fans for joining the ACC and leaving WV in a bad spot. Why not needle their fans a bit (he is a ‘sPitt’ hater) by posting a rumor that WV’s new conference is taking the best football school in Pitt’s new conference. Throw out some crazy numbers (30 million in TV money!) to make it sound legit and watch the rumor spread. Keep it going with periodic updates and eventually when someone responds to it (say a trustee with inaccurate info) say “I was right all along.”

      • Playoffs Now says:

        I’m a bit disappointed it has taken this long and you still haven’t quite yet traced this back to the Koch brothers and Cheney.

      • mountainerd says:

        Yes, us hilljacks have the power to create conference turmoil by starting rumors on blogs.

        Beware! We’re coming after the Big Ten next, just to mess with our old overlords in State College.

        • Mike says:

          Honestly, I think this went farther than “The Dude” ever imagined.

          • mountainerd says:

            Yes, because we all know a WVU fan could never have any inside information on anything except how drunk Coach Huggins was at such and such hoops clinic and the location of the abandoned mine shaft where Jerry West kept all the body parts of the groupies Wilt Chamberlin accidentally dismembered when he was the Lakers’ GM.

          • Mike says:

            You pointed out earlier that it’s tough for WVU’s Athletic Department to keep secrets and that is one thing I’ve noticed about WV through the years. In Morgantown, it seems that everyone knows someone who works at WVU and has the latest scoop. However, “The Dude” was the only one reporting on those rumors. None of the other WVU “insider” sites picked it up (as far as I could tell) the story on their own. I just can’t believe that the biggest realignment story of the summer managed to be kept secret by everyone except who told “The Dude.” Not only did everyone in Morgantown keep it a secret, but so did every booster, player, insider, secretary, and ball boy in Clemson, Tallahassee, Austin, and Norman. The closest that we have ever seen to that happening was Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC and even that leaked early.

            My biggest problem with “The Dude” is how often he gets the details (in my opinion) wrong. For example, he claimed that adding FSU and Clemson would be worth 30MM per team in the Big 12. IMHO – no two teams would increase the conference’s value by 50% not even Notre Dame and USC.

            For the record, I don’t hate or look down on WVU or its fans. In fact, I’ve been to Morgantown and think it’s a great place to visit. I was wrong about A&M being politically able to move (despite Ken Starr’s best efforts) last summer, and I don’t believe that Purple Book Cat had any real inside info. Just like I believe “The Dude” made this up, and it got out of hand.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            FWIW, I never heard of the Dude until after I heard about this stuff starting up (not saying I heard it directly). I’d be shocked if the Dude had the same sources.

            Problem with Mr. SEC’s view is that at the end of the day, FSU IS leaving a large chunk of money on the table that they could use.

          • jtorre says:

            @Mike
            the 30 mil is not the ESPN/Fox package, but rather adding value of the new teams joining (allegedly 2-3 mil per team), plus the CCG another 2 mil per team increasing the TV contracts to 25 mil. The remaining 4-5 mil comes from an analysis of the tier three value for the low end schools in a reconfigured big 12. The right 6 teams (which would include ND, FSU, Clemson as well as three other solid adds) for a super Big16 is rumored to push the contract close to 28mil. This comes from a baylor site as well as the wvu site.

          • mountainerd says:

            @ Mike

            “The Dude” has certainly been wrong on a lot of details, and he chronically exaggerates his scoops to increase his blog hits, so I can understand the mistrust.

            I didn’t give his rumors much thought at all until I heard them repeated by some of the more respected members of a premium WVU message board, including an editor for a WVU publication, who I’ve known for years and is notoriously skeptical/cautious, who said he’d heard basically the same stuff “the Dude” was reporting (his information wasn’t strong enough for him to report anything out in the open, but the fact that he was willing to say “off the record” that there were some legs to the FSU/Clemson rumors shocked me.)

            There’s still a fair chance that none of this actually goes down, but it is at least fairly obvious that there has at least been some back channel discussion between the Big 12 and several ACC schools, and that “the Dude” didn’t just this all up.

            Also, I didn’t mean to insinuate that you had insulted WVU. As a 5th generation Mountaineer fan, pre-emptive self-abasement is my strongest reflex, and sometimes it’s misplaced.

          • Mike says:

            @jtorre – Here is a direct quote from “The Dude” on Feb 5.

            http://www.eerinsider.com/2012-articles/february/clemson-and-fsu-are-on-the-clock.html


            The Big 12 provided Clemson and FSU financial projections with estimates of each member’s share of annual revenues in excess of $35 million per team – more than double ACC projections — after the tier 1 TV contract is reworked.

            The increase in revenues would allow Clemson and FSU to keep up with the spending by their SEC neighbors and in-state rivals.

            Rumored invitations to Louisville and BYU are on hold until Clemson and FSU decide to apply for membership.

            Nothing about ND or the Big 16. With all due respect to FSU and CU, they will not nearly double the Big 12 contract.

          • jtower says:

            @ Mike see Playoffs Now post below for the details from the Baylor post. Not quite 34 mil but alot of $

  44. Playoffs Now says:

    If.

    So if the rumors are true that the B12 contract has escalators for 11 & 12 but 13 reopens the contract, perhaps part of his thinking is to add 11 &12 now, wait for the SEC to finish their contract, and then go to 13 & 14. Or perhaps even hold off on 13 & 14 unitl the B1G finishes their contract.

    Still think part of stopping at 12 is to give the SEC less reason to expand. Don’t threaten to lock them out of VA. One would assume that if given the choice, VT would choose the SEC. However if the B12 took 4 ACC schools, got close to SEC money, and perhaps had a better shot at eventually winning the ND sweepstakes, that might not be automatic. Perhaps a lot of risk going from 12 to 14.

    And may also be just a lot of posturing. If going to 14 produces enough destabilizing ripples as to render the Big East unsuitable for ND, he might want to play the good cop role of, “I was really working hard to prevent this.” The “We’ll force you to join us by messing things up” has never been a wise way to recruit ND. See B1G a few years ago (or at least this blog a few years ago.)

  45. Mike says:

    Burke Magnus is ESPN’s Senior Vice President, College Sports Programming.

    http://frontrow.espn.go.com/2012/05/acc-on-espn-rights-agreement-speculation-just-the-facts/

    First, a rights fee payment schedule that escalates in amount over the term is a commonplace provision in major college conference deals. This arrangement is not unique to the ACC. The pre-existing agreement between ESPN and the ACC (that carried through 2023) had an escalating rights fee schedule and the deal we announced last week contains a similar schedule. There is nothing unusual about how ESPN is paying the ACC over the life of this deal. It’s the industry standard.

    Secondly, the additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse as ACC members triggered a composition clause in the existing agreement. This clause is designed to allow for both partners to address the value of the conference taking into account the change in membership. There was no specific valuation formula based on total number of schools or on a per school basis. It is not an “out clause” nor does it trigger a complete renegotiation of the entire agreement. Again, conference composition clauses are standard in our industry and are part of every ESPN college rights agreement.
    Lastly, the term “third-tier rights” means different things in different conference agreements. In the new ACC extension (as was the case in the original 2011-2023 agreement), ESPN retains exclusive rights to all football and men’s basketball games. Additionally, ESPN retains the first selection rights to women’s basketball and all other ACC sports such as baseball, softball, soccer, lacrosse, etc. Whatever is not selected for coverage and distribution by ESPN from these sports is retained by the member institutions.

    • ChicagoMac says:

      I think what he is saying is:

      Dear FSU fans and BOT,

      Quite whining. You cast your lot with a basketball conference back in 1991. You won’t make as much money as the football schools in football conferences that surround you and repeatedly invade your recruiting territory for the best talent but this is what you did. Did you see all the articles about Football running expansion? Boise State is in the Big East for crying out loud. That is Boise, as in Idaho, in the Big East.

      So deal with it. We gave you the best deal we could (Dear Investors, it is still a good deal for ESPN (wink, wink)….even getting you to grant over the sponsorship rights to the ACC tournament. Do you know how big of a deal it was to get Duke and UNC to accept some brand sponsoring their beloved postseason tournament that will to the average fan make it look an awful lot like Dick’s Sporting Goods Preseason NIT? That was a big deal but Duke/UNC gave on that.

      Now if you absolutely must move conferences may we recommend the Big XII? We already own the rights to best games there and we would be very interested in adding some Florida State – Texas or Florida State – Oklahoma games to the Texas – Oklahoma game we already own. This would be very good for us.

      So any way, good luck with your little Tallahasse Kerfluffle.

  46. Mike says:

    The big story that we are not discussing. Boise St needs a home for its non-football sports or it won’t join the Big East and stay in the Mountain West.

    http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/05/15/bmurphy/big_west_will_entertain_membership_application_boise_state

    • bullet says:

      It could all be irrelevant by their June 30 deadline.

    • SuperD says:

      Honestly if the BCS system is going away, wouldn’t Boise be better off in the MWC anyway? Will the Big East be appreciably better than the MWC if Louisville manages to swing a Big 12 invite?

      • Read The D says:

        TV dollars and exposure will be much better in BIg East, regardless. The MWC will accept them with open arms if BE ever implodes.

    • Mike says:

      How will Hawaii vote? If they vote to exclude Boise, it will help their current football league, the Mountain West. Conflict of interest?

    • bullet says:

      More of the same. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything. He chooses his words carefully.

      Now that doesn’t mean there’s anything to the rumours. But this doesn’t dispell anything.

    • hangtime79 says:

      A few things. Interesting choice of very carefully worded answers:

      1. No quote about Clemson being committed to the ACC from the writer, but will give them the benefit.

      2. The more interesting piece was this -
      “Have there been any kind of overtures by the Big 12 to Clemson? I can tell you unequivocally ‘no’ based upon the knowledge I have,” Wilkins said.

      This was used by the writer to create the headline “has had no contact with the Big 12″, but that quote doesn’t doesn’t match the article’s headline. Why would someone say the Big 12 hasn’t made any overtures versus the easier and more familiar we have had no contact with the Big 12? I may be parsing but its seems like a very unusual choice of words that sound like you said you haven’t contact but in fact you have had contact but you reached out. Too bad the writer of the article didn’t pick up on that.

      • Eric says:

        Yeah specific words are so important in these articles and they are seem to be portrayed wrong a lot in articles.

        • Jericho says:

          Well, people are parsing each word of these articles so much to divine some hidden meaning that I think any actual meaning might be lost. I doubt the reporters are writing these articles with some hidden meaning buried in there. So people pull the actual quotes looking for deep meaning, except that second hand quotes that may be out of context mean little. Not to mention no one trust’s anyone’s word anyway, so in the end they tell us nothing.

      • Bob in Houston says:

        What that means is, “Somebody may have, but nobody has told me.” (Which is the way it needs to be.)

    • Playoffs Now says:

      There’s a pay site post from the Baylor 247 mod (who probably has the best track record of the leakers) saying that 10 schools recently did a market study for their Tier 3 rights (Louisville, Pitt, Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, and BYU.) ND’s were the most valuable (duh), followed by FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Virginia Tech, with the others valued at roughly $4 million.

      Don’t know if it was from him, but there have been recent rumors that Texas does not want Miami because of their long history of running a dirty program. Combine that info, and if the B12 is taking a max of 4, and FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, and VA Tech are the more valuable, Miami might know that they are probably out for expansion.

      Given how much Miami draws from the Northeast for students, they may be better off staying in the ACC no matter what. There’s talk that the academic side wants to reign in and scale back the athletic side. Even if that is not the case, Miami has usually scheduled a tough OOC slate and so if the program rebounds they could still make a top 4 playoff via the ACC. As long as the SEC and B12 don’t go past 14 and the B1G past 12, the ACC will still be around and relatively strong. They just won’t make quite as much money.

      I did some very rough back of the envelop estimates about a week ago (wish I had kept the notes and methodology) and calculated that if FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, and Miami left and the ACC rebuilt with Syracuse and UConn, the per school average of the adjusted ESPN contract would probably only drop from $17 mil to $13-14. Definitely not the end of the world. Substitute VA Tech for Miami and the numbers probably don’t change much.

      (IIRC, based the valuation on a Fox exec saying that almost 1/2 the B12 contract was value from Texas. So say of $200 mil, 85 is from Texas. Would think FSU could be worth 50-55, Clemson 15-20, etc. Maybe that’s too high, but lower that actually reduces how much the ACC contract would be lowered, so I think $13-14 is probably the ACC floor.)

      • Jericho says:

        Seems pretty far fetched. Would have a real tough time seeing either Tech school go to the Big 12. But I at least see the logic.

        As an aside, how exactly are the Tier 3 rights valued? Each conference has different Tier 3 rights. To my knowledge, the Big 12 is the only school that absolutely guarantees a football game in Tier 3. It’s my understanding that while the SEC may get Tier 3 football, last year zero games flowed through. Because no one fully knows what content actually will go Tier 3, it’s hard to value. One football game wouold likely skew value dramatically.

        Another intersting Tier 3 factor is the ACC deal. Although the ACC gives Tier 3 rights to Bristol, its been posted that anything not used flows back to the individual school. Now I know that ESPN is huge and has many networks, so how much goes back to the individual school. It’s probably safe to say the track and field will always fall, but what about basketball?

        • greg says:

          Jericho, the ESPN press release about their new ACC contract mentions that it adds 30 additional regular season basketball games, which seems low given Syracuse had 21 home games last year and Pitt is likely in that ballpark. So some basketball games may fall through to the schools or league.

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Jericho – I can’t speak for the other SEC teams, but LSU did have a pay-per-view game last year. That PPV game is not part of LSU’s Tier III deal with Cox. The PPV game and the coaches’ shows are produced in-house and syndicated. The radio deal, sponsorship, and signage deals are also separate. The Cox deal includes football replays, weekly studio shows, certain OOC basketball games, and olympic sports.

  47. Eric says:

    Responding to Frank’s tweet’s above: I very much dislike the idea of using a rotation of bowl games for playoffs rather than the tie-ins. This will minimize Big Ten/PAC-12 champs in the bowl more than anything else. You could have some years with both in the playoff and the bowl isn’t in it and others where the bowl is and neither champ is.

  48. Richard says:

    You know what’s interesting is that everyone on here, regardless of whether they want FSU to stay or go or think FSU should stay or go presume that the B12 wants them. I’m not so sure, and DeLoss’s remarks earlier expressing negativity towards the idea of FSU joining should be a tip-off. While it seems that almost all Texas FANS seem to want FSU to join (“everybody loooooves us!”), it is far from certain that the Texas or OU administrators (the powers in the B12) want that. For one, having FSU in the league and a conference title game makes a path to a national championship harder. This would be especially true if only conference winners are allowed in the playoff, but would still be true even if that isn’t the case. For another, it opens Texas recruits to more poaching by non-Texas schools. In the case of FSU, it’d be a brand name school as well. With the B12 as it is now, Texas and OU really only have to compete with each other for top TX recruits (well, TAMU and LSU now to a degree as well), but the hierarchy is established. Do they really want to open up TX to FSU and Clemson as well? And yes, Texas would get more exposure around the FL panhandle, but with FSU in the other division, they would visit Tallahassee all of once every 4 years. How’s that for a recruiting pitch? “Come play with us and your folks and homies can see you play in front of them once every 4 years!” Meanwhile, FSU would visit TX 4 times as often; add in OK, and that’s TX or close by 6 times as often. I’m quite certain, if FSU & Clemson join the B12, which way the talent will flow.

    And what do Texas and OU get out of this? A few million a year. Do they need that? Well, no, Texas already makes far more than any other program; they have so much money they’re paying a sexgenarian one of the top salaries in the country even though he’s lost almost twice as often as he’s won the past 2 years in league play despite having more advantages than any other program in the country. OU lags Texas, but adding FSU wouldn’t close the gap, and it would boost FSU’s revenues up to their level, adding a fearsome in-conference competitor.

    I’m not even touching how much it is in ESPN’s interest to incent Texas and OU (well, the whole B12, but the fewer schools you have to buy off, the better) to reject an overture from FSU.

    So, Texas (and OU) fans, while the ego boost is undeniable, do you really think it’s in your school’s interest to add FSU and Clemson to the B12? (Ego boosts don’t bring you closer to championships).

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Good points, you may well be correct. Dodds worst years coincide with when FSU, Miami, the SEC, and the Big8 were feasting on the state of Texas’ best recruits. The B12, and even more so Mack Brown, helped Texas stem that tide, but I would guess that still hangs in the back of his mind.

      OTOH, I can see him wanting to not go past 12, while one would think FSU would want to bring as many strong regional partners as possible, perhaps especially a Miami whose program’s lack of ethics Dodds despises. Doesn’t want a return to the SWC, or OU’s cheating ways, or SEC payrolls. T. Boone Pickens has to concern him, KSU under Snyder’s 1st go round had some issues, Baylor basketball pushes the limit, KU’s basketball has been under clouds, and Clemson’s glory years were under a dirty Danny Ford. So perhaps he’s taking a hard public line in order to either limit it to 12 or at least make sure 14 doesn’t change the B12 in negative ways.

      BTW, there’s been talk that TX-FSU would be an annual game, even if they are in different divisions.

    • texmex says:

      Richard,
      You’re not off base….there is a very logical argument for Texas and OU to not want FSU in the Big 12. Mack Brown knows what it’s like to have a dominant FSU in his path trying to compete for championships. Whenever you add a program that is not a steppingstone and would have the ability to keep a great coach, it’s a risk to an extent. Do Texas/OU want potentially another “Texas” or “OU” in the conference? It’s a fair question. I’m not so concerned about the recruiting angle though. Texas will get what it needs as long as they have a good recruiter at the helm. If they don’t, well it doesn’t matter whose in conference.

    • Richard says:

      Mind you, I’m not actually all that opposed to FSU joining the B12. My dreamt up scenario (not dream scenario as it isn’t really the best for the B10) has ND joining the B12 and taking Pitt, BC, and GTech along with FSU & Miami. To get chosen instead of Syracuse, Pitt and BC agree to play half their home games against ND neutral site (Philly & maybe Meadowlands for Pitt, Foxboro & maybe NYC for BC). Miami and GTech have to play outside their stadiums as well some times (Georgia Dome or Jacksonville/Charlotte and NYC or Tampa, respectively. Eastern division would be the new schools + TCU and Baylor (ND wouldn’t want WVU or Clemson in their division; sorry). Only 7 conferences games (in your own division) to appease the Domers, though the TX schools would still play cross-division OOC. The OK schools would face off against the FL schools.

      B10 takes UNC, Duke, and UVa as well as Maryland when ND turns them down. 9 conference games with pods. Pac opponents would be played half the time (so that Michigan & MSU can still play ND half the time and still have 7 home games; Iowa-ISU would have to be half the time as well or neutral site).

      SEC expands in to new states by taking VTech and NCSU. Wake, ‘Cuse and Clemson have to scramble.

    • ChicagoMac says:

      Time will tell but it seems like some of you Texas fans might be living on The River Denial.

      The BigXII cannot afford to share recruits with the SEC in Texas while only getting the second tier of recruits from the SEC markets.

      On the revenue side, the BigXII TV deal looks competitive now but in a few years, aTm might well pass OU in revenues and Missouri could be right on its heels. The B1G will have its renegotiated deal and could well see even more growth in its BTN, the PAC will start to see even bigger returns as its owned network model starts to generate returns.

      You don’t want to be sitting around in 5 years arguing with fans from the ACC on which conference is 4th best on the gridiron.

      • bullet says:

        What’s been happening is basically Texas and OU get who they want (with a few slipping to A&M), then A&M pretty much gets their choice, the rest of the Big12 get who they want and then everyone else gets to choose. There always are a handful who want to go out of state or go to a Stanford or Northwestern. From what I’ve read recently about how Texas and OU have dominated recruiting in Texas, they probably won’t have much impact from A&M going to the SEC. Its not clear what the impact will be on A&M or the rest of the Big 12. It might be minimal. It might be major. It might mainly hurt A&M’s Texas recruiting as the Alabamas and Tennessees take some of those players who would have gone to A&M but aren’t interested in the players who would have gone to Oklahoma St. as they have comparable or better talent closer to home. Time will tell.

        Most likely the SEC will slip into a down cycle as they have been high for several years and won’t be a serious threat. There’s already a severe drop in offensive talent the last couple of years. They’ve been making it up with defense. The Big 10 is due back after several down years. The Big 10 was 6th in computer rankings in the 1st 2 years of this BCS cycle and only moved back up the last couple of years. Conferences cycle up and down. Success breeds complacency.

        • ChicagoMac says:

          What’s been happening is basically Texas and OU get who they want (with a few slipping to A&M), then A&M pretty much gets their choice, the rest of the Big12 get who they want and then everyone else gets to choose. There always are a handful who want to go out of state or go to a Stanford or Northwestern. From what I’ve read recently about how Texas and OU have dominated recruiting in Texas, they probably won’t have much impact from A&M going to the SEC. I think you just described the last 10 years. The question is what happens going forward.

          It might mainly hurt A&M’s Texas recruiting as the Alabamas and Tennessees take some of those players who would have gone to A&M but aren’t interested in the players who would have gone to Oklahoma St. as they have comparable or better talent closer to home. I guess this has a reasonable chance at being the outcome, but it seems equally reasonable to me that LSU, Alabama and Arkansas start to make inroads on UT/OU. It also seems reasonable that Mizzou would start to outrecruit TT, BU, and Okie State.

          I think it is way too early to know the impact of SEC expansion.

          • bullet says:

            It is way too early, especially since A&M and Missouri don’t even leave until July 1.

            I do think you are totally wrong on Missouri. I think they get shut out of Texas. They are heavily recruiting Florida now, which makes sense. They know the Texas pipeline will get thinner. Missouri may “out-recruit” TT, BU and Okie St., but its not going to happen with Texas recruits. If it happens, it will be because they are getting more GA and FL recruits.

          • bullet says:

            I would say that the recruiting has been that way pretty much since the 70s when A&M became more than just a military school with the exception of the dying years of the SWC. In the dying years of the SWC with all the cheating a lot of recruits went out of state. A&M may have been more equal with UT and OU at times instead of a half step down (I don’t follow recruiting closely enough to remember), but those 3 have dominated recruiting in the state for a very long time.

        • FranktheAg says:

          Weill, it hasn’t hurt A&M’s recruiting so far for the class of 2013. Your assessment is correct for prior years but there has been a clear uptick in A&M recruiting since the SEC move. The 2012 class and certainly the 2013 class have both been better than any recruiting class since RC was running the program. Time will tell but the “SEC” pitch is landing on receptive ears right now.

  49. Playoffs Now says:

    Interesting thoughts on playoff format from DeLoss Dodds. I like the committee but disagree on not using the bowls, would prefer the B1G-P12 plan to use the Rose if either or both of the P12 and B1G champs are in the top 4, and I’d also prefer either conf champs only if in the top 5/6 or top 3 conf champs + wildcard.

    ——————

    http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2012/05/15/dodds_favors_pl.html

    …n Dodds’ version, four teams would be selected by a blue-ribbon committee of “seven or nine” objective panelists who are very familiar with college football and follow the game passionately. “They’d be people who have football backgrounds and who are not biased,” Dodds said. He proposes an odd number to avoid any tie votes…

    …Dodds said, “I’d favor four teams picked at large” who were not necessarily conference champions, meaning two teams from a conference and independents like Notre Dame and Brigham Young could all receive consideration. He’d give the panelists every computer program, poll and set of statistics available and let them pick and seed the four teams.

    In his format, the four teams would be selected before the bowls make their choices…

    …“This entity needs to be separate,” Dodds said of the final grouping of four. “It needs to be their own bowls, their own TV, their own sponsors. Those four selected would not play in the bowls. And I’d have ‘em bid it out to cities and stadiums for the three games, and I favor neutral sites for the games because using the campuses (as host sites, at least for the two semifinal games) would be too much of an advantage….”

    • Playoffs Now says:

      Should have added that Dodds plan would probably raise the most money. That’s out of character, I know…

    • Eric says:

      Don’t like any of it.

      1. I don’t a committee for seeding, but it shouldn’t be for selection. Way too much hostility will be directed at specific individuals. I’d rather use a forumla which takes into account polls (not the coaches), strength of schedule, and computer rankings, but even the current BCS is preferable to me than a committee deciding everything.

      2. I despise the notion of neutral site games that are not bowls. Either use home games or use the bowls. You will very, very much de-emphasize the bowl system if playoff teams are not considered bowl teams.

      3. If we aren’t going to use the bowls, then why is home field too much of an advantage? The #1 team in the country usually has better achievements than the #4 by a considerable margin. They should be rewarded for that. The #2 team should be too even if its closer. We want to emphasize the regular season in this and home teams would do this (although I still favor using the bowls).

    • frug says:

      I definitely agree with him on not using bowls. Doing the playoffs within the bowl system is absolute worst thing you could do. The purpose of a playoff is reward teams based on merit. The purpose of bowls is to make money. It is square peg in round hole.

      Remember, the original purpose of the BCS was simply to pit the top two teams in the country against each other in a championship game. However, the decision to try and conduct the CCG within the bowl system lead to a monstrosity that includes 5 games (one of which rotates), 8 ranking systems (6 computers and 2 human polls), a convoluted selection process with obscure technicalities that can be worth tens of millions of dollars, and a caste system that everyone hates.

      Either do the playoff outside of the bowl system or just do a plus one.

      • ccrider55 says:

        Come on. Frug, you aren’t seriously suggesting playoffs are not primarily about money?

        • frug says:

          Yes the playoffs are about money, but the selection process isn’t (or at least it won’t be if the major schools plan to the get the backing of the mid-majors). The selection process for the bowls is purely financial. It is a square peg in a round hole.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Perhaps they don’t want/need permission from the mid-majors. Who needs who more? The threat of the majors leaving the NCAA (while still unlikely, it’s not nearly as unlikely as at the turn of the century) is the long term elephant in the room that the mids need to measure.

          • frug says:

            The major conferences are at least 10 years away from being in a position to leave the NCAA without the support of the mid-majors.

          • ccrider55 says:

            To the playoff participant point: any “playoff” that has a “selection process” is not a playoff. Before the season you need to know what you need to do (like win your conference), not who you need to impress. That is to say playoffs must have a predetermined way to qualify and polls be damned even if the semi teams were WSU, ISU, Vandy, and Northwestern.

          • frug says:

            Well personally I prefer a conference champs only system, to say that system that has a “selection process” is not really a playoff means that the MBB tournament is not really a playoff and I think it is.

            (Though if you disagree feel free to replace the word “playoff” with “tournament” in my previous post.)

          • The issue is that with a 4-team playoff, there has to be a selection process, whether it’s taking the top 4, conference champs only, or a hybrid of the two. Unless you have a playoff that includes all conference champs, there’s no such thing as controlling your destiny.

            That’s why I don’t have an issue with letting teams that didn’t win their conference into the playoff. Regardless of the format, some type of ranking system with some type of subjective criteria is going to be used.

            Also, I think too many people are focused on Alabama last year. Even the Big Ten ADs that largely want to reward conference champs recognize that a team like Bama needs to be in the playoff. The real debate is whether #4 Stanford should have made it into the playoff the last 2 years over conference champs sitting at #5, including a Pac-12 champ. I think that causes more heartburn with the powers that be than a #2 Alabama team.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Hence the term “invitational” tournament for systems that try to assure that the most profitable/aclaimed teams are included. Championship tournaments allow for the possibility that the “best” team can fail to qualify.

            While March madness is entertaining I’d prefer only conference champs in it also.

          • glenn says:

            Unless you have a playoff that includes all conference champs, there’s no such thing as controlling your destiny.

            yes, frank.  this thing isn’t going to work right until they get the playoff to eight.  four c-champs and four deserving at-larges.  that way the emphasis on winning the conference champeenship will be extant as needed, and worthy others won’t be left out.  eight teams won’t guarantee including the best two teams in the nation, but most years it likely will.

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        “I definitely agree with him on not using bowls. Doing the playoffs within the bowl system is absolute worst thing you could do.”

        I agree. If you’re going to do a playoff, you should start with a blank slate and do what is best for the playoff. Every compromise they make to use the bowls just makes both systems worse.

        “The purpose of a playoff is reward teams based on merit. The purpose of bowls is to make money. It is square peg in round hole.”

        I’d say the purpose of the bowls is to reward the players with a free vacation to a resort and an exhibition game on national TV, but that’s because I’m looking at it from the POV of the schools.

        “Remember, the original purpose of the BCS was simply to pit the top two teams in the country against each other in a championship game. However, the decision to try and conduct the CCG within the bowl system lead to a monstrosity that … and a caste system that everyone hates.”

        I never minded the AQ system. The big boys deserved better treatment for building the sport and the fan base as well as playing tougher schedules. The only argument for fairness in the BCS that ever carried any weight with me is for the top two because that should be purely merit based. Of course, there isn’t really a great way to objectively measure merit.

        • frug says:

          My big problem with the AQ/non-AQ designation is that it was completely redundant once they added the separate championship game. The Big 10, PAC, Big XII, SEC and ACC all separate contracts with the BCS bowls that superseded the BCS (i.e. even if the Big 10 had failed to meet the AQ criteria they still would have sent their champ to the Rose Bowl). Since 2005 the only purpose of AQ designation was to ensure the Big East of appearances in bowls it didn’t deserve in many years and serve as a prestige symbol.

          Also when I said “everyone” I was referring to the conferences who have all said they want to end the AQ labels.

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            “My big problem with the AQ/non-AQ designation is that it was completely redundant once they added the separate championship game. The Big 10, PAC, Big XII, SEC and ACC all separate contracts with the BCS bowls that superseded the BCS (i.e. even if the Big 10 had failed to meet the AQ criteria they still would have sent their champ to the Rose Bowl). Since 2005 the only purpose of AQ designation was to ensure the Big East of appearances in bowls it didn’t deserve in many years and serve as a prestige symbol.”

            You disproved your initial statement by the end of the paragraph. AQ status served a purpose in that it guaranteed the BE a spot and a big share of the cash. Please note that I’m not defending the purpose, just showing that it existed and thus the AQ status wasn’t redundant. I didn’t have a problem with it because the BE contained several school that helped build CFB to what it is today (Pitt, SU, WV) as well as being the source of several elite former members (Miami, VT).

            “Also when I said “everyone” I was referring to the conferences who have all said they want to end the AQ labels.”

            I’m not sure how strongly the BE wanted to get rid of AQ status.

    • Richard says:

      I think neutral site for everything is a good idea. Final 4 style with all the games in one city spread over a week. I prefer a neutral site over the bowls as sites because I’d hate a B10 team having to play a semifinal against an SEC team in FL or New Orleans or USC in the Rose.

  50. Brian has at least one fan out there:

  51. Steve says:

    FSU endowment drops $100 by million. No wonder they are so desperate for money.
    http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/extracredit/2009/02/05/fsu-endowment-drops-more-than-100-million/

  52. Playoffs Now says:

    If I had to guess right now, I’d make 3 predictions:

    The B12 eventually ends up at 14 with FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and VA Tech.

    ND ends up in the ACC, probably for all sports but football.

    The B1G and SEC don’t expand.

    Here’s why: I just don’t think the B12 can offer enough Northeastern schools for ND, especially for non-football, without going to at least 16. I also have my doubts about FSU coming to the B12 without at least 2 neighbors. Once the BCS negotiations are over and things start to finally sort out, I can see the B12 realizes that ND ain’t coming and the chance to move to 14 and become roughly equal to the SEC is too good to pass up. Adding a SE quad of FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and VA Tech would explode the population of the B12′s states from 38 to 80 million, well above the P12′s 63 and in between the B1G at 71 and the SEC at 92.

    If/once the B12 goes to 14 by taking 4 ACC schools, I suspect the ACC is going to want to get back to 12, and the only academically acceptable schools are Rutgers, UConn, and ND. The playoff will probably allow ND to stay indy in football, but if Rutgers and UConn move the Big East may no longer be acceptable for ND (especially if that causes a split.)

    So ND negotiates with the ACC, who will not be inclined to allow a non-fb member or member TV networks/deals. But this is where ND has a trump card, by letting the ACC know that it if they won’t take ND as a partial member, the Irish will compromise with the B1G and join with Pitt, MD, and Rutgers.

    If that were to happen, the SEC would surely respond by going to 16 with 2 ACC schools, first offering NC and VA but flirting with NC St and even Miami and others as a tactic. B12 would also be looking for 2 more, tempting Syracuse, Miami, UConn, etc. At that point even the NC schools would recognize the writing on the wall, that the ACC is done and they can’t rebuild or survive as a Carolina SWC. No good way to stick together and the real chance that Duke gets left out along with Wake if they split.

    Hence why I bet the ACC ends up compromising with ND at some point within the next year or two. Perhaps even as a full member, but with only 5 or 6 conf games required to determine division champs (there would be more conf games between the rest of the schools but that could give ND enough flexibility.)

    • I thought GaTech had higher academic standards. Take them off the list and put Louisville in, and it makes good sense to me for the Big 12 at 14 teams.

      With 11 teams, the ACC could then easily pick up Rutgers (or UConn, if BC allows it) to make 12. I don’t know what to make of ND still…

    • Gobux says:

      I thought Ga. Tech voted against West Virginia joining the ACC, so why would they join them in the B12?

      • bullet says:

        Money. Fear of being left. Missouri dissed the Big 12 when they were trying to get a Big 10 invite and then later joined the SEC which was far weaker academically than the original Big 12.

        Everything I have seen indicates Georgia Tech is the least interested of the 7 or so exploring the idea, but if Clemson, FSU and Miami were going to leave, they would have to think about it.

        • Brian #2 says:

          Missouri left the Big 12 after it had already become weak academically. The Big 12 lost three AAU schools in Colorado, Nebraska, and A&M within one year before Missouri left.

    • Brian says:

      Playoffs Now,

      I see several holes in your predictions:

      “If I had to guess right now, I’d make 3 predictions:

      The B12 eventually ends up at 14 with FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, and VA Tech.”

      GT definitely isn’t going, and VT almost definitely isn’t going. I doubt Clemson is going, either. I’m iffy on FSU, but I’ll give you that for the sake of argument.

      “ND ends up in the ACC, probably for all sports but football.”

      I disagree, but I’ll explain why after you do.

      “The B1G and SEC don’t expand.”

      This we agree on.

      “If/once the B12 goes to 14 by taking 4 ACC schools, I suspect the ACC is going to want to get back to 12, and the only academically acceptable schools are Rutgers, UConn, and ND. The playoff will probably allow ND to stay indy in football, but if Rutgers and UConn move the Big East may no longer be acceptable for ND (especially if that causes a split.)

      So ND negotiates with the ACC, who will not be inclined to allow a non-fb member or member TV networks/deals. But this is where ND has a trump card, by letting the ACC know that it if they won’t take ND as a partial member, the Irish will compromise with the B1G and join with Pitt, MD, and Rutgers.”

      This is why I can’t jump aboard your ND plan. First, the ACC isn’t going to lose 4 teams. Second, I’m not sure the BE would fold even if RU and UConn went away. Third, I don’t think the ACC would say yes to ND as a partial member even then because they’d know ND was bluffing about joining the B10 in that scenario.

      “Hence why I bet the ACC ends up compromising with ND at some point within the next year or two. Perhaps even as a full member, but with only 5 or 6 conf games required to determine division champs (there would be more conf games between the rest of the schools but that could give ND enough flexibility.)”

      1. A full member doesn’t play a partial conference schedule. ND would have to play the full 9 (maybe convince the ACC to drop back to 8) or just be an OOC team.

      2. It ain’t going to happen in the next 2 years. ND has no reason to cave that soon.

    • Eric says:

      Going back and forth, but I do think a 4 team expansion is more likely than a 2 team expansion if ACC teams are involved (although I still think odds are on no expansion). The first two would be Florida State and Clemson. Presumably you’d be trying to make those 2 happy so the other primary targets would be southern. Georgia Tech definitely jumps out as one, but whether or not they’d agree if questionable, but if yes they would be in. Miami (FL) is likely the other. While I think the Big 12 would actually be more interested in Virgina Tech (for a variety of reasons), I think Florida State is going to want that rivalry to remain in conference and they have the power here. If Miami says no, then you go to Virginia Tech, who might well say no as well (Virginia pressure). If all 3 say no, you are probably down to looking at Maryland, Pitt and Syracuse. Maryland could go either way, but I see Pitt and Syracuse accepting.

      Granted, this is all contingent on Florida State and Clemson deciding to go in the first place and I still doubt that happens.

      • bullet says:

        I haven’t seen SU mentioned at all. Interestingly, Big 12 fans aren’t sold on Miami. There are a lot who are concerned that with the penalties, the university’s reaction to stop future occurrences and the general fan apathy, that Miami might not be Miami again. The rumours are that the Big 12 admins aren’t enthused about Miami either.

        Knowing the fan base, I would say Clemson would be most likely with FSU 2nd. I don’t think more than that is very likely. But next would probably be GT out of fear of being left behind and then Maryland (or UL from the BE) who has had continual financial issues. I think VT goes to the SEC if they decided to leave. Pitt already picked the ACC over the Big 12 when the Big 12 made overtures, so they only leave if the league starts to fall apart. With Miami its dual questions: of whether they want to go and whether the Big 12 wants them, but they might slip in ahead of Maryland.

  53. acaffrey says:

    Here is a question. Some folks have been tossing around this idea that the Big XII gets $2M per team added. How and why? I find it hard to believe that a network would pre-negotiate a figure like that. What if the Big XII added SMU and Houston? Is that worth an extra $40M per existing team, plus $48M for the teams being added, or $88M? I just don’t buy that a network would lock itself in to any number without knowing exactly what teams are at issue.

    So is it possible that the contract lists universities that would be worth $2M? If so, wouldn’t that essentially be a cap on an increase. If it already says that FSU and Clemson are worth $2M apiece, then it is specifically known in that instance. But it seems odd that they would be predicting a raid of another conference.

    Also… how do you get $2M anyway? If the Big XII contract is backloaded to any degree–which it most certainly will be–$2M would be the average increase, right? It would be less of an increase in the early years. And those just happen to be the years that FSU and, say, Clemson, would have to pay the exit fee to the ACC. While the Big XII was desperate for WVU to maintain its contract obligations, the Big XII is not so desperate for that now.

    • bullet says:

      I think the ultimate source was one guy who claimed to be a media consultant who posted. Its apparently been repeated many times since then. And there is an unofficial “cool kids” list of 10-12 teams who are acceptable.

      I don’t really believe it. And if it is there, I think people have been mis-interpreting it. Sometimes you get awkwardly worded language in contracts because lawyers aren’t accountants. The contract supposedly adds $2 million per team for team 11 and $2 million per team for team 12. Instead of increasing pay to $24 million per team, it might just a be a way of keeping the original 10 whole. Maybe it adds 11X2 for $22 million TOTAL for team 11 and 12X2 for $24 million for team 12. So you get $20.5 million per team if you have 12 ($20 million x 10 teams + $22 million for team 11 + $24 million for team 12=$246 million, divided by 12=$20.5 million per team). Or maybe it just adds $2 million X the original 10 teams, meaning it all stays at $20 million per school.

      It doesn’t make sense that UL + Rutgers (I think they are both supposed to be on the “cool kids” list) could add $88 million to a $200 million contract (12X24=288).

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Very good questions, acaffrey.

      I think a lot of FSU’s issues of fan discontent with the ACC wouldn’t exist if fans would have just embraced the league that they’re in. I, for one, always enjoyed the idea of FSU having built itself into one of the nation’s top programs in spite of its lack of affiliation with the SEC. The SEC rejected FSU’s attempts to join for multiple decades. Then, when FSU actually did get an invitation only to go a different route, it went on to become the winningest program of the decade (90′s).

      Eventually, FSU fell back into the pack, but the ACC caught up some, too. Whereas the ACC was as a whole fairly lousy in the 90′s, the league actually has gotten better, top to bottom, in the 2000′s. For example, the ACC used go produce far fewer NFL draft picks. More recently, the league is only behind the SEC and, depending on the year, the ifBig Ten in the number of players drafted. Fans of FSU ought to be proud of te league they’re in but they get so jealous of their SEC neighbors that they o. verlook how great they’ve got it.

      Furthermore, if FSU fancies itself as being as legitimate of a “brand name” program as other traditional powers, FSU fans ought to be filling the stadium regardless of who they’re playing. Florida still sells out for Vanderbilt and Kentucky games. Heck, Alabama sells out for brand new program Georgia State. FSU shouldn’t be complaining about an inability to sell out for Wake Forest or Boston College; they’d have the same trouble with bad Iowa State, post bill Snyder K State, post-RG3 Baylor, and bad Kansas teams.

      Really, the most sensible solution would be for FSU to sell out their games in good seasons and in bad ones, and to actually win the ACC and some BCS bowls. That would drive donations, sales, and other revenue to enable FSU to keep pace with Florida and others, without having to join a conference that makes no sense for it to be in instead of one where it has thrived.

  54. acaffrey says:

    Let me also say this… I am beginning to warm up to the idea that Swofford is falling short. How can the individual pieces of the ACC be so valuable, but the sum of the parts not be?

    An argument can me made that it is worthwhile for the Big XII to add 4 ACC schools. Let’s just use FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, and Clemson. If those 4 schools can increase the Big XII contract, then they must be worth a lot. To add four schools would mean a payout of $20M x 14 = $280M/year. That’s $80M to keep the existing 10 schools at the same level. To increase all schools to $25M would mean 25 x 14 or $350M… an extra $150M for the 4 ACC schools per year. Let’s say $120M to keep it simply–$30M value per team.

    Meanwhile, the Big 10 covets Duke, UNC, Virginia, and Maryland. To add them, the same math should apply. Why add a school that does not add anything to the bottom line? To add two.. let’s say Duke and UNC… isn’t that another $60M/year in value.

    Let’s say that leaves behind Va Tech and NC State. If the SEC added them, they must be worth another $60M/year.

    Again… if the ACC teams are valuable enough to be taken by another conference that is already getting $20M/year… that must mean the teams are worth more than that. If not, why bother? That means that these 8 schools have to be worth at least $160M for the conferences to break even and $240M to generate a small increase for the existing teams.

    And then you still have Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Wake Forest, Virginia, and Maryland left over. Together they must be worth another $40M, right? A fraction of the other schools.

    That’s still $280M per year in value. With 14 teams, shouldn’t the average value of the ACC contract be closer to the $20M average that the Big XII is commanding???

    If ESPN is not going to pay the ACC more, someone is going to pay someone else more for the rights to these very same teams. In my mind, that means that ESPN defeated Swofford and Company. Maybe the ACC needed to be more clear that it would implode without more money.

    • mushroomgod says:

      Nobody even remotely associated with a Big 10 school has said that “the Big 10 covets Duke, NC, VA., and Maryland”. That is 100% a product of internet speculation.

      • Brian #2 says:

        While true, doesn’t it seem obvious that they would covet some or all of them? Outside of Notre Dame, those elite ACC schools seem to be the most valuable from any metric.

        • metatron5369 says:

          Not really.

          I don’t want USC and Stanford in the Big Ten either.

        • frug says:

          There is no question about it, outside of ND (and Texas but that isn’t really option anymore) UNC is the Big Ten’s number 1 target (the SEC’s as well). The question is who else would they make a play for. Getting UNC probably requires that the Big 10 take Duke otherwise the Tarheels would likely follow NC-State to the SEC. That eats up three slots (the Big 10 will always leave a seat at the table for ND unless/until they join another conference), with Maryland, UVA and Rutgers all possibilities. I suspect that UNC will probably insist on UVA so they are not on a complete island but ND would probably prefer a north eastern team.

          The Big Ten’s best case scenario is would be UNC, UVA, Maryland and ND since it gives them strong inroads in the DC market (UVA, Maryland and ND all have big followings) as well as UNC who is flagship of a large and rapidly growing state to go onto of elite basketball and academics and competent football (at least until the sanctions start to hit them). I just don’t know if UNC would be willing to break with Duke.

          • Brian says:

            frug,

            “There is no question about it, outside of ND (and Texas but that isn’t really option anymore) UNC is the Big Ten’s number 1 target (the SEC’s as well).”

            Clearly there is question about it because we’ve seen it discussed. How sure are you that UNC trumps UMD as a target? UMD provides synergy with PSU that UNC never will, and both are state flagships with solid research and AAU membership. RU also works well with PSU and has the allure of the unobtainable NYC market. The major downsides to UNC are the cultural difference and geographic separation from the B10. UNC is a southern school, and I don’t think they can join the B10 without a regional partner. UMD and RU could, because PSU is their regional partner.

            “The question is who else would they make a play for. Getting UNC probably requires that the Big 10 take Duke otherwise the Tarheels would likely follow NC-State to the SEC.”

            I don’t know about that. That’s mostly a hoops rivalry (maybe lax too), and can be maintained OOC. The B10 may want Duke to own the hoops rivalry and for the academics, though.

            “That eats up three slots (the Big 10 will always leave a seat at the table for ND unless/until they join another conference), with Maryland, UVA and Rutgers all possibilities. I suspect that UNC will probably insist on UVA so they are not on a complete island but ND would probably prefer a north eastern team.”

            1. You just gave them Duke, so how are they on an island?
            2. You think UNC gets to pick 2 teams and ND gets none?
            3. What if ND still isn’t in the mood to join, leaving 15 teams?

      • acaffrey says:

        Really? I don’t recall anyone from the SEC saying that they coveted Missouri either. What does an official statement mean? And nobody from the Big XII has said that they even want FSU. My post is in response to others that claim that the ACC can/will be divided up among the Big XII, SEC, and B1G. My point is, for that to be truly possible, then the ACC schools are worth more than what they are getting from ESPN.

        • metatron5369 says:

          Because they didn’t. It was closing time, and the bar’s lights were on.

          • acaffrey says:

            Did the Big 10 say that they coveted Nebraska? We can go on all day.

            Did the ACC say that they coveted Pitt/Syracuse? No.

            None of this stuff happens until it is over.

  55. SuperD says:

    Man…savvy PR and media relations really isn’t an FSU strong suit is it? Tim Brando got former player Derrick Brooks (apparently he is former FSU trustee, which is interesting) to say the Big 12 reached out to FSU on his show today. That is a no no in a world where conferences keep threatening each other with tortious interference (thanks Baylor!).

    Tim Brando ‏ @TimBrando
    Derrick Brooks on my show, “As far as I know the BIG12 reached out to us.” When asked about the mixed messages, “Sunshine law open forum.”

    I do know from work where I have to respond to work proposals for government contracts that Florida has one of the most aggressive FOIA/sunshine laws in the country.

    • bullet says:

      So does Derrick Brooks shut down FSU to the Big 12? He may have shut down a playoff in 1994. He was a student on a committee studying a playoff. From a Tony Barnhart article in the 1995 IP Sports Almanac:

      Each person on the committee had his or her turn to speak. There was a genuine excitement in the room that, despite the obstacles involved, a playoff could become a reality. Maybe it wouldn’t happen this year or the next, but it would happen. Then it was Derrick Brooks’ turn to speak. Brooks is an All-American linebacker at Florida State University and one of three student athletes picked for the committee. He is extremely intelligent, an Academic All-ACC selection. He folded his hands and spoke with great clarity.

      “I would ask the committee that once these new revenues are generated, how will the student-athlete benefit?” he said. “What would be our share?”

      The room grew strangely quiet. “It was like somebody had sucked all the air out of the place.” said a participant in the meeting. “Suddenly an issue had been raised that no one was prepared to deal with.”

      The record will show that the day after Brooks said his piece to this committee, the Southeastern Conference voted 12-0 against the concept of a Division I-A football playoff. The next day the special NCAA committee, chaired by UCLA chancellor Charles Young, said it could not come up with a plan and agreed to continue studying the issue. A few days later the NCAA Presidents Commission disbanded the committee. The issue of a playoff was essentially dead for the forseeable future.

      With this history, does it seem surprising the issue of 4 year scholarships and a full cost of attending stipend came up this year before a playoff is proposed?

  56. ESPN has no interest in seeing FSU depart the ACC. They’d sooner renegotiate the ACC contract than see FSU leave. IMHO.

    • Brian #2 says:

      There were strong whispers of FSU bolting the ACC before the ink was dry on ESPN’s renegotiation with the ACC. If ESPN was so adamant about FSU staying put, why wouldn’t they overpay to keep the league alive, similar to what they did to the Big 12?

  57. OT says:

    For you amusement, check out the new dress code for Boise State fans in 2012:

  58. Mike says:

    According to Brett McMurphy (@McMurphyCBS)

    Swofford also said ACC prefers bowls used for semifinals instead of on campus sites

    Swofford on Pitt/SU: “We’re ready for them to come. Sooner than later is preferable. In hands of those schools & Big East”

    ACC’s Swofford if he is concerned about FSU leaving for Big 12: “I don’t deal in hypothetical’s”

    ACC commissioner John Swofford said ACC membership prefers conference champ model in playoff

    FSU Randy Spetman told me he “doesn’t know where Derrick got that” about Big 12 contact

    • bullet says:

      Swofford said he preferred straight 1-4 last week.

      • Kevin says:

        I noticed that too. Seems like his coaches and AD’s prefer the conference champ model. Not a good sign that he’s not on the same page as the schools he represents.

  59. bullet says:

    @Frank
    I totally disagree with your tweet. Most people want an objective computer formula that agrees with their personal opinion! A lot of people think the AP poll is garbage. It doesn’t have the same conflict of interest as the coaches poll, but it has people who don’t know football as well as the coaches. Except for the conflict of interest it has all the flaws of the coaches poll. Writers are working and don’t necessarily watch games. They don’t pay as much attention to games outside the area. They do have local bias. They don’t always look at all the scores (classic example-1997 Texas lost 66-3 to UCLA in a September afternoon game and was still ranked. Next week they beat a good opponent yet didn’t get a single vote). They move teams up and down based on what they thought in preaseason. They weight W-L over strength of schedule (example-Stanford ahead of Oregon last year). They vote based on name value. They often rank teams on who lost last. AP Poll is very flawed. That’s why I like a committee for selection. Maybe you have a BCS formula to narrow it to 10 or so candidates, but the committee selects the teams.

    • ccrider55 says:

      Poll = people making a judgment.
      Committee = people making a judgment.
      Committee = Poll

      • bullet says:

        Sportswriters are doing the AP Poll. That makes it a bad poll.

        • ccrider55 says:

          So people who watch, analyze, cover, report on a sport for their livelihood are less qualified than…who? Coaches would be my only choice, but they are totally focused on the next game (except when Mack B lobbies to get past Cal). Perhaps you prefer old retired coaches, they certainly couldn’t have any bias….

          • frug says:

            The coaches poll is the worst because they have a clear conflict of interest (think Shaw and Saban voting Stanford #3 and OSU #4).

          • ccrider55 says:

            Frug:
            That’s my point. Those most qualified to analyse are the most vested in a particular school or conference. A large pool of writers who’s livelihood (supposedly) depends on accuracy and objectivity is a better option. But not better than win and get in, as in champions only.
            I realize there are more than four conferences, for now, and a method of choosing which four champs is needed to do this. I just don’t care if the top two are in the same conf. And certainly don’t want to see a conference do over in the championship.

          • bullet says:

            Sportswriters these days are pretty sloppy and lazy in their facts. And you’ve got ESPN people who have their conflicts of interest. Retired coaches and ADs would be better.

          • bullet says:

            I don’t think sportswriters livlihood depends on objectivity and accuracy. It seems to be on generating reactions from the readers.

          • frug says:

            I should add that my personal preference would be to avoid both a selection committee and polls and simply rely the computers (assuming the powers that be don’t neuter them like they did back in ’05)

    • @bullet – I think the AP poll generally speaking reflects what the broader public thinks. Sure, there are going to be people that disagree with it, but across the board, it’s a pretty good indicator of what fans believe (more so than the coaches’ poll or any other ranking).

      What I meant by that Tweet is that people don’t like the *idea* of using a poll (it feels like it’s subject to subjective bias), but want the outcome of a poll (since it reflects what they see with their own eyes). If a computer ranking spits out an outcome that’s wildly divergent from the AP poll, fans simply don’t like it. We saw that in 2003 with the split national championship, which led to people bashing the computer rankings and strength of schedule components so much that the BCS completely overhauled its system. Of course, now fans want to put many of those components back in.

      I honestly have a lot of sympathy for the powers that be on this issue because it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. People say that they want objectivity, but when an outcome doesn’t jive with overall subjective opinion, they scream and moan about it.

      On a related note, I’ve stated previously that I don’t think there’s really any inherent advantage to using a selection committee for a 4-team playoff as opposed to some other ranking. I’m actually much more concerned with one or two committee members being able to swing a vote than the thought that there are dumb voters in a poll (because if a poll is broad enough, the impact of those votes will be minimized). This isn’t like the NCAA Tournament where you need to find people who live and breath basketball for months on end and have watched teams from small conferences to fill in those last at-large spots. A limited 4-team playoff doesn’t require the same specialized expertise level and is much more suited to a “wisdom of crowds” selection.

      Also, from a practical standpoint, I think there’s going to be a VERY strong demand from fans, TV networks and players/coaches to have a ranking that they can follow from week to week to know exactly where they stand and who needs to win or lose in a given week. I think it’s unrealistic to think that all of those parties are going to be OK with waiting until December with no knowledge of what a selection committee is looking at and that a 4-team field is popped out. Once again, this is very different from the NCAA Tournament since all serious national title contenders know that they’re going to be in the field and they’re really just waiting to see where they’re seeded.

      • duffman says:

        @Frank – the broader you get to the public, the dumber you get because of averages!

      • bullet says:

        On the subject of computer polls, its garbage in, garbage out. The reality is that with 12 or 13 games, even if TPTB don’t put limits on what the programmers can consider, there simply isn’t enough data for the computers to make reliable evaluations. There’s also the fact that no amount of data can evaluate the intangibles. There are teams that just win. And there are teams that may have lost and it doesn’t make sense, even if they are good. For example, Sagarin rated Texas at 9-1-1 the best team of 1968 when there were unbeaten teams (I believe it was Ohio St. at 11-0). Maybe after starting 0-1-1 and figuring out the wishbone, that was the strongest team in December, but its still a ridiculous result. Computers will give you that sometimes.

        • frug says:

          When you trust subjective rankings over statistical methods you end with Alabama to the NCG over Oklahoma St. based on Kirk Herbstreit’s “eyeball” test.

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          How are people any better? At least the computers give full and equal attention to every game played that season. How many voters watch all 250+ games played by top 25 teams in a season? How many of them keep track of who beat whom and where?

          Humans can deal with intangibles better, but they’re terrible with the tangibles. All you need to do is look at last year’s rankings.

          Oregon beat Stanford 53-30 at Stanford, but lost to #1 LSU and at home to AP #6 USC on a last minute field goal. Stanford beat USC in 3OT at USC.

          Harris Poll & Coaches Poll (and thus BCS Rankings):
          #4 11-1 Stanford
          #5 11-2 Oregon

          AP Poll:
          #4 OR
          #5 USC (10-2)
          #6 Stanford

          BCS computers:
          #5 Stanford 4, 4, 5, 8, 10, 7
          #8 Oregon 12, 5, 8, 10, 9, 6

          The wisdom of crowds was OR > Stanford. In agreement were 2 computer polls, Jeff Sagarin’s and Peter Wolfe’s. The human polls disagreed strongly, giving Stanford a large margin in all 3 polls.

          From Colley’s rankings comparison site (http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2011-14.htm), 89 of the 133 computer rankings he tracks had OR above Stanford. That means 2/3 of the computer polls did what none of the human polls could manage.

          • bullet says:

            Besides not being able to deal with intangibles, the computer models are simply statistically invalid. You can’t do a reliable evaluation with only 12 or 13 sample points. Basketball is much better as you have around 30 games and the scoring is not in such large discrete steps (2,3,7).

            Just using Sagarin’s model-he is using his ELO-chess model for the BCS. The rating system for chess uses a different formula for the 1st 21 games than they do afterwards and considers ratings provisional for those 1st 21 games. Football teams never get to 21 games. 21 is basically the number statistics will tell you is necessary (don’t ask me why 21-there’s probably some mathematical proof of that) to get rid of random variability to have a truly statistically valid sample. Obviously the more sample points the better the sample, but below 21 is considered questionable.

          • Chrispy says:

            Brian,

            Recall why BCS #4 was important: it guaranteed Stanford a BCS slot. Dropping Oregon behind Stanford in the polls did nothing to Oregon; they were in the Rose Bowl either way. But it did guarantee Stanford a slot in the BCS.

            We have seen the polls manipulated by listening to people talk about the projected computer ratings and what a team needs to be ranked in a given spot. We’ve seen coaches lobby for BCS at-large bids (Texas hopping Cal.)

            Were we dealing with a top 4 BCS playoff, I have little doubt the coaches and Harris poll voters would have put Oregon ahead of Stanford by enough to guarantee their participation. Even if it was only because media told them Stanford would be ahead in the computers, the voters would get the message regarding what they “needed” to do to put the top 4 they wanted together.

            And this is my biggest issue with the current BCS system: with the weighting of the polls and the ability to project the computer rankings, the pollsters can simply adjust their rankings in the final week to get their desired results. But the polls dealt with tangibles this past year; they just cared about different tangibles than they would in a 4 team playoff.

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “Besides not being able to deal with intangibles,”

            Is that worse than being misled by irrelevant intangibles or ignoring the tangibles?

            “the computer models are simply statistically invalid.”

            Not necessarily true, unless you’re hiding some mathematical proofs I’m unaware of up your sleeve..

            “You can’t do a reliable evaluation with only 12 or 13 sample points.”

            You say that, but many computer polls manage to spit out reasonable results every year.

            “Basketball is much better as you have around 30 games and the scoring is not in such large discrete steps (2,3,7).”

            Of course more data points would help, but that’s true for human polls too.

            “Just using Sagarin’s model-he is using his ELO-chess model for the BCS.”

            That’s Elo, not ELO. It’s named after the guy that came up with the basic idea.

            “The rating system for chess uses a different formula for the 1st 21 games than they do afterwards and considers ratings provisional for those 1st 21 games.”

            There isn’t 1 chess rating system, but several. The international one changes after 30 games, but that’s just part of the model. The US one isn’t dependent on the number of games, but similarly changes based on the rating of the player.

            “21 is basically the number statistics will tell you is necessary (don’t ask me why 21-there’s probably some mathematical proof of that) to get rid of random variability to have a truly statistically valid sample.”

            If you can’t explain why 21, how about providing some proof that statisticians actually claim 21 is a magical number for all things statistical?

          • bullet says:

            Brian
            You can look it up in a basic statistics text book that you have limited reliability below 21 in statistical samples. Realistically, if you are doing sampling, you will almost always go for at least 30.

            Preseason polls have sometimes been pretty accruate. So sometimes computer polls get good results. Sometimes they get total nonense. Look at Billingsley most years. Massey and Sagarin both had Texas at #13 last year. I don’t think that was reasonable.

            And I’m fully aware of Arpad Elo (no I didn’t even need to look that up). On Sagarin’s site he capitalizes it all ‘ELO’ so I used his method. There is only one US Chess Federation method, although they have 2 ratings based on different speeds of play (just because they tweak it for Senior Masters doesn’t really change the method, just some of the fixed inputs). And the FIDE (international chess federation) uses basically the same method. If you really are familiar with it Brian, you are really splitting hairs to say its multiple systems over a different “k” factor.

          • Brian says:

            Chrispy,

            “Recall why BCS #4 was important: it guaranteed Stanford a BCS slot. Dropping Oregon behind Stanford in the polls did nothing to Oregon; they were in the Rose Bowl either way. But it did guarantee Stanford a slot in the BCS.”

            Check your memory. OR dropped behind SU after losing to USC and were way behind them. Only with several upsets on CCG weekend did OR move up to #5 behind SU. SU move up to #4 once AR lost to LSU and SU leaped VT. It wasn’t a plot to manipulate the polls.

            “Were we dealing with a top 4 BCS playoff, I have little doubt the coaches and Harris poll voters would have put Oregon ahead of Stanford by enough to guarantee their participation. Even if it was only because media told them Stanford would be ahead in the computers, the voters would get the message regarding what they “needed” to do to put the top 4 they wanted together.”

            If ever there was an argument for not having human polls, this is it.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            aw, man, I thought ELO stood for Electric Light Orchestra.

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “You can look it up in a basic statistics text book that you have limited reliability below 21 in statistical samples. Realistically, if you are doing sampling, you will almost always go for at least 30.”

            I looked and saw no such thing.

            Besides, that’s sampling. CFB games aren’t samples. Small set sizes lead to larger error bars and such, but you can’t just say all data with fewer than 21 points is worthless.

            “And I’m fully aware of Arpad Elo (no I didn’t even need to look that up). On Sagarin’s site he capitalizes it all ‘ELO’ so I used his method.”

            Sagarin capitalizes everything on his site. You didn’t write it ELO-CHESS like he does.

            “There is only one US Chess Federation method, although they have 2 ratings based on different speeds of play (just because they tweak it for Senior Masters doesn’t really change the method, just some of the fixed inputs). And the FIDE (international chess federation) uses basically the same method. If you really are familiar with it Brian, you are really splitting hairs to say its multiple systems over a different “k” factor.”

            I don’t consider it separate systems, but I didn’t want to gloss over a point that might be considered in your favor. That might make it sound like I was trying to spin the facts to support me. That said, having a discontinuous “k” factor in a model is a tough thing to justify. In these days of computer power, you’d think they would smooth that out.

      • wmtiger says:

        SOS formula that was originally in the BCS was flawed and overstated… It only needed tweaked, not thrown out entirely.

      • Not sure if you read my thoughts on this yet… http://www.nittanylionsden.com/2012-articles/may/a-poll-is-for-people-how-conference-champs-will-still-rule-the-4-team-playoff.html

        …but I agree that a poll is needed. The poll should simply include a LARGE sample of educated people (30-50). This will keep individuals safe (many have joked about needing bodyguards if they were on the committee) but still create accountability. Use a formula similar to the current BCS system too. Combine the two for 50/50 split in overall poll. It keeps the human “sanity” aspect (11-1 Stanford should be higher than 11-2 Oregon) but still allows for a more statistical assessment measured by data.

        • Brian says:

          It keeps the human “sanity” aspect (11-1 Stanford should be higher than 11-2 Oregon)

          Please tell me you meant to say “should not be higher” there.

          • Yes, my bad. Should “not” be higher than 11-1 Oregon.

            A part of me still thinks that a “formula” can be created that correctly identifies what PEOPLE want their top 2/top 4/top 25 to look like. We have decades and decades of past statistical samples to use…create one that does what you want it to do (if you’re trying to please the fans and powers that be…).

  60. Playoffs Now says:

    http://twitter.com/#!/SN_Greenberg

    Delany on expansion: ‘Tectonic plates are still hot’ in CFB, so B1G—though it’s happy at 12—is monitoring other leagues, paying attention.

  61. JMann says:

    The ACC’s problem in decimating the Big East is that they forget to factor in that once they killed off the weakest in the herd – They became the weakest in the herd!

  62. Playoffs Now says:

    Reposted and reposted supposedly from an FSU board (so sorry, no link.) Not sure if accurate, but certainly wouldn’t be surprised if he is correct:

    —————————————————————————————————————————————

    Posted: Today 1:53 PM
    FSU, academics, and the acc
    Okay, all of you coming to OUR board clinging to the idea that FSU is so tied to the acc for academics… just STOP! Do a little research before shooting off.

    I just spent a goodly amount of time going over FSU’s OWN websites to see the conection (if any) between research, funding, grants, collaborations, partners, and the like.

    Guess what? You got it! Though FSU DOES work some acc schools, they also have BIG ties with several Big XII schools in research – in fact, sec schools, Big XII schools, PAC – 12 schools, independents, little schools, non-school entities, you name it! One of the biggest projects we currently have going on is the joint research with IOWA STATE of the BIG XII for atmospheric research.

    I couldn’t find anything on any of the sites that tie FSU specifically to, or any research currently on-going at FSU that would be affected by a switch in Athletic Conference affiliation becuase it is based upon being a member of the acc.

    So let’s drop this pretense in future posts. FSU’s academics and research are not tied to or with being in the acc.

    • greg says:

      Universities are constantly trying to associate themselves with ones they want to emulate. I don’t know why people listen to idiots on message boards trying to disprove the importance of how universities position themselves. Even if YOU think its meaningless, academians think its important, therefore it becomes important. FSU being part of the ACC helps their academic reputation in the long run.

      • Mack says:

        So 90+ years of association with Stanford, USC, California, Washington and Oregon has elevated Washington State in what way??? As far as joint projects / rubbing shoulders / etc. NC already has Duke, VA, and MD for that. FSU is left with the likes of Clemson, NCSU, and Miami. FSU has a better chance in the XII with TX, KS, and IaState simpily becasue FSU would be in the middle of the pack and these schools will be avoiding the likes of WVU and TT like the elite ACC members avoid FSU today.
        FYI: Idaho was also associated with these schools for 40+ years (ending 50 years ago) and nothing seemed to rub off on them. Academics were also not a factor in A&M and Missouri moving to the SEC. A&M announced it was leaving a conference with 5 AAU members and 6/10 members with endowments >$1B to go to a conference with 2 AAU members and the same two the only ones with $1B. Even the ACC only had 4 AAU members in 2009.

        • greg says:

          I can’t “prove” anything, which is the rub of reputations and who you associate with. I will note that WSU is USNWR #115 national university while Idaho is #160.

          But you are disagreeing with something that is core to academics.

        • acaffrey says:

          The issue is not whether Washington State is elevated to the level of Washington and Stanford, but whether Washington State is elevated above the likes of, say, Colorado State or Wyoming or Eastern Washington.

          For Florida State, perhaps their biggest academic rivals are upstarts South Florida and Central Florida. Does anyone consider them as good as Florida State? If one of them was part of the ACC for 20 years, would that gap narrow considerably? You bet. When Duke plays USF, it sends a subliminal message that the schools are peers.

          Is Seton Hall a good school? I don’t know. But I know much more about Seton Hall than Hofstra, because the former is a Big East school.

          Now look at Iowa v Kansas. Which is the better school? Do you think Iowa? Might someone think… “I don’t know, probably Iowa because they are in the Big 10.” I think someone could make that inference. How about Louisiana State and Florida State? Seem like peers. Edge to Florida State because they are ACC? I think someone could buy that. Is it true? It is possible to even determine whether it is true? I don’t know. But perception does mean something.

          • Mack says:

            Florida’s 80 year association with the SEC did not prevent it from getting in the AAU. Florida is far superior to FSU, despite the athletic peers the schools keep. A&M and MO took the SEC money. Pittsburg is the only school that took less $$$ in recent realighment going ACC rather than XII. All college presidents talk academics and they would like the $$$ and academics to align; however, when they conflict the decision usually aligns to the $$$. The B1G and Ivy are the only conferences that top to bottom follow the same general academics and athletic policies.

          • acaffrey says:

            Perhaps Florida is far superior to Florida State because FSU spent all those years slumming it in the Metro. In the meantime, joining the ACC has FSU considered middle-of-the-pack for AQ schools now.

            Missouri and A&M did not move for the money. They moved to get away from Texas and the instability inherent in having Texas in their conference.

            Pittsburgh and Syracuse moved because they were concerned about WVU going to the SEC (everyone forgets that whole scenario), which would have weakened an already wobbly Big East even more.

            If Florida State moves, it will not be leaving an unstable situation. It will be moving solely for the $$$. An unprecedented decision in realignment lately. Maybe the Seminoles should just not not pay $3.5M for a womens basketball team. Drop that down to $1M and there goes the budget problem. Fixed.

            The funny thing is that Texas will always have that $10M advantage over FSU. If money is so important to being competitive, then I guess FSU will never be able to compete in the Big XII.

          • frug says:

            Syracuse and Pitt would have gone to the ACC no matter what. WVU had already been turned down by both the SEC and ACC (they applied for membership in both).

            The ACC is more stable and way more profitable than the Big East. Outside of history (which is rightly not an issue for any Big East football school) there was absolutely no reason to stay in the Big East.

            Also, dropping the budget for WBB that drastically without also dropping the budget for MBB could create major Title IX issues.

            (FWIW, the Big XII is more stable (at least for the next 13 years) than the ACC if for no other reason than the schools have signed a GOR.)

  63. ChicagoMac says:

    Any other Big Ten fans ready to go in for the kill?

    Add Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech then wait to see what unfolds before adding one from Notre Dame, Maryland or Clemson?

    * Florida and Georgia to in-market carriage deals drives the math.
    * You could probably finance the exit fee for them and pay out to those schools the equivalent to their ACC share during the first 3 or 4 years.
    * You would be adding 2 more Football Kings to the existing roster and possibly 3…creating a television juggernaut with ties to nearly every major TV market that cares about college athletics east of the Mississippi.
    * Consider: most weeks during the conference season you will have King v. King game and even when you don’t you will have multiple King’s playing big games against the likes of Wisconsin, Michigan St, GT, etc.
    * You probably have enough TV juice to attract 2 of the 4 major TV networks to go along with the inventory for the BTN.
    * All of this can be done before you start negotiating for the 2015 and beyond TV package
    * Its a fit academically
    * It opens up major new recruiting pipelines to the high growth SE from both an athlete perspective and a general student population standpoint
    * GT has been in the ACC the longest, since 1978, but I can’t see them walking away from the opportunity to join the B1G. For FSU an Miami it would be an easy decision unless I’m missing something.

    Tell me why this wouldn’t work for the Presidents, TV side or the in0bound schools?

    • Brian says:

      ChicagoMac,

      “Any other Big Ten fans ready to go in for the kill?”

      Yes!

      “Add Florida State, Miami and Georgia Tech then wait to see what unfolds before adding one from Notre Dame, Maryland or Clemson?”

      Oh, wait, I thought we were talking about something else. Never mind.

      “* Florida and Georgia to in-market carriage deals drives the math.”

      GT won’t get you on basic cable in Atlanta, let alone GA. UGA is the clear #1 in Atlanta, and the SEC can’t get ESPNU on basic cable in Atlanta. You can’t get the same sort of deal for the BTN there as in the midwest.

      “* You could probably finance the exit fee for them and pay out to those schools the equivalent to their ACC share during the first 3 or 4 years.”

      They have to pay $20M in exit fees, plus they have to buy into the BTN. That’s a lot to finance. NE took 5 years to buy into the BTN.

      “* You would be adding 2 more Football Kings to the existing roster and possibly 3…creating a television juggernaut with ties to nearly every major TV market that cares about college athletics east of the Mississippi.”

      Too many kings is a problem. You’d have up to 7/16 be kings. That doesn’t work. Someone has to lose games to keep the kings elite.

      “* Consider: most weeks during the conference season you will have King v. King game and even when you don’t you will have multiple King’s playing big games against the likes of Wisconsin, Michigan St, GT, etc.”

      You’ll end up with a bunch of 2 and 3 loss champs.

      “* You probably have enough TV juice to attract 2 of the 4 major TV networks to go along with the inventory for the BTN.”

      Why is 2 better than 1?

      “* Its a fit academically”

      FSU isn’t.

      “* It opens up major new recruiting pipelines to the high growth SE from both an athlete perspective and a general student population standpoint”

      The B10 already recruits the SE. It might widen the pipelines, but it’s nothing new.

      “Tell me why this wouldn’t work for the Presidents, TV side or the in0bound schools?”

      The presidents don’t want to expand. They prefer to play each other more, not less. Plus, FSU isn’t up to snuff academically. There are also the travel concerns for athletes. The southern schools might hesitate to have to play outdoors in MN, etc in November, and they lose in recruiting. It will also be hard for FSU and GT to maintain their rivalries with 8 conference games plus the P12 game (unless they play UF and UGA instead), let alone if they go to 9 conference games.

      • Brian #2 says:

        “* You would be adding 2 more Football Kings to the existing roster and possibly 3…creating a television juggernaut with ties to nearly every major TV market that cares about college athletics east of the Mississippi.”

        Too many kings is a problem. You’d have up to 7/16 be kings. That doesn’t work. Someone has to lose games to keep the kings elite.

        ——

        I’ve noticed that this point is routinely ignored by fans when discussing realignment. There is no incentive for a conference to add numerous football blue bloods because it will end up devaluing the conference’s current blue bloods. This is why the SEC is content to pass on FSU and Clemson (along with many other reasons); if FSU was added, it would actually end up devaluing the programs at Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

      • ChicagoMac says:

        Completely disagree with the two-headed Brian about having too many Kings. That may have been the case in the past but with the way the postseason appears to be headed the more Kings the better.

        The goal will be to get 2 teams in the 4 team ‘playoff’ as much as possible and then fill the rest of the BCS games with as many teams from your conference as possible then create contractual tie-ins with the next tier of highest paying bowls. The best way to maximize your chances of this is to load up on Kings and create a situation where your 7,8,9,10 best brands are like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, and Georgia Tech.

        At the end of the day the Presidents care most about creating a competitive advantage over the rest of the conferences when it comes to revenue generation. They need to be able to show alums proper commitment to winning and they need to be able to show the academics that they aren’t taking resources from that side of the budget to pay Coach’s salary.

        As discussed above, adding more Kings is the best way to set yourself up with a competitive advantage when it comes to postseason loot. Of course it does the same for the TV contracts. The reason adding a second network matters is promotion. There is value to the promotional mentions the SEC gets from CBS during the NFL season. The B1G would love to go beyond that with deep relationships with Fox or NBC and the conference would have enough ratings juice to pull it off.

        As far as recruiting goes, yes the B1G already recruits the Southeast but it doesn’t recruit it as well now as it would with the additions discussed. This is one area where the Football coaches and Presidents would surely agree. Shortly after Delaney announced that the conference was going to investigate expansion one of the priorities listed was to open up new territories for recruiting for both athletics and the general student population. Nebraska surely wasn’t the final answer here.

        As far as carriage in GA, I disagree. GT doesn’t have to carry Atlanta and the rest of the state because it will have help from FSU, Miami, and all the BigTen alums down there. The comparison to ESPNU isn’t valid, the BTN would have a much better inventory of games than what is typically shown on ESPNU.

        Travel is a concern but realistically, for most of the B1G, how much different is a flight and bus trip to State College than a flight to Miami? For the targets, they will already be traveling to BC, Pitt, and Syracuse so its not that much different.

        Finally, as far as the weather in November, I’ve golfed in Wisconsin on Thanksgiving weekend before. So I can’t imagine anyone would turn down the rest of what is being offered for weather but if it really is an issue you could probably guarantee that these schools wouldn’t have to play north of the Mason Dixon line more than one time per season after the second week in November. Its really not a big deal.

        There isn’t much difference b/w FSU and Nebraska academically. Miami isn’t AAU but it is very highly ranked. FSU and MIami are both Top 100 in terms of research dollars without the benefit of CIC membership.

        • Brian says:

          ChicagoMac,

          “Completely disagree with the two-headed Brian about having too many Kings. That may have been the case in the past but with the way the postseason appears to be headed the more Kings the better.”

          Guessing where the postseason is headed is a bad way to make a major decision. It could completely change in 5 or 10 years.

          If a large bunch of kings beat up on each other, what likely happens is several of them lose king status

          “The goal will be to get 2 teams in the 4 team ‘playoff’ as much as possible and then fill the rest of the BCS games with as many teams from your conference as possible then create contractual tie-ins with the next tier of highest paying bowls. The best way to maximize your chances of this is to load up on Kings and create a situation where your 7,8,9,10 best brands are like Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, and Georgia Tech.”

          1. There is no playoff format, so you can’t set a goal for it yet. For all you know, there will be a 1 team per conference limit.

          2. The other BCS bowls may also be capped (a 3-team limit was being discussed).

          3. What you fail to recognize is that all those brands will lose value as the losses pile up. WI has 48 wins in the past 5 years. Where would they be as a brand if they only had 38 wins?

          “At the end of the day the Presidents care most about creating a competitive advantage over the rest of the conferences when it comes to revenue generation. They need to be able to show alums proper commitment to winning and they need to be able to show the academics that they aren’t taking resources from that side of the budget to pay Coach’s salary.”

          It doesn’t help them when everybody starts losing more games. Fans of the kings won’t accept losing 4 games every year, but it’s going to happen to them. You’ll end up with a bunch of former kings (think TN) and disgruntled fans.

          “As discussed above, adding more Kings is the best way to set yourself up with a competitive advantage when it comes to postseason loot.”

          No it isn’t. You’re assuming they’ll all stay kings as they suddenly start losing 4 games every year. Besides ND, no team can do that.

          “There is value to the promotional mentions the SEC gets from CBS during the NFL season.”

          I wouldn’t know. I’ve never seen one of them. The NFL presumably gets a bigger bump by having ads on Saturday for Sunday’s games rather than the other way around.

          “The B1G would love to go beyond that with deep relationships with Fox or NBC and the conference would have enough ratings juice to pull it off.”

          You’ve still haven’t shown why 2 networks are better than 1 for this. The more 1 network has invested in the B10, the more they’ll promote it. When big games are on a competitor, they won’t promote that.

          “As far as carriage in GA, I disagree. GT doesn’t have to carry Atlanta and the rest of the state because it will have help from FSU, Miami, and all the BigTen alums down there. The comparison to ESPNU isn’t valid, the BTN would have a much better inventory of games than what is typically shown on ESPNU.”

          You’re welcome to disagree, but you’re dead wrong. UGA dominates Atlanta, and there are more SEC alums than B10 alums. The BTN has next to no chance of getting basic carriage in Atlanta. The BTN may have better games, but the SEC has many more fans in the market and they don’t even complain much about ESPNU not being on basic.

  64. duffman says:

    Frank, I go back to some basic issues :

    #1 – to gain value the B12 must shed teams before adding them

    No matter what the B12 does, it still has the likes of ISU, KSU, TCU, WVU and Baylor dragging the bottom numbers. At least Kansas has basketball, and oSu has T Boone to carry them above the bottom. The issue I have is what is the total intrinsic value of the B12 that makes it worth more than the B1G /SEC (with big stadiums and big footprint) or the PAC (who can act as a monopoly west of the Mississippi) when it comes to TV dollars?

    #2 – to gain value you must be in the spotlight year round

    We have discussed this on here before, but the value of the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC is in their ability to be on tv with multiple schools year round. Where will this come from in the B12?

    UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = 1 MNC Championship in past decade (Texas in 05)
    UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = ZERO MCBB Championships EVER
    UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = 1 WCBB Championship EVER (Texas in 86)
    UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = 8 Baseball CWS (UT 49/50/75/83/02/05, OU 51/94)
    UT + OU + FSU + WVU + Clemson = ZERO Hockey Championships

    I hate to keep hitting on this point, but the value in every other conference is the ability of multiple schools to win multiple sports. If the B12 still revolves around UT and OU even after adding CU and FSU you are not adding real year round media value. Is a football only conference dead as the Dodo bird in the modern world? Alan’s discussion of how much LSU baseball adds to LSU’s bottom line is a telling on where the SEC is heading. The question is if the B12 is stuck in the past?

    #3 – what combination exceeds the other conferences combination?

    If the B12 gets to 12, what 2 can be added that = B1G or PAC?
    If the B12 gets to 14, what 4 can be added that = ACC or SEC?

    Maybe I am just simple, but to command B1G or SEC dollars how do you get there with the teams mentioned so far? Just look at attendance numbers prior to realignment (link below) :

    #1 SEC 76,306
    #2 B1G 71,734
    #3 B12 57,742
    #4 PAC 52,495
    #5 ACC 50,805

    Considering Nebraska and A&M are gone, you get big number losses for the B12. Basically the PAC / B12 / ACC are all around 50,000 in averages and adding Florida State and Clemson is not going to bump the B12 numbers by 20,000 – 30,000 per school! Yet all the blog speak seems to imply this based on the chatter.

    #4 – SoS and inventory values drop with the Clemson and FSU adds

    The B12 was able to maintain media values because they had an extra game to include in their contract. Adding 2 more schools means an 11 game conference schedule + 1 OOC game or 8 games + 4 OOC + CCG. Since 11 game conference season seems implausible then that means the B12 will have more fluff to schedule, and further dilute their media values. This means lower SoS’s and more “bottom” conference games on the schedule. Sure UT vs Clemson or OU vs FSU sounds great, but KU vs Clemson and ISU vs FSU will not be registering with mainstream CFB fans across the country who will pay for premium.

    link http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ycn-10270543 for #3 above

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      duff – as I walked out of Alex Box stadium last night after LSU’s last regular season home baseball game, the PA announcer stated that LSU sold more than 400,000 baseball tickets again this season. To put that in perspective, only 3 mens’ basketball teams and only 27 football teams sold more than 400,000 tickets. These tickets aren’t cheap either, as suite, club and grandstand seats all require mandatory donations.

      LSU, Ole Miss, Arkansas, and South Carolina are all in the top 5 in baseball attendance.

      http://www.sportswriters.net/ncbwa/news/2012/attendance120514.pdf

      I’m not sure what hockey or wrestling draws, but other sports can be revenue producers.

      • greg says:

        Alan, Iowa is about the only school that draws a big enough wrestling crowd to make it matter, but the sport just has too few meets to make a lot of revenue. Iowa typically averages about double the #2 team in the country. The only link I could easily find is from 2008, when Iowa was #1 at 7,541 but in only 6 meets. ISU second at 4,311.

        http://blog.lib.umn.edu/schl0490/collegewrestlingnews/2008/04/top_20_ncaa_wrestling_programs.html

        On a side note, last month Iowa City hosted the U.S. Olympic trials and more than doubled the previous attendance record. The crowds were the talk of the weekend and there has been lots of discussion about bringing it back in 2016.

        • PSUGuy says:

          Speaking as a wrestling fan I can attest that PSU packs them in:
          http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-wrestl/spec-rel/022111aad.html

          5400 ain’t shabby and from my athletic association literature it makes money for the school (there’s even rumors of a donation based seating system like the one just implemented in football is going into effect there soon).

          • greg says:

            PSUguy, I hate to say it but I think you guys have Dan Gable 2.0.

          • ccrider55 says:

            The trick for non FB or MBB (or LSU baseball) sports is to decrease the cost of the sport. I’m happy for PSU but worry many less well off schools are reducing offerings to support the chase after FB dollars. I don’t believe the mission of college sports is to generate income, but is to provide wide and divirse experience. End of rant before I get going.

          • duffman says:

            If Alabama is drawing 15,000 to see women’s gymnastics you have to think they are making some coin on the concessions! The point I was trying to get at is the B12 does not have secondary sport support, as it seems to be all football. The B1G has hockey, the ACC basketball, and the SEC has baseball. What does the B12 have?

            Again if we are to believe all the hype on the blogs about the B12 being worth more than the SEC (and by default the B1G) how are they getting to these numbers?

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “The point I was trying to get at is the B12 does not have secondary sport support, as it seems to be all football. The B1G has hockey, the ACC basketball, and the SEC has baseball. What does the B12 have?”

            Baseball and basketball.

            “Again if we are to believe all the hype on the blogs about the B12 being worth more than the SEC (and by default the B1G) how are they getting to these numbers?”

            Timing on the free market.

    • bullet says:

      Missing the boat on all sports. Big 12 is right up there with Pac 12, SEC and ACC in baseball. FSU & Clemson help. Oklahoma St. leads the Big 12 in national championships (primarily golf and wrestling, but its still a championship). In spring sports the Big 12 is very strong. There are always lots of contenders. As for football, take out Ohio St. and where has the Big 10 been the last dozen years? The Big 10 would look like the Big East. At some time late in the last dozen seasons (most in last 5), Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St., Kansas, TCU and W. Virginia (in addition to Nebraska, Missouri and Colorado) have been ranked in the top 5. If you go back to 1998 KSU was #3 and they have since been in the top 10 (8 last year before bowls). Even Iowa St. has seen the top 10. And Baylor was in the top 15 and had a Heisman winner. Baylor will likely break UT’s record for the most combined wins in a single season in fb, mbb, wbb and baseball in NCAA history. They just won women’s bb with a perfect season after A&M won last year, upsetting them in the semis.

      As for multiple sports, CU and MU were near the bottom of the conference in non-revs, so that kind of balances out losing NU and A&M.

      National perception and markets you can argue. If you’re arguing competitiveness, you are just wrong. Except for hockey-but the same applies to P12 and SEC. And if the NHL has trouble getting on national network TV, colleges are going to have a tough time.

      • Scarlet_Lutefisk says:

        “As for football, take out Ohio St. and where has the Big 10 been the last dozen years? The Big 10 would look like the Big East.”

        @bullet – I don’t know why more people don’t jump on your continual nonsense. I understand that you are upset that everyone wants to get as far away from the XII as possible but that’s no reason to go into full BS mode.

        Wisconsin, Penn St., TSUN & Iowa have all been ranked in the top 5 over that same time period and Illiinois has cracked the top 10.

        Since Oklahoma St won their last wrestling title, THREE different B1G teams have stood atop the podium.

        It’s ridiculous to claim that losing two of the top four strongest athletic departments in the conference is somehow offset by losing two of the (claimed) weaker ones.

        Trying to take credit for both teams that have left the conference and ones that haven’t joined yet was a nice touch however.

    • Brian says:

      duffman,

      “#1 – to gain value the B12 must shed teams before adding them”

      That’s a way to gain value, but not the only one. Are you saying adding ND wouldn’t add value? Besides, almost nobody kicks out teams.

      “The issue I have is what is the total intrinsic value of the B12 that makes it worth more than the B1G /SEC (with big stadiums and big footprint) or the PAC (who can act as a monopoly west of the Mississippi) when it comes to TV dollars?”

      Timing is everything. I’m guessing it won’t be worth more after the SEC and B10 get their new deals. It’s not worth worrying about until then. As for the P12, the lack of passion from fans may be the answer. They just got a huge raise, though, and if the PTN works they’ll be raking in cash.

      “#2 – to gain value you must be in the spotlight year round”

      Not necessarily true. The NFL is more valuable than any conference and it isn’t in the spotlight all year. A kings-only conference (AL, FL, LSU, OSU, MI, PSU, NE, ND, UT, OU, USC, FSU) would have huge value with just football and replays and off season coverage. Hoops would be a bonus, and baseball would do well too, but just FB would carry it.

      “We have discussed this on here before, but the value of the ACC / B1G / PAC / SEC is in their ability to be on tv with multiple schools year round. Where will this come from in the B12?”

      FB – UT, OU, FSU, Clemson, WV
      MBB – KU, UT, others (KSU lately, OkSU before, etc)
      BB – UT, FSU, Clemson, TCU, etc
      Other – I’m sure they have other strengths, too

      “#4 – SoS and inventory values drop with the Clemson and FSU adds”

      You are making big assumptions here.

      “The B12 was able to maintain media values because they had an extra game to include in their contract. Adding 2 more schools means an 11 game conference schedule + 1 OOC game or 8 games + 4 OOC + CCG.”

      Since when did staying at 9 games stop being an option? It’s less likely, but they are used to the 5/4 split. They also add FSU/UF and Clemson/SC every other year.

      “Sure UT vs Clemson or OU vs FSU sounds great, but KU vs Clemson and ISU vs FSU will not be registering with mainstream CFB fans across the country who will pay for premium.”

      Contract value is supposedly driven largely by the top games, so adding some top games is well worth the boring games. Besides, more teams means better odds of having a good conference game every week to air.

      • FranktheAg says:

        “they also add FSU/UF and Clemson/SC every other year” – Wait. Will Deloss allow those to continue?

        • duffman says:

          Brian,

          If Florida is ESPN and Florida State is FOX, I am guessing that game becomes Florida vs Miami, as both are ESPN. Same would happen with Clemson and South Carolina as we have seen rivals drop by the wayside with all this realignment. Why would ESPN feed FOX? Why would Florida feed Florida State recruiting when they are closer if they could switch to south FL recruits by picking up Miami?

          • Brian says:

            duffman,

            “If Florida is ESPN and Florida State is FOX, I am guessing that game becomes Florida vs Miami, as both are ESPN. Same would happen with Clemson and South Carolina as we have seen rivals drop by the wayside with all this realignment.”

            You are paranoid about the power of ESPN. There is no UF/Miami rivalry. UF doesn’t take orders from ESPN on stiff like that. CBS might want some input too.

            Likewise, Clemson and SC don’t play at the whim of ESPN. You need to get past that. How many major OOC rivalries have we seen disappear due to realignment so far?

  65. acaffrey says:

    If the Big West will take Boise State’s non-football teams, that means that they will be part of the Big East and Big West. Gotta love that.

  66. TarHorn says:

    I’ll admit I haven’t read through each entry here, but I wanted to address a theme I see repeated here often: the Big 12 is only as “unstable” as Texas wants it to be, and they are 100% committed to the conference. Think about it…why would Texas want to go anywhere? They have a group of schools in reasonably close proximity, all in the central time zone, and they are being paid handsomely for their third tier rights by ESPN via the LHN. Texas and the Powers that be (pun intended) have consistently stated that their number one preference was to remain in a strong, unified Big 12. The fact that other schools felt it was in their best interest to leave has not changed the Texas position of “Big 12 first”, ie while they looked at other options to cover their bases if the conference was not deemed viable, in the end they were rewarded with a very competitive TV rights contract. We can argue the merits of associating with universities of varying degrees of academic prestige; it is difficult if not impossible to quantify the extent to which association helps or hurts and individual school’s reputation. I think it matters very little. Regarding the potential move of FSU to the Big 12, I also disagree with Frank’s premise that one needs to “think like a University president” and not a fan; in the end, the fans are the boss, and if you need proof, just look at the A&M or Mizzou to the SEC, or more currently, FSU to the Big 12 sentiments. Fans can absolutely move decision makers–they are the consumer, and as we all know, college football is a business. It may well turn out to be the case that the overarching concern for a majority of FSU fans/administrators is a desire to be in a “football-centric” conference, as opposed to the ACC, with all its’ inherent, perceived advantages. Just my two cents…

    • FranktheAg says:

      1) WVU isn’t in the central time zone;
      2) Texas was leading the charge to the Pac16 until Texas A&M pulled the brake and refused to go along. They were doing much more than “looking at other options”.

      • bullet says:

        A&M refusing to go along is one interpretation of why it stopped. But I think the simpler explanation is better. UT could get a competitive contract and a similar schedule without being in a conference covering more than half the country. President Powers seemed pretty sincere when he said it in the press conference the next day and I think he was too tired to be a convincing liar.

        • bullet says:

          And remember, A&M is heading to the SEC, but UT is still in the Big 12.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Perhaps I’m living too much in the past. You are right as to how certain broadcasters, and perhaps web writers. I think of the AP poll as a select 50 or 60 grizzled writers who have “earned their stripes” with major papers or news organizations. I’m certainly not suggesting any self styled (or ESPN controlled) web sports blogger is qualified.

          • bullet says:

            I think a Tony Barnhart is reliable. But I don’t think so of most of those people out there now. There is just a lot of sloppy writing now.

          • glenn says:

            lot of sloppy writing

            i think it is worse than sloppy writing.  there’s a lot of lazy thinking going on among the ranks of sportswriters.  a lot of regurgitating status quo and accepted and expected ‘truths’.  way too many sportswriters seem to look at it as a nice paycheck for not really doing any work.

          • FranktheAg says:

            Believe me, I remember. The point is UT wasn’t some innocent bystander just looking at options.

            This is from the A&M point of view but, per numerous insiders and President Loftin, Dodds and Byrne had agreed in principle to the Pac16 move (A&M, UT, Tech, OU, OSU, CU) but Byrne misread the reaction to the move by some of his strongest stakeholders (Regents Wilson and Stallings, primarily). They convinced President Loftin that the SEC was a viable option and a better one than the Pac16. Both sides met (UT/A&M) and A&M informed Powers/Dodds it was a no-go from A&M’s perspective. This is prior to the LHN and the understanding of the financial windfall Texas would receive.

            As it stands, this appears to have been a great decision for both sides. A&M ultimately ended up in the SEC (where it has wanted to be since the early 90s) and Texas has been able to stablize the B12 and now is well down the road to convincing some really strong programs to consider joining up.

          • bullet says:

            @FranktheAg
            Until the Pac 16 option was explored, noone really understood that the Big 12 could be valuable. And its really clear everyone in the Big 12 was stunned they could lose Nebraska and Colorado and still be valuable (a lot of people outside the Big 12 still don’t accept it).

            I think when TV execs started giving them an idea of what the next contract would be worth, they realized they could have their cake and eat it in the Central Time Zone. So they did.

          • ChicagoMac says:

            @bullet
            Given what the PAC got with Utah as #12 and what the BigXII is getting now, one wonders what the original Pac16 deal would have netted each school. $30MM? $40MM?

            Texas had all the leverage but its pretty obvious that it is the only school out of the 16 that will end up with media rights revenue on par with what the Pac16 would have gotten.

      • frug says:

        @FranktheAG

        Texas backed out of the PAC deal because ESPN and Fox promised to pay them what they would make in the PAC and let them have their own TV network.

        Larry Scott made clear that anyone who joined had to sign on for the PAC network and Texas was unwilling to do so once it became clear that the PAC wouldn’t make them any more money.

        Texas never intended to go west, they just used the threat to leverage what they wanted all along.

        • ccrider55 says:

          They want to be Bristol’s puppet? ESPN has first say in any media moves (conference affiliation) for the length of the LHN contract.

          • frug says:

            ESPN has first say in any media moves (conference affiliation) for the length of the LHN contract.

            So? That’s only an issue if they want to leave the Big XII, but they don’t, evidenced by the fact that they are about to extend their GOR well into the middle of the next decade.

          • ccrider55 says:

            They have already given their GOR to ESPN. Are they asking the rest of the conference to do likewise?

          • frug says:

            No. All the schools signed a GOR of 6 years and it is about to be extended by 7 years.

            The fact that ESPN holds veto power is irrelevant since UT was never going to leave the Big XII anyways. No other major conference would have allowed them to keep the LHN (which the UT BoT views as a priority).

            Texas giving ESPN veto to ESPN is like the Big 10 schools signing a GOR; it is redundant from a conference alignment perspective.

          • Bob in Houston says:

            “ESPN has first say in any media moves (conference affiliation) for the length of the LHN contract.”

            Not true… wherever Texas goes, ESPN will be there. But ESPN doesn’t get to pick.

          • ccrider55 says:

            B in H:
            The revenue sharing requirements to join the ACC, B1G, PAC, prevent UT from being able to join. ESPN has veto power, unless they and UT are willing to end the LHN contract.

        • FranktheAg says:

          @Frug.

          Not intially. I agree with your comments for later decisions but the inital position for both A&M and Texas was to move to the Pac16. Good thing for both that it didn’t happen.

  67. Playoffs Now says:

    Let’s stir it up a bit. Since Delany just said the B1G would keep an eye on realignment, if the ACC is raided and ND isn’t available:

    1) Is NC, VA, and MD, the B1G’s first choice, and would they take Duke as the 4th?

    2) If they added NC, VA, and MD but also say Rutgers, might they offer Duke an everything but football membership?

    3) Is Miami and its high US News ranking still in consideration? 19 million people in Florida, tons of B1G alumni and fans, state pops for member schools is a huge part of BTN profitability. US News is only one measure, but Miami at 38 would be 3rd in the current B1G.

    4) Are we certain NC would go B1G over SEC? If the SEC added NC, VA, and either Duke or NC St, might the B1G take Mizzou? Hard to see how that benefits the B1G, but perhaps if they got ND and the Irish insisted on a couple of eastern schools it might be doable? (LOL at the thought of Mizzou fans comparing themselves to Babe Ruth if this ‘trade’ were to occur…)

    5) If most of the power conferences go to 16 and thus pressure the NCAA to allow pods, are we sure no conference might go to 18-schools? 3 pods of 6, with the 3 pod champs and a wildcard playing off might be more attractive than 4 pods of 4 and pod champs only (“Just win your pod and quite whining, Bama!”) Could make it easier to lure an NC block or ND if you offer more of their friends.

    Not that I would assume Delany’s comments means they are expansion. It could just as well be a signal to NC and the ACC to get their acts together and compromise with FSU, or your conference may not be around much longer. He may not want any conference to go beyond on 14. Or it could be just a non-answer to a question that means little.

    • @Playoffs Now – My thoughts:

      (1) Yes. While basketball might be low on the totem pole overall, Duke’s hoops brand is the equivalent of Notre Dame football. If they’re going to take a UVA-type (great academics, “meh” athletics), no question that the Big Ten would take Duke.

      (2) No. An all or nothing league for everything is a central tenet of the Big Ten. Plus, Duke is a more desirable school overall compared to Rutgers, so I don’t think we’d get to the point to even consider a partial membership.

      (3) If I were running the Big Ten, absolutely. To the extent that the B1G wants to get into the Sun Belt, the state of Florida is the most hospitable state to the conference overall. Miami is really an East Coast/Northern school in spirit that would pair up nicely with Penn State and any other eastern additions.

      (4) In a vacuum, I’m sure that UNC would rather have the B1G. If it’s a matter of being with all of their rivals, though, then they’d pick the SEC. It’s similar to Texas, where they didn’t want to be on an island and pushed for taking much of the Big 12 South to the Pac-16.

      As for Mizzou, I doubt it. If the B1G didn’t want them before, the SEC adding other ACC teams wouldn’t change that.

      (5) Conferences could certainly go to 18 with the right schools in theory. If the B1G went to 16 and ND wanted to join afterwards, they’d make room. In practicality, only a handful if schools would justify going to that size, though.

      • frug says:

        In a vacuum, I’m sure that UNC would rather have the B1G. If it’s a matter of being with all of their rivals, though, then they’d pick the SEC.

        I don’t really follow your logic. The SEC only has two slots open which means they could only take one of NC-State, Duke or Virginia meaning at least one would have to go. The Big Ten has three slots (they will always hold a spot for ND) so they could take Duke and Virginia and UNC could continue to play NC-State OOC.

        If UNC wants to preserve its rivalries the Big 10 would be the better option.

        • Brian #2 says:

          UNC and NC State have the same BoR, correct? I have to wonder if the schools are a package deal if they were to leave the ACC, similar to OU and Okie State or KU and K State.

          And as we’ve seen thus far in realignment, bitterness and envy has a way of ending great rivalries. If UNC left Duke for dead, those schools would not be playing for awhile.

          • frug says:

            They do share a BOR, but what that really means is they have veto power over each others movements so long as the ACC remains viable. While the BOR would be reluctant to split them up, if the schools mutually approached the them and explained that it was in the best interest of both schools to split up (say UNC to the Big 10 and NC-State to the SEC) then it would be tough to imagine the BOR actually overruling them so long as they agreed to continue to play OOC.

            The reason that Kansas and K-State (who also share a BOR) and possibly Oklahoma* and Oklahoma St.* are a package deal is that K-State and Oklahoma St. are unlikely to get bids to a major conference on their own. (Though given the PAC’s other options an OSU/K-State even without Oklahoma and Kansas would still definite possibility were the conference ever forced to expand)

            *Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. don’t share a BOR so their ability to split depends on the governor (an office currently held by a Cowboy). That said, even if they could break apart Oklahoma really doesn’t want to since they have to play OSU and Texas every year so they need to be in a conference with at least one of them.

          • Brian #2 says:

            In theory you are correct, but I have a hard time seeing a situation where the ACC implodes and NC State doesn’t cling to UNC. NC State is not that valuable on its own, and I don’t believe it is as high on the SEC’s wish list as many seem to believe. UNC may not be able to go to a new conference without bringing little brother along, and I expect that arrangement would be more palatable in the SEC than the Big Ten.

    • mushroomgod says:

      No; No; No; Yes; No…..and #2 is too silly to consider.

    • isachar says:

      1) Is North Carolina worth 2 schools? Probably not, but I do recall UNC-Duke being one of the few regular season basketball games of value.

      2) I doubt it, that’s more of a struggling conference move.

      3) Miami being on the more highly selective end of undergraduate schools fits in well with the ACC, however they aren’t as big a research school as the B!G would want. They are name brand and get good national numbers but their fan base is tiny. In a recent political poll in Florida they threw in a question about which university’s athletic program did the respondent support. Florida led with over 30%, FSU was second at just over 20, and Miami was down at 10 with schools like USF and FIU. So, no, they’re a better cultural fit in the ACC than the B!G. Because of the CIC I have wondered if UF might actually jump to the B!G. Now that would really split the administration and the fan base.

      4) UNC wouldn’t leave the ACC unless they were the last one’s standing. If they had to go I cannot imagine they would move to the SEC. Both the booster/alum/fan side and the administration would be against the SEC.

      5) That just seems like too far into the future to imagine. Doesn’t seem like much of a conference if it was that big.

      • Brian #2 says:

        On #4, I see this mentioned often on sites like this but I don’t know the basis of it. Many UNC message board fans seem to be in favor of moving to the SEC if the ACC dissolved. North Carolina is purely Southern and so are their fans. They wouldn’t be a great cultural fit in the Big Ten.

        • Brian says:

          Brian #2,

          “On #4, I see this mentioned often on sites like this but I don’t know the basis of it. Many UNC message board fans seem to be in favor of moving to the SEC if the ACC dissolved. North Carolina is purely Southern and so are their fans. They wouldn’t be a great cultural fit in the Big Ten.”

          Shame on you for taking message board fans as representative of actual people. You should know better than that.

  68. Playoffs Now says:

    A question for all the SEC blowhards, from the poster USC Traveler on Shaggy Bevo:

    “If the BCS Rankings are so fucking great, why don’t they just eliminate the SEC CCG and declare the SEC Champ to be whoever is highest ranked in the BCS ?

    That’s the logic they’re pushing for the playoffs.”

    • glenn says:

      guess lsu was the mnc in their eyes, huh?

    • bamatab says:

      If you think that the SECCG was created because the SEC wanted a better way to crown the SEC champion, then you need to go back and do a little research. The whole driving force behind the creation of the SECCG was to create more interest and more money. Deciding the SEC champion was never the driving force in creating the SECCG.

      While a BCS playoff will make a ton of money, that isn’t what is forcing the university presidents into relenting on a playoff. If that were the case we would’ve already had a playoff. The driving force that has forced the university presidents into apparently accepting a playoff (which they haven’t officially signed off on yet) is the media and fan outcry for a playoff to let the top 4 teams play each other to determine the best team in college football.

      The whole arguement over the years has usually always been between the #2 & #3 teams; whether it was Bama & Ok St last year, Auburn & OU the year that the undefeated Auburn team got snubbed, or even Oregon & Nebraska the year that Nebraska played Miami even though they didn’t play in their CCG (2001 or 2002 I believe). The arguement that is forcing the presidents hand was never that the #8 ACC champion should’ve had their shot over the #2 team in the country. It was almost always that the #3 team should’ve had a shot along with the #2 team. If the 2nd best team in the country gets left out of a playoff over the #10, #8, or even the #6 best team just because the teams in the ACC or Pac 12 aren’t as good as the teams in the SEC or B1G, then you haven’t truely determined the best team in the nation IMHO.

      • @bamatab – I agree with you. While I understand the sentiment of a pure conference champs only format, as I’ve said for quite awhile now, there’s just no way that the people that are going to be paying literally billions of dollars for this playoff (the TV networks) are going to be OK with a #2 Alabama team not being in a playoff while a #10 Wisconsin team is in it.

        Generally speaking, I think too many people are focused on #2 Alabama not winning its conference when I don’t think that’s where the real debate is right now. Even the Big Ten ADs that want some type of conference champs provision understand that there needs to be a way to include Alabama from last year if the playoff is going to gain broad public acceptance. The *real* debate is whether #4 Stanford should have been in the playoff the last two years when computers aided them to get into that spot over two #5 teams that were conference champs (including an Oregon team that actually won Stanford’s conference). Rest assured – a #2 Alabama team is going to get taken care of in the new playoff system, whether fans outside of the SEC agree with it or not. The true focus is what should have happened to #4 Stanford.

        • Kevin says:

          @Frank. The NFL and other pro leagues certainly don’t seed their playoffs by ranking. Some years you just get better teams in the AFC vs. the NFC etc… but everyone lives with the winner of those two conferences playing in the Superbowl.

          In my view the goal of any playoff is to determine a champion and not necessarily to get all of the best teams in the playoff. A good example is the American League East prior to the 2nd wildcard. The counter example is the Green Bay Packers of 2010. A team that got hot at the end of the year and won it all.

          There should be an incentive for having a great season and that requires winning the conference. A team that stumbles is probably not worthy of playing for a NC.

        • Brian says:

          Frank the Tank,

          “Generally speaking, I think too many people are focused on #2 Alabama not winning its conference when I don’t think that’s where the real debate is right now.”

          That may not be where the debate is, but that doesn’t mean people stop feeling like that’s where the debate should be.

          And no matter what anybody else may say, AL didn’t win a national title last year to me. LSU won it by default since no fitting challenger played them in the bowl. All TPTB are dead wrong about including a #2 ranked loser.

      • glenn says:

        that wasn’t my point, and i apologize for being vague.

        i was merely poking a stick in the eye of those who think we can rely on bcs rankings.  they are bogus balonious.

        • glenn says:

          bogus balonious

          the rankings, not the reliers.  though that might be true, too.

        • bamatab says:

          The go with a committee that watches all (or at least most) of the games and determines who the best 4 teams are like basketball does. But even if you only allow conference champs into a 4 team playoff, you are going to have to have some sort of ranking system to determine which conference champs get in and who gets left out.

          • bamatab says:

            Man I wish there was an edit feature on this blog. The=Then and remove the “are” before “like basketball does”.

          • glenn says:

            wish there was an edit feature

            we’re cool.  we all deal with it.  whatever this format lacks, it is still just about the best i know of.  we can live with it.

            your point is on target.  ultimately somebody has to make value judgments, and nobody has ever come up with a way to rank teams anything like accurately by squinting through some kind of prism.  really we need a large enough playoff field that it pretty much assures we include the teams that turn out to be the best.

            right now, the only way to be at all certain that team a should be ahead of team b happens over a grid of chalk stripes.

          • glenn says:

            over a grid of chalk stripes

            that’s where we discover that that unbelievable defensive end just hasn’t encountered an offensive tackle like that unbelievable offensive tackle.  roughly thirty minutes of throwing the two at each other answers questions that cannot be answered any other way.

          • Eric says:

            “really we need a large enough playoff field that it pretty much assures we include the teams that turn out to be the best.”

            I think 4 teams is plenty. If you are the best throughout the entire season, the absolute worst you’re going to be ranked is third and that’s with 2 other undefeateds. That doesn’t mean that teams ranked as low as #8 or even #16 couldn’t win the whole thing, but the point isn’t including any team that could possibly win it, but to include any team who’s regular season accomplishments were arguably the best. The #4 team rarely even qualifies there, so I think 4 teams in more than enough (although I’m one of the few who thought 2 teams was perfect 90% of the time).

          • glenn says:

            point isn’t including any team that could possibly win it . . . arguably the best

            what a laughable concept.  have you considered sit com?  lot of money in that.

          • glenn says:

            i was a contract designer in the aircraft business for many years, and there is a lot of accumulated wisdom among contractors encapsulated into sayings.  and one of my fave sayings goes: a contractor votes with his feet.

            so does the public when it comes to sports and other forms of entertainment.  and the public has been voting a lot of thumbs down — or maybe it’s big toes down — regarding college football or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.  the public is no passel of clowns and has shown that it is fed up with being treated to a carny show every year.  college football absolutely must find a way to crown a true champion, and rewarding somebody who manages to look pretty good throughout a season just isn’t going to cut it.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Glen: you’re confusing the publics mouth with their feet. They cry for a playoff while continuing to increasingly fund the current system.

          • glenn says:

            oh, so that’s why we are going to a playoff.  i get it.

          • bullet says:

            Your arguments about why this is happening are a good way of putting it.

            Unless you have all the champs in, you are still making judgements. And even then, you have tiebreak systems.

          • glenn says:

            totally agree.

          • glenn says:

            i might add that another of my favorite contractor pearls of wisdom goes: if it flies, floats, or f*s, you can’t afford it.

          • bamatab says:

            Your implication that the only way to determine who’s the best team is “roughly thirty minutes of throwing the two at each” is a false premise. Just because one team has a better game doesn’t mean that they were the better team. Now if you play a best out of 5 or 7 series, you might be able to come closer to determining which is actually the better team. Take the year that the NE Patriots went undefeated in the regular season, but lost the Superbowl to the Giants. I still think that the Patriots were the best team that year, they just had an off game at the wrong time (and I’m sure I’m not the only one that sees it that way). I would bet the house that if the Pats played the Giants that year in a 5 game series, they would win at least 3 of those games. The inability for football teams to play a “best of” series is one of the biggest disadvantages that they have in trying to determine the best team. That is why a lot of college football fans, coaches, ADs, commisioners, & presidents feel that the regular season is essential in determining who the best team is.

            Now every president, AD, comissioner, & coach that I’ve heard talk about the playoffs has stated that the goal of any playoff under consideration must maintain the importance of the regular season, and must maintain the bowls. Now you can argue whether or not those should be goals in a playoff, but it is a moot point because those are the goals for what is being considered right now.

            The larger you make the playoffs, the harder it becomes to incorporate the bowls into it. Also the larger you make the playoffs, the greater chance you will end up with games at the end of the regular season that do not matter in which teams will be playing 3rd stringers so that the starters don’t get hurt just like what happens in the NFL. A lot of people like to point to this year’s regular season Bama/LSU and say that that game didn’t matter. But at the time that the game was played, it did matter. It matter so much at the time that it had the higest tv ratings of any game since the Catholics vs convicts game in the late 80s. It wasn’t until Ok St, Stanford, Boise St & Oregon all screwed up and allowed Bama back into the running that the game ended up not mattering in some people’s view. When the PTB in college football claim to want to maintain the “importance” of the regular season, what they are saying is that they want to maintain the excitement and the anticipation for the games because of the possible ramifications of the game.

            But with that said, as much as I hate to see it happen, once a 4 team playoff has been established, it will probably eventually grow to as many as 16 teams IMO. Again I hate to see it, but it’ll probably happen in the next 10 – 20 years.

          • glenn says:

            well, you are certainly right that a best of series would be ideal, but, particularly in football, that is practically impossible.  what you say is exactly true for the nfl as well, but we all recognize that the one-shot opportunity is the best we can do, so we accept the last nfl team standing as the league champion.

            at least it gets decided out there on the grass and not in offices.

          • greg says:

            “it had the higest tv ratings of any game since the Catholics vs convicts game in the late 80s.”

            This is not true. It had the 2nd highest CBS cfb rating since that game.

            2006 OSU/UM beat it, as others might have.

            (sorry if this post is a repeat, I think my first attempt was lost in the ether)

          • bamatab says:

            @greg,

            You are right, my bad. It was the higest rated game on CBS since the Catholics vs convicts game. But my point still stands. It mattered at the time it was played. It just so happened that after the fact, other teams shot themselves in the foot and allowed Bama to get back in the running.

          • greg says:

            bamatab, I agree the first LSU/Bama game was certainly meaningful. It was the second one that wasn’t. :)

          • bamatab says:

            Touche greg…touche :)

  69. Great Lake State says:

    At this juncture Delaney isn’t about to bring in any school that can’t carry its own weight financially -unless they come as a partner with ND. Without Notre Dame I don’t believe for a minute the B1G will expand eastward for eyeballs. As the ACC contract has shown, the east coast doesn’t care about college sports and having the BTN in their area isn’t going to change that. All it’ll do is dilute the profits of the other members.I can see Delaney wanting UNC & Duke but only if it were on our terms. Unlikely. Personally, I wish they would snag Florida State, Miami Notre Dame and Georgia Tech. Again, unlikely. The B1G presidents are an insular bunch. Dividing up the pie is going to be a hard sell for them.

    • Great Lake State says:

      To me it’s all about brands which is why I will always believe the best path (and I realize it’s antithetical to the B1G way of thinking) would have been to take Oklahoma and yes, Oklahoma State when they came calling (Pre Pac-12 offer) and wait for Texas to tire of independence before joining their brethren in the B1G. Which, in turn, would have ushered ND’s arrival.

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Technically, Oklahoma and aTm would have been far more preferable (If not for T Boone), but either way, there WAS a pathway to Oklahoma, Texas and ND soon after snagging Nebraska.

      • ccrider55 says:

        Exactly what I expected the PAC to do. Still not sure the PAC pres’ shot that down, or ended the OU leverage play when the time for action came and passed.

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Have to think they will come to regret that decision. Either way, we’ll never hear it from them.

        • glenn says:

          i think the pac was skittish after the colo/utah debacle.

          had they not been saddled with that pair after thinking bringing in colo would merely guarantee that baylor wouldn’t be forced on them by the texas lege in the big move west, i think they might have taken a chance on the oklahoma schools.  i gather they caught an earful from the stanfords after bringing in two teams they had ignored for years and missing on the promised prizes.  had they brought in the two oklahoma schools and nothing more transpired, there would have been blood in those hallowed halls.

          moreover, clearly the plan on the big move west was to partition the newbies along with relative newcomers and longtime thorns in the stanfords’ sides, ariz and az st, into an eastern sub-conference, leaving the pristine old pac-8 in the real pac along the coast.  that’s the only explanation that adequately covers the pac accepting texas tech and oklahoma state with open arms.  what bringing in colo and utah did was bring in two more arizonas without the ability to generate a separate sub-conference.  lose-lose.  the pac didn’t dare test those waters again with the oklahoma schools.

          • ccrider55 says:

            Yea, the PAC got “saddled” to the tune of 3 billion/12 years while retaining the rights to about 1/3 of the FB games…quite a debacle.

            The PAC had invited Colo nearly 20 years ago.

    • Phil says:

      By your logic, the real power in college football is on the West coast?

      What the ACC contract has shown (especially looking back at those Nielsen numbers that came out months ago, where ACC viewership dwarfs that of the Pac12) is that it sucks when you don’t have leverage. ACC was locked into ESPN for the next 10 years and has to take what ESPN gives them. The ACC on the open market right now makes a ton of money.

      • bullet says:

        Leverage is a huge part of it, but Swofford basically said that football was done and that was a factor.The ACC is not a good football brand right now.

        • bullet says:

          Football was “down” not done. I’m sure he’s hoping its not “done.”

          • vp19 says:

            It’s more or less been “done” for years — no wonder the fan bases at Clemson, Florida State and to a lesser extent Georgia Tech want to shed themselves of the woeful ACC football brand.

  70. Playoffs Now says:

    Someone may have figured out why all these leaks are coming from WV:

    WV isn’t yet a member of the B12 until June 30. So if Oliver Luck is doing the approaching, then technically right now it isn’t the B12 doing so…?

    And in what may or may not be a coincidence, the first leak that we had killed Bin Laden came from a TCU board…

  71. bullet says:

    For those who don’t know, Luck spent a number of years in Houston with the Oilers, head of the sports commission which built the Toyota Center, Minute Maid Park and the Reliant Stadium, and then President of the Houston Dynamo and was instrumental in getting their stadium deal started. He got his law degree from UT. So he’s well connected in Big 12 country.

    • frug says:

      While Wetzel is right to take the Big Ten to task for abandoning their plan to hold the semifinals on campus, this is a really poorly written article.

      I seriously doubt “protecting” the Rose Bowl was the reason the Big 10 dropped their push for on campus games, it was simply the easiest to explain publicly. If the Big 10 really prioritized “protecting” the Rose Bowl over everything else they wouldn’t have pushed for on campus games in the first place. The Rose Bowl explanation was likely just a way to save face instead of admitting they simply couldn’t get the votes for on campus games.

      Wetzel goes on to make an even dumber statement when he says Larry Scott is “kicking back with a cackle of delight” even though he has repeatedly backed the idea of on campus games.

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        “While Wetzel … , this is a really poorly written article.”

        Redundant much?

      • yahwrite says:

        Who knows what really happens behind closed doors, but I think your right. I think the other conferences want to use the bowl system as much, if not more than the B1G. They don’t want to play in the cold. If true, I just wish Delaney and the rest of the B1G would come out and say they fought for campus games. They are the only ones taking the PR hit. I think they are trying to build a united front on the consensus decision.

        The only argument I agree with in using the bowls for semis is that it gives the players a bowl experience they wouldn’t get in on campus games. However, that is probably more of a convenient truth than a major factor in the actual decision.

        • bullet says:

          If you are going to play the games in late December, that increases the negatives of playing on campus. There’s no school going on and it might be really bad weather in the north. And they seem to have decided that’s when the semi-finals will be. I think early December home games would be fine. That does give you the issue of what to do with the losers. Do they get to (or want to) go to bowls? There are a lot of decisions that are heavily influenced by keeping the bowl system healthy.

      • @frug – I agree. The SEC shot down the on-campus semifinal proposal immediately without even discussing it, while you’re correct that Larry Scott has been very clear that he wants on-campus games.

        Wetzel has an issue with the bowl system as a whole, which is understandable considering the Fiesta Bowl scandal and scores of tickets that schools have the eat. The problem, though, is that looping the Rose Bowl into that category is painting with far too wide of a brush. There are definite financial benefits that the Big Ten and Pac-12 receive by going to the Rose Bowl specifically that other conferences don’t receive, so it’s far from an emotional issue for those conferences. I’ve seen figures in the past where the Rose Bowl tie-in is effectively worth as much as another conference championship game to both of the Big Ten and Pac-12 when you take into account the higher TV ratings, separate Rose Bowl TV contract, worldwide exposure during the Rose Parade, better sponsorships, higher donations, etc. That’s partially why the Big Ten and Pac-12 didn’t rush to expand in order to add conference championship game for two decades – they already received that same financial value from the Rose Bowl, so there wasn’t a need to expand. As a result, the Big Ten and Pac-12 simply aren’t just going to give up and hand over that equity. The only other tie-in that really has extra meaning is arguably the SEC with the Sugar Bowl, and even then, the SEC doesn’t get an extra financial or exposure benefit from the Sugar in the way that the Big Ten and Pac-12 receive from the Rose.

        • Jake says:

          As I recall, Wetzel wanted to make the Rose Bowl the permanent site of the national title game. So maybe he gets that it isn’t just like the others.

        • cutter says:

          The question I have is how much the Rose Bowl benefit will be reduced vis-a-vis the Big Ten and the Pac 12 in a four-team playoff format? The scenarios for a playoff that includes the RB if a B10 or P12 program in the playoff is as follows:

          A. Both the B10 and P12 champions are in the Rose Bowl as semi-final playoff participants when:

          1. One team is rated #1 and the other #4
          2. One team is rated #2 and the other #3.

          B. One conference champion from the B10 or P12 is in the Rose Bowl as a semi-final participant when rated #1 or #2

          C. Both the B10 and P12 champions are in the Rose Bowl, but not as semi-final playoff participants

          One scenario not mentioned above is what happens if the B10 and P12 teams are rated #1 and #2. Do they double host the Rose Bowl or does the higher rated team get the RB and the #2 team is placed at another major bowl.

          At the bare minimum, at least one team from either the Big Ten or the Pac 12 will be in the Rose Bowl each year, and in some cases, there will be two teams for the two conferences.

          As a matter of extension, doesn’t the revenue that the respective conferences are getting from their conference championship games plus what they’ll be receiving from the four-team playoff more than offset whatever they would lose after shifting from the current BCS format? I believe that B10 CCG, for example, is in the $15M range and I’ve read that the conference could get upwards of $30M to $50M from the four-team playoff. While the bowl revenue may go down because six-win teams could be eliminated from post-season play, it seems to me that the combination of the CCG and the playoff would more than offset having fewer lower tier bowl games and a Rose Bowl that didn’t always have the Big Ten and Pac 12 champions participating in the game.

          • bullet says:

            Schools lose money on the lower tier bowl games between their ticket committments and their expenses. It might be less revenue, but the bottom line is better w/o those bowls.

  72. Read The D says:

    Why doesn’t the Big 10 create a bowl at Lucas Oil for their 2nd place team and try to get it included in the 6 game event? I realize they have contracts with other bowls but BTN money can buy their way out of that.

    Tie-ins could be B1G 2nd place and an at large (Notre Dame???). Or maybe try to tie in the Big East champ?

    • @Read The D – The market really dictates payouts and the single most valuable bowl matchup outside of the BCS is the one that the Big Ten has now: Big Ten #2 vs. SEC #2 in the Capital One Bowl. I *REALLY* don’t think that the Big Ten wants to give that specific matchup away, especially for the Big East champ or even a different power conference #2. The Big Ten might trade the Gator Bowl out for the Holiday Bowl at the lower levels, but as I’ve written previously, I think a Central Florida bowl is going to be extremely likely if there’s a 6-game event. It’s a place that most Americans are happy to travel to during Christmas break (whether it’s families, college kids or retired alums), which means it’s the main place in the Sun Belt where the Big Ten can at least mitigate the impact of the SEC’s geographic proximity. It’s not an accident that the Big Ten has had at least 3 Florida bowl tie-ins ever since the BCS system was created – the massive number of Midwestern snowbirds and vacationers at in that state in the winter make it much more hospitable than playing an SEC team in Atlanta or a Big 12 team in Texas.

      • Read The D says:

        Which all makes sense and I get why they wouldn’t want to lose their matchup against SEC #2. But, B1G lost the argument for home site semi-finals so I guess my thinking is introduce a Lucas Oil bowl and hope for semi final every now and then to reduce travel.

        For example:

        #1 USC vs #4 OU in the Rose Bowl
        #2 Ohio St. vs #3 Florida in the Lucas Oil Bowl

        Something like that. Now I would assume that Ohio St. vs Florida game would go to the Sugar? Or maybe Capital One? I guess it just depends on what the rules are concerning which bowl gets to host in which scenario.

      • Nemo says:

        @Frank the Tank

        Chip Brown’s latest on Orangeblood
        Translation: Delany/B1G making a play for ND with newest playoff ploy.

        • ChicagoMac says:

          This is a stupid article chock full of hypocritical arguments and its a poorly written love letter to Notre Dame to boot.

          Delaney is looking out for the best interests of his constituents. So what. Are we supposed to fault him for that? Is Dodds not looking out for the best interest of Texas? Is Scott not looking out for the best interests of the Pac12? What about Slive or Swofford? Are we to believe that everyone would be altruistic except for the fact that the conniving Delaney is ruining everything?

          Think about the core argument in college football right now. We want to settle it on the field….well except we want some computers and some wise old sages to pick the 4 teams who will settle it on the field. If we aren’t smart enough to pick one team at the end of the season as the champ then we certainly aren’t smart enough to pick the top 4 teams. So let’s quit pretending that the upcoming playoffs is settling it on the field any more than the ridiculous Bowl Alliance settled anything way back in the day.

          Everyone has views on what the best setup is and all of those views are colored by either the entities they represent or their own personal biases. Chip Brown pretending like he knows what is best for college football generally and Notre Dame specifically is crazy as hell.

        • @Nemo – I actually like Chip Brown a lot, so it’s disappointing to see such a poor commentary from him.

          First, the entire basis of his argument is incorrect: Jim Delany and the Big Ten ADs were clear after their meetings this week that they want a “hybrid” format where teams like last year’s Alabama team would get into the playoff. It’s not a pure conference champs only model, which is something that reputably progressive Larry Scott wants.

          Second, even if there were a conference champs only model, I believe a lot of people interpret it much too strictly, where they think that automatically means independents such as Notre Dame will be shut out. What’s much more likely (and what I wholeheartedly believe that the Big Ten agrees with) is that an exception would be made for a top 4 independent to make it into the playoff where it’s treated as the equivalent of a conference champ. This isn’t just to placate Notre Dame. Remember that BYU and its alums have pushed more legal and legislative action against both the old Bowl Alliance and the current BCS system than any other school over the past 20 years, so to finally create a playoff system that would automatically nix BYU is extremely unlikely. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Notre Dame is a complete red herring for fans in this process. There’s a ton of focus upon them because they create a visceral response from so many people, but the powers that be are extremely pragmatic toward them because the Irish are a revenue generator (unlike the non-AQ conferences and arguably the Big East).

          Third, Chip Brown is doing the same thing that Dan Wetzel did in his latest playoff column, where he went off on the Big Ten even though several other conferences either have the exact same opinion (with respect to rewarding conference champs) or have made it clear that they won’t agree to an option so it’s no use fighting for a position anymore (the prospect of on-campus semifinals).

          Basically, I disagree with everything that Chip stated in his column except that I grant that if it’s a black and white choice between choosing a pure top 4 versus purely conference champs, I’d much rather have the pure top 4.

          • bullet says:

            An opinion piece out of Atlanta Journal-Constitution on what a playoff should look like. No new options, just a different perspective from someone who grew up in the shadow of the Rose Bowl:
            http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/

          • ChicagoMac says:

            Pure Top 4 but give meaningful bonuses for teams who:
            A: Win a regular season conference or division championship
            B: win a conference championship game
            and
            C: Play really difficult schedules with weights for Home, Road, Neutral.

            The weights for C > A > B

            There needs to be an incentive to play difficult non-conference games and there needs to be a reward for teams who have meaningful accomplishments on the season. There should not be a disincentive for playing a late season game at a neutral site against another accomplished team.

            We should use Polls but it should be stipulated to the AP and Harris or whoever else that these polls not be conducted until 50% of the games have been played. Let’s be completely honest about the ridiculous anchoring bias that is inherent in these polls.

  73. TarHorn says:

    My point was just that the Big 12 is as stable as any other conference right now…the assumption that Texas/OU are looking for the right opportunity to make a move, and therefore the viablity of the Big 12 being doubtful is not born out by the facts. Call me crazy, but I think FSU and ND to the Big 12 makes perfect sense.

    • Mike says:

      It makes sense for the Big 12. I don’t know if it makes sense for Notre Dame.

    • Brian #2 says:

      Texas being relatively content right now does not mean the Big 12 is stable.

      Texas and OU just became satisfied with the Big 12 after the new contracts. But in the each of the past two years, Texas was evaluating a potential move to another conference.

      B1G is stable. SEC is stable. No one in those leagues are even talking to other conferences.

      • bullet says:

        Arkansas isn’t moving, but they’re taking phone calls.

        • Brian #2 says:

          Sure they are. Did Chip Brown tell you this?

        • bamatab says:

          What makes you think that they are taking calls at this point in time? They might (and I repeat might) have picked up the phone just to see who was calling back when the 1st round of expansion was starting up. But now that the SEC has added TAMU & Mizzou, I doubt they’d even listen to the voice mail of any other conference.

          • bullet says:

            Heard several different sources. You don’t have to believe it. The rumours are that some of their donors would like them to be back with Texas schools. Noone expects them to go, but it makes sense to listen. Arkansas acknowledged they listened before (I think that was last summer).

          • bullet says:

            If Notre Dame will listen, what makes you think Arkansas is above that?

          • duffman says:

            The Wal Mart folks just got Missouri into the SEC, I have a hard time seeing Arkansas in the B12 after paying out that dough! Jerry Jones may be big time to you or me, but next to the other wealth in Arkansas, he is small potatoes.

          • Brian #2 says:

            1. Arkansas is already in an elite and stable conference, unlike Notre Dame
            2. Arkansas has already been in a Texas-centric conference and happily left it before the ship sank. Arkansas fans hate Texas and want absolutely nothing to do with them.

            Don’t believe everything you are told. If Arkansas picked up the phone to talk to Texas, it was only to laugh at them while Deloss begged them to come join Southwest Conference 2.0.

        • metatron says:

          Everyone takes phone calls. You never know when Mike Ditka is going to ring you up and offer you the moon.

  74. Mike says:

    Wilner on Boise.

    http://topsy.com/s/wilnerhotline?offset=10&om=a&page=2&window=d


    Action: Boise State having second thoughts about joining the Big East, has not yet notified MWC of its intent to withdraw.
    Reaction I: I’m shocked … shocked!
    Reaction II: Not really. The move was fraught with potential problems from the start, and two of those have surfaced: 1) Questions/concerns about the Big East’s yet-to-be-signed TV deal and 2) the WAC as a fragile home for Boise State’s Olympic sports.
    Reaction III: The same goes for San Diego State, except the Aztecs had the good sense to put their Olympic sports in the Big West. (Now SDSU is reportedly trying to help Boise do the same, but that won’t be easy: According to sources, there is considerable opposition within the Big West to inviting Boise. Can the concerns be overcome? Sure. But BSU to the BWC is hardly a done deal.)
    Reaction IV: I maintain that there’s a 50-50 chance that both Boise State and San Diego State will be playing football in the Mountain West in 2013. The issues with Boise State/Big East/WAC/MWC — and the collateral impact on San Diego State … not to mention SDSU’s own concerns about the jump — were clear and present late last month, when Aztec officials claimed they were moving “full steam ahead” into the Big East. Yes, full steam ahead, except for maintaining the option to reverse course.

    Right now, is there a fundamental difference between the Big East and the Mountain West in terms of quality? Part of me thinks that Boise wants to stay in the Mountain West now that AQ is gone and needs to make “a good faith effort” to find a home to avoid Big East penalties.

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      In terms of quality, if you’re comparing the Big East lineup to the Mountain West, at least their 2013 lineups, you have to look at them without San Diego State or Boise to do it fairly.

      I will list both conferences’ programs roughly in order by quality:

      Louisville
      Cincinnati
      USF
      Houston
      UCF
      UConn
      Rutgers
      SMU
      Navy
      Temple
      Memphis

      VERSUS

      Hawaii
      Air F
      UNLV
      San Jose State
      New Mexico

      Hands down, the better conference is the Big East. Fresno, Hawaii, Air Force, and Nevada are the only consistent winners. The rest struggle to make bowls more than a 3-4 times per decade. Meanwhile the Big East roster has teams who have made bowls frequently, other than Memphis.

      This is why TV partners would still hold much more interest in the Big East than in the left-behinds of the MW or C-USA. Boise State and San Diego State would be much more drawn to the stronger league. That said, they may have to stay in the MW if Boise can’t get into the BWC. If that’s what happens I would still say the Big East is the stronger conference but that the MW has the strongest single program.

      • ChicagoMac says:

        Without AQ, I don’t think the risk v. reward makes sense for Boise.

        Nobody knows what the Big East will look like in 12 months.

      • Mike says:

        If I remember correctly, Navy doesn’t join until 2015.

      • Mike says:

        Let’s say Boise stays. These leagues look fairly comparable to me over the last twenty years or so.

        Louisville – Boise St
        Cincinnati – San Diego St.
        USF – Hawaii
        Houston – Air Force
        UCF – UNLV
        UConn – New Mexico
        Rutgers- San Jose State
        SMU – Colorado St.
        Temple – Wyoming
        Memphis– Utah St

        • Phil says:

          In the last 6 years San Jose St is 28-46 with one bowl win while Rutgers is 49-28 with 5 bowl wins. I hate UConn, but a quick check shows New Mexico as 6-30 in the last 3 years.

          Obviously, “comparable” has a different definition to you than the one I learned in school.

          • Mike says:

            I wasn’t necessarily comparing team to team, but collection of teams to collection of teams. Sorry if it wasn’t clear. Somehow, I forgot Nevada and Fresno.

            @Phil – I take it you didn’t notice how I said twenty years or so.

            In the past 20 years, Rutgers has 99 wins and San Jose St. 80. Rutgers averages 1 more win a year. Fairly comparable thanks to Schiano. Since UConn joined FCS it has 75 wins in 12 years, New Mexico 61. Again about one more win a year. If you ignore the last three years (I can cherry pick too) UNM 58 wins, UConn 54.

            However, wins and losses wasn’t exactly my point. Is there a fundamental difference between UConn and New Mexico? UCF and Fresno St? Right now, the Big East and Mountain West are composed of roughly similar schools when it comes to drawing power, history, prestige, etc.

          • 99 vs 80 isn’t very comparable, especially when Rutgers did it against the Big East (which was fairly decent for a good chunk of that time period) and SJ St did against the WAC (which wasn’t). At pretty much every line the Big East has an edge, and a few of them are major.

          • Phil says:

            What is the point of using a 20 year comparison? That is an eternity in college football. Twenty years ago Fla St and Miami were dominant teams, none of us had heard of Boise St and the idea of Utah in the Pac 10 would have gotten you laughed out of any bar in the US.

  75. bullet says:

    Someone on the WV Scout board did a nice chart by conference of the teams that have finished ranked in the top 5 and top10 over the last 50 years.

    The 12 “kings” we have talked about on the top 10 list are, guess what–#s1 through 12. All have at least 16 finishes. Next tier isn’t very surprising-UGA 15, LSU/Auburn/TN 14, Arkansas/UCLA 10. After that it drops to 7-Washington, Colorado, Pitt, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Arizona St.

    http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=159&f=4582&t=8995423

    • bullet says:

      The 12 kings are even more dominant looking at only the top 5 as they all have 10 or more and it drops to 7 after that.

    • greg says:

      I love how FSU/Miami/Notre Dame are “available” as if you can just pick them up off the shelf and take them to the checkout. WVU peeps amuse me.

  76. Mike says:

    Remember when things like this kept us busy during the off season?

    http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/5/17/3025448/conference-football-relegation

  77. Playoffs Now says:

    Tulsa World: New B12 contract to be worth $20.6 mil per school.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?subjectid=236&articleid=20120517_29_B1_CUTLIN243526

    Looks like more confirmation that the WV bloggers are legit. They said $20.95 mil, then the first reports were $20 and $19.6 million. Of course the smallest figure was the one the media ran with.

    • bu2 says:

      This guy is dividing the figures $2.47 ($1.3 + $1.17) by 12 years. Other reports divide $2.6 by 13 years. So I’m not sure he’s giving us new numbers. I guess part depends on when the new ESPN deal kicks in.

    • greg says:

      13 years, not 12.

      Someone help me with the math. I can’t get to the media per year claims. Do the ACC and B12 both give an equal share to the league?

      ACC deal is $3.6B for 15 years.
      $3.6B / 15 years / 14 teams = $17.1 per year per school
      $3.6B / 15 years / 15 teams+conf = $16.0 per year per school

      B12 deals are $2.47B for 13 years.
      $2.47B / 13 years / 10 teams = $19.0 per year per school
      $2.47B / 13 years / 11 teams+conf = $17.3 per year per school

      I don’t see the supposed $3M to $7M difference that people are throwing around. It looks like $1.3M to $1.9M, with some differences based on the escalation rates.

      I guess if the ACC takes a cut and the B12 doesn’t, that gives you a $3.0M diff.

      Actually, I guess you get $20.6 if you use 12 years (which is incorrect) and 10 shares (which is likely incorrect).

      • mountainerd says:

        @Greg

        The Big 12 deal is rumored to go up to anywhere from $23-25 million a year per school if/when FSU and Clemson are added. Add in the debated sums of how much more the ‘Noles and Tigers would make on their tier three in the Big 12, and one ends up with rough estimates of a $7-10 million difference.

        • ChicagoMac says:

          Where does the increase come from? I guess Fox ponying up an additional $50M per year?

        • greg says:

          Even if you accept internet rumors, that still doesn’t explain how the per year numbers presented in the media don’t align with the announced deals.

      • bullet says:

        I’ve heard the ACC gives a share to the league and the Big 12 doesn’t, but that’s really irrelevant in comparing the two. You still have to pay for a league office. The CBS report said $2.6 billion, not $2.47. So its $2.6/13 years/10 schools=$20.0 million/school/year. For the ACC its the $17.1 as you calculated. That’s the $2.9 million that was mentioned by the FSU president.

        There is also the difference in escalation rates. ACC takes until 2021 to even get to 17. Then there is Tier III which is held by ESPN in the ACC and the schools in the Big 12. I’ve seen estimates that OU will generate $5 million + on that. And then there is any increase in the Big 12′s $20 million generated by adding schools and a championship game.

        So its:
        current contracts $2.9 million
        Tier III $5.0 million (estimate)
        Escalation $2.0 million (my estimate-we don’t have exact numbers, but
        from what’s been reported, the ACC would probably
        be $2 million less average if the 4 years beyond
        the end of the B12 contract aren’t included)
        improved b12 contract
        $0 to $8 million speculative-but if FSU and Clemson were only worth
        worth the B12 average and a ccg was worth $18 million
        (Big 10 is $24 million) that’s $1.5 million/school
        Better BCS $ Totally speculative

        So we’re possibly talking about substantial $ over the next 12 years. Not just $2.9 milliion reduced by a couple hundred thousand in extra travel costs. When FSU works up the numbers I would be surprised if it wasn’t in the vicinity of $150 million.

        • greg says:

          I’m not going to get into detail, but those numbers are exaggerated. Tier 3 is $1M to $2M, B12 contract numbers are inflated. I find it hard to believe the b12 office doesn’t take a cut.

          • bullet says:

            As I said, it doesn’t really matter if either office takes a cut. Those costs/commissions will be the same in either conference. I don’t know how the Big 12 funds its operations. I know they pay officiating fees. Whether they have assessments, take it out of basketball money, take it out of advertising, take a fixed amount out of the total pot. Its irrelevant. You have to fund it whatever conference you are in.

            I saw one blogger saying there was a study of 10 schools including UL and 7 ACC schools and they would make an extra $4-$10 million per year (FSU was one of the best schools in that bunch). That sounds believable to me, but I didn’t quote that since the blogger could just be making it up. I know Chip Brown isn’t making it up when he says a media consultant said FSU would be worth something between OU’s estimated $5 million and UT’s $15 million. That doesn’t mean the media consultant is right, but there is a basis for estimating a whole lot more than $1 to $2 million.

          • greg says:

            It does matter, because right now everyone is comparing the ACC numbers after taking the conference cut, but the B12 WITHOUT taking the conference cut. That is totally relevant.

          • greg says:

            Woops, ok, maybe they are comparing by ignoring conference cut for both. But if the contract totals are $2.47B, its $19.0 to $17.1. That is $1.9M. We’ll see if its 2.47 or 2.6, but I’ve noticed that the 2.6 claims are bolstered by calling the Fox contract 1.2, when its really 1.17. Now, $300k may not be a lot, but I wonder how much you can trust any of these numbers.

            I would hope a school like FSU has much better numbers before making a “hundred year decision”.

          • ChicagoMac says:

            I would hope a school like FSU has much better numbers before making a “hundred year decision”.
            Not me. I hope they are huddled around a Samsung Galaxy logged into the West Virginia Scout board using the numbers and logic found there and using only that information.

      • royhobbs09 says:

        if the difference is only $2.9 million per team per year then there is no way that FSU and Clemson join the Big 12. The only thing certain for now is (1) the ACC deal, which pays $17.1 million annually for Tier 1-3 and the conference championships (which is also locked in longer than any other conference over 15 years) (2) the $20 million ACC buy out number, and $9 million per year per team for Tier 2 only in the Big 12 over 12 years.

        Here is what is in flux and requires study by FSU, Clemson and others:

        The Big 12 is rumored to have negotiated a deal that pays $11 million annually per team for Tier 1 (added to $9 million per team on Tier 2 = $20 million), but the deal is not finzalized yet. For the Fox Tier 2 deal, the initial announcement had the deal at only $60 million per year, a number announced by numerous outlets including the Sports Business Journal. However, when the deal was finalized a few months later it was for $90 million per year. The same possiblity exists for the Big 12′s Tier 1 deal, which could be $1-2 million per team higher at the end of the day. Plus, the Big 12 Tier 1 deal that was floated and the Tier 2 deal already signed both run 2 years shorter than the ACC deal. Since all these deals are backloaded (the ACC won’t make $17 million per year per team until 2021 according to Wetzel), it is likely that the $20 million per team number could be significantly increased if the Big 12 is simply willing to extend those deals out as long as the ACC deal. If Wetzel is correct and you look at the numbers side by side on a year by year basis, I would put a major wager down that the gap between the Big 12 Tier 1/2 and the ACC Tier 1-3 will wind up larger than $2.9 million annually and possibly as high as $5 million.

        If FSU and Clemson came on board, the Big 12 would have a conference championship game to sell. That is likely $1.5-3 million more per team in TV rights money alone. The Big 12 traditionally sold its tickets to the Championship game much better than the ACC does, which would create more cash for its members.

        If FSU and Clemson came on board, you don’t think that Fox would be willing to shell out some additional cash for the Tier 2 rights to Seminole and Tiger games that they have zero rights to show currently to make the deal happen? The deal probably has a “look in” like all the other deals do. Conservatively, I think their addition would be worth at least $1-2 million per team from Fox on Tier 2.

        FSU would make around $5-7 million per year on their Tier 3 rights (in line with OU). Clemson likely not as much, but Tier 3 is probably still a $2-3 million asset for them.

        We don’t have a finazlied picture of the 4 team playoff payout and qualification structure. However, almost no matter which direction it goes, the Big 12 is likely to be a proportional winner and the ACC a proportional loser compared to the current BCS system. The Big 12 would have placed the second most teams in the 4 team playoff (only slightly behind the SEC) while the ACC would have placed the least teams of any BCS conference over the past 10 years under most models.

        Lastly, the travel is going to increase for FSU simply by staying in the ACC with the additions of Syracuse and Pitt. On the other hand, the change to the Big 12, especially with 1-3 Eastern partners would not be as significant as Barron indicated. FSU is not as far from the Texas state line as many in the media seem to think.

        At the end of the day, FSU could be looking at a $10-15 million per year decision (or more depending upon the playoff). Can FSU really afford to throw that kind of cash out the window when they are running at a deficit currently and UF, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Alabama are going to be swimming in money when the new SEC deal and SEC network are announced?

        • duffman says:

          Here is what is in flux and requires study by FSU, Clemson and others:

          @ royhobbs09 :

          I would put a major wager down that the gap between the Big 12 Tier 1/2 and the ACC Tier 1-3 will wind up larger than $2.9 million annually and possibly as high as $5 million.

          If the B1G and SEC are getting ~20M then 19-21 seems about right for the B12. 19 as the B12 stands, and 21 with the ACC adds. I find it hard to believe they would value the B12 on par with the B1G and SEC, and then have to give a huge bump later to the 2 biggest conferences (by 20K easily per average league game) which translates to much bigger viewing base for media values. Again this is Florida State and not Florida who has the #1 position in Florida. TAMU may be worth something but nobody is going to put their value equal to Texas. Florida State in the ACC means #2, but in the B12, they may drop to #3 if Miami stays in the ACC. Florida is loaded with ACC and SEC alumni so their viewing habits will follow those conferences first.

          .

          If FSU and Clemson came on board, the Big 12 would have a conference championship game to sell. That is likely $1.5-3 million more per team in TV rights money alone. The Big 12 traditionally sold its tickets to the Championship game much better than the ACC does, which would create more cash for its members.

          Considering the B1G CCG added 24 million / 12 = 2 million per game I think 3 million is WAY to high. 1 million might be a closer number, and it might be much less if the possibility of Iowa State vs Texas Tech exists. Face it the B1G and SEC are full of top draw teams, and the B12 is full of the Big 2 and Tiny 8 – The fact that Clemson and Florida State can not dominate the ACC does not bode well for them in the B12.

          .

          If FSU and Clemson came on board, you don’t think that Fox would be willing to shell out some additional cash for the Tier 2 rights to Seminole and Tiger games that they have zero rights to show currently to make the deal happen? The deal probably has a “look in” like all the other deals do. Conservatively, I think their addition would be worth at least $1-2 million per team from Fox on Tier 2.

          The fact lost in all this is that with 12 members you lose a conference game (8 instead of 9) for each team during the season that will be replaced with an FCS school or low level FBS school. This will actually be a loss of value, and not an increase, so adding the 2 schools may not add new value, but may stay flat to account for this issue.

          .

          FSU would make around $5-7 million per year on their Tier 3 rights (in line with OU). Clemson likely not as much, but Tier 3 is probably still a $2-3 million asset for them.

          FSU already has a Tier 3 deal with Sun Sports for about the number you quote. I keep seeing this posted, but you are just double counting something that already exists. If the LHN gives UT 11 million, do you really believe #2 in FL is worth more with a less loyal fan base? Again, Clemson and Florida State have not been dominating the ACC (which according to everybody but me is the softer conference) so how will the dominate the “tougher” B12? I am not disputing UT and OU, but I remain suspicious of the quality of the “little 8″ at this time. TCU should have at least an extra loss or 2 per season, and Baylor does not have another RG III in the wings. Texas Tech has never been know to play a tough schedule, and the remnants of the North are nothing to write home about. I watch Iowa football now, but it does not mean I want to watch Iowa vs Iowa State every year!

          .

          We don’t have a finazlied picture of the 4 team playoff payout and qualification structure. However, almost no matter which direction it goes, the Big 12 is likely to be a proportional winner and the ACC a proportional loser compared to the current BCS system. The Big 12 would have placed the second most teams in the 4 team playoff (only slightly behind the SEC) while the ACC would have placed the least teams of any BCS conference over the past 10 years under most models.

          And why is this? Could it be because Clemson and Florida State have not been taking care of business in the “weaker” ACC? Look if you let Boston College and Wake Forest beat you, how will you fare in the B12? The core issue is that no matter the home (ACC or B12) of either school, the in state SEC schools of South Carolina and Florida are still going to dwarf them. In case you missed the past decade, the SEC is hot, and has plenty of schools that recruit SC and FL. Moving conferences is not a “magic wand” that fixes this, and not winning the ACC for the past decade is proof that the blame rests on Clemson and Florida State for not taking care of their own business. When Wake Forest, Boston College, and Virginia Tech are beating you, the person in the mirror is the problem, not blaming everybody else.

          .

          Lastly, the travel is going to increase for FSU simply by staying in the ACC with the additions of Syracuse and Pitt. On the other hand, the change to the Big 12, especially with 1-3 Eastern partners would not be as significant as Barron indicated. FSU is not as far from the Texas state line as many in the media seem to think.

          This is pure puffery! Clemson and Florida State are in the south, so they will not be greatly affected by the northern adds. The ACC is still a driving league, not a flying one. A move to the B12 assures this flips. Fans, Donors, Student, Athletes, and Staff will all have to fly to places like Iowa State and Texas Tech. To not acknowledge this is pure homerism on the part of B12 supporters tying to make their conference look better than it is. Sure a football team traveling is one thing, but the bulk of trips are the few dozen non football teams who must travel multiple times in a week over an entire year.

          Keep in mind most recruits in sports sign within a 250 – 500 mile range of their parent doorstep. Part of this is because mom and dad can see their kids play more. I have been around parents, grandparents, and siblings for ages and have talked to them over the years. If the 2 ACC jump, recruiting dynamics will not change because they want them to. A parent no longer heading to a weekday game in Atlanta for one in Lubbock or Waco is NOT going to happen for the vast majority of recruits. The day these 2 schools leave, the ACC and SEC schools in their home turf will eat them alive. Going to the B12 will not fix this, yet nobody is saying that this is a real issue. Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and a host of sports are simply better in the ACC than the B12, and most of these kids become the best alumni and ambassadors for their schools. Boston College may be the downer in football, but they keep the ACC in the hockey world. How is that hockey in the B12?

          .

          At the end of the day, FSU could be looking at a $10-15 million per year decision (or more depending upon the playoff). Can FSU really afford to throw that kind of cash out the window when they are running at a deficit currently and UF, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina and Alabama are going to be swimming in money when the new SEC deal and SEC network are announced?

          I still say this number is way high and full of hot air! To say that the B12 with 2 schools and a “ragtag” group is in no way more valuable than the B1G or SEC, and adding Clemson and Florida State is not worth 50M – 150M in addition worth! Remember, conferences are worth the combined value for EACH team. 10 Million x 12 teams = 120 Million, and 15 Million x 12 teams = 150 Million! How can you defend such values for the folks like FOX and ESPN who are actually writing the checks? Are they in the non profit business because the numbers being thrown out sure make them seem like it! If FSU is worth 30M – 40M in the B12, then Ohio State in the B1G and Alabama in the SEC should easily be worth 50M – 60M and I feel sure they would have a reasonable argument considering their positions as real “brands” in college football – who also have multiple secondary sports their fans follow. Ohio State was in the Final Four, and Alabama won the NCAA hardware for gymnastics. What have Clemson, Florida State, and the vast majority of the current B12 won lately?

          • glenn says:

            TAMU may be worth something

            hypothetically speaking.

          • vp19 says:

            The fact that Clemson and Florida State can not dominate the ACC does not bode well for them in the B12.

            Nonsense. Joining a league where you can play two kings annually (ESPN and Fox will make certain those games happen) is far more attractive for recruiting purposes than playing in the wimpy ACC, where the closest thing to being a king is the perennially disappointing Virginia Tech. As I’ve stated here many times before, I don’t think people understand how severely the ACC football brand (or lack thereof) impacts recruiting, particularly in SEC states, and don’t give me the recruiting rankings as a retort. There are probably plenty of five-star recruits who automatically cross ACC schools off their lists, and only home-state loyalty keeps certain Clemson and FSU kids at home.

            The fact lost in all this is that with 12 members you lose a conference game (8 instead of 9) for each team during the season that will be replaced with an FCS school or low level FBS school. This will actually be a loss of value, and not an increase, so adding the 2 schools may not add new value, but may stay flat to account for this issue.

            How do we know the Big 12 will adopt an 8-game schedule? Just because that’s what it had in its earlier incarnation as a 12-team conference is no guarantee it will do so again. For TV reasons, it would behoove the Big 12 to make sure Oklahoma and Texas play Clemson and Florida State annually, so expect a 9-game schedule with 12 teams, just as the Pac does.

            Baseball, basketball, lacrosse, and a host of sports are simply better in the ACC than the B12, and most of these kids become the best alumni and ambassadors for their schools. Boston College may be the downer in football, but they keep the ACC in the hockey world. How is that hockey in the B12?

            Hockey was no more a factor in Boston College joining the ACC than West Virginia’s men’s soccer program was in joining the Big 12. A non-sequitur, if you ask me.

            Ohio State was in the Final Four, and Alabama won the NCAA hardware for gymnastics. What have Clemson, Florida State, and the vast majority of the current B12 won lately?

            This was brought up earlier, and I can’t believe no one brought up women’s basketball, currently the #3 sport nationwide (ahead of baseball, soccer and volleyball, among others). The Big 12 has won the NCAA title the past two years, A&M in 2011 and 40-0 Baylor in 2012; it’s also been among the nation’s attendance leaders with schools such as Baylor, Iowa State and others. Florida State is currently top-ranked in baseball, and both it and Clemson have sent many players to the pros. Oh, and in men’s basketball, who beat Ohio State in the semifinals? A Big 12 member.

          • Nemo says:

            @vp19

            The ubiquitous “Dude” has just weighed in with Big 12 candidates targeted within the ACC. He is ranking Clemson and FSU practically as “locks”. It is interesting to see Maryland even being mentioned. Perhaps you’d care to comment on the reported contact with the B1G? Where did he get that info?

            The Dude on Big-12 Conference Expansion

            Nemo

          • Jericho says:

            Doesn’t the BTN include Tier 2 rights as well as Tier 3 rights? How can you compare the BTN to any proposed Tier 3 rights for the Big 12/FSU

          • greg says:

            “Doesn’t the BTN include Tier 2 rights as well as Tier 3 rights? How can you compare the BTN to any proposed Tier 3 rights for the Big 12/FSU”

            That was the point I was trying to make by pointing out the content quantity difference between B10 and B12. BTN has much more content than B12 retains. PTN retains even more content, I believe.

            Kristi Dosh lists conference contracts here, and lists the BTN as Tier 2 and doesn’t list a Tier 3:
            http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/49654/college-tv-rights-deals-undergo-makeovers

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “As I’ve stated here many times before, I don’t think people understand how severely the ACC football brand (or lack thereof) impacts recruiting, particularly in SEC states, and don’t give me the recruiting rankings as a retort. There are probably plenty of five-star recruits who automatically cross ACC schools off their lists, and only home-state loyalty keeps certain Clemson and FSU kids at home.”

            So everyone has to accept your premise at face value because any contradicting evidence is not allowed? It doesn’t matter why certain kids choose certain schools, only that they do choose those schools. As you well know, all the recruiting rankings show you’re just making this up because FSU and Clemson do just fine in recruiting. The NFL draft back this up, too.

        • bullet says:

          royhobb
          I think you’re spot on.

          Duffman;
          On geography look at a map. The ACC is not a bus league for FSU. There’s not a school within 250 miles. Georgia Tech is the closest and they are 5 hour drive down back roads. After that it is Clemson (using some of those same back roads) and Miami. The North Carolina schools are beyond any reasonable driving distance.

          FSU is smack dab in the middle of the SEC, but they are at the fringe on the ACC as well as an expanded Big 12.

          As for Tier III, that article I posted said the BTN distributed $74 million to the Big 10 in 2010. That’s nearly $7 million a school. Many people are projected $10 million a year for the Pac 12 networks in a few years. So a conference with WSU, ASU, UA, Utah, CU and OR St. as half its members can generate $10 million but FSU, in the 4th largest state, can only generate $2 or $3 million.

          Very few people seem to challenge these $10-$15 million projections for Tier III for the Big 10, Pac 12 or SEC schools. Yet when a Big 12 or potential Big 12 school other than Texas comes up, suddenly its a $1-$3 million dollar asset and the Texas value isn’t real. It was just a bribe. These positions just aren’t consistent.

          • bullet says:

            To put the distance in perspective, I’ve driven from Tallahassee to Houston in less than 10 hours. Its 2.5 hours from Houston to Austin. Tallahassee to Atlanta takes about 5. Its about 7 to Raleigh-Durham from Atlanta. So Austin is 12.5 hours driving from Tallahassee. Raleigh is 12 hours.

          • greg says:

            bullet, comparing FSU’s possible Tier 3 income with BTN/PTN is misleading. FSU would theoretically go from nothing to having one football game and a handful of basketball games. Maybe $2M in value.

            The difference is the amount of Tier 3 content.

            How does BTN deliver $7M per school? Going by the BTN wikipedia entry (not the greatest source but it was easy to find), BTN televises 35 to 40 games per year. That means they are televising about 3 games per team. BTN televises 60 to 65 conference basketball games, or about 5 per team. PTN reports were that they would retain even more 3rd tier content.

            If FSU was going to retain rights to 3 football games, including a conference game or two, and 5+ ACC conference basketball games, I’m certain their Tier 3 income would be $10M or above. But they’re not. They will get one OOC football game, probably a weak one, and a few weak basketball games.

          • vp19 says:

            On geography look at a map. The ACC is not a bus league for FSU. There’s not a school within 250 miles. Georgia Tech is the closest and they are 5 hour drive down back roads. After that it is Clemson (using some of those same back roads) and Miami. The North Carolina schools are beyond any reasonable driving distance.

            Believe it or not, the distance between Chestnut Hill (Boston College) and College Park (Maryland) is actually less than that between Tallahassee and Coral Gables (U. of Miami). The former is perceived as more distant for cultural and other reasons.

          • bullet says:

            @greg
            The Big 10 is getting that 7 or potentially 10 million PER school. So its a perfectly valid comparison. And FSU doesn’t have to create a network to monetize that. OU isn’t. They will be using existing Fox channels.

          • greg says:

            The Big Ten is getting $7M to potentially $10M per school while televising 3 football games and 5 CONFERENCE basketball games per school. If FSU gets the rights to 3 football games and 5 conference basketball games, they’ll see similar money. But they don’t get those rights.

          • bullet says:

            FSU will have 1 or 2 fb games and 8+ basketball games + Olympic sports.

            And yes it is fb on the BTN, but there’s not much PSU/OSU/UM. Its the lesser schools. Having an extra IU/Miami O. game makes it worth 3-5 times as much?

          • greg says:

            Every B10 team is on BTN at least once per football season. So the content baseline is at least equal to B12 Tier 3, plus a slew of other games. The amount of content is just not comparable.

          • greg says:

            I also don’t think FSU is a king. I don’t hear other kings whining that they can’t sell out their stadium.

          • ChicagoMac says:

            @greg

            How many other Kings are told by TV partners that they have to play on Thursday nights?

            Kings are defined by TV draw first and foremost.

          • vp19 says:

            It should be obvious to all by now that you can’t be a football king and play in the ACC (a less that may soon be learned in Blacksburg). Had Florida State realized that 20 years ago, the current college football landscape would be considerably different.

          • greg says:

            FSU being forced to play on Thursday night cements that they aren’t a king. Thursday night is Boise State/MAC land, not king land.

          • frug says:

            @vp19

            If Bowden hadn’t picked the ACC over the SEC 20 years ago (and it was his decision) FSU never goes on that epic run and never becomes a true super power. Bowden reasoned FSU was better off padding the schedule with weak conference games and then scheduling aggressively OOC than the other way around and FSU was rewarded with 12 conference titles in their first 14 years, including 9 straight.

            In their first 9 seasons in the ACC FSU went 72-2 in conference play, that wouldn’t have happened in the SEC.

          • ccrider55 says:

            The P12N is not tier 3. They got the 3 bill from ESPN/Fox for a limited number of games, holding back I believe 35, and will have first or second choice of games in 7 of the 13 weeks this coming year. It is more like a junior third partner in tier 1, as well as having rights to everything else.

          • Brian says:

            vp19,

            “It should be obvious to all by now that you can’t be a football king and play in the ACC (a less that may soon be learned in Blacksburg). Had Florida State realized that 20 years ago, the current college football landscape would be considerably different.”

            That’s funny, I never heard that complaint until FSU and Miami started losing a lot. Coincidence?

  78. bamatab says:

    So now this “Dude” character is saying that VT is in talks with the SEC. I personally think he just got somewhat lucky with the FSU/Big 12 stuff. Here is a link to his blog with the VT/SEC stuff at the bottom of today’s blog: http://dudeofwv.blogspot.com/

    • zeek says:

      I think Va Tech might call the SEC after something happens to the ACC with respect to FSU but not before.

      Va Tech is one of those schools that’s going to have an outlet regardless (and it could always just stay with UVa in the ACC given that they’re happy being with closeby schools and all).

      I just have a harder time seeing Va Tech being a first mover. Of all the schools to move over the past 10 years, they made the most natural move given their location and wanting to be with UVa.

      I think their AD and/or Beamer also spoke about how they’ve got a smaller stadium and smaller budget than most of the SEC, and how much of a stretch it would be for them to be competitive there.

      We’ll see where it goes, but my guess is that the SEC and Big Ten are likely to stand pat.

    • I have to wonder what constitutes “talks”? Seriously. If a 10th-in-power at the Big Ten talks to a former BOT at UVA about expansion scenarios, does that constitute “talks”? In that case, I’d have to think that every conference is talking to almost every school all the time. These kind of “professional” chats have to constantly be happening, right?

      Rarely do these informal chats turn into an actual major move…but these are probably pretty common.

      • bamatab says:

        I don’t think that is what this guy is implying. Like you said, I think most schools are involved with those types of “chats”. By him placing this particular one on his blog, I think he is implying that the school it actually in real talks with the SEC. Now like I said, I’m still not buying that this guy is as connected as he is making folks believe that he is, especially when it comes to VT talking with the SEC. But some people are now listening to the guy because he was partially right on the FSU/Big 12 stuff.

  79. duffman says:

    Some issues :

    a) I still do not buy the 25M – 30M the B12 bloggers are selling for the B12 even with Clemson and Florida State. I call BS on this one. Also, Florida State has a 6 million Tier 3 deal with Sun Sports already so at best that is a wash, not an add on as B12 folks keep plugging. The LHN is 15M with a 4M cutout going to IMG, which means 11M net for the folks in Austin. The longhorns are #1 in a bigger market, and Florida State is #2 in a smaller state with plenty of competition.

    b) I listened to “the dude” from WVU on an Oklahoma podcast and the guy sounds young! I am guessing between his teens and 20′s young. If we can track planes in the B1G surely we have a voice tech guy who can analyze this kids voice for stress when not telling the truth. Seriously, major changes are happening in college football and the messenger is a kid in WV? I am not buying this either, and am chalking it up as BS unless we have a face and some background on his sources. here is the link :
    http://www.blatanthomerism.com/2012-articles/may/podcast-the-dude-speaks-on-the-big-12-florida-st-and-conference-realignment.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

    c) I may be the old dude on here, but dropping the f bomb and cussing in general is not cool. I like FtT because this site seems to have civilized discussion, and I hope we are not dropping to the level of lesser blog sites out there.

    d) The more I look at this, the more I think USF is the future of Florida for the number #2 spot behind the folks in Gainesville. If I were the B12 this is probably the better long term play now that Bowden is no longer at Florida State. USF is bigger than FSU which means long term they will produce more living alumni. In addition, with the decline of Miami means all south florida could be theirs while FSU will always be second fiddle to the Gators in the north.

    • Eric says:

      I kind of agree on the Dude getting somewhat lucky (although won’t dismiss him yet either). I really think this is a case of the rumors making the BoT/schools think rather than the rumors emerging out of them thinking initially. That said, props for being on that first and the future will reveal more. Can’t definitely say anything wrong so far.

      • Jake says:

        So, “The Dude” is going with the George Costanza “You coulda done a lot better than him” strategy?

    • bullet says:

      Duffman
      a) I’m with you on Tier I and II. I think you underestimate Tier III. Texas gets that LHN money + 9.4 million for the other Tier III stuff.
      c) 100% with you there. I think a lot has deteriorated in the last 3 or 4 years. The ability to add pictures is a detriment. Until they got some complaints, one of the WVU board’s was almost a soft porn site.

      • Jake says:

        Yeah, I’m not opposed to some occasional, well-placed swearing, but if you let that stuff go on the Internet it gets out of hand pretty quick. On my usual TCU board, the filter replaces obscenities with the names of obnoxious sports TV personalities. Douche becomes [Craig James]. I’ll use that one just to trigger the filter. I wonder if WordPress has anything like that.

        • bullet says:

          I would think it would work the opposite. On the TCU board if you said Craig James it would replace it with **?%#!*. I know down in Georgia, General Sherman is still considered a swear word.

          • Jake says:

            But then we couldn’t make dead hooker jokes. That’s like half the board in the off-season.

          • duffman says:

            CJK5H ;)

            Seriously tho, FtT is my island of calm is a sea of idiocracy (sp) that is why I read and respond here. Just trying to catch the new folks on here from the B12 and ACC sites and say that does not play here.

    • wmtiger says:

      Can’t see USF every becoming the #2 program in Florida. FSU is a very strong #2 with a ton of success the past 30-40 years and Miami is close to a ton of talent in southern Florida.

      • Brian says:

        I don’t disagree necessarily, but what if USF has a decade or more of success like Miami and FSU did to put themselves on the map? Say USF won 2 national titles and several major bowls?

  80. Bob in Houston says:

    “a) I still do not buy the 25M – 30M the B12 bloggers are selling for the B12 even with Clemson and Florida State. I call BS on this one. Also, Florida State has a 6 million Tier 3 deal with Sun Sports already so at best that is a wash, not an add on as B12 folks keep plugging. The LHN is 15M with a 4M cutout going to IMG, which means 11M net for the folks in Austin. The longhorns are #1 in a bigger market, and Florida State is #2 in a smaller state with plenty of competition.”

    duffman: I think the 25-30 includes a bump from the current number for the arrival of 11 and 12, plus a CCG, plus Tier 3 TV. I would say that’s easily possible given the way money is being thrown around.

    As to the $6 mil Tier 3 deal at FSU… that’s the radio, advertising, coaches shows. At Texas, that number is not included in the LHN payout — I think it’s 11 mil, or nine, sorry, can’t recall. In any event, it’s separate. The carveout for IMG is for the Tier 3 TV rights they owned that were transferred to ESPN, plus ad sales for the LHN. The B12 posters clearly understand that they are talking about Tier 3 TV only, what FSU gives up to the ACC.

    • duffman says:

      Bob,

      Lets say you are right, then within a year the B1G and SEC will dwarf that so it is back to the cellar for the B12. The main issue I have is we are not in a static market and right now the B1G and SEC are the market leaders. I do not see this changing. Both have multiple schools to sell while the PAC is still pushing Southern Cal +1, so I just do not buy any combination (including Notre Dame) to the B12 that changes the position of the the B1G and SEC in the food chain.

      It is like what happens with the playoff. Until somebody knocks off the SEC team for at least 2 or 3 years, they still control the table. The reining champ sets the next fight because he is the person folks are paying to see. If last season Oregon played Wisconsin as conference champs that will not draw the “title” moniker. I think Frank is right in that the SEC is the Yankees right now in terms of folks tuning in to see them lose. So far this has not happened so it will be hard to drive the discussion until this changes.

  81. duffman says:

    Alan,

    Good luck to your Tigers on the weekend series with South Carolina.

  82. GreatLakeState says:

    What do you get when you give a PurpleCat moonshine? – MountainCat!

  83. acaffrey says:

    Oh god, get ready for the FSU whining.

    Look at the FSU schedule… http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/39150/acc-game-times-announced-21…. FSU has to play a 6pm game on Saturday, September 8th… and then turn around and play a NOON game on September 15th. And that September 15th game is against Wake Forest. FSU has enough trouble beating Wake Forest without having 3 less hours to prepare for them.

    The Big XII would never do that to the Seminoles.

    • Jake says:

      They may have cut academic programming, but it sounds like everyone got educated anyway. Americans are more interested in watching coaching shows and replays of football games than shows about science. But if you have pretty graphics, it doesn’t hurt.

      • duffman says:

        I would run the educational stuff as “PSA’s”

        Make the content and quality good and run it as “advertisements” – 60 hours of programming is a drop in the bucket in an entire year. Even if you educate 1 person it is worth the expense. The cable content providers used “no advertising” to get their foot in the door. Now if you are a night owl you get non stop “infomercials” in the 1am – 6am slot instead of actual programming you originally signed up for. Is the BTN not making enough money to allow this 1 concession?

        If you teach the next generation to watch sports at the exclusion of science, do not be surprised if you raise a generation of idiots. I like watching sports as entertainment but history is littered with folks who did more than entertain. The rise of any civilization moves on science and technology so how big is the price if we do not demand the promotion of it for the next generation?

        • glenn says:

          educational programming can be interesting.  i don’t envision it here to truly educate as much as to develop some awareness among us old coots and develop interest among the youth.  who knows if the spark that eventually resulted in the next great geologist, say, occurred with a youth watching an interesting program.

          • duffman says:

            glenn,

            The main thing is to engage the mind to think in the young or old. A game is a point in time, and all the rest is blather and loaded with folks who did not play. Anybody of any age can be enticed by the lure of art and science, and it is the gateway to future journeys of self discovery. The ability to debate teams is not near as interesting as debating the cosmos and our brief journey through them. The trick to educational programming is to engage without dumbing it down or putting folks to sleep.

        • Brian says:

          duffman,

          I think the main problem is that the academic shows were focused on 1 school, so there was no cross-interest. People will watch sports with other teams in the game, but educational programming has to be top notch to draw any viewers at all. You’d think they could jointly fund an hour of programming like PBS and develop the content from education and science departments, but look how hard it is for Discovery Channel to make money. People pay to see sports on BTN, not academics. They need to listen to the customer to a certain extent.

  84. Eric says:

    I seriously doubt (and hope against) the Big Ten expanding again soon. If the Big 12 did/could raid the ACC to go to 14 and if the Big Ten decided it needed to keep up and wanted to expand to 14 (rather than 16), what school do you think it might go after? I know this is probably pretty far fetched, but 14 doesn’t seem to be discussed a lot like 16 is.

    My personal assumptions going in would be that Notre Dame wouldn’t come, and that they’d want AAU schools. I’m also not sold that they could get North Carolina with only 2 spots open. I think in this case, it’s possible they’d go with some combination of Miami (FL), Georgia Tech, Rutgers, Maryland.

    • wmtiger says:

      If the ACC imploded, North Carolina would likely be the B10′s first choice… After that, I think they’d look at Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, Duke & Rutgers… They’d probably look at Missouri too…

      Virginia Tech is probably the best football program they could get but there aren’t much more than a Tech school academically… Not up to par to be part of the B10′s CIC…

      Virginia is probably the best ‘fit’ with North Carolina but they are lacking in athletic tradition. Not sure if Virginia adds enough in the revenue sports to be worthy of splitting the pie another way…

      Duke is probably the school NC would most want to join along with them, but they don’t have a ton of say in who they can bring with them if the ACC truly imploded. Duke and NC would give the B10 a dramatic increase in the value of their basketball revenues that I could see Duke being favored over other programs…

      If the ACC really did implode, that could cause ND desiring to join a conference, I still think it would be a longshot but I think the ACC blowing up would be a pretty big domino to fall in forcing ND to join a football conference…

      Maryland would be pretty easy to lure away from the ACC and I like that it would give PSU one of its one time rivals… Like Virginia, they don’t add enough in the revenue sports to earn their way into the B10…

      Rutgers is even easier to pull away from the Big East. Jersey has a significant amount of population but not a great deal of support for their athletic programs; I don’t see the B10 going that route…

      Georgia Tech would give the B10 a southern team which Delaney has shown interest in before. I have a tough time seeing the B10 picking up just 1 southern program without it having a southern partner/rival. Miami & Georgia Tech would give the B10 a door into two very large southern states in terms of population and open a ton of doors for the B10 in recruiting with states with a ton of football talent.

      • vp19 says:

        Maryland and Rutgers better fit the Big Ten’s land-grant flagship model than North Carolina, and over the past dozen years or so, UMd and UNC’s football programs are about equal. Plus, you can bring in Maryland without having to drag another partner into the fold. As I’ve stated earlier, a Rutgers-Maryland combo solidly bolsters the Big Ten along the eastern seaboard, drastically weakening the ACC and the Big East (though in the latter case, does that really matter anymore?), while preserving room for Notre Dame and a partner should that time ever come.

        • Brian #2 says:

          Agree vp19. Maryland and Rutgers seem like perfect candidates in the next B1G expansion. But as I mentioned above, I don’t think UNC is as serious of a candidate as many B1G fans seem to believe. UNC is a great school with an outstanding all-around athletic department, but its state and fanbase is still purely Southern. It would be an odd fit for them in the B1G.

          I

          • greg says:

            Maryland/Rutgers is very unlikely. While the institutions are fit the B10 profile, neither of them move the needle and there isn’t a real point to such an expansion. After all the problems making schools happy with the divisions, I don’t see schools wanting to give up UM/OSU/NU/PSU games in order to play Maryland and Rutgers. B10 has made two moves in the last 50 years: PSU and NU. Maryland/Rutgers is a gigantic step down.

          • Brian #2