The irony of writing a blog that’s largely known for being focused upon conference realignment and Big Ten expansion is that I’m personally not someone that has a preternatural need to see the kingdom of Jim Delany get larger and larger. Back when I originally starting writing about the topic three years ago, I only really saw a necessity for the Big Ten to add 1 more school to create a conference championship game and wasn’t a large proponent of expanding to 14, 16 or beyond. All of the superconference ideas with an emphasis on pods and market shares interest me greatly from a business perspective, but the number of potential expansion candidates out there that make me perk up as fan is pretty small. If the Big Ten needed to go up to 16 to get marquee schools such as Texas or Notre Dame, then that would have been one thing, but expanding simply for the sake of market share can backfire in the long run. Nebraska certainly qualified as a school that I’d go out of my way to actually watch play football, so I was content with the thought of the Big Ten staying at 12. I completely understand the latest moves by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany to add Maryland and Rutgers to move the league up to 14 members as a way to stay ahead of the ever-changing demographics of this country, yet that’s largely the business side of my brain coming to that conclusion.
Of course, Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis did nothing to temper the expectations that the Big Ten continues to be on the prowl by calling 14 members “clumsy” and how the conference doesn’t “want to get outflanked”. Delany has stated that the Big Ten is “inactive but alert” regarding future expansion. In my last post, I went through the Big Ten’s various expansion options (almost entirely focused upon ACC schools). For Florida State, I stated the following:
Personally, I’d take a hard look at Florida State because they are so extremely valuable in a key state (especially if the Big Ten is seriously considering Georgia Tech and don’t want them to be a lone outpost), yet the tea leaves are saying otherwise.
On the same night that I put up that post, Chip Brown from Orangebloods.com had this interesting tidbit (via Warchant.com):
But it should be getting more and more clear after Maryland’s departure from the ACC, Florida State is not sitting around playing solitaire.
According to Warchant.com, the Florida State site on the Yahoo!/Rivals network, FSU officials are now exploring conference options and have put out feelers to the Big Ten.
That small line about Florida State putting out feelers to the Big Ten (even though the article overall has a Big 12 slant) has stuck out at me as much as anything that I’ve seen regarding conference realignment over the past three years. As we have seen time and time again with the kabuki dance of switching leagues, the proper order is that a school contacts the conference that it wants to switch to first as opposed to the other way around. To say the least, my line of thinking is really starting to shift here.
Remember back in 2010 how Missouri was repeatedly the most oft-mentioned expansion target for the Big Ten, but then the true intentions of the league were to really go after Texas and then Nebraska? Missouri was effectively used as a stalking horse by Jim Delany to cause instability (or create the perception of instability) in the Big 12 to shake loose one of the most valuable brand names in college football. Now look at the most oft-mentioned targets of the Big Ten in this current phase of realignment: Georgia Tech and Virginia. Both are fantastic academic institutions in fast-growing states, but they aren’t exactly power punches on the football front. They’re really extensions of the pure demographics plus academics strategy that drove the Maryland and Rutgers additions. With the Big Ten at 14 members, we’re possibly looking at the last 2 open spots that the league will ever have to get up to 16. Are Georgia Tech and Virginia who the Big Ten wants to grant those last precious spots to? The academic side of the league would obviously love it, yet there’s something missing on the athletic front (which in turn impacts the financial front).
What we now have is the perception of instability in the ACC just like there was a perception of instability in the Big 12 in 2010 through 2011. If the Big Ten is seriously considering further raids of the ACC, then why wouldn’t it go after the biggest whale possible? Why wouldn’t it make the move that would both the bean counters and the fans would love?
Is getting Florida State the true intended end game for the Big Ten?
Outside of geography, the only real reason that has been given by numerous people, including me, as to why the Big Ten would conceivably pass on Florida State is academics (and specifically the lack of membership in the AAU). That assumption might be faulty, though, especially if Florida State were to come in together with an elite academic school such as Georgia Tech or Virginia. Besides, Florida State is ranked #97 in the U.S. News rankings compared to Nebraska at #101, so it’s nowhere near the academic stretch for the Big Ten in the way that Louisville was clearly outside of the ACC’s prior academic standards. Beyond academics, out of all of the schools in the ACC, Florida State provides (1) the best on-the-field football program, (2) the largest state by population, (3) the highest national TV value, (4) the most regional TV value for the Big Ten Network, (5) the best football recruiting grounds and (6) arguably the best football fan base (neck-and-neck with Clemson). Basically, FSU hits every non-academic metric that you could possibly want in an expansion candidate. Tallahassee and the rest of the Florida Panhandle are definitely Southern in culture (which could clash with the Northern Big Ten culture), but much of the rest of the state of Florida where FSU alums and fans reside has one of the largest concentrations (if not the largest concentration) of Big Ten alums outside of the Midwest. It’s not an accident that after the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten has its top bowl tie-ins with the Capital One Bowl (Orlando), Outback Bowl (Tampa) and Gator Bowl (Jacksonville) and just signed up for a partial Orange Bowl (Miami) tie-in once the new playoff system starts. Much like New York City and Washington, DC, there are potential synergies for the Big Ten in the state of Florida that really go beyond the applicable school that’s being added.
In the same way that Texas A&M fans started complaining so much about the Big 12 that it eventually pushed the school’s administration to approach the SEC, Florida State fans have been rumbling about moving out of the ACC for months. So, if Florida State is truly an unhappy camper that’s ready to move (and to be clear, it needs to start coming from the university president level instead of the fans or even trustee members on a power trip), it would be foolish for the Big Ten to automatically pass on the Seminoles on the basis of academics. AAU membership is obviously highly desired, but the Big Ten would let in non-AAU school Notre Dame in a heartbeat. The Big Ten also admitted Nebraska even though the existing members knew full well that NU’s AAU status was in jeopardy (as the school was kicked out of the organization only months after joining the conference with both Michigan and Wisconsin voting against them). In other words, the Big Ten has demonstrated a willingness to look past the AAU issue for the right school, and Florida State may indeed be the right school in this situation.
Now, as with anything in conference realignment, it takes two to tango. The Big Ten could want Florida State all day long, but it means very little unless the interest is reciprocated. That’s what makes Florida State “putting out feelers to the Big Ten” so intriguing. At the very least, that indicates some interest on the part of FSU.
I’m not going to insult the intelligence of Florida State fans and alums that might be reading this, so I’ll be objective here: even though I’m a huge Illinois fan and Big Ten guy, my personal opinion is that the SEC would be the best conference for FSU if it were to move from the ACC (and I’m sure that would be the choice of most Seminoles fans). The SEC fits Florida State geographically and culturally while also providing a juggernaut football league. If FSU has offers on the table from the Big Ten and SEC at the same time, then I’d be hard pressed to advise the school to turn down the SEC when taking my Big Ten goggles off. However, Mr. SEC (probably the closest thing to my SEC counterpart regarding conference realignment) has noted that the SEC is on the precipice of creating a new TV network with ESPN and would prevent any consideration of newly doubling up in existing SEC states for financial reasons. In the case of Florida State, the value of in-state rival Florida is so great that a potential SEC network could easily get basic carriage in the state of Florida based on the strength of the Gators alone, which means that FSU is worth much less to the SEC than it would to the Big Ten or Big 12. (The Big Ten saw this on a smaller scale when looking at Pitt as an expansion candidate. In terms of academics and institutional fit, Pitt was and still is a great match on paper for the Big Ten, but it’s a school that wouldn’t bring in a single cent of additional BTN revenue since Penn State already delivers the entire state of Pennsylvania by itself.) Now, the SEC certainly might see value in adding Florida State simply to prevent the Big Ten or Big 12 from encroaching on the most important TV market and football recruiting territory in its footprint as a defensive measure, but let’s assume for the purposes of this discussion that the SEC isn’t a viable option for FSU.
So, if the SEC is out of the picture, why would the Big Ten possibly let the Big 12 walk off with possibly the most valuable school that has been willing to move in conference realignment over the past three years? That would create two power conferences (the SEC and Big 12) that combine the recruiting bases and TV households of both Florida and Texas, which would be dangerous for the Big Ten to allow to occur in the long-term. While I could understand how the SEC would be more attractive to FSU than the Big Ten, I don’t see how Jim Delany would lose in a head-to-head battle with the Big 12 over the school if it came down to that. The only real advantage that the Big 12 provides over the Big Ten is access to the state of Texas. That’s not insignificant, but it’s not outcome determinative in my eyes (as evidenced by Nebraska and Colorado willingly giving up their ties to that state). On the fronts that university presidents care the most about, the Big Ten has all of the trump cards. The Big Ten was projecting over $43 million per year in conference revenue in 2017 when it was talking to Maryland. Now think about what that figure would look like when you add the households in the state of Florida to the Big Ten Network (which has over 5 million more people than the states of Maryland and New Jersey combined with a population base that is a lot more attuned to college sports, to boot). Those are figures that the Big 12 can’t match, even if FSU could procure a lucrative third tier rights deal that the conference allows. The Big Ten also has a clear academic prestige advantage over the Big 12. In terms of geography, the Big Ten is even slightly less inconvenient than the Big 12, where Columbus, Bloomington, West Lafayette and Champaign are actually all slightly shorter distances to Tallahassee than both Morgantown and Austin among the closest existing members of those leagues. I would assume that both the Big Ten and Big 12 would add 1 other Southern ACC member (likely Georgia Tech or maybe Miami for the Big Ten or Clemson for the Big 12) to pair up with FSU, so the Seminoles wouldn’t be a lone geographic outlier in either case. (To be sure, I’m not going to sugarcoat the geography issue for FSU with respect to either the Big Ten or Big 12 – it’s definitely not optimal in either case. That being said, the ACC stuck Florida State in a division with Boston College and Syracuse while not having the Noles play its closest conference counterpart of Georgia Tech annually, so that conference hasn’t exactly mitigated FSU’s travel distances even with a large contingent of Southern schools.) All in all, the Big Ten can offer more money and better academics compared to the Big 12 with similar geographic challenges, so this shouldn’t be a matter of Florida State actually preferring the Big 12 over the Big Ten.
I don’t know whether Florida State is truly serious about wanting to leave the ACC. As I’ve said in other posts, I’m not a believer in the impending destruction of that conference like many others that follow conference realignment. There are still a host of academic and geographic advantages that the ACC provides to its member schools and if it was tough for Maryland to leave at an emotional level (where that school was a completely natural and contiguous expansion for the Big Ten and they didn’t have any true blood reciprocal blood rivals), one can imagine the potential disconnect with a school like FSU. However, Florida State fans might be at the point where they have an “Anywhere but the ACC!” attitude, which is a tough train to stop for a school’s administration. As I’ve been thinking more and more about the Seminoles looking around as a free agent (which is how an FSU official described the process in the event that the Maryland exit fee from the ACC gets reduced or thrown out), it’s the first time since I began following conference realignment that I have actually wanted the Big Ten to create a superconference in a scenario that didn’t include the game changing choices of Texas and/or Notre Dame. The Seminoles provide the best combination of an off-the-field financial windfall off-the-field and increased on-the-field competitiveness and fan interest of any school that the Big Ten could plausibly add at this time. As a result, Florida State is a school that would make a 16-team league worth having and I hope that Jim Delany and the Big Ten university presidents are feeling the same way.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from Posseup Sports)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hook ’em
LikeLike
This is your best post FTT.
LikeLike
GBR
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting article about the Big Ten Network trying to get on basic cable.
Big Ten may keep Rutgers and Maryland off network
Good news, Rutgers and Maryland fans, your schools will be joining the Big Ten in 2014, bringing a nice influx of that cold hard cash into your athletic departments. It’s just too bad you might not be able to watch all of their games once they’ve joined the Big Ten.
Yes, that’s right, according to Sports Business Journal, the Big Ten is considering keeping Maryland and Rutgers games — both football and basketball — off of its own Big Ten Network in an effort to get local cable companies to place the network on their basic tiers.
…
However, it will be pretty interesting to see whether New York cable companies even bat an eye when threatened with the possibility of losing Rutgers games.
LikeLike
Oh, the URL didn’t make it through. Well, you can find it on Google.
LikeLike
MgoBlue!
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
Dammit Frank, I was just settling into the flow of the last post.
LikeLike
Go Hawks.
LikeLike
Pingback: Maryland and Rutgers to join Big Ten? - Page 3
No way the B10 takes Florida State. There’s plenty of good reasons to take them, but the B10 won’t do it.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Go Big Red!
LikeLike
Good call Frank. From a Penn State perspective, I’d rather see Miami than Georgia Tech. I’m indifferent on Tech, but I HATE Miami, which means it would be a game I’d like to see. I can’t help but think Miami would be the better move financially while Tech would be a better institutional fit.
LikeLike
No way the B1G passes on adding the Atlanta market…it’s far more important financially than Miami would be after you factor in FSU gets you Florida overall.
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
Florida State would basically be the Big Ten’s version of Texas A&M.
It’s an intriguing possibility to say the least. I’m not sold at all on Georgia Tech’s value, but combined with Florida State, it probably works out in the long run.
LikeLike
Now this is a campaign I can support, big time. Throw in GT and end the quest for 16. Also, as I have argued previously expand the CIC’s mission and build some academic-athletic facilities in Fla or Ga and get the dormant baseball powers in the BIG competitive again. No reason this can’t be done. BIG northern baseball teams can return to their home campuses by late March after starting their seasons on pace with the more competitive teams down south.
Let’s do it, pimp this campaign until the BIG office is overflowing with support for this move.
FSU will become AAU within 5 years of BIG membership.
BIG alum, who are aplenty in FSU will support this move en masse.
Can you imagine the following rivalries:
FSU vs Neb (some incredible history between these two)
FSU vs Mi
FSU vs tOSU
FSU vs PSU (after 2017)
FSU vs Wisky
GT vs Iowa (they recently played each other in the Orange Bowl)
GT vs FSU (battle of the southern BIG)
Yes, GT and FSU do not dominate their in-state SEC brethren. But the talent in these states will put BIG schools on their radar.
And damn it, the BIG needs some warm weather environs. I cannot overstate how much of a disadvantage the weather has been for BIG football on the recruiting trail.
And if 18, God forbid, becomes the BIG magic number – ND and UVa will have to consider a BIG offer.
LikeLike
Re: baseball in the south, I’m not sure that the B1G would have to do anything so outlandish and expensive. The easiest route might be to have northern B1G baseball team members sign up for online courses during spring semester so spending several weeks on end in the south would be a breeze. The way things are going, online courses are going to be the bulk of non-scientific courses (which require more hands-on training than most other disciplines), so extended road trips for students will be much easier from the standpoint of being disruptive of their studies.
LikeLike
I’m one Seminole Alum/Fan that would love to see this happen. Can we bring Clemson rather than GT?
LikeLike
I wish this would happen. UF would absolutely hate the move. FSU has beaten UF twice and South Carolina and Notre Dame over the past few years, and getting out from under the UF umbrella would prove to be a defining moment for the university. The only thing I wold like to help people understand is that FSU is held back financially by the state and the powerful UF lobby. The acceptance rate and freshman SAT scores would probably fall right in the middle of the B1G.
LikeLike
Great article Frank! FSU to the B1G please! Show this to Delany!!
LikeLike
http://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1445638
Florida State’s athletic department announced Wednesday it would sell Orange Bowl tickets at a 50 percent discount to Seminole Boosters, season ticket holders and FSU students.
LikeLike
Makes a ton of sense. If the Big 10 would go to Ga Tech, then the geographic argument is gone IMHO.
I think FSU fans are certainly at or close to anywhere but the ACC.
LikeLike
We are well past anywhere but the ACC. Years ago..
LikeLike
Congrats Frank. This headline is sure to make you the bell of the ball (or wicked stepsister) on Rival, Bleacher Report & Scout sites from sea to shining sea.
LikeLike
Also think the Big 10 could go to 18 (9 game conf schedule) and add some combo of FSU/UVA/Ga Tech/ND/UNC/ etc.
LikeLike
Boiler Up!
LikeLike
Boiler Up!!!!
LikeLike
Boiler Up!
LikeLike
RTR!!!
LikeLike
Let’s talk about the important stuff Frank: would this mean we could get the Chief back? 😉
LikeLike
Even though the Board of Trustees at the University of Illinois are politically-correct cowards that would never admit a mistake and reintroduce Chief Illiniwek, this is the most intriguing aspect of the dawn of the superconference that Andy Staples suggested with his CASH proposal three years ago: leaving the NCAA. If there are 4 16-team leagues, the can effectively render the NCAA moot and from their own governing committee. No NCAA, means no ridiculous hostile and abusive tag on our beloved symbol of integrity.
Frank you forget to mention one relatively easy to waive, but key factor in the B1G’s CoC/P expansion deliberations: geographic contiguity. While from an athletic standpoint, FSU and Chief Osceola may be welcome, they would huge outlier that may prevent their inclusion beyond the academic bar which has already been lowered.
LikeLike
How has the academic bar been lowered? Was PSU a research juggernaut and AAU member before being in the B1G? I recall they where pretty meh academically when they joined.
LikeLike
They were an AAU member.
LikeLike
Just a point on Chas’ comment that we FSU fans are compelled to make. It’s not Chief Osceola. It’s just Osceola. The Seminole Tribe of Florida, who support FSU’s use of the Seminole name, is strong on that point since Osceola was never a chief. So it’s Osceola and his horse Renegade who are our symbols, not mascots. Another key distinction. A bulldog is a mascot. A tiger is a mascot. Osceola and Renegade are symbols for FSU.
From the standpoint of Big Ten vs. Big 12, I think I could see preferring Big Ten as well. I saw in a recent article that FSU has become a top 25 research institution and tapping into the CIC would certainly be beneficial to being stronger in research. Also, the current school president, Barron, is keen on moving FSU up in the academic rankings and likely has a goal of AAU status for the university. He’s stated his preference for the academic nature of the ACC vs. the less so status of the Big 12 (they’ve lost 4 of their AAU members! Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri were all AAU) but I could see him being interested in the Big Ten for their academic strength. As an FSU fan personally, I guess I would slightly lean towards Big Ten, for some of the reasons noted above, though playing so many games in cold weather for our Florida kids would be tough. Then again we do have BC, Pitt, and VT in the ACC and it gets cold in those places.
LikeLike
91Nole,
Southerners exaggerate the weather issue. The last couple of weeks in November may be colder than you’re used to, but before that is just standard fall weather. And as you said, you already play several games up north. The biggest issue would be an outdoor CCG at night in December, but the B10 doesn’t play night games in November and the CCG is indoors so far.
LikeLike
“I saw in a recent article that FSU has become a top 25 research institution”
-I’d be interested in seeing the original article if you have a link. All the data I’ve looked at puts them just inside the ‘top 75’ range (and that is nothing to be ashamed of).
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
Here’s my question, assuming it happens: Does Delany do an immediate two-fer (as he did with Maryland and Rutgers), or does he grab Florida State, and then wait to see what shakes loose?
Everyone is saying that Georgia Tech is the obvious #16, but maybe the destabilizing effect of grabbing FSU will cause a better option to shake loose.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is going to have to happen at the same time.
I think that’s the only way to get all the academics on board; it’s to sell it as a 2 for 1.
LikeLike
If Florida St is #15, then I would prefer Miami as #16.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech and FSU makes more sense. FSU probably has more alumni in South Florida than Miami, and Miami’s football program has serious problems and no facilities. With GA Tech and FSU, you get some of the Atlanta market, and a market in Florida second only to UF.
LikeLike
Florida State really mirrors the SEC’s move on Texas A&M and the ACC’s decision on Louisville.
It doesn’t matter if you’re going out of your region or taking a school that’s not the primary force in a region.
If the value is there, it can work. I really do think the Georgia Tech chatter is all tied up to Florida State.
LikeLike
Exerpt from Pres Barron’s email comparing the ACC to the Big Ten:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college_fsu/2012/05/fsu-president-criticizes-big-12-academics-in-email-to-fans-affirms-acc-position.html
1. The information presented about the ACC contract that initiated the
blogosphere discussion was not correct. The ACC is an equal share
conference and this applies to football and to basketball there is no
preferential treatment of any university with the exception of 3rd tier
rights for women’s basketball and Olympic sports. FSU is advantaged by
that aspect of the contract over the majority of other ACC schools.
2. Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M left the Big 12, at least in
part because the Big 12 is not an equal share conference. Texas has
considerably more resource avenues and gains a larger share (and I say
this as a former dean of the University of Texas at Austin – I watched the
Big 12 disintegration with interest). So, when fans realize that Texas
would get more dollars than FSU, always having a competitive advantage, it
would be interesting to see the fan reaction.
3. Much is being made of the extra $2.9M that the Big 12 contract (which
hasn’t been inked yet) gets over the ACC contract. Given that the Texas
schools are expected to play each other (the Big 12 is at least as Texas
centered than the ACC is North Carolina centered), the most likely
scenario has FSU playing Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and West
Virginia on a recurring basis and the other teams sporadically (and one
more unnamed team has to join to allow the Big 12 to regain a championship
game), we realize that our sports teams can no longer travel by bus to
most games the estimate is that the travel by plane required by FSU to
be in the Big 12 appears to exceed the $2.9M difference in the contract
actually giving us fewer dollars than we have now to be competitive with
the Big 12 teams, who obviously do not have to travel as far. Any
renegotiated amount depends not just on FSU but the caliber of any other
new team to the Big 12.
4. Few believe that the above teams will fill our stadium with fans of
these teams and so our lack of sales and ticket revenue would continue.
5. We would lose the rivalry with University of Miami that does fill our
stadium
6. It will cost between $20M and $25M to leave the ACC we have no idea
where that money would come from. It would have to come from the Boosters
which currently are unable to support our current University athletic
budget, hence the 2% cut in that budget.
7. The faculty are adamantly opposed to joining a league that is
academically weaker and in fact, many of them resent the fact that a 2%
($2.4M) deficit in the athletics budget receives so much attention from
concerned Seminoles, but the loss of 25% of the academic budget (105M)
gets none when it is the most critical concern of this University in terms
of its successful future.
His case for not joining the Big 12 isn’t as strong if you sub in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The problem is that his Big 12 info isn’t correct. He didn’t look very informed when he wrote this in May.
LikeLike
It’s his line of thinking I’m looking at. Sub in the Big Ten numbers and the case for moving is just as compelling to FSU as it was for Maryland.
LikeLike
Not only were his statements full of half-truths, it was very shortsighted to be so critical. It’s almost like he wanted to make sure FSU could never get into the Big 12 by insulting all of the Big 12 schools.
LikeLike
Joe Schad @schadjoe
Every ACC President and Notre Dame attaches name to statement promising committment to league
———————————
Welp, it’s over. Shut down the blog.
LikeLike
Do you think so? The fact that they issued this statement means something, but I’m not sure what. That they are all staying? Maybe. That they don’t trust each other and think the others are moving? Maybe. That they just want to get through football recruiting season without negative impacts? Maybe.
The Big 12 informally did the same thing and 15 months later A&M and Missouri had left.
LikeLike
“We are fully committed to the Big 12.” — Missouri Chancellor Brady Deaton
“We are fully committed to the Big 12.” — Texas A&M President R. Bowen Loftin
“I am not leaving Miami.” – Nick Saban
LikeLike
Naw, I was being snarky.
The ACC is on the verge of losing another 2-4 schools and possibly more.
If they survive without losing schools for the next 2-3 years, I’ll be surprised.
The Big Ten wants to get to 16 before 2016-2017.
LikeLike
Insert dismissive wanking gesture here.
LikeLike
They’re committed until the very day they are not.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8721127/atlantic-coast-conference-speculation-more-defections-totally-false
We, the undersigned presidents of the Atlantic Coast Conference, wish to express our commitment to preserve and protect the future of our outstanding league. We want to be clear that the speculation about ACC schools in negotiations or considering alternatives to the ACC are totally false. The presidents of the ACC are united in our commitment to a strong and enduring conference. The ACC has long been a leader in intercollegiate athletics, both academically and athletically, and the constitution of our existing and future member schools will maintain the ACC’s position as one of the nation’s premier conferences.
It was initiated by the presidents of FSU, Clemson, UNC and V-Tech.
LikeLike
But not Georgia Tech or Virginia. Perhaps they’re the ones looking at moving at the moment.
LikeLike
My mistake, G-Tech was one of the initiators. Of course, none of this really matters since it is non-binding and the fact they had to release this statement shows exactly how weak the ACC has become.
LikeLike
The common tie between those teams is that they are usually the ones most likely to be competing for the top football recruits (Miami would be in that group too, but they are in a bit of a situation right now).
One could argue that the reason why these schools pressed the issue is that their coaches and ADs recognize the fact that it is prime recruiting season right now, and anything that might raise questions in the minds of recruits is not a good thing.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd @dennisdoddcbs
Slive says “we will probably have something to say in January” re: SEC Network. First time I’d heard that.
LikeLike
From last thread, FSU is a big TV draw two of the top three games overall and three of the top 7. Granted alot of that is due to being in the Championship game but there are 5 championship games rated below their lowest game.
Also the teams they played in the top two weren’t exactly huge tv draws based on this data. Although VT did have Vick.
• BOWL YEAR TEAMS RATING
1. Rose Bowl 2006 Texas-USC 21.7 *
2. Orange Bowl 2001 Florida State-Oklahoma 17.8 *
3. Sugar Bowl 2000 Florida State-VT 17.5 *
4. Championship 2007 Florida-Ohio State 17.4 *
4. Championship 2008 LSU-Ohio State 17.4 *
6. Fiesta Bowl 2003 Ohio State-Miami 17.2 *
6. Fiesta Bowl 1999 Florida State-Tennessee 17.2 *
8. Championship 2010 Texas-Alabama 17.1 *
9. Championship 2009 Florida-Oklahoma 15.8 *
10. Sugar Bowl 2004 LSU-Oklahoma 14.5 *
11. Rose Bowl 2004 Michigan-USC 14.4
12. Rose Bowl 2000 Wisconsin-Stanford 14.1
13. Rose Bowl 2001 Washington-Purdue 14.0
14. Rose Bowl 2007 USC-Michigan 13.94
15. Rose Bowl 2002 Miami-Nebraska 13.9 *
16. Orange Bowl 2005 USC-Oklahoma 13.7 *
17. Rose Bowl 1999 Wisconsin-UCLA 13.3
18. Rose Bowl 2010 Ohio State-Oregon 13.18
19. Sugar Bowl 2001 Miami-Florida 12.9
19. Fiesta Bowl 2006 Ohio State-Notre Dame 12.9
21. Rose Bowl 2005 Texas-Michigan 12.4
22. Orange Bowl 2006 Penn State-Florida State 12.3
23. Rose Bowl 2009 USC-Penn State 11.7
24. Sugar Bowl 1999 Ohio State-Texas A&M 11.5
25. Fiesta Bowl 2002 Oregon-Colorado 11.3
25. Orange Bowl 2000 Michigan-Alabama 11.3
25. Rose Bowl 2003 Oklahoma-WSU 11.3
28. Rose Bowl 2008 USC-Illinois 11.1
29. Fiesta Bowl 2001 Oregon State-Notre Dame 10.7
30. Fiesta Bowl 2009 Texas-Ohio State 10.4
31. Orange Bowl 2003 USC-Iowa 9.7
31. Orange Bowl 2004 Miami-Florida State 9.7
LikeLike
I definitely don’t want superconferences or Florida State in the Big Ten (if we are going to expand again, I’d actually prefer smaller schools as I don’t want to make Big Ten championships harder again (we’ve already reduced them a lot with a CCG and 12 teams)).
With that said, I think Florida State and Georgia Tech to the Big Ten allows for the easiest of pod systems as you could have 2 pods with 2 kings (Ohio State and Michigan in one, Penn State and Florida State in the other) always be in separate divisions. I’d see it looking like this:
Pod A: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers (east coast exposure in New York)
Pod B: Penn State, Florida State, Maryland, Georgia Tech
Pod C: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pod D: Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern
Pods A and B would always be in separate divisions, but there would be no locked crossovers and they’d always play each other as their crossover divisional games (same with C and D). With 9 conference games, you play everyone outside of your pod exactly 1/2 the time (either 2 years on and 2 years off or 1 year on and 1 year off, probably the former).
The biggest issue with the set-up would be whichever division had pod C would definitely be the tougher one. That said, I think the scheduling advantages would be such that they’d go for it anyway.
LikeLike
@Eric- Your set up makes the most sense out of any I’ve seen on this board. Co-sign.
LikeLike
You bring up a good point. More teams, fewer championships.
LikeLike
This is almost ideal, imo. Spitballing here….to try to alleviate some of the SOS discrepancies, maybe Indiana and Purdue could switch with Wisconsin and Minnesota? You’d end up with:
Pod A: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers
Pod B: Penn State, Florida State, Maryland, Georgia Tech
Pod C: Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue
Pod D: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern
LikeLike
It works better for competitive balance, but hurt rivalries. Purdue-Illinois want to play each other and I’d be hesitant about separating the western teams so much and breaking up their rivalries (or potential rivalries too). That said, I could see that arrangement happening too.
LikeLike
I really think competitive imbalance (i.e., the weakness of Pod C) is the reason this wouldn’t be done.
LikeLike
You are correct.
The pods will each have 1 king if we do go to pods. There’s no way around that.
LikeLike
Pods with 1 king each means we need locked crossovers though and creating a schedule where everyone plays everyone else often gets difficult. I hope they’d avoid that, especially since ohiomarc’s suggestion essentially gives them that as well and would still leave more flexibility than 1 king in each division (since there are no locked crossover, mine would preserve more rivalries than his, but at the expense of competitive balance).
LikeLike
Everyone is worrying too much about pod strength. That sort of thing waxes and wanes. You could set up the perfect pods on strength today and 5 years from now they’ll be out of whack. Stay with Eric’s original setup, which makes the most sense geographically and rivalry-wise and run with it. Relative pod strength will not remain constant over time.
LikeLike
Uhhh…Pod D looks a little easy. Can’t imagine the rest of the schools would be happy about that.
LikeLike
I’ll throw my first glance suggestion in…
Pod A: Michigan, Michigan State, Iowa, Purdue
Pod B: Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers
Pod C: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Indiana, Illinois
Pod D: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Northwestern, Minnesota
LikeLike
They’re not going to throw away the OSU-PSU game, which has been far and away the second most important game to the league.
Also, as a Penn State fan, I have no interest in being in the southeast bracket. Penn State will be kept with Rutgers.
LikeLike
My fear is you are right about Ohio State-Penn State. For 14 teams alignments though (and despite the talk of 16 teams, I think we’ll be here for awhile), keeping Ohio State-Penn State almost mandates a set-up with locked crossovers. I’m hoping the conference can get away from those but the only realistic set-up I can see to accomplish that involves the 3 eastern teams being paired with the 4 western most teams (which would separate Ohio State and Penn State).
As for not wanting to be in a bracket with all ACC teams, I can sympathize and see your point. I equally hate every alignment that has Ohio State in an eastern pod. I at least want most our locked games to be against Midwestern teams we’ve been playing forever.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I definitely don’t want superconferences”
Too late for that, unfortunately.
“or Florida State in the Big Ten (if we are going to expand again, I’d actually prefer smaller schools as I don’t want to make Big Ten championships harder again (we’ve already reduced them a lot with a CCG and 12 teams)).”
I don’t think RU and MD will have a major impact on B10 titles. Adding NE did, but more by eliminating co-champs than NE winning a ton of titles.
“With that said, I think Florida State and Georgia Tech to the Big Ten allows for the easiest of pod systems as you could have 2 pods with 2 kings (Ohio State and Michigan in one, Penn State and Florida State in the other) always be in separate divisions. I’d see it looking like this:
Pod A: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers (east coast exposure in New York)
Pod B: Penn State, Florida State, Maryland, Georgia Tech
Pod C: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pod D: Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Northwestern
Pods A and B would always be in separate divisions, but there would be no locked crossovers and they’d always play each other as their crossover divisional games (same with C and D).”
I understand the desire for a system like this, but you just can’t do it. A > C > B >>>> D. Half the time you’d have this:
A+C = 1 – OSU, MI, NE, MSU, WI, IA, RU, MN
B+D = 2 – PSU, FSU, GT, MD, NW, PU, IL, IN
The 6th best team in division 1 is similar to #3 in division 2. Two crossover games wont fix that.
The other half of the time you have this:
A+D = 1 – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, PU, RU, IL, IN
B+C = 2 – NE, PSU, FSU, WI, IA, GT, MD, MN
Now, the 6th best team in division 2 is like the 4th best in division 1. Two crossover games won’t fix that, either. Pod C teams always get screwed and the Pod D teams always have it easy. Pod A has it worse than Pod B, too.
“With 9 conference games, you play everyone outside of your pod exactly 1/2 the time (either 2 years on and 2 years off or 1 year on and 1 year off, probably the former).”
That’s the beauty of the system, but you need to balance it better.
This is more balanced but loses some rivalries:
A – OSU, MI, MSU, MD
B – NE, WI, IA, MN
C – PSU, RU, NW, IL
D – FSU, GT, PU, IN
A is tougher than B, but C and D are similar.
“The biggest issue with the set-up would be whichever division had pod C would definitely be the tougher one. That said, I think the scheduling advantages would be such that they’d go for it anyway.”
I don’t. The differences are too large. It’s cleaner without locked rivals, but I don’t see the B10 relinquishing locked rivals. There are just too many games they want/need to keep.
LikeLike
There was a time when Pod B under Eric’s scenario would have been far and away the strongest pod. Go back 15 years ago when FSU was perennially top 5 and Penn State was still in their heyday. Even Georgia Tech won a share of a national title in the early 90’s. None of those other pods would have come close. Today it’s completely different, though Penn State was stronger this year than I thought they’d be. Tides will shift again and pod strength will wax and wane as well. There is no perfect pod alignment that keeps all schedule strengths equal every year.
LikeLike
It’s not just competitive balance, it’s also brand and media coverage balance. You have no idea how much complaining would happen when all the footprint media focus on an OSU/MI division and ignore everyone else. It already happens with them separate, and I see plenty of complaints from MSU and WI fans, and even from NE and PSU fans a little bit.
LikeLike
You can’t have Pod D be that weak. Move Wisconsin there and move Illinois to Pod C.
LikeLike
At first, I though this was a rediculous idea, but the more times I read it, it makes some sense. I understand you’re trying to protect geography, which I agree with (as a Nebraska fan that loves to travel well to road games), but Pod D is weak! Other than that, it’s a good idea. (Although I argue that Nebraska is also a “king”, with more championships than 1970 than any other school…)
LikeLike
If you put FSU in an Eastern pod with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland and make Georgia Tech (or Miami) its permanent cross over, then FSU’s 8-game football schedule consists of those 4 teams each year, plus at least one of Michigan, OSU or Nebraska, plus 3 other teams that FSU won’t care about.
It’s not the SEC, but I think that is a more attractive conference schedule for FSU than what they currently get in the ACC and certainly better than what they would get in the Big 12.
LikeLike
If FSU wants to leave and it comes down to a choice between B1G and B12, B1G will win.
The only advantage the B12 would have is if Bowlsby said to FSU, bring 5 of your friends and we’ll put you in your own 8 team division with WVU and Iowa St.
That could reduce travel and create a sense of geographical fit for FSU. They could even bring USF and/or UCF if they really wanted. (I doubt they would want to)
Fox should really work on a B12 network. They already have deals with most schools other than Texas and if they could get it on in Florida too that could make everyone some money.
LikeLike
They’d need to hear that from Dodds.
LikeLike
Haha I guess I misspelled Dodds B-o-w-l-s-b-y.
LikeLike
Great piece.
I am convinced that fsu and gt together are very doable. They will clearly be different in some cultural ways, but maybe that’s a good thing. Rutgers and MD will be too.
LikeLike
Another analysis of B1G v. SEC assistant spending.
http://bigten.xofan.com/Iowa/b1g-money-small-spenders/
LikeLike
What if anything could it take for UF to leave the SEC to join the B1G?
– would the CIC play a roll?
– if GT and FSU were also in, would that be enough local schools for travel purposes?
– if GT, FSU, and Miami joined, would that be enough? or too many florida schools.
This has probably already been posted some time in the last 3 years:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/04/invisible-borders-define-american-culture/1839/
I found the clear division between Florida and the “deep south” very striking.
I found equally striking the division between Virginia and North Carolina.
For me,
a safe 16 is: Missouri and VT (VT has higher enrollment than UVA, and UVA won’t join the SEC)
a stretch 16 is: GT and FSU (not enough critical mass in FL)
a homerun 18 is: VT, GT. FSU, and UF; or GT, FSU, UF, and Miami.
LikeLike
The SEC is the same as the Big Ten in the respect that no one’s leaving.
UF isn’t going to go anywhere.
LikeLike
There’s not a snowball’s chance in hades for UF to leave the SEC.
LikeLike
Rule #1a: No one is leaving the BigTen.
Rule #1b: No one is leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Yep…those are the most solid rules in this whole realignment game.
LikeLike
Yeah because at least half of the schools in both the SEC and Big Ten suck and no other conference would want them.
LikeLike
And the ones that other conferences would want have no reason to move from where they are, where a sufficiently strong season in their conference brings them into the national title hunt.
LikeLike
No one is leaving the Pac 12 either. Where would they go?
LikeLike
Actually, a home run 18 (assuming no UF): FSU, Miami, Vech, & UVa. GTech doesn’t add anything and UVa along with VTech locks up VA.
LikeLike
No chance Missouri is considered based on FSU and GT coming along. The B1G would need to keep adding mid-atlantic schools such as UNC and UVA. Much better academic institutions in much more fertile recruiting territory.
LikeLike
For expansion 16 and 20 are the only numbers that make sense, they can be broken into 4 pods. If 16 is the goal FSU/GT makes more sense than Va/NC. If 20 is the goal those 4 plus Duke and either Miami or ND.
Not really a fan of 20.
LikeLike
??? 18 with 6 pods of 3 actually works perfectly fine. Granted, it would be harder to understand, but that would be true of 4 pods for the casual fan as well.
LikeLike
OK, I laughed.
LikeLike
Andy, are you laughing at Missouri’s #46 team recruiting class ranking on rivals for the 2013 cass? That is a great sign that you all will be able to keep up in the SEC.
LikeLike
We’re about to hire one of the highest regarded and will be highest paid offensive coordinators in the SEC as well as at least one more assistant. The recruiting class is in flux right now but should improve dramatically soon. Rankings don’t mean anything until signing day.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Preach it, brother! I’ve been on the FSU & GT bandwagon for a while now, so I’d love it if this ever came to fruition. So, will it? Unfortunately I’d doubt it. Maybe it’s the cynic in me, but I just have the feeling the B1G either stays put at 14 or decides to go to 16 by adding Virginia and GT or some other yawner combination that’ll further water down the conference’s football product.
LikeLike
One glaring omission Frank: What impact will this have on our Chief?
LikeLike
None. The Chief is dead.
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21292915/big-east-deal-could-be-worth-as-little-as-60-million-per-year
“t is no secret that the league’s existence might hinge on that value of that TV deal. It is known that Houston has a provision in its pending deal with the Big East that it can get out of its agreement without penalty if certain revenue projections aren’t achieved. Each incoming Big East member has negotiated its own deal regarding conference withdrawl, sources told CBSSports.com
For example, Boise State can reduce its buyout to leave the Big East if there is a drop of 25 percent in current aggregate total revenue. Also, Boise State can have that fee reduced if less than 70 percent of the new TV contract goes to football. Houston, San Diego State, Boise State and SMU, among others, enter the Big East on July 1. Commissioner Mike Aresco said TV negotiations are ongoing and put no date on their completion.”
@bullet
There’s some food for thought in there. They need to hit some pretty strong benchmarks to keep Boise State and Houston (and possibly SDSU and others) happy.
If it has to be 70% for football, that means only 30% for basketball.
If it comes in at the low end, you’re talking about around $20 million for all basketball schools.
Are the basketball schools really going to be okay with that? Basically getting $1 million or a little more each; I guess it’s better than they would do otherwise, but maybe Frank’s idea of a basketball superleague could get more…
As for Boise State, Houston, and SDSU, is $3 million for football enough (I guess Houston would get $4 million for both)?
LikeLike
It would be interesting to see what kind of deals Navy, SMU, Memphis, and ECU put in place also.
LikeLike
But what conference do Houston, SMU, Memphis, UCF, and ECU have to go back to
if they want to get out of the BigEast?
LikeLike
Houston and SMU could end up in a 16 team MWC with SDSU and Boise. Memphis will be happy playing Big East basketball. I’m not sure UCF and ECU would want to back out. It’s mostly the western teams that have rumors being whispered.
LikeLike
@loki – A 16 team western mid-major conferece. Where have I seen that before?
LikeLike
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
LikeLike
ECU and UCF would stay committed to the Greater Conference USA, aka Little Big East (since the alternative is the Lesser Conference USA) unless the Former Big East, aka ACC, comes calling.
LikeLike
Its been widely written that Boise got a get out of the BE free card (WVU wishes they had that) if it is less than 70/30. I think the bb schools are already getting around $1.5 million. I’m sure they wouldn’t be happy with a cut.
LikeLike
They might have to take a cut.
They lost Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, and WVU. That’s an awful lot of marquee basketball to be losing.
They’ve kept UConn and are adding Memphis, but I’m not sure that’s enough with the basketball schools to get much more than $1.5 million for that basketball product.
LikeLike
They’ve still got Marquette, UConn, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John’s. Memphis and Temple are more than a replacement for Pitt and WVU. SU and UL are the difficult replacements. And they’ve expanded their market. That matters when you have something worth marketing.
LikeLike
And what would GT,VU,SJ,Seton Hall, Providence, Marquette, DePaul be worth combined with Butler, Dayton, Xavier, St. Louis + 1 other school (Richmond, Boston U., Detroit)? That’s the other question. Will the bb schools continue in the hybrid if they have to play more UCFs and it lowers their revenue.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s intriguing.
It could blow up everything if they could do their own thing and get more per school…
LikeLike
Memphis and Temple >Pitt and WVU? Please tell me that you were joking.
LikeLike
The CUSA schools are delighted to be in the BE. The MWC schools had to sacrifice their bb programs on the alter.
LikeLike
I wonder if any B1G Bigs read this blog?
LikeLike
MWC presidents are meeting this weekend. Realignment is one of the topics to be discussed.
http://blogs.rgj.com/packblog/2012/12/05/unr-president-marc-johnson-discusses-wolf-packs-place-in-conference-realignment/
LikeLike
“It is believed the 10-team Mountain West Conference is considering the addition of two schools, and it’s believed TU is viewed as an attractive commodity. A source close to the situation indicated the Mountain West also is examining the viability of UTEP and Rice, but that only one of those schools would be invited if expansion occurs. ”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/TU/article.aspx?subjectid=94&articleid=20121205_29_B1_CUTLIN788994&allcom=1
LikeLike
If MWC is looking at same things as Big East, you’d have to think they’d want Rice similar to Big East going after Tulane.
LikeLike
You mean, looking at the size of the media market containing the school as opposed to prospective small market share within that media market? Yeah, that would tilt to Rice.
LikeLike
MCW add 2 schools? BSU and SDSU maybe?
LikeLike
I am a big fan of the concept here. I do think that the FSU and Miami model would be better than the FSU and GT model. I think Frank is right on with his assessment that GT does not have the muscle to establish the B1G in Atlanta. I could actually see GT destabilizing as a sports program and suffering from the decision. SEC and ACC loyalty in Georgia maybe too strong for the little brother Georgia team to survive a B1G transfer. (about the equivilent of the BiG 12 taking NW to get the state of Illinois, when the Illini are the dominant program)
On the contrary, what about FSU and UNC? If the Tarheels could be pried away from the ACC I would argue that this would do the most for the B1G. UNC would carry North Carolina with it and carry significant mid-Atlantic weight. FSU would bring Florida with it. At that point the B1G becomes a true player in both regions.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is more likely to be rolled into this as a way of selling the academics about this kind of expansion.
I highly doubt that they would sign off on FSU-Miami.
FSU-Georgia Tech though would be an intriguing duo to both the CIC side of things as well as the football side of things. The academics matter to this discussion.
LikeLike
Miami has the same academics as ND. You really should get FSU&Miami to solidify FL. Adding GTech is little better than adding Tulane (which is about as close to the FL panhandle as Atlanta is).
LikeLike
What about NCAA probations and arresr records? Miami’s WAY ahead there……..what a great addition they’d be………….
LikeLike
Well if the big ten disassociates with NCAA, then you don’t really need to worry about NCAA sanctions.
LikeLike
Consensus has been reached on the ESPN forum. Fans of the B12/ACC and SEC all want us to stop talking about taking FSU and go back to talking about taking the two schools no one else is interested in. GT/UVA.
LikeLike
I don’t know why any realignment knowledgeable SEC would care if you took FSU. It would take extenuating circumstances for FSU to be considered by the SEC. From Slive and the SEC presidents viewpoint, I think they would love for the B1G to take FSU & GT. That move would help loosen some combination of UNC, UVA, and/or VT for the SEC to sweep in and grab.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten goes to 16 with FSU/Georgia Tech, they’re probably going to consider 20 if UNC and UVa come back to the table.
Who knows where this stops if the Big Ten actually does pull the trigger on FSU…; we’ll have to look at 18 and 20 immediately.
It could be a free-for-all.
The SEC could offer to take 4+ schools from the ACC as well…
LikeLike
I don’t see a 20 team conference ever being realistic in college football. I’m guessing that 16 teams has always been Delany’s goal from the onset of his expansion talks (I sure don’t think that the new B1G logo was a coincidence). I think Richard got the 18-20 team B1G talk going on this board and it has gone from there. I could be wrong, but I wouldn’t bet on anything past a 16 team conference.
LikeLike
Agreed. At some point you have to put the breaks on expansion. 16, imo, stretches the meaning of a conference to the very edge. At 20 it’s just two conferences that hooked up, especially if we’re yanking a majority of schools from the ACC to get there.
LikeLike
But, my point is simply that there are schools that you don’t say no to; regardless of the number that you’re at…
If you’re at 16, and then Notre Dame comes calling, do you think the Big Ten says no?
LikeLike
@zeek – Maybe if ND came up and begged and pleaded to get in, Delany may have to listen…I guess. But even in that scenario, I just don’t see him going past 16 (I think Delany has come to terms with the fact that ND is no longer an option for the B1G). But I definitely don’t see Delany and the B1G presidents going past 16 for anyone else, including UNC. Anything past 16 just causes way too many issues and as MikeP stated, it becomes more of a governing body than a true conference. It might sound good discussing it on this blog, but in reality it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense IMO.
LikeLike
I agree Bamatab, 16 is pushing the limits. Anything above that just seems ridiculous to me. At that point, let’s say it’s the B1G, what would you do? Have 9 of the original 10 B1G teams together and the other 9 on the other side, never to play each other? That’s basically the NFL.
LikeLike
Actually, besides being harder to understand the pods, 18 isn’t so different from 16 as pretty much all the major rivalries for the B10 could be kept at 18 with 6 pods of 3 as well as with 16 with 4 pods of 4.
LikeLike
@Zeek, this is a very important point. If you take FSU and GT/Miami, I think you have to have a plan in place for the impending free-for-all. In other words, where is the end game? Notre Dame and North Carolina are likely kings, free to join whenever they want, but what about the Virginia schools or Duke?
As you approach 20+, I think you have to start treating this less as a conference and more as a governing body. That would be a very interesting transition and raises a new slew of issues.
LikeLike
I don’t think you ignore a king if he comes to your door. There are no more than 12 out there. Just because FSU adds more value to the Big 12 or Big 10, doesn’t mean they don’t add value to the SEC. Now maybe the SEC doesn’t want another king. It makes it that much harder for LSU, Auburn, UGA and Tennessee to stay at the top and for S. Carolina and Arkansas to succeed. If the SEC isn’t interested in FSU, that is the primary reason, not a gentlemen’s agreement and not the value of Virginia in a cable network vs. FSU. Those other two would contribute, but wouldn’t be why. And FSU may not want to go to the SEC, although its the only conference that really fits them.
LikeLike
Come on now. I think it is pretty obvious that if the SEC really wanted FSU, they would’ve been here in the place of Mizzou. The whole reason that FSU wants out of the ACC is because it knows it can’t compete with its neighboring SEC schools over the long haul. FSU would jump to the sec before the invite could leave Slive’s lips.
LikeLike
You didn’t hear the FSU president commenting on how much he was glad he was in the ACC and wasn’t in that mess (referring to the SEC and all the Cam Newton stuff-this was before UNC and Miami, of course)? Not everyone wants to be in the SEC. The reason Missouri is in the SEC is that UNC, UVA, VT and FSU laughed at Slive when he told them he had 15 minutes to get more teams. He didn’t even try to call OU or Texas. Missouri was the best they could do.
Do you think they really wanted 2 western teams so that Missouri had to be in the east? FSU absolutely did not want in the SEC last year. Now? Who knows?
LikeLike
bullet – The reason the ACC is even unstable right now is because FSU knows it can’t compete with their SEC neighbors long term with the current ACC revenue. It is no coincidence that the very summer follow the SEC expansion, that some of those in power at FSU were seriously considering if going to the Big 12 was a better move than staying in the ACC. It became evident when the SEC took two schools from new tv markets, what the SEC had in mind in regards to new tv revenue. If the SEC had shown FSU their projected earnings, you can bet that FSU would’ve jumped (just look at their motives right now for proof). And just because the FSU president made some off handed remark about the Cam ordeal, that doesn’t mean that when push comes to shove, that they’d risk their long term livelyhood based on that remark.
LikeLike
The SEC has pretty much made the determination that they have enough football prowess.
They want markets. They want places to send Florida, Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M, South Carolina to in order to unlock value and build more markets into their sphere of influence.
The SEC passing on FSU is similar to the Big Ten passing on Missouri.
It’s not a slight; it’s just not a need.
Just as the SEC picked up Missouri for its own needs, the Big Ten could do the same in going after FSU (or the Big 12, whoever).
LikeLike
That comment made zero sense. Missouri offers the SEC and the B1G basically the exact same thing. An AAU school with above average athletics and two largish markets.
Yeah the B1G is sort of in St. Louis if that’s what you’re getting at, but Missouri’s ratings are 5 or 6 times higher than Illinois’s ratings in St. Louis (look at the numbers, it’s true).
Either league taking Missouri was about getting a solid all around pick that is neither weak nor especially strong in any major category.
Pretty good sized market
Decent AAU-level academics
Decent football
Decent basketball
Decent fan support
It made no difference who got it, SEC or B1G, either league was going to get the same thing out of it: a solid B+ addition and expanded markets for their conference network.
LikeLike
No Andy, what schools offer in different areas is different based on what those conference have.
If the Big Ten is focused on the East, then a school that’s a fit in many ways in the Midwest isn’t going to be a priority.
Likewise for the SEC, if they’re focused on markets, then a school that’s a king isn’t a priority if it’s in the fully delivered footprint.
LikeLike
These are all your opinions of course. Not facts.
And I’m 99% sure you’re wrong.
LikeLike
To be clear, of course now that they can’t get Missouri then Rutgers was apparently their next option. But that wasn’t what they were originally going for.
LikeLike
Zeek is right. The SEC had brands. They needed markets. B1G found a major brand and took it, but their issue was demographics and they got that with Rutgers and Maryland. Big 12, after losing Nebraska, needed brands and got two high profile programs in tiny or duplicate markets in WVU and TCU. SEC could have had WVU, but they already had Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Tennessee, South Carolina & Arkansas. They didn’t need another South Carolina or Arkansas, so they got Missouri in a big market. Missouri would have been more of what the B1G already had, just like WVU would have been more of what the SEC already had.
Its the same with FSU. FSU is more valuable to the B1G or Big 12 than to the SEC. Its a no brainer for the Big 12. Fit is an issue for the B1G. For the SEC, there are tradeoffs. I’d still take them in a second if I were making the SEC decisions and they were interested (and I was willing to go to 16, which they clearly are).
LikeLike
But the B1G doesn’t have Missouri. St. Louis is about 15% B1G. KC is even less than that.
Some of you are acting like the B1G wouldn’t gain markets by adding Missouri but that’s simply not true.
LikeLike
Andy:
“And I’m 99% sure you’re wrong.”
Except that the B10 has said that it wanted to get in to large growing population centers, which MD & NJ are. A state with the characteristics of IN or MN or WI isn’t attractive enough as it already has plenty of those.
LikeLike
“AAU level academics” – The AAU is a measure of research prowess more than it is actual teaching ability. That said, the best and the brightest end up in research-oriented institutions.
LikeLike
Andy still trying to sell the B1G on Missouri for some reason. Not sure why we have to keep discussing them as they won’t be invited to the B1G.
LikeLike
I think that FSU fits well with a SUB conference that includes GT, Miami, Penn State, Rutgers, UMD, OSU, and Michigan….what’s not a fit there? FSU & Miami have ALWAYS played these teams, and have a more substantial history with these teams than any SEC school ex UF.
LikeLike
Everyone needs to remember that, in order to stage a Conference Championship Game, you must play a “round robin” within your division, and so must the other division. Therefore, the maximum number of teams in a division is 8 unless the B1G goes to a 9 game schedule, which would be a requirement for an 18-team conference. 16 is the max until we actually see a conference east of the Rockies go to a 9 game schedule.
LikeLike
You my like to play with yourself, greg, but I don’t see how a team could do that.
Conferences with 18 teams, split in two division, and play 8 games within conference is a round robin. Ditto that with 20 teams/9 games.
LikeLike
I agree. I think Slive would be fine with FSU / GaTech to the B1G or B12. The end game for the SEC is UNC, plus one of UVa or VaTech.
LikeLike
Let’s be real here folks:
1) If the ACC was really trying to make a statement about its stability, they would be publicly discussing a grant of rights. Recall the Big 12 discussions, they started out at 6 years, and it was messy with some schools saying they wanted more and some saying they wanted less. Eventually it all got ironed out…
2) The fact that they chose a statement of commitment and have still not even publicly aired a discussion of a grant of rights is even more telling. That statement isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on…
LikeLike
Rittenberg at ESPN has a blog post up, concerning this very thing.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/73626/acc-solidarity-no-match-for-b1g-money
LikeLike
From the article…
But the Big Ten eventually will become a 16-team league, and odds are the additional schools will come from the ACC. If you want to speculate about the Big Ten’s next expansion targets, look at big markets with good recruits and lots of Big Ten alumni.
He never mentions the state of Florida in his post, but it fits his description.
LikeLike
In fairness, all of the ACC’s schools from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia now fit the description.
It’s just hard to figure out which direction the Big Ten is actually interested in…
LikeLike
I agree. That sounded like a Florida dog whistle. Rittenberg is from Chicago and, like Greenstein has great B1G sources. Not that they would spill the beans to him, but maybe
he’s picked up something. Of course, it may be none of the above.
LikeLike
When I refer to Florida, I’m referring to the state, not UofF, which isn’t going anywhere.
LikeLike
As I posted above, Slive said there would be an announcement on the SEC network in January. If it is as lucrative as many are predicting that could be a major factor in all of this as well.
If the B1G and SEC are both offering in the $40M range, ACC schools making $15M are going to feel the pinch.
LikeLike
Minor nitpick, but Slive said it could be announced as early as next month.
LikeLike
okay, sure, but why would he say anything unless it’s imminent?
LikeLike
To stir the pot…?
LikeLike
Yeah, Slive has given “as early as” statements before.
If it was imminent he would just say that it would be announced next month.
LikeLike
Why does he want to stir the pot?
What’s your point exactly?
Do you think there won’t be an SEC network announcement relatively soon?
What reasoning do you have behind this thought?
LikeLike
Maybe you’re projecting. I see a lot of half assed stir the pot-kind of posts on this forum. Maybe you’re percieving Slive to operate as you do.
LikeLike
Sheesh. Have memory issues? Or persecution complex? I’ve stated often there will be an SEC network and it will be extremely successful. Conference networks are far more important than individual tier 3 rights. They significantly increase the attractiveness of said conferences.
Perhaps Slive was just reminding those who may have wandering eyes that the SEC is in the game. Don’t move prematurely.
Or perhaps it’s a warning that moves are coming, find your shelter sooner rather than later.
Either way it was an unnecessary statement, suggesting a possible future statement. Judge Slive had a purpose for making it.
LikeLike
I suppose. But I don’t see any reason to doubt that he believed what he said. I find it odd that he’s being questioned as if he’s being dishonest. Really doesn’t make sense to me. That is all.
LikeLike
No one said he was being dishonest. He was telling the truth. He might be able to announce network next month, but he might not.
LikeLike
Andy, since you already mentioned it why did you need to mention it again?
LikeLike
Why are we so sure that the GOR is ironclad? When you boil it down, isn’t it a just a contract that can be negotiated?
LikeLike
LetsGoPitt,
Of course it can be negotiated. But the starting value is something like $250M. That’s a little different than MD fighting their $50M exit.fee which only recently rose and is unlikely to stand at full value. The GOR value was established on the open market.
LikeLike
HOw is the gor at 250 mil. As a school in the division wouldn’t it be the yearly payout (20 mil) times the years remaining (10 or 12 I think)? And if the Big 12 doesn’t have 100% revune sharing, doesn’t that mean a school might make 18 mil/year and thus have a lower buyout? Im asking not trying to be snarky here.
LikeLike
12 * 20 = 240
Isn’t 240 something like 250, which is what I said?
LikeLike
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it would be difficult for a court not to grant the school that signed a GOR a share of the TV revenues in from the old conference if they moved. They weren’t intended as gifts.
If Kansas went to the Big Ten, the Big 12 could still air their home games, but I think they’ll have to give Kansas that an equal share of TV revenue.
LikeLike
The GOR the Big XII signed specifically stated if a school left they would leave their share of the conference distributions with the Big XII (conference distributions were classified as a media right that was assigned to the conference)
LikeLike
We have seen that media analysts have said the exit fee MD is fighting may be unenforceable As it could be construed as punitive. How is being made to leave media rights and distribution not the same? Only difference between GOR and an exit fee is that a GOR hasn’t been challenged in court yet.
LikeLike
I’m not a lawyer but I reckon that you aren’t either.
The analogy I would make is that an exit fee is like a clause in your lease agreement that you have to pay $1M if you break the lease;your landlord would lose economically if you do, so you would have to pay something, but $1M would be punitive.
A GOR would be like you giving your landlord (or girlfriend) a Ferrari. You’d have a much harder time getting it back as you willingly gave it away.
LikeLike
A GOR is a business arrangement, not a gift that you give without expectation of anything in return.
Schools pool their rights in exchange for an equal share of the sale of that pool of rights. As long as schools continue to contribute to that pool they shouldn’t be prevented from receiving their share, regardless of the conference they are a member of.
LikeLike
Easy to sort out guys:
Delaney and Slive sit down. Both agree that 16 is the final stopping point. B1G adds UF and GaTech. SEC adds FSU, UNC and VaTech/UVa.
B1G gets UF, a huge football prize and great instiutional fit, and a another school with great insitutional fit and a travel partner for UF. B1G gets a big share of the Florida market, and a small share of Ga. Effectively the B1G is adding two schools with great fit to get a big piece of the Florida market.
SEC gets new territory of UNC and VA, which is really their only outlet to expand, and gets them all. They have to give up a bit of Florida, but they were going to have to do that anyway if it is assumed that B1G was serious about FSU. Don’t think they are threatened by B1G getting GaTech. Effectively they give up the #1 in Florida, get a close #2, and two new states that would have been potentially split with B1G.
I think this is win/win for all.
LikeLike
UF is like the 3rd most valuable school in the country; probably behind only Texas and Ohio State. Absolutely no way do they do that.
LikeLike
Nobody’s going to leave the Big Ten or SEC; probably ever…
LikeLike
Never mind the fact that these are actual schools with faculty, students, alumni, and a whole slew of individual and institutional interests. UF would have zero interest (aside from the faculty maybe) in the BigTen, and it doesn’t matter what Slive and Delany might want.
What’s being proposed sounds like fantasy football.
I repeat:
Rule 1a: No one is leaving the BigTen.
Rule 1b: No one is leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree.
Once a school becomes entrenched in a situation like the Big Ten or SEC; it’s not going to be possible to detach.
Think about a school trying to leave the CIC; the faculty would stage 24/7 protests.
There’s also the alumni and fans and such; entrenchment is impossible to overcome.
LikeLike
If UF tried to leave the SEC for the BigTen, their fans might actually murder the president. 😛
LikeLike
I still think Missouri would bolt.
LikeLike
Not until after they expand to 20.
LikeLike
Noone’s leaving the SEC or B1G until they expand to 20. Then its inevitable.
LikeLike
bullet, I really think you overstate the travel/regionality considerations in the long-run. For Texas, yes that’s a primary consideration, but the East Coast schools have been travelling to Miami and to Boston for a decade now.
As these schools integrate into the CIC and other functions, they’re going to find it almost impossible to leave.
And yes that includes a Big Ten at 20 teams. There’s no point in splitting up when the aggregate is so much more powerful as a collective.
That’s especially true on the research side; who’s going to up and walk away from a collective that can claim $12-13 billion in research expenditures.
This isn’t the WAC. This is like the NFL of research, and these schools are deepening their collaborations.
LikeLike
No one outside of Mizzou would ever leave the SEC for any reason what so ever outside of the SEC burning to the ground due to mass sanctions over half of the members like the SWC. The SEC is part of the south’s (and its people’s) identity to a point far beyond any other conference in regards to culture. Even Vandy would never leave the SEC.
Plus, until proven otherwise, a 20 team conference is a pipe dream. But even if it was an option, no SEC schools outside of Mizzou would ever leave the SEC…ever.
LikeLike
The larger you get the more different you get. In the SEC Georgia and Florida weren’t very different from Ole Miss 30-40 years ago. The states and schools are very different now. Its regionality and rivalries that soften those differences. And it also slows change over what all of this is about. $$$$$. If you get big enough, some schools are going to do exactly what the MWC schools did in 1998, what the SWC 4 did in 1995, what the Pac schools did in 1959, what the ACC schools did in 1953, what the Big 8 (then 6) schools did in 1928 and yes, what the SEC schools did in 1933. The most valuable schools will decide it doesn’t make sense to subsidize the Mississippi States anymore and will take off and create a new, smaller, more profitable conference.
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Its all happened before and it will all happen again. Anything over 12 is unstable and going to 20 is a mortal wound. The only question is how long it takes.
LikeLike
bullet, the problem with your assumptions is that the money is different.
If all else was equal, sure, you’d be right.
But money is glue, and the money we’re talking about $50 million+ per team, is too big and too much of a game changer.
LikeLike
bullet – Oh I agree that going to to 20 is a huge risk to the conference long term. I don’t ever see the SEC going past 16 teams. But as it stand right now and for the foreseeable future, they are not to the point where their identity is something that is not apart from the SEC. The people of those states (with maybe the exceptions of maybe Atlanta and the southern part of Florida, but not really even to that point yet) still consider themselves as southern in culture and tradition.
If 16 teams does end up failing over the long haul and the SEC does split up, UGA & UF will still be aligned with Tennessee, Bama, USCe, and probably Auburn. Maybe the western half of the conference splits from the Mississippi schools and out. But those other schools won’t separate anytime soon.
LikeLike
@bullet
The difference is in those cases not everyone was paying for itself.
In the Big Ten (for instance) everyone except Northwestern brings more to the league that they take. With the success of the Big Ten Network it is now easier for future schools to do the same (think Maryland and Rutgers).
As long as new additions continue to bring more money to the table, further expansion doesn’t guarantee that current conferences will go the way of the Southern Conference.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I guess that 10 is to big. That was the predecessor to the PAC’s size was when it dissolved (over the pay for play scandles that the Kings were involved in, not the Kings “subsidizing” anything). As long as you see the lessers as being subsidized, rather than as enablers of even greater prosperity, there cannot be harmony within a conference of any size (excepting a one member conference). It only breeds conflict and distrust.
LikeLike
drwillini – As zeek & manifestodeluxe stated below, UF isn’t leaving the SEC for under any circumstance. Being apart of the SEC is a whole different ordeal for fans in the south (as I’m sure is the case to some extent in the B1G). It’s become the very identity of the fans of the SEC schools. The UF alumni and fans would burn that place to the ground if that ever happened.
Plus, Slive and Delany aren’t sitting in some room dividing up the ACC together. It may turn out that the SEC gets the schools it wants, and the B1G gets the schools it wants. But it won’t be because they planned it out together.
LikeLike
“Slive and Delany aren’t sitting in some room dividing up the ACC together”
This sounds awesome. Completely unworkable for North Carolina, but I could see a gentleman’s agreement where Virginia joins the Big Ten and Virginia joins the SEC.
LikeLike
Did you ever hear of anti-trust? Delany and Slive aren’t going to sit down and divvy up the market between themselves, even imagining they had the authority to do so (which they don’t).
Besides that, Slive is not in a position of weakness. Why would the SEC voluntarily give up Florida? In your plan, what is he getting in return, that Delany has the power to give? Delany can’t force UNC/UVA to join the SEC.
LikeLike
I am going to assume that the idea of UF to the B1G was meant to say FSU. No way UF leaves the SEC.
LikeLike
There are some seirously odd thoughts on this forum sometimes, but UF to the B1G has to be up there among the craziest I’ve seen.
LikeLike
People are only looking at television deals. A university’s biggest money-makers are their alumni and their donations – that’s why Notre Dame can’t join the Big Ten; their coffers would dry up overnight.
LikeLike
Same with UNC I suspect.
LikeLike
Brian Murphy @murphsturph
Aresco on additional expansion: Western team is a priority for us. 14th team will be Western football-only member.
Any guesses as to who?
UNLV or Fresno State would be high on the list right? I’m assuming that they get a no out of BYU…
LikeLike
Air Force is number 2 behind BYU.
After that you could make a case for any of UNLV, Fresno, Nevada and San Jose St.
LikeLike
Football only rules out Rice. Maybe Tulsa? Doesn’t have to be Fresno.
LikeLike
My guess was just that they wanted a school that would make it easier on SDSU and Boise State for travel purposes and recruiting purposes.
Hence, something California based or something in Nevada.
LikeLike
re: The BigEast adding a western football only school
I wonder if a school like UTEP would help Houston and SMU attendance and interest,
and also help BSU and SDSU on the off chance they happen to stay.
LikeLike
My guess is a 2nd California school is priority #1, it gives SDSU a natural rival and ensures Boise State (as well as any future western ‘big fish’: BYU or Hawaii) a guarantee of 1 game in California every year.
I also like the potential of UTSA as the only college program in a large Texas city.
LikeLike
Here’s a chilling scenario for you. The Big Ten takes Florida State. Then Jim Delany goes to Notre Dame, and says:
“Look at the future. The Big 12 is eventually going to take Miami and Clemson, and they might not stop there. The SEC is eventually going to take NC State and Virginia Tech. It’s only a question of when. You’ll be left in an ACC that’s a shadow of the league you joined, something like a watered down Big East. You’ll be locked into playing 5 football games a year in a conference that has lost all of its good football schools. We’re going to 16 teams and stopping. This is your last chance.”
LikeLike
Honestly, if Florida State comes, I think it has to be with Georgia Tech (and I realize that I sound like a broken record).
The only way to get a non-AAU (with roughly similar credentials as Nebraska in terms of research) is to pair them with a sterling candidate like Georgia Tech.
If you take them as a combo unit, the vote is likely to pass. ND and FSU at one time? Not a chance.
LikeLike
ND responds to that “chilling scenario” by asking “Can we still get in the playoff? We can? Then have fun in your conference.”
I don’t know why all these people want to attempt to scare ND into a conference that they don’t want to be in.
LikeLike
Agreed, the Maryland/Rutgers additions show that the Big Ten has officially moved beyond thinking about a Notre Dame future.
LikeLike
@greg – I agree. Worst case scenario is that ND has to place non-football sports in a league that looks like the Big East football lineup from 2003. That’s good enough for them to maintain independence.
Frank
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike
Unless they consider it unacceptable from a scheduling perspective. Remember, Swarbrick himself stated that without the ACC deal ND absolutely could not put together an acceptable schedule.
LikeLike
As long as the ACC exists to give them games later in the year, it will be acceptable. Maybe they don’t get FSU/Miami/VT/GT and get stuck with games against Wake/NCSU/VA/BC. Its still better than getting stuck with Tulsa and Western Michigan late in the year.
LikeLike
Worst case, I think Notre Dame ends up with the Big East it committed fully to last September (just with the ACC name), shortly before abandoning it. At that pace, Notre Dame will join the Big 10 or Big 12 around August next year since its fully committing to the ACC in December this time.
LikeLike
What if the “ACC” that is left is something like USF, Wake Forest, ‘Cuse, BC, UConn, Cincinnati, Temple and some combination of UCF, Houston and SMU? You think ND is going to consider that acceptable?
LikeLike
My point is, Frank’s “worst case scenario” is not the worst case scenario.
LikeLike
It’s acceptable enough. Basically, I don’t think ND will be giving up football independence for at least a few more decades. Good for them. They don’t add new markets or growing population centers. We’ve already added a king that brings little/no new market in UNL. Been there, done that.
LikeLike
If something like that was acceptable they would have just stayed in the Big East…
LikeLike
Maybe, maybe not. The new ACC would still have all those small academically elite private schools that ND loves to play (which the new BE does not).
In any case, if the new ACC isn’t acceptable, ND may hold their noses and join the Big12 as a partial member (& the B12 has said they’d be happy to take them as such).
Of course, after their GOR runs out, the SEC and Pac will fight over the southern B12 schools, but that’s a decade or so down the line.
Notre Dame: the destroyer of conferences; wreaking havoc where ever she roams. . . .
LikeLike
If the ACC loses 8, the new ACC is probably BC, SU, Louisville, Pitt Wake Forest, Duke + new members UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, USF, UCF and Navy for football + probably Georgetown, Villanova and St. John’s. So that is fine for Notre Dame for at least another decade of independence. If they lose 10, Pitt and either Duke or UL is gone. That’s good enough for them.
The only part of that that might drive them into a conference would be the fear that everyone stops at 16 and they have noplace to go. After a 12-0 regular season, I think it takes at LEAST another decade before the fan base really accepts giving up independence.
LikeLike
@Richard
In any case, if the new ACC isn’t acceptable, ND may hold their noses and join the Big12 as a partial member (& the B12 has said they’d be happy to take them as such).
When has anyone outside of Texas (or Texas mouthpieces like Chip Brown) every said the Big XII would accept ND as a partial member?
LikeLike
Did anyone else read this in Emperor Palpatine’s voice from Return of the Jedi?
“Oh, I’m afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive…”
LikeLike
Marc, the trouble with your scenario is it would include ND + FSU to the B1G, VT and NCSU to the SEC, and Clemson and Miami to the Big XII.
That leaves the ACC with UNC, Duke, UVA, NCSU, GT, Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, Wake Forest, plus, say UCon and Cincinatti. How much do you think those 12 teams are worth per year? I’d say $10M per school, tops. Meanwhile the SEC and B1G are making $40M and the Big 12 is making 25.
So why would UNC, UVA, Duke etc ever stick around for that? They wouldn’t.
VT and NCSU are not going to go to the SEC unless the B1G takes UNC and UVA or Duke. Those schools will end up in either the SEC or the B1G. They won’t be left on the table.
LikeLike
I think the answer to this is simple. Can Notre Dame get a playoff spot every couple of years (say 1 out of 3) for the championship or will they be locked out of it. If Notre Dame thinks they can’t compete for titles as an independent (and after this year they aren’t going to believe that) than they might join.
LikeLike
To me, 20 is the absolute upper limit. I don’t think you would ever see a 22 team or 24 team conference; at that point it’s just too detached and too large. I think you can get away with 20 teams in 4 pods; anything more and you’re talking too disjoint. With 20 teams, you can still play every team in a 3 year span (with a guaranteed crossover game if you look at 10 game schedules).
16 is a barrier that could be crossed for the right schools. No one would say no to certain schools.
Think about the CIC; you don’t think they’d love to have 21 institutions pumping out $12-13 billion in research annually?
Right now 18 and 20 are a pipe dream, but once you’re at 16, they’re a reality.
LikeLike
CIC and Big 10 don’t have to be synonymous. See U of Chicago.
In any event, if you get too big, you are simply the AAU minus the ivies and MITs.
LikeLike
It’s just how it is bullet. For whatever reason, academics are tied to football in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
FWIW UIC was a guest member of the CIC for years before being booted when Nebraska
was admitted. There is precedence for non athletic members (even beyond U of C).
LikeLike
Well, that seems to show though that they’ve tightened the ranks to just Big Ten + Chicago. Doubt we see anyone other than Chicago invited.
The only other possibility that exists is Johns Hopkins joining for lacrosse (men’s/womens’) and then joining the CIC as well.
(That would be the coup of the century though).
LikeLike
Lacrosse just isn’t worth that much (tiny attendance) and JHU is a small school.
I think the only member worth adding to the CIC (and Big10 hockey league) would be NYU if they started to play top-level hockey. Potentially BU for hockey (they’re AAU now), though housing their non-hockey sports is a concern. Those 2 are the only 2 privates around B10 territory who are around the public flagships in the B10 in size.
LikeLike
Yeah, Richard, but I’m looking at JHU’s $2 billion in annual research…
LikeLike
There’s that, though I’m of the opinion that the B10 is ultimately a sports conference foremost. The CIC does some coordination, and “joining the club” confers benefits, but adding JHU to the CIC doesn’t mean too much if they bring nothing in athletics to the table (otherwise, UIC & it’s medical school would have been kept in).
LikeLike
Again, I haven’t seen anyone from the B1G presidents or Delany state that anything more than 16 was an option. Hollis specifically stated 16 had advantages over 14, and Delany from the beginning hinted that 16 was the goal (again, take a look at the B1G logo for a hint to the final goal).
Anything more than that causes too many issues with money distribution, finding enough bowl games to send its eligible members to, and the overall uncertainty that it would cast over the collegiate sporting world which could drawing the concern of the federal government.
Heck, it’s not even a certainty that a 16 team conference is viable over the long term. I think a 20 team conference becomes far too cumbersome and outstretched. Instead of having a conference of close nit schools, it would become a far flung group of long distance schools with little in common as far as culture and long term goals.
LikeLike
A flippant but a much more on target assessment of the current mess caused by our Big 10 leadership — http://mgoblog.com/content/unverified-voracity-starts-and-ends-canada. Pretty much on target.
LikeLike
You know they said the same things about PSU right?
LikeLike
That’s a good blog (along with Maize n’ Brew) but veers into cult territory in regards to Hoke, who, with exception to Mattison, is never going to be confused with Meyer, Saban or even Miles.
LikeLike
Brian Cook who runs MGoBlog was that the University of Michigan Alumni Club meeting last night. Cook participated in a two-hour Q&A session that included conference expansion. I was at that meeting.
One thing to keep in mind about Brian is that he’s strictly a fan and he brings that point of view to his comments about expansion. In his mind, it’s pretty simple–Maryland and Rutgers don’t have good football programs, therefore expanding to 14 teams is a bad idea. If it doesn’t create a positive buzz in his mind, then he just doesn’t care. Period.
He really doesn’t look at it from any other angle. I actually felt that his linking the article about how the athletic advisory committee wasn’t consulted about expansion was pretty flippant on his part. First off, these are business decisions that for a lot of good reasons, don’t get aired in public while negotiations are taking place. Secondly, these decisions are made by the university presidents who have absolutely do have the academic part of these moves in mind.
As far as the quality of football is concerned, if the conference goes to a nine-game schedule and Rutgers/Maryland replace one of the less than stellar opponents on the non-conference schedule, then it’s a better overall situation for the fans. It’s not the same as having a Big Ten/Pac 12 scheduling agreement, but when you eliminate a MAC level program from the OOC schedule and replace it with RU or MD, then that’s an upgrade IMHO.
LikeLike
I have respect for Brian Cook, but his Ohio State counterpart is probably Mr. Bucknuts. Like you say, Cutter, the angle they’re coming from is totally different from what school presidents (or even the majority here) are coming from. That’s why the analysis here seems, to varying degrees, to accept Maryland/Rutgers as a good-to-not-terrible thing while it was universally panned in the sports press.
LikeLike
Didn’t you realize that the minute we receive the extra funds from the BTN due to more expansion, our football prestige will skyrocket? Didn’t you know that since the BTN aired in fall, 2007, the image of Big Ten sports, especially football, has improved at a faster pace than the growth in revenues generated by the BTN? If we could only grow to B24, I bet we will have a winning record in the bowl season (we won’t this year because we are not big enough or have enough alumni or tv revenues — but someday soon, Bamatab, some day soon).
LikeLike
All that hate’s gonna burn you up kid.
LikeLike
it’s not even a certainty that a 16 team conference is viable over the long term.
Well it’s not even a certainty that 12 team conference is viable over the long term either. The oldest one has only been around for 20 years.
LikeLike
Yep, 20 is a hard limit, but 18 is a soft limit as well. Going from 16 to 18 only means pods that are harder to understand. Going from 18 to 20 means breaking actual rivalries (like OSU-PSU & the Little Brown Jug game).
LikeLike
It also means locking in a 9 game conference schedule and only playing the other half of your conference if you happen to reach the CCG. No crossover games. So yeah, 20 is not really viable and 18 I would consider to be the “hard limit.” 16 is more your soft limit. B1G won’t give up OSU vs Mich, OSU vs. PSU, Mich vs. Neb, or PSU vs. Neb to make any particular conference work. B1G won’t give up OSU vs Mich, OSU vs. PSU, Mich vs. Neb, or PSU vs. Neb to make any particular conference work. Any realistic conference alignment needs to guarantee to the TV execs that the King vs. King games will continue, hence the current crossover games.
Plus, as long as Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, and Nebraska can fill their stadiums with cupcakes, they have little incentive to give up those games for the good the of the conference. The conference would have to make a ridiculous amount of money off of the added inventory to justify it.
I can only see them going past 16 if 2 Kings come knocking on the door. Up until 16, there’s a chance for a Virginia, Georgia Tech, or Syracuse if a singular King presents itself.
LikeLike
You can play everyone in the conference every 3 years if you put the teams in 5-team pods and then rotate which pods play each other each year. This is kind of like the NFL. One year the winner of the pod a/c division plays the winner of the pod b/d division for the B1G championship, the next year the pods are rotated… I kind of like this better because it guarantees that the championship game has two teams that haven’t played each other.
LikeLike
Of those TV games you listed, Michigan-UNL has no tradition and PSU-UNL barely has any tradition. Those 2 would more than be made up for by annual UNL-Miami, UNL-VTech, PSU-VTech, FSU-VTech, and FSU-Miami games. That’s why it makes all sorts of football & revenue sense to expand by adding FSU, Miami, VTech, and UVa to go to 18 (using the 6 pods of 18 model that I detailed below).
LikeLike
6 pods of 3 model.
LikeLike
PSU++
LikeLike
Frank, good post. And if FSU really wants to move, the B1G is the only logical choice. Think BTN. Think BIG bucks for FSU and a terrific national schedule. Georgia Tech may simply be the “Maid in Waiting” traveling companion to give FSU a comfort zone. And all the posturing about moving to the Big 12 may have been just that, posturing, trying to get an invitation to a real league like the B1G or the SEC. The Big 12 has very little opportunity to have a Big 12 network (see LHN) and all the real money for all schools in the conference that provides. That fact alone will make a thinking man leary when the BTN is beckoning. And the BTN is a conference network and will treat all schools equally. Is not UNC a catch in FSU’s throat. Ask Nebraska, CU and A&M if Texas was a catch in their throat?
Next question may be which schools the SEC picks up. UNC? UVA? NCSU? VT? Only two could receive membership.
And if FSU and GT and say UNV and UVA go. Would there be any pickings left for the Big 12? Or would the remaining schools become basket ball, Big East brethren?
FSU to B1G. I can see that happening. Logical, like A&M to the SEC.
LikeLike
Would it not be really strange if FSU and GT do go B1G. UVA and UNC go SEC. Crazy. CRAZY thought, Larry Scott creates an Eastern POD for the PAC with Notre Dame, Clemson, Virginia Tech and North Carolina State. Relignment is my favorite topic and like wine makes my wife say crazy things, relignment has the same effect for me. Love it.
LikeLike
Chance slightly above zero, but to remain above zero I’d say two of UVA, Duke, UNC would be required to get traction with PAC presidents. An eastern, basketball centric pod to supplement AZ and UCLA and create interest in a P16N during basketball (and baseball) season.
LikeLike
Yeah, 3000+ mile plan rides to 75% of their conference away games sounds lovely.
LikeLike
Andy:
FB: 3 games in pod. 6 games out of pod, 3 at home.
66% of FB games at home or within home pod.
I was responding to a way out there scenario. Note my slightly above zero chance statement. Only suggesting it is not completely impossible, as is the likelihood that the final conference makeup the longhorns are seeking can be found in your offering.
LikeLike
So 3 road games per year 3000+ miles away. In football. Basketball would be a different story entirely.
LikeLike
Andy what’s your point? If the ACC is $10+ million behind in TV money plus the CIC benefit (which dwarfs TV money) and the SEC won’t invite FSU why would they not go? Wait…don’t answer that.
A number of ACC schools and pods would probably be created which would make the B1G make a lot of sense for FSU. Right now as expressed by Frank is that FSU is currently matched up against BC and Syracuse in football scheduling. So they wouldn’t have a hard time wrapping their heads around traveling to GT, MD, Rutgers. Illinois isn’t much further of a flight than Columbia. Plus, again, the fact is that the SEC likely won’t take them.
LikeLike
If FSU and GT went to the Big 10, would the Big 10 really let the SEC cut a hole in the conference along the East Coast? If UVa and UNC went to the SEC, GT and FSU become outposts rather than a contigious strategy. I know we’re running into diminishing returns past 16, but if the B1G’s laying flags in Florida and Georgia, I don’t think it’s smart to concede NC and VA.
If we’re assuming FSU and GT to the Big 10, I think Delany needs UVa and UNC — 18 schools be damned.
LikeLike
18 is a huge stretch. There is a limit. You can’t take everyone. You have to choose.
LikeLike
There is a definite possibility that he would take FSU-Ga Tech and then build a bridge to them; yes.
LikeLike
When you’re talking about a Big 18 or a Big 20, then you’re basically talking about a B1G/ACC merger. It’s not even the Big Ten conference anymore, or evena conference at all. It would be a big bloated association. It’s never been tried and it sounds extremely messy. I would be genuinely shocked if Big Ten presidents want to push it that far.
LikeLike
The SEC wants an ACC merger Andy…for crying out loud… Yes thank you for coming over here and reminding us how valuable Missouri is, how the B1G made a huge mistake by not taking them, and how much better the SEC has managed their expansion comparative to all other conferences…the broken record continues.
LikeLike
what the hell are you even talking about.
You flame every post I make and the vast majority of what you say makes zero sense.
LikeLike
Okay, so now the thinking on here seems to be something along these lines:
B1G
Florida State/Georgia Tech/Maryland/Rutgers
Ohio State/Penn State/Indiana/Purdue
Michigan/Michigan State/Illinois/Northwestern
Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa
SEC:
Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina/Virgninia
Florida/Tennessee/Vanderbilt/Kentucky
Alabama/Auburn/Ole Miss/MSU
LSu/Texas A&M/Missouri/Arkansas
Big XVI:
Miami/Clemson/NC State/Virginia Tech
West Virginia/Pitt/Duke/Iowa State
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Kansas/Kansas State
Texas/Texas Tech/TCU/Baylor
Pac 12 no change
LikeLike
FWIW, I think it will be something like this:
B1G
Virginia/Georgia Tech/Maryland/Rutgers
Ohio State/Penn State/Indiana/Purdue
Michigan/Michigan State/Illinois/Northwestern
Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa
SEC:
Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina/Duke
Florida/Tennessee/Vanderbilt/Kentucky
Alabama/Auburn/Ole Miss/MSU
LSu/Texas A&M/Missouri/Arkansas
Big XVI:
Florida State/Miami/Clemson/NC State
West Virginia/Pitt/Virginia Tech/Iowa State
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Kansas/Kansas State
Texas/Texas Tech/TCU/Baylor
Pac 12 no change
LikeLike
Still not sure the Big 12 has to do anything.
Despite Chip Brown’s declarations, the Big 12 (especially Texas and Kansas/KState/Iowa State) have a lot of incentives against expansion.
LikeLike
zeek, sometimes you make sense, and sometimes you seriously don’t.
This blog is gushing over how great it would be for the B1G to get FSU, and suddenly the Big 12 is better off without them. Come again?
If the Big 12 can grab up Florida State, Miami, Clemson, and Virginia Tech they will do it. Period.
The ONLY reason they aren’t expanding is because they currently CAN’T get schools like that. Saying they don’t need to expand is just a way of making themselves feel better. Especially Texas. Their fnas like to puff their chests up and act like everything is going according to plan, when in fact they lost 4 pretty good AAU schools and replaced them with the horned frogs an dmountaineers, because that was the best they can do. And right now the best they can do as far as expansion is *maybe* BYU. Air Force reportedly turned them down.
But if the ACC collapses you’d better believe they’ll grab what they can as fast as they can.
LikeLike
Those 4 schools really don’t want to expand.
There’s 10 schools in the Big 12; if 4 are that deadset against expansion (especially if that quartet includes Texas), then it’s not a slam dunk that they want to expand…
Kansas, KState, and Iowa State especially like having 2 games guaranteed in Texas through the 4 games against the Texas schools.
UT itself has said that they prefer a smaller, more closely knit (and closely controlled) configuration…
LikeLike
It’s easy for them to say that now when there are no good options. They’re basically arguing against Louiville, BYU, and Cincinatti at the moment. Not a tough position to take.
Some package like FSU, Miami, Clemson and VT would be an entirely different story.
LikeLike
Dodds said he would be for expansion with “the right two.” FSU fits that. He is clearly not fond at all of 14 or 16. The general belief is that OU/OSU/TT/WVU are gung ho about expanding. Texas prefers not to. KU/KSU/ISU are concerned about divisional alignments. BU and TCU just want to know the $. I’m sure FSU plus just about anyone gets 10 votes. FSU/Miami/Clemson/VT would be a little tougher sale. There have been a lot of publically voiced concerns about 14. But if SEC and B1G go to 16, Big 12 probably scoops up 4-6 as well.
LikeLike
Not only that, they aren’t under any imminent pressure to make a move. Assume any conceivable combination of four schools going to the Big Ten and SEC. The ACC will replenish with UConn and Cincinnati, and they’ll still have 12 football schools, all with nowhere to go. The Big 12 can take its sweet time, or just stay at ten for the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
They *could* do nothing, but if they have a shot at taking some of the better ACC schools and it would improve their money and competitive strength why on earth would they wait?
LikeLike
Breaking news out of South Bend…
Student tickets for the NCG were awarded today. AND MY DAUGHTER GOT ONE!
LikeLike
Awesome
LikeLike
That’s great for your daughter Loki. To get the opportunity to watch your school play in one of those while you’re attending is a rare thing (I guess, unless you’re Bama). I hope she has a great time.
LikeLike
Congrats Loki!!!!! Tell your daughter to have the time of her life…. That’s awesome news!!!! Do you know how many students received tickets?
Boiler Up!!!!!
LikeLike
There were 2500 student tickets for 8000 students. And an anonymous alum donated half the cost, about $400k so students could afford them. $300 face value, $150 for students.
LikeLike
I hope she has a good time….and Bama wins by 40………
LikeLike
Talk about between a rock and a hard place. Watch Bama (and the SEC) win another damn national championship, or have that streak broken by ND of all schools. Ugh.
LikeLike
For me, its a pretty easy call to root for ND for the first time in my life.
LikeLike
Interesting argument for the Big Ten to pursue FSU, but I see that as just making the best of a bad situation. By taking Maryland, the Big Ten has wounded the ACC, and opened it up to further raids. That might have been worthwhile if UVA had come along with Maryland, or, if, instead of taking Nebraska two years ago, the Big Ten had added Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, but that’s not what happened. Maybe it was never going to happen, but now, by poaching Maryland, the Big Ten has set in motion a scenario which, in all likelihood, ends up with North Carolina and either UVA or Virginia Tech going to the SEC.
That might not happen any time soon. In fact, if I’m Mike Slive, I would call up the presidents of UNC and one of the Virginia schools and tell them not to rush into anything, and give the ACC a fair chance at success or failure becuase if (and when) the ACC collapses, those two schools will have a place in the SEC. The unspoken part of this conversation (or perhaps Slive isn’t that subtle and voices this clearly) is that if either of the two schools leaves the ACC for the Big Ten, the SEC will immediately offer a spot to their in-state rival. Can you see UVA succeeding in the Big Ten with Virginia Tech in the SEC (or switch it, and put Va. Tech in the Big Ten with UVA in the SEC–bad deal for VT). UNC wouldn’t want to see NC State elevated in stature by being the sole SEC school in North Carolina.
Slive and Delaney are playing poker, and it looks to me like Slive has Delaney right where he wants him.
LikeLike
This is why the B10 should try to take UVa & VTech to make VA (which these days has closer ties to B10 state MD & the rest of the East Coast megalopolis than to neighbor NC to the south) Big10 territory.
I think UVa is an easy get; they treasure academic eliteness and disdain the “SECness” of the SEC. VTech would be tougher as their t-shirt fans probably prefer the SEC, but I’ve heard that VTech’s presidents #1 priority is to stick in the same conference as UVa (for academic reasons).
LikeLike
Except UV/VTech doesn’t happen unless the ACC is looking substantially more shaky than it is today.
Which suggests that the whole GTech noise could just have been shaking the tree to see if any fruit would fall. If the Big12 can be induced to make a move to avoid being left behind, that makes it far more likely that the Big Ten can move into Virginia.
LikeLike
I don’t think the SEC appeals that much to UNC and even less to Virginia. Academics matter at these universities ( at least the perception at UNC). UNC is embroiled in the worst academic scandal in years and will not want to jump into what their faculty and administrators view as a jocks only conference. These schools also sponsor more sports than SEC teams so they would have multiple teams left out in the cold. UNC will not leave for any conference unless the ACC folds and it would take a massive realignment for that to happen.
LikeLike
Right, but I don’t think it’s worth it for the B10 to wait for UNC when it’s possible to get FSU, Miami, VTech, & UVa.
LikeLike
The reluctance of UNC and UVA to move is actually one of the advantages that the SEC. The SEC can afford to sit back and wait as long as it takes. While the academics at both schools might lean to the Big Ten, the folks on the athletic side know that the only financially sound decision is to go to the SEC. Even Roy Williams knows that the future is in the SEC. Making the other choice, and letting their rivals take those SEC slots, would be suicide. If the ACC limps along for an extended period of time, that’s fine by the SEC, they are in no hurry. But, whether it’s the Big Ten making an unexpected move for schools like FSU and GT, or the Big XII somehow prying a couple of schools loose, the ACC will probably be poached again sometime in the foreseeable future.
LikeLike
“While the academics at both schools might lean to the Big Ten, the folks on the athletic side know that the only financially sound decision is to go to the SEC.”
Uh, the B10 will bring in as much or more athletics revenue than the SEC (and a lot more research money).
LikeLike
Even Roy Williams knows that the future is in the SEC.
For football yeah, indisputable. But for b-ball? Nah, Ole Ball Roller Roy knows that an SEC schedule is a guaranteed 16-2 conference mark. It’s just Florida, Kentucky, and everyone else is sucky.
LikeLike
And according to their boards, they don’t want their baseball program to die on the vine. Apparently their fans value their baseball and football programs more than their Olympic sports and lacrosse
LikeLike
SEC greatly appeals to the sports fans, and to all of those who value the southern culture (ie..the rednecks). These two groups favor the SEC something like 85%-15%…if you doubt it read their boards.
Harder to tell about the administrators/academics, since they don’t blog a lot……I’d ay will this group it’s probably 65%-35% in favor of the BIG.
LikeLike
IMO Delany clearly wins that situation. NC State will never be Carolina. The presitge is just not there and it’s not like SEC money will be making a huge difference when Carolina is receiving B1G money.
LikeLike
NC State has some basketball history, but that’s beside the point. The game, financially, is won and lost on the football field. NC State in the SEC, with UNC in the Big Ten, would consign UNC to irrelevance in the most important sport, financially.
LikeLike
??? You do realize that the B10’s TV money is and will be as good as if not better than the SEC’s, right?
LikeLike
Huh? You do realize that the Big 10 is the wealthiest conference in the country, don’t you?
LikeLike
“Irrelevance” is a bit harsh as an assessment, esp if VIR came in with UNC. They would then have good recruiting grounds in NC, as well as VA and all the way up the eastern seaboard….now it will be hard to compete with the SEC going forward if they are going to be allowed to oversign at will, lie about medical redshirts and the like, and pay players at the Cam Newton level.
LikeLike
FYI…The SEC has limited the oversigning ability of the schools. Also I believe they have also curtailed the medical redshirt ordeal a lot since I haven’t seen it done in the last two years (at Bama anyways). And every SEC schools isn’t paying players at the Cam level. But if the B1G folks think Meyer is some sort of angle in regards to recruiting, then they are being extremely nieve. He’s just as apt to pushing the recruiting envelope as Saban is (neither pulls Cam type stuff, but both push the envelope with the boarderline stuff).
LikeLike
First, the SEC has a hard cap of 25 for recruit signing. If you want to exceed that, you must utilize early enrollees who come in during January. I’m not aware the B1G has a standard that rigourous but perhaps you can elaborare on that Mushroom?
Second, are you claiming the B10 doesn’t utilize medical redshirts?
Third, when it comes to paying players, the B1G has one of the all-time champs in tOSU (for both football and basketball mind you). Michigan has been on probation recently and the problems at PSU are well documented.
LikeLike
Here is the current BigTen oversigning rule apparently:
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2011/01/25/oversigning-and-the-big-10-conference/
It should be noted that the BigTen was also one of the conferences pushing for the four year scholarship rule (with some exception… not sure every school is on board). It’s optional, not required, but I think every school does it.
Regarding medical redshirts: We’ll see how Urban Meyer does things, but no, I haven’t seen the same medical redshirt stories coming out of the BigTen that sometimes come out of the SEC.
As for the last part, as an OSU fan I take at least some offense to that. There’s some definite truth here, OSU did cheat and paid the price. But as for “all-time champs”… no. Just, no. Moreover, Michigan’s recent probation had nothing to do with paying players, it was because RichRod was squeezing in more practices than the NCAA allows (for all the good it did him). PSU’s documented issues weren’t pay-related, even if they are reprehensible.
Now, Michigan and the Fab Five in the early 90s? That’s different. That’s Cam-level type stuff. Or Reggie Bush type stuff. Or Alabama circa 2000 type stuff. The stuff OSU was pinned for — actually found to be true by the NCAA, not alleged in SI and ESPN and never substantiated — isn’t even in the same league, and certainly doesn’t make them an “all-time” anything.
LikeLike
FranktheAg,
“First, the SEC has a hard cap of 25 for recruit signing.”
Not just the SEC. They passed their rule and then rammed it through the NCAA so everyone has it.
“If you want to exceed that, you must utilize early enrollees who come in during January.”
A silly NCAA rule in my opinion (Why count against the prior class if they couldn’t have played that year?), but perfectly legal. The B10 does that too.
I’m not aware the B1G has a standard that rigourous but perhaps you can elaborare on that Mushroom?”
The B10 has the most rigorous rule in the nation. They actually regulate oversigning, not just apply a cap. Oversigning was totally banned before 2002 in the B10. You can now sign up to 3 extra players beyond the 85 limit, but the B10 office has to be told how you got back to 85 and it is rarely done according to the B10 VP in charge of it.
So if you start at 85, then 15 graduate, 2 go pro, 1 is too hurt to continue and 2 transfer, the B10 would cap you at 20 recruits that year. You could go up to 23, but you’d have to give a written explanation for all 88 players and how you got down to 85.
This is one reason why the B10 averages so many fewer recruits per team than other conferences. The B10 also shies away from JUCO players more than other conferences, which also has an impact on the total number.
LikeLike
“This is one reason why the B10 averages so many fewer recruits per team than other conferences. The B10 also shies away from JUCO players more than other conferences, which also has an impact on the total number.”
The effect of which is showing in the football product that is being put on the field.
LikeLike
Georgia and Florida don’t oversign like the West has. And the SEC West has started to dominate the conference. That may shift back now that the West has to start being closer to following the spirit of the rules.
LikeLike
Thanks Brian. Didn’t know that.
LikeLike
Bullet – UGa has 33 recruits committed today. Taking a similar approach tat A&M is doing and bringing in a big group in January.
LikeLike
Someone posted the 5 year averages here a while back. UGA and Florida were right at 25. Arkansas, Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss and Mississippi State and Auburn were well over 25. Almost all the Big 10 schools were 20-25.
I imagine UGA is catching up and doing the January admissions. They were down to 71 scholarship athletes in September due to transfers and players kicked off the team (like LSU’s QB).
LikeLike
bamatab,
“This is one reason why the B10 averages so many fewer recruits per team than other conferences. The B10 also shies away from JUCO players more than other conferences, which also has an impact on the total number.”
The effect of which is showing in the football product that is being put on the field.
Of course it is. The B10 is at the same disadvantage as USC compared to the P12. The difference in quality depth is very important.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/recruiting-numbers/
Average recruiting class size for 2002-2010 (to average out weird years):
SEC – 25.2
B12 – 24.3
BE – 23.9
P10 – 23.1
ACC – 22.1
B10 – 22.1
3 players per year adds up, and that’s without looking at individual schools. Not all SEC school oversign, for example.
SEC school averages:
AU 28.1
MSU 27.4
SC 26.9
AR 26.6
MS 26.3
AL 26.1
KY 25.1
LSU 24.9
MO 24.2
TAMU 24.0
TN 24.0
UF 23.3
UGA 23.0
VU 21.2
There’s a big gap between Vandy and everyone else, and between the East and the West.
Remember, the annual limit is 25. With a redshirt year, that’s up to 125 players to find 85. AU is getting up to 35 more recruits to choose from than Vandy is.
By comparison:
PU 24.2
MN 24.1
MSU 24.0
IL 23.8
NE 23.3
WI 22.7
IN 22.4
IA 21.9
MI 21.7
PSU 20.3
OSU 20.0
NW 18.9
So OSU is/was competing nationally with 5 fewer recruits per year than LSU and 6 less per year than AL. I’m guessing Meyer will have a little more turnover than Tressel, though.
To be clear, I want to make these points:
1. Oversigning is not against NCAA rules
2. Not all oversigning represents a recruit or player being mistreated
3. There can be good reasons for inflated numbers, like coaching changes and players turning pro
4. Not every school has the same academic mission (no Vandy recruits fail to qualify, some schools are more open to JUCOs, etc)
5. Oversigning isn’t the sole reason for SEC success
LikeLike
“5. Oversigning isn’t the sole reason for SEC success”
It isn’t the sole reason. But when you hear the media swoon over the SEC, usually one of the first things you hear is, “SEC teams are just deeper than teams in other leagues.” They like to pretend like this is just some weird phenomenon, or that the SEC is just better because it’s the SEC. That depth is what oversigning provides, especially when combined with the high end recruiting (read: many 4-5* recruits) done by the top schools in the conference.
LikeLike
Petrino took it to a new level with something like 39 one year. After that the SEC implemented its rule. Its not just running players off. A big part is signing players who they don’t think will qualify. They are taking a chance on players who really have no business in a 4 year college, and, if they lose the bet, have a relationship that might help get them to sign after a couple of years of JC football. Of course, that also means that players who do qualify might get their scholarships yanked after signing date for players who qualified late. Les Miles took that to a new level by doing it in August(not in person, of course) to a player after he had already moved into the dorm.
LikeLike
Part of Baylor’s problems in the 90s had to do with marginal recruits. They would be very close to Texas and Texas A&M on signing day with their number of blue-chippers. But none of those players would qualify. The other schools shied away from them for that reason. And almost all of them who eventually made it to a 4 year school ended up somewhere other than Baylor.
LikeLike
@bullet,
“Petrino took it to a new level with something like 39 one year. After that the SEC implemented its rule.”
I think that’s the Houston Nutt rule. 🙂
LikeLike
UNC’s concern wouldn’t be financial, but the football prestige that NCST would probably develope over time being the SEC school in NC. And from reading their boards, that concern is real. The B1G football product is nowhere near the level of the SEC right now. The majority of the kids in the states that UNC recruits in (NC, SC, UGA, FL) want to play in the SEC. Just look at UGA’s freshmen RB duo for proof of that. Their concern is that if NCST is in the SEC, they would eventually become the destination place for the kids in their recruiting area, and thus surpass UNC in football prestige. Just look at the up tick that aTm’s recruiting has already taken. And while UT is still the top destination spot for Texas kids, UNC is nowhere near UT’s prestige when it comes to football recruiting.
LikeLike
UNC cares as much about football as Kentucky cares about football. It is a basketball first school, with students and t-shirt fans who barely care about football. I think I saw more interest in their baseball team when I was down their versus their football team.
LikeLike
UNC cares enough about its football program that they don’t want to get passed by NCST. They still put around 60k people in the seats of their football stadium. Even though basketball is their number one sport, $25.58 mil in revenue can still be attributed to their football program. And those numbers would grow (so would NCST’s) is they entered the SEC.
Also from looking at their message boards, their t-shirt fans sure do talk a heck of a lot about foobtall to be barely caring for it.
LikeLike
It’s going to get to the point where the ACC is going to fall so far behind in football revenue that its members will have to find new homes simply to avoid irrelevancy. If UNC will eschew the far better cultural and educational fit of the Big Ten merely to thwart NCSU from landing in the SEC for superior football recruiting (meaning former UNC basketball player Jim Delany can’t land his alma mater), this could result in all sorts of weird new addresses for ACC emigres.
UVa and UNC in the SEC? Does that mean Virginia Tech and NCSU, barring a sudden rise to AAU status and Big Ten qualification, head out to the Big 12 alongside Clemson and Florida State as Texas vassals? And what about Delany — might he have to settle for Duke and Georgia Tech (assuming Pitt is a non-starter)? Do most of what’s left in the ACC (Wake, Miami, BC, Syracuse) merge with Connecticut and the remnants of the Big East?
LikeLike
“Just look at the up tick that aTm’s recruiting has already taken.”
Yes, with 33 commitments with three months to go, just look at where TA&M’s recruiting has gone since joining the SEC.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist the oversigning jab. :))
LikeLike
In the SEC, you either crap or get off of the pot. And aTm sure ain’t getting off of the pot. 🙂
LikeLike
I try not to follow recruiting too much, but A&M can sign something like 10 recruits this month; Junior college graduates or students who graduate high school early. They enroll next semester and count towards last years limit.
LikeLike
I do follow A&M recruiting closely.
A&M will have 8 players (and maybe 9) enroll in January, thus by NCAA rule, those players count against towards the 2012 class and not the class that will enroll in May. A&M signed a small class in 2012 when the coaching change from Sherman to Sumlin occurred.
In February, A&M will sign 25 players for the 2013 class and will not exceed this as the SEC will not allow it. That number is probably less than some B1G schools will end up signing since the conference doesn’t enforce and hard cap like the SEC (as far as I know).
LikeLike
The BigTen has a soft rule, where you can oversign 1-3 players but there’s some sort of penalty for the next class. I can’t remember it off the top of my head. But, that said, if there are schools that take more than 25 this year it won’t be much more.
Even regarding the early enrollees, 33 with potential for more is a pretty huge number. I was mostly just poking the bear for kicks, specifically Alan or Bamatab, but still not sure the spirit the early enrollee rule was there so you could add 50% more recruiting class.
LikeLike
It’s not technically oversigning, it is backcounting against the previous recruiting class’ total. Say you only signed 20 kids last year, you can sign your 25 for this year’s class plus 5 more to complete last year’s class. There is still a hard 25 per class limit.
LikeLike
@bama:
Technically, no, it’s not oversigning. And I get the backcounting, OSU has done that a couple times. I remain unsure how Meyer will handle this, since we have a lot of offers out this year with not a lot of spots remaining. But backfilling eight or more players? I suppose it could be worse, but that seems like a huge number to me.
LikeLike
I think there is a lot of poker going on.
I wonder if the B1G pronouncement that they’re willing to go to 16 or above is a threat to the SEC. The B1G wants the SEC to know that if Silve tries to sneak 2 teams out of the ACC without having it implode, the B1G will take 2 teams and ensure that the ACC disintegrates.
Maybe the B1G expansion beyond 14 is a threat.
Maybe Delaney really wants to stay at 14. (if you neglect Loh’s comments, I guess)
LikeLike
I think that the B10 is indifferent to the ACC disintegrating and the SEC may actually welcome it, removing the only competing southeastern conference.
LikeLike
I’d be fine if the BIG stays at 14 if the SEC did as well……
As a BIG an, I’d be OK with 16 if Slive(sp?) and Delany would sign a blood oath that 16 would be the limit, and then divide up VA, UNC, V Tech, NC State and/or GT. GT would be pretty crazy but nowhere near as insane as FSU/Miami. I hope and trust that neither of those schools will ever be in the BIG.
My biggest fear with 16 is that it will become a realignment arms race that puts us at 18-20, which f#### up the BIG and SEC as well as college sports generally.
LikeLike
I would also say that running the ACC out of business is not in the best interests of college sports generally………..
LikeLike
.
LikeLike
If Delany can pull ND/FSU/UNC, he would be a fool not to pursue 20. If he can’t get all three, then 16 should be the stopping point. If you grab ND/FSU/UNC, then fill the final three spots with GT/Duke/Virginia, every single addition is incredibly valuable and that expansion makes the B1G the premier athletic conference in the country, bar none. Plus the football pods work out well for everyone but Illinois/NW:
Great Plains Division
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Northeastern Division
Notre Dame
Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Northwestern (I know, NW in the NE Division, haha – it gives ND a game in Chi town & Rutgers/NW is like Chicago Vs. NYC in a way, the TV networks would love that)
Southeastern Division
Florida State
North Carolina
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Duke
Those pods are geographically regional, relatively competitively balanced, & maintain almost all important rivalries.
If Delany can get ND/FSU/UNC, 20 is fully sustainable, I have no doubt about that. But he has to get all three to make it viable IMO.
LikeLike
I should also add, create a massive footprint for both the BTN & recruiting as well as adding a boatload of academic elitism (with the exception of FSU). Further, the B1G would be cemented as the best basketball conference in the country forever, which provides a bunch of content for the BTN.
In terms of football, this expansion would be like creating a mini-nfl. The bottom line is that we are heading the way of super conferences, so if you are going to do it, do it right.
LikeLike
Or if we’re going for crazy stupid megalamaniacal scenarios, how about a B1G/SEC arms race:
SEC:
Texas/Texas A&M/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/LSU
Alabama/Auburn/Ole Miss/MSU/Georgia/Georgia Tech
Tennessee/Vanderbilt/Missouri/Arkansas//Kentucky/West Virginia
Florida/Florida State/Miami/South Carolina/Clemson/NC State
B1G
Nebraska/Kansas/Iowa/Iowa State/Minnesota/Wisconsin
Michigan/Michigan State/Illinois/Northwestern/Indiana/Purdue
Ohio State/Penn State/Rutgers/Pitt/Boston College/Syracuse
North Carolina/Duke/Wake Forest//Maryland/Virginia/Virginia Tech
Then we burn down the NCAA headquarters and roll around in our big giant piles of money.
LikeLike
Interesting, as always.
In the aftermath of the Maryland and Rutgers additions, a comment by Jim Delany caught my attention. He said that when the topic of further expansion came up, he had been authorized–or perhaps restricted is the better word–to only pursue AAU institutions in bordering states.
The problem, of course, is I have no idea if that is a true statement or something he intended as a plant or diversion. And what’s true today may not be true tomorrow.
My gut reaction when the Maryland/Rutgers thing broke is that the B1G is–pardon the expression–throwing a Hail Mary to get Notre Dame on board.
The potential synergy of combining the B1G network with Notre Dame is incredible. Demographically, the NE is the most heavily Catholic in the country. According to the Council of Catholic Bishops website, CT is 36.6% Catholic, DE 29.7%, NY 37.1%, NJ 41.0%, MA a whopping 42%. Maryland is 17.8%. Think about all the TV sets that Notre Dame in the B1G could turn on.
It is my understanding that Notre Dame feels it is America’s team. They want to play all over the country against their traditional rivals and in the markets they designate. With Rutgers opening the New York market, Maryland the DC market. Take all the traditional rivalries ND has with the Big Ten, add those markets, add ND and one other traditional rival team to the B1G (Georgia Tech, maybe Miami), let ND play their California game(s) non-conference and you’ve got a juggernaut on your hands–a license to print money.
Currently, ND gets paid for their home games. Imagine the leverage if most of the home and away games are thrown into one conference–a conference housing roughly a half-dozen traditional rivals. Now what could the B1G/ND alliance pull for a new TV contract?
Also, it would make ND’s other sports much easier. Less travel, etc.
Both Notre Dame and the rest of the B1G would be so much richer for it that I simply don’t understand when people say “It’s all about the money.” If it was all about the money, ND would have been in the B1G yesterday. ND and B1G are worth more together than the sum of their parts.
LikeLike
I think Notre Dame has always been the target, but I think the BIG has finally realized they are never coming. I don’t think Delany ever thought they would get such a sweetheart deal with another power conference. That’s why he moved so quick after on Rutgers and Maryland. The ACC would have to completely fold to flush ND out and I doubt that happens. UNC will do everything in their power to keep the conference viable and they will be able to do it. The bulk of ACC schools are not football schools and running top notch basketball programs is significantly cheaper. I think if the BIG grabbed GT and FSU, the rest of the conference would continue on.
LikeLike
I think the only way the Big Ten gets UNC is if they go to 20 (which I think they will do). UNC would much rather be in a B1G version of the ACC (Penn St, Rugters, Maryland, UVA, GT, etc.) than the SEC. The problem for Delany (if they don’t go to twenty) is that the only AAU options, other than UNC, won’t draw flies to a television set. And without viewers clamoring for it, BTN will be dropped. Delany obviously knows this, which is why I think he will go with FSU. They are the only ‘available’ football King on the east coast. After the Maryland/Rutgers adds, he can’t risk alienating B1G fans/alumni with two more schools ‘the base’ has no interest if playing/following.
LikeLike
For all the talk of maneuvering on these moves, I think there’s actually very little. The Big Ten said they were looking at expansion and Missouri expressed their interest. The Big Ten looked at them and others, but went with Nebraska when the chance came up. They felt threatened later when the ACC took Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame (taking football games away from the Big Ten as well as their other sports) and Penn State dropped down with sanctions. To keep the northeast divided (which allows the naturally strongest conference to be a little bigger overall), they took Maryland and Rutgers. If that in turns opens other things up, they’ll look at the possibilities, but the move was made more as a defensive one than one trying to change further things.
LikeLike
This is why going to 18 with FSU, Miami, VTech, & UVa makes sense:
You’d have at least 13 games a year between kings & kings or kings & near-kings. No conference, even the mighty SEC, would be able to match that.
With these 6 pods of 3 (you play the schools in the 2 neighboring pods at least 2/3rds of the time, and sometimes annually), all the traditional B10 rivalries would be played at least 2/3rds of the time (obviously the major ones would be played annually):
A: OSU, IU, PU
B: Michigan, MSU, Illinois
C: Minny, Wisconsin, Northwestern
D: Iowa, Nebraska, Miami
E: UVa, VTech, FSU
F: UMD, PSU, Rutgers
Each school would play the school above and below them in the same column annually except A-F would have these annual pairings: OSU-PSU, IU-Rutgers, PU-UMD
These would be the divisions the first 2 years (line would mean cross-over game):
OSU-PSU
Wisconsin-UNL
Northwestern-Miami
Minny-Iowa
PU-UMD
IU-Rutgers
Michigan FSU
MSU VTech
Illinois UVa
These seasons would feature FSU-PSU, FSU-UNL, FSU-Miami, FSU-VTech, PSU-UNL, PSU-Miami, PSU-VTech, Miami-VTech, Miami-UNL, UNL-VTech, OSU-PSU, Wisconsin-UNL, Michigan-Wisconsin, OSU-Wisconsin, and of course, OSU-Michigan (15 guaranteed marquee games).
The next 2 years:
Michigan-OSU
Miami-FSU
Nebraska-VTech
Iowa-UVa
MSU-IU
Illinois-PU
Wisconsin PSU
Northwestern Rutgers
Minny UMD
Guaranteed top games: Michigan-Miami, Michigan-UNL, Michigan-Wisconsin, UNL-Miami, UNL-Wisconsin, Miami-Wisconsin, OSU-FSU, OSU-PSU, OSU-VTech, FSU-PSU, FSU-VTech, PSU-VTech, Miami-FSU, UNL-VTech, Michigan-OSU (15 guaranteed marquee games).
The next 2 years:
PSU-VTech
MSU-Wisconsin
Illinois-Northwestern
UMD-UVa
Michigan-Minny
Rutgers-FSU
OSU Nebraska
PU Miami
IU Iowa
Guaranteed top games:
OSU-Michigan, OSU-PSU, PSU-Michigan, FSU-UNL, FSU-Miami, FSU-VTech, FSU-Wisconsin, UNL-Miami, UNL-VTech, UNL-Wisconsin, Miami-VTech, Miami-Wisconsin, PSU-VTech (13 guaranteed marquee games).
LikeLike
Yes, yes, I know, AAU, etc., but Miami & VTech are close (with B10 backing within a decade of joining), and FSU is a major research institution in a massive growing state which can get there if their legislature doesn’t keep cutting funding.
However, the Big10 is ultimately an athletics conference, and I can’t see how you should turn down FSU, Miami, VTech, & UVa if the opportunity presents itself. 3 of the 4 are even pretty good cultural fits.
LikeLike
Exactly right. Those would be my choices as well, but I can’t believe the GT loving Prez Posse wouldn’t demand the Yellow Jackets.
LikeLike
How does FSU compare to UF in popularity within Florida? Are they close or a distant second?
LikeLike
I’d say Miami’s a distant third and UF and FSU are pretty even — with UF being a little ahead.
LikeLike
I would actually compare the popularity of UF & FSU with that of UT & aTm. UF has a larger following than FSU. But with that said, like aTm, they still have a large enough following to make them very attractive.
LikeLike
FSU is much closer to UF than Texas A&M is to Texas within their states though.
All 4 are of course enormously valuable, but FSU is a legit king in the state.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203846804578101281578171860.html#project%3DCOLLEGES1106%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
While this isn’t completely accurate, for the purposes of those 4 schools it more or less is.
LikeLike
The idea that Southern Miss dominates Ole Miss in that graphic makes me question it very deeply.
LikeLike
loki, it was a poll done by the company that was the most accurate of the entire election cycle.
While some of the results are questionable (as there were some questionable in Nate Silver’s study), for some states those results make complete sense and look extremely accurate.
LikeLike
Good analysis (old) of TV value of ACC schools from an FSU board:
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc
To compare with what I project the average B10 payout will be during the next TV contract ($30-40M for 1st & 2nd tier), I would roughly double the ACC per-school value figures.
Notes:
1. Obviously, FSU leads everybody.
2. Miami is actually almost the same as UNC.
3. FSU, Clemson, Miami, and VTech make up the top 4 in the ACC in football value (of course).
4. Duke, UVa, UMD, NCSU, & GTech are roughly equal value in terms of pure ratings.
I think it behooves the B10 to take the 3 of the 4 top football schools in the ACC who footprints are large enough and academics are close enough to be worth it, leaving 1 spot for an academic school (I prefer UVa to lock down VA).
LikeLike
Pingback: Florida State & Expansion (Update) | ATLANTIC COAST CONFIDENTIAL
There are really logical options for the Big Ten to get to 16.
Option 1 – take 2 of Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College to create the dominant northern conference.
Why do ths? You build a natural extension of the big ten into the northeast. Culturally, this makes the most sense. You essentially double down where you are strong, and increase the carriage fees in your home region. Adding Syracuse and Pitt makes the B1G the strongest basketball conference.
Why not? You dilute the football product, don’t open up new recruiting territories and don’t ad new Tv markets.
Option 2 – Add Virginia and Virginia Tech.
Why do this? You locko down the state of Virginia, a fast growing state demographically with fertile high school talent. UVA and VT are natural rivals of Maryland, and cement the B1G as the dominant conference in the mid Atlantic. VT adds another top 20 program, and UVA is a top academic school. This is arguably the best approach in terms of geography, markets, academics and football.
Why not? Two schools from Virginia effectively cedes North Carolina to the SEC when the ACC implodes. But in some ways it makes sense for the b1g to take Virginia and te SEC to take North Carolina – which is a better cultural fit with the SEC.
Option 3 – Take 2 of Miami, Georgia Tech or Florida State
Why? This would a home run in terms of football, recruiting territories and TV markets. IMO, the most logical addition in this scenario is Florida State and Miami, as the B1G would have the bet claim on Florida with 2 of the 3 powers.
Why not? Geography it s a major stretch, and would the B1G take FSU from an academic standpoint? Even with FSU and GT, the SEC remains the top conference in these states. Does te b1g really want to expand to take the ACCs position as the second conference in these sates?
Conclusion – I believe the best option is to take UVA and VT. It’s a natural extension of the last expansion of adding Maryland. It captures one of the fastest growing state in the country, a fertile recruiting state and locks the SEC out of DC forever.
LikeLike
I would be fine with stopping at 16 with UVa+VTech, but if you do that, 17&18 with FSU+Miami is less of an outlier. Plus, FSU+Miami are probably more willing to be 15&16, in which case you add the VA schools at 17&18 to form a TV and football juggernaut. I’m OK with ceding UNC to the SEC because
1. While they have the academics and are a bball king, a football power they are not.
2. They feel that they are more southern anyway while both VA and FL have heavy northern elements. It’s noteworthy that both Miami and VTech have experience being in a northern conference (the old BE) and fan interest did not flag because of that.
LikeLike
I don’t know enough about the dynamics in Virginia to understand why you would add UVA and Vtech. Comments I have read seem to imply that VTech actually gets you the football interest and eyeballs in the state, and you add Virginia becuse they are a really good school and you can’t get UNC (and UVA’s academics kind of make up for VTech not being a complete fit).
However, if school #16 was not going to add a market (as the 2nd VA school wouldn’t), what about a Virginia Tech and Pittsburgh addition instead? Pittsburgh totally fits the B1G except for the market issue noted above. Maybe I think too militarily, but adding Pittsburgh locks up NJ/PA/MD for the B1G, completely isolating the northern ACC schools and insuring another power conference like the Big12 can’t encroach upon your territory by taking Pitt.
LikeLike
I’m more interested in locking up VA than locking up PA. Pitt in the B12 isn’t going to threaten B10 supremacy in PA. One of the VA schools in the SEC would threaten B10 supremacy in VA.
LikeLike
Sorry, but Pitt is just ridiculous. There aren’t a lot of Pitt fans in NJ/MD. And in PA, Pitt is the second-best football school. It neither adds nor solidifies any market for the B1G. No one has suggested that Pitt would be high on the expansion list for any other conference, so it doesn’t make sense as a defensive add either.
LikeLike
Phil,
The Pitt idea isn’t bad, but it doesn’t really gain anything for the B10 now. The ideas behind adding both UVA and VT are:
1. Neither UVA nor VT dominates VA. VT is more popular in FB in VA because it’s been better than UVA for a while. The popularity is regional, though. VT dominates the west and towards DC, but UVA does well on the coastal side.
2. The academics will insist on a great school as a counterbalance to them “stooping” to add VT.
3. Keep the SEC out of the B10’s perimeter. The SEC would never dominate PA by getting Pitt or OH by taking UC, but they could own VA.
Combine those factors, and taking both VT and UVA makes sense.
LikeLike
I just can’t believe the powers that be at UNC would even consider the SEC without either UVA or Duke. I think they are much more likely (if not interested in the B1G) to happily be a big fish in a little pond of basketball schools (BE and ACC castoffs). Other than that, I agree with you.
The Florida schools would probably be the easiest first ‘gets’.
LikeLike
This is an important point ~ we know that should the ACC lose any more teams, it has a ready reserve in Cincinnati and UConn.
So the ACC could lose FSU and Miami to the Big 12, without necessarily shaking lose UNC for the SEC, and VTech and UVA to the Big Ten, still without necessarily shaking lose UNC for the SEC. If SEC internal politics block taking GTech and Clemson, AND Tobacco Road sticks together, then the SEC stands pat, the ACC takes UConn and Cincinnati, and the ACC is bent but not broken.
So there are possibilities that lay something between the ACC surviving in its present form and the ACC completely collapsing. There’s a forum discussion preference for drama, and collapse of an existing conference is dramatic, but if there weren’t countervailing forces, we’d have the Super 16 conferences in place already.
LikeLike
Just from observation….it looks like V Tech and its fans/culture is to VA very much as A&M and its fans/culture is to Texas………….that is, schools like VA and TX are better institutional fits for the BIG than V Tech or A&M.
LikeLike
How so?
LikeLike
2 things that lead me to think 18-20+ may be possible.
1. Delany wanted to partner with the PAC 12 to play a “B1G vs ACC Challenge” type football scheduling agreement (along with scheduling in other sports). I personally was very excited about this as it would build up more rivalries between the two conferences which would come together again at the end of the season with the Rose Bowl and would get teams that just don’t make it to the Rose Bowl into the action. It also exposed the Big 10 to fertile recruiting grounds. Delany expressed this as one of the reasons that the Big 10 expanded again, he felt the PAC 12 partnership would have brought some of the same benefits of expansion, without expansion.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21060282/delany-pac-12-scheduling-agreement-might-have-made-expansion-unnecessary
2. I agree with other posters here, that if Big 10 were able to grab Georgia Tech and Florida State, and then North Carolina and Virginia came available the Big 10 may have to grab them as they are too valuable. This would also mean you would have contiguous states all the way from Nebraska to Florida. So the Big 10 would be 18, this doesn’t work well for pods, but what if the conference was split in half for football, 9 and 9. You play the other 8 teams in your group, then you are scheduled another team from the other 9 to play in a Big 10 West vs Big 10 East Challenge. You wouldn’t play the other 9 very often, but it would likely create an interesting Championship game, since the likelihood of a rematch would be far lower then in the current system. I think folks forgot that Nebraska beat Wisconsin earlier in the season, it’s hard to get motivated to play a team again that you already lost to (I’m not saying that is the only reason for the loss, but probably factored in). Also see Nebraska v Washington in their bowl game last year.
Conclusion
Okay splitting a tradition rich conference in half would be hard. Under the scenario above 6 new member would make up the east, how do you pick the other 3? Penn State is somewhat of a geographic outlier and doesn’t have as much history in the conference in comparison to others and moving Nebraska to the East would be difficult geographically, so maybe you shuffle Penn State over, that would still require 2 more schools to move to the east and give up traditional rivalries. Or it would require the addition of 4 more teams. That would allow an 11 team conference of the old Big 10 core, plus Nebraska, and basically an annex of the best of the ACC. Nebraska and Iowa wouldn’t play Florida State or North Carolina very often in the conference, but they already don’t play them often! You again would play 8 of the other 10 teams the way the Big 10 functioned for 20 years, and play a 9th game against the other side of the conference. It would have given you all the benefits of the PAC 12 and Big 10 partnership plus Delany would be shopping around a third of the best football schools in the country when renegotiating.
I know this is extreme, but it creates a huge conference that still functions in some ways as two separate tradition and rivalry rich divisions.
LikeLike
This would also ease the pain of leaving the ACC for key schools as most rivalries are kept in place. The teams left out would be recent additions for Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt and Boston College, and Wake and Clemson would be left behind. In basketball you could play everyone once. This would also be quite the academic group, even with the addition of 4 non AAU schools.
Big 10 Midwest
1 Ohio State
2 Michigan
3 Wisconsin
4 Iowa
5 Michigan State
6 Nebraska
7 Minnesota
8 Illinois
9 Purdue
10 Indiana
11 Northwestern
Big 10 Atlantic
1 Penn State
2 Florida State
3 Duke
4 North Carolina
5 Virginia Tech
6 Virginia
7 Maryland
8 Georgia Tech
9 Rutgers
10 Miami (FL)
11 North Carolina State
LikeLike
That would be a monster, no doubt about that. Can’t imagine the SEC would sit idly by and watch this transpire, however.
LikeLike
I think many of us need to step back and look at the big picture. There are tradeoffs being made every time you expand, but people are ignoring them.
Gains so far:
1. FB brand with NE
2. Expanded footprint to populous states with MD and NJ
3. Grew the CIC with large research schools
4. Gained the money from a CCG
5. Gained NE/PSU, NE/MI and NE/IA
6. MI/MN and OSU/IL restored as annual games
Losses so far:
1. WI/IA, MSU/PSU and MI/IL as annual games
2. Frequency of play (75% to 40% to ?)
3. Midwestern feel of the conference (once RU and MD join)
I think almost everyone agrees NE was worth it. MD and RU were taken for long term reasons so their additions were less popular, but I think they’ll be accepted in hindsight as wise moves for the schools if not the athletic conference.
Future expansion is going to continue to trade money, maybe brands, and footprint for rivalries and frequency of play against the old B10 teams. There is a point where the gains stop being worth the costs to most people. Clearly 12 wasn’t that point for the COP/C, and 14 probably isn’t it either, but 16 likely is. Beyond that we are really talking about two allied groups rather than a conference. The B10 already tried that approach with the P12 and it fell apart.
I think many people look at this as a game to win with no consequences. You can’t just keep growing with no limit. I believe we are headed to 4.5 power conferences (ACC in BB only). The B10 and SEC may go to 16 eventually, the P12 will probably stay at 12 for a while, and the B12 will probably grow back to 12 eventually. That’s fitting based on where the population is in the US. The ACC will be the eastern remnants of the current BE and ACC.
This brings up several big questions:
1. Which 2 teams does the B10 get?
This is where the FSU talk suffers for me. This only happens if the ACC core stays together.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121201/SPORTS/312010071/Bryce-Miller-Big-Ten-likely-look-south-new-teams?nclick_check=1
The former ISU president had some interesting comments about it. Basically, he said look for AAU schools that expand the footprint, and named GT and UNC. IL’s chancellor also said it starts with academic fit and contiguous geography helps.
I think the B10 will first consider UVA, UNC and maybe GT and VT. The schools have to want to join, too, which is the other problem. I think the VA and NC schools stay in the ACC, so the B10 looks at GT + 1. The 1 is either FSU or Miami, I think. The pending NCAA sanctions hurt Miami’s cause, but they’re a better school than FSU. I’ll guess GT + Miami, but not with any confidence. More likely they stay at 14 until something major changes (like the B12 taking FSU and Clemson).
2. Which 2 teams does the SEC get?
Since they have a network coming, they need markets more than brands. That means no FSU or Miami or GT or Clemson unless they run out of options. If the ACC core holds, the SEC is hemmed in. They can do the inverse of the B10 taking GT by getting Pitt and/or UC, but I don’t see that. With their self-imposed ban on Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson and UL, there aren’t any good options left. They stay at 14 until something changes.
3. Which 2 teams does the B12 get?
They almost have to pick from the ACC, but those schools have to want to go. FSU and Clemson? If they go, that may trigger a chain reaction as GT and Miami suddenly want out. That could push the B10 to 16. Otherwise, everyone could stay where they are for a while.
4. Who’s left for the ACC?
Good question. I think the ACC core sticks together and adds 2 FL schools
UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF, UVA, VT, Pitt, UL, Syracuse, BC, USF, UCF
Of more interest to me is the the future breakup of the superconferences. Is there a point where the money is big enough that the athletic conferences will drop their financial dead weight? That would make for a whole new game, but I don’t think it will happen. Maybe a school that gets the death penalty will get the boot, but it’s unlikely that anyone gets kicked out otherwise.
LikeLike
This is why I think a 22 team conference (functioning in Football as two) may make sense as it restores many of the traditions you have pointed out, but adds TV sets, leverage, and CIC connections.
LikeLike
ZSchroeder,
I’ve proposed the B22 for that reason, but not seriously. I don’t think the COP/C wants a merger, and that’s what it would be.
LikeLike
This wouldn’t be a merger, it would be the Big 10 taking a few nibbles at a time until they can bite off the whole thing.
LikeLike
My school is in the Big Ten. I’m hoping that we add the following 6 schools – going to 20; a mix of AAU and non-AAU schools.
FSU, GT, Miami, UVA, UNC, ND
“At a certain point you’re no longer a conference, you’re more of an association,” – Jim Delaney
Personally I love the idea of separating from the NCAAssociation.
I believe that FSU, Miami, GT, PSU, OSU, Minn would agree.
By the way, if B1G separates from the NCAA, would Miami, PSU & OSU’s sanctions carry over? I know that PSU has been punished by B1G already.
LikeLike
The NCAA is a voluntary membership organization. The only reason the sanctions hold is because the members agree to abide by them. If the B1G schools create a new organization, the sanctions are over unless everyone jointly agrees to preserve them.
I did not agree with the Penn State sanctions [and I’m a Michigan fan]. But no university president or A.D. outside of Pennsylvania has spoken out against them, so I think there would be a broad consensus to keep the status quo, even in a hypothetical NCAA replacement.
In terms of “what schools the B1G should add,” you need to be realistic. It’s not whether YOU want Notre Dame; it’s whether you can envision a scenario where ND would want the B1G.
LikeLike
As a Notre Dame guy, I can honestly say I don’t think I will ever see (in my lifetime atleast) Notre Dame join a conference for football. I’m not one of those independence or die guys, if joining a conference is what we have to do to continue to compete for National Titles then its what we have to do…..but as long as there is an angle for us to compete without joining a conference, I’d rather see us continue to be independent. I’m not a Big Ten hater (most of the older fans that I know aren’t) in fact I enjoy the pageantry involved in the big matchups. I attended both Notre Dame/Michigan games these past two seasons and they were amazing. I think a few issues will keep Notre Dame independent regardless of what the Big Ten does.
1: The endowment for Notre Dame is such that money is not something that can be used as leverage. The millions gained by joining a conference such as the Big Ten might be offset by the millions in donations that would stop because of it.
2: The Big Ten is so large now that the conference schedule would restrict rivalires important to us such as Navy, Southern Cal, Stanford, and to a lesser extent Boston College, Pittsburgh, and a very fresh but potentially budding new rivalry with Miami (although this is of very minimal importance compared to rivalries with the others I mentioned).
3: One of the major draws for the Big Ten is the Billions of dollars on the academic side through the CIC research coop. This however is not a draw for Notre Dame because of the CIC’s acceptance of Stem Cell research. Notre Dame is very staunch in its stance against Stem Cell research and would abstain from the coop altogether. So there would be minimal gain on the academic side by joining.
All in all, I think Notre Dame would just be an odd fit in the Big Ten; as the B1G expands though…..I hope they leave room in their scheduling for Notre Dame/Michigan and Notre Dame/MSU possibilities. Losing those games would be a shame on both ends.
LikeLike
“Notre Dame is very staunch in its stance against Stem Cell research and would abstain from the coop altogether.”
*Embryonic stem cell research. I don’t think the Catholic church has a problem with adult stem cell research. I know that’s what you meant, just wanted to clarify.
LikeLike
@ Read The D,
Yes, I’m sorry, embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for clarifying that!
LikeLike
But there are 3 conferences with very little in the way of deadweight.
In the Big Ten and SEC, even the smallest members give you something (i.e. Northwestern and Vandy have significant academic cachet along with being located in prime real estate… think about how hard Michigan State and Iowa mine Chicago for students).
The Mississippi schools and Indiana schools likewise bring a state (Indiana brings good basketball) and the kings need wins.
Let’s not forget where all those Michigan/Ohio State all-time wins come from; you have to fill up on wins against the teams on the lower rungs to get fattened up 10-12 win records annually. I don’t think they ever want to create an “NFL” where 8-9 wins is acceptable for a school like Ohio State or Michigan.
As for the Pac-12, the only deadweight in that conference is Washington State, but they have a pairs philosophy and someone has to lose games.
Now, the ACC is a completely different story. You have too many schools in one region of the country (7 in the Carolinas and Virginia), and the remaining 7 schools only really deliver Florida and a handful of markets.
Take BC and Wake Forest; I’m not sure either does that much nowadays for that conference. Boston isn’t a place to recruit students and it’s probably the worst large metro TV market in the country for college football…
LikeLike
I’d say there is one with little deadweight. The issue in the Pac 12 is geography. So to get to 12, they need WSU, OSU, Utah and 2 schools in Arizona. The SEC would do fine without Arkansas, Mississippi schools, South Carolina, Missouri and Vanderbilt. A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, UGA, Florida, Tennessee, UK and two of the others would almost certainly get a larger TV contract per school than the 14 member conference. The B1G is the only one as it mostly has 1 school per state, only 1 private and all large states except for Iowa and Nebraska.
LikeLike
As far as the SEC goes, all those schools bring states at least…
As far as the Pac-12; they always liked the pairs philosophy so it is what it is. Plus, with them it doesn’t matter because no one could poach their schools if they wanted to, all those schools look to the West Coast (including Colorado).
LikeLike
@bullet
What makes Arkansas, Missouri, South Carolina and Vandy deadweight for the SEC. Yet, Iowa, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Wisconsin not deadweight for the B1G?
LikeLike
Minnesota and Wisconsin have more people than South Carolina and Arkansas and a 100 years more history. Iowa and Northwestern are marginal like Arkansas and S. Carolina.
LikeLike
They don’t kick anyone out. The best secede as happened with the creation of the Big 8, Big 12, ACC, SEC and MWC.
I think its clear the B1G is looking to become B16, although I really don’t see enough value in schools that fit. Does it really make sense to have a 2 school wing just because Georgia and Florida have a lot of people with one of those schools 2nd tier in its own city (3rd if you count the Hawks, Falcons and Braves)?
If the B1G adds two, UVA needs to be one. They make sense. UNC gets added if they are willing, but I just don’t see that being a good fit. Their athletics are good and broad. Their academics are excellent. They are the same type of school. But as some of those maps show, North Carolina’s ties are to Atlanta and the south, not to DC and the north.
So if Georgia Tech and non-AAU Florida schools and UNC are out, whose left? Duke-not without UNC. Pitt-only if noone else is acceptable since, while they are a good fit, they add no value. Syracuse-a school that PSU quit playing in the 80s because their program had declined so much and a good school but one that is de-emphasizing research? Syracuse is a Minnesota-once a power, now an also ran. Louisville would be a better bet and UL isn’t acceptable. BC-a school that seriously struggles when it doesn’t win and sits in a pro market would be a bad choice for both sides. UConn-non AAU and not close. I think I would take UConn of that group, although the presidents might take Pitt.
LikeLike
This also brings us to the question of whether anyone pulls the trigger. The B1G is the giant with the biggest earnings and therefore the biggest gun. Will they add Georgia Tech without a UVA bridge? Will UVA move first? So if the B1G doesn’t move first, will the SEC? If they are willing to take Duke to get UNC or want UVA more than VT, I don’t see them moving first. They only move first if Virginia Tech is someone they want.
So it gets down to the Big 12 and FSU. FSU needs to decide the $ are too much bigger in the Big 12 and the risk of doing nothing is too high. And they need the SEC to tell them they aren’t interested. Then, they might be the one who starts the dominos. But even then, other schools have to decide to go with them or the situation stabilizes for awhile.
LikeLike
bullet,
That’s pretty much where I came down, too. The VA and NC schools won’t move first (or ever in my opinion), and the SEC doesn’t want the southern 4 ACC schools. It’s up to the B12 to steal at least 2 (FSU and Clemson, probably) to get things started.
With those 2 gone, GT would be low hanging fruit for the B10 I think. The issue would be #16. ND doesn’t want it and I’m not sure the B10 wants Miami. They may not have a choice, though, as UVA and UNC probably hold firm. That leaves the B10 to decide if GT/Miami is worth it or not. I tend to think the B10 passes, but maybe not.
At the same time the B10 is working for 2 from the ACC, the SEC will be talking with UNC and others (NCSU, Duke, VT, UVA) to see if there is mutual interest. I think the ACC core also rejects them, preferring to stay in a strong hoops and mediocre FB league. After surveying the scene, the SEC also decides to stand pat.
I just don’t see the ACC core crumbling right now, and that stops the B10 and SEC at 14 or maybe 16, with the B12 maybe at 12.
LikeLike
Not sure if Penn State stopped playing Syracuse because “their program had declined so much.” The last five years the teams played, Syracuse was 42-16. The five years prior to that, Syracuse was 25-30. The five years after the teams stopped playing, Syracuse was 42-15. If anything, it was the opposite. The trend was away from Syracuse being an easy win for PSU.
More likely, as with PSU dropping the Pitt series a year after dropping Syracuse, PSU wanted to get acclimated to the Big 10 schedule more than anything else. Both of those series ended with Syracuse (1991) and Pitt (1992) being home–i.e. the end of a home and home sequence. In 1993, PSU had to move forward with 8 conference games and 3 OOC games… big change for a former independent (i.e. 11 OOC games).
Also, my understanding was that, with the B1G schedule, PSU needed home games and needed its OOC opponents to agree to something other than mere home-and-home arrangements. Pitt and Syracuse were unwilling to be on the road disproportionately.
Here is a REAL interesting tidbit though. Look at the three teams PSU was played OOC in 1993: USC, Rutgers, and Maryland. Not sure whether it was just happenstance or whether PSU just always liked those schools. Kind of funny that both ended up in the B1G ultimately. Notably, Maryland visited PSU every year from 1986 to 1993, except 1993. Rutgers visited PSU from 1992 to 2003, with no home games. Those schools were just less interested in having home games against PSU (maybe because PSU travels so well?), which was what PSU needed. BTW, for historical scores, see one of my favorite sites: http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/PennState.htm#1990.
Not saying that Syracuse makes sense for the B1G, of course. Private. Smaller research, etc. Not sure basketball alone can carry the day (although MSU, Indiana, etc., visiting the Carrier Dome has always been compelling TV). The optimistic Syracuse fan notes the parallels between the current trajectory of the football team and the early 1980’s (trying to undo the stink of a horrible coach). The realist is skeptical. Either way, nobody is taking Syracuse to beef up football these days.
LikeLike
The story I heard was that PSU dropped SU because they were weak and had no fan support at the time. That may have been incorrect. But schedules are made in advance and PSU had won 16 in a row in 1986 and played them through 1990. SU may have improved, but too late to be continued on PSU’s schedule.
LikeLike
Schedules back then were not made so far in advance.
There were hard feelings though. Paterno blamed Syracuse for Penn State not getting into the Big East. Dave Gavitt is on record as saying that Syracuse voted for Penn State and was an advocate. We all know this issue as the one factor that has led to almost all of this conference realignment discussion. Had Penn State ultimately ended up in the Big East… who knows where this all goes.
LikeLike
PSU stopped playing Syracuse because Cuse refused to schedule PSU in basketball. Because of this, PSU said they’d play the Orangemen in football but only with an uneven home/away (I think 6 home/4 away was tossed out there) and Cuse turned it down, only willing to do a straight home and home. So, they didn’t renew the series after the then current deal. PSU happened to join the Big Ten in the meantime, which didn’t allow for space for the series anyway.
LikeLike
Good post and I agree entirely.
One thing I think people forget is that the college conference is very unique. Few other places do you have people cheering for all conference teams so hard. That’s do to a lot of factors, but is likely to dwindle in future given a) bigger conference where we are less familiar with other teams and b) playoff where strength of conference becomes less of a factor than in 2 team system.
LikeLike
Actually, if you go to 18 with my 6 pods of 3 each, almost all the original 10 Big10 teams (besides Iowa, but they get UNL & Miami yearly and a lot of FL exposure) would play each other almost as often as they do in a 14-team conference, all the major rivalries would be played annually, and almost all of the trophy games of any signifigance (so not the PSU-Minnesota “rivalry”, for instance) would be played at least 2/3rds of the time. Each pod would virtually never play the pod “opposite” it, but Michigan, MSU, & Illinois virtually never play FSU, VTech, & UVa these days anyway.
For the Big10, I think 18 is kind of the soft limit as, other than the pods being harder to figure out (and it seems that 4 pods of 4 may be too much for casual fans anyway), there’s almost no difference between 16 & 18. 20 is a hard limit, and would require breaking up major rivalries, so you really don’t go there unless you have to do so to add a ND, Texas, or UF.
LikeLike
So why would you go to 18 when 16 leaves that 18 option and 18 leaves an unpleasant 20 option if ND decides to say yes.
LikeLike
I would stop at 16 if the VA schools are 15 & 16. However, I think the FL schools would be easiest to shake loose. Basically, I don’t want to cede (rapidly Midlandizing/Northernizing) VA to the SEC over the long run, and how can you resist adding 2 kings in FSU & Miami?
LikeLike
At the rate we’re going, it won’t be long until the Big 10 stops at 120.
LikeLike
Who gets left out?
LikeLike
Rice. Rice always gets left out.
LikeLike
And TCU, or else the B10 will crumble.
LikeLike
Also I don’t think any of ND, UF, or Texas come in the next 2 decades and likely they never join.
LikeLike
In what sense are six team pods actually pods, as opposed to being divisions?
Three six team divisions, nine conference games, play through both opposing divisions over three years would be more more cross conference connection than two nine team divisions, nine conference games, play through the opposing division over nine years.
But four, four team divisions playing a nine conference game schedule could play through the entire conference every two years, or in a mix of two and three years, if a pair of four team divisions have locked cross division games.
LikeLike
Richard’s talking about THREE team pods. Six pods. They would combine 3 pods, mixing and matching to get different 9 team divisions each year.
LikeLike
Aha ~ yes, that is a pod. Though if you have six, three team pods, forming the pods into pairs to make six team divisions gives more flexibility for locked cross-pod games.
LikeLike
Tossing someone would be the true death knell for any sense of decency.
LikeLike
I also agree that people get caught up in the “conquest” type stuff. It’s not a zero sum game.
LikeLike
Big East dumped Temple. Pac effectively dumped Idaho. 5 schools withdrew and they eventually added back the Oregon schools and WSU.
LikeLike
Of course, part of the reason a lot of schools were willing to leave their leagues is you can’t toss anyone out. If the Big 12 could have tossed ISU and Baylor, if the ACC could have tossed Wake, if the Big East could have tossed some of their lower-end basketball schools etc. those leagues would have had stronger remaining cores. No big power (except seemingly Texas) wants to be stuck carrying water for a bunch of deadweights or near-deadweights.
LikeLike
I doubt that so many universities currently in the Big Ten will be so confident that they could never be on the one on the chopping block to allow for tossing a school just for media marketing. It would have to be something seen as a serious and ongoing failure by the school getting tossed.
Plus you start to work on tossing a school out, you better have the numbers in hand before it becomes public, since otherwise that’s a good way to make a long standing enemy inside your conference.
LikeLike
One point here………….nothing PREVENTS schools like Wisky and Iowa or Illinois and OSU from playing OOC games against one another……if we’re playing 4 OOC games, not every one HAS to be a bunny………..
LikeLike
Indeed. If MSU insists on playing Northwestern annually & Illinois insists on the Illibuck game at least 2/3rds of the time, Northwestern-Illinois may have to be OOC 1/3rd of the time with 18 teams. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. It could even be held in Chicago; Soldier Field?
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“One point here………….nothing PREVENTS schools like Wisky and Iowa or Illinois and OSU from playing OOC games against one another”
I don’t know how the B10 feels about that. I doubt they would prevent it, but they may advise against it so schools can get exposure nationally instead.
“……if we’re playing 4 OOC games, not every one HAS to be a bunny………..”
OSU is aiming to play only AQ teams OOC in the future, so it’s not an issue of bunnies. Visiting other parts of the country to see alumni and gain exposure is important, though.
LikeLike
The years that Purdue and IU only played one conference basketball game they played a non-conference game at the Hoosier Dome in Indy.
LikeLike
Hoops isn’t football. You only have 3 or 4 OOC games to play with in FB.
LikeLike
B10 teams have played each other in football OOC before. This isn’t an unprecedented act. Also don’t know why the league would be against it; I’m sure they’d much prefer it to Purdue giving HaH’s to Marshall or IU giving HaH’s to UMass.
LikeLike
I’d do this tomorrow if I were a B1G university president. This would be an unbelieveably great addition… snatch GaTech and Florida State out from the ACC, give the finger to the SEC, and get an income windfall! Except for travel (and who would mind visiting Florida in November??) I don’t see a downside.
LikeLike
I’ve thought of this as well. For northern schools, it would be like a mid-season bowl game, and let’s face it, this ‘go up north to play in the tundra’ thing is waaay overblown. Only the last two or three games of the season are in cold weather and FSU/GT could schedule to avoid that.
LikeLike
Tallahassee is NOTHING like Miami, guys. Not in the same universe. Tallahassee is more like Alabama than it is like South Beach. Weather and culture both.
LikeLike
Today (Dec 7th) in Tally it is in the 70s and sunny. Beautiful day…beautiful week.
I think for midwestern teams, the blue/aqua beaches 1-2 hours away would be heaven.
But I might be wrong.
LikeLike
The downside is that the SEC and BIG will NEVER 1 up each other……the SEC can match ANY move the BIG makes, and more……so you end up with the insanity of 18 or 20 or 22 team leagues.
LikeLike
Exactly. The SEC has plenty of good options as well. The B1G can’t take all of them.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
One thing I have not seen mentioned on here about FSU is the role of the state government of Florida. I seriously doubt that the state will allow FSU to be stuck on the outside looking in. Virginia Tech was allowed entry into the ACC because the state government in Virginia put pressure on the University of Virginia to strongly advocate Va.Tech’s membership. I feel like the state of Florida would also put pressure on UF to promote FSU’s membership to the SEC. And FSU also happens to be located in the state’s capitol, so the FSU president and trustees are right there rubbing elbows with the lawmakers. The state universities are basically tax payer investments and I don’t see how they would allow one university to strive (UF) and the other major university to die on the vine (FSU).
LikeLike
SEC is too strong to be bullied.
As is the Big Ten; it’s not like Iowa’s legislators could force the Big Ten to take Iowa State.
LikeLike
FSU is in no danger whatsoever of “dying on the vine.” The newly-approved playoff guarantees the ACC a seat at the table until at least 2026. FSU’s path to a major bowl game is actually easier in the ACC than in the Big Ten, because the ACC is a weaker league.
Sure, FSU would stand to make more money in the Big Ten, but the ACC is not on its deathbed. They could remain where they are for a long time to come.
LikeLike
The issue isn’t that FSU would “die on the vine” in the ACC. The issue is that their AD would be passed financially by their SEC neighbors to the point to where they wouldn’t be able to compete with the constantly growing arms race. The SEC schools that neighbor FSU are in a constant mode of facilaties upgrades (it never stops), and that will only grow in the future once the SEC starts getting the new SEC Network and bowl revenues. And in the next 10 or 20 years, you’ll see HC salaries grow to the point where it dwarfs the $3mil – $5mil a year that it’s at now (not to mention the asst coaches). That is FSU’s concern, and it is a valid one.
LikeLike
Maybe. But there’s got to be a point of diminishing returns. There’s only so much you can spend and then the marginal value of each extra dollar only adds so much. The question is where that cut-off lies? Is FSU already above it, or is it still higher?
LikeLike
That’s never been an issue. UF has sponsored FSU’s membership with the SEC every time it’s come up for a vote (about a dozen times over the last 40 years). FSU is in the ACC because the last time UF sponsored them, they changed their mind and went to the ACC.
FSU will never be on the outside looking in.
The State of Florida also isn’t just a 2 program state anymore.
If the legislature is going to get involved, it would be to make sure that UCF and USF don’t get burned by realignment.
Those two programs are legitimately at risk right now.
LikeLike
If you add both Georgia Tech and Florida State, you get a bit of a synergy effect. I’ve heard that Florida State has a fair number of fans in the southern part of Georgia, and I’d assume that there are a decent number of Georgia Tech grads living in Florida.
Also, with those two schools, you set things up very nicely for a future North Carolina and Virginia addition, if you decided to go to 18.
People are saying that the Big 10 would lose its identity as a Midwest conference, but you could instead make its identity as a conference of athletic and academic giants and emphasize the BIG (which they’re already doing). Georgia Tech is a smaller school, but it is in one of the largest urban areas in the country, in a top-ten population state. Florida State is in top-5 state and has a big-time football and overall athletic program.
LikeLike
Face it. Most of the SEC sychophants in the media hate the Big Ten. This guy thinks the B1G can grab a chunk of the NYC market.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/college-football/big-ten-can-make-an-imprint-in-the-ny-market-1.4301274
LikeLike
Re-reading it, I guess it’s mostly Delany who thinks it’s doable, but still encouraging.
LikeLike
It’s not that they hate the Big Ten; it’s that the college football media is sort of caught up in the here-and-now of who’s winning right now.
No one’s going to take issue with the fact that the SEC is far ahead of the pack competitively, although a part of that is that the conference is the least balanced (fewest upsets in terms of how far ahead the top 5-6 programs are against the bottom 7-8).
The media isn’t really adapted to look 25 years down the road, 50 years down the road.
LikeLike
Nobody wants to read about how conferences are setting themselves up for a future that will look vastly different from the past.
If the Big Ten has to get to 16 or 18 or 20 teams to do so, then it should do so.
LikeLike
And nobody is looking at 120 years down the road, when people are more interested in virtual planet exploring than following other people’s athletic pursuits.
LikeLike
Zeek says “although a part of that is that the conference is the least balanced (fewest upsets in terms of how far ahead the top 5-6 programs are against the bottom 7-8).”
This just isn’t based on fact. Here are the 6 best this year: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, A&M and USC.
Now, to believe your comment we’d have to believe Arkansas (one year removed from a top 5 finish), Auburn (two years removed from a Nat’l championship), Tenn (long history of success in the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s) can’t compete with those six teams who had success this year.
The SEC easily goes 10 deep with programs that can have BCS level success. I’d add Mizzou and Ole Miss into the mix as competitive programs.
LikeLike
FranktheAg,
It is based on fact.
The top 6 were undefeated against the bottom 8 this year. No other conference was so stratified. The SEC hasn’t had a major upset since Ole Miss beat Tebow in 2008, and even then MS was 2nd in the West. Other conferences have upsets more frequently.
LikeLike
For one year Brian. Stating there is a tier of 6 programs far better than the next best four is incorrect unless you discount all but one year of data.
LikeLike
FranktheAg,
“For one year Brian.”
I think this year was an extreme example, but the trend holds. Where are the big upsets? We’re talking about 1 in 5 seasons. That’s 1 in 245 games. I realize not all of them could be upsets, but that’s still rare.
OSU dominated the B10 like nobody else lately but got upset by IL in 2007 and PU in 2009 and 2011. USC used to get upset regularly. OU and UT get upset.
“Stating there is a tier of 6 programs far better than the next best four is incorrect unless you discount all but one year of data.”
How about this?
SEC W% from 1992-2011
FL 77.1%
TN 65.8
AL 64.0
GA 61.9
AU 61.4
LSU 59.9
AR 47.9
There’s a 12 percentage point drop from #6 to #7, and that equals 22 more wins over 20 years.
SEC W% from 2002-2011
LSU 72.9%
FL 68.7
GA 67.9
AU 67.1
AL 63.9
TN 52.4
There’s an 11.5 percentage point drop from #5 to #6, and that equals 10 more wins over 10 years.
SEC W% from 2007-2011
AL 79.1%
LSU 69.8
FL 66.7
GA 63.4
AU 56.1*
AR 52.5
SC 51.2
TN 41.5
There’s an 11 percentage point drop from #4 to #6, and that equals 5 more wins over 5 years. I skipped AU because of the Cam Newton year. Remove that 9-0 and AU falls to 43.8% and #7.
No matter the time scale, there’s always a drop of 1+ W per season.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState,
Interesting article.
“Demographics matter,” Delany said. “I think it matters to be in New Jersey and Maryland and around D.C., Philadelphia and New York. It matters to us for it to be contiguous. It matters for it to be flagship universities.”
Contiguous and flagships matter. So no FSU and no GT? No VT? Looks like the B10 stays at 14, then.
LikeLike
Also this:
“Not counting Rutgers and Maryland, Delany said there are 600,000 Big Ten alums living in the New York and Washington, D.C., areas. The Big Ten also views that as a rich recruiting ground for out-of-state students. Not athletes, but the ones who pay tuition.”
That’s a lot of built in fans to prime the pumps.
LikeLike
I feel as though many here don’t understand Florida schools well enough to really judge here. FSU has NOT been a big-time school for very long – not in terms of number of alumni – they exploded a few decades ago in size but before that were a non-entity.
The Tallahassee area is VERY Southern – not at all like South Florida, which is Northern in character. The character of the school is more like Texas A&M than Texas.
Combine those two facts and I’m not sure FSU REALLY has the profile of “ton of grads in a big media market” that the Big Ten would need to make this work. They don’t have a ton of grads at all, and they don’t overwhelm the Miami or Tampa markets either.
LikeLike
The issue that I would take with that characterization is that they’re no different from UF in terms of where their student body comes from…, yes they’re in Tallahassee, but the student body mix is similar to UF’s… (supermajority drawn from the area between Orlando and South Florida).
LikeLike
The academic relation of FSU to UF is similar to that of Michigan State to Michigan: FSU students tend to be kids that aren’t good enough to get into UF.
(Of course, both Michigan schools are better than their Florida counterparts, but it’s a similar relationship.)
LikeLike
As someone that went to both Michigan and Michigan State, i cannot stand this statement – which I hear all the time. Shockingly enough, some people choose to go to the “little brother” school for all sorts of reasons. Give it a rest.
LikeLike
As someone who went to Michigan for grad school, I can firmly say that it’s a cut above Michigan State from what I’ve seen. Clearly all of the metric bear that out as well.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t good students at MSU. I went to Mizzou for undergrad even though I got into several other schools that were “better”.
LikeLike
You “hear it all the time” because it’s generally true. What do you think is the percentage of kids who can get into both, and choose MSU? I’m not saying it never occurs — there is practically nothing involving human behavior to which the word “never” applies — but I don’t think there is any denying that Michigan is the better school, and that most upper-achievers will prefer Michigan if they have the choice.
LikeLike
I know several. So believe whatever makes y’all feel better. I just can’t stand elitists attitudes. It’s shallow and shortsighted.
If I’m hiring a business person I tend to lean toward msu grads because they tend to be better grounded and rounded, particularly socially.
He’ve had good and bad from all schools – from Cooley to Harvard. If you think the school makes the man, you’re an idiot.
LikeLike
And msu has never that I’m aware of had race based admissions like um, which unquestionably reduce access to higher qualified asians, middle easterners (which there ate a lot of in mi) and whites, over others. Not that I really want to discuss the topic but don’t tell me that all people end up where test scoring says they should.
LikeLike
Andy,
of course, taken as a whole UM is objectively a “better” school than MSU. that’s not the issue.
when people phrase something like – the people at school X couldn’t get into school Y so that’s why they are there are just plain wrong. I hear this all the time from people that couldn’t get into a community college let alone the school they are dismissing.
LikeLike
Sure, you could go to Cooley and become a billionaire; you could go to Harvard and become a failure. But if you compared the Cooley and Harvard graduating classes 20 years afterward, you’ll find that the Harvard kids (on average) did better. Surely you don’t dispute that. I mean, there IS a real reason why the kids who have the chance, WANT to get into the better schools. The school doesn’t make the man, but going to the better one certainly helps your chances.
LikeLike
Actually, I think most academics would rank the University of Florida over Michigan State University.
LikeLike
What I meant is that Michigan > UF and MSU > FSU, not that MSU > UF (which it isn’t).
LikeLike
-According to my composite rankings (BCS schools only):
5 UM 1380.7570
21 Florida 1098.2724
26 MSU 1066.0273
45 Florida St. 714.1528
LikeLike
Of course…
LikeLike
@ Marc
You’re the one that said the kids at FSU “weren’t good enough to get into” FLA.
LikeLike
I’m gonna let this go, I’m sorry if I came off harsh. I’m an attorney and the law is just a field full of asswipes who think that they are hot shit because they went to school X and that people who went to school Y are idiots. I f’ing hate those people. Not saying you’re one, I’m just sensitive about it I guess.
LikeLike
Florida State is a Top 100 research university and a true state school. Florida State and UF were founded by the same act of legislation and are in fact twin universities. For about half a century the schools were segregated by gender, with Florida State being designated for female students and UF for male students. Both universities have been co-educational since 1947. At that time Florida State re-instituted football and other sports for male athletes.
The vestiges of the old ideas about gender roles may still be seen today in the strengths of the universities. Florida State is traditionally strong in the humanities, the arts, education, psychology and social work. Its law and engineering schools, though acclaimed, are newer programs that were founded after the school went co-ed. At UF pre-med, agriculture and engineering are longstanding programs.
Students choose to go to Florida State because it is a good school for their major. That’s pretty much the same reason students choose to go anywhere. Unlike Michigan State and Michigan, there is not a huge difference between Florida State and UF in tuition cost.
LikeLike
I dunno. I was just in Miami last month. As a Notherner, I felt more like I was in Mexico (where I was in April) than New York (where I grew up) or Michigan (where I live). I think the cultural differences of where the demographics of South Florida are heading is vastly understated.
LikeLike
Awkward. I just mean that South Florida may presently be “northern” than “southern,” I think that the trajectory of that area is to be less “northern” and more “Latino.” It’s not headed towards southern, but it’s not headed toward northern either. It’s a great destination and outstanding for recruiting (today), but will it be like that in 15 or 30 or 75 years?
LikeLike
Miami is a bit of a different animal because of all the Cubans, Haitians, and South American expats. Fort Lauderdale/Naples north to Orlando/Tampa is definitely more northern than southern and more northern than Latino.
LikeLike
That’s true. I stayed north of Fort Lauderdale. Got that feeling.
It also seemed like L.A. to me. So much going on, I wonder if they need football. Speaking out of my arse, but I wonder if the Dolphins might someday move.
LikeLike
Pingback: ACC Football Daily Links — Conference Issues Strong Statement Amidst Big Ten Conference Realignment Talk | Atlantic Coast Convos
I think that FSU makes great sense for the B1G’s next move as an isolated academic compromise, but I would bring UVa as the subsequent move, rather than GTech. I think that UVa has a much better chance of delivering Virginia for the BTN than GTech has of delivering Georgia. I then would go head to head with the SEC and target both UNC and Duke. Two basketball brands of that magnitude would bring great value, and the Duke/UNC combo would appeal to UNC. I think those basketball brands combined with FSU and the large number of B1G alumni in the state would give the BTN great leverage in Florida. Duke and UNC would also help with NYC. Duke and UNC are also terrific research institutions.
Part of the appeal to these schools could be a plan to go to three all sport divisions (where the two division winners with the best records meet in the football championship game). The Atlantic division could consist of FSU, PSU, UNC, UVA, Duke, and Maryland. (The remaining 12 teams could be divided by time zone.)
LikeLike
Not sure about the Butch Jones hire. He followed Kelly at Central Michigan. He followed Kelly at Cincy. How will he do following Dooley?
LikeLike
I read an interesting comment elsewhere that Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska would all be fully vested in the BTN in 2014 if all of the new areas (NY, NJ & DC) are added as footprint states to the BTN. This could explain the huge numbers that Maryland was given by Delany when they where discussing the move. Could this make sense? Otherwise I have a hard time seeing how you could justify a longer buy-in to the BTN for UNL and then give Rutgers and Maryland $43+ million a year right off the bat.
Also I love the idea of FSU in the B1G! Nebraska and FSU matchups in football would be great as long as Nebraska keeps stepping its game up.
LikeLike
The differences are because each team negotiates its own deal to join the Big Ten; various reporters like Thamel have said that they’re different for each school. Delany or someone else did say that each team would have their own form of payout increases.
Most likely Maryland > Nebraska > Rutgers in terms of favorability of the deal.
It wouldn’t surprise me if it looked like this:
Nebraska (in terms of % of a full payout)
11-12: 57%
12-13: 62%
13-14: 68%
14-15: 75%
15-16: 83%
16-17: 91%
17-18: 100% (new TV deal in place)
Maryland (they’re receiving interest-free loans as well; possibly to “complete” their payouts to the numbers leaked to SI)
14-15: 80%
15-16: 85%
16-17: 90%
17-18: 95%
18-19: 100%
Rutgers
14-15: 40%
15-16: 50%
16-17: 60%
17-18: 70%
18-19: 100%
—————————————-
This is obviously completely idle speculation so take it for what it’s worth, but this is how I imagine it will play out…
Maryland got the most favorable deal (because they had the best bargaining position). Nebraska got a decent deal as well, and Rutgers obviously was in the least favorable position.
Delany said they use a proprietary formula to come up with the buy in…
LikeLike
Also, the deals are more favorable for Maryland especially and Rutgers (in terms of length of years) because of two big kick ups:
2014: playoff money starts
2017: new TV deal
Nebraska had the longest buy in because they joined 3 years before the first of those two events.
None of the teams can get full payouts until after 2017 when the new TV deal kicks in…
LikeLike
Zeek:
Do you have any links to Thamel or Delany saying that the new schools all have different buy-in schedules?
I’m a bit skeptical that that is the case (other than the interest-free loan to UMD to tide them over), considering the all-for-one-one-for-all culture of the B10. By market value, OSU should get several times what Northwestern does in TV payout, yet that is not the case.
LikeLike
The Pac-12 did the same thing with Utah and Colorado (Utah’s scale was a lot lower to start than Colorado’s).
The all-for-one-one-for-all culture has nothing to do with the buy in scale; once you’re at 100%, you’re at 100% like the other 11 members currently. That has nothing to do with the starting point (just as Colorado got a much more favorable deal than Utah).
LikeLike
The Pac may have, but do you have a link that the B10 had different buy-in schedules? I had not heard of anything like that, and I follow Thamel & the reporters who cover expansion pretty closely.
LikeLike
Yes Richard. Delaney said he had a proprietary formula for calculating the revenue that each addition gets.
It seemed to use their original base from their original league and then scales them towards 100% over time.
LikeLike
Think of it like this:
Nebraska received no less than they would have gotten in the Big 12.
Maryland will receive no less than they would in the ACC.
Rutgers will receive no less than they would in the Big East.
LikeLike
OK, I had never heard of Delany speaking of such a thing. If you can provide a link, that would be appreciated (if not, doesn’t matter).
LikeLike
Richard, I found it:
“According to Delany, Rutgers’ financial deal will be different from Maryland’s, with each school finally receiving a full share of the hefty Big Ten payouts by Year Six.
“All of the deals are a little bit different,” he said. “What will happen is, in six years, everyone who comes in — whether it was Nebraska, Rutgers or Maryland — six years hence will be in the same place. But in the transition they’re all a little bit different. They will be made whole at a certain time. Everybody’s different because everybody is coming from a different place.””
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/11/big_ten_welcomes_rutgers_as.html
LikeLike
My guess is that Rutgers will receive significantly less because the Big East currently gives them significantly less.
They’ll be scaled up from around $5-6 million per year to the expected $40-50 million per year by 2020.
Maryland will be scaled up from $17-18 million per year to the expected $40-50 million per year by 2020.
Nebraska is being scaled up from $10-11 million per year to the expected $40 million per year by 2017 (since they joined in 2011).
LikeLike
OK, thanks, Zeek.
LikeLike
@danimation707
Just saw this on the Business of College Sports:
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/12/03/grants-of-television-rights-not-increased-exit-fees-are-the-solution-to-realignment-frenzy/
I’m not sure that this is totally accurate, but it could help explain why the ACC is scrambling furiously as FSU shops around… The Exit Fee may be unenforceable….
Nemo
LikeLike
Speaking of sneaky, conspiracy theories… suppose rumors have been planted to show that the ACC’s reputation has been substantially damaged. Multiple Presidents have had to make statements. Every President signed that thing the other day about allegiance to the ACC. How do you quantify the loss of reputation/perception when a founding school leaves?
If Vanderbilt left the SEC for the B1G, wouldn’t that damage the SEC’s reputation substantially. They might be able to add more money by picking a new team, but the SEC would lose their best school. They would lose a member from long ago. And so on. Would the Big XII start sniffing around? Would the B1G then turn its attention to Florida–after all, it is possible for an SEC team to leave. Vandy did it.
When Miami left the Big East, that caused a scramble for the other spots. When teams started flirting with the B1G, the Big XII almost disappeared. How do you quantify that or measure it?
The first team leaving causes a ton of damage.
LikeLike
I’d agree. The fact that so many people on this board and other boards are talking about the imminent demise of the ACC speaks to the fact that the ACC suffered harm when Maryland left. The real question is how to prove in any tangible number what that harm actually is.
Also, depsite the fact that Louisville is arguably better than Maryland in both money sports (football and basketball) is irrelevant. The mere fact the Big 10 took Maryland over Louisville suggest Maryland is worth more. The fact that the ACC is not in a position to get a fresh new TV deal does mean that value was not lost. The question is if a 14 team Maryland ACC would get more money than a 14 team Louisville ACC. You could get valuation experts to testify on this.
Considering the Big 10 is talking about imminently being able to distribute over $40 million PER YEAR PER SCHOOL suggest to me that $50 million isn’t completely out of whack as a one time fee. This is a billion dollar industry. Damages are hard to calculate. An amount not that far off your yearly distribution does not seem overly punitive.
There’s a good argument for both sides.
LikeLike
You make a good point there in terms of how much value a school brings to a conference.
Louisville is an easy plug in for Maryland for the ACC’s TV deal because of the way that TV deal works.
There’s no loss of eyeballs by switching Louisville in against Florida State or Clemson; as far as brands go, there’s no loss in terms of the eyeballs that a matchup on ESPN or ESPN2 would get.
For the Big Ten with a TV network, it’s all different, the additional value of Maryland is the cable households in D.C. and Baltimore (a top 10 and the #26 TV markets) along with those national matchups.
For the ACC, that’s lost value if they did plan to create a network.
LikeLike
In fairness, though, some of the remaining teams have benefited from league instability. A&M, Missouri and Colorado have gone on to greener pastures after Nebraska walked. Rutgers, West Virginia and now Louisville improved their position after Pitt and Syracuse walked. I’m pretty sure a school’s obligation isn’t to the league as an institution, but to their fellows… and net-net, I don’t think the damage from any of those was enormous (since gains for some balance out losses for others).
With respect to the ACC, I suspect the story is the same. Either they don’t lose anyone (in which case no real damage was done) or it’s a mix of some gaining while others lose.
LikeLike
I thought UMD got a no-interest loan to help them with their current fiscal troubles. So there will still be a buy-in; it just would occur later.
LikeLike
I keep hearing about this “interest free” loan from the B1G, but I can’t confirm that. It was my understanding that MD was responsible for the way it was handled and its payment and that it is “covered”. Just how it is to be covered has not been disclosed. I may be wrong, but it is the assumption I am working on. As President Loh is a law Prof, I presume he knows how he is going to handle this. And, one argument advanced is that either there will be a “buy down” or that it is actually a penalty and not enforceable. There is a blog called Sports-Law blog and that point is made there as well. His view is there will be an agreement in the end that lowers the amount. I guess the lawyers will handle it no matter what.
LikeLike
Why does everyone keep talking about a Big 18 or Big 20 or Big 22 as if it were the Big Ten somehow conqueering the atlanti c coast?
Functionally, that’s not what it would be at all. If you’re offering actual full membership to all of these ACC schools then it isn’t a concquest.
It’s a merger.
It’s like that Pac 12/Big Ten partnership that fell through, except even more complete.
It would be more akin to the formation of the Big 12, which saw the death of the Big 8 and the Southwest Conference and the creation of an entirely new conference.
Except with a “Big 20” it wouldn’t even be a “conference” anymore. It would be more of an association. Because in any given year you’d only play 40% of the league.
This talk is crazy and I’m not sure it means what some of you think it means.
LikeLike
The Big Ten will tip its hand when it moves to 16.
If the move to 16 is UVa + 1, then it’s likely a full stopping point for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, if the Big Ten goes straight for something like FSU/Georgia Tech, then there will always be the potential move for a bridge back to Maryland…
LikeLike
I think if the additions are Georgia Tech and Florida State it means the ACC is done and North Carolina and Virginia are joining the SEC. FSU is too big of a loss for the ACC to take and remain a viable football conference.
LikeLike
I don’t think they believe that FSU leaving makes them non-viable. The problem for the ACC is if Virginia Tech and Clemson believe that.
LikeLike
It’s hard to see the ACC surviving without FSU, but don’t automatically assume that UVa goes to the SEC.
LikeLike
I think it would have to be a BTE and BTW situation where the winner of each division plays in the championship game at the end of the year. This allows the BTE (basically the original Big Ten) to play each other during the season with a BTW cross over. PSU would go east, the question is who the other team would be. The logical one is OSU. I actually think Michigan would volunteer. The fact is, the B1G needs to increase its footprint dramatically to draw the necessary recruits and eyeballs to make BTN a national entity. Traditionalists want things to remain as they were in 1975, but college football has become nationalized in the last twenty years and Delany (a well as the presidents, who see federal dollars drying up) see the writing on the wall.
LikeLike
Oops. I meant the BTWest would be the original B1G.
LikeLike
All of that is why I’m okay with the Big Ten going to 16 or even beyond.
I’d rather bet on the next 100 years than the previous 100.
LikeLike
Only in your world is 9/17 or 9/19=40%, Andy. Plus, saying that 16 is just right but that 18 is way, way too horribly much is just silly. Anyway, I fully expect you to change your tune when the SEC expands to 20, Andy.
LikeLike
I was talking about a Big 22 when I said 40%. A Big 20 would of course be 47%, which still isn’t much of a “conference”.
LikeLike
Love this topic and the future potential for the B1G.
However after looking at things, I don’t think FSU is the answer. I think it’s Miami. Nate Silver’s NT Times article lists the strongest fan bases and it is Miami that is high on that list. Additionally Miami has the academics that fit the B1G expectations better. Of the two Miami has national identity AND academics to fit. They are close to being another Nebraska, but with academics this time. I was surprised by the lack of national FSU fan base. The only question I have is the depth of fan base in the state of Florida specifically. If that were significantly skewed towards FSU, then maybe it adds to FSU’s value.
As the second school I wish GT would bring Atlanta, but I think that is wishful thinking. The Rambling Wreck is simply that in the number of TVs is grabs in Georgia.
Which brings me back to North Carolina if they’ll have the conversation. They simply don’t fit in a conference other than the ACC or the B1G. If they recognize the national trend (which seems obvious) then you’d think they’d make the leap. And UNC brings a nice growing market to the B1G.
On the SEC side, I think they are also playing the TV sets game. Which knocks out FSU, GT and Clemson, they’ve got those markets. VA Tech feels like a natural fit. and I think they target NC State to get into that NC market….and Duke just doesn’t fit with the SEC.
Which leads to the BIG WINNERS in this scenario….the Big 12. FSU (or Miami) and Clemson become absolute trophies for the Big 12. They stabilize the conference and allow a conference championship game. They bring national identity outside of Texas and Oklahoma. And they afford the Big 12 the super conference option. If the Big 12 then jumps to 16 BYU, Boise State, Georgia Tech and maybe UVA or Louisville round out a 16 team super conference.
Which leaves the remaining ACC and Big East to pull together a 5th, almost good enough, conference. And I’m guessing ND is there to play basketball.
Which leaves the PAC to struggle. They’ll still have very good teams, but the population density and time zone issues force them to either settle at 12 OR try to pull in 4 more from some weak options like New Mexico, Air Force, Fresno State and Colorado State….or try to convince UVA, Duke, Boston College and Pittsburgh to make 3000 mile sports trips to the west coast….which seems far fetched at best. I think the PAC saw this a couple of years ago and tried to preempt this strike, but couldn’t get TX on board.
LikeLike
Florida is too crucial a recruiting ground to cede to the B12 or solely to the SEC. I think they have to take a Florida school for eastern expansion to be deemed a home run. I would forego GT for Miami and FSU, which would ease FSU’s concerns. FSU/MIAMI UVA/VT UNC/DUKE (or ND if willing) would be a perfect expansion that would appease everyone.
LikeLike
(I’m a broken record but…)
No way the academics will allow that to happen.
If they’re going to allow another non-AAU, it’s going to be paired with a sterling AAU candidate with impeccable research credentials.
LikeLike
I’ve said a dozen times that the only way the B1G would take FSU is with GT. FSU/Miami is simply my preference.
LikeLike
Ah, well interesting preference I suppose.
I sort of am coming around to the idea of Atlanta as a travel destination, but Miami is so much more “ownable” as a city that it makes me pause.
LikeLike
Thank you. It is an interesting preference and one shared by a fair number of people here. Is it likely to happen? No. But only one of the hundreds of scenarios discussed her is going to be correct. Please stop toying with us. Please tell us exactly what they are going to do so we can all get on with our lives.
LikeLike
GreatLakeState:
No regard for those of us who now include this as part of our lives 🙂 .
LikeLike
Hah.
We need a Nate Silver statistical model or something like that.
LikeLike
Is there any evidence to suggest that having a single Florida school in a 16 school conference will drastically boost the recruiting efforts of the other 15 schools in the State of Florida?
Not only does the geographic problem remain, but it would take FSU roughly 6 years to play all the other schools in Florida. That can’t really be much of a selling point to recruits or their families.
LikeLike
Another reason to add both FSU & Miami.
LikeLike
I’d be VERY hesitant to put much weight into a google search result algorithm about two schools’ comparative fanbases when one school (Miami) shares the same name as both a city and an NFL team while the other (FSU) doesn’t.
wrt Pac-12, I question whether there will ever be anything close to a requirement to get bigger or else. Presuming not, I’d anticipate the league being fine indefinitely with 12.
LikeLike
E. Gordon Gee was just on a station in Columbus and said he thought super conferences would be here within five years. He also implied they would break away from the NCAA.
LikeLike
He knows that the Big Ten is going to expand again; everybody does. There’s way too much talk of 16 teams nowadays.
LikeLike
I like Gee, but he has a real tendency to talk off the cuff and say some dumb things. I wouldn’t put too much weight on what he says on The Fan.
LikeLike
Gee may be a blabbermouth, but he sits in meetings and hears stuff that you and I do not. He didn’t get where he is by being stupid. There is a basis for the things he says, even if he shouldn’t be saying them.
LikeLike
These guys have no doubt looked at models of 16 teams, 18 teams, and even 20 teams.
Perlman himself said that he saw some much bigger conference models than the 12-16 that everyone was talking about…
Maryland’s president said he was shocked by the Big Ten’s expansion plans.
These guys have no doubt looked at the same expansion scenarios that we have. If Gee think that the Big Ten is going to be at 16 within 5 years, then it’s likely to be at 16 within 5 years.
LikeLike
So I’m guessing he doesn’t define 14 as a “superconference.”
LikeLike
Remember the slip up by the Cal AD a year or two ago? She mentioned then that everyone was working on how get to a to 4 x 16 in the next five years? I thought she was just blowing smoke.
LikeLike
I would never call Gee stupid, not by any stretch. He just has a tendency to say things he shouldn’t or to exaggerate. Without hearing the context of the conversation in question, I wonder if this is one of those times. The idea of breaking away from the NCAA has always seemed ludicrous to me.
LikeLike
The breakaway has been discussed, as a future possibility, for some time now.
Perhaps some of this conference reshuffling is partially intended to “influence” the NCAA to be more responsive to the D1 concerns? As the realignment progresses so does the feasibility of creating a new governing body. A power play, with teeth?
LikeLike
NCAA Prez. Emmert discussed it quite a bit even last year. The schools are looking for a solution, whether that be breaking away or a new division or something else. He was very matter a fact about it. He was clear that something will be different. He didn’t seem to think breaking away was inevitable, only one possible result.
LikeLike
Looks like progress needs to be seen, not just talked about.
LikeLike
I know it’s been discussed, I just took it as hypothetical. Gee’s statement (again, out of context) sounded more… definite.
LikeLike
Exactly. A definite, rather than a theoretical possibility.
LikeLike
What “D1 concerns” are the NCAA supposedly not addressing?
LikeLike
The fact that they’ve completely destroyed college basketball? Let’s start there.
LikeLike
Umm…arbitrary and capricious nature in the application of rules/sanctions as another?
LikeLike
@morganwick
The $2,000 stipend and 4 year scholarships to begin with.
LikeLike
“The fact that they’ve completely destroyed college basketball?” I know this is in jest, but I’m not sure how the NCAA has done that (yet – keeping my fingers crossed they don’t go to 96). If anything, it’s the schools and conferences that have ruined basketball with football-focused conference realignment.
“Umm…arbitrary and capricious nature in the application of rules/sanctions as another?” Which side of the issue are the big schools on? Do they want the NCAA to crack down harder, do they want more freedom to do what they want, or do they just want consistency and transparency either way?
“The $2,000 stipend and 4 year scholarships to begin with.” Not familiar with the latter issue. Maybe vaguely familiar. Is that the NCAA moving towards or away from making an athletic scholarship good for four years? And same question as above: do the big schools want the NCAA to move to not-really-paying players in order to legalize and regulate what they do anyway, or do they want the NCAA not to move in that direction so they don’t have to siphon off some of their money?
Jim Delany has an interesting quote in this article that can be read as a PR ploy, but can also be read as any potential split not necessarily being between the big and small schools, but between those schools that care about academics and the ideal of the student-athlete and those with a win-at-all-costs mentality (or among the smaller schools, those that want to level the literal playing field). And that would be far more catastrophic than a straight top/bottom split (unless it manifested as one anyway).
LikeLike
The larger schools are in favor of granting an up to $2,000 per year stipend to student athletes. The smaller schools (who can’t afford the stipends) are pushing the NCAA to prohibit the stipends which they feel would put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Similarly, the larger schools back 4 year scholarships but the smaller schools are trying to block their implementation.
LikeLike
On an ultimate level, the fact that major 1-A powers are subject to rules voted on by a supermajority of low-level 1-A non-AQ’s and 1-AA schools is fundamentally silly and is almost certain to change when the power schools force the issue.
That’s why the stipend failed, and eventually they’ll force a new governance structure as well as presumably a new 1-A with about half the membership of the current 1-A, MAYBE close to 2/3, and among other things presumably stipends, larger roster sizes, and a number of other changes that go away from the “let’s restrict everyone so the small schools can sort of financially compete” mold that the current rule structure tends towards.
LikeLike
Craig Z,
I think they are much more likely to split DI-A again rather than leave the NCAA. It’s too much of a hassle to set up your own governing body when one already exists.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think that the Big 4 conferences + the ACC + the BE (because the top dogs still need guarantee games) will be the new Div I on top of FBS, which is on top of FCS. 2 games vs. FBS schools will count towards bowl eligibility.
LikeLike
Congrats to M. Ball for winning the Doak Walker award……seems like a great kid……
LikeLike
An interesting group of tweets from Adam Rittenberg:
Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen
Rittenberg/Bennett Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen Thought it was telling that he mentioned Penn State in answer. Had heard some chatter about Penn State possibly looking elsewhere.
Rittenberg/Bennett Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen Delany … “the driving force is demographics, but when you look at it, you can’t help but think this is good for Penn State as well.”
Rittenberg/Bennett Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen Asked Jim Delany last month if he had concern about teams leaving B1G. “No. Not in my view. But I do think that you need to build …” cont
Rittenberg/Bennett Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen RT @jaypo1961: (cont)…That is why Rutgers/Maryland were added to league. Alvarez: 1 other school wanted in. Turned down (academics).
Rittenberg/Bennett Rittenberg/Bennett @ESPN_BigTen RT @jaypo1961: #Badgers AD B.Alvarez tells athletic bd Delany thought Penn State might leave BIG if no expansion into northeast.
LikeLike
Wow. Good catch.
LikeLike
I wonder who the one school was that was turned down due to academics? I’m wondering if it was FSU.
LikeLike
UConn? They aren’t AAU.
LikeLike
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! – I’m guessing you’re right.
LikeLike
That would be the most obvious guess considering the blurb Powers wrote about FSU reaching out to the B1G. BC and Syracuse would also be slight possibilities because although they are well regarded academically, they aren’t research-focused. Besides them, I don’t know, maybe Louisville?
LikeLike
UConn or Louisville makes more sense to me than BC or Syracuse.
LikeLike
I could see SU or BC trying to sneek into the B1G before they are left without a life boat.
But honestly if I were a betting man, I’d put my money on FSU since they are at the center of most of the rumors of school looking around.
LikeLike
Perhaps they can’t yet be taken until most of the rest is clear, FSU being close to the keystone that would really break things open? Academics a convenient hesitation point?
LikeLike
I don’t know because FSU just about as to be the next school to leave to loosen up the other schools.
LikeLike
That’s what I mean. Do you chance opening the flood gates before you are sure of the result?
LikeLike
FWIT. I attended a Michigan alumni function last week in the Detroit area and the hallway scuttlebutt among some well healed alumni was that Delany had been denied permission to pursue FSU by the B1G presidents due to academics. However, he had approval to offer UVA, UNC and GT. Interestingly enough, there was chatter that BC and Syracuse were still on the table given the right scenario. Many seemed to think BC’s hockey program could capture eyeballs in New England.
From reading this blog, it sounds like FSU might be getting ready to take another run at the B1G.
LikeLike
That’s kind of crazy if accurate.
LikeLike
In other words, any further expansion is merely going to water down the conference.
LikeLike
I think until the B1G presidents prove otherwise, non-AAU schools should probably be considered non-starters. I realize that Neb is no longer AAU, but they were at the time and the B1G presidents could still hide behind it (since most people on the outside probably had no idea that Neb was fixing to lose it) to justify taking them.
The only scenario that I see where SU & BC are option is if ND is in play, and ND requires them to tag along.
LikeLike
Yes, “denied permission to pursue” …
… “But, no no no, THEY pursued ME, I didn’t pursue THEM!”
And then … “in discussions with GTech, they will agree if FSU is part of the deal”.
LikeLike
Pat,
I could see that as being true. The COP/C take the academic fit very seriously. It may not be a death knell for non-AAU schools, though. I take that to mean they gave him the freedom to offer those 3 whenever he wanted without asking them for permission. For a non-AAU school, he’d have to present a case for making an exception. They may see FSU as too far from acceptable to allow, but maybe someone else is closer without being AAU (Miami?, VT?, other?). Delany would just have to sell the COP/C on it.
School – AAU / ARWU / USNWR / Total R&D $ / Fed $
UNC – yes / 30 / 30 / 15 / 9
UVA – yes / 54-67 / 24 / 75 / 54
GT – yes / 54-67 / 36 / 25 / 25
Miami – 59 / 68-85 / 44 / 74 / 61
VT – 91 / 68-85 / 72 / 47 / 70
FSU – 94 / 86-109 / 97 / 84 / 82
I could see them accepting Miami or VT potentially while saying no to FSU. Miami is a much better undergrad school while VT is much better in research. Both are better than FSU in the other category, too. Other than AAU status, Miami and UVA rank similarly. Miami is small and private, though.
LikeLike
Good to see the Presidents aren’t completely insane.
LikeLike
So they would take Syracuse and or BC, both non-AAU, but not FSU. Plus as recently as 2010, Syracuse ranks 198 and BC 197 in total research expenditures while FSU ranked 93. Considering Syracuse and BC and not FSU doesn’t make too much sense.
LikeLike
He didn’t say this was recent, right? I’m guessing it was OU, pre-Big 12 GOR.
LikeLike
I think the statement implied that it was during this most recent round of expansion that ended with UMD & RU joining. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t talking about OU.
LikeLike
Sounds like Delany scaring them into expanding (or coming up with a justification).
I really find it hard to consider Penn State thinking about leaving considering how integrated they are.
Just look at Pegula giving $88 million to build out their hockey for the BTHC among other things.
LikeLike
Now of course, it’s moot because it’s impossible to consider with Maryland/Rutgers, so I guess there is that.
They took the odds from a nearly negligible percentage down to 0%.
LikeLike
Over the short run it certainly wasn’t going to happen, but if you give it 10-20 years, I could see scenarios where Penn State decides it wanted to be in an east coast league. That’s gone with Rutger and Maryland and I can understand it even if I disagreed with expansion.
LikeLike
FWIW Rittenberg’s interpretation isn’t what Alvarez actually said…
“That northeast corridor, all the way to the south, continues to grow Jim felt that someday, if we didn’t have anyone else in that corridor, someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league.”
“That they would go into a league somewhere on the east coast. By doing that, it keeps us in the northeast corridor.”
He was talking long term (50 years down the road), he wasn’t referring to the current disgruntlement among PSU fans.
LikeLike
That’s from here. Don’t think this was linked yet.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/182573751.html
LikeLike
I’ll throw this in here because it’s not worth a new topic, but PBC came back with this gem today: “Texas just took a tangible step to become the 15th member today.”
Even the NW fans have turned on him at this point.
LikeLike
Before I start, let me say that I think PBC is most likely WAY off the mark here, but it did get me thinking. There may be a way for Texas and the B1G to get around the grant of rights issue, and not only would it cost anyone any money, but it would make a fair amount of money for both UT and the B1G schools.
We know that Texas can’t leave the Big XII until 2025 or else they forfeit their tier 1 and tier 2 TV rights to the conference. However, UT still has its Tier 3 rights. Hypothetically, UT and ESPN could decide that the LHN model is not going to work – a thesis for which there is ample evidence. UT could then work with the BTN to become the host of their tier 3 broadcasts. In return, the CIC could grant UT membership.
That would allow the BTN to increase its carriage in Texas, which in turn makes more money for each B1G school. The increase in carriage rates across Texas might or might not make more money than the $11 UT is guaranteed from the ESPN deal, but I’d guess the BTN could make it so UT doesn’t lose money on the deal while each B1G school still makes some money. Texas would also continue to be a Big XII member so they wouldn’t be forfeiting any tier 1 or 2 money. At the same time, UT wouldn’t be a member of the B1G, so there would be no sharing of B1G TV money with UT.
In 2016, the B1G could negotiate with ESPN/Fox/NBC/whomever on their next tier 1/tier 2 TV contract and add the provision that the B1G could renegotiate the contract in 2025 should the B1G expand at that time. In 2025, then, UT could fully join the B1G.
I’m not knowledgeable enough on contract law to say whether everything I just posited is possible, but from my untrained eye it certainly appears to be. I definitely don’t think it is probable, however, considering it would take considerable bending on both the part of the B1G and UT and there is likely still a “Tech problem.” Anyway, just food for thought.
LikeLike
BTN=Fox
LHN=ESPN
LikeLike
Yes, I realize that, which is why I added the proviso that ESPN and UT would have to agree that LHN isn’t going to work (and this dissolving the contract).
LikeLike
@Hodgepodge
Yeah, the Northwestern fanbase is really skeptical of him on the Rivals site where he posts.
He’s pretty much the crazy uncle on expansion now.
Yeah, he had a source in the Big Ten offices in 2009-2010, but his information is way out of date, and his stories about ND and Texas are just ridiculous now…
LikeLike
You are overthinking it. A grand of rights only applies to the rights that the school has–home games. So Texas would have value to the B1G for their road games alone. Texas @ Indiana might not have much juice, but Texas @ Michigan certainly would. In a 100-year commitment, why not invest in something that matters? Like the last 87 years of Texas.
LikeLike
And you would give up Michigan at Texas. So a Michigan conference game would be lost. Its nonsensical to invite someone during the middle of a GOR.
LikeLike
bullet,
You could always schedule only the worst conference games at UT and make all their big games be road games. That might reduce the cost of buying out the GOR. They’d have to really want it, though.
LikeLike
And they could always schedule Ohio State to play at Michigan every year for the extra 5,000 seats, but its not going to happen.
LikeLike
Grants of Rights can still be bought out, God knows we have the money and we can certainly make more money with UT than the Big XII can. Or alternatives can be worked out; Texas’ conference away games (like Notre Dame’s) would be up for negotiations, with caveats that whoever buys the rights would get them when they free up.
But, the real question is how much is that worth to the Big XII universities? It would bring possible destruction on them, but if Texas leaves anyway, it’s a moot point. This reminds me of a small-market team with a superstar near free agency, except these are schools and they’ll be ruined either way. Depressing.
LikeLike
metatron, there has to be a seller though.
If the Big 12 doesn’t want to sell Texas’ TV rights (as they shouldn’t, since they’re golden handcuffs), then you have to sue for them, and that’s an extremely uncertain process…
LikeLike
How would you “lose” Michigan @ Texas? You don’t have it now. You might have Michigan @ someone less interesting. But it is not Texas.
As long as the TV contract $$$ stays the same for all schools somehow and every game is televised somewhere, who cares what network the game is shown on? Michigan-Texas would never be BTN anyway, at least in the current scheme. You think ESPN or Fox is going to screw the B1G over when it will be adding Texas?
The Big XII game of the week… the Big 10 matchup between Michigan and Texas gets pretty awkward. But the Big XII would take it.
Instead of getting to $43M for the existing schools… let them get by on $40M apiece and invest in Texas.
LikeLike
You would lose Michigan at Texas because it would be a conference game. For 4 Big 10 teams, the Big 12 would own 1 of their 8 conference games (the 4 who play at Texas). Unless the Big 12 chooses to disband because all 10 have other places they want to go, the idea is just a non-starter for the life of the GOR. What happens in 13 years is anybody’s guess, but the Big 12 has decided to stay together for at least that long.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I agree that it is currently a nonstarter, but not for the life of the GOR. It may be that the potential value of 4 UT B1G games is enough to offset a few years of 4 teams substituting an extra home OOC games when scheduled to play in Austin. The value of UT would be greater in the B1G than in the reduced B12. I have no idea at what point cost/benefit is balanced, but I’m sure it isn’t the full length of the GOR.
LikeLike
Re: global warming:
The Great Lakes region will be fine (the Great Plains, not so much), but the Pacific Northwest actually would weather the new climate the best.
Time to annex UDub? 🙂
LikeLike
I wonder who the third school is that was turned down by the B1G for academic reasons per Alvarez?
LikeLike
UCONN if I had to make a guess. Even if there wasn’t one, it’s still preferable to say there was and pretend there’s serious demand to get in.
LikeLike
Seems like there are a bunch.
If you believe the rumor mill, OU was turned down because of academics & Tennessee was interested in joining but the B10 would take them only if UK joined but UK balked because they wanted to dominate the SEC in basketball. OK, that last one was a little hard to swallow.
In any case, unlike Frank, I’m perfectly fine with turning down OU even if they could escape from OK St. as they’re in a small state that isn’t growing & have little hope of even sniffing the AAU soon.
‘Cuse, UConn, & (especially) BC, I think, would be mistakes (though ‘Cuse at least could be justified if ND came along).
However, FSU really should not be turned down due to academics since, as the the second major university in a massive growing state, their research and academic stature should increase through the decades. Really, the 2 biggest concerns I have about FSU are
1. Culture (Do they really believe in the Yankee idea of self-abnegation for the greater good as being noble? Do they really buy in to the Midlands values of egalitarianism and fairness?)
2. Global warming. Higher temperatures, rising sea levels, & more fierce hurricanes are coming, and those climate changes will not treat FL kindly.
LikeLike
I actually wanted to touch on Richards comment about climate change and long term effect. I read a lot about this and the best author with a good perspective is Brian Fagan out of UCLA. In either case the predicted problems of the future are water. Every one thinks that the south will always grow but according to the numbers the south west will get very dry very quickly in the next 20 years, so don’t be shocked by a shrinking population there. Also the south in North carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina will have major water problems. And this is all important to business’s since if you want to start a company you have to ask the water company how much water you can get and that limits your growth, if you can only have enough water for say 100 people.
That creates a problem for prospective business’s since if you want a large company you need them to have the water to stick around. Well if the drying continues in Texas then don’t be surprised if companies start to move out. The funny thing is, the places that have plenty of water are the midwest and northeast.
Just my thoughts
LikeLike
I’ll take the Vol’s and Sooners in a heartbeat. They ain’t too different for my tastes.
I approach this issue from a different angle: you guys are concerned about population, I’m concerned about bandwagon viewers. Look at Oregon, they’re a big time program right now and it’s because of their flash and national attention.
I’d prefer to pick programs with pedigrees because they’ll always have their fans and they’ll always draw more when they win. There’s nothing bigger than a “They’re back” story on ESPN.
LikeLike
Sounds like wishful thinking. I don’t think there is anyplace in the country with more water than Tennessee. The southeast is fine. Atlanta is having problems, but that is due to short-sighted planning.
LikeLike
Bullet:
You aren’t really saying there isn’t a growing problem are you? I recall many Texas cattle herds being culled recently due to drought. Checked the Ogallala Aquifer lately? Still being depleted. A few blogs ago I (half) jokingly suggested the PAC might consider approaching some southern Canadian schools to grab land in the future citrus belt.
Some still insist the Sahara Forrest is suffering a temporary dry spell 🙂 .
LikeLike
Re: global warming:
The Great Lakes region will be fine (the Great Plains, not so much), but the Pacific Northwest actually would weather the new climate the best. Time to annex UDub? 🙂
LikeLike
@ccrider
He started saying the south would stop growing and started talking about Virginia and the Carolinas. As I said that’s just wishful thinking. California, Arizona and Nevada are a totally different issue. Anyplace west of I-35 is already an arid zone. That basically includes San Antonio and Austin who rely on the Edwards Aquifer. Lubbock and much of Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska use the Oglalla. Houston, however, gets more rain than Seattle. Atlanta gets more rain than Houston.
LikeLike
Man… aHUGE “I told you so” from your humble correspondent…..
LikeLike
Uconn’s joining?!!
LikeLike
The odds went from negligible to 0%.
Let’s not blow these statements out of proportion.
Yes, they were concerned about the ACC taking the whole East Coast, but to act like Penn State was anywhere close to leaving the Big Ten (evidence: still a 15 year GOR in place along with Pegula putting down $88 million to fund a hockey program to compete against Minnesota/Wisconsin/etc.).
LikeLike
Come on zeek, admit it…you were wrong, I was right. I said get PSU an eastern travel partner or they were outta here.
You said a thousand times there was NO possibility PSU could leave the BIG because of the GORs. NADA, 0% chance…
Now we know Delany was worried about it happening.
LikeLike
Did we read the same article? Where did Delany say Penn St. was going to leave? Much less before the expiration of the GOR.
LikeLike
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/182573751.html
Here is the statements Rittenberg was referring to.
LikeLike
First off, I’ve been talking about Maryland/Rutgers to the Big Ten for a while (one of the earliest to push for it on this blog). I’m one of the ones who was pushing it early as a way to get to 14 without Notre Dame or Texas. It always made sense as a way to maximize the value of the kings in the mega markets of DC and NYC.
You were the one who was saying nonsense like “Maryland is a southern school, they’ll never want to join the North”…
Second, there is absolutely no way that Penn State could have left the Big Ten within the next 15 years. Nobody is going to challenge a GOR. It doesn’t matter what Alvarez says about Delany trying to scare everyone into expanding (if he used that as a justification).
Third, you haven’t answered about Pegula. No one spends $88 million on an ice hockey program to push the Big Ten Hockey Conference forward without guarantees that they’d be able to play against the marquee Big Ten programs over the long haul.
The odds went from negligible to 0%. The odds were always negligible that they’d leave the Big Ten.
You’re trying to spin a 5% chance into “I said get PSU an eastern travel partner or they were outta here.”
Give me a break.
LikeLike
The GofR is overblown. All it takes is for someone to pay a school a share of the TV revenue without getting the TV rights. And, again, the conference would get the rights to away games. Why not give Texas $30M/year for the last 10 years of the GOR and enjoy 90 years of having the Texas product? What’s a better investment–$300M for Texas or hoping that Rutgers/Maryland capture their respective markets? And with each successive year, the GofR becomes that much less of an obstacle. What happens to the Big XII when the GofR only has 8 years left on it and Texas is not quite ready to sign back up? 7, 6, 5, 4.
LikeLike
@mush:
The thing you need to keep in mind is, according to Alvarez, Delany was worried about that “someday it wouldn’t make sense maybe for Penn State to be in our league”.
Someday. Meaning, perhaps, with GOR was up. Especially with the ACC attempting to wrap up the entire eastern seaboard, and their (I believe) fledgling research cooperative. If anything, I doubt Delany was concerned about PSU getting snatched up anytime soon. But perhaps in 25 years or whenever the current GOR is up? Maybe. Probably still doubtful, but Delany made sure it’s all but impossible now if it wasn’t already.
LikeLike
Uggh. As much as your reasoning makes sense, there’s no point for conferences to exist if they’re going to go this far afield geographically. They just become completely arbitrary. I’m on the verge of losing interest in college sports if the NCAA doesn’t put a stop to this madness by moving to a promotion/relegation system for football. And yet, that STILL might not stop the madness because of the value of basketball to the BTN.
LikeLike
morganwick,
Relegation is a pipe dream. It will never come to American sports. Every school needs their guaranteed cash flow from TV . They have long term construction projects dependent on it. They can’t afford to risk getting bumped down to the minor leagues.
LikeLike
Good! Maybe if they had the threat of their gravy train getting cut off they wouldn’t spend their money like blind rats and might actually focus on academics or getting better on the field. Maybe the money train that is college football might actually benefit schools instead of causing them to all go insane and think of themselves as sports franchises. For the record, the EPL gives “parachute payments” to relegated teams for a few years even if they only spent one year in the league, which is why the Championship (second-level) playoff for the last promotion spot is called “the richest match in the world”.
LikeLike
You have the relationship between NCAA and the schools backwards. The NCAA doesn’t just wake up one day and decide which schools to promote/relegate. The schools and the conferences decide for themselves what affiliations they want to have. Obviously, if enough fans feel as you do, and stop watching football, it would get their attention. I don’t know about you, but if Michigan-Florida State became an annual game, I would certainly watch.
LikeLike
Of course the NCAA doesn’t wake up one day and decide how to move schools. The moves might actually make sense otherwise.
LikeLike
Relegation is a really bad system though – the best teams consistently win and get stronger; the worst teams constantly float between leagues and can never sign anyone.
It’s a nice idea that a local club can rise to the top, but really, that will never ever happen.
LikeLike
And this is different from college football because…?
LikeLike
Really well written article….but….if the B1G actually got FSU and GT, that would leave ND in a conference they’d have to get out of. I suspect what the B1G is doing is causing instability in the ACC by luring FSU, GT, UVU etc with a real goal of grabbing all of the New England TV market with Boston College (plus their hockey team) along with Notre Dame in an ACC like deal for it’s national following in every TV market. BC & ND are a perfect fit for the B1G in every way. The B1G goes to B16 leaving UNC & VT for SEC16 and FSU, UM, Clemson, GT, NCS & UVA for the BigXVI. That makes perfect sense to me because the SEC and BigXII have a collaboration like the B16 and the PAC12.
LikeLike
BC and ND are hardly perfect fits for the B1G, not sure where you are coming from on that point. BC is a small, private, religious institution with, other than hockey, pretty poor athletic programs. In addition, it’s in a pro market. It has almost nothing going for it outside of academics and appeal to Notre Dame. ND on the other hand has shown a constant refusal to join a conference, and, other than being a football/sports king, actually has little in common with B1G teams.
LikeLike
How can two private colleges be a “perfect fit for the B1G in every way”?
And why would Notre Dame have to get out of any conference? As long as their spot at the playoff table exists for football, and their other sports are not in the Mac, I think they’ll be OK with the also-rans, whomever that is.
If you assume that FSU, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Clemson, Virginia, and NC all left for greener pastures. That would still leave an “ACC” of Pitt, BC, Louisville, Wake, NC State, Syracuse, Duke, and Miami. Add in UConn, Temple, USF, and Navy.
North: BC, Pitt, UConn, Temple, Syracuse, Navy
South: Louisville, Wake, NC State, Duke, USF, Miami
Add in ND for other sports. Maybe allow Navy to be football only to offset ND. Or allow G’Town basketball for some DC juice.
Isn’t that at least as good as the current Big East for ND purposes? Probably as good for football purposes too.
LikeLike
That’s about the smartest statement of ND’s position that I’ve seen. Even if the ACC is decimated, they’re left with a conference as good as, or better than, the Big East used to be, and Notre Dame was quite happy to be in the former Big East (until it turned into Conference USA).
LikeLike
ND 6 games:
1. Navy
2. Temple, Syracuse, or UConn
3. Pitt or BC
4. Louisville, NC State, or USF
5. Duke or Wake
6. Miami
Then
1. USC
2. BYU
3. Michigan or MSU
4. Purdue or NW
5. Stanford or Air Force or Army
6. Someone big… Penn State, Texas, etc.
Run the table with that and you are at least #4. That’s all the Irish need.
LikeLike
Sorry to be a late contributor to this discussion. I may be in the minority among FSU alum and fans but to me, from a FSU point of view, if FSU were to get an invite to the B1G it is a no brainer for us.
Sure there are lots of us that seem to be holding out for an SEC bid and are meh about the Big12, but in my opinion a B1G invite (especially if it includes Georgia Tech) far exceeds an invite to the SEC.
Our biggest issue with the ACC currently, in my opinion, is revenue and the corresponding ability to keep pace with schools in our area (UF for example). Entry into the B1G would not only solve this problem (and in my opinion possibly help us surpass some of our competition), it also allows us the opportunity to differentiate us from being just another “southern football school”. Membership in the SEC only at best levels the playing field and more likely has us playing catch up. Add to the whole deal the potential boost to our academic reputation and I think it is a win all around for FSU.
From the B1G conference perspective imagine the ridiculous boost to television coverage by the BTN adding the Atlanta and Florida markets to the mix.
For the record let me add that in no way am biased by locale (as in I do not live anywhere in the B1G footprint)
LikeLike
Well, we’re all trying to figure out exactly what the parameters would be.
Most of us assume that it would have to be an FSU/Georgia Tech package to make all the different factions in the Big Ten happy…
In the future, we’d assume also that the Big Ten would try to get to 18 to bridge Florida/Georgia to Maryland to make it a full connected footprint.
LikeLike
seminolecpa
Would you accept GT, UVa and Duke as partners? If we’re going to “build that bridge” between you and Md, I think this is the best that could be done. UNC may not want NC State to go to the SEC, so they’d go there themselves. VT would be nice but they’re not AAU. Fla. State *might* be the only exception to the “rule” that the presidents would allow. If I were making divisions, I would put you with Ohio State along with GT, Duke, Michigan State and Indiana.
LikeLike
That’s the wrong question, isn’t it? It’s not what people like us would accept, but what it would take to pry loose two of the biggest academic prizes in the ACC, UNC and UVA. Those programs aren’t sucking wind, the way Maryland was. They aren’t in desperate need of a Big Ten cash infusion.
Also, as Frank has repeatedly noted, UNC is the kingpin program in the ACC, a position they wouldn’t have in the Big Ten. Of all the ACC members, UNC is probably the least likely to make the move that kills the conference.
You’d probably need a scenario where the Big Ten takes FSU and GT, the Big 12 takes Miami and Clemson, the SEC takes Virginia Tech and NC State, and THEN UNC/UVA come to the Big Ten with hat in hand.
LikeLike
RT @BFeldmanCBS: ND power: Those 100,000+BCS ticket requests all came w/ $25 just to get in tix lottery-so NotreDame pulled in over $2.5 MIL
LikeLike
According to the Big Ten bloggers on ESPN, there’s some momentum towards the East-West split:
What would the crossovers look like?
East
Michigan (MSU)
Ohio State (Wisconsin)
Penn State (Nebraska)
Indiana (Minnesota?)
Purdue (Illinois to keep Purdue Cannon?)
Rutgers (Northwestern?)
Maryland (Iowa?)
West
Nebraska (Penn State)
Wisconsin (Ohio State)
Iowa (Maryland?)
Michigan State (Michigan)
Northwestern (Rutgers?)
Minnesota (Indiana?)
Illinois (Purdue?)
—————————————————————–
I think it makes more sense now than the original East-West split when the conference was at 12 teams.
The sliding over of Michigan State is what’s changed the game because I think you end up with the #4, #5, #6, #7 programs all in the West (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State) as a counter to having #1, #2, and #3 in the East.
As for the crossovers, I put Iowa and Northwestern against Maryland and Rutgers because those are probably more favorable opponents (Iowa has a good brand, and Northwestern is a good visit aka Chicago).
I don’t think anyone’s going to mourn the loss of the Iowa-Purdue rivalry…
LikeLike
One team that gets a raw deal is probably Penn State. Having Michigan, Ohio State, and Nebraska all on the schedule annually would be an incredibly raw deal…
Maybe have only 1 guaranteed cross-over in Michigan/Michigan State and have no others? Everyone else has 0…?
LikeLike
I just don’t see the E/W split happening. The top three brands together is not something those three schools will be happy about. Plus, with only Nebraska anchoring the West there is only one way there can be a King vs. King CCG. Maybe promoting the NY/NJ penetration is more important than having a CCG between traditional powers, but I think the competitive imbalance will keep this from happening.
LikeLike
As an OSU fan, I welcome having PSU and UM in the same division with OSU. If OSU can’t beat them in the division, they don’t deserve to be in the championship game anyway.
LikeLike
zeek,
All of OSU, MI and PSU get screwed. So do PU, IN, RU and MD. You’re piling losses on the bottom 4 and hurting the top 3 by having them beat each other up.
LikeLike
Didn’t they used to do that in the 11 team Big 10?
LikeLike
No, because there weren’t divisions to favor half of the teams.
OSU had PSU and MI locked, but not WI. MI had OSU and MSU, but not PSU (except the first 10 years when PSU was also locked). PSU had OSU and MSU, but not NE or MI (see note above). In addition, the little guys didn’t have to play all 3 every year, either.
LikeLike
zeek,
“According to the Big Ten bloggers on ESPN, there’s some momentum towards the East-West split:”
Those two know next to nothing about this stuff. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but they’ve never shown they have great sources for this stuff.
Also, this isn’t an east/west split. If it was, MSU would go east and PU would go west.
“What would the crossovers look like?
East
Michigan (MSU)
Ohio State (Wisconsin)
Penn State (Nebraska)
Indiana (Minnesota?)
Purdue (Illinois to keep Purdue Cannon?)
Rutgers (Northwestern?)
Maryland (Iowa?)”
MI/MSU is a given
OSU/WI and PSU/NE seem likely, but could be switched.
The other 4 could be anything, but my choices would be:
RU/NW (keep the big city folk together)
MD/IL (still gets MD some Chicago access for recruiting)
PU/IA (the “rivalry” that won’t die)
IN/MN (give both a winnable game)
—————————————————————–
“I think it makes more sense now than the original East-West split when the conference was at 12 teams.”
It may make more sense now, but it still doesn’t make much sense.
“The sliding over of Michigan State is what’s changed the game because I think you end up with the #4, #5, #6, #7 programs all in the West (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State) as a counter to having #1, #2, and #3 in the East.”
4-7 can’t balance 1-3, though. That’s the problem. You want the CCG to be 1 vs 2, with 3 and 4 getting in some, too. This split means the best case scenario is #4 in it every year while 1-3 beat each other up. It’s dumb, dumb, dumb. This is the top and bottom versus the middle.
LikeLike
I just think the media people are going to want it.
This isn’t the Big 12 where UT was in Texas and the Red River game happened there.
If I’m Mark Silverman, I tell Delany to give me Michigan@Rutgers/Maryland, Ohio State@Rutgers/Maryland, and Penn State@Rutgers/Maryland every two years guaranteed…
LikeLike
Obviously the BTN isn’t the only constituency that has to be pleased, but you have to admit that it’s a definite possibility Brian.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Obviously the BTN isn’t the only constituency that has to be pleased, but you have to admit that it’s a definite possibility Brian.”
I’ve never denied it’s possible. I explicitly said the B10 bloggers might be right. I did say it would be a dumb decision, though, and I stand by that.
LikeLike
zeek,
“I just think the media people are going to want it.”
They want lots of things. They don’t always get them.
“If I’m Mark Silverman, I tell Delany to give me Michigan@Rutgers/Maryland, Ohio State@Rutgers/Maryland, and Penn State@Rutgers/Maryland every two years guaranteed…”
You’re failing to balance W/L records for RU and MD with having kings come to town. Fans won’t be excited if their team is 4-8. What you want are good MD and RU teams with a king coming to town. Having the kings in town helps them with ticket sales, but it doesn’t help TV as much. I think the B10 is more likely to give RU and MD the NE treatment, and perhaps the PSU treatment too.
NE treatment:
Make sure RU and MD get the best crossover games to excite their fans in the first few years. They’ll have 2 kings and a prince in division (PSU/OSU/WI or PSU/MI/MSU), so add a third king and a prince as crossovers assuming there are 9 games. If the B10 sticks with 8, they get 8 years with a king or prince as a rotating crossover (MI/OSU, MSU/WI, NE, IA).
PSU treatment:
PSU demanded to play MI for the first 10 years despite MI not being one of their locked rivals. I could see the B10 choosing a rotation that isn’t equal so the name teams from the other division play in the east more in the first decade or so.
LikeLike
It all goes into what do people mean by “balanced divisions”. Does it mean making sure that 2 kings are in each division at the top or does depth matter the most? Preserving rivalries is also mixed in.
The East/West split (which was along the lines of what I had been advocating) has 3 kings in the East, but the West still has a lot of competitive depth based on historic records.
If you want the most historically balanced divisions while keeping 2 kings in each division, then the alignment ought to be what was the rumored change to the Legends and Leaders division with Maryland and Rutgers being added to the Leaders and Illinois switching over to the Legends. That really screws over Wisconsin as being out of place, though.
If you want to keep the most rivalries with 2 kings in each division, then Wisconsin ought to be switched over the Legends instead of Illinois. Of course, the Legends then appears to be much tougher than the Leaders by historic standards.
To me, I’d prioritize geography and preserving rivalries over competitive balance (which is something that shifts from year-to-year), but I know many people think competitive balance ought to be the top consideration.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank,
“It all goes into what do people mean by “balanced divisions”. Does it mean making sure that 2 kings are in each division at the top or does depth matter the most? Preserving rivalries is also mixed in.”
Balance only matters in terms of the CCG. Therefore, it’s balance at the top that is key. It helps to balance the middle and bottom, too, of course. This also applies to media coverage balance. If you have 2 kings in each division, then one won’t get ignored by most people.
“The East/West split (which was along the lines of what I had been advocating) has 3 kings in the East, but the West still has a lot of competitive depth based on historic records.”
Yes, but depth with no top teams isn’t helpful for the CCG. That’s the problem.
“If you want the most historically balanced divisions while keeping 2 kings in each division, then the alignment ought to be what was the rumored change to the Legends and Leaders division with Maryland and Rutgers being added to the Leaders and Illinois switching over to the Legends. That really screws over Wisconsin as being out of place, though.”
That’s one way to get there.
“If you want to keep the most rivalries with 2 kings in each division, then Wisconsin ought to be switched over the Legends instead of Illinois. Of course, the Legends then appears to be much tougher than the Leaders by historic standards.”
Yep.
“To me, I’d prioritize geography and preserving rivalries over competitive balance (which is something that shifts from year-to-year), but I know many people think competitive balance ought to be the top consideration.”
Competitive balance is the most important, because it drives media coverage. Nothing is worse for fans than feeling their team is being ignored.
You can get all of those benefits with a division change you didn’t mention:
Move OSU, WI and IL to the West and move MI and MSU to the East with the newbies.
In order of locked rivals:
West – OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
East – MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, MD
Competitive balance: YES
2 kings and a prince on each side
Geography: Yes, mostly
The eastern and western blocks are preserved. The middle 4 are split as in almost all configurations. I don’t see any inherent advantage in a more pure split.
Rivalries: Yes, mostly
Regain – WI/IA, PSU/MSU
Add – NE/WI, OSU/NE, MI/PSU
Lose – MI/MN, OSU/PSU, MI/NE, PU/IL
You could also switch NW and IL for PU and IN to give OSU some neighboring schools to play.
LikeLike
If you are going to keep locked rivals, you could switch from the current NW/SE to a SW/NE. Switch IU and NW in your plan:
SW OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IU, IL
NE UM, PSU, MSU, MD, RU, PU, NW
LikeLike
There is now another factor relating to the split: Delany has clearly intimated that the B1G wants to have as many kings as possible show up in the NYC and Washington, DC areas for games. I think Delany and the BTN are expecting to penetrate the NYC and DC markets by bringing our “brands” physically to play games in the NYC and DC metro areas. Rutgers and Maryland aren’t going to get the BTN on basic cable; Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and PSU are going to do it.
So, if MI, Ohio State and PSU are all in the east, then that is three guaranteed “king games” a year @ Rutgers & Maryland (combined). You also get 1-3 king vs. king games @ PSU every year (assuming the Nebraska cross-over rivalry is maintained). That is a good inventory of “king games” that are played “out east.”
If this is the new thinking, this is a paradigm shift from trying to get an annual king vs. king for the B1GCCG in Indy. I think Delany, et. al., now realize that the CCG has a low ceiling moneywise even if you get a king vs. king game every year. Plus, with all the factors (including sanctions and unexpected clunker games), it is simply impossible to “plan” the “best” CC game. The CC game will be what it is going to be and the money will be — within a broad range — roughly the same every year.
By contrast, penetrating the new markets on the eastern seaboard is where the real money is and, for that, you need your best brands to be showing up on a regular basis.
For this discussion, I am assuming MSU stays west, Wiscy and IL go west, MI goes east, crossover game between the Michigans is established and the two Indianas stay east.
As a further thought, if FSU/+1 were to be added, the B1G would shift Michigan to the west (giving the west two kings) and the east would still have three kings to show up @ Rutgers and @ Maryland. Plus the B1G would now have another set of king vs. king games. Maybe PSU agrees to give up its crossover game with Nebraska. Then you have permanent rivalries of FSU vs.Neb, tOSU vs. Michigan and PSU vs. ? I’d go with Wiscy. There was never any fire between MSU and PSU. Make it MSU and GaTech (or whoever comes along with FSU).
LikeLike
BuckeyeBeau,
“There is now another factor relating to the split: Delany has clearly intimated that the B1G wants to have as many kings as possible show up in the NYC and Washington, DC areas for games.”
No, he hasn’t said that. He wants them there frequently. That’s doesn’t automatically mean he wants them there as much as possible. There are shades of gray here.
“I think Delany and the BTN are expecting to penetrate the NYC and DC markets by bringing our “brands” physically to play games in the NYC and DC metro areas. Rutgers and Maryland aren’t going to get the BTN on basic cable; Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and PSU are going to do it.”
Obviously that’s the plan. Use the B10 fans already in place to bolster the ratings and attendance, making the games seem bigger and better to build the local audience. If RU games start becoming cool to attend, locals will come out of the woodwork to go. But that only works if RU and MD win some games. You won’t win new fans with them getting crushed all the time because you keep rolling top teams through town. You have to balance marquee games with winnable games.
“So, if MI, Ohio State and PSU are all in the east, then that is three guaranteed “king games” a year @ Rutgers & Maryland (combined). You also get 1-3 king vs. king games @ PSU every year (assuming the Nebraska cross-over rivalry is maintained). That is a good inventory of “king games” that are played “out east.””
There are many ways to get a lot of kings to come to MD and RU. You don’t have to put 3 kings in one division to do it. Also, PSU isn’t really out east. Many of their fans are, but PSU is several hours inland. New York and DC are both 4 hours away. If fans haven’t been coming to OSU/PSU games before, they won’t be now either. maybe more media will come, but I doubt it.
“If this is the new thinking, this is a paradigm shift from trying to get an annual king vs. king for the B1GCCG in Indy.”
They still want that. Fox certainly does, too. Based on the attendance the last 2 years, that’s the only way to get a sell out. It would probably help the ratings, too.
“I think Delany, et. al., now realize that the CCG has a low ceiling moneywise even if you get a king vs. king game every year.”
Say what? It’s making $24M per year. Is that low? I don’t know why you’d look at the past two years and draw that conclusion anyway. WI/MSU didn’t sell out even with the Rose on the line. That’s a them problem, not a CCG problem, until proven otherwise. This year was unusual with a 7-5 3rd place WI in the game. Neither WI nor NE fans were excited for the game. The CCG has never had a king/king game, so why would anyone conclude it wouldn’t do well even with such a match-up? Let’s wait until OSU and/or MI play in it to see what the CCG is like. Or maybe let the CCG have some serious postseason implications.
What Delany really wants is to maximize the value of every conference game. That means locking the best games, but not making schedules so hard that teams suffer from overexposure. How much better would NE look if they didn’t get stuck playing MI, MSU, OSU, PSU and WI both years so far? That takes a toll. RU and MD wouldn’t survive it.
“Plus, with all the factors (including sanctions and unexpected clunker games), it is simply impossible to “plan” the “best” CC game. The CC game will be what it is going to be and the money will be — within a broad range — roughly the same every year.”
Of course it will, it’s paid according to a contract. So is the regular season. But the B10 needs both to succeed for the next contract to be better.
“By contrast, penetrating the new markets on the eastern seaboard is where the real money is and, for that, you need your best brands to be showing up on a regular basis.”
Nobody is saying they shouldn’t. But “regularly” and “as frequently as possible” are not the same thing.
There’s tons of options, and I’m trying to save a detailed discussion of them for Frank’s post on the subject this week, but here’s some highlights.
Games for RU/MD based on their division mates (assumes 9 games):
1 eastern road game (RU/MD or PSU is locked no matter what)
3 kings = 1.58 king home games per year
2 kings = 1.33 king home games per year
So all this worry will gain RU or MD 1 extra home game against a king every 4 years. That’s 1 extra eastern king game every 2 years overall. In exchange, you screw up divisional balance and distort media coverage of the conference.
As for the rest of the B10, there a lot of tradeoffs to be made. The eastern division teams would get more king games, but at the expense of the western teams. Is NW happy about dropping from 1.4 to 1.0 king home games per season? How about IA, WI, MN and IL? That’s a major sacrifice, especially since IN and PU will reap the benefits as well.
I think the math says it isn’t worth it. Instead, give them special scheduling treatment for the first few years. PSU got MI for the first 10 years despite MI not being a locked opponent for them. RU and MD could play all 4 kings their first several years if the B10 schedules it that way. They don’t have to be in the same division.
LikeLike
OK, guys, I don’t think competitiveness is a reason to be against E/W because in the short-term, #3 has been nuked down to about a #7 and I don’t think the B10 stays at 14 in the long-term anyway.
The western schools not getting one of OSU/Michigan each year is a bigger concern, but if you plan to expand to 16-18 by 2016, with a 9 game conference slate, 3 Western schools get Michigan (including Minny to preserve the LBJ game), 3 others get OSU, and UNL gets PSU.
LikeLike
Richard,
“OK, guys, I don’t think competitiveness is a reason to be against E/W because in the short-term, #3 has been nuked down to about a #7 and I don’t think the B10 stays at 14 in the long-term anyway.”
1. PSU hasn’t dropped that far yet, and we don’t know how long they’ll be down. They were top 4 this year, certainly.
2. Just because you expect 16+ doesn’t make it fact. Nobody expected the B10 to stay at 11 for 18 years. You have to plan for the current configuration to be permanent until it’s proven not to be.
3. You also think the B20 is a good idea, so your opinion is questionable.
LikeLike
Thought. I’ve reformed my stance. Now I believe that a Big18 with FSU, Miami, VTech, and UVa added is ideal.
LikeLike
Noted. Rivalries trumped adding UNC and Duke, I assume.
LikeLike
Pretty much. To end the annual appearance of the OSU-PSU game & to ask Minny to give up the LBJ game would require some pretty sexy (and unrealistic) additions (ND & Texas or UF & UGa)
LikeLike
Like that better then keeping the current divisions (although still prefer putting the eastern 3 with the western 4).
I don’t think any crossovers there then though except keeping Michigan/Michigan State.
LikeLike
I like the idea of having a Central Division (the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois) and a Frontier Division (the west 4 and the east 3).
This preserves all the big rivalries without fixed crossovers. With an 8-game conference schedule, it would take seven years to play each team in the opposite division twice. With a 9-game schedule, it would take five years.
LikeLike
Nice.
LikeLike
Eric,
Your plan would be OK except for these things:
1. One division does most of the travel and thus will complain vociferously about it.
2. It puts MI and OSU together.
3. It keeps both OSU and MI out of the east coast, and they are more useful there than NE.
LikeLike
Geographically, North / South with a not very squiggly line between the two could give
North: Rutgers, PSU, MI, MSU, NWU, WU, Minnesota
South: Maryland, OSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illini, Huskers
But I WANT the game against TTUN to be for the division championship and the trip to the championship game as many years as possible. Which means putting MI and OH in the same division. Swinging the border north around Happy Valley and south of Columbus would give:
North: Rutgers, OSU, MI, MSU, NWU, WU, Minnesota
South: Maryland, PSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illini, Huskers
Adding two REALLY southern schools, eg FSU and GTech, would pop the border south of both Happy Valley and Columbus:
North: Rutgers, PSU, OSU, MI, MSU, NWU, WU, Minnesota
South: FSU, GTech, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, Illini, Huskers
LikeLike
@Bruce – IMHO you are a little too newbie heavy in the South. How about a straight east-west split? Nine games, one rotating A and B crossover game.
Surf and Turf*
A: Nebraska, Florida St, Miami, Wisconsin
B: Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota
Industrial
A: Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Michigan St
B: Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland.
*I prefer Miami over Georgia Tech. It makes the Kings balance out.
LikeLike
Yes, when you go generally North / South, South will be newbie heavy, because there were few expansion targets north of a halfway line across the original Big Ten. Just as if you go generally East / West, East will be newbie heavy.
But in any event, since they all omit the Hawkeyes, they are all wrong anyway … if the border swings north of Chicago and then fades a little south again, its:
North: Rutgers, OSU, TTUN, MSU, WI, MN, IA
South: Maryland, PSU, Indiana, Purdue, NW, Illini, Huskers
And with two southern additions:
North: Rutgers, PSU, tOSU, TTUN, MSU, WI, MN, IA
South: FSU, GTech, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, NW, Illini, Huskers
LikeLike
I think when all is said and done, Illinois will shift to the west, a few guaranteed crossovers will be altered, and you’ll end up with this:
East/Leaders
Indiana (Illinois)
Maryland (Michigan State)
Ohio State (Michigan)
Penn State (Nebraska)
Purdue (Northwestern)
Rutgers (Iowa)
Wisconsin (Minnesota)
West/Legends
Illinois (Indiana)
Iowa (Rutgers)
Michigan (Ohio State)
Michigan State (Maryland)
Minnesota (Wisconsin)
Nebraska (Penn State)
Northwestern (Purdue)
Goodbye to Michigan State-Indiana and Iowa-Purdue; instead, the Indiana schools each get a guaranteed crossover with an Illinois school. Iowa gets Rutgers, enabling the Hawks to maintain ties to New Jersey for recruiting, and Michigan State gets Maryland for access to the D.C./Baltimore area.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Goodbye to Michigan State-Indiana and Iowa-Purdue; instead, the Indiana schools each get a guaranteed crossover with an Illinois school. Iowa gets Rutgers, enabling the Hawks to maintain ties to New Jersey for recruiting, and Michigan State gets Maryland for access to the D.C./Baltimore area.”
I don’t see those being the crossovers, but we’re all guessing.
OSU/MI, PSU/NE, WI/MN, MD/IL, RU/NW, PU/IA, IN/MSU
I don’t see Delany relinquishing MSU/IN or IA/PU. Besides, I think RU/NW is a natural pairing (NYC vs Chicago) and getting MD/IL also give MD some Chicago access. Yours are more balanced, though.
LikeLike
What’s so sacrosanct about Michigan State-Indiana and Iowa-Purdue? There’s hardly any juice to those “rivalries,” as fans of all four schools will readily admit. At least under my plan, the Illinois-Indiana and Northwestern-Purdue rivalries are restored — and since none of the four travel particularly well, you might as well guarantee them a game in the state next door.
Iowa has recruited New Jersey for years, while Maryland would probably like playing Michigan State, the closest available Legends school (they met regularly in the late 1940s, the first few years of the Jim Tatum era, and of late have had a basketball rivalry of sorts).
LikeLike
vp19,
“What’s so sacrosanct about Michigan State-Indiana and Iowa-Purdue?”
Nothing, really. MSU/IN is a trophy game, though.
“There’s hardly any juice to those “rivalries,” as fans of all four schools will readily admit.”
Agreed.
“At least under my plan, the Illinois-Indiana and Northwestern-Purdue rivalries are restored”
That’s true, although those aren’t exactly strong rivalries either.
My thinking, such as it is:
1. Minimize change
Especially if all they do is move IL west, keeping all the crossover rivalries intact and letting the newbies play NW and IL works well.
2. What rivals make the most sense for RU and MD?
NYC versus Chicago is a natural rivalry and more RU fans seem likely to travel to Chicago than to rural IN. It also allows MD to also get some Chicago recruiting access. That’s important for hoops if not for FB.
3. Delany’s ego
He doesn’t like to admit failure on his part (see the division names), so this way wouldn’t have to admit the previous pairings sucked.
“and since none of the four travel particularly well, you might as well guarantee them a game in the state next door.”
As I’m sure NW alumnI will tell you, NW has a nationwide fan base. They’d probably show up better at RU or MD than at PU. NW alumni don’t stay in town after graduating.
“Iowa has recruited New Jersey for years,”
So? IA recruits IL much more strongly so games near IL should be more important. PU recruits NJ as much as IA does and is closer to NJ. By your reasoning, that should be the pairing. I think the B10 is much more likely to consider what would help integrate RU and MD than who would benefit the most from getting to play them.
“while Maryland would probably like playing Michigan State, the closest available Legends school (they met regularly in the late 1940s, the first few years of the Jim Tatum era, and of late have had a basketball rivalry of sorts).”
No west school is close to MD (MSU is 600 miles), nor does anyone recruit there much. It might become a hoops rivalry, but there is no FB rivalry there. I’d be fine with pairing them, I just don’t think it will happen. I think giving them IL access makes more sense, especially since I’m also giving it to RU.
YMMV
LikeLike
Frank, you may have already addressed this issue, but on shaggybevo, I believe, a poster who said he worked for the CiC said that the contiguous states issues is not in the Big 10 charter or rules but it is in the CiC rules; making it impossible for Florida State or Texas for that matter to ever join the Big 10 or the academic side. Have you ever heard of that twist?
LikeLike
That’s just a myth right now; we really don’t have concrete evidence that there is any rule binding the conference to contiguous expansion.
Also, the very fact that Texas has been chased for so long is strong evidence to the contrary.
I feel that the Texas-case disproves that myth…
LikeLike
Somewhere a person actually quoted the rule with its section number in the by-laws.
But as said below, rules can be changed.
LikeLike
I doubt very seriously they change the rule for FSU. Florida or Georgia Tech or UNC, yes. FSU, no. I saw a quote somewhere that the ACC bluebloods view FSU as West Virginia people who took the wheels off their trailers. I don’t see the academics making the stretch, especially with all the discussion about how the presidents didn’t want to take another “Nebraska” who was AAU and only got kicked out by 1 or 2 votes. FSU is a geographic and academic stretch for the Big 10. I would be surprised.
LikeLike
Not only that, they are both academically and athletically #2 in their state. That’s not true for any Big 10 state. They are #1 in both.
LikeLike
And the Big Ten commissioner has been quoted that the Presidents have given him permission to seek out discussions with contiguous AAU schools.
I’d guess that doesn’t mean he cannot RECEIVE communication from others, but those limits are fairly constraining ~ eg, UVA and Kansas, but not FSU, Miami, GTech, VTech.
LikeLike
Even if it is a rule, they could just change it if they want to. No problem.
LikeLike
Thing is, it gives opponents of that move a position to defend. And supporters of the move have to reveal that they have a non-contiguous target in their sites at a point when under the expansion game, they would prefer to keep things quiet.
Its not a hurdle that is absolutely too high to clear, but its a hurdle.
LikeLike
This link to an Eleven Warriors article from May lays out what
has transpired thus far.
Texas is a prize Delany wants like the DC market.
The loophole is a new broadcast deal with NBC and or CBS.
Texas has had talks already with the BIG i hte last few years.
LHN has been a bust. some articles suggest regret signing a deal with ESPN.
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2012/05/11451/b1gs-master-plan
LikeLike
I don’t think Texas would ever join the Big Ten again, not with their media rights locked up.
Besides, have you seen their marching band? Their “uniform” is ludicrous.
LikeLike
That and the Big Ten has started to pursue it’s endgame.
It’s one thing to talk about a 12 team Big Ten constrained to the Pennsylvania to Nebraska area (I realize that’s a large territory to be “constrained” to).
But it’s quite another to talk about a 14 team Big Ten that planted two flags on the East Coast and is considering “Eastern” secondary headquarters.
That’s clearly a sign that the Big Ten is pushing its chips all in onto the East Coast. The focus is entirely on schools from Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and possibly Florida.
I don’t foresee Texas or even Notre Dame coming up in Big Ten expansion talk at all from now on…
LikeLike
That doesn’t follow at all though, I just think there are too many factors against Texas to join.
Notre Dame, on the other hand, should be thrilled at these moves. Think about it, they could possibly play in Washington every year and Chicago/New York every other year. What if they win the conference? That’s two games in California.
LikeLike
A workable Big Ten-Pac-12 alliance with the Big Ten at 12 was really the last chance for ND to join; maybe include their games in that alliance and stay at 8 game Big Ten schedules even at 14.
Now it’s gone; we’re going East without them…; they’re going to always have a safe place in the ACC to just play a couple games annually and stick their non-football sports.
LikeLike
I guess. Their shtick was to play a strong strength of schedule with national appeal.
That’s kind of hard to do when you’re playing the also-rans of college football.
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame is “thrilled at these moves.” They switched from the Big East to the ACC to find a more stable home where they could retain football independence, and now they find that the ACC is less stable than they expected.
There are two keys to understanding Notre Dame. One is that Independence is practically a religion to them. (Even agreeing to play five ACC teams a year was likely a tough pill for them to swallow.) The other is that they are a national program. Many Catholics consider Notre Dame their “home team,” and of course there are Catholics almost everywhere.
So for Notre Dame, being committed to play a mostly Midwestern schedule is a drawback. They had three annual Midwestern games before they joined the ACC (Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue), and they’ve cancelled the Michigan series going forward. This allows them to keep their ACC commitment while playing Purdue, Navy, two California schools, and a smattering of national teams every year. Rice, Texas, Arizona State, and BYU are among the non-ACC, non-Big Ten schools on Notre Dame’s future schedules, and they’ll be adding more teams like that.
LikeLike
The BIG also has the greatest potential for growth.
Texas, Oklahoma, NC, Virgina, GT and now FSU have had talks or are having talks with BIG.
You may see a 20 team conference. Huge dollars in most of the major and mid major markets.
Yes. It is sad that regional cultures, rivalries, and most importantly traditions have slowly faded away
since the SWC disbanded. But, money talks.
LikeLike
Texas can’t leave the Big 12 for at least 12 years and the bridge to Texas is off the table (Missouri).
There’s no Texas strategy anymore.
We have to stay focused on the East Coast. Transforming the Big Ten into a hybrid Midwest-East Coast conference is really the only strategy on the table.
LikeLike
Texas is a school they would take without a bridge. But AFAIU, it takes six Big 12 schools to break the Grant of Rights, and making room for six would require the Pac-12 and either Big Ten or SEC working together.
LikeLike
http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/Big-12-takes-cautious-approach-as-Big-Ten-4060673.php
As for as moving before the GOR, “No school would do that, ” the Texas official said.
LikeLike
Shroom, you were also adamant that Maryland would never join.
LikeLike
Not that I ever believe this would happen, but I feel like indulging.
1 Michigan
2 Michigan State
3 Purdue
4 Minnesota
1 Ohio State
2 Northwestern
3 Illinois
4 Indiana
1 Penn State
2 Notre Dame
3 Rutgers
4 Maryland
1 Nebraska
2 Texas
3 Iowa
4 Wisconsin
I didn’t really want to do an “all expansion pod”, but I think Notre Dame should be with the other three and it’s not a bad group all things considered. The numbered schools should be permanent cross divisional rivals with each other in a nine-game schedule.
This is open for suggestion. I tried to be fair, but as a Michigan fan, I can’t decide for other fan bases what they’d want.
LikeLike
What did Minnesota do to get stuck away from all their western neighbors?
No Floyd? No PU-IU? No ND-PU? No Michigan-ND?
Yeah, good luck with that.
LikeLike
Ah damnit, I knew I forgot something. I had all of those protected originally, but I moved everything around.
I feel like we should just draft this out, first come first serve. Pick a school and a pod.
LikeLike
There is no way in my mind that the Big 10 gets FSU. One must think that there is a dark horse in this race with Virginia Tech. I think they go to the Big 10 with Noter Dame because those are two prominent football schools. That would toughen up the Big 10 in order to toughen up its conference ranking. In a down time for the conference. North Carolina and Virginia go to the SEC to toughen up its academics and too create a more competitiveness in the basketball conference for Kentucky.
LikeLike
There may just be one more space for a “football king”. If that’s FSU then that’s fine by me. VT would be fine but presidents would not allow two non-AAU’s to join. So the plan would be to bridge between the rest of the Big Ten and FSU with 3 AAU’s. The best that I can come up with is UVA, Duke and GT. GT/FSU is the southern part. Duke/UVA give Md back some basketball rivalries and also opens up the Virginia recruiting areas to PSU/Rutgers. UNC would rather be selfish and jump over State to the SEC if they can’t save the ACC.
18 is an awkward number but still workable. Unless UNC joins then I don’t see how 16 is possible without creating gaps in geography, passing up a football brand or taking non-AAU’s. Therefore, FSU would have more than one partner.
I go back and forth on divisions but this is what I can come up with now:
RU/PSU/Md/UM/PU/DU
OSU/FSU/MSU/GT/IU/UVA
Minn/UW/UNL/NW/ILL/Iowa
Crossovers – OSU/UM, IU/PU, DU/NW, MSU/UNL, PSU/FSU, Minn/RU, UW/GT, ILL/UVA, Iowa/Md
LikeLike
FSU is worth a lot, but not worth such a convoluted arrangement or picking up GTech.
If we’re only allowed 1 Non-AAU, I’d take VTech with UVa to lock down VA.
LikeLike
If 16 is the absolute limit then OK. It was a stab in the dark to gauge how the people would react. I thought I’d make the best of the match-ups based on the profiles of the schools involved. Locking down Virginia would, in a way, reflect current political trends. Then the SEC goes ahead and claim the state of NC for that conference. The question then becomes can the B1G pry them without other moves made elsewhere. Just because Maryland moved doesn’t necessarily mean the rest move until one or two more move out. Does UVa want to continue playing VT in a hypothetical 16-team B1G? Is VT willing to lose games against UNC, NC State, Clemson, FSU and Miami to go to the B1G?
The current thinking is that the ACC goes into nuclear meltdown if FSU were to leave. Frank’s blog entry reflects that. Still, Maryland left but that’s due to special circumstances related to Maryland. There are so many ways this could end, even including the conference going on with its current membership.
LikeLike
I disagree. If we are only allowed 1 AAU, I’d much prefer FSU over Va Tech — better football, access to a huge and growing state. We can get access to Virginia (the state) with just UVa, we don’t need Va Tech as well. I don’t really see the need to waive the “no AAU” guideline for Va Tech.
Of course, it depends on the endgame. I don’t like FSU/Ga Tech if we plan to stop at 16. If the powers that be are convinced that 18-20 is going to happen, then FSU/Ga Tech makes a ton of sense as an intermediate step.
LikeLike
I’d rather lock down a state than “gain access” (unless it’s a giant state like TX or FL).
Again, unless basketball becomes as important as football. If that happens, the value of the football powers (FSU, VTech, & Miami) are relatively less.
LikeLike
Great analysis, Frank. I’m glad you pointed out that Florida State does not represent a departure from the Big Ten’s academic footprint.
‘US News’ ranks Florida State at #97. As you mention, that edges Nebraska (101). It also ties or bests several AAU member schools.
Missouri (97)
Colorado (97)
Iowa State (101)
Kansas (106)
Buffalo-SUNY (106)
Oregon (115)
Arizona (120)
Eric Barron and the trustees have made a goal of AAU membership and Florida State is on course.
LikeLike
USNWR rankings & AAU rankings have almost nothing in common. They are based on completely different metrics.
The two most recent AAU additions; Georgia Tech & Boston U. were #31 & #37 on the internal AAU list. FSU was at #94 (tied with an unnamed current AAU member). Thirty two non-AAU schools (including USF) were ranked higher than FSU. Nebraska was #109. It’s fantastic that the FSU trustees have made a firm commitment towards drastically improving the school but let’s be clear about what hurdles must be cleared before FSU is in serious discussion for AAU membership.
LikeLike
I’m aware of the nuances. I’m also aware that both measures weigh STEM subjects more heavily than the humanities and liberal arts, and graduate education and research over, say, quality of undergraduate experience. I’m also aware of the ultimate futility of trying to quantify ‘academic excellence’, which is a thing that can’t really be quantified.
My point stands. Florida State is a distinguished institution that ranks competitively with other distinguished institutions. Accepting Florida State as a member would represent no departure for the B1G where academic standards are concerned. Meanwhile, the benefits for the league in all areas would be as Frank has outlined them.
LikeLike
Given the gigantic state that it’s in, FSU really should be higher up in the AAU metrics than it is. There are 4 states with 19M+ in population (the rest aren’t that close, having less than 13M in population each). Of those, CA has 6 of their public schools in the AAU. TX has 2 of their public schools in the club. Even NY has 2 SUNY schools in the AAU despite SUNY being quite young. In FL, there’s no public school challenging the top 2 in the academic pecking order, so by all rights, FSU should be able to rise in the metrics fairly fast. The only wildcard is the FL legislature. If they keep not valuing education and university funding, FSU will face a headwind.
LikeLike
You hit it head on.
LikeLike
Gitanole,
“My point stands. Florida State is a distinguished institution that ranks competitively with other distinguished institutions.”
Yes, that’s true. But it’s not elite. It all depends on how large of a group you are considering. Out of all schools, FSU is pretty good. Compared to the top 50, it’s not. The COP/C are academic snobs of the highest order, so them rejecting a school for academics doesn’t mean that school isn’t a good school. You don’t have to make the Supreme Court to be a good judge, either.
“Accepting Florida State as a member would represent no departure for the B1G where academic standards are concerned.”
Yes, it would. The last non-AAU member to be accepted was MSU 60 years ago, before the CIC even existed. FSU and NE aren’t much different except for NE having been in the AAU, granted. The ARWU still has NE a tier ahead of FSU, though.
Nobody is saying FSU is a bad school, but the COP/C view the B10 as a special club and membership requirements are strict.
LikeLike
Yes ~ what impresses the most politically influential faculty is research prowess, not undergraduate teaching strength, because research prowess has far more to do with how they became influential faculty than undergraduate teaching does.
LikeLike
The big thing that constrains existing rivalries in conference expansion is the limit of 8 or 9 conference games. Why is that? BCS teams want the flexibility to schedule FCS games with home only or lopsided contracts, and perhaps manage a national nonconference rivalry game that get TV exposure. So you either sell tickets for a game that you will most likely win and therefore help you out in national rankings, or you get national exposure on TV.
Hypothetically speaking, if you assume the conference armedgeddon route, these two strategies of nonconference scheduling make less sense. You don’t need the guaranteed FCS wins, because your post season depends on winning your pod. Therefore the best nonconference schedule would prepare you for the conference play, and some might think that tougher pre-conference play (ala Tom Izzo) is the best strategy. If the polls are now meaningless, and its all settled on the field, more conference games could be the answer.
If the armegeddon scenario results in more national TV exposure for the four superconference teams – which it should, there is less reason to schedule the national rivalry games. I think we re already seeing this.
So it could be in many best interests to go to the 4 superconferences, with pods and a post season 16 team playoff, and a 10+ game conference schedule. The biggest beneficiaries of this, in my opinion, are the fans. Larger conferences with more conference games will provide more good games and fewer of these pointless BCS/FCS matchups. Since fans pay the bills, Adam Smith is smiling.
LikeLike
That’s not a likely scenario. The university presidents remain adamantly opposed to a 16-team playoff. It took decades of arm-twisting to get them even to a 4-game playoff The TV deal for the new playoff lasts till 2024, so we’re talking about a decade before we could even have the conversation about expanding it.
You’ve also misunderstood the reason for the limit of 8 or 9 conference games. It’s not because schools want guaranteed wins against FCS opponents (although, for some schools, that is a part of it). It’s because they want to play 7 or 8 home games. When you’ve got an enormous stadium that always sells out (e.g., at Michigan, Tennessee, USC, Penn State, etc.), you want 7 home dates a year.
If you go to 10 conference games, that means you’ve got 5 conference road games. That you can’t get to 7 home games unless the whole non-conference slate consists of body-bag games. Most of the good programs don’t want to do that. And many can’t, if they have an annual out-of-conference rivalry (Iowa/Iowa State, Florida/Florida State, South Carolina/Clemson, etc.).
LikeLike
Yes, that’s the drag. OSU makes, conservatively, $4m for a home game. Pay a MAC or C-USA school $1m to come and play, OSU nets $3m a game. Play a home and home series, they average $2m/game, and have travel costs on top.
The offsetting element is the importance of strength of schedule in getting into the championship game. With the top four teams picked for a four team playoff, schools that play the equivalent of a strength of schedule boosting home and home series might be more appealing than under the current system where getting into the slot to play the SEC champion is such a lottery.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
$4M is very conservative. It’s almost $7M is ticket sales alone. Add in required donations for season tickets, bigger donations for better seats, concessions, etc and the number is much larger. Of course you should subtract expenses if you want to talk profit, not revenue.
LikeLike
drwillini,
“The big thing that constrains existing rivalries in conference expansion is the limit of 8 or 9 conference games. Why is that? BCS teams want the flexibility to schedule FCS games with home only or lopsided contracts, and perhaps manage a national nonconference rivalry game that get TV exposure.”
Wrong. Not everyone is looking for I-AA games. Schools with large ADs need the revenue from 7 home games to fund those ADs, though. In addition, schools try to get national exposure by playing OOC in other parts of the country. Beyond 9 conference games, you can’t reconcile these desires.
“Hypothetically speaking, if you assume the conference armedgeddon route, these two strategies of nonconference scheduling make less sense.”
No, they don’t. You still need the revenue.
“If the armegeddon scenario results in more national TV exposure for the four superconference teams – which it should, there is less reason to schedule the national rivalry games. I think we re already seeing this.”
I don’t. OSU is adding difficult OOC games, not dropping them. Teams with locked OOC rivals aren’t dropping them.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to me that the Big Ten is being so open with their plans to expand to 16 teams. Couple that with the release of the potential financials in the Maryland deal and it leads me to believe that they are trying to disabilize the current conferences. If they had two candidates ready to go, they would just add them without any word like Maryland and Rutgers. Either the ones they want aren’t available as things are currently setup or they are trying to flush out a king to come to them like with Nebraska did.
LikeLike
That puts all the recent AD interviews in a new light. Maybe they were, but I don’t remember them being this open about the process after Nebraska joined.
LikeLike
MikeP, I have thought that as well. In some ways, I wonder if Fox started all of this when they decided to buy into the YES network. Did Fox go to the B10 and say we can get you NYC if you pick up Rutgers. Take another school, within reason, to get to 14. Maryland was the throw in. Now, Fox and the BTN want to get to 16, so they are doing everything in their power to destabilize the ACC and try to shake loose ND, UVA, UNC, ect.
LikeLike
The thing is, I don’t think the Big Ten can get the 15th and 16th schools it _really_ wants without another conference moving first. Florida State would accept a Big Ten invite in a heartbeat, so the fact that it hasn’t happened suggests it won’t, without something else shaking loose. UVA and UNC are close to the top of the pecking order in the ACC, so they don’t have a good reason to make a move right now.
LikeLike
And we don’t know what the Big Ten really wants for #15-16. Were it up to the presidents, they would probably go with Virginia and North Carolina for pure academics and all-around athletics. Big Ten athletic directors would likely prefer Florida State and a second southern school (Georgia Tech?) for their football prowess. Each of those options has advantages and drawbacks, particularly UVa/UNC. While Charlottesville people probably could live with Virginia Tech going to the SEC in a chain reaction, Chapel Hill folk might not want to ship N.C. State to the SEC as a price of Big Ten membership, even though the SEC is a conference most non-casual Tar Heel fans loathe and wouldn’t enter themselves. Plus, UNC is an alpha dog and won’t jump conferences unless faced with no other choice. From a UVa standpoint, being allied with UNC is important, moreso than it is from a Chapel Hill point of view.
LikeLike
It’s amazing how much the ACC’s Tobacco Road situation parallels the Big 12 South dynamic.
OU and UVa have similar motivations in terms of being with their rivals Texas and UNC. It’s history repeating itself all over again, only this time Maryland played the role of Nebraska, and the whole dynamic is now taking place at the Big Ten’s doorstep rather than far away…
LikeLike
There are so many scenarios to why there is no movement.
First and foremost, it takes time to complete. It sounds like UMD was first approached in early to mid October about moving to the B10. It was announced at the end of November, and Delany reported it was done very quickly to complete it before the rumor mills hit. They still could be discussion and working out the details.
It could be they gave ND one final ultimatum and are waiting their reply. We are going to 16/18/20 and we are not expanding past that. It’s now or never.
It might be that FSU is in the plans, but the desired entry partner is resisting. GT’s President, from what I understand, is pretty pro ACC. They may be waiting on GT to make a decision.
They may be trying to smoke UVA and UNC. I think those 2, along with Duke, are the heart of the ACC and will be hardest to dislodge.
It may be as simple as they are waiting how the exit fee situation pans out.
As long as they have it set when the next media rights deal comes up, they will be set.
LikeLike
Well, that’s the thing. We could stop at 16 or go beyond for Notre Dame.
It’s a bit like the Sibylline Books: Notre Dame made it known to the Big Ten that they didn’t want to join a conference of over twelve members. So when they balked, Jim Delany burnt the books and added Nebraska. So it goes on. At some point Notre Dame will have to decide their fate, and each moment they hem and haw costs them more and more.
LikeLike
metatron, it’s worth noting though that the more East Coast that the Big Ten goes, the more it becomes what Notre Dame wants.
Maybe they’d prefer a 20 team Big Ten over a 12 team Big Ten (with them in both configurations for this exercise).
LikeLike
I doubt it zeek. More teams means infrequent opponents and I’m sure Notre Dame would rather play Michigan than not.
LikeLike
metatron:
Considering that ND is dropping the Michigan series, it doesn’t seem like that rivalry’s a top concern to the Domers.
LikeLike
Probably need to find out what will happen to the $50mm payment requirement with MD.
LikeLike
Personally, I believe that the Big Ten will have to add one more non-AAU before all is said and done.
Unless UVa and UNC want to come as a pair to 16, there’s no real alternative that works without a non-AAU school.
As much as the academics will like UVa and Georgia Tech, that combo isn’t going to be a blockbuster for TV…
You almost have to consider Virginia Tech or FSU for their football brands and ability to deliver large markets.
LikeLike
I’m not sure FSU would pass the B1G’s requirements. They are far away and not AAU. USNWR is not what they consider a relevant ranking. Alabama and Auburn are rated higher than Nebraska and I can’t believe they would take them. In the ARWU, FSU is ranked 201-300. Schools with them include RPI, Suny Buffalo, Notre Dame, Kansas and Missouri. But also include LSU, UAB, UConn, Central Florida, South Florida, Cincinnati, Colorado at Denver, Houston, Kentucky, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington State.
LikeLike
Yeah, outside of Miami, only really Virginia Tech looks like it fits as a non-AAU by the typical research metrics… as well as being nearby…
LikeLike
I’ve really been struck by how much the ACC resembles the SWC.
ACC 5/14 private. SWC 4/9. ACC 3 big metro area schools with big commuter components and pro competition (Pitt, GT, MD/LOU) with 2 privates (Miami/BC) having the same issues with the pros. SWC 1/9-UH, but 3 privates had the same issue with pro competition. ACC only 6/14 traditional non-big city flagships. SWC 4/9. ACC had 8 schools in one small area (Washington to Clemson). SWC had 7 (Texas triangle-DFW/SA/HOU).
SWC was struck by scandals hitting nearly every school and hitting SMU, TCU, UH and A&M very hard. ACC has had 3 in the last year-GT, UNC, Miami.
LikeLike
Yep. They’re similar in another structural weakness as well:
The footprint where the ACC was dominant (MD+VA+NC) matched the population totals of where the SWC was dominant (TX+AR). Both were dwarved by the population footprints of the Big10, Pac, and SEC. When the SWC lost AR, the SWC collapsed. Losing MD may start the same process for the ACC.
LikeLike
zeek, UVA and GT to the B1G wouldn’t really be that bad.
If it happens at all any time soon, I’d say it’ll likely be
UVA and GT to the B1G,
UNC and Duke to the SEC,
VT, NCSU, Clemson, FSU, Miami, and Pitt to the Big XVI
LikeLike
zeek,
The obvious answer is to not expand if you don’t like your options.
But if they do, they have these options:
1. All AAU – 2 of UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
UVA will want to stay with UNC and are under no pressure to leave
UNC won’t leave the ACC until the conference is destroyed
Duke only works with UNC, is small and private
GT would be a huge outlier, and is small and not a power in their state
There is no workable pair here without the ACC starting to crumble first.
2. 1 AAU – add VT, FSU, Miami and Syracuse to the list of possibilities
VT is tied to the ACC and doesn’t want out
FSU is unacceptable to the COP/C
Miami is small and isolated
Syracuse dropped from the AAU as their focus has shifted, which would turn off the COP/C
There is no workable pair available because none of the AAU schools want to come right now.
3. 0 AAU
Not going to happen unless the COP/C has a drastic change of heart.
The B10 doesn’t have a reasonable expansion possibility anyway. The schools they want don’t want to leave their current conference. The only chance is for the B12 or SEC to destabilize the ACC to the point that a viable target becomes available, but I don’t think that will happen.
The B12 might eventually get FSU and Clemson, but that won’t free up a NC or VA school. maybe GT would leave with Miami at that point. Otherwise, there is nothing to be done for now.
LikeLike
I kind of wonder if nothing will be done for now because nothing *can* be done for now. At least, nothing can be done if the absolute wall is 16 (which I think is the most realistic option right now).
What I mean by that is, both the BigTen and SEC seem stuck by the simple fact that the schools they would truly want are only available in the event that the ACC is no longer viable. However, because they’re already at 14, they have no real way to force that instability and still have room for said schools.
You aren’t just snatching UNC from a conference they (a) founded and (b) pretty much run and (c) isn’t interested in leaving. Is the BigTen willing to try for UVA/VT or FSU/GT, knowing worst case it completely destabilizes the ACC and lands UNC — which is supposed to be the biggest fish in that conference — in the SEC? Is the SEC willing to pursue VT knowing it could make UVA bolt to the BigTen? Both conferences need someone with slots to give, which we all know indicates the Big12. But while the Big12 may want FSU and Clemson or whoever else, that affection doesn’t appear to be reciprocated at the moment, so the BigTen and SEC are stuck staring at each other waiting for the blink.
Problem is, that appears to be the only way you shake loose UNC/UVA, and there’s a definite possibility even that doesn’t work so long as NC/VA is largely intact The BigTen and the SEC seem, at least if this line of thinking is correct, to be in a sort of cold war. Perhaps that’s why there is so much chatter for BigTen officials this time; they’re trying to get into the ACC members’ heads through the media since they no longer have the teeth to just make it happen.
Anyway, it’s a thought.
LikeLike
You know, UNC isn’t a “big fish” in the way that Texas or UF or ND (or even FSU) are big fishes. They are no where near being a king in football, & their TV value is probably near the B10 average (unlike Texas, UF, ND, or even FSU, which all range from above the B10 average to way above the B10 average in TV value).
So I would be perfectly OK with the B10 grabbing UVa & VTech while letting the SEC take UNC and whoever.
LikeLike
The way you draw out more ACC schools is by dwarfing their revenue. With the Big Ten Network and SEC Network, B1G and SEC schools will be making more than double what ACC schools make.
LikeLike
I think we are at a stall waiting the outcome of the Terps vs ACC lawsuit.
My guess is the B1G and SEC will not strike next as their targets must mean the ACC is toast. The only way to insure that is have a major football school leave or have another charter team leave. This means the next round really depends on the B12 enticing Florida State and Clemson to depart which would remove 2 solid football schools with one being a Charter ACC member.
ACC charter schools gone = South Carolina and Maryland
ACC charter schools remain = UNC, Duke, Wake Forest, NCST, and Clemson
ACC football schools and year of ACC membership prior to realignment
#1 Florida State 1991 : solid fans and 2 MNC’s
#2 Clemson 1953 : solid fans and 1 MNC
#3 Georgia Tech 1979 : weaker fans and 4 MNC’s
#4 Miami 2004 : weaker fans and 5 MNC’s
#6 Virginia Tech 2004 : solid fans but 0 MNC’s
LikeLike
If that’s true then we’re staying at status quo for a very long time.
I don’t see FSU leaving for the Big 12 by choice. There’s not much in it for them.
LikeLike
Andy,
They were the other school objecting to the 50 Million exit fee. My guess is they would not have fought it if they felt the desire to stay.
LikeLike
If you believe the numbers on OU’s tier 3 deal (which has NOT been reported by any media source that I have seen, only on message boards), FSU ought to be able to generate an additional $7 million as OU did on Tier 3. That’s on top of $4-$8 million on conference distributions net of travel and doesn’t include any additional BCS/Playoff money. So if you accept the $7 million, that’s $11-$15 million a year. That’s much.
LikeLike
OU numbers may involve an “inflation” component like UT’s from ESPN. Anyway, that amount would help the rest of the conference not longhorns how? They might increase a similar amount (or more) in the B1G…as well as all the other members of the B1G.
LikeLike
Andy claimed FSU wouldn’t gain much in the Big 12. I was pointing out they might gain substantial $, depending on Tier 3. There’s little doubt that FSU would make more in the B1G come 2016 when their TV contract renews.
LikeLike
bullet does make a good point about 3rd tier rights.
There’s no way that a school like FSU doesn’t come out significantly ahead in the Big 12. That doesn’t mean it happens, but compare:
1) First, second tier rights. A couple million extra for Big 12 schools over ACC schools.
2) Third tier rights. A couple million extra for a school like FSU versus $0 for ACC schools.
3) Playoff-BCS rights. A few million more due to Sugar Bowl deal for 10 teams versus Orange Bowl deal for 14 teams (and maybe more due to higher expectations of Big 12 teams reaching the Top 4).
Add it all up and a school like FSU might end up making $10M+ more per year in the Big 12.
Now, that doesn’t mean it happens because there’s a whole host of competing constituencies and the move isn’t as much of a slam dunk as a move to the Big Ten or SEC, but for a school like them, the Big 12 has a lot of monetary benefits on every level…
LikeLike
@Zeek
Keep in mind that changing conferences would also add $2-$3 million in travel expenses.
My guess is they net $6 million a year by changing conferences if the Big XII doesn’t get to renegotiate its TV deals (except for the added money from the CCG), potentially more if they do.
LikeLike
Extra travel costs as well, however. I think that the financial benefits would have to approach $20M annually (as they will for UMD) for FSU to move to the B12. Barring other defections, of course.
LikeLike
FSU’s president estimated to the board that it would add $2 million to travel expenses. Although I think that assumed a 1 or 2 team move, not 4, which would reduce the increase.
I question that it would be that much. Hawaii has $3 million in total travel. Not all travel is transportation. Hard to see FSU getting that much of an increase when the conference already stretches from Miami to Boston and they just added Pitt and SU. It would also increase FSU’s travel budget to that of Texas (from $5.7 to $7.7) who chartered every team everywhere but Waco and College Station. I suspect that was a Cadillac budget and a worst case, not an incremental budget.
LikeLike
@bullet
I guessed $2 million because that is what Nebraska estimated they will see. And while the ACC is more spread out than the Big XII that UNL left, FSU will be further from the Big XII than Nebraska is from the Big 10.
LikeLike
An “insider” on the ohio state scout.com message board conducted a Q&A with an un-named ohio state official (who I believe, but don’t know, is Gordon Gee) about B1G expansion. It was a very interesting read, and if you’re a member over there, I highly recommend it. However, in that conversation Mr. Anonymous asserted that the Big XII’s GOR is essentially unenforceable because universities are public entities, public entities are subject to legislation, and any state legislature could enact a one sentence piece of legislation simply nullifying the GOR.
That cannot be right. Right?
LikeLike
The only way a GOR wouldn’t be enforceable is if a conference was willing to challenge it to the point of going all the way in a court of law.
However, an assignment of TV rights would seem to be legally permissible.
One other thing, the Big Ten (and Pac-12) would never try to challenge the Big 12 GOR (because they have GOR as well).
It’d have to come from the SEC or ACC trying to take teams from a conference with a GOR. No league (Big Ten or Pac-12) would try to weaken its own GOR by challenging another.
LikeLike
I’m not sure that we aren’t looking at the wrong side of the GOR coin. It is an additional commitment tool that may aid in media negotiations, not the glue that holds a conference together. No one is leaving the SEC. Does anyone think the PAC or B1G would be at risk without one?
Walls that are built to protect and strengthen all those within are fundamentally different than prison walls, although they may have the same components. Eventually prisoners serve their time, and some escape. We need to judge commitment of schools to conferences rather than the strength of the method used to bind them.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8726388/tommy-tuberville-leaves-texas-tech-raiders-become-coach-cincinnati-bearcats
Wow. Bolting Texas Tech for Cincy. Kind of feels similar to Bielema, way out of left field.
LikeLike
By that, I mean he’s sort of bolting for another job after maxing out at Tech before the downhill slide the next year or two.
LikeLike
The Leach situation put him in a difficult position. For some reason Tech fans loved that clown. So he was under a microscope anyway. He must have seen he was in a situation where he had to do great to keep his job. KSU and OSU the last two years have certainly raised expectations in the Big 12.
LikeLike
If the money is close, Cincy is probably the easier job and it isn’t isolated in the middle of nothing. Wouldn’t be surprised if recruiting is easier at Cincy just because so many people live within a 4 hour radius of Cincinnati compared to Lubbuck. Texas Tech shouldn’t be in top conference based on market, so maybe this really isn’t that surprising.
LikeLike
Tech actually had numbers earlier this year that they generated the 2nd best TV ratings in DFW. They have close to 40k students now and get a lot of students from DFW.
LikeLike
Recruiting is probably much easier at Cincy in terms of the kinds of recruits you need to be successful in the Big East.
LikeLike
And although we never talk about it, the expectations at Texas Tech have to be “high” relative to your average mid-tier program.
Just a few years ago they were regularly competing with Texas and Oklahoma including that crazy 11-1 triple tie year.
They also had that huge streak of straight bowl games that got snapped.
LikeLike
True in that sense though Bielema didn’t have to fear for his job security at Madison & got a nice raise in a lateral move while Tubby took a clear step down almost certainly not for more money.
LikeLike
Yeah, definitely two different sets of circumstances.
Bielema being a victim of his success in terms of Wisconsin’s current spending structure (on head/assistant coaches) versus Tuberville bolting to avoid being fired down the road.
LikeLike
We’ve essentially created the NFC East of college football, if Texas indeed joins the Big Ten.
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, and Texas.
LikeLike
That brings up the biggest difference between the motivations behind college sports choice of regionality (especially in the case of Texas and the Big 12) versus the nationalization of professional sports.
It’s amazing to some extent how different the motivations naturally are… Somewhat counterintuitive as well when you think about how much these schools are trying to monetize their product.
LikeLike
We say monetize like it’s a dirty word, but the truth is, there wouldn’t be a demand for this if you and I didn’t want it.
And as I tell everyone else, it’s not like these Presidents and athletes are swimming in gold – it goes to funding other parts of the school that would either go unserviced or publicly financed.
LikeLike
That’s fair.
The fact is that none of these sports except football and men’s basketball (and maybe 1 or 2 others baseball or hockey or women’s basketball) pays for themselves.
You’re talking about dozens of sports that have to be funded.
LikeLike
I’m actually of the opinion that for pure monetization, nationalization is the way to go. School administrators (especially old-guard folks who loved the “good old days”) may prefer localization for other reason, but if the B10 added FSU, Miami, VTech, and UVa, I think that the ratings would improve even for teams of the same brand-level just because folks would have more of a rooting interest. in football, when MSU plays Wisconsin or UNL, folks in the south won’t care much unless it has national title ramifications (likewise for Midwesterners when UNC plays VTech or FSU), but if MSU plays VTech or FSU, both Midwestern/Northern and Southern casual fans would have a rooting interest (and thus a reason to watch the game).
LikeLike
Exactly!!
LikeLike
I think there is a critical mass. You have to have enough to generate interest. And schools have their areas of interest. If the Big 10 added LSU you would get interest in Louisiana, Mississippi and Southeast Texas, but it wouldn’t help you in Georgia or Florida.
LikeLike
Good point. However, I think both FSU & Miami would get the casual fan in FL watching when they play a northern power.
LikeLike
Part of the reason why, I think, Miami punches above its weight in TV viewership despite its tepid local support.
LikeLike
Guest schools are not uncommon on CIC work groups. But that is totally different than the institution joining the CIC.
LikeLike
Well, UIC had a special status though given Illinois’ founding role in the CIC (it’s headquartered there as well):
“Together, CIC universities have roughly 60 sister campuses – the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, for example, or Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.
Nebraska, whose main campus is in Lincoln, asked to incorporate its Omaha and Medical Center campuses into the CIC. That was denied, but the discussion led the CIC to return to its original membership criteria and end the UI Chicago’s guest status, officials said.
“We had to sit down and say, ‘What does it mean to be a member institution?'” Allen said. “Obviously we’re not a consortium of 60 universities. We’re a consortium of 12 universities.”
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1694031587/Big-Ten-cooperative-group-revokes-UIC-status?zc_p=1
(So I guess blame Nebraska for UIC getting booted? -Just kidding about that).
LikeLike
@greg
What I mean by this post is that UIC was the functional equivalent of the University of Chicago; they were on all the committees and such (deans, provosts, etc.).
LikeLike
That always bugged me, especially because most of the Big Ten schools are merely main campuses for statewide university systems. It’s like inviting Cal, but not UCLA or UCSF.
LikeLike
They may prefer to do it in a hub and spoke method. Unite the main campuses through the CIC and let each university system coordinate their other campuses with the main campus. 60+ schools may be too many to be an effective group.
LikeLike
True, especially with the committees all growing in size as a result of additions.
Now that you have Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers deans and provosts sitting around the tables of those committees (and other committees), you end up with at least 15 at each committee now…
LikeLike
Greetings from an FSU grad/Booster/season ticket holder!
Really starting to embrace the idea of FSU joining the Big Ten. If it were to happen, I’m all in.
LikeLike
I hope it happens as well. People with the power to make it happen may not agree, however . . .
LikeLike
Definitely would be a fascinating future if it does happen.
LikeLike
Interesting read from the VT AD.
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/12/ad-jim-weaver-realignment-i-dont-think-you-make-decision-based-money-alone
LikeLike
You know, you brought up that interesting parallel about the weaknesses of the ACC earlier.
Are Florida State and Virginia Tech maybe “too rural” (which would hurt if you’re trying to build up attendance up to the 90-100k range over time although FSU is close to that since there’s plenty of people where they are)?
Are there two “primarily football” state schools farther away from the population centers of their states? The only comparable ones I can think of are schools like Illinois and Washington State and I suppose Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Tennessee is, but they are in a decent size metro area, unlike VT and FSU. And Knoxville is well served by interstates. Tallahassee is surrounded by a lot of nothing.
LikeLike
Location isn’t great for Tally, but when the product is good on the field, it’s not a problem to fill the seats. Challenge has been when we play Duke or Wake, etc. Would much rather see anyone in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
This from someone who has never hosted Indiana (or Minnesota or Purdue or Rutgers, etc).
LikeLike
LOL, indeed. But it’s way worth it to play UM, OSU, MSU, NU, UW…
LikeLike
I didn’t realize that Northwestern football was held in such high regard. . .
LikeLike
Richard,
It isn’t. You know he meant Nebraska, like 90%+ of the people who write NU do. Maybe someday NW alumni will give up this pointless quest since all it does it confuse people. NW will never be NU to most of the country.
LikeLike
If NWU wants to be NU, wouldn’t they have to change their name to Northern University? I’m reasonably sure that its the cardinal directions that are N E S W and their mid points are NE SE SW and NW.
LikeLike
Actually, no, we would have to change our name from [b]N[/b]orthwestern [b]U[/b]niversity to [b]N[/b]orth [b]W[/b]estern [b]U[/b]niversity. Which we don’t plan to do.
We don’t refer to Ohio State as OHSU (though maybe just “Ohio” is good enough).
LikeLike
Oregon Health Sciences University wouldn’t object to the added visibility 🙂 .
LikeLike
Maybe Nebraska will give up the Big 8 dyslexic styling to names. KU, MU, OU, NU, CU are all University of …, unlike IU which really is Indiana University.
LikeLike
Penn State? 2.5 hours from Pittsburgh (not a huge city by any means) and 3+ hours from Philadelphia? And State College isn’t all that big to begin with (compared to the likes of Tallahassee).
LikeLike
He definitely doesn’t want to travel longer distances (a definite strike against the B12; somewhat of a strike against the B10 and SEC, who both have some members who are farther than the bulk of ACC schools, but with plenty of schools who are as close as other ACC schools).
He also stresses that academics are important as well as athletics, which is a strike against the SEC.
I’m pretty certain that the first choice of the administrators who run VTech (if not the t-shirt fans) is sticking with UVa, so the key is convincing UVa to join the B10 and getting the COPC to accept VTech (who are fairly close to AAU membership).
LikeLike
List of 2012-2013 Bowl Gifts for players.
http://network.yardbarker.com/college_football/article_external/ranking_the_2012_13_ncaa_bowl_gifts/12360439?linksrc=foxrg_college_football
LikeLike
Here’s a thought:
As a “small” expansion to get the BTN on to basic at a decent rate in NYC and New England, the Big10 and CIC could consider encouraging NYU to move only their hockey program up to the top level (and join the B10 hockey league). They could add BU (maybe only in hockey?) as well. Neither play football. Both fit the program of the B10 as being large AAU research-universities who produce plenty of graduates and alums.
BU would be trickier if we’re adding them in all sports besides football (would they buy in to a portion of the BTN; how much)? Also may not be worth it, given that it’s only Boston. NYU may be easier to deal with if only their hockey program joins the league (while everything else stays at DivIII): they get a portion of the rights fee, but no ownership in the BTN.
Not sure if the B10 would go for it (probably not; it would mean splitting the BTN rights fees between football+basketball & hockey). Still, I think that the idea of top-level NYU hockey is intriguing.
LikeLike
Too gimmicky, and NYU would have the same problem in NYC that BC has in Boston; just too many colleges, too many fractured allegiances. There’s no heft; no base.
At least Rutgers can count northern New Jersey as its base in the NYC TV market.
LikeLike
No one in New York cares about NYU hockey (or any other NYU sport for that matter).
Big 10 won’t do partial membership anyways.
LikeLike
The only possibility, and I stress possibility in terms of being extremely remote, is Johns Hopkins being invited for lacrosse and the CIC.
But it’s really just a pipe dream.
Only Chicago as a legacy is going to be a part of the conference as a non-full member (CIC) of the Big Ten…
LikeLike
I personally would love the B1G to go to 20 teams with 4 pods and go to 18 teams 1st (FSU,GT,UNC and Virginia) and then wait and ask Texas and ND. if ND says no again go after OK with Texas.
LikeLike
As a long time Noles fan it’s certainly an interesting proposition. FSU has had some epic games with Big 10 teams over the years. Who doesn’t remember Terrell Buckley and Desmond Howard going at it? Or Deion Sanders against Andre Rison? The FSU v. Nebraska battles, especially the 1993 national championship game…FSU against Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl. Bowden v. Joe Pa…
LikeLike
A yearly game vs FSU would make Nebraska fans very happy.
LikeLike
In my 6 pod, 18-school B10 setup, I have UNL playing Miami & VTech (as well as Iowa & Wisconsin) yearly. You also get FSU 4 out of 6 years as well.
FSU would get Miami & VTech annually (UNL & PSU 2/3rds of the time).
LikeLike
Bring Toronto in as a partial member for Hockey. Getting BTN in Toronto, etc. would be a boon.
Great academics as well. Don’t think NCAA would allow it though.
LikeLike
One factor I think many of us forget to consider is the importance of baseball to the ACC schools. UVA, UNC, GT, FSU and Miami are all baseball powers to varying degrees. They know what a huge step down it would be to join the B10 in baseball, and that’s a factor to some/many of their fans and alumni.
I also agree with Frank that the ACC is stronger than many believe. I think the VA and NC schools have strong ties that won’t be easily broken. MD only left because they had no choice but to chase the money. GT still has strong ACC ties despite their money woes in the AD. The newer schools are less attached, obviously. I think the test case is Clemson. I don’t think FSU would leave without a southern partner, and Clemson is the most likely choice. Clemson is a founding ACC member and strongly tied to the ACC. I don’t think anyone can break those bonds right now. That’s why I think major schools are done moving for a while. Things may change in 5-10 years, but for now nobody else in the ACC is desperate enough for money to leave the ACC.
LikeLike
Fans say they care, but how much revenue does baseball bring in? Definitely less than basketball (where the B10 holds an advantage over the SEC & B12). Is baseball even a revenue-positive sport for the ACC schools? How many & how much?
LikeLike
It’s more of a cultural affinity than of economics. If they do value baseball that much then I think we should not dismiss that as a factor in their decision-making.
LikeLike
Richard,
Baseball is their version of hockey. It shows a cultural difference. In general, baseball is the #3 or 4 sport for revenue. It’s on par with lacrosse and women’s hoops in the ACC, and hockey at MI and OSU (MN, WI and MSU make a lot more).
Here are the reported baseball revenues for the relevant ACC schools in 2010:
Clemson 1.11M
Duke 1.14M
FSU 2.47M
GT 0.62M
Miami 1.75M
UNC 0.80M
UVA 1.73M
VT 0.76M
Every school accounts for things differently, especially TV money and donations, so take it for what it’s worth.
LikeLike
So baseball is probablly revenue-neutral or a tiny profit at best (unlike hockey at the hockey powers). BTW, I’m fairly certain that Michigan hockey revenue is up there with the other hockey powers given their attendance figures.
LikeLike
Richard,
No, baseball generally loses a decent amount of money. And no, I looked at the B10’s hockey revenues before saying that. It may have just been 1 bad year, but MI and OSU were around $1M while the big 3 were at $4-6M+.
LikeLike
Well, Michigan drew an average of 12,291 in 2010-2011 (second only to Wisconsin in NCAA hockey) for a total of 233,531. What are they doing? Letting in people for free?
LikeLike
Richard,
I believe the most recent data was for 2009-2010, so maybe the attendance was lower that year. Also, many schools do let students in for free to sports like that.
LikeLike
@Richard
At U of I all varsity sports besides FB and MBB are free for students. I don’t know if Michigan does that for their non-revenue sports but it wouldn’t surprise me.
LikeLike
Richard & Brian – here’s the most recent hockey attendance figures.
http://www.uscho.com/stats/attendance/division-i-men/2011-2012/
While I certainly don’t profess to know much of anything about hockey, even though “Miracle” is one of my favorite sports movies, a look at the average attendance and overall attendance shows that baseball and hockey are on par with each other. Baseball has more home dates and many more schools participate in baseball. I don’t know how expensive hockey is run as compared to baseball. I also don’t know what the average ticket price is for hockey as compared with baseball. I was surprised to see that only 14 FBS schools (and only 8 AQ schools) were listed as D-1 hockey schools.
Comparing B1G hockey to ACC baseball is a fair comparison, as the ACC only has two teams in the top ten for attendance purposes.
Comparing SEC baseball to B1G hockey is more fair. The B1G has five teams listed in the top 14 for average hockey attendance. The SEC has five teams in the top six for average baseball attendance and all of the top five for overall attendance.
B1G Hockey; average; total attendance
#1 Wisconsin; 11,773; 235,458
#3 Minnesota; 9,539; 219,401
#10 Michigan; 5,997; 125,932
#11 Michigan State; 5,364; 96,546
#14 Ohio State; 5,178; 82,854
SEC Baseball; average; total attendance
#1 LSU; 10,736; 472,391
#2 Arkansas; 7,924; 269,433
#3 South Carolina; 7,574; 295,389
#4 Ole Miss; 7,471; 239,099
#6 Miss State; 6,131; 202,340 (Texas is #5 in average attendance, but only #8 in total attendance)
All SEC teams are listed in the top 34 for average attendance, and the Aggies were #9 last year.
LikeLike
I still believe that B1G baseball is not in a permanent down-cycle… I know that the U of Minn has seriously upgraded (new facilities) historic Siebert field, has a long-tenured hall of fame coach, and the new U prez openly stated that baseball was one of the sports that he wanted to see get back to more historical levels of prowess—though the U’s baseball program is not bad–we obviously have struggled of late in the CWS playoffs.
LikeLike
While the ACC is viewed as the #2 or #3 baseball conference, they really don’t draw that well when compared to the quality of their play. Only Florida State(#7), Clemson(#8), Virginia(#19), and Miami(#27) were in the top 30 in home attendance.
Here’s the list of the top 49 baseball teams based on attendance last year.
LikeLike
Here’s a better list for baseball attendance.
Click to access 2012%20Weekly%20Attendance.pdf
LikeLike
The “All Carolina Conference” will manage to tick somebody else off to leave. The fact that everything ACC is located in or near NC is what finally got to MD (besides the problems with finances). When a group of northern schools entered the league, there was hope the conference would move its offices further north but that didn’t happen. I think you underestimate some of the tensions in that conference and why money alone was not why other teams are scouting around.
LikeLike
Nemo,
“The “All Carolina Conference” will manage to tick somebody else off to leave.”
Who? The northern schools don’t have any better options and the southern ones don’t seem to want the one option they’ve had for a while (B12).
“The fact that everything ACC is located in or near NC is what finally got to MD (besides the problems with finances).”
The fans, maybe, but I doubt TPTB cared about that. The ACC HQ started in NC. Where else should they have been? The original ACC had 4 NC schools, 2 SC and 1 MD. UVA joined right after that, leaving the geographic center in NC. SC left and GT joined in the 70s, again leaving the center in NC. FSU was next to join, shifting the center south a little. The center was probably still in NC, though. Next they added BC, VT and Miami, which still left the center in NC. The recent additions of Pitt and Syracuse shift the center north a little, but still in NC (they basically undid the shift from FSU plus a little). UL replacing MD doesn’t change much.
So where was the HQ supposed to be, exactly? 6 schools are N of NC and 4 south of NC, with 4 in NC. As an outsider, it makes sense for the ACC HQ to have been and still be in NC. Ignoring ND, the center of the ACC is Walnut Cove, NC, 34 miles from Greensboro.
Being the center, doesn’t it make sense to play tournaments there too? That minimizes travel for everyone. I could rotating the tournaments around some, and they have in hoops, but keeping it in the middle makes a lot of sense. The ACC talked with MSG about hosting the tournament, but MSG needs an annual event, not once every few years.
“When a group of northern schools entered the league, there was hope the conference would move its offices further north but that didn’t happen.”
Why? The center of the conference didn’t leave NC. Are the southern schools supposed to be ignored to appease the northern ones?
LikeLike
Very interesting post. I wondered how long it would take before it occurred to people that the ACC’s biggest brand name in college sports’ most valuable sport ( by far), Florida State, could be passed over by both the Big Ten and the SEC.
My number one preference remains for a long-term viable, healthy, thriving ACC. A distant, distant second, though, would be for the Seminoles to join the Big Ten. I hate what the Big Ten has done in contributing to a sense of instability in the ACC, but it’s still a great league that I grew to admire while living in the Midwest. The Big 12 would be a last resort, and I think FSU deserves better than to be in a last resort league.
Thanks for bringing Florida State so much respect and attention, Frank. FSU would be an amazing asset to any league, perhaps more than any Big 12 OR ACC team besides ND or Texas. (OU couldn’t bring the BTN revenue that FSU could; UNC couldn’t do it alone, and Florida has almost twice the population of NC and multiple times more football talent.)
LikeLike
So at least you’re open to the possibility. Not that it affects what the elites at the conference level do but, in your opinion, do you have any affinity with other ACC members and would not mind bringing along if there is any chance of doing so?
LikeLike
Personally, I’ve enjoyed the Clemson rivalry a lot. I grew up in Greenville, SC, just down the road from Clemson, so I liked watching FSU dominate that rivalry in the first 10 years, with Clemson more than holding their own over the past 11 or so. In my opinion, the “Bowden Bowl” was great for helping FSU develop a rivalry, which is essential for helping a new school feel at home in a relatively new conference. Now, instead of the Bowden Bowl, we have the Dabo-Jimbo Bowl. It’s just beautifully ridiculous. Of course, if FSU is even borderline acceptable to the Big Ten, Clemson has no chance in my lifetime.
Again, I reiterate that I want FSU to remain in the ACC. I’ve enjoyed just about all the opponents, with the exceptions of Duke, Wake, & BC. They just don’t generate much interest for any fans.
In the event that FSU joined the Big Ten, and could only join with 1-3 other ACC members, I would want Miami, Georgia Tech, and/or UNC. If Miami did not follow FSU to the Big Ten, or to the Big 12 for that matter, the FSU-Miami series will die. That rivalry is by FAR the most significant rivlary for FSU out of the ACC, but in this day and age, no one is going to have two permanent non-conference rivalries. The Florida-FSU series will survive because it’s more important to the fanbases, and the Miami series would be cut out. That would be a freaking shame. Now, I know FSU had UF and Miami were both non-conference opponents annually for the first dozen ACC years, but as a Big Ten or Big 12 member, there’s no way that happens (especially with the desire for 7 home games/year).
If it can’t be Miami, Georgia Tech would be the school FSU would push hard for as a partner in the new league. For one thing, FSU has requested for years that GT get moved to their division since they’re the closest ACC school. Atlanta is also home to more FSU grads than any city outside of Florida.
Why would I want UNC? Simple: I’d like to continue having the opportunity to see FSU play just 30 minutes from where I live, at least once every other year.
LikeLike
I agree. I just don’t see Miami happening. Another 450 miles for a football program that is currently a train wreck.
LikeLike
Michael in Raleigh,
I think FSU’s chances are next to zero to join the B10 any time soon. The COP/C are academic snobs of the highest order and FSU is too far away from reaching acceptable levels in the metrics they look at. Maybe in another 10-15 years if FSU continues to improve, but I don’t see it now unless the COP/C have a change of heart.
On the bright side, I’m not sure the B12 is alluring enough to steal FSU. I also don’t see the SEC taking FSU or Clemson or GT or Miami. As long as that’s true, the ACC will stay strong.
LikeLike
Completely agree that FSU to the B1G is far fetched speculation. It only makes sense if these universities are converting to for-profit entities and/or believe that their entire athletic departments are at risk of irrelevance. It’s hard to fathom why the B1G -as well as leaders of the University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin, etc- want to be associated with a radical transformation of college athletics into national super conferences.
What is fascinating about this FSU to B1G speculation, is that it reinforces just how much FSU is truly driving-the-bus in all ACC decisions during the past 6 months. Ever since the revised contract with ESPN was announced, there have been a series of decisions that are truly surprising by historical ACC standards:
1. Reversal of the 9 game conference schedule. Basically, this gives the schools with the disproportionately large home attendance and committed OOC rival (i.e., FSU and Clemson) greater flexibility in scheduling.
2. Admittance of Notre Dame as a partial member. Basically, compromising the ACC’s egalitarian ethos in order to strengthen its football reputation and financial payout.
3. Admittance of Louisville as its 14th member (over Conneticutt). Basically, selecting a school with greater football upside potential due to its southern cultural affinity…over a northern school that follows the traditional academic and athletic blueprint of old guard ACC schools.
The ACC is doing its best to fend-off FSU’s defection to the B12. Fellow conference members are probably hoping that once a school is visibly recognized as the conference power, it won’t desire to be at the AD mercy of decisions made in Austin. By being so accommodating, the ACC is risking poaching and further rumors of movement to the B1G and SEC.
LikeLike
Mostly agree, though I thought FSU was opposed to the ND arrangement.
LikeLike
Most of this is just wrong.
1) There are several schools that have a traditional ooc rival, of which FSU is one. A 9 game schedule is controversial anywhere and acting like its a major concession is silly.
2) This is the main thing I wanted to respond to. I just find this one so strange as I have never heard FSU was the driving force for ND before, ever. The only thing adding ND in non football sports is doing is add to the bitterness. If ND gets treated differently then why not FSU? FSU built the conference in FB and since thats what the money is all about now and since when FSU is down there is no one else that can increase the value of the TV contract why shouldn’t FSU get more money than other ACC schools? I mean if you’re going to do it for a ND sweetheart deal then why not us?
Since ND already plays 3 ACC teams per year on average the new deal nets one extra home game to add to the ESPN deal. Do you think that one game is worth millions more a year for 14 teams!? We didn’t really get extra money for adding Pitt and Syracuse due to added length of the contract and until I see it, I won’t believe the ND deal is worth more.Maybe they’ll do something like extend the contract to 2030 and add a few mill per team for the last few years of the old contract and claim its more money. It was a desperation move of Swoffords part to give the appearance of success. Just because the Big 12 was going to cave to partial membership doesn’t mean it was worth doing. Now ND is free to be an independent for another generation on the backs of the ACC without sacrificing anything or contributing anything of value to the ACC.
3) Maybe, but it occurs to me it might be Swofford being crafty. Scenarios wherein FSU leaves and joins the Big12 with Louisville and waits for a few more ACC teams to shake loose are now precluded. The 50 mill exit fee is easier for FSU because they voted against it and because they’re worth more $$. For others in the ACC it won’t be so easy. Its smart strategy on Swoffords part and does little to change the overall FB or academic profile of the conference.
LikeLike
Notre Dame does not already play 3 ACC teams per year, on average. This year was unusual: they played four current/future ACC members. But next year they play just one (Pitt); then two in 2014 (Pitt/Syracuse). After that, the 5-games-per-year deal kicks in.
It certainly does appear that Swofford’s moves are meant to keep FSU happy. Whether it’ll be good enough to keep them around long-term is a whole other question, but the ACC is doing what it can to appease them.
LikeLike
2011 = 4 ACC opponents
2010 = 2
2009 = 2
2008 = 4
2007 = 3
2006 = 2
Looks to me like over the 6 year period si.com has records of ND averages 17 / 6 = 2.83 ACC games per year. And that didn’t include any series with Miami or FSU which we know they want to continue to keep a recruiting presence in Florida. This deal was ridiculously in ND’s favor on the assumption that they are either going to join the ACC at some point or somehow their aura imparts immunity from schools defecting. Since the ACC gave everything to ND that they need to stay independent, a home for all their sports and quality late season games they were having a hard time filling, they are free to remain independent for another generation at least. If you’re in a quality bball league and you no longer have to schedule UMass late in the year, why join a conference? Since the ND aura didn’t work for the old BE why would it work for the new BE?
LikeLike
Swofford has not at all done everything he can to keep FSU happy. FSU has been very clear that it wants Georgia Tech in its division. GT is easily the closest school to FSU, yet they’ve only played each other twice every five years since the additions of VT, BC, & Miami. With the new 14-team setup, they’ll play twice every twelve years. Instead, FSU has been put in a division with very distant Boston College, Syracuse, and Maryland, not to mention a Wake Forest team that just does nothing to generate interest for the fanbase.
I also wasn’t agree with rhodree’s sentiments about ND getting special treatment while FSU receives the same payouts as Wake Forest and Duke. I do understand the intent of the move, but Swofford underestimated the potential for backlash–not just from FSU, but from many schools, including now departing and charter member Maryland.
If Swofford is trying to appease FSU, he would be wise to let Georgia Tech fill Maryland’s place in the Atlantic (FSU’s) division and let Louisville fill in for GT in the Coastal. There’s no good reason NOT to do that.
LikeLike
Agree that moving GT to the other division makes sense. The ACC has expanded too fast and these zipper divisions do not promote natural rivalries.
Swofford may have to do more to make FSU happy, but it appears that he has already started the process.
LikeLike
Ditto!
LikeLike
Agree, Michael.
We’re seeing ACC revenue numbers being understated a lot on the Web right now. By the time the expanded ACC works out the media deal it will actually have entering the 2014 season, the figure for each ACC school is likely to be around $19-20M.
That’s still below market value, of course. The ACC is the #2 conference for TV in basketball and #3 for TV in football, but somehow it is #5 in revenues. Still, an ACC bringing home ~$20M for each member school is an ACC the Big 12 cannot easily raid. Especially if that big exit fee holds up.
I do wonder if ACC officials aren’t working on something more ambitious now that Notre Dame is on board. Everyone sees the cable riches implied by the BTN model, where even Maryland can be a money maker. If you’re an ACC president you’ve got to be thinking more gold can be extracted from the assets the league has. The ACC is sitting on some of the richest media real estate in college sports. There’s a reason other leagues are all looking in that direction.
The ACC faces two big tasks: hold its membership together and monetise what it already has. Neither task is easy but neither is impossible. If the ACC can do both, it will be a landmark on the college sports landscape for a long time to come.
LikeLike
What assets does the ACC still have? They already sold almost everything to ESPN.
LikeLike
FSU gets what it deserves for letting a football coach (Bowden) drive its conference affiliations. If it had not done that, FSU would be a longstanding and happy member of the SEC. When will these schools (yes, you Penn St.) stop allowing the football coaches to run the institutions?
LikeLike
The flip side is, that if FSU had joined the SEC they never would have gone on that crazy run they had in the 90’s, which was fueled by the fact they went 72-2 in conference play in their first 9 years in the ACC.
I mean is giving back all those top 5 finishes and 2 national titles worth it? Maybe, maybe not.
LikeLike
Spurrier used to make this claim in the 90s but it was rebuffed by most sports commentators then. FSU played both UF and Miami every year when both were usually top 10 most seasons. In addition, they continued playing 1-2 more national powerhouses every year, just as they had done when they were independent. Look at those 90s FSU schedules and most years there is at least one game against a Michigan, ND, USC, or some other traditional power. The SOS for FSU was higher than Florida’s for most of the 90s.
Although the Bowden quote is cute, its not true. Neither is the assertion of some Seminole fans that the SEC was arrogant and condescending during negotiations, and so FSU went with the nicer ACC people. The truth is basketball drove the money back then and FSU made more $$ in the ACC. What a shock, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
LikeLike
Spurrier was right.
FSU’s Record from ’91-’00
ACC: 72-2 (97.3%)
OOC: 30-9-1 (76.3%)*
* Tie as half a win
FSU’s ACC record was 27.5% higher than their OOC record.
FSU chose the ACC because Bowden reasoned he was better off padding the schedule with weak conference games and then scheduling aggressively OOC, than vice versa (which is what would have happened in the SEC)
LikeLike
How exactly does that make Spurrier right? How do you know what Bobby Bowden was thinking? Why is one choice better than the other when you end up with the same SOS? During this time period Florida dropped Miami from their schedule. Would it have been worthwhile for FSU to do the same?
Its been gone over many times on various FSU websites, but the best explanation of what happened when the decision was made to go to the ACC was given in a Florida Times Union article. It was written on the 10 year anniversary of FSU joining the ACC and they interviewed all of the key players that made the decision. It was the money.
Here’s a link to it. http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/051301/col_6160687.html
Notice what Bowden says in 2001 about it. Basically, he got out of the way of the financial and academic people who had become set on the ACC.
LikeLike
Your right I don’t necessarily know what Bowden was thinking, but it doesn’t change the fact that run was fueled by the weak conference schedule. Period.
Maybe they would have done just as well in the SEC, no one knows.
What we do know is that they were substantially better against ACC foes than in OOC games.
LikeLike
You keep repeating the same silly defense. How exactly does that lead to NC’s and top 5 finishes? Tough ooc + weak conference games or vice versa, explain why one is better than the other.
LikeLike
Since you play twice as many conference games as OOC games if you want to pad your record it is easier to do so by playing a weaker conference slate and then scheduling aggressively OOC than the reverse.
Listen, it is entirely possible that FSU would have been just as dominant in the SEC, but that is not what the data suggests.
LikeLike
At the time the data suggested that FSU had one of the highest SOS’s in the country and it was usually higher than Florida’s. You seem to be doing new age math with all this talk about twice as many conference games. If the end result of a schedule is that its in the top 10 in the country what difference does it make how you got there? Why was keeping Miami (usually top 10 in the 90’s) as an annual rivalry game an easier game than Florida’s SEC east matchup with Tennessee? Note, that Florida dropped Miami as an annual game to make room for more home game only cupcakes. Given their SEC schedule it is understandable, but if I had a choice I’d rather keep Miami plus interesting ooc games than the same old Tennessee and Georgia games every year.
LikeLike
I’d like to see where FSU’s SOS was higher than UF’s for most of the 90s. Last time I saw a calculation, UF had played something like twice as many ranked teams during that timeframe.
LikeLike
The SEC never invited FSU. They voted the same day the ACC did and decided not to extend an invitation.
LikeLike
Technicality. When they knew FSU was going to the ACC, they decided not to invite them.
LikeLike
No. Tecnically the SEC never invited them. And there is no reason to think they were going to. They had 30 years to do so and didn’t. Might as well b
e talking about why Penn State didnt join the PAC-10 back in 93.
LikeLike
Read that Jacksonville article. The SEC hadn’t expanded in the previous 30 years. Florida had supported FSU’s admission. It was pretty much publically expected they would invite FSU at the time. There’s no reason to believe they preferred South Carolina over FSU.
LikeLike
Article about cable network dynamics from a perspective similar to that of sports programming.
LikeLike
2016.
You could take the view that
1. Delany better negotiate a lucrative long-term deal for the B10 within the next couple of years
2. Live programming (that is, sports; maybe blathering news analysts as well, who are becoming more like sports performers, doing essentially live ad hoc performances based on the daily news cycle) will be the only thing of value left on cable, so sports would be worth even more. Cable will consist of sports, talking heads, re-runs, and infomercials.
LikeLike
Reality TV
LikeLike
Doesn’t have to be live, so it can be streamed over the internet. Granted, it is very cheap to produce, so you may be right.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t really see much of an issue for the Big Ten.
The major conferences are tied up (ACC, Big 12, Pac-12, soon the SEC as well) until the mid/late 2020s.
With Fox bringing on FS1 and needing content, and NBC needing content as well as ABC/ESPN wanting to keep the Big Ten content, there won’t be an issue with the 2016 negotiations. Those are virtually guaranteed to be a success barring some kind of massive second recession the next 4 years or some kind of abrupt changes in technology or distribution which doesn’t seem likely in 4 years…
LikeLike
Technological change _does_ move fast. 4 years is an eon in technology. Does anyone know when the negotiations start?
LikeLike
First quarter of 2016 the exclusive window opens up.
June 2016, it’s likely to be signed.
(That’s the schedule that it followed in 2006…).
That’s the typical schedule for these things anyways, to get them signed off on 1 year before the deal goes into effect.
LikeLike
OK, thanks, Zeek.
LikeLike
Technical change moves fast. Technological change does not move as fast. Its the institutional side of technological change, rather than the technical side, that normally slows things down. For example, it will take time for the advertising industry to get its process of measurement of exposure to effectively measure online streaming impact … which means that change in revenues to cable and internet streaming will lag behind change in audience.
If the writing is on the wall regarding a coming downturn in cable revenues, that may limit the “bubble” tendency to include future growth in value when bidding for the rights, but even if the final price is a bit short of the top end estimates, it still should be a healthy increase on current revenues. Its at the end of the decade that the impact of technological change should be starting to snowball.
LikeLike
Yes, but the B1G won’t get 250% like the Big 12 did. The $100 million contract from 10 years ago will go up with the market, but not as much.
The B1G already had national carriage. The Big 12 has expanded its exposure.
The ESPN contract is Tier I and II. The Big 12’s big increase was Tier II (I (ESPN)went from $60 million to $100 million, II went from $20 million to $90 million to $100 million when ESPN was redone.
When the B1G contract was new, the B1G was competing with the SEC for the best conference. Now the B1G is slumping and is competing with the ACC and BE for the 4th best.
The B1G added Nebraska, but PSU won’t be a king for a few years. TV contracts are very much a what have you done for me lately. Unless the B1G makes some national waves in the next couple of years, they won’t have as much relative power as they did in 2006.
They also have to split the contract 14 ways instead of 11. Rutgers and Maryland are more potential than actual as far as Tier I and II are concerned.
The B1G will be ahead of everyone else. But their increase will not be as dramatic as the Pac 12 and Big 12.
LikeLike
In a world where a conference with a footprint that is less than half the size of the B10’s has tier I&II at $200M, it’s illogical to expect that the B10’s tier I&II are less than $250M 4 years from now. Also, it seems that you haven’t followed sports contracts negotiations closely. The Dodgers haven’t done much of anything lately, but do you know what they will get in TV money? On the field performance doesn’t matter as much as base level eyeballs, and that is determined by brands and footprints.
LikeLike
bullet, it’s about TV ratings though.
And it’s about Urban Meyer and Brady Hoke; if they bring back the 2005-2007 Ohio State and Michigan, it’ll be a hefty increase.
LikeLike
“TV contracts are very much a what have you done for me lately.”
I completely disagree. Unless contracts become one or two years in nature they are very much about history and longer term projections. PSU, USC, Miami, tOSU, etc. all do not suddenly lose much value in a media negotiation even if involved in, facing potential, or recovering from sanctions.
LikeLike
Not to mention that using current performance as evidence of what payouts will be 4 years from now is silly. I fully expect OSU under Meyer to at least get to the title game a few times before 2016.
$30M-$40M/school in the next B10 tier I&II contract. Bank on it.
LikeLike
ccrider55
If you want the best evidence of that effect in the world, look no further than Dolan’s New York Knicks.
LikeLike
Yes, its about ratings. And what have the ratings been this year? The Big 12 in prime time in the weeks I have seen it has been very close, and occassionally ahead, despite being on Fox vs. ABC. And as is repeatedly stated on this board (homer a little-make the same argument on both sides?), BTN is not a pure Tier 3, so it has some advantages over the simple 1 fb game and a few bb games in traditional Tier 3. There is some additional content held out. That means the B1G ABC contract covers a little less than the ESPN/Fox Big 12 contracts.
Now the Big 10 contract may hit $250 million, but its not going to go up 250% per school. It was $9 million ($100/11). Its not going to be $22.5 million/school, which is what it would take to match the Big 12 increase. The Pac 12 increase was even higher. But the Pac 12 exposure has increased even more.
LikeLike
bu2:
No, it’s going to go to $30M-$40M/school.
You want to talk about TV ratings? OK, then let’s look at TV ratings. In the 2011 season, a year when the B12 had 2 schools finish in the top 10 and the B10 had none, the Big10 was second to only the SEC in average viewers per football game, with 3.267M. That was nearly 50% more than the Big12, which had 2.347M average viewers per football game. The B10 had 2 conference games among the top 10 highest rated games that year. The B12 had only 1 as part of regional ABC coverage (though since USC vs. #4 Oregon was the other part, it’s hard to credit the B12 there).
(https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/sports-data-from-nielsen-tv-viewership-for-college-conferences-and-pro-sports-social-media-buzz/)
LikeLike
bullet, you’re sort of helping our argument.
If you argue that the Big 12 slightly edged the Big Ten in ratings (we’ll see when the annual report comes out), in a year where the Big 12 literally fired on all cylinders with 9 bowl teams out of 10 and a half a dozen ranked teams for most of the season versus the Big Ten enduring its worst season in terms of ranked teams in a dozen years, then you’re helping to prove our point.
The Big Ten’s footprint covers 3x as many people and in a good year the Big Ten will easily pull in better ratings; that’s why the Big Ten can reasonably expect a similar increase.
No TV executive judges these things on just one year or two years, they judge on what they can expect in good years and bad years.
LikeLike
And its a year when OU and Texas aren’t at the top. Both had early losses. A bunch of 7-5 teams doesn’t help ratings as much as a bunch of 10-2 teams (see SEC this year).
They don’t base it on one or two years, but they don’t base it on what happened 15 years ago and what might happen in the future. The Big 12 added TCU and WVU. They’ve been in 5 BCS bowls lately. WVU has more BCS wins than the entire ACC. TCU is top 5 in win % over the last decade. They add virtually no markets. But they’ve been good lately and that’s why they were added. The Big East added San Diego St. partly for market. They also added them because they have been good the last 3 years. Prior to that, they were one of the worst teams in the MWC for the conference’s history.
LikeLike
When have large numbers gathered to party and watch reruns of college sports, championship events, Super Bowl, etc? “Live” will always have an eager consumer. I lean toward #2.
LikeLike
If the rest of the system collapses though, sports programming could be collateral damage.
LikeLike
Frug:
When has a system collapsed without something filling the vacuum? Or more probable is a system is replaced by another (serving the same function, though in a different manner), and that won’t happen unless the new can outbid the old for the in demand content. Content creators are protected for the most part from flux in the methods used to purvey that content.
LikeLike
A “collapse” like that is unlikely; after all, the cable companies are in the business of maximizing profit. Unless their models for consumer behavior are horribly wrong, they won’t charge more than what the market will bear, so they will still be around.
LikeLike
I guess I should clarify.
If cable bills do get so high that people start cancelling their service and young people continue to never sign up, the bubble bursts and carriage and rates plummet across the board.
The other possibility is that cable goes a la carte (something that could happen as a result of surging prices) in which case ESPN loses a considerable amount of value to Disney since even though the network itself could continue to charge a carriage rate far beyond any other network, the House of Mouse could no longer use it to leverage better terms for their other cable properties. At that point, Disney could decide to start tightening the purse strings.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
The whole music distribution industry has virtually collapses over the past decade and content providers have yet to find a replacement method that is anywhere near as profitable to the old system, so it can happen.
LikeLike
@Richard
Monopoly behavior is a little different.
LikeLike
frug:
Yet music artists really aren’t doing worse than they had before.
As for ala carte, it would make a school like Rutgers less valuable (as you can’t charge many people who are slightly interested in seeing Rutgers football about $1/month), but a school like UNL very valuable (as you would be able to charge less people who are very interested in seeing Husker football $10/month).
LikeLike
Frug:
I understand what you are saying, but:
Young won’t stop signing up for entertainment. What are they paying for cell plans, xboxes, etc? Plus, “youth” has no institutional memory of how much prices have changed until a new generation (with no personal memory) is ready to take their place. See: gas prices, Insurence rates, credit card interest, etc.
Al la cart has been proposed (threatened) since cables inception as a response to increasing prices. I remember when cable crossed $12/mo and everybody predicted the return of broadcast to preeminence. Another method of distribution may come to the fore, but they will need the desired content to distribute.
LikeLike
@Richard
The musicians haven’t been as effected as the record companies because they can also make money through touring, licensing and endorsements (though for integrity reasons many artists shy away from the last two).
Yes, conferences can continue to make money from things like ticket sales, merchandising, etc. but seeing as every realignment move made over the last 3 years has been the result of TV money in one way or another they are banking heavily on continuing to make money that way.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
In the past 10 years cable bills have increased by 100% vs. 29% for all consumer prices. Now this isn’t entirely the result of rising carriage rates (households are getting more TV channels) but prices continue to rise at 300% the rate of inflation something has to give.
And the problem for cable companies isn’t youth spending less money on entertainment, its youth spending less money on cable.
LikeLike
Sorry for the triple post, but I should say that I don’t think the collapse of the present system is imminent by any means, but at a minimum a market correction seems inevitable by the end of the decade.
LikeLike
Frug:
That’s my point. The producers (conferences) of live entertainment will get paid by cable, or whatever method comes along. They, unlike music, are not susceptible to the threat posed by recording. Most of their value comes in the original event itself, which can be marketed to whatever distribution system exists. They won’t care if it no longer comes from cable, as long as it comes.
LikeLike
@ccrider55
That is based on the assumption that live sports will continue to have the same value regardless of the distribution system which may or may not be true.
LikeLike
Live “sports” has held sway since the ancient Olympics and the roman coliseum through the current time. If live sports no longer have value then there is no need to be spending extravagantly on them. The demand must drop first, though.
LikeLike
One of the Big 10 ADs was commenting that students don’t attend as much as they used to. That’s a HUGE concern for the football programs.
LikeLike
But its more like Peak Oil than like the Housing Bubble ~ where the decline in value (as oil fields decline, as people cut the cord) hits the point where it offsets the increase in value (new oil discoveries, people moving from broadcast only to cable), so rather than a collapse, its a long decline, slower at first, and then faster.
Which means that the deals coming up for the SEC and the Big Ten could well end up being the biggest deals ever ~ “Peak TV Football” ~ and its contracts that come up toward the end of the decade and the 2020’s that get the squeeze, since none of the TV bidders have anything like the money available to even match a contract reached in the 2000’s.
LikeLike
What deal coming up for the SEC?
LikeLike
He means the SEC’s renegotiation and network creation.
LikeLike
@Bruce
You do realize the US may soon be the world’s biggest oil producer again and be self-sufficient? North Dakota is the next boom state with their shale oil fields. Alberta has massive oil fields that until recently were untapped.
$ matter. Enough $ and they find more resources. Peak oil theorists are pessimists, not that the resource isn’t finite. Of course, it would be a shame if we burned up such a wonderful resource as petroleum as fuel in 100 years when it be used for so many other things (what would we do without plastics? Or polyester leisure suits?).
LikeLike
@frug:
just to be clear in regard to how much money musicians are making…they are indeed doing much worse today than they were 10-15 years ago. if you follow this sort of thing, you’d see that the struggle of artists has been talked about all over the place online in the last year (and to a lesser extent, in previous years). the big piece about the band grizzly bear barely making ends meet is a great example.
yes, they can get some money from touring and licensing (which is nowhere near as taboo as you seem to think), but even those streams of revenue aren’t as lucrative as they were 5-10 years ago.
this doesn’t really have anything to do with the larger argument about cable and content distribution (although you might be able to extrapolate something from it on that front). i mainly just wanted to point out that your logic is faulty.
both the record companies and the artists are in worse shape now than they were. there are some trade offs that make the current landscape more advantageous for some musicians, but that’s not the same as saying they aren’t hurting because of the record business’ collapse.
LikeLike
@Sean
I didn’t argue that artists weren’t worse off than they were before the industry collapsed, Richard did.
I did point that they haven’t been hit quite as hard as the record companies since artists do have alternate avenues to make money, but doesn’t mean they haven’t been effected.
LikeLike
@Sean
Sorry for the double post, but it does further my point that a system can collapse without anything filling the void.
LikeLike
And just because something fills the void doesn’t mean its as profitable. Bookstores and publishers have been crushed by Amazon and Kindles. And Amazon isn’t making as much money as the bookstores and publishers have lost. Not sure what’s happened to the authors. Its a little easier to self-publish, but I suspect its harder to get a publisher to back you and push your book.
LikeLike
I fess up to also saying a system collapse void would be filled. In the case of music it has been, by the same system that caused the decline – the ability to share recorded music nearly unfettered by that irritating inconvience of having to purchase it. Live sports events, however, are pretty much immune to this threat. 99%+ of their value is created, exists, and disappears with the live event itself. Unless the original event becomes available for free (no commercials, sponsorship, anyone willing to pay for original broadcast rights, etc.) it is apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Well, that’s the thing…artists have been hit just as hard as the record labels. Touring isn’t as lucrative as it used to be (due to oversaturation, increased costs, and every person wanting a little bigger piece of the touring revenue pie). Licensing isn’t a lucrative as it used to be (also because of oversaturation and bands who are willing to take next to nothing to license their songs, which has lowered the value of song licenses heavily).
And there has been something that’s started to fill the void. Keep in mind that the paradigm hasn’t completely shifted/collapsed yet. The record labels still control the majority of revenue streams and have most of the leverage. As such, there is only a partial void that is being filled by streaming services like Spotify – and for that matter Youtube. And those things are happening in tandem with the major labels, who are taking their cut of the infinitesimally small pie and passing on an even smaller piece to artists. The industry is in flux, but again, there have already been entities that have swooped in pretty quickly relatively speaking to try and build a profitable model for distribution (even if the profit is based almost solely on capitalization in regard to businesses like Spotify). In this model, there are even more middle men than before, so if anything, artists are in an even worse position, because if you want to use services like Spotify as an independent musician, you have to deal with a company that is protecting the interests of the major labels.
Also, don’t forget that many folks who have been full-time in the past had deals with record companies (even if they’re independent now), and the companies still own the masters of their records and thus control how much the artist gets paid when it comes to licensing, royalties, streaming revenue, etc.
Sure, some artists have been able to circumvent the industry and connect directly with fans to great effect (Amanda Palmer being one shining example). That said, these artists are definitely in the minority. Very few folks have been able to make a living off of the emerging digital trends, and too much has been made at this point of “the power of the web” when it comes to music being a livelihood. Maybe – MAYBE – using the web to accrue and then leverage your fanbase exclusively will be a viable option, but that won’t be for a long time.
And even then, you have to figure out some way to pay for things like touring nonstop (because it takes a good three years of heavy touring without making a dime, and sometimes losing a considerable amount, to build up a touring base that allows you to sell tickets and finally start to make any money on the road), recording, living expenses, practice spaces before you have the fanbase to support your endeavors. Many bands can do that by saving their money from day jobs. But that is hard. And that’s why they need labels, particularly at the beginning of their careers. This short essay from Mike Doughty (a great musician that you might remember from his old band Soul Coughing) is illuminating on this front: http://mkdo.co/post/26352263455/radiohead-wouldnt-exist-without-early-major-label
At this point, I’m not entirely sure what the aim of this post even is. I guess I would say that it’s easy for people to read a few headlines about where the music industry is heading and think that headlines paint a remotely accurate portrait of the situation (which is why I love this blog, since Frank and many of the commenters understand this concept when it comes to conference realignment).
So I’ll say this: It’s not better for artists in the world of the web. It’s just different, and in some areas it is indeed WORSE. And what void there has been in content distribution has been filled pretty quickly. In fact, so quickly that the players in that game are still working out the kinks. It’s just not as air-tight and profitable as it used to be.
LikeLike
The problem with the cable media distribution system collapsing and something arising to fill the void is that we don’t know how that thing that will fill the void will get monetized. If it turns out to be people WATCHING college sports that are paying for college sports, that implies a drop in cash flows to college sports, because right now college sports is tapping incomes from people getting basic cable and NOT actually watching college sports. That is because of the mix of ad and subscription revenue for cable, and the problems of getting people to watch ads for anything but live programming. But there certainly IS potential viewership in streaming video with some mix of subscription fees and embedded advertisements, so the commercial value is not going to go away.
@bullet ~ the US becoming the biggest oil producer is not the same as the US becoming self-sufficient in petroleum. Its true that we’ve gone from importing 67% of our petroleum to importing 60% of our petroleum. Our present oil boom that has led us from producing 9% of the world’d petroleum to 11%, is not, however, going to surpass our primary peak in the late 60’s or the secondary peak in the early 80’s. That combined with the modest improvements in fuel economy and sluggish economic growth that has led us from consuming 25% to 24% of world supply doesn’t mean we can produce our wy to self-sufficient. The only path to self-sufficiency is serious pursuit of energy independent on the consumption side.
Which, again, leads to some skepticism whether the pure airplane-travel conference is going to be facing some pressure in the 2020’s.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Which, again, leads to some skepticism whether the pure airplane-travel conference is going to be facing some pressure in the 2020′s.”
Air travel has focused on efficiency much more so than any other industry. They regularly set ambitious goals for reductions in fuel consumption, emissions and noise. Since 2000, air transport has increased 53% with only a 3% increase in fuel consumed.*
* “Gradually Going Green,” Aerospace Engineering magazine, 11/14/2012 issue pg. 15-18.
LikeLike
Another thought:
The B10 grab of schools with middling football programs but in big urban areas & possible unwillingness to take football powers who don’t meet the standard academically as well as the rumored desire of the SEC for mediocre football programs UNC and Duke make some sense, but not a ton unless. . . .
Gordon Gee wasn’t blowing smoke & the power conferences really will split from the NCAA.
That would have some impact on football but it would have a massive impact on college basketball.
Currently, for conference realignment purposes among the top conferences, college basketball is valued at roughly half of college football, but if you look at the total ad spending on the 2 sports (the slideshow in Frank’s post here is a great source: https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/sports-data-from-nielsen-tv-viewership-for-college-conferences-and-pro-sports-social-media-buzz/), college basketball actually takes in more ad spending than college football. The discrepancy is due to the NCAA taking the vast bulk of college basketball revenues (through the NCAA tournament) and then playing Robin Hood, spreading it around to the smaller schools (and keeping a decent chunk for itself).
Imagine a world where the top conferences kept the vast bulk of that basketball money for themselves instead. Such a future would explain the SEC’s lust for UNC & Duke. It would explain why the B10 would be fine with passing on FSU, VTech, & Miami and going after academic elites UVa, UNC, GTech (and Duke, I presume) instead. In this world, the SEC would be doing pretty well (much better with UNC & Duke, though), the B10 would be doing very well, and the ACC would not be as weak as they are now (if they survive), though the balance of power in that league would change.
LikeLike
Honestly, I think the Maryland/Rutgers move was a markets based move in reaction to the ND-ACC situation.
It’s a long-term move to develop two huge markets with good demographics and good recruiting.
I’m not sure it should be viewed in some kind of overarching context. We were talking about the potential of a Maryland/Rutgers pairing as a natural fit for years around here irrespective of other moves around the country.
They’re the two most natural fits around the Big Ten’s footprint other than Missouri, so Maryland/Rutgers has always been on the table.
LikeLike
Right, the expansion in to NJ & MD makes sense for the B10 even if the current college sports financial structure stays as it is, but rather than a couple of doubles, it’s closer to a double and a triple (or maybe even 2 triples) if college basketball is worth more. Likewise, it makes sense why the SEC would try to get in to NC, but adding UNC & Duke would be more like a double and a single rather than a homer and a triple if college basketball was worth as much as college football (and why would they want Duke instead of NCSU to pair with UNC? Duke doesn’t add as much as NCSU in football & they can’t leverage the academic side anyway).
LikeLike
Rutgers doesn’t bring any value though in terms of college basketball; they’re like Penn State or Nebraska in that respect.
Maryland does however bring value in terms of basketball and non-revenue sports.
Here’s how I rate them:
Rutgers is currently a single, but potentially a triple (all based on football potential and market potential; I don’t see them having much basketball potential even market-wise in the next 10-15 years… that program will need to be built up substantially).
Maryland is currently a double, but potentially a triple (2/3s based on football potential and market potential, with the other 1/3 coming from basketball and non-revenue sports like lacrosse and soccer).
I can see why they’d both be potential triples, but they’re not there now, and there’s never a guarantee that they become that.
Still, the upside is pretty clear.
LikeLike
Like if I were looking at other expansions of the past couple years:
(just going off a pure 1-4 scale, single/double/triple/home run).
SEC: Texas A&M is a home run, while Missouri is a double. I would also rate their potential futures as the same; neither has questions about them and you already know what markets they deliver potentially.
Pac-12: Utah and Colorado were probably both singles. I don’t really think either has much potential beyond that. The Pac-12 South’s power base is USC, UCLA, and the two Arizona schools. They deliver their markets but neither really brings much else, and the Colorado football future is hazy.
ACC: Pitt and Syracuse were probably both singles, while Louisville was a double (with potential to be a triple someday). All 3 have basketball brands, especially Syracuse and Louisville which are top-flight brands. Louisville though has the most strength of the 3 as a football school going forwards. Louisville also has a lot of potential given how strong their money flow is in that department. They’re in a tough division though, so that will make it tough to emerge, but that’s a really strong athletic department financially and in terms of its fanbase support. I don’t see Pitt or Syracuse having potential beyond being singles.
Big 12: TCU and WVU were both doubles (they gave well-known football names based on recent past as well as TCU giving that 4th school in Texas). Both had built names for themselves strongly over the past decade. The only question is whether they can continue to have that kind of success in the Big 12; it’s almost as if that league makes it tough for them to have further potential beyond what they were at their additions. Also, there’s a question on WVU’s recruiting situation and how that’ll be with the school so disconnected from the Big 12’s footprint. They don’t have the local recruiting base that Miami had when it was far away from the Big East…
————————————————————-
If you look at that, the only school of all these additions that actually seems to have reasonable upwards potential is Louisville.
Everyone else, you sort of know what the conferences are getting.
The Big Ten’s moves are all about potential, which makes it somewhat unique among all these additions. At least with Louisville, their AD is stronger than anyone else in the ACC financially, so they’re a financial powerhouse. Rutgers and Maryland are both fixer uppers in terms of their financial strength and on-field product/branding. They have a lot of potential though given their locations and the like…
LikeLike
Seek:
If you are going to use baseball analogy the pitching/defense component should be taken into account. How am I diong if I hit a couple doubles but give up a couple singles, a double, and a HR?
LikeLike
That’s a very short range view. Colorado has been down, but still had roughly the same win % as Missouri and A&M in the Big 12. They had an MNC only about 20 years ago and arguably should have been in the BCS game in 2001 vs. Miami. They had more Big 12 titles than Missouri, the same as A&M and more division titles than either. Boulder is a vastly better recruiting tool than Columbia or College Station. If Missouri is a double, CU is at LEAST a double. And A&M has all sports, but that doesn’t really matter. A&M’s only real advantage is market.
And of course, CU and Utah brought a ccg, which brings much needed exposure to the Pac 12 who often get overlooked.
LikeLike
Zeek:
I would say that Colorado has the potential to be a double even under the current system. They’re in a decent-sized state, and it wasn’t long ago that the Buffs were national title contenders.
Syracuse & Louisville are very similar. If college basketball becomes as valuable as football, both would become homers or at least triples. Both are among the the top revenue generators in basketball. Their football potentials are the same as well (mid-level football powers). Louisville is just closer to it’s potential ceiling currently. I think the hype about Louisville’s athletics revenues are a bit much. They’ve definitely monetized their brand as good as (or better) than anyone else out there, but to me, that just means they’re closer to their ceiling. They’re still always going to be the clear second brand in a non-large non-growing state based in a small/mid-sized city.
LikeLike
@bullet
That rating scale is based on a 10 year range and then the 3 schools which have potential, that potential is probably able to be captured within 20 or 30 years.
Colorado may get back to being a double, but the short/mid-term outlook isn’t great, and that division doesn’t work that well for them.
@Richard
Money is money; Louisville is miles ahead of everyone else in the ACC in terms of revenue generation and it will show more when they receive ACC payouts instead of Big East payouts.
They’ll be like $15-20 million ahead in terms of annual revenue of FSU and Virginia (the next two in line).
Money is a big part of this; it’s not everything, but fan support and money is a big part.
LikeLike
Zeek:
The way I look at it is, money tells you where you are, but potential is determined by how big your fanbase can be, and being the second-place brand in a non-large non-growing state situated in a small/mid-sized city, Louisville’s done about as well as it could. Hats off to it, but it doesn’t have more potential than Syracuse. In other words, Syracuse is a visionary AD away from matching Louisville.
LikeLike
I disagree Richard.
The one thing Louisville has going for it is that area isn’t big on professional sports.
That’s their angle. Syracuse doesn’t have that angle (relative to the more populous areas in New York), and it makes all the difference as far as generating a stronger fanbase is concerned.
LikeLike
Compare Louisville and Pittsburgh and their forward looking futures; I think Louisville’s future is much brighter given how much stronger that region is for college sports and how much more they can monetize their support.
It won’t determine everything; you still need good coaches and the like, but fanbase support and monetization is almost as big a factor looking forward as tradition is…
LikeLike
????
Zeek:
There aren’t any major pro sports teams near Syracuse either.
Relative to the populous areas of the Ohio River Valley, Louisville doesn’t have that angle either, and Louisville is closer to both Cincy and Indianapolis than Syracuse is to either NYC or Buffalo.
That’s kind of the point: both L’ville and ‘Cuse dominate their local (small) market and can’t compete with the pro sports in major cities close by. I still fail to see how Louisville and Syracuse are dissimilar. Are you trying to say that Louisville cares more about the Cardinals than Syracuse does about the Orange? Attendance doesn’t really support that claim (Syracuse actually has better bball attendance than Louisville). Then we’re back to Louisville monetizing their support better, which means we’re back to Syracuse being a visionary AD away from becoming Louisville.
LikeLike
It’s not that simple an equation. There’s a lot more money backing college sports in Louisville and Kentucky in particular than in upstate New York. There’s more there to monetize.
LikeLike
zeek, regarding your “doubles” and “triples”, I mostly agree, but I think TCU is a single. And WVU is borderline single/double.
LikeLike
Bullet, Missouri has about a 60% all time record vs Colorado in basketball, and close to a 70% record vs Colorado all time in basketball.
recent football scores over the last 5 games:
2010: Missouri 26, Colorado 0
2009: Missouri 36, Colorado 17
2008: Missouri 58, Colorado 0
2007: Missouri 55, Colorado 10
2006: Missouri 28, Colorado 13
Colorado had a good stretch under Bill McCartney. Outside of that they’ve been nothing special.
LikeLike
damn, meant to say nearly 60% in football and nearly 70% in basketball.
LikeLike
Colorado was frequently quite good from the 70s until a few years ago. They were #3 in 1972 in the only year one conference had #s 1 through 3 in the year of the “game of the century” between OU and Nebraska. You want to site the last 5 years against Colorado, but ignore 23 straight losses to Nebraska.
Colorado has been ranked 18 times since 1968 in the AP Poll. Of the 35-40 schools changing conferences the last couple of years, only Nebraska has been ranked more times (37 times 1968-2010). For Missouri, it has been 10 times. CU has finished in the top 5 four times since 1986. The schools with more than 4: FSU, Miami, Florida, OU, Ohio St.,USC, Nebraska, Texas, Michigan, Penn St., Alabama-11 kings + LSU and Tennessee. And the last 6 have only done it 5 times, 1 more than Colorado. Colorado is tied for 14th with Notre Dame at 4. Washington, Auburn and Oregon are the only schools with 3.
LikeLike
zeek, you overrate UL and TCU.
UL’s poor academics fundamentally change the nature of the ACC and sew the seeds of discontent with 1st rate institutuions like UNC and VA. Also, there’s no synergy to the soutern IN/Kentucky market with the other ACC markets.
TCU won’t maintain it’s present football value very long; even if it did, very few people in TX care about TCU. They are like a joke compared to TX or A&M.
LikeLike
# of times ranked 1968-2011
Teams that have or are moving:
Nebraska 38
Colorado 18
A&M 18
BYU 17
W. Virginia 15
Houston 13
Pitt 12
Maryland 11
Missouri 10
TCU 9
Syracuse 9
Boise 8
Louisville 7
SMU 6
Utah 5
Tulane 3
Rutgers 2
Fresno 2
ECU 2
Hawaii 2
Nevada 1
Temple 1
UCF 1
SDSU 1
Navy 1
LikeLike
The above is the final AP Poll in football. They only ranked the top 20 until 1989 when it expanded to 25.
LikeLike
‘shroom – While I doubt TCU will be able to duplicate their MWC/CUSA success in the B-12, there aren’t going to fall off the map anytime soon. TCU will compete against Baylor, Texas Tech, and OK State for recruits and do just fine. Patterson is highly thought of by Texas HS coaches. While TCU doesn’t have many living alums, they are very generous. TCU’s facilities are top notch. As a MWC member last year, TCU’s revenues were just behind Purdue’s, and ahead of schools like Clemson, VA Tech, K-State, Maryland, Mizzou, and GA Tech.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/alabama_and_auburn_stay_among.html
This season, after being decimated by injuries and suspensions, the Frogs beat Texas in Austin, and gave Oklahoma and K-State all they wanted. No, the Horned Frogs won’t be winning the conference every year and going to Fiesta and Rose bowls on a regular basis, but I expect them to regularly finish in the top half of the B-12, and challenge for the title more often than not.
LikeLike
An alternative reality where FB and BB share the responsibility for driving the BUS?
I do appreciate that the NCAA administers around 60 championship sports. Not sure I’d view the potential damage to so many. Returns us to the role of college athletics question.
LikeLike
If the larger programs break away, it will devalue the tournament. Part of the allure of March Madness is making brackets and finding upsets. Harder to do when there aren’t that many schools in the first place.
LikeLike
Actually, if there is a breakaway, there probably wouldn’t be a huge bracket. Maybe something like a 16-team playoff (possibly staggered 8-4-4; maybe a giant NIT field for folks who like filling out brackets) which would mean the regular season would matter a ton, which would be what power conference commissioners like Delany & Slive want.
In other words, something more akin to the college football model, which you have to agree has been a moneymaker.
LikeLike
I think we’re all prognosticating on something we can’t predict.
It was fun seeing who would play who during realignment, now I feel like we’re all armchair executives.
LikeLike
There are a lot of wild ideas in this forum. I don’t think we’ll see 20 school conferences or that we’ll see the end of the ncaa tournament. I just don’t see it happening.
LikeLike
For the other Noles fans who’ve recently started commenting here: what are your thoughts on FSU in the ACC? I feel like I’m on an island as an FSU, hoping that the Seminoles stay in what I still feel like is an excellent home for them. That’s partly because I’ve lived most of my life close to other ACC schools, where FSU has played locally, but also because I just think FSU has prospered over the past 20 years as an FSU member.
I’ve never pined away for the SEC because, among other reasons, I appreciate how FSU was able to carve its niche in the college football world WITHOUT having to be a part of the conference that was right down the road from them. I do not care for many of the SEC schools. But I know many feel otherwise and would love FSU to be in the SEC.
How about the idea of FSU in the Big Ten? Big 12?
LikeLike
M in R, Count me as one who’s ready for the Noles to move.
1 — SEC (raised/will retire in FL, natural rivalries, close away games)
2 — B10 (financial strength, major plus up for academia, away games is a negative)
3 — B12 (financial possibilities, stability questions, some away games are doable)
BTW, do you read Tomahawk Nation?
Frank, AWESOME blog!
LikeLike
I wasn’t a big proponent of leaving the ACC until the UF game this year. I think that game made it evident that the SEC ‘s power, money and scheduling were going to inhibit FSU’s football program from being top tier. In the end, the football program drives booster money, which helps the university. As with Texas A&M, FSU also needs to get out from under it’s big brother. UF fights FSU in every manner. They and the state legislature have failed to recognize that we are a state of 20mm, and we deserve more than one great state university. That FSU was just named as the nation’s most efficient university says quite a bit.
LikeLike
Bucknole, Ditto. We’re losing the ability to really compete for top assistants due to less dough. While the SEC would be my top choice, really dig the idea of joining the B1G.
LikeLike
Sounds more like an excuse. Financials do matter to some extent. But when a team like Boise State can be competitive with a minute fraction of what the SEC gets, there’s a large amount of factors outside pure cash. It’s hard to believe FSU cannot compete while pulling in over $20 million per year.
That said, it does not hurt to explore what others can offer. FSU’s major problem remains that the two big money makers – the SEC and the Big 10, don’t seem to want them. That could change, but FSU’s only like outlet would be the Big 12. And that won’t be some financial windfall (let alone the other possible concerns with such a move).
The choices may be to stay in the ACC or leave to make a little more money in the Big 12 (but not crazy SEC/Big 10 style money). You also have to factor in that any on the field success would also mean playing and beating Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas State, etc… Something FSU has not done too well with.
LikeLike
Jericho, what are you talking about??? Yes Boise has done well considering what they’re faced with but FSU is surrounded by uf, Alabama, Georgia and Auburn. You think Boise would be as successful if they were in the same situation? I know it’s a matter of opinion. Also if an assistant had his choice between FSU and the other schools I just mentioned and FSU is offering the least amount of money, where do you think he’d go? It actually just happened recently with Auburn’s new Defensive Coordinator.
How do you know the BIG 10 doesn’t want FSU?
The only team that FSU recently played of the 3 teams you just mentioned is OU…
LikeLike
Johnathan J.,
“How do you know the BIG 10 doesn’t want FSU?”
Because they haven’t been invited yet.
LikeLike
Boise State plays in a very weak conference. They’ve scalped a few marquee opponents over the years, but in the SEC or even the ACC, there’s no way they’d have had the record they did. It’s not a valid comparison.
That said, I tend to agree that the FSU is going to have to “make do” with their $20 million a year. They don’t seem to have a shot at getting into the SEC or the Big Ten, and the Big 12 doesn’t offer enough to offset the drawbacks of joining a Texas/Oklahoma-centric league.
LikeLike
Maybe, maybe not. I agree that it’s not realistic to expect Boise State to put up the exact record in a more difficult conference. Of course, their record is/was ridiculously good. Even if they double their losses, it’s still excellent. And while it’s highly questionable they could be a plyer in the SEC, it’s not like the Pac-12 was a minefield of great teams. Boise very likely could have ran up some strong records in the Pac. I don’t know this for sure, but it seems reasonable given the evidence we have. Bottom line, one can still build a good program without the most money.
LikeLike
Utah isn’t supplying much supporting evidence, at least not yet.
LikeLike
I see your bottom line but it doesn’t support your argument. FSU is a good program. It MOST cases, money improves your situation. FSU was struggling to build an indoor practice facility because of their finances. Most of the schools around FSU already have one (even Boise has one). If I’m a recruit (I’m a former D-1 football player), this could potentially factor in my decision. If I’m a coach/assistant coach and other programs are offering more money why would I not look else where? Also the population out West is large. The ratio of the population size to big time football programs doesn’t compare to the East. Bottom line, money matters. If Bama doesn’t have the money to hire Saban and his staff, they’re not as successful.
LikeLike
A lot of inaccurate and unlikely statements in that post.
LikeLike
Two big articles in the Wall Street Journal on college football and TV rights deals:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578169472607407806.html
“College Football’s Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578165643744436554.html
“Gridiron Telecasts Become Magnet for Ad Dollars”
LikeLike
“But cable bills continue to rise—as they will have to do to accommodate rising rights fees—and the average monthly cable bill in 2012 hit $135, according to SNL Kagan, the media research firm, up from $48 a decade ago.
David Tice, a New Jersey-based media analyst with market-research firm GFK, says that while there are about 100 million U.S. households with pay-television service, the percentage opting not to subscribe to cable is on the rise—it reached 18% in 2012, up from 14% in 2008. The company’s research also found that just 76% of the households led by 18- to 34-year-olds had premium cable service, while 83% of those between 35 and 49 did and 85% of those over 50 did.”
LikeLike
Lots of good quotes in both articles from movers and shakers and on both sides of the argument…
LikeLike
Big question they raise is will college sports be as popular as conferences become less regional and rivalries are diminished? I think it’s going to hurt popularity in the long run. It’s not going to kill it but it will never be as popular as in the past.
The regional perspective of conferences really adds excitement to the bowl season. If the playoff is expanded and bowls die then maybe it won’t matter as much but for me as a B1G fan I usually enjoy watching the B1G match ups in the bowls. I have less interest in the other bowls with maybe the exception of the NCG.
LikeLike
I don’t know, new rivalries form. Plus it can increase interest in regions where the sport isn’t as popular. People in the Midwest may not care about an Ohio St.-Rutgers game, but people on the East Coast would.
LikeLike
It’s going to be interesting to see how ratings do in NYC over their first couple of years; I know we’ll be following it closely as far as Rutgers’ New Jersey fanbase.
LikeLike
New rivalries won’t form it they don’t add schools that people actually want to watch their teams play. It could very well have the reverse effect. Maryland and Rutgers were uninspiring but necessary choices. I have to believe Delany is too smart not to realize that GT/UVA isn’t going to help the cause of an already watered down Big Ten. Expansion for the sake of expansion, especially academic expansion, could burst the bubble.
LikeLike
I can’t really think of much harm done as of yet.
When you think of Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers as a combination, it seems like most schools will end up happy over the long run.
However, you’re correct that the next expansion will be the real testing point.
Nebraska alone can’t carry 4 additions…
LikeLike
I’m not sure that NEB can even carry NEB. To this completely impartial observer, Bo seems kind of crazy. He may be headed for a Woody-like ending. There are a lot of rumors on the NEB site about whether he’s look to leave, or whether they’re looking to get rid of him.
LikeLike
@mushroomgod – when all your losses are blowouts that tends to happen.
LikeLike
Other than a handful of the top bowls (which will still be watched because they’ll still match up the top teams), the money that the bowls make for the conferences is relatively peanuts compared to revenue from the regular season and expanding conferences likely mean better ratings for conference games as there will be more inter-sectional conference games. A casual fan in the south won’t care too much about UNL-Wisconsin unless it has national title implications. Likewise, a casual fan in the Midwest doesn’t have a rooting interest in a FSU-VTech tilt, but when UNL plays VTech and FSU plays Wisconsin, casual fans in both the Midwest and South most definitely will have rooting interests.
LikeLike
What do you consider a region in regards to a conference? The SEC has had two expansions in recent years with two pairs of teams–South Carolina and Arkansas followed by Texas A&M and Missouri. Were any of those four teams outside the SEC’s region when they were added to the conference? The four programs were certainly in contiguous states and if additional programs were to come into the SEC from North Carolina and Virginia, that theme would be maintained.
What about the Big Ten? Penn State and Nebraska were #11 and #12. Like the SEC expansions, they were programs in adjacent states, but where they still within the “region”?
Perhaps the more important question is this–how quickly do these teams embed themselves into the fabric of the conference that they join? Texas A&M, for example, has had a pretty rapid transition into the SEC given the win over Alabama and the Heisman Trophy award. While ATM might still be thought of as a Big XII program in some areas, I suspect that perception will be gone in due course. I mean, does anyone still think of them as a member of the Southwest Conference still?
I would stay the same transition has taken place for Penn State and Nebraska vis-a-vis the Big Ten as well. My perception of Mizzou and the SEC is that the jury is still out on that one–it may take a bit more time before they really become part of the conference and not some adjunct.
The integration of Maryland and Rutgers is going to be interesting. Both programs are in contiguous states, but they aren’t defined by being or perceived to be historic, major football programs (something Texas A&M, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent, Missouri, might be able to claim). I think we all clearly realize that PSU is going to be in the same division as UMD and RU, so that should help. But what I think will really help these two schools embed themselves into the Big Ten is their success on the gridiron, the courts, etc.
The other part that will help is what the next two programs are that will join the B1G. If the target programs for the conference really are Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech (along with perhaps Florida State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State), then I could really see the B1G being identified as two regional entities (Midwest/Mid-Atlantic) much more so than a 16-team SEC, for example.
LikeLike
Because the Big Ten exists and is the only thing that many people in LA and NY know about the northern part of the country between the mountains, its often treated like its one region. But its can also be seen as the Great Lakes plus the Northern part of the Midwest, with the southern part of the Midwest traditionally occupied by the Big 8.
Under that, PSU was an expansion with the Great Lakes that also pulled in part of the Mid-Atlantic. Nebraska was an expansion within the Midwest. Maryland and Rutgers are two pure Mid-Atlantic additions.
With demographic changes, the pure “regional” expansion would be to make the Big Ten the Mid-Atlantic / Great Lakes / Midwest conference. The pure regional expansion that would do that would be UVA / VTech.
LikeLike
Indiana wins National Championship involving round ball. Could this be an early sign of things to come this spring? 🙂
LikeLike
If the Big Ten does add UNC and UVa someday, it’ll be amazing how good the Big Ten will be at non-revenue sports from top to bottom.
Soccer (m/w), lacrosse (m/w), etc. would get supercharged…
Might even close the overall gap with the Pac-12…
LikeLike
Field Hockey is another one that would be supercharged, I think. And adding those schools would make a massive different in baseball (and softball, to a lesser extent).
The comparison to the Pac-12 is interesting. There are a number of sports that those schools dominate like tennis and water polo, softball, even golf. But you’d have some now controlled by the Big Ten (e.g. wrestling and ice hockey)
LikeLike
duffer, you beat me to it. Congrats to the Hoosiers on a most unlikely win. Finished 3rd in BT reg. season, and one and done in the BT tourney….and a team without any real stars.
I was going to do a post on BT dynasties in minor sports but there was too much going on there…….like Iowa with 23 wrestling NCs, PSU with 12 Fencing, Bucky with 8 in Boxing, and Michigan with 18 in S&D……
Also congrats to PSU and UM making it to VB’s final 4……the UM win over #2 Stanford was a fun match to watch. It will be interesting to see if PSU can handle Oregon and TX…..both looked very good.
LikeLike
I have a unique view on how divisional alignment should be done. I’m interested in your thoughts. I call the idea “Seaded Divisions.”
There would be 2 divisons, each made up of 7 schools (or 8 schools in a 16 team conference). The membership in each division would change each year. For lack of better names, let’s call them the Odd Division and the Even Division. Whomever wins the conference championship game would be the highest sead for next year and would be placed in the Odd Division. The loser of that game would be seed #2 and be placed in the Even Division. Based on win-loss records and tiebreakers, the other schools would be placed in decending order into the appropriate divisions. The Odd Division would have seads 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15 and the Even Division would have seeds 2-4-6-8-10-12-14-16. For a 14 team league, you’d play the other 6 schools in your division plus 2 (or 3) in the other division. For a 16 team league, you’d play the other 7 schools in your division plus 1 (or 2) in the other division. Designated rivals would play each other regardless if they’re in the same or opposite division for the upcoming year.
The divisions would need to be reseaded shortly after the conference championship game so the next year’s schedule could be generated. This short turnaround could cause some issues such as people planning trips, reserving hotels, etc. One work-around is to resead for 2 years down the road instead of the next year. Or an alternative work-around is for each school to already have the majority of their home games set on the calendar before they know who they’ll play – a good software program would help with these scheduling parameters.
A plus with “Seaded Divisions” is that the schools will be able to play all members on a more regular basis as the home-and-home schedules would be eliminated and the Big Ten office could fine-tune the match-ups based on the length of time the 2 schools last played each other.
Another plus is that “Seaded Divisions” by their nature promote competitive balance. The best through worst teams are evenly spread out in each division each year.
Another plus is dispersment of the kings. Right now, the Big Ten has 4 kings (UM, OSU, PSU and NU). This works great if there are 4 pods to spread out competitiveness. But what if an FSU or ND join? Then which pod do they join? It wouldn’t be competitively balanced if a OSU and FSU were in the same division.
Another plus is for a larger conference. “Seaded Divisions” would work good for an 18 team league with a 9 game conference schedule with 1 designated rival: play the other 8 teams in your division and 1 from the other division. If no designated rival, then “Seaded Divisions” would work for a 20 team league and 9 conference games: play the other 9 schools in your division.
One could argue that this would be too confusing for fans. Which division is my team in this year? Perhaps. But effective marketing would influence this. Schools would be promoted as being in the Big Ten, not as being in the East Pod or the Legends Division or whatever. Instead the fans’ question would be become, “Who’s on the schedule this year?” They would understand that if they win most/all their games, they’d be in the conference championship game.
I think yearly reseading will keep the Big Ten fresh and exciting. Fans would enjoy new matchups each year with the knowledge that you only have to wait up to 2-3 years to play somebody not on this years schedule. Let me know your thoughts.
LikeLike
This is how I view Delany’s master plan:
Step 1: Convince my presidents to allow admittance for a football blueblood in Florida State and bring along Georgia Tech for a geographic partner and for academic offset. You have now grabbed at least some of the Atlanta market (between GT, FSU, and B1G alums will it be enough to get BTN on basic? Who knows?) and made HUGE inroads into Florida (almost certainly BTN will be moved to basic cable there). In the process you have destabilized the ACC somewhat (the loss of their premier football brand will hurt).
Step 2: You approach Virginia, along with (your alma mater) North Carolina. You try to convince them that the ACC has been destabilized and that SEC (and Big 12?) will surely begin raiding soon, pointing out that only one of the major players in collegiate athletics can now provide these two with a suitable home for athletics and academics (whilst not being a major geographic outlier, eliminating the Pac-12), the B1G. Given the choice between the B1G and SEC, the pair will almost certainly choose the B1G. The pair, however, decide that the ACC is still stable enough to remain viable and may choose to sit. If so, you can contently sit at 16, knowing by adding FSU and GT, you’ve improved the B1G dramatically. If, however, UVa and UNC decide that the B1G really is their best option…
Step 3: You start up a conversation with the two big dogs: Notre Dame and Texas. You point out how the B1G is now the nation’s premier all-sport conference with elite, tradition-rich football (OSU, FSU, PSU, Neb, Mich), elite basketball (UNC, Indiana, UMd, Illinois, MSU, OSU, Mich, etc.), and powerhouse non-revenues (Iowa/PSU/Minn wrestling, UNC/Indiana/UMd soccer, UNC/UMd/NW/UVa lacrosse, FSU/Uva baseball, Wisc/Minn/Mich/MSU hockey, etc., etc., etc.). You then point out your superior academics with a conference of various elite institutions all over the country, huge research potential. Finally, you also point out that by now each of your schools will probably be receiving upwards of $60M a year and how that number has the potential to absolutely skyrocket once ND and Texas come on board. If they agree, you’re set at 20, spliting into 4 five-team pods for football (suggestion below). If they refuse you either sit contently at 18, or take your pick from Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Kansas, Miami, or whoever the heck you want.
W: Iowa, Minn, Neb, Texas, Wisc
N: Ind, Mich, MSU, ND, Purdue
E: Ill, OSU, NW, PSU, Rutgers
S: FSU, GT, UMd, UNC, UVa
Thoughts?
LikeLike
I think going to 20 is inviting the other conferences to take it out on the B1G
B1G got Penn State and started the end of IND schools
B1G took the first team from the B12 and started them downhill
B1G took the first team from the ACC and started them downhill
B1G took a team from the Big East and ended that conference
At some point the schools not in the B1G may band together and why invite that?
LikeLike
Have the B1G’s moves hurt the SEC or the PAC? You could argue they were helped.
LikeLike
Both the PAC – moving second – and SEC – moving third – were reactions to the initial move. I was reading the UNCX and UVA boards and there was some backlash at the B1G for being the cause of all of the drama. I am not saying it will become a ground swell, just saying it never hurts to keep it in focus for what schools left without chairs when the music stops will do.
LikeLike
The SEC took Arkansas and ended the SWC. The SEC take of Mizzou and TAMU hurt the B12 more than anything else.
What negative repercussions did they suffer?
LikeLike
Richard,
They moved second or third and were not viewed as the instigator. If Nebraska does not move the B12 is still the B12. Maryland was a charter ACC school and not one who joined lately with just a football product. Clemson and Florida State are not AAU while the loss of the Terps strikes at the heart of the academic side of the ACC. They only have 5 AAU schools left while the SEC now has 4.
Football may lead to the destruction of the ACC but it was an academic school that put the crack in the wall for it to happen. If I am an academic school in the ACC right now I am guessing I am unhappy my conference is now on the brink.
LikeLike
Huh? They didn’t move second or third on the SWC. Ignoring inconvenient facts, Duff?
LikeLike
How is SEC not the instigator? They were at 12 before anyone. 20 years later, the B10 catches them, and the SEC was once again the first to 14.
LikeLike
Richard,
The 90’s realignment started with the B1G adding Penn State – and hoping for Notre Dame – so they acted first. The SEC followed them by adding 2 and getting to a CCG. If the B1G had not moved first it is quite possible we would still be at 10 teams as the standard for a conference. Check the timeline as that is the facts!
From this link
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/1990-sec-expansion-southeastern-conference/
Comes this quote :
That began to change in December 1989, when the Big 10 sparked the Great Realignment of 1990 by pursuing Penn State as its 11th member. Less than ten months later, the SEC found itself with two new schools in Arkansas and South Carolina.
Just like this last major round was sparked in 2009 with the release of the Blair Report. Look at the earliest posts on this thread and they are about the Blair Report and who the B1G will add!
LikeLike
I say the PAC poaching the western edge of the SWC’s farm system started this, unless it was the addition of MSU…
There is no start to something that has always been going on.
LikeLike
duff:
1. Arkansas was talking to the SEC before PSU joined. Saying that the B10 caused the SEC to expand to 12 has as much logic to it as saying that the SEC expanding to 14 caused the B10 to do so as well.
2. Somehow you put the blame on the B10 “killing” the BE despite the ACC & B12 poaching from them first. Yet you don’t blame the SEC for actually killing a power conference (the SWC).
3. The PAC was desperate for revenue and wanted to expand. They were not staying at 10 regardless of what the B10 did or did not do.
4. Exclaimation points do not make you more persuasive.
LikeLike
Richard,
I am speaking foremost of the power conferences as the other conferences follow what they do. The Big 8 had Nebraska AND Oklahoma while the SWC was just Texas schools and Arkansas. The cheating in the old SWC did the most damage and the fact so many were relegated to CUSA status indicates it was really Texas and everybody else. If the scandals in the SWC do not occur it would have been more stable.
I agree the ACC made the first raid on the Big East but it was in RESPONSE to the better conferences expanding before them. Imagine if the B1G had not expanded with Penn State and they had joined the Big East instead? Spin it how you want but the PAC and SEC were not speedy when it came to expanding. Tulane and Georgia Tech left in the SEC in the 1960’s and the PAC got to 10 in the 70’s. South Carolina was an IND for like 2 decades before the B1G added Penn State.
Penn State was the parting shot of realignment even if it took them longer to actually join.
Timeline – first realignment
B1G announces expansion
Arkansas and South Carolina join SEC
Penn State joins B1G
Big 8 and SWC react
ACC reacts
Timeline – second realignment
B1G has Blair Report
Nebraska announces move
Colorado actually moves
SEC adds TAMU and Missouri
ACC adds Notre Dame
Show me where I am wrong on the history?
LikeLike
Before PSU joined the Big Ten, they APPLIED to join the Big East, and where turned down. So if PSU joining the Big Ten is what unlocked the rest of it, its all the fault of the Big East.
LikeLike
Actually, Colorado left the B12 before Nebraska.
ACC started downhill when they ruined their ethos in 2003. They really started downhill when they added Syracuse/Pitt. Making ND a partial member was the final signal. Don’t blame the B10 for those problems.
Taking Rutgers ended the Big East? That is hilarious.
LikeLike
Yeah, if the ACC dies, it only has itself to blame for the idiotic deal they gave to Notre Dame. That move destroyed the best thing that the ACC had, which was being a conference of equals. It was a move of desperation that really put this all into place IMHO — I don’t think Maryland jumps without the ND deal first.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/bowls12/orange/story/_/id/8706284/orange-bowl-mac-considering-plan-subsidize-niu-bcs-trip-miami
MAC commissioner wants to make ensure NIU won’t lose money from Orange Bowl trip.
MAC commissioner Dr. Jon Steinbrecher told ESPN on Monday that he will present to the presidents of the conference a proposal to subsidize NIU’s trip to Miami for the Jan. 1 bowl game.
“Northern Illinois will not be left on the hook like other programs have been,” Steinbrecher said. “We’ve always discussed what we would do when we came to this point and it was clear that the opinion was we’d subsidize the school going so that this could be a conference celebration.”
Steinbrecher said that the five conferences that do not automatically qualify for the BCS will divide about $24 million — $12 million to be split equally, and of the other $12 million, the MAC will get about two-thirds.
By giving a disproportionate share to the Huskies, the conference can essentially make up for any shortfalls. A simple majority of the presidents of the 13 MAC schools must agree for Steinbrecher’s plan to be put in place, which the commissioner says will not be an issue.
“We will not allow Northern Illinois’ trip to a BCS game be a negative in any way,” Steinbrecher said. “We will carve out as healthy of a portion from the conference share to cover expenses as necessary.”
LikeLike
All this speculation about future additions to the B1G is interesting, but I don’t understand why we are so focused on possible futures when there are still unresolved issues in the present. In particular, how exactly will the B1G arrange its football divisions for Maryland and Rutgers?
I know we all have our favorite divisional arrangements: pods (4-4-3-3), rotating pairs, divisions geographical and divisions balanced. However, putting our favorites aside, I would like to consider what the B1G is likely to do.
First of all, I think it highly unlikely that the B1G will use pods, rotating pairs or any other novel arrangement. I think we will have fixed divisions of seven teams, and it is quite possible that the divisions will be called Leaders and Legends.
Second, I expect the B1G will put PSU, Rutgers and Maryland in the same division. The two new teams were added to strengthen the eastern flank, so it makes sense to put them all in the same division, where strong local rivalries can develop.
Rutgers and Maryland were also added to provide access to NYC and DC for the B1G. In order to maximize B1G penetration, I expect to see football kings playing there every year. This could include Nebraska, but I think it is more likely that OSU and Michigan (who have more alumni in NYC and DC) will be put in the same division with Rutgers and Maryland so that they visit the east coast every year.
Third, if Michigan, OSU and PSU have been put in one division, competitive balance will be maintained by putting Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, NW and Iowa in the other division.
Lastly, the placement of the remaining teams will be arranged to maintain traditional rivalries. Thus, Minnesota will go in the division with Wisconsin and Iowa; Purdue and Illinois will go with OSU; and Indiana will go with Michigan State. The fixed crossovers will then be: MSU-Michigan, NW-Illinois, Purdue-Indiana, PSU-Nebraska, OSU-Wisconsin, Rutgers-Minnesota, Maryland-Iowa.
Put this all together and it will look like this:
LEADERS: Rut, Mary, PSU, OSU, Mich, Purd, Ill
LEGENDS: Minn, Iowa, Neb, Wisc, MSU, Ind, NW
Personally, I would prefer EAST and WEST for the division names, I’m not sure the B1G is ready to abandon the old names.
LikeLike
Losing the Little Brown Jug game won’t cut it with Gopher fans. This is a non-starter.
LikeLike
I think it’s doubtful that it stays annual. They cut out Iowa-Wisconsin last time and I think this time will go more geographic. The Little Brown Jug causality will be the biggest, but outside keeping the current alignment, I don’t see how it survives annually.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty good try. I agree that PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland are fairly likely to be in the same division. The four western schools (Neb, Minn, Wisc, Iowa) also want to stay together. And both the Michigan and Ohio State ADs have suggested that they’d like to be in the same division.
I also agree that there would be more market value in having Michigan and Ohio State play the east coast teams every year.
Beyond that, you’ve preserved all the essential rivalries — the ones that would never, on any account, be sacrificed: Michigan/Ohio, Wisconsin/Minny, and the same-state rivalries (NW/Ill, Ind/Pur, and UM/MSU). Sorry, brown jug fans: that one is dispensable, at least as an annual game.
There are a few potential problems with your alignment. One is easily fixable: you have too many perennial weaklings in the West division. It would be more balanced if you move Purdue and Illinois to the West, and Indiana and Northwestern to the East. At the very least, Indiana and Minnesota have to be split up. There’s no way you can have them in the same division.
Your alignment only works if the B1G goes to nine conference games. With nine, you can play your division, your protected rival, and two other teams in the opposite division. Everyone in the conference would play each other over a six-year period, or a three-year period if the schedule “rotates” annually. With only eight conference games, teams could go a full decade without seeing each other (assuming the current system of rotating the schedule every two years).
If they remain at eight conference games, then they’ll almost certainly need a pod system or a divisional alignment without protected rivalries, as otherwise it would take far too long for everyone in the conference to get around to playing each other.
I’m not fond of protected rivalries because they unbalance the schedule. In the current structure, for example, Michigan’s protected rival is Ohio State; but Michigan State’s protected rival is Indiana. In some years, that gives the Spartans a considerably easier path to winning the division. Your proposal has a similar problem: Penn State would be at a long-term disadvantage with an extra major game (Nebraska) on their schedule every year.
During the last re-alignment, everyone wanted to have at least one of Michigan or Ohio State on their schedule every year. For schools that don’t sell out every game, a visit by the Wolverines or Buckeyes is a revenue bonanza. Those games also have a higher probability of being picked up on the ESPN or ABC national feed. In your alignment, some schools could go a few years without getting Michigan or Ohio State on their schedule. That doesn’t bother me personally, but I know it was an issue when the schedule was set up the last time. It was one of the reasons why Michigan and Ohio State wound up in separate divisions.
Setting up divisions is an over-constrained problem, so whatever you do, some worthwhile goal has to be sacrified.
LikeLike
I don’t think they’ll consider pods and think 9 games are sadly unlikely. I do think they’ll try to minimize locked crossovers though. I hope they put the 3 eastern with the 4 western as that would eliminate the need for any crossovers and be pretty competitively balanced too, but I don’t think they’ll sacrifice Ohio State-Penn State.
What I’m thinking more and more will be the set-up is:
East: Ohio State, Michigan, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State
Michigan and Michigan State keep an annual crossover, but everyone else rotates. I could also see them keeping Michigan State in the east and moving Purdue to the west (with Indiana and Purdue having the locked crossover).
LikeLike
I think this is the way to go at present.
Yes, OSU, UM, and PSU are 3/4 traditional kings….but PSU will be relatively weak for the next 5-6 years….also, there’s been a lot of concern about OSU and UM rematches in the title game….which I’ve not shared…until now. For the near future, it seems like the 2 could dominate.
It does bother me that Wisky, Iowa, and Neb. all have issues going forward…..but surely between them and MSU there will be one team each year who will be worthy.
By the time the BT next expands, it may be necessary to seperate one of OSU, PSU, and UM form the others….depending on how quickly PSU comes back.
LikeLike
As for the final games of the year, how about:
OSU-UM
IU-Pur
NEB-Iowa
ILL-NW
MD-Rutgers
Bucky-Minn
PSU-MSU
I know G. DiNardo wants all intra-divisional games the last WE…..I don’t see why that matters…..
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“Yes, OSU, UM, and PSU are 3/4 traditional kings….but PSU will be relatively weak for the next 5-6 years”
Relatively. But they were top 4 this year and will be again by 2018. The question is the intervening years, and nobody knows how far they’ll fall. I doubt they become IL bad.
“….also, there’s been a lot of concern about OSU and UM rematches in the title game….which I’ve not shared…until now.”
Why? With them split, they’re unlikely to meet more than once every 7-10 years.
Odds of winning the West
MI – 35%
NE – 25
MSU – 15
IA – 10
NW, MN, IL – 15
Odds of winning the East
OSU – 40%
PSU – 20
WI – 20
RU, MD, PU and IN – 20
I think I was generous to OSU and MI, but you can propose different numbers.
0.4 * 0.35 = 0.14 = Once every 7 years
However, this is rough math. A deeper analysis would note that OSU winning the East hurts MI’s odds of winning the West and vice versa, so the odds that both win are reduced. I’d guess it goes from once every 7 years to once every 9-10 years.
“For the near future, it seems like the 2 could dominate.”
So of course you should put the 2 best teams together to make sure the CCG is a letdown instead of the biggest game of the year. That makes perfect sense.
“It does bother me that Wisky, Iowa, and Neb. all have issues going forward…..but surely between them and MSU there will be one team each year who will be worthy.”
Hope is not a plan.
“By the time the BT next expands, it may be necessary to seperate one of OSU, PSU, and UM form the others….depending on how quickly PSU comes back.”
If it expands, it could be 30 years from now. You shouldn’t make divisions assuming they’ll be temporary.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“I know G. DiNardo wants all intra-divisional games the last WE…..I don’t see why that matters…..”
Either you have a problem with rematches or you don’t. Make up your mind.
LikeLike
The only rematch I’d be concerned with is OSU and UM……until now, I thought that was a pretty unlikely possibility. However, UM and OSU now appear ready to dominate. So the situation has changed such that you’d rather avoid a OSU-UM rematch.
LikeLike
mushroomgod,
“The only rematch I’d be concerned with is OSU and UM”
That’s reasonable, since NE, MSU, IA, WI and PSU don’t finish the year with crossover games.
“……until now, I thought that was a pretty unlikely possibility. However, UM and OSU now appear ready to dominate.”
Would you please put some numbers to that? What sort of winning percentage for division titles are you thinking?
“So the situation has changed such that you’d rather avoid a OSU-UM rematch.”
We don’t even know if it would be a bad thing. maybe both games are exciting and draw big crowds and TV ratings.
LikeLike
Eric,
“I don’t think they’ll consider pods and think 9 games are sadly unlikely.”
Agreed on both points, but I hope to be proven wrong on 9 games.
“I do think they’ll try to minimize locked crossovers though.”
I don’t. I think they value too many specific games too highly to do that. They also won’t lock only 1 game. Either everyone has a locked game or nobody does.
LikeLike
You may be right, but I think the prospect of playing most the other division 2 out 12 years will be enough for them to that way (and I hope they do).
LikeLike
Eric,
I’m just basing it in on last time. They insisted on locking MSU/IN and IA/PU for no apparent reason while refusing to add WI/IA as a second locked game.
LikeLike
If you can setup the divisions without protected cross-overs, you can make it 2 out of 8 with an 8 game schedule.
So you trade off 9 games vs 8, competitive balance, geographic/rivalry logic and grouping to avoid cross-overs. They’ve got to figure out what is most important.
LikeLike
When the Big Ten goes to 14 members, I think they will go to nine conference games in order to get that 6-2-1 rotation in place and to ensure that at the minimum, teams play one another two times over a six-year period.
I realize there might be some question of competitive balance between the divisions, but I suspect this is a situation where appealing to the desires/requirements of the networks and having a major presence on the east coast will trump those concerns in order to maximize the conference’s annual distributions.
Depending on how the scheduling does work out, a program in the west (outside of the protected rivals) could have one of Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State on the schedule each year for the most part. While PSU is likely going to struggle, they are a name program.
For instance, we know that Michigan State, Wisconsin and Nebraska are going to have one of those three on the schedule each year per the set up here. UM, OSU and PSU will still have two games apiece on the schedule with the four remaining western teams (Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern) plus the two others that aren’t competitive rivals.
If the western teams are divided in pairs that play these three eastern teams (UM, OSU, PSU) two years on, four years off, it might look like this:
Michigan
Fixed Annual Game: Michigan State
Year 1/2 Pair: Nebraska, Minnesota
Year 3/4 Pair: Wisconsin, Indiana
Year 5/6 Pair: Iowa, Northwestern
Ohio State
Fixed Annual Game: Wisconsin
Year 1/2 Pair: Iowa, Northwestern
Year 3/4 Pair: Nebraska, Minnesota
Year 5/6 Pair: Michigan State, Indiana
Penn State
Fixed Annual Game: Nebraska
Year 1/2 Pair: Michigan State, Indiana
Year 3/4 Pair: Iowa, Northwestern
Year 5/6 Pair: Wisconsin, Minnesota
Among the teams that don’t have protected rivalries with UM, PSU and OSU:
Indiana gets Penn State in Years 1/2, Michigan in Years 3/4 and Ohio State in Years 5/6
Iowa and Northwestern get Ohio State in Years 1/2, Penn State in Years 3/4 and Michigan in Years 5/6
Minnesota gets Michigan in Years 1/2, Ohio State in Years 3/4 and Penn State in Years 5/6
Is this entirely ideal? Well, there are situations where Ohio State and Penn State will play both Nebraska and Wisconsin in a pair of seasons over the six-year cycle (Years 3/4 for OSU, Years 5/6 for PSU), whereas Michigan won’t face that situation because of the fixed rivalry game with Michigan State. You could also argue that OSU facing UW every year and PSU playing UN-L each season is more challenging than the annual UM-MSU game, but given the first two years of the Big Ten (12), I don’t know if that’s entirely supportable at this point.
But if it’s a priority for Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin to play one another on an annual basis, then that’s the tradeoff.
LikeLike
cutter,
“When the Big Ten goes to 14 members, I think they will go to nine conference games in order to get that 6-2-1 rotation in place and to ensure that at the minimum, teams play one another two times over a six-year period.”
We all hope so, but they chickened out once already and the ACC also backed away from it. If Delany gets his way, we’ll go to 9.
“I realize there might be some question of competitive balance between the divisions, but I suspect this is a situation where appealing to the desires/requirements of the networks and having a major presence on the east coast will trump those concerns in order to maximize the conference’s annual distributions.”
Or they could use their heads and use the crossover scheduling to achieve the same goal without unbalancing the divisions. It’s not that difficult. PSU got to play MI 10 straight years despite not being a locked rivalry. i think they can find a way to have a western king play on the coast regularly.
LikeLike
The easiest way to guarantee that all Big Ten teams play on the east coast regularly is to put Rutgers in one division and Maryland in the other. Then everyone plays on the east coast at least every second year, and cross division games can be set up so that the cross division trip to the east coast is the same year that the in-division east coast team is visiting. If TTUN and the Bucks are in the same division, one can be guaranteed to be playing on the east coast each year, and some years both. If PSU and Nebraska are in the same division, ditto.
Ergo, put TTUN and the Bucks in one division, and the Huskers and Damaged Lions in the other.
LikeLike
Cutter makes a very important point. If OSU, PSU and Michigan are in one division, then every team in the opposite division will play one of those kings every year. This assumes a 9-game conference schedule with one fixed cross-over.
So, if OSU, PSU and Michigan are all in the east division, then every team in the west division will play two kings every year: their local king (Nebraska) and one of the eastern kings.
This arrangement is a perfect fit for 7-team divisions. One fixed crossover leaves 6 crossover teams to be covered with 2 rotating games (i.e. 3 rotations).
If these 3 rotations are applied to a division with 3 kings, then one king can be put in each rotation.
This works so well with 14 teams that I expect the B1G will be comfortable putting PSU, OSU and Michigan in one division and will move (sooner or later) to a 9-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
“This arrangement is a perfect fit for 7-team divisions.”
Well, no. New entries Rutgers and Maryland get to play 3 kings, including the two B10 blue bloods every year, while Iowa and others get stuck with playing them much more infrequently.
I haven’t really joined this argument, because it seems unlikely that the B10 will go in that direction. UM will likely remain in the NW.
LikeLike
Greg wrote: ” New entries Rutgers and Maryland get to play 3 kings, including the two B10 blue bloods every year, while Iowa and others get stuck with playing them much more infrequently.”
Much more infrequently? No. Iowa gets a minimum of two kings per year. Plus, three of the western teams will get fixed crossovers with eastern kings. If Iowa is one of those, it will play three kings most years (same as Maryland).
LikeLike
Whatever. I’m not going to argue since its not going to happen.
LikeLike
StevenD,
3 per year versus 2 per year is 50% more. That’s much more frequently.
LikeLike
Brian wrote: “3 per year versus 2 per year is 50% more. That’s much more frequently.”
More, yes. Much more, no. When Iowa State beat Iowa 9 to 6, was ISU’s score more or much more?
LikeLike
Much more.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“And both the Michigan and Ohio State ADs have suggested that they’d like to be in the same division.”
When did Gene Smith say that? I haven’t seen it.
“If they remain at eight conference games, then they’ll almost certainly need a pod system or a divisional alignment without protected rivalries, as otherwise it would take far too long for everyone in the conference to get around to playing each other.”
They won’t do pods and they aren’t dropping locked games. Some crossover matchups are too valuable to lose.
“I’m not fond of protected rivalries because they unbalance the schedule.”
The B10 doesn’t care.
“Setting up divisions is an over-constrained problem, so whatever you do, some worthwhile goal has to be sacrified.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
From the following attached article at http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2012/11/maryland_makes_the_move_to_big.html#incart_river
While a report from ESPN said Maryland and Rutgers will join Ohio State in the Leaders Division in football, with Illinois moving to the Legends Division, that may be premature. Smith said divisions won’t be discussed until January, and there are indications that Ohio State may fight to avoid a setup that would include Wisconsin and then the two new teams, Indiana, Purdue and a weakened Penn State on what might be a rather drab schedule each year.
END OF EXCERPT
Now did Gene Smith explicitly say that he wanted to see Michigan and Ohio State in the same division? No. I wouldn’t expect him at this point of the process to explicitly say that in public since this is going to be discussed next month.
The article says there are “indications” that OSU will not want to be in a division with Wisconsin, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland. Again, the article doesn’t say that came from Smith, but I have to imagine Smith’s aware of these “indications”.
Smith also says that he will “fight for tradition” and the article specifically identifies having the Michigan and Ohio State game at season’s end in the same paragraph. Again–not a direct quote from Smith on that particular game, but it’s not a great leap of faith to assume that’s his position as well.
But given OSU’s alumni connections out east, the desire to play Michigan at season’s end and the indications that Ohio State would like to be in a stronger division due to scheduling issues, it’s a fairly reasonable conclusion to make that Smith would support having both Ohio State and Michigan in the same eastern division.
Once you make that assessment, then the rest pretty much falls into place regarding the composition of the two divisions. Now you may not like it because it doesn’t line up the Kings and Princes the way you would like to see it, but as has been written ad infinitum on this board, having the two divisions competitively balanced may not be the conference’s primary driver.
LikeLike
cutter,
“From the following attached article at http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/2012/11/maryland_makes_the_move_to_big.html#incart_river”
I read that article and he indicated no such thing. He said he might fight being in a division of OSU, PSU, WI, PU, IN , RU and MD because it lacks appeal for home games. That says what he might not want. It says nothing about what he does want, or what Gee will tell him to fight for.
“Now did Gene Smith explicitly say that he wanted to see Michigan and Ohio State in the same division? No.”
And he never has. Ever. There are many alignment that aren’t the one he rejected that don’t put OSU, MI and PSU together.
“Smith also says that he will “fight for tradition” and the article specifically identifies having the Michigan and Ohio State game at season’s end in the same paragraph. Again–not a direct quote from Smith on that particular game, but it’s not a great leap of faith to assume that’s his position as well.”
He was forced to fight for it before and will be again. However, OSU and MI are separate now and play the last week so that doesn’t say anything.
“But given OSU’s alumni connections out east, the desire to play Michigan at season’s end and the indications that Ohio State would like to be in a stronger division due to scheduling issues, it’s a fairly reasonable conclusion to make that Smith would support having both Ohio State and Michigan in the same eastern division.”
It’s one interpretation, sure. He may also mean he wants to split the newbies. Or that he’d rather go in the other division with 5 long time B10 teams and NE and play the newbies on rotation. Or that he’d prefer the ends versus the middle. Or that he doesn’t know what he’d prefer because he hasn’t been told yet. Or that he hasn’t really looked to see what the choices are, he just reflexively doesn’t like that one.
It’s a big leap to assume he was saying he wants to be with MI and PSU when he’s never said anything like that.
“Once you make that assessment,”
If you make that assessment.
“Now you may not like it because it doesn’t line up the Kings and Princes the way you would like to see it, but as has been written ad infinitum on this board, having the two divisions competitively balanced may not be the conference’s primary driver.”
May not isn’t will not, and none of us know what they’ll do. They probably will do this just because I think it’s dumb, but I won’t assume that until there is real evidence. It would just be one more reason for me to stop watching CFB (except maybe OSU) so it’s probably a good thing. I could use that time more wisely.
LikeLike
Brian-
I agree with you that the article does indicate what Ohio State doesn’t want, i.e., for OSU to be in a division with Penn State, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland.
I think we’re both agreed that Smith fought the Big Ten to keep the Michigan-Ohio State game at the end of the season. I also imagine he will continue to keep that stance going into next month’s discussions.
Now let’s look at the possibilities you’re putting forward:
1. Split the Newbies. This would keep the current divisional structure, but place Maryland in one division (let’s put them in the Leaders for this discussion) and Rutgers in the Legends. Here’s how the two conferences would look:
Leaders – Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Legends – Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Rutgers
Well, I assume Maryland and Rutgers would be a protected rival and nothing else would change on that front. But going back to the comments in the article, Ohio State would still think that would provide a weak schedule because Illinois is simply not a strong football program. Also, what does that do for the OSU alumni in the NYC/NJ area if you put RU in the other division. Under this scenario, the Buckeyes visit that specific region once in a six-year period. Given the option of being in a division with both Rutgers and Maryland and the possibility of being on the east coast at least once a year, I imagine Ohio State would prefer to be in the same division with both Maryland and Rutgers.
2. Go into the division with Nebraska and five other long-time Big Ten teams. Play the newbies on a rotation.
Seeing how you would want to keep the Kings apart in two divisions, I assume that means Ohio State plus Nebraska would be in one division while Michigan and Penn State remain in the other. You also talk about playing the newbies (Maryland and Rutgers) on a rotation, so that suggests to me they go with UM and PSU. Now who’s left?
Well, if want to keep Nebraska in the same division with Minnesota and Iowa (which we presently have), then that leaves three more members to join this perspective division to round out the number at seven. Wisconsin is a logical member given their geography and seeing that they’re in the same division as Ohio State now. Let’s add Illinois and Purdue to round out this division and here’s what we have:
West – Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
East – Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Rutgers
Any problems here? Well, if the conference adopted a nine game schedule and a 6-2-1 rotation, then Ohio State would have two games on the east coast every six years. Having so many teams in the western part of the conference would make the travel situation for the fans a bit trying, but not impossible. Ohio State would also have annual games with Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan locked in each year, which would give it one of the more difficult conference schedules in the near term (especially given PSU’s current situation). Something tells me Ohio State takes a pass on this scenario.
3. Ends vs. the Middle would I assume mean combining the four team from the western edge of the conference with the three from the eastern side.
Ends – Iowa, Nebraska, Maryland, Minnesota, Penn State, Rutgers, Wisconsin
Middle – Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Well, in this arrangement, Michigan and Ohio State can play one another at season’s end without the possibility of a rematch the following week at the Big Ten Championship Game, so that’s good (and it serves tradition). The four kings you’ve identified are separated into two divisions, so you have to feel good about that.
But from the aspect of fan travel and the concentrations of alums on the east coast, that lineup doesn’t make very much sense. I also imagine the networks would have a real problem with the lineup of games that come with this setup. Under the best of circumstances, selling Rutgers-Minnesota or Maryland-Iowa is going to be a bit difficult, but making those annual games due to the divisional structure doesn’t make much sense.
I’ll also add that Michigan (and probably Ohio State) want to play as many games in person on the east coast because that’s where the major sports media is concentrated, particularly New York City. This set up here puts them at greater than arm’s length from NYC along with Washington, DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia.
4. Smith hasn’t been told yet.
I only hope that when you say that, you don’t mean that Gordon Gee hasn’t told him yet. Given his track record on these things, I don’t know if I’d take Gee’s cue on this matter.
5. Smith just doesn’t reflexively like his choices.
It’s possible, but he’s know for awhile now that Maryland and Rutgers were going to join the B1G. I have to imagine he’s thought this through quite a bit.
We’ll see what happens in due course and it won’t take long for the decisions to be made because Maryland and Rutgers are planning on joining the conference for the 2014 season and the conference schedules will have to be adjusted accordingly. Also, obviously, a decision will have to be made on going to nine conference games (like the Pac 12 and the Big XII) or sticking at eight (SEC, ACC) for the near future.
Then again, we may have a 16-team conference by then and we can reshuffle the deck again on divisional alignment, pods, etc.
In the end, for better or worse, the Big Ten has changed and is likely going to continue to change. The conference could well become even more of a mid-Atlantic/Midwestern entity with programs in up to fourteen states when it’s all done. Since I live in the DC area, I have to say that I’m thrilled by the prospect of seeing Michigan playing Maryland and Rutgers in person on an annual or semi-annual basis in locales not from from my home. I suspect that’s part of what the B1G is counting on as well.
LikeLike
Something that hasn’t been discussed on here previously is who you don’t want to play. Except for immediate rivals, I would guess the bottom 5 teams would be 1) Rutgers, 2) Maryland, 3) Indiana, 4) Minnesota, 5) Purdue. Now Wisconsin and Iowa like Minnesota, but everyone else would prefer a better alternative. Everyone wants Ohio State or Michigan and doesn’t want 4 of the bottom 5, preferably not 3.
LikeLike
cutter,
“I agree with you that the article does indicate what Ohio State doesn’t want, i.e., for OSU to be in a division with Penn State, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland.”
Yes. What it doesn’t say is what OSU does want.
“I think we’re both agreed that Smith fought the Big Ten to keep the Michigan-Ohio State game at the end of the season. I also imagine he will continue to keep that stance going into next month’s discussions.”
He won’t be allowed to take any other stance. The fans already are mad at him. He might literally put his life in danger if he didn’t fight to keep The Game at the end of the year.
“1. Split the Newbies. This would keep the current divisional structure, but place Maryland in one division (let’s put them in the Leaders for this discussion) and Rutgers in the Legends.
…
Well, I assume Maryland and Rutgers would be a protected rival and nothing else would change on that front. But going back to the comments in the article, Ohio State would still think that would provide a weak schedule because Illinois is simply not a strong football program.”
No. IL is long time B10 opponent and we have a trophy game. The problem with RU and MD is nobody cares about playing them at OSU. On top of IN and PU, that’s not a thrilling schedule. Of course, Smith doesn’t account for the other games in his assessment (PSU, WI, MI and the other crossover games). Those help the schedule significantly. There’s also the OOC games to provide interest. I think Smith is fine with playing one newbie, he just doesn’t want to get stuck with both while other schools miss them entirely. Remember, though, his opinion means nothing. He will do what Gee says.
“Also, what does that do for the OSU alumni in the NYC/NJ area if you put RU in the other division. Under this scenario, the Buckeyes visit that specific region once in a six-year period.”
If OSU was that worried about it, we would have scheduled OOC games in NYC more often. OSU hasn’t played in the area since a kickoff classic in 1999 and rarely before that.
“Given the option of being in a division with both Rutgers and Maryland and the possibility of being on the east coast at least once a year, I imagine Ohio State would prefer to be in the same division with both Maryland and Rutgers.”
And yet Smith said the exact opposite. The road games are useful, but not the home games. A happy medium would seem to be the solution, like only playing one of them per year at most.
“2. Go into the division with Nebraska and five other long-time Big Ten teams. Play the newbies on a rotation.
…
“Ohio State would also have annual games with Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan locked in each year, which would give it one of the more difficult conference schedules in the near term (especially given PSU’s current situation).”
How is that any different than now? OSU gets MI, PSU and WI already. Swapping PSU pre-penalties for NE seems like an even trade.
“3. Ends vs. the Middle would I assume mean combining the four team from the western edge of the conference with the three from the eastern side.
…
But from the aspect of fan travel and the concentrations of alums on the east coast, that lineup doesn’t make very much sense.”
It maintains rivalries and lets everyone play their neighbors. Teams already travel a lot and this actually wouldn’t make it much different. From Smith’s point of view this would be a benefit as he’s in the middle group with less travel. You still get regular trips out east through rotating games.
“I also imagine the networks would have a real problem with the lineup of games that come with this setup.”
That wouldn’t be Smith’s concern. Remember, we’re talking about what he said, not what would be ideal divisions.
“I’ll also add that Michigan (and probably Ohio State) want to play as many games in person on the east coast because that’s where the major sports media is concentrated, particularly New York City.”
Yes, I’ve noticed OSU and MI have a really hard time getting media coverage. I’m sure the rest of the conference sympathizes.
“4. Smith hasn’t been told yet.
I only hope that when you say that, you don’t mean that Gordon Gee hasn’t told him yet. Given his track record on these things, I don’t know if I’d take Gee’s cue on this matter.”
Gee’s his boss. It doesn’t matter if he’s right or not. Smith will do what he’s told or get fired.
“5. Smith just doesn’t reflexively like his choices.
It’s possible, but he’s know for awhile now that Maryland and Rutgers were going to join the B1G. I have to imagine he’s thought this through quite a bit.”
What do you base that on? His astute analysis of the upcoming NCAA penalties last year? He does have other things to worry about, you know. With no bowl game, he may have planned on doing his research this month before the B10 meetings in January to discuss it. He has a lot of factors to consider and many constituencies to satisfy. I see no reason to assume he’s already done all of that.
“In the end, for better or worse, the Big Ten has changed and is likely going to continue to change.”
It’s definitely for worse.
“Since I live in the DC area, I have to say that I’m thrilled by the prospect of seeing Michigan playing Maryland and Rutgers in person on an annual or semi-annual basis in locales not from from my home.”
I’m sure that couldn’t possibly be influencing your opinions here, either.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Something that hasn’t been discussed on here previously is who you don’t want to play. Except for immediate rivals, I would guess the bottom 5 teams would be 1) Rutgers, 2) Maryland, 3) Indiana, 4) Minnesota, 5) Purdue. Now Wisconsin and Iowa like Minnesota, but everyone else would prefer a better alternative. Everyone wants Ohio State or Michigan and doesn’t want 4 of the bottom 5, preferably not 3.”
Right. So OSU would reflexively dislike being in a division with RU, MD, PU and IN. That doesn’t mean OSU would feel the same way after careful deliberation, but at first blush it’s a crappy division.
I think the other factor is location of games. OSU wants home games against interesting teams (helps you win, sells tickets) while they don’t want to travel long distances unless a lot of alumni live there.
Want to play – MI, PSU, NE, MSU
Good for home – WI, IA, IL (losing its luster)
Good for road – RU, MD, IN, PU
No good – MN, NW
My guess is OSU would like a blend of those teams, but not all of any group..
LikeLike
“Given the option of being in a division with both Rutgers and Maryland and the possibility of being on the east coast at least once a year, I imagine Ohio State would prefer to be in the same division with both Maryland and Rutgers.”
Wait a minute ~ Maryland was placed with the Buckeyes “for discussion” and then the FACT that the Buckeyes don’t have Rutgers under that system was laid against it.
Well, then, “for discussion”, give us Rutgers, our preference of the two newbies.
OldFirm: Buckeyes, that team up north, Rutgers
NewFirm: Nebraska, PSU, Maryland
Cant split TTUN and the Spartans:
OldFirm: Buckeyes, TTUN, MSU, Rutgers
NewFirm: Nebraska, PSU, Maryland
NewFirm takes the next pick, they take Wisconsin:
OldFirm: Buckeyes, TTUN, MSU, Rutgers
NewFirm: Nebraska, PSU, Maryland, Wisconsin
So got MN, IA, Illini, NW, Purdue and IN to distribute. Add NW to the OldFirm, for the New York vs Chicago thingie, and the Illini for a Land of Lincoln pair:
OldFirm: Buckeyes, TTUN, MSU, Rutgers, NW, Illini
NewFirm: Nebraska, PSU, Maryland, Wisconsin
Leave the Hoosiers together:
OldFirm: Buckeyes, TTUN, MSU, Rutgers, NW, Illini
NewFirm: Nebraska, PSU, Maryland, Wisconsin, Purdue, IN
Put MN under WI’s wing and the line up is set:
OldFirm: Buckeyes, TTUN, MSU, Rutgers, NW, Illini, Hawkeyes
NewFirm: Nebraska, PSU, Maryland, Wisconsin, Purdue, IN, MN
LikeLike
If some rivalries are too important not to play home and home every two years, and that is the first priority, form divisions out of those locked games, and don’t insist on the kind of rivalries. Add Rutgers to one of those divisions and Maryland to the other, so each has east coast access.
LikeLike
StevenD,
“All this speculation about future additions to the B1G is interesting, but I don’t understand why we are so focused on possible futures when there are still unresolved issues in the present. In particular, how exactly will the B1G arrange its football divisions for Maryland and Rutgers?”
We’ve discussed it a ton since the rumors of them joining started. I can think of at least 6 different plans I’ve seen. However, Frank said his next post was going to be about that so I’ve been holding back on a long comment on the subject. It seems only fair to give the host the first word on the subject rather than trying to steal his thunder.
“I know we all have our favorite divisional arrangements: pods (4-4-3-3), rotating pairs, divisions geographical and divisions balanced. However, putting our favorites aside, I would like to consider what the B1G is likely to do.”
Do you honestly believe we have that type of insight? These are the people that came up with Leaders and Legends, after all.
“First of all, I think it highly unlikely that the B1G will use pods, rotating pairs or any other novel arrangement. I think we will have fixed divisions of seven teams, and it is quite possible that the divisions will be called Leaders and Legends.”
Agreed. This is the B10. New is rarely good to them. And we will be stuck with those names forever as a penalty for unnamed sins.
“Second, I expect the B1G will put PSU, Rutgers and Maryland in the same division. The two new teams were added to strengthen the eastern flank, so it makes sense to put them all in the same division, where strong local rivalries can develop.”
Highly likely, yes. Especially with Delany saying geography will be more important this time around. As the conference extends longitudinally, I think they’ll try to keep neighbors together more.
“Rutgers and Maryland were also added to provide access to NYC and DC for the B1G. In order to maximize B1G penetration, I expect to see football kings playing there every year.”
That’s guaranteed. Each will have at least 1 king home game every year.
“This could include Nebraska, but I think it is more likely that OSU and Michigan (who have more alumni in NYC and DC) will be put in the same division with Rutgers and Maryland so that they visit the east coast every year.”
I think we’ve gone past likely and into speculation here. The ends versus the middle is possible but unlikely to me, so I agree NE won’t likely be in their division. I don’t see a basis to say it’s likely OSU and MI will both be there, though. Everyone seems to forget that the B10 controls the rotating crossover games, too. PSU got MI for the first 10 years despite MI not being 1 of their 2 locked rivals. The B10 doesn’t have to put both OSU and MI in that division to have them play RU and MD a lot. They can have their cake and eat it too.
On top of that, why would anyone show interest if RU and MD are getting crushed by kings all the time? You need to provide a balanced schedule to develop a fan base.
“Third, if Michigan, OSU and PSU have been put in one division, competitive balance will be maintained by putting Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, NW and Iowa in the other division.”
That’s just wrong. It was wrong when people claimed it after adding NE and it’s wrong now. Princes don’t balance kings. There is little evidence to support that those would be balanced on the field and lots of evidence that they wouldn’t be balanced in media coverage.
“Lastly, the placement of the remaining teams will be arranged to maintain traditional rivalries.”
Rivalries and balance, yes.
“Thus, Minnesota will go in the division with Wisconsin and Iowa; Purdue and Illinois will go with OSU; and Indiana will go with Michigan State. The fixed crossovers will then be: MSU-Michigan, NW-Illinois, Purdue-Indiana, PSU-Nebraska, OSU-Wisconsin, Rutgers-Minnesota, Maryland-Iowa.”
I don’t reach that same conclusion at all. At the very least, swap IL and IN (or NW and PU) to keep the in-state rivalries in division. I’m not sure why you’d give the newbies the most distant, and thus least interesting, crossover rivals possible.
“Put this all together and it will look like this:
LEADERS: Rut, Mary, PSU, OSU, Mich, Purd, Ill
LEGENDS: Minn, Iowa, Neb, Wisc, MSU, Ind, NW”
Yuck for several reasons.
“Personally, I would prefer EAST and WEST for the division names, I’m not sure the B1G is ready to abandon the old names.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
@Brian: Yes, I do recall seeing where Gene Smith said explicitly (not merely implied) that he’d like to be in the same division with Michigan. There is no question that David Brandon has said so. As a practical matter, I think they knows (or strongly suspect) they have the votes to make it happen, as otherwise they look weak if the final plan does not turn out that way.
Your analysis (upthread) makes it pretty clear why this ought to happen. The publicly stated reason for separating them was to set up the possibility of a Michigan-Ohio State championship game. If that scenario is comparatively unlikely, then there really isn’t a good reason for separating them.
I do think the “sandwich” plan is the best I’ve seen:
A: Mich, OSU, MSU, Pur, Ind, Ill, NW
B: Neb, Wisc, Minny, Iowa, PSU, Mary, Rut
This is competitively balanced, divides the “Kings” 2/2, and does not require any protected crossover games. With nine conference games, a given team would play 12 out of 13 opponents in a four-year period. Every purely geographic split I’ve seen seems worse, though I could still imagine them doing it.
(I personally think nine conference games is a bad idea, because it harms the conference’s bowl positioning, but I suspect Delany will get his way this time.)
LikeLike
Marc – under the sandwich plan, if I’m in the “Bread” Division, I want a bigger share of conference revenue to compensate for additional travel. The “Meat & Cheese” division teams will be able to bus to most sites.
LikeLike
Will the “Buns” and “Burgers” divisions really be that much worse than the current Leaders and Legends? We’ve already got Wisconsin and Nebraska playing PSU every year. Flying into Newark or DC will actually be easier than getting into Happy Valley.
LikeLike
Alan,
That would be easy enough to do if that was really the only sticking point.
LikeLike
Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are wondering what they did to get kicked out of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa want to play each other (and Nebraska) every year. As long as they get three crossover games (9-game conference schedule), they will be happy.
LikeLike
I know, right? Michigan and Michigan State have to anchor the west. It simply cannot be any other way.
This is why pods are preferred. You can balance competition and rivalries much better.
LikeLike
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa won’t be happy in that scenario.
LikeLike
Greg wrote: “Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa won’t be happy in that scenario.”
Why would they be unhappy? They play their favorite local teams every year, they play in NYC or DC every year, they get a visit from PSU every second year, and they play nearly half (3/7) of the Burgers Division every year.
Where’s the problem?
LikeLike
Everyone wants to play the blue bloods. They’re no different.
LikeLike
Greg wrote: “Everyone wants to play the blue bloods. They’re no different.”
They do play the bluebloods. Every year they play both Nebraska and PSU. Plus, they have a game with either OSU or Michigan two years out of three.
LikeLike
StevenD,
OSU and MI are the B10 bluebloods. PSU and NE are CFB bluebloods but not yet B10 bluebloods. It’s not quite the same.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“@Brian: Yes, I do recall seeing where Gene Smith said explicitly (not merely implied) that he’d like to be in the same division with Michigan.”
Please provide a link. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I haven’t seen it.
“There is no question that David Brandon has said so.”
Link?
“Your analysis (upthread) makes it pretty clear why this ought to happen. The publicly stated reason for separating them was to set up the possibility of a Michigan-Ohio State championship game. If that scenario is comparatively unlikely, then there really isn’t a good reason for separating them.”
Well, except for things like balancing media coverage and assuring every B10 team of playing at least 1 of them every year. Those things matter to some schools.
“I do think the “sandwich” plan is the best I’ve seen:
A: Mich, OSU, MSU, Pur, Ind, Ill, NW
B: Neb, Wisc, Minny, Iowa, PSU, Mary, Rut”
The travel disparity will likely kill it.
“(I personally think nine conference games is a bad idea, because it harms the conference’s bowl positioning, but I suspect Delany will get his way this time.)”
By that line of reasoning, they should drop below 8 games.
LikeLike
“The travel disparity will kill it.”
Rutgers and Maryland are going to fly to every game except each other and Penn State. The situation is similar for the schools on the western frontier. Once you have to get on an airplane, the marginal time/cost to fly just a little bit farther is not really that consequential. A lot of the costs of flying are constants: Rutgers won’t spend that much more flying to Iowa than they spend flying to Michigan (and vice versa).
“By that line of reasoning, they should drop below 8 games.”
Did you every hear of balance? Eight is the right balance. I’m pretty sure no conference has ever played fewer than eight, unless they didn’t have enough teams to do it. Those who’ve gone to nine have paid a price. I would rather not see the Big Ten do that to itself. The SEC and ACC both considered going to nine, and wisely decided against it.
LikeLike
Marc Shepherd,
“The travel disparity will kill it.”
That’s not a direct quote. Please don’t do that.
Rutgers and Maryland are going to fly to every game except each other and Penn State. The situation is similar for the schools on the western frontier. Once you have to get on an airplane, the marginal time/cost to fly just a little bit farther is not really that consequential. A lot of the costs of flying are constants: Rutgers won’t spend that much more flying to Iowa than they spend flying to Michigan (and vice versa).
That’s easy to say, but fans and ADs won’t agree with you.
“By that line of reasoning, they should drop below 8 games.”
Did you every hear of balance? Eight is the right balance.
I’ve heard of it, but you didn’t mention it. Just because you feel 8 is the right balance doesn’t mean other agree with you.
I’m pretty sure no conference has ever played fewer than eight, unless they didn’t have enough teams to do it.
And you are incredibly wrong. The SEC regularly played 7 or even 6 conference games before expanding to 12 teams. The B10 played 6 or 7 games until the 70s.
LikeLike
Well as part of the Buckeye’s target market, I don’t want no damn championship game rematch against TTUN, it waters down the importance of The Game. I want as many times as possible for The Game to be for the Division Championship and access to the Championship Game, and then play SOMEBODY ELSE for the Championship and right to go Big Bowling and possibly a National Championship Semi-Final bowl, instead of Medium Bowling.
If that means PSU is in the other division, well, so be it. Its been a great game, but it would still be a great game if played every third or fourth year. Ditto Huskers.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
There is absolutely no consensus amongst OSU and MI fans over whether to combine MI and OSU in one division or not.
LikeLike
@Brian: As far as I can tell, most Michigan and Ohio State fans think separate divisions are terrible idea. Obviously, for two schools with millions of fans between them, you’re not going to get unanimity on anything, but I think the sense of the fans is overwhelmingly negative.
@BruceMcF summarized pretty well the feelings of most fans.
LikeLike
The last poll I saw was almost 50-50. Blogs and message boards are not a fair representation of the whole fan base.
LikeLike
There may not be consenus, but those with strong opinions either way tend to be overwhelmingly be for being in one division. I suspect alumni who have e-mailed/talked Gene Smith are very for them being together. Given these are largely the same people they are going for asking for donations, I expect Gene Smith to at least give some push to being in the same division (and I expect simlar from Michigan).
At the end of the day, I really don’t think we would have gotten our current divisions if they’d known from the start they’d have to leave OSU/Michigan as the season ending game.
With that said, what the OSU/UM’s ADs preferences are are only one consideration. I think that preference combined with a desire to make this still feel like a conference though will ultimately lead to a set-up with few/no locked crossovers (my guess is they go something close to east/west even though that’s not my preference).
LikeLike
Eric,
“There may not be consenus, but those with strong opinions either way tend to be overwhelmingly be for being in one division.”
That hasn’t been my experience. I’ve seen people strongly state opinions on both sides.
“I suspect alumni who have e-mailed/talked Gene Smith are very for them being together.”
Based on what? Do you have some source, or just a gut feeling?
“Given these are largely the same people they are going for asking for donations, I expect Gene Smith to at least give some push to being in the same division (and I expect simlar from Michigan).”
Why didn’t he make that push last time, then?
“At the end of the day, I really don’t think we would have gotten our current divisions if they’d known from the start they’d have to leave OSU/Michigan as the season ending game.”
It seems odd to set the divisions first and then ask about changing the date. It had to be obvious how the fans would feel about it. Even Delany isn’t that out of touch.
“With that said, what the OSU/UM’s ADs preferences are are only one consideration.”
Exactly. And last time, people wanted them split. What’s changed?
“I think that preference combined with a desire to make this still feel like a conference though will ultimately lead to a set-up with few/no locked crossovers (my guess is they go something close to east/west even though that’s not my preference).”
I just don’t see them relinquishing locked rivals, even if they stick with 8 games.
LikeLike
Brian,
My experience is simply reading message boards and listening to people. It could well be completely inaccurate, but I haven’t read/heard people talk about liking/wanting to be in different divisions (or defending that decision) anywhere near as much as I’ve seen opposed. That could be wrong, but it what I have seen.
I think the OSU/UM ADs in the intial discussions felt Ohio State/Michigan playing for the Big Ten championship and the Rose Bowl was a bigger concern than even the date (and to be fair, that was something a lot of fans, myself included were also divided on intially). I don’t think October was ever on the table for a date for the game, but I think after the decision to divide them was made, they really were planning on moving up the date and competely underestimated the backfire that would create. The divisions announcement on the Big Ten Network felt to me like it was a major attempt to soothe over rought feeling from both fanbases. I think that’s also a reason they are asking for more input this time (even if they don’t listen to it, they can at least say this was made with the fans in mind).
I think the big thing that changed is those words about playing each other more wasn’t just talk. They gave up on that, but I don’t think they’ll settle for playing other teams 2 out of 12 years. That will be what will prompt division changes rather than keeping the same things in my opinion.
LikeLike
Agree completely. Beyond being relatively competive balanced (middle a stronger in the bread side) and requiring no crossovers, it also kind of fits needs in a lot of other ways. Ohio State and Michigan draw the best since they are the ones teams have been getting up to the longest. However, Nebraska in strongest in the west and Penn State in the east. That means everyone will still be playing at least one “king” they care about a year.
LikeLike
That’s close to what I had above in the imaginary “Old Firm / New Firm” division formation, except the Hoosiers swap into the New Firm (UNL/PSU) division, and the Old Firm gets Rutgers and Iowa.
LikeLike
Rutgers, and to a lesser extent Maryland, were admitted on spec. Both to develop their investment in both schools and to maximize B1G value over the long run OSU, PSU and Michigan will be placed in the same division as Rutgers and Maryland. All conference members should have realized this prior to expansion.
LikeLike
Could be an all B1G final in women’s volleyball. Michigan plays Texas and Penn St. plays Oregon in the final four. Football Shmootball!
LikeLike
If the favorites win, you will have 2 of the 3 (UT, PSU, Nebraska) schools not on the Pacific coast that have ever won a women’s volleyball title meeting. And there is no chance of a California school or Hawaii being in the finals, who have been the dominant programs. Big 10 had 6 of the sweet 16 (MI,MSU,UNL,PSU,PU,MN), Big 12 2 (UT, Iowa St.), SEC 2 (FL, UK), Pac 12 4 (USC, UW, OR, ST), Big West 1 (BYU), MVC 1 (Wichita St.). If you count Kentucky and Pennsylvania as midwest, 9 of the 16 were midwest teams, which is a dramatic change from the typical west coast domination.
LikeLike
Other than history/tradition, there is no reason why the B10 should not dominate in volleyball (rather than the Pac) . The areas in the B10 footprint do not lack in big tall Germanic & Scandinavian descendents.
LikeLike
Worth your time.
“UC emails reveal ACC dilemma”
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121209/NEWS0102/312100021/Emails-reveal-UC-s-dilemma
LikeLike
Track coach’s comments
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/535537-uc-3.html
LikeLike
Urban Meyer’s sister talks to Urban and Boston College.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/535522-uc-1.html
LikeLike
FOIA and lawsuits. The telephone may make a comeback at the expense of electronic communication.
LikeLike
bullet – former Louisiana governor Earl Long used to say, “Don’t write anything down if you can say it on the telephone. Don’t say anything on the telephone if you can say it in person. Don’t say anthing, if you can nod. Don’t nod, if you can wink.”
The bow ties in Ohio could a learn a few things from ole Uncle Earl.
LikeLike
What an excellent quote.
In any case, given the last expansion run came without warning, I have to believe everything’s being leaked intentionally to destabilize the ACC.
LikeLike
I remember reading an interview with a campaign attorney on Politico and he said the first thing he tells his clients is the “e” in email stands for evidence.
LikeLike
The latest from the Dude.
Take it for what it’s worth…
http://www.eersauthority.com/expansion-update-big-10-targets-acc/
LikeLike
Pure lunacy, I saw one of his tweets claiming BC to the B1G was a done deal. ND isn’t worth taking BC imo.
LikeLike
Well maybe Frank does a blog on Big 10 hockey again with BC and Notre Dame.
LikeLike
I hope he does and I hope that Boston College and Noter Dame join the Big Ten, Those additions would give the Big Ten Ten really good hockey teams and some great match ups for the network. Plus it would add another great match up and possible rivalry for Nebraska in Noter Dame.
I could see the divisions looking like:
North-South-East-West
Michigan-Ohio State-Penn State-Minnesota
Michigan State-Indiana-Maryland-Iowa
Noter Dame-Purdue-Boston College-Nebraska
North Western-Illinois-Rutgers-Wisconsin
I feel like this is the best way to keep as many rivalries intact as possible and create new ones. Plus have match ups that will create good television ratings.
I think everybody has a general idea of how the scheduling works.
LikeLike
Boston College?
I’d disagree, but who knows now.
LikeLike
The one thing I’m convinced of is that none of us will guess it right.
LikeLike
Bullet:
Purely a housekeeping matter. I’ve seen several responses to a bu2 post addressed to you, bullet. Are both you, or is a misidentification occurring?
LikeLike
Just a wordpress thing sometimes automatically lists it as bu2. I have to remember to type in bullet.
LikeLike
Well, that would solve the Lacrosse Problem, with only five Big Ten Lacrosse Teams and six needed for an AQ to the championship.
Now, the skeptical would claim that building a conference with an eye to adding a Lacrosse playing school would be crazy. That’s exactly what I said when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland.
LikeLike
So the premise is that the B1G doesn’t care how many teams it has to add, if it results in forcing ND to join, then it will be worth it? It’s going to take a lot of destabilizing to get that to happen, as the freaking apocalypse is going to have to happen to get ND in the B1G at this point.
So the B1G adds BC, which shakes loose FSU and GT along with them, moving to 17 schools. Not enough motivation alone for ND to abandon the ACC.
The next domino is the UNC/UVA/Duke trio. They might want to abandon the ACC in order to get their first choice in new conference. Would the B1G rather lose these schools and markets to the SEC? If the B1G wants them, they’ll probably get them. The B1G takes two, and tells the other to wait while ND decides if they want to be #20. Only at this point I think ND is actually having serious discussions.
So we end up with an end game picture of a 20 team conference in two divisions like so:
LEGENDS
Michigan
Michigan St
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
LEADERS
Ohio St
Penn St
Notre Dame (or Duke)
Florida St
Georgia Tech
Boston College
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
Interesting, to say the least.
LikeLike
Did you read the article?
The Dude said B1G to 18 with BC, GT, FSU, and ND. The SEC to 16 with UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
The ACC losing Boston College would be like the Big 10 losing Minnesota. BC is clearly the doormat in hoops and gridiron. Even when going “good,” not more popular than the pro teams. Offseason Red Sox talk is probably biggest topic during Boston fall/winter. Plus, the ACC has a ready-made replacement in UConn.
And why would FSU leave because of UConn? UConn has a BCS appearance. UConn has final fours. Is FSU that embarrassed by UConn academics?
This guy just throws things out to demonstrate his hate for Pitt and Syracuse–gratuitous commentary unrelated to the article. Must hate UConn for some reason too. Dude needs help.
LikeLike
I agree, but he’s entertaining. That’s why we read him.
LikeLike
It’s easy to hate Connecticut, its obnoxious nouveau riche fans, and its ambulance-chasing former attorney general…not to mention it being the evil empire of women’s basketball.
LikeLike
I think what The Dude writes is pure fiction, but it is entertaining.
LikeLike
I think he actually has some connections, but believes whatever he hears and prints it all as fact when some is total nonsense. I think he gets used sometimes, either for misinformation or for fun.
LikeLike
Mizzou releases artist renderings of their stadium expansion. 5,000 bleacher seats and 1,200 club seats will be ready for the 2014 season. Additional suites should be ready for next season.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/dec/09/plans-are-place/
Andy, will this expansion get Mizzou over 80,000?
LikeLike
~77k up from 71k.
LikeLike
This is Phase 1, and it gets to 77k by 2014. Phase 2 comes after that and will be done by around 2017, and gets to 83,500. Phase 3 is a possibility at some point, which would get it even higher.
Mizzou is in the midst of a $200M facilities upgrade. Most of that goes to the football stadium, but around 10-15% goes to baseball, softball, and tennis.
Basketball doesn’t need any upgrades as we already have one of the 2 or 3 best on campus arenas in the country.
LikeLike
Here’s what phase 2 will look like:
http://www.newstribune.com/news/2012/jun/27/missouri-stadium-expansion-wins-approval/
LikeLike
I believe this would put us somewhere in the top 15 as far as capacity. We’d be about where Nebraska is now.
LikeLike
And preemptively let me say that Missouri sold out all their season tickets this year, so yes we could use the extra seats.
LikeLike
Andy – 83,500 will get you to #8 in the SEC.
Other SEC expansion plans include:
1. LSU is adding 70 more suites, 3000 more club seats, and displace some visitor seats into a new upper upper south endzone, ala Alabama. Tiger Stadium will be over 100k by 2014.
2. Miss State is adding 6000 seats as part of a massive, and much-needed renovation to Scott Field. Scott Field will be over 61,000 by 2014.
3. Ole Miss has plans to expand Vaught- Hemingway Stadium by over 10,000 seats pushing their capacity to over 70,000. I’m not sure about the completion date.
4. Texas A&M is studying whether to add on to Kyle field or rebuild.
LikeLike
So 8th in the SEC, with only Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Texas, and USC as the non-SEC schools with more seats. So about 13th in the country.
LikeLike
Also, it looks like the SEC will get a new venue for the SEC CCG in 2017.
http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/2012/12/10/non-binding-terms-approved-for-new-falcons-stadium-deal/
This new stadium is probably another reason why ATL looks to snag the last spot in the semi-final rotation.
LikeLike
Nebraska will be 87k (from 81k) next season and they’ll sell out every game and average more than 90k in total attendance.
LikeLike
OK, so Missouri will be 14th, not 13th.
LikeLike
Andy,
I think what Alan is getting at is the dynamics are not static. Arkansas has plans to go over 80,000 sooner than Missouri does and they seem to have a rabid and crazy fan base to get there. It seems like the SEC is military build up at the extreme and why I said on here about a year ago that it could be a time in the near future where every SEC – except Vanderbilt – could be at least 75,000 in seating.
The bigger question is what happens to the ACC schools if they move to more football centric conferences? Anybody with a stadium in the 60’s in the ACC could see that size swell to 75,000 if their new home is the B1G, B12, or SEC. If you wind up with just 64 teams at the top then they are going to want to capture a bigger share of the market. Rutgers in the Big East was 52K + so is it hard to think of them adding 10,000 or more seats to have a place for visiting B1G fans living in the area will have a place to sit? Penn State set the record in Byrd back in 1971 so is it hard to visualize more seats when they are in the same division or pod?
If Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the PAC it could lead to bigger stadiums in the PAC similar to what you see in the B1G and SEC now.
The telling part in the link Alan put up is the primary tenant is paying 2.5 million a year to least a billion dollar building in Atlanta. Think if the sum was fully debt and the interest rate were 5% then the yearly debt service would be 50 million. Where does the other 47.5 million a year come from? Where does the extra money come to pay down the principle above that?
On a side note the lesser games at Faurot this past season :
Kentucky drew 68K
Vanderbilt drew 66K
Syracuse drew 63K
SE La only drew 62K
LikeLike
The Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, and Arizona State games all sold out months in advance. Tickets were scarce and could fetch top dollar. I sold my tickets to the Alabama game for $450 each in cash ($75 face value). Mizzou could easily fill an 85k stadium for those games, probably larger.
LikeLike
Andy, Nebraska’s expansion to over 92k is complete for the 2013 season and it will be sold out.
LikeLike
“Basketball doesn’t need any upgrades as we already have one of the 2 or 3 best on campus arenas in the country”
How would you rank the top 5 arenas in the country? The Paige Sports Arena wasn’t even in the top third in the Big 12.
LikeLike
If you’re going by traditional, classic arenas like Rupp and Phog, then of course Mizzou Arena is disqualified because it’s only a few years old. And at 15,061 seats Mizzou Arena may not be one of the biggest in the country, but it’s certainly one of the nicest. It’s relatively new and was very expensive. 35 luxury suites, state of the art facilities, modern design. It’s fancier than most NBA arenas.
Mizzou has faired pretty well there too, with a .863 win percentage.
LikeLike
Best venue for an MLB game:
According to Andy: 1. Fenway, 2. Wrigley, 3. Missouri’s baseball stadium, 4. Yankee Stadium.
Best female vocalist:
According to Andy: 1. Rihanna, 2. some Missouri co-ed who sang the national anthem, 3. Taylor Swift
Best Winter vacation destination:
According to Andy: 1. Bahamas, 2. Maldives, 3. Missouri campus, 4. Hawaii
There is being a homer and then there is being a homer. Andy is the all-time homer.
LikeLike
OK, smartass, please list 3 on campus basketball arenas that are nicer than Mizzou Arena.
Not arenas with more storied traditions.
Not arenas with higher capacity.
Name me 3 that are relativley new and nice and expensive exceeding Mizzou Arena.
Mizzou Arena was built a few years ago on a huge donation from one of the Wal-Mart heirs. It was specifically designed to be the nicest on campus arena in the nation at the time. I’ve been to many college basketball arenas (Kansas, UCLA, Iowa State, Stanford, Cal, Iowa State, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, etc), none were anywhere near as nice as Mizzou Arena. They were all old and cheap by comparison. Do they have a lot of tradition? Sure. But the fact is there are very few college arenas that are as nice as Mizzou Arena. You laughing at the notion is just foolish.
LikeLike
Matt Knight arena?
http://www.matthewknightarena.com/
U of Nike, err Oregon seems in the running to me.
LikeLike
OK, there’s one. Similar situation. Billionaire booster who likes basketball.
LikeLike
Nicer? What does that mean? Fancier? Shinier? More ornate? People are nicer? Nothing quite as subjective as whether something is “nice.”
You just like it because you have Missouri-goggles on.
I am not an MSU fan, but I cannot imagine a better place to see a basketball game than the Breslin Center.
If you wanted to say “newer,” congrats. I am sure it is. Not going to bother to look up whether other places have new arenas. I know Georgia Tech does though. I guess they deliberately made theirs to be not nice though. Maybe they “specifically designed it to be” the third nicest arena.
LikeLike
And of course there is the YUM arena in Louisville.
LikeLike
acaffrey, you’re willfully refusing to see my point so there’s no point in talking to you.
ccrider and bullet, yes, you see exactly what I mean. Knight Arena and Yum Arena are two new arenas that are on par with or exceed Mizzou Arena as far as quality and “fanciness” of facilities.
I’m sure there will be more built in the future, but as of now there are very very few. Circa 2007 Mizzou Arena was the nicest in the country. I suspect 2 or 3 have been built since then that are as nice or nicer.
LikeLike
Andy,
I can name you 3 in a very short drive from each other :
#1 Assembly
#2 YUM – and Freedom before that
#3 Rupp
LikeLike
Andy,
I have been in YUM and I am just spitballing here, but I think they FAR exceed the arena at Mizzou. That place is corporate fat cat city and they serve booze while seating 22,000 or so fans.
LikeLike
Rupp is not one of the 100 nicest arenas in America, it may not be in the top 200. It has terrible benches and terrible sight lines.
LikeLike
Rupp is one of the biggest. But they are working on replacing it.
LikeLike
Mark,
If you follow college ball Assembly and Rupp are both on your bucket list. Both may have some age as throwbacks to the 70’s but both have more buzz than the new joints with all their lights and corporate suites. To deny either as a top 100 venue for basketball – and specifically college basketball – is a huge stretch.
LikeLike
Duff – I have been to both UK & IU and perhaps I am too rough on UK. It is huge, but I don’t like it – the upper level seats are awful, you sit on benches that have too little space, the angle is tough and its hard to see the court. There also is too much wasted space in the upper corners and its not anywhere near campus. I’m amazed that UK doesn’t have something better by now.
LikeLike
Duff, I’ve been to Assembly, it’s not near as nice as Mizzou Arena.
I’ve never been to YUM but from what I’ve seen it may have displaced Mizzou Arena as the new #1. Knight Arena in Eugene may have passed Mizzou Arena as well.
As for Rupp, I’ve never been there but if it’s anything like Phog then there’s a lot of history there but it’s not exactly a nice arena. Old and historical, yes. Nice and fancy, no.
LikeLike
guys, notice i never said “best” or “most historical” or “biggest”. I said nicest. And I stand by that statement. Mizzou arena is one of the top 3 nicest on campus basketball arenas right now.
LikeLike
And it’s not like I’m just making this up. In 2007 the mainstream media like ESPN, CBS, etc generally recognized Mizzou Arena (which was brand new at the time) to be the nicest on campus basketball arena in the country. It was widely accepted as true.
No doubt in the past 5 years some more have been built so I recognize Mizzou Arena can’t claim the top spot anymore.
LikeLike
Rupp really isn’t that old. They replaced Memorial Colisseum (where I believe the women still play) in the 70s.
LikeLike
Three college basketball arenas that are “nicer” than Mizzou Arena based on the criteria established by Andy. In no particular order, they are Matthew Knight Arena, YUM Arena and John Paul Jones Arena. They are all newer and more expensive than Mizzou Arena.
LikeLike
Andy,
New and nice usually means corporate and sterile. Assembly and Rupp being built when they were have some seating and flaws but the seats are occupied by fans of college basketball. As Mark pointed out it takes a certain kind of person to sit in the bleachers in the nosebleeds in Rupp and all the corporate suites and ribbon advertising can not replace live bodies for atmosphere. Memorial Gym down in Nashville seated close to 16,000 in the 1960’s and Freedom Hall in Louisville was built in the 1950’s with a stated capacity of 18,865 but often averaged closer to 20,000 when the Cardinals were hot.
Between Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, and Tennessee you have some really great basketball venues. Since Mizzou is in the east I suggest you take a trip to Nashville the next time your Tigers play there and get a feel for what may be the most unique home court advantage in all of college basketball. I know you think Mizzou hangs the moon in basketball but I grew up in the “dandy diamond” of :
Indiana ~ 17.5 in Assembly
Kentucky ~ 23.5 in Rupp
Louisville ~ 18.5 in Freedom
Cincinnati ~17.0 in Riverfront / Xavier – I really like the new Cintas
This was a magical vortex of college basketball and if you get a chance you really need to see a game in Hinkle (IN) or Memorial (KY) to get a feel for just how crazy basketball has been between these two points for quite some time. I was down at TB after they did the renovation and the place seats close to 22,000 even after the corporate boxes were added. They were at least smart enough to keep them simple and not put them behind glass and put them at the very top of the arena so the low seats would still be the fans.
LikeLike
Duff, I’m sure we all have our own personal taste. Like I said I’ve been to a lot of different arenas.
I’ve been to games at:
LA Laters
Golden State Warriors
Kansas City Kings (long time ago)
UCLA Bruins
Kansas Jayhawks
Iowa State Cyclones
Kansas State Wildcats
Illinois Illini
Michigan Wolverines
Michigan State Spartans
Memphis Tigers
So I’ve seen my fair share. Yes, a lot of those arenas had great atmosphere and great fans, but the facilities themselves were old and cheap compared to Mizzou Arena.
Maybe you don’t like nice new arenas. So be it. That’s your opinion.
Mizzou Arena has some character to it. Go look at some pictures. It’s not just a boring corporate arena. It has some style. And it’s very modern and nice and fancy and expensive. Moreso than all but a very small number of arenas in the country (maybe 2 or 3).
LikeLike
I could add to the list above, including Cal, Stanford, UAB, Oklahoma State, etc but you get my point.
LikeLike
How ’bout “mooch”?—Mariucci arena on Minnesota’s campus…
Awesome place to catch big-time hockey… Great atmosphere, and hard to beat the history…
LikeLike
Please, please, it’s too early for Moandy! 🙂
LikeLike
Duffman WTH? Seriously assembly hall is horrible!
LikeLike
Brett Bielma on ESPN’s Mike & Mike this morning explaining his move from Wisconsin to Akrkansas.
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8723249
LikeLike
Bobby Petrino to Western Kentucky?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8732857/bobby-petrino-coach-western-kentucky-hilltoppers-source-says
LikeLike
Is that the best he could get? I’d figure some desperate school would give him a job. Someone from a more major conference. Maybe once he gets a few wins under his belt. But I certainly understand why many want nothing to do with him.
LikeLike
Petrino is going to be red-flagged by most employers for the lying to superiors and the hostile workplace behavior. It’s a very difficult hiring proposal to explain to your board.
He needs extensive rehabilitation before he can go near a top-flight job again. Even then I expect a lot of schools will have him on a permanent “do not consider’ list.
LikeLike
I always figured Petrino was going to need to spend at a least a couple years either as a coordinator at a major school or head coach at a smaller school to rebuild his reputation before major school would gamble on him as a head coach.
LikeLike
If FSU is smart, they’ll pick the Big 12 over the Big 10. The Huskers made a huge mistake coming to this dying conference. The demographic trends favor the south for the foreseeable future. There is a reason they call the Big 10’s footprint the Rust Belt. Conferences with southern ties will be more profitable in the long term. FSU can recruit Florida AND Texas if they join the Big 12. All the Big 10 has is Ohio…and I hate to say it, but the recruiting is overrated in that state.
LikeLike
Dying conference, are yo kidding me? Do you remember the instability in the Big XII? What about the unbelievable step-up in academics and research funding? We were darn lucky to get in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
FakeDanBebe moved to Nebraska?
LikeLike
@cc – That’s funny.
LikeLike
2 words: global warming
LikeLike
Its good to see Nebraska fans blaming all their problems on whatever conference they’re in.
LikeLike
Florida State takes note, agrees.
It’s tough to go from a perennial 10 win team to only a 6-9 win team, but stop making excuses for your coaches and players.
LikeLike
The fast growing Kansas and WVU?
LikeLike
At the moment FSU doesn’t have an offer from any conference. But the FSU president laid out the drawbacks of the Big 12 recently (you can google it). In the hypothetical case where they actually had offers from both, I think they choose the Big Ten in a heartbeat. The practical reality is, the Big 12 offer is the one they’re more likely to get.
The ability to recruit Texas is overrated, because although there are a lot of great players there, a lot of schools want them. When you’re competing with UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, how many is FSU going to get? Again, this is in the hypothetical case where FSU actually has this choice to make, which they don’t and likely won’t.
Bear Bryant told the story that when he was at Texas A&M, he was able to get perhaps one out of every ten kids who held a Texas offer. That was obviously quite a while ago (different rules, different players), but I’ll bet it’s directionally correct today.
LikeLike
The ability to recruit Texas is very valuable for a lot of schools. For an FSU or Alabama, the question is whether it is worth it for the caliber of player they would normally be able to get. They get mostly 4 and 5 star players. Occassionally they will get one of those out of Texas, but would it be often enough? They can get lower rated players easier in their home territory.
LikeLike
Not any more Marc. The last 10 years that has been true. Prior to that A&M won more battles than they lost recruiting against Texas (from 1985 to 2000). Today Sumlin is winning more than he is losing. The 2014 class is pretty much going to be 95% in A&M’s favor.
LikeLike
Let me say I don’t follow recruiting closely during the year. 17 year olds are pretty hit and miss. I usually just look at the February signing lists and the annual ratings of classes. But my recollection is that Texas got more of the blue chips nearly every year than A&M based on the Chronicle top 100, even from 1985-2000. And I know Texas almost always had higher rated classes. Now it wasn’t overwhelming in UT’s favor in those years, but it was their way.
I’ve seen it posted that rivals says its been about 98% UT’s way in recent years. It surprised me that it was that one-sided, because A&M always had good players. But for 2013, Texas has had a significantly higher rated class than A&M on every list I’ve seen. Noone knows what 2014 will be. There’s not even certainty about 2013 yet.
LikeLike
Your recollection is very wrong Bullet. A&M under Jackie Sherrill dominated recruiting and RC continued that until the 2nd year of Mack’s tenure. Mackovic competed better but still didn’t quite win 50% of the battles.
Mack has dominated for the last 10-12 years though, until this year.
LikeLike
I figured we would have to agree to disagree, but found some old College football mags that supported my memory. Recruiting rankings:
1999 Sporting News UT rated #1 in the country. A&M not in top 10
1998 SN Neither in top 10, but UT had 2 of the top 50 recruits, A&M 0
1997 SN UT rated #7 in the country. A&M not in top 10. UT had 3 of top 50 recruits, A&M 1.
1996 SN UT rated #4 in Big 12, A&M #6
So that’s 5 straight years that you said A&M dominated. I recall A&M ranked higher being the unusual exception. But A&M was not far behind in that era.
LikeLike
Not walking right in and rolling the place like you thought, eh?
Where have we heard this before?
LikeLike
Not a Husker fan. It’s a troll – don’t feed it (HonestHusker).
LikeLike
You obviously have never been to the Twin Cities or Chicago. These are NOT your “rust belt” cities.
LikeLike
My reply was meant for Honest Guy—Much wasted if the dude’s a troll…
LikeLike
Two minor thoughts —
1. Didn’t the ACC start the expansion roundabout by raiding the Big East?
2. I don’t see any way the Big 10 takes another ACC school until the Maryland comp case is resolved. They want to be able to argue that the ACC is actually stronger, not on the verge of falling apart.
LikeLike
The B1G fired the first salvo when it announced, ~3 years ago, that it was looking to expand. This was the announcement that eventually led to them taking Nebraska out of the Big 12. Everything that has happened since then was a reaction to that.
The ACC realized it was vulnerable, so it poached the Big East. Of course, there’s no way of knowing if those moves would have happened anyway, but we do know that the Big Ten dropped the first domino.
I think you’re right about the exit fee.
LikeLike
I think he was referring to the ACC’s first raid of the BE, for BC, VT and Miami. That move was the beginning of the end for the BE as a power conference.
LikeLike
That raid was the end of the early 90’s realignment wave. The B1G, B12, and SEC had already made the big moves so the ACC move was secondary to them.
LikeLike
Imagine where the Big East might be today if they hadn’t turned down Penn State’s application to join. That was the biggest of many dumb decisions the Big East made.
It ought to be noted that whomever you blame, realignment always involves three parties: the school that moves, the conference they leave, and the conference they join. Often, there is responsibility on all sides.
Consider Nebraska: They grew disenchanted with the Big 12, which didn’t share revenue equally, was Texas-centric, and had a weak commissioner. Had the Big 12 made different decisions, perhaps Nebraska would still be there.
People complain about schools chasing money, but a lot of these moves have had more than just money behind them. No one switches conferences to break even, but usually it takes other factors besides money to prompt them to make that kind of switch.
LikeLike
@Marc
Nebraska was one of the prime beneficiaries and prime promoters of unequal revenue sharing. The were also one of the prime drivers of a weak commissioner. No matter how many times that gets repeated, it still has nothing to do with Nebraska leaving the Big 12.
LikeLike
I know people like to pile on the Big East for turning down Penn State, but why does everyone assume that Penn State would have remained in the Big East? They could easily have left after 5 years for the Big Ten or ACC or where ever. Plus, people forget that the Big East was primarily a Catholic basketball league – Penn State was not an institutional fit as a huge school in the middle of nowhere vs. small, private urban schools. Big East didn’t start with football until 1991 – Penn State was only going to join the Big East for basketball and Olympic sports.
LikeLike
@bullet: Nebraska’s many complaints with the Big 12 are so well documented, I am astounded you could be contesting them. (I didn’t even list them all; there are a number of others.)
@Mark: I am not assuming that if Penn State had joined the Big East, they would’ve stayed put. No one’s crystal ball is that good. But Penn State (and especially Paterno) wanted in. When the Big East added football in 1991, they had a pretty damn good collection of schools, including a number of Penn State’s traditional rivals. With Penn State as the anchor school, it’s at least possible that the conference would have avoided the mad rush for the exits that ensued in the coming years. In any event, you can hardly believe that turning down Penn State was a good move.
LikeLike
Marc
I’m astounded you’ve read this board and still believe that internet nonsense. Try the Omaha article written about a year after they moved for the real story from the Nebraska president.
LikeLike
The BS stated by the Nebraska president when he left had to do with reducing the exit fees. He told the real story later. Basically, Nebraska had a better offer. Now Nebraska didn’t like being in a conference that wasn’t Nebraska centric, but they were on a couple of 1-11 votes. The rest of the conference didn’t want the Prop 16(?) players and didn’t want to give up Jerry Jones $ in order for Nebraska to have a title game closer to their campus. But those were minor irritants at the presidential level.
LikeLike
@bullet: From Texas, by any chance?
LikeLike
@Marc
Yes. But what I’m referring to came straight from an Omaha paper’s interview of the Nebraska president.
LikeLike
Also, imagine what the ACC might have been like in the 1990s had it agreed to take in both Florida State and Syracuse; they initially tied 4-4 in a vote for a ninth member, and FSU won on the next ballot. SU would have satisfied basketball people, FSU the football folks; that might have weakened the Big East at the time, possibly leading to Pitt and Boston College joining the Orange for a 12-member league, resulting in a CCG at about the same time the SEC did.
LikeLike
Final CFB attendance numbers are in.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/college_football_regular-seaso.html#incart_flyout_sports
Top 25 by conference:
B1G (7) – #1 Michigan, #2 Ohio State, #5 Penn State, #12 Nebraska, #16 Wisconsin, #20 Michigan State, #21 Iowa
SEC (10) – #3 Alabama, #6 Georgia, #7 LSU, #8 Tennessee, #10 Florida, #11 Texas A&M, #14 Auburn, #17 South Carolina, #23 Arkansas, #24 Mizzou
B-12 (2) – #4 Texas, #13 Oklahoma
P-12 (2) – #9 USC, #22 UCLA
Ind – #15 Notre Dame
ACC (3) – #18 Clemson, #19 Florida State, #25 VA Tech
LikeLike
FSU had a weak home schedule other than Clemson and Florida? Isn’t that about as good as it gets for them? They had two of their 3 rivals at home. An OU certainly beats Savannah State, but Clemson beats Wake Forest.
But it supports the MD ADs comments (or president) about the students not coming to games like they used to.
LikeLike
A lot of the fan base was pissed after WVU dropped the game and it was replaced by Savanna State.
LikeLike
These are important numbers. Strong fanbases are what people ought to be targeting here.
LikeLike
It is interesting that the first place Michigan and last place Eastern Michigan are just 5 miles apart.
LikeLike
I think that’s a cause and effect.
Its why Texas State 30 miles from the University of Texas is questionable in FBS.
LikeLike
EMU should just quit. Seriously. I don’t see what they get out of it.
LikeLike
I think if you want your Olympic sports and Basketball to play in the MAC, they force you to field a football team. They do not, however, require that you field a team that can be expected to win on a semi-regular basis.
LikeLike
Based on the link above, here are the attendance rankings for the FBS privates.
1. #9 USC – 87,945
2. #15 Notre Dame – 80,795
3. #26 BYU – 61,161
4. #44 Miami – 47,719
5. #48 TCU – 46,047
6. #57 Stanford – 43,343
7. #60 Baylor – 41,194
8. #61 Syracuse – 37,953
9. #62 Vandy – 37,860
10. #63 BC – 37,020
11. #65 Northwestern – 35,697
12. #78 Wake Forest – 28,912
13. #79 Duke – 28,170
14. #92 SMU – 21,292
15. #95 Rice – 20,325
16. #97 Tulsa – 20,020
17. #101 Tulane – 18,085
LikeLike
Also, it is important to note that BYU came in at #26 with 61K per game (stadium holds 65K). That’s ahead of Oregon, Oklahoma St., Washinton, Arizona St., West Virginia, TCU, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, Cal, Kansas St., Mississippi St., Iowa St., Kentucky, Louisville, NC State, North Carolina, Rutgers, Arizona, Miami, Minnesota, Illinois, Utah, Colorado, Virginia, Indiana, South Florida, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Oregon State, Stanford, Pitt, Kansas, Baylor, Syracuse, Vandy, Boston College, Maryland, Northwestern, and Washington State. Almost twice as many as Boise St., UCF, and UConn. It is twice as many as all the other MWC and C-USA schools.
BYU will still be a player in conference realignment when it’s all done.
LikeLike
This might be a sign of the times:
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/12/college_football_regular-seaso.html#incart_flyout_sports
I see FBS’ popularity declining for a number of reasons: 1.) SEC dominance, thank God ND is in this year’s NCG, 2.) FBS continues to exercise a horrible method of crowning a NC, 3.) over-expansion cannot over do it – killing traditions could send fans away for good, and lastly 4.) population growth, regardless of which region, cannot keep up with more than 80 – 85 FBS programs. The idiot Nebraska fan on here doing the usual, overstated “Rust Belt Decay” prognostication seems to forget that the the booming states of the Sun Belt have a lot FBS schools in their states – Florida (at least 6), Tx (at least 7). There is only so much football talent to go around folks! The “haves” will likely draw the recruits due to financial resources, the “have nots” will continue to decline.
Furthermore, football has a lot of understated health issues and a ton of down time during games – people are getting sick of football’s market dominance & frankly I, along with numerous others, find the games extremely boring at times: 3 second play, timeout, tv timeout, 2 second play, timeout, tv timeout, round and round – 3 hours to play and fvcking 1 hour game. Also, if FBS and the NFL keep raising ticket prices – they’re going to lose fans & FBS will become increasingly regionalized, my guess would be the Southeast + Tx and a handful of schools outside the region. Let Texas high schools build multi million dollar stadiums – have fun in process.
Finally, the USA is headed towards European style population trends – slow to no growth – as the country becomes more advanced. I just find hilarious when football fans, esp down south, feel that the genetic pool is trending up because people are magically moving there to raise future football players. Never mind that the boom has a lot to do with Latinos, who often like to play the other Futbol, or retirees & empty nesters who aren’t exactly adding babies to the Sun Belt growth. As for Florida, what a horsecrap economy – too many people I know are leaving that state.
LikeLike
Nice link – here is my key take away from the article:
“”In 2012, a face-value ticket for an SEC game reached $100 for the first time. Four years ago, the SEC’s priciest ticket was the Iron Bowl at $65. This season, 30 SEC games cost at least $65, including nondescript matchups such as Mississippi State-Tennessee, Ole Miss-Vanderbilt, Missouri-Vanderbilt and Missouri-Kentucky.””
It appears that the SEC, at least, is attempting to maximize its profit, which would logically flat line attendance. They have drastically increased prices – and that doesn’t include the typical $1000+ fee just to have the right to buy tickets. I think if the prices were the same as 2008 the stadiums would be closer to max capacity.
LikeLike
I don’t know about Tennessee or Mississippi State, but Missouri sold out those non-descript games at $65/ticket, and tickets sold on StubHub for quite a bit more than that.
LikeLike
Sure, year 1 of a new conference with new, exciting teams. What happens in a few years when it isn’t new anymore. At that point you need to win if the school is going to keep charging these prices.
LikeLike
Mark,
#1 I agree about the honeymoon period of Mizzou football
#2 With your avatar I hope you are an Illinois or Syracuse fan
LikeLike
Missouri has averaged 63-64k over the past 5 years or so. This year we had 67k. Why? Mostly because of traveling SEC fans. Georgia, Alabama, and Kentucky brought hordes of fans to Columbia. Big 12 fans don’t travel well. We would only get a handful of visitors from Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado. ISU, KU, and KSU would send a moderate amount. Nebraska was the only school that sent comparable numbers of fans.
Missouri is getting a bump of 3-4k from traveling fans alone, which accounts for the difference.
Another thing to keep in mind: even though Missouri’s capacity is listed as 71k, 9k of that isn’t actually seats. They are general admission standing room only on “the hill” in the North endzone. People don’t like these seats and it hurts attendance. Still, we packed the hill for every single SEC game this year as well as the home game vs Arizona State (but not the one in late November vs Syracuse).
LikeLike
Gfunk-
There’s some silliness in your statement–2nd and 3rd generation Latinos prefer football to other sports, for one thing.
The rise of the ‘little guy’ is probably hurting average attendance in the big conferences. If Northwestern, Stanford, Duke and Vandy are getting wins, they’re taking them away from other schools in their conference, which all normally have much bigger attendance. If Tennessee had a few more wins at the expense of MSU and Vanderbilt this year, that might have boosted their attendance enough to to give the SEC a net increase as a conference. Flip Illinois’ record with Northwestern’s and how much more attendance is produced for the Big Ten?
And the problem with many more FBS schools isn’t that they draw talent away, it’s that they bring more small stadiums (that dilute the average attendance per school) as well as providing many more uninteresting opponents for non-conference scheduling. People seem to be less tolerant of the ‘buy’ games than they were just a few years ago.
LikeLike
I see a lot of people talk about Latinos, but their words tell me they’ve never talked to one before.
LikeLike
Specifically (I agree with you m (Ag)) – I’ve talked with a few Notre Dame fans who insist that people will abandon USC or UT for Notre Dame because they’re the “Catholic” school.
LikeLike
People seem to be less tolerant of the ‘buy’ games than they were just a few years ago
Part of that is that there are more home games now. It wasn’t that long ago when most teams only had six home games.
LikeLike
Mike,
I don’t think the number of home games has changed all that much except for the addition of the 12th game. That meant the bog boys could get at least 7 at home every year. Many played 7 at home before that, too, just not every year.
LikeLike
You are clueless, I’m just going to say I have an inherent edge, biological one, when it comes to the Latino argument – in overwhelming fashion we’d rather swing a bat or kick a ball – and our culture has proven we can do these things rather well. American Football is precisely that, American, this wet dream that it will grow into a global sport is just dumbfounding – the rest of the world will tune in on Super Bowl Sunday to merely watch the ads & mock the commercialism of America’s so-called glory sport. I wasted many exhaling moments trying to convince non-Americans on the beauty of American football in various foreign bars over the years – it never worked.
I’m with Saban & many others in the shadows, contract FBS, create an 8 team playoff, & call it a day. It’s the same cast of traditional powers that make up the top tier of FBS & play for a NC anyways. There’s no reason why we can’t cap the the number of FBS teams at 84 & create a much needed 8 team playoff, pimp a bowl system that reseeds the playoff based on conference performance in the bowl games & shut down the BCS madness. The best ingredients to sustain FBS are right in front of these conference bosses, yet they have no balls to push the above format.
There’s also no reason why the non-FBS schools can’t have their own playoff system.
LikeLike
There was a national survey a year or 2 back; English-speaking Latinos (like pretty much everyone else in the survey) have football as their most popular sport.
LikeLike
I love looking at conference membership timelines on Wikipedia. CUSA’s is impressive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_USA#Membership_timeline
LikeLike
The Southern Conference has ’em beat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Conference#Membership_timeline
LikeLike
And the SIAA before them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Intercollegiate_Athletic_Association#Timeline
LikeLike
nice.
LikeLike
Big East Catholic schools met today to discuss leaving?
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4188
LikeLike
I can’t claim credit for this as it was someone else’s idea elsewhere, but how about this for a new Big East basketball league:
West
Creighton
Marquette
Saint Louis
Wichita State
Center
Butler
Dayton
DePaul
Xavier
North
UMass
Providence
St. John’s
Seton Hall
South
Georgetown
St. Joseph’s
Villanova
VCU
LikeLike
McMurphyESPN Brett McMurphy
Yep RT @GaryParrishCBS: Only reason for non-football schools to stay is big $ from new TV deal. Now it’s clear $ isn’t coming. So here we go
—————————————————-
We’ve been hammering away at this point for a while now.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
Big East source: “Basketball schools not thrilled w/Tulane & what they will do to lRPI. They would have fallen off ledge if we added ECU”
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
3h Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
Source told @ESPNAndyKatz MSG may get out of Big East tourney deal if league continues changing membership
Expand
3h Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
If Big East gets $80M TV deal, hoop schools would get less $ than currently do RT @AlexOPunk: @McMurphyESPN @espn do they not like money?
LikeLike
The Loki Bullet theorem, more colloquially known as the Owls get screwed theorem, provides a good framework for predicting what will happen next.
The basketball schools will split.
The football schools will form their own league, but tell Temple to take a hike back to the MAC as they focus on the south.
The basketball schools will raid the A10, leaving Temple in a weaker hoops league.
The football schools will add Tulsa, USM and UAB, leaving Rice and FAU in a rotting hulk of CUSA, with UTEP and UNT heading west to the MWC.
Rice, FAU, the FCS moveups and the former Sun Belt schools will add even more Sun Belt schools to CUSA. It is also possible, according to the Killer Frog theory, that the Sun Belt simply invites the CUSA survivors aboard.
The Killer Frog theory, named after the TCU board of the same name, states that any conference TCU joins is mortally wounded and eventually dies. TIAA, SWC, WAC have died. CUSA, MWC and BE were seriously wounded. This set of events would result in the long overdue death of the BE and CUSA.
LikeLike
Nostrodemus? Is that you?
LikeLike
So on the Killer Frog theory, the Big 12 is the “fifth” conference when things get squeezed down to four.
LikeLike
That is the ONLY thing that concerns me about the Big 12’s stability.
LikeLike
I went back and did some web searching.
1. The consensus in the media was that it would be much better to separate OSU and MI the first time. Many of them said that before learning The Game would stay in the last week, but that didn’t change many minds. I don’t see how adding RU and MD changes that.
2. Rematches wouldn’t be common. Obviously NE wasn’t around, so I used their B12 record, but here are the division winners from 1993-2010.
1993 – WI / NE
1994 – PSU / NE
1995 – OSU / NW, NE (both undefeated)
1996 – OSU / NE
1997 – PSU / NE, MI (both undefeated)
1998 – OSU / MI
1999 – WI / NE
2000 – PU / NW, NE (both 6-2)
2001 – IL / NE
2002 – OSU / IA
2003 – OSU / MI
2004 – WI / MI
2005 – PSU / MI
2006 – OSU / MI
2007 – OSU / MI
2008 – PSU / MSU
2009 – OSU / IA, NE (both 6-2)
2010 – WI / MSU
2011 – WI / MSU
2012 – OSU / NE
Titles:
OSU – 9
WI – 5
PSU – 4
Other – 2 (PU, IL)
NE – 8
MI – 6.5
MSU – 3
Other – 2.5 (IA 1.5, NW)
NE started strong as the end of TO’s run is included, but then MI took over until RichRod helped MSU get to the top. OSU was usually near the top with WI and PSU taking turns competing.
There were 4 rematches in 20 years, but that was without MI and NE playing each other. We could also debate whether the West was harder then the B12 North for much of that time. The actual division schedules would have changed some of these, especially with MI and NE playing each other.
First game:
1998 – #7 over #11
2003 – #5 over #4
2006 – #1 over #2
2007 – #7 over #23
For all the people who complain about a rematch, I don’t think 1998 (Cooper having to beat MI twice in one year), 2003 or 2006 would have been a problem. 2007 would have been MI looking for an upset, but not a great game. If once every 20 years there’s a bad rematch, that’s still much better than 2012 CCG.
I’m not using this to argue for separating MI and OSU per se, but rather to show that the rematch concern isn’t valid.
LikeLike
Oh, one more thing. The outcome of The Game determined at least 1 division winner in these years:
1993, 1997*, 1998, 2001*, 2006*, 2007
* – a split is involved
That includes 3 of the 4 rematches. In 2003, MI finished 2 games ahead of NE and IA by beating OSU while OSU was tied with PU but had the tiebreaker. If OSU had won, nothing changed.
LikeLike
I agree that the amount of rematches is overstated. Nebraska and Oklahoma only had 2 matches in the Big 12 championship game the whole time though and that was with both making the CCG regularly and also with them not playing yearly (a guaranteed loss for one team).
Obviously it’s only my opinion, but I think the big reason for wanting the game in division is to increase the stakes as often as possible. CCGs are sporadic and not planned. It’s more fun knowing we are directly competing with Michigan for the division. It’s a reversal from what I was originally hoping when these discussions started 2 years ago, but I think being in the same division is better for the rivalry over the long term.
LikeLike
UCLA v Stanford shows the downside of being in separate divisions. Regardless of whether it happened or not, considerable press during the runup to the regular season game focused on whether UCLA would play to win. They could both rest players and assure who they would face in the CCG, as well as creating the situation where Stanford had to win 2 consecutive while a split was a win for the Bruins (sound familiar LSU?). It doesn’t matter how vehemently fans, players, or coaches deny it the fact is that the question will be asked because it is a byproduct a system that is moving toward valuing playoff results (a CCG is an in conference playoff) over regular season.
LikeLike
It shows the issue of having 9 conference games with 2 locked in rivals for a 12 team conference.
I’m not sure how much of that would apply to other situations…; their rematch probabilities are far greater than anyone else’s…
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“UCLA v Stanford shows the downside of being in separate divisions.”
No, it showed the downside of one team having an incentive to lose a game. A rivalry game with division titles on the line would be a different animal. OSU and MI would never have incentive to lose The Game. Any possible benefit couldn’t trump the downside of losing that game.
LikeLike
It amazes me that conferences have gotten away from rivalry games at the end of the season. That is a guaranteed incentive and attendance draw regardless of the teams. Why wasn’t UCLA/USC both teams last game? Why wasn’t the Game Stanford and Cal’s last game? The MAC, which could benefit even more, has gotten away from it. CUSA had some strange finales.
LikeLike
Brian:
Unless you’re able to win the rematch and knock your rival out of the Rose Bowl (or playoff) and replace them.
Bullet:
USC needed to play a more important rivalry game (ND).
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Brian:
Unless you’re able to win the rematch and knock your rival out of the Rose Bowl (or playoff) and replace them.”
Nobody would throw The Game with the hope of winning the next week instead. It’s much better to crush them now and have bragging rights all year. At best you’d go 1-1, but you’d have a very real chance of going 0-2 and giving them the Rose Bowl spot. That’s a firing offense at best and signing your own death warrant at worst.
LikeLike
Brian-
I do appreciate your zeal, but what you’re essentially trying to put lipstick on a pig here.
When Nebraska joined the Big Ten, the conference made a decision to separate the two divisions based on competitive balance. See http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-debating-divisional-alignments-in-expansion/
While that decision was being made, Michigan and Ohio State both put out trial balloons to see what the fan reaction would be to playing the game earlier in the season. Not surprisingly, it was largely negative, and so we’re in the current situation where the two programs are in separate divisions, play against one another the last week of the season and have a possibility of a rematch seven days later. See http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/2/25/2013971/ote-interviews-big-ten-senior-associate-commissioner-mark-rudner
Brandon and Smith spin doctored the decision as you might expect, but both acknowledged that the coaches, players and fans would not appreciate having having that game being played in the same seven-day period. See http://bleacherreport.com/articles/440472-big-ten-division-alignment-on-the-horizon-not-driven-by-geography
As we saw during the last two weeks of the this year’s Pac 12 season plus the examples you provided above, it’s very possible to have teams play back-to-back in the regular season followed by a conference championship game. We also saw UCLA HC Jim Mora have to find off questions from the press about how his team played in its final regular season game with Stanford and if Oregon would have been a tougher opponent in the P12 CCG than the Cardinal.
There’s a very easy way to solve this. Either put Michigan and Ohio State in the same division or keep the two teams in separate divisions and have them play earlier in the season. To be honest, I’m okay with either option and felt the same way two years ago when this was being discussed on numerous message boards and in the press.
But in the final analysis, my assessment and the assessments of others now indicate that geography will be the prime mover in division alignment and not competitive balance. Playing regularly on the east coast, distribution of alumni, demographics and the networks’ input on this will all be factors in the decision going forward. For individual schools, the opportunity to fund raise and network in major cities or the chance to play all the schools in their local areas or maintaining long-standing rivalries will also come into play.
We’ll see what happens, but I’ll bet you an adult beverage that if the B1G remains at 14 teams, then (1) Michigan and Ohio State will be in the same division with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland and (2) Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin will be together in the other division when the announcement is made early next year. Care to make the wager?
LikeLike
cutter,
“I do appreciate your zeal, but what you’re essentially trying to put lipstick on a pig here.”
What’s the pig? The B10? The B10 with 14 teams? Delany’s decision making skills? Any set of divisions in the B10?
I provided two relevant data points for the discussion and gave a brief opinion about each later. I wanted to inform the discussion by providing some facts and then I couldn’t resist commenting on said facts.
Despite what you think, I don’t actually have a preferred division alignment for the B10 yet. I think they all suck in different ways, with no clear winner in the trade-offs. I can see other schools having a clear preference, but I don’t see any alignment that is really good for OSU. I will argue against people that make lazy arguments with huge assumptions that ignore certain facts. I did the same when we discussed alignment after adding NE. I think a lot of people ignore the opinions of many schools when thinking about divisions (see Greg pointing out that IA would not agree with the opinion many have assigned to it). I try to consider all 14 viewpoints with as little bias as I can.
Frank said his next post would be about divisions, so I’ve been trying to hold off on diving too deeply into the subject until he gets his say. Everyone seems to be talking about it now, so I think he better hurry up if he wants to get ahead of the discussion.
“When Nebraska joined the Big Ten, the conference made a decision to separate the two divisions based on competitive balance.”
Really? That’s shocking news. Why didn’t somebody tell me?
“Brandon and Smith spin doctored the decision as you might expect, but both acknowledged that the coaches, players and fans would not appreciate having having that game being played in the same seven-day period. See http://bleacherreport.com/articles/440472-big-ten-division-alignment-on-the-horizon-not-driven-by-geography”
But Brandon also made very clear that OSU and MI should be separate in his opinion.
Michigan’s Brandon was asked by WTKA-AM radio hosts Ira Weintraub and Sam Webb whether Michigan and Ohio State would be in the same division.
“No,” Brandon said bluntly. “Because we’re in a situation where one of the best things that could happen in a given season, in my opinion, is the opportunity to play Ohio State twice. Once in the regular season and once for the championship of the Big Ten.”
Neither said anything about whether it would be better to play the last week as a crossover or in the same division. That was the choice that had to be made in the long run, and neither spoke to that point.
“it’s very possible to have teams play back-to-back in the regular season followed by a conference championship game.”
Nobody has denied that. I actually provided the data to show what the B10’s history might have been.
“We also saw UCLA HC Jim Mora have to find off questions from the press about how his team played in its final regular season game with Stanford and if Oregon would have been a tougher opponent in the P12 CCG than the Cardinal.”
Yes, because UCLA had incentive to lose the first game. Nobody will ever convince me that OSU or MI would have sufficient incentive to throw The Game. It’s a ludicrous notion.
“There’s a very easy way to solve this. Either put Michigan and Ohio State in the same division or keep the two teams in separate divisions and have them play earlier in the season. To be honest, I’m okay with either option and felt the same way two years ago when this was being discussed on numerous message boards and in the press.”
That assumes two things:
1. There is a problem that needs to be solved
2. The solution doesn’t cause more problems than it solves
I’ll grant you #1, but not #2. #2 is what the whole debate is about. Moving The Game earlier has already been rejected as a solution once. That means the choice is probably binary, now.
“But in the final analysis, my assessment and the assessments of others”
… are just as meaningless as mine.
“now indicate that geography will be the prime mover in division alignment and not competitive balance.”
I’ve seen Delany say geography will be more important this time. He never said more important than balance, though. That’s speculation. None of us knows how much more important geography will be this time.
“Playing regularly on the east coast, distribution of alumni, demographics and the networks’ input on this will all be factors in the decision going forward.”
The first two factors will influence schools more than the B10. The B10 has to balance the desires of 14 schools while the schools will be selfish. I don’t see demographics being an important factor. Many options can be served by demographics. The networks won’t be in the room. They are more concerned with who plays than where they play. They don’t care if it’s in division or not. Fox certainly cares about potential CCG match-ups, but I see you’re ignoring what their stance would probably be.
“For individual schools, the opportunity to fund raise and network in major cities or the chance to play all the schools in their local areas or maintaining long-standing rivalries will also come into play.”
Sure they will. And all 14 schools will have competing agendas.
“We’ll see what happens, but I’ll bet you an adult beverage that if the B1G remains at 14 teams, then (1) Michigan and Ohio State will be in the same division with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland and (2) Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin will be together in the other division when the announcement is made early next year. Care to make the wager?”
I wouldn’t bet on any position. I can only argue two things:
1. What I think is the best solution (I can be reasonably confident in my own opinion)
2. My best guess of what others will do (I have next to no certainty and don’t claim to have it)
I haven’t decided on 1 because I think all the options are bad. I’m pretty sure 2 will be a stupid decision that I will hate, much like the division names.
Things I’m pretty sure about:
1. PSU RU and MD will be together. I’ve mentioned splitting them, but I just don’t see it. PSU is the nearest neighbor at 4 hours from both so it’d be really dumb not to take advantage of that.
2. At least 1 of OSU and MI will be with PSU, so no edges versus the middle.
3. The B10 will look seriously at WI rejoining their western neighbors.
4. The B10 will put more thought into using crossover games to achieve desired results than most people here have considered.
5. There will be a lot of debate about going to 9 games. Whether or not they go to 9 games is very important in terms of choosing divisions. So is the decision about locked rivals.
They could just move IL. They could swap OSU, WI and IL for MI and MSU. They could put 3 kings in the east. They could drop divisions and the CCG. They could go to 9 games. Many things could happen and few would surprise me.
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s a division alignment that doesn’t have tradeoffs for the Bucks, so I look at top priorities. The first preference is to be in the same division as TTUN. The implication of that is PSU and UNL in the other division ~ forming one as the Old Firm division implies the other is the New Firm division ~ which is not ideal, but having that team in the same division is a higher priority.
Maryland and Rutgers were acquired to give exposure to the East Coast, it makes good commercial sense to spread that around, so splitting them between the two divisions should at least be on the table. IF they are split, I’d want Rutgers in the OldFirm division.
Then WI and MSU have to be allocated, and that team would prefer MSU in their division, so:
OldFirm (presumably Legends): OSU, TTUN, MSU, Rugers, etc.
NewFirm (presumably Leaders): PSU, UNL, WI, Maryland, etc.
As far as “etc”, allocate the remaining six in some way that they’ll vote in favor of.
LikeLike
I think it’s clear that Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland will be in one division. Splitting them doesn’t make any sense considering they are all within driving distance of one another, and together create some local synergy. They should all play each other every single year. I also think that Ohio State is going to be placed in that division as well, because of geographic proximity. It’s a 5.5 hour drive from Columbus to State College, and 6.5 to DC. That’s kind of far, but also drivable, especially for a Saturday kickoff.
Now what to do with Michigan? Well, UM and OSU are the kings of the league that just so happen to have large alumni bases in both the New York/New Jersey and DC/Baltimore areas. Since the goal of this most recent expansion was to push the Big Ten’s influence to the east coast, then is there a better way of generating interest than having your two most marketable programs playing there regularly and playing annual games against the other eastern teams?
Selfishly, as a Michigan fan, I would love this set up, because A) it makes Michigan and Ohio State division rivals, eliminating the potential of a rematch, which will only diminish the rivalry over time and B) I just relocated from Chicago to New York and would be able to see Michigan in person every year if the schedule breaks right.
Yet, while it may seem to be competitively balanced right now, a division of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, and Purdue in the EAST, with Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska in the WEST, would be bad for the competitiveness of the rest of the league.
According to Scout.com’s 2013 recruiting rankings, the new Big Ten will consist of the following recruiting areas, which I’ve grouped into tiers:
Tier 1
-Ohio
5 star recruits: 2
4 star recruits: 21
3 star recruits: 45
Tier 2
-Maryland/DC/Northern Virginia
5 star recruits: 2
4 star recruits: 10
3 star recruits: 28*
*Northern VA’s 3 star recruits not included, in reality this figure is higher, I just didn’t have time to distinguish between Northern VA recruits and rest of VA recruits
-New Jersey/NYC
5 star recruits: 0
4 star recruits: 12
3 star recruits: 26
-Pennsylvania
5 star recruits: 3
4 star recruits: 8
3 star recruits: 25
Tier 3
-Michigan
5 star recruits: 1
4 star recruits: 8
3 star recruits: 30
-Illinois
5 star recruits: 1
4 star recruits: 8
3 star recruits: 27
Tier 4
-Indiana
5 star recruits: 1
4 star recruits: 5
3 star recruits: 17
Tier 5
-Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
5 star recruits: 0
4 star recruits: 5
3 star recruits: 20
There are a couple of takeaways. First, Big Ten fans should be very pleased with the most recent expansion. The Maryland/DC/Northern VA and New Jersey/NYC areas immediately become arguably the 2nd and 3rd most fertile recruiting areas in the league. Second, FSU should really be a priority for the Big Ten. Third, and most important, notice the Tier 5 grouping. These four states combine to produce about the same amount of recruits that Indiana does by itself. Granted, stars aren’t everything, but the tier 5 states also trail considerably in 3 star recruits, which Iowa and Wisconsin have used to build their programs in recent years.
If you divide the league as described above, the league’s four most fertile recruiting areas will all be in the EAST. Although the WEST would “share” Michigan (aside from the Rich Rod era, UM has owned the state for decades) and have Illinois within its footprint, those states simply don’t produce enough talent to sustain 7 successful programs. Although Nebraska and Northwestern recruit more nationally than the others, having a local base makes it easier to sustain success, ultimately improving the Big Ten as a whole. Over time, I fear that while the WEST may still produce one or two good programs a year, the league’s elite teams will more often than not come from the EAST, and you could make the argument that Rutgers and Maryland will eventually supplant Wisconsin and Iowa as that next group of Big Ten programs after the kings, based solely on the talent within their borders.
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“I don’t think there’s a division alignment that doesn’t have tradeoffs for the Bucks,”
Agreed.
” so I look at top priorities. The first preference is to be in the same division as TTUN.”
First preference for whom? You? OSU fans in general? Smith? Gee? MI? The other schools? The B10?
I think OSU’s list of priorities goes something like this:
1. Play MI every year
2. Make it the last game (fans only)
3.
4.
.
.
.
87. Anything else
I don’t see any inherent advantage for OSU in sharing a division with MI. They already play the last game every year, plus they can play for the B10 title. To me, that trumps playing for the division title more often.
“The implication of that is PSU and UNL in the other division ~ forming one as the Old Firm division implies the other is the New Firm division ~ which is not ideal, but having that team in the same division is a higher priority.”
For OSU, maybe, but PSU and NE have equal say.
“Maryland and Rutgers were acquired to give exposure to the East Coast, it makes good commercial sense to spread that around, so splitting them between the two divisions should at least be on the table. IF they are split, I’d want Rutgers in the OldFirm division.”
I’m sure it’s on the table, I just don’t think it’ll happen. Delany’s references to geography and the huge width of the footprint make it seem highly unlikely to me.
LikeLike
Tom,
“Well, UM and OSU are the kings of the league that just so happen to have large alumni bases in both the New York/New Jersey and DC/Baltimore areas. Since the goal of this most recent expansion was to push the Big Ten’s influence to the east coast, then is there a better way of generating interest than having your two most marketable programs playing there regularly and playing annual games against the other eastern teams?”
Yes, you want the name programs playing the newbies a lot. The B10 did that with NE and PSU, too. You don’t have to share a division to do it, though. As you’ll recall, MI played PSU for their first 10 years despite not being one of PSU’s two locked rivals. The B10 could easily schedule name brands from the other division to play RU and MD as crossovers.
Here’s an example:
E – PSU, MD, RU, MI, MSU, NW, IL
W – OSU, PU, IN, NE, WI, IA, MN
MD – 6 division teams + PU + 2 crossovers
RU – 6 division teams + IN + 2 crossovers
9 games (years 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6 / 7-8 / 9-10 ):
MD – OSU, NE / OSU, IA / NE, WI / OSU, MN / NE, PU /
RU – OSU, NE / NE, WI / OSU, IA / NE, PU / OSU, MN /
That’s 10 straight years with at least 1 crossover king for each to start off, then the regular rotation can begin. That could start with a king each as well, but it’s at least 10 years playing 3 of 4 kings for each newbie. It’s also OSU and NE getting 1 newbie each year for the first 10 years. After that, OSU and NE would head east much less.
“Selfishly, as a Michigan fan, I would love this set up, because A) it makes Michigan and Ohio State division rivals, eliminating the potential of a rematch, which will only diminish the rivalry over time”
I don’t understand that position at all. Please explain to me how it will diminish the rivalry more than the alternative.
“Yet, while it may seem to be competitively balanced right now, a division of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, and Purdue in the EAST, with Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska in the WEST, would be bad for the competitiveness of the rest of the league.”
I don’t think it even looks balanced now. You do make a good point (which I’ve mentioned before, too) about the recruiting favoring the east as well.
LikeLike
@Tom, I don’t think driving distance will be the number one thing considered, over-riding everything else, when allocating Rutgers and Maryland. Indeed, the recruiting grounds issues that you raised highlight WHY the outcome most likely to get majority support among existing members is splitting Rutgers and Maryland between divisions.
Look at that recruiting pool that Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska are fighting over (though it overlooks South Dakota, which is also Big Ten territory with the addition of Nebraska ~ so it undercounts the 3star recruits by one) ~ a big part of getting their votes for a division alignment is being able to promise them better access to either one or both of the NYC/NJ, Maryland/NorthernVA recruiting grounds. And the promise to split Rutgers and Maryland between the two divisions guarantees that.
IF they are split, then Penn State will have an east coast school in driving distance to Happy Valley, and even closer for its Philly fan base (hell, a commuter railroad ride for the Philly fan base), whichever division it is placed in.
@Brian, yes, I was stating first preferences among things that are negotiable. The Game on the same home and away cycle, every year and to close out the regular season, that is non-negotiable.
But after that, for the majority of fans who grew up in the era when The Game had the Conference Championship on the line, one, the other, or both teams playing for the ticket to the Rose Bowl, now that that’s no longer possible, instead of trying to rig it so that every once in a while a Mulligan repeat of The Game has the Conference Championship on the line, as they did with the current Legends/Leaders, make it The Game that normally has The Division Championship on the line, one, the other, or both teams playing for the ticket to the Conference Championship game.
I grew up with The Game as a dogfight for the same bone. And, hell yeah, I want it to be restored to that status.
If it can only be a dogfight for a ticket to the CCG, then make it IMPOSSIBLE for both to go. That gives The Game the biggest possible weight, going into the future. And in a season when the Buckeyes can’t get that ticket punched, at least give them a shot to take THAT ticket AWAY from That Team Up North.
Hell, do that, and I’ll allow them calling THAT division The Legends division if the marketing department of the Big Ten wants to, because THAT division would actually INCLUDE a large share of the Big Ten Legends.
I’d rather Rutgers than Maryland, but restore The Game to a dogfight for the same bone, I’d take the other one. If they have locked games, the marketers and BTN will insist on pairing up the Old Firm and New Firm teams. I’d rather a locked cross-division game with the Nittany Lions than the my dad’s old team the Huskers (he grew up in South Dakota, so it goes without saying he grew up rooting for Nebraska), but restore The Game to a dogfight for the same bone, and I’ll take the other one. I was a kid in the days of the Big Two and the Spartans normally the biggest of the Little Eight, so I’d rather have the Spartans than the Badgers, but restore The Game to a dogfight for the same bone, and I’ll take the other one.
As far as which three of six teams who will have a season to remember if they can only upset the Buckeyes, whatever makes it work. I really don’t give much one way or another. I might have my preferences if I sit down and think about it, but I’d happily trade THE away to get the Spartans instead of the Badgers and even Rutgers instead of Maryland. They are there to make up the numbers and give a fight in other varsity sports. Whichever allocation OF those six that gets the most votes for putting TTUN into our division, or us into their division, or whatever you want to call it, that’s fine by me.
Based on my preferences down the line, and assuming that the little schools couldn’t be bullied or bribed out of having one of the east coast schools and two of the Marquee schools in their division, I sketched:
Legends: OSU, TTUN, MSU, IL, NW, IA, Rutgers
Leaders: PSU, UNL, WI, Purdue, MN, IN, Maryland
But give me The Game as THE Game in our division, and I’d accept:
Legends: OSU, TTUN, WI, MN, IN, Purdue, Maryland
Leaders: PSU, UNL, MSU, IL, NW, IA, Rutgers
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“But after that, for the majority of fans who grew up in the era when The Game had the Conference Championship on the line, one, the other, or both teams playing for the ticket to the Rose Bowl, now that that’s no longer possible, instead of trying to rig it so that every once in a while a Mulligan repeat of The Game has the Conference Championship on the line, as they did with the current Legends/Leaders, make it The Game that normally has The Division Championship on the line, one, the other, or both teams playing for the ticket to the Conference Championship game.
I grew up with The Game as a dogfight for the same bone. And, hell yeah, I want it to be restored to that status.”
That last part is what I don’t get. They’ll each be fighting for a division title just as much whether they are together or not. What is better about fighting for the same division title? Ruining MI’s chances will be just as sweet regardless of division. Beating MI to win a division title will be just as sweet, too. Having to beat MI twice would stink, but getting revenge for losing The Game wouldn’t. The only gain I see is making the OSU/MI tiebreaker potentially important.
“If it can only be a dogfight for a ticket to the CCG, then make it IMPOSSIBLE for both to go. That gives The Game the biggest possible weight, going into the future.”
How does fighting for a smaller prize give The Game more weight?
“And in a season when the Buckeyes can’t get that ticket punched, at least give them a shot to take THAT ticket AWAY from That Team Up North.”
They still can when separated.
LikeLike
“Having to beat MI twice would stink, but getting revenge for losing The Game wouldn’t.”
Yes, but that also implies allowing that team up north to get revenge for losing to the Buckeyes in The Game. It allows the result between the two to be a split decision, with the CCG between the Buckeyes and TTUN more important than The Game. Which waters down the importance of The Game more than playing it in-division does.
LikeLike
“Which waters down the importance of The Game more than playing it in-division does.”
That’s one opinion. I don’t see how you diminish The Game more by playing The Game again for bigger stakes the following week than by always playing for lesser stakes. I see other problems with it, but not that.
We can agree to disagree about it.
LikeLike
Geography should have been the way to go from day 1…..subject to a minor tweek or two…….put them in the same division, keep them playing on the last day of the season….only way to go is to have all the rivalry games you can the last day of the season.
LikeLike
That’s the way to go………….if you wanted to, you could play around with IU, PUR, ILL, and NW to try to make the west a little stronger…………
LikeLike
It seems the best thing to do would be for the Big East basketball schools to vote to quit sponsoring football. What would happen to the Big East football schools if Big East basketball splits? You have to assume Boise St. and San Diego State bolt. What would SMU and Houston do?
UConn – Catholic basketball league?
Cincinatti – Catholic basketball league?
USF – Big East
UCF – Big East
Temple – Big East
Memphis – Big East
Tulane – Big East
Navy – Independent
ECU – Big East all sports
Houston – ???
SMU – ???
Boise St. – MWC?
San Diego St. – MWC?
Is there a new western conference created?
Hawaii
Boise St.
San Diego St.
Fresno St.
UNLV
Air Force
New Mexico
UTEP
SMU
Houston
New Eastern football conference?
UConn
Cincinatti
USF
UCF
Temple
Memphis
Tulane
ECU
UMass?
Tulsa?
Northern Illinois?
LikeLike
There are rumors going that Temple has a vote and thus could stop the league from dissolving. Maybe they could stop it from sponsoring football though. That probably would lead to lawsuits from the newly invited members though (“we were invited, made financial decisions, and then you voted to stop the sport”).
It seems kind of odd that the exiting members get no vote at all here. I understand why they don’t on expansion matters, but this very much effects them too. We could literally be in a spot where 12 of the 16 existing members (one of whom is currently football only) want the league gone, but 4 votes is enough to keep it around.
LikeLike
Thinking more about it, I don’t think voting to stop sponsoring football would do a thing. They’d still have all the incoming all sports members and the football members would just form a seperate football only conference. The reasons for splitting is to get rid of a lot of the basketball teams they have no interest in and simply dropping football wouldn’t do it.
If Temple has a vote, then the way this would probably happen is the basketball schools vote to drop the exit fee to zero and then leave or else create some mechanism for a split.
LikeLike
Thinking as I type but if the Bball 7 voted to not sponsor football (which maybe they can’t now pending Temple’s situation) the result would be for the football schools to form their own conference, like you said.
But wouldn’t that cut all football only members off from the whole pool of Big East money? That makes me think Boise St.and San Diego State would have absolutely zero reason to join the Big Country Football Conference. That said, maybe I don’t completely understand the Big East money arrangement.
If there is a split, I can’t see UConn and Cincinnati staying wedded to the remaining group, either.
LikeLike
I guess the MWC could just add SMU and Houston and get to 12.
LikeLike
Today’s update from the Dude….
http://www.eersauthority.com/expansion-update-b12-expand-or-die/
LikeLike
Always entertaining. Why he has to throw insanity-chum like….”UNC to B12!”….into the water, I can’t imagine. I do believe FSU to the B1G is on the table. When cable distribution is your goal, ceding the fourth biggest state on shortsighted grounds like ACC membership would be gross negligence on Delany & Co. part . Especially a state teeming with B1G alumni and snowbirds/exiles from the midwest. FSU could be AAAAU if necessary in twenty years. I also don’t think it’s out of the question, if they go to twenty, that Boston College might be in the mix. Not a great fit, but Great hockey and ND bait. Unlikely, but possible.
LikeLike
Great Lake, he never said UNC to the Big 12 in this article. He said in his opinion they should take NCSU and have a conference network that has carriage in the state of North Carolina.
He did say in his post yesterday that he’s hearing (to his dismay) that UNC and Duke will join the SEC.
This piece seems to be worded as more of an opinion piece by him of what the Big 12 should do in light of the fact that he’s hearing they may not get FSU.
LikeLike
I know there’s smoke to UNC and Duke going to the SEC, but I have a hard time believing it will happen.
I think UNC to the SEC is probable(assumimg any expansion happens)
I can also definately see why the SEC would want Duke. Classes up the neighborhood, helps with basketball. UK, UNC, and Duke would be an impressive basketball foundation. And the fact that Dukes sucks at football and always will isn’t a big concern…..you would have a dog at the bottom of each division—automatic wins for the others.
But…..football is the driving force for schools like NC State and V. Tech. It isn’t for Duke. And the faculty storm over moving to the SEC would be pretty big……also, as I understand matters UNC and UNC share a Board. NC State would be taken care of before Duke. And NC State going to the 12 would not be taking care of NS State, imo.
LikeLike
I think the foundation of various UNC plus Duke rumors are the institutional ties between UNC and Duke make it less likely that UNC goes somewhere and leaves Duke in the lurch.
But the only way I can make that nut out is UNC/Duke to the Big Ten, NC State and someone else (VTech?) to the SEC, because I don’t see UNC leaving NC State in the lurch EITHER, and both UNC and Duke are AAU schools.
LikeLike
Also, if the B1G takes schools like Nebraska and FSU, and the SEC takes schools like UNC, Duke, A&M, and Missouri, there will be less and less of a clear distinction between the academics of the B1G and the SEC. I’m not saying the SEC would catch up completley. I’m just saying the gap wouldn’t be nearly as wide.
Ranking the conference schools side by side would look something like this:
SEC
B1G
SEC
B1G
SEC
B1G
SEC
B1G
B1G
B1G
SEC
B1G
B1G
B1G
B1G
B1G
B1G
B1G
B1G
SEC
SEC
B1G
SEC
SEC
B1G
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC
SEC
There’s a lot of overlap there.
LikeLike
I think this is the most homerish post you have ever done Andy. Get real. There’s no overlap in the bottom 7 and 11 of the bottom 13 are SEC.
LikeLike
bullet, you obviously didn’t read the post.
This is what it would look like if the B1G expanded to 16 with FSU and GT, and the SEC expanded to 16 with UNC and Duke. At that point, yes, there would be overlap.
LikeLike
And in case I need to spell it out to you:
Duke is the highest on the list
Vandy is 3rd
UNC is 5th
Florida is 7th
A&M is 11th
Mizzou is 20th
Georgia is 21st
Alabama is 23rd
Auburn is 24th
the rest of the SEC is 26th or lower out of 32.
LikeLike
Actually I think I have an extra in there somewhere in the middle and the bottom half teams should all move up a spot. Anyway, you get the idea. Just a rough estimate.
LikeLike
Big 10 has 16 of the top 21. That’s not a lot of overlap.
LikeLike
Right now, out of 28, the B1G has 14 out of the top 19.
If Duke and UNC join the SEC and GT and FSU join the B1G, then the B1G will have 15 out of the top 22 or 16 out of the top 25. That’s more overlap than before.
LikeLike
FCS won 10 out of 108 games vs. FBS in 2012. Last year it was 6 of 97. There’s more overlap than before.
LikeLike
looks like your math schools aren’t so good.
I’ll spell it out for you:
Right now 5 out of 14 SEC schools are better than the worst B1G school. That’s a 35.7% overlap.
Under this scenario it would be 9 out of 16, or 56.3%.
35.7 to 56.3 is a 20.6% jump.
In your example the numbers go from 6.2% to 9.3%, or a 3.1% bump.
20.6% bump vs 3.1% bump. I’m not really seeing those two numbers as similar, are you?
LikeLike
It’s kind of funny how so many of you keep trying to knock down my posts as wrong or homerish, and when it comes down to it you only succeed maybe 10-20% of the time. Yes, I’m wrong sometimes. But usually I’m not.
LikeLike
above should read “math skills” not “math schools”, yeah, I don’t read my posts before posting them and I make tons of typos. You’d think I’d learn but I don’t.
LikeLike
No, Andy, you’ve made it quite obvious to everyone here that you are a slow learner. I wouldn’t think that at all.
LikeLike
That’s because you are too much of a homer to understand Andy. Being a booster is good. But if I were to start saying UT was comparable to Ivy League schools, I would lack credibility.
If a Central Southern Northwestern State University moved from 198 to 190 on the USNWR list, one could claim it was closer to the Ivy League schools. It would also be a silly thing to say.
LikeLike
That puts the median SEC school as 1.5 steps better than the worst Big Ten school and the median Big Ten school better than the 6th out of 16 SEC schools.
So rather than the vague “it would make more overlap”, its possible to be far more precise: adding two schools to the SEC that are in fact clear Big Ten academic caliber would bring the entire top quartile of the SEC into the normal range for Big Ten schools. It wouldn’t do anything to bring the normal SEC school into the range for normal Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
In this scenario 9 SEC schools would be higher ranked academically than at least 1 B1G school. That’s something. Right now it’s only 5.
LikeLike
Andy….what ratings/standards are you using? US News has Georgia at 63, Bama at 77, Auburn at 89, and MO at 97….but you, oddly enough, have MO rated ahead of all three….
LikeLike
@mushroomgod, USNews are undergrad rankings. The rankings that count for academic politics are research / grad school rankings.
LikeLike
The problem with ranking the schools 1-32 is that there are more than the two conferences. This can lead to bunch school near each there even if there is a large difference.
If the academic rankings were based on US News, the average ranking for the SEC (Duke and UNC) would be 98.7 (88.8) with a standard deviation 40.8 (46.9) and the B1G (FSU and GT) would be 57.6 (59.4) with std 23.2 (24). If the SEC were to add UNC and Duke, their ranking would be within a std of the B1G.
If instead the ARWU ranking were used, the SEC would be 169.7 (153.3) std. 55.4 (68.3), and the B1G would be 66 (79.6) std. 52.6 (62.2). Some quick caveats, if I couldn’t find a ranking for a school it received a 201. If it was in a range from say 101-150, the B1G school received 150, and the SEC received 101. For the ARWU ranking, the B1G is head and shoulders above the SEC.
LikeLike
The reason I was using the non-parametric semi-interquartile deviation to look at overlap instead of a standard deviation is because its a population of unique individuals and the numbers are small, but its also got the advantage that its the same result whether the schools in other conferences are included or left out. The median of the SEC would be outside the semi-interquartile deviation of the Big Ten in either event, but the median of the Big Ten would just slip inside the semi-interquartile deviation of the SEC if it added two Big Ten caliber schools. So there is a sense in which adding two Big Ten caliber schools would result in just the slightest smidgeon of overlap. It would take a substantial amount of bias to see it as anything more than just a smidgeon of overlap.
LikeLike
The Mountaineers are stranded on an island, the Louisville ferry never arrived, and Harley Staggers didn’t have the foresight to connect the PRT to Ames, way out on the horizon. WVU is in a quandary of its own making.
LikeLike
I think he’s sort of jumped the shark.
It’s one thing to put out plausible scenarios.
But he’s beyond that, his focus is on adding markets and territory to the Big 12 to aid in the discussions of a network. That’s decidedly against the Big 12’s previous expansion pushes along with what we know to be the future plans (they’re looking for national names for Tier 1/2 purposes).
But Texas has no incentive to support that given their long-run LHN agreements, and most of the other schools have secured their own Tier 3 deals.
Texas and OU are seeing huge revenue streams in the Big 12 and don’t need to shift views on anything over there.
LikeLike
Has ths article showing the television ratings for the games been posted yet: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season
Best I can tell, here is the list of the 30 teams with the overall best rating average:
Alabama 2.60
Notre Dame 2.18
Florida 1.92
USC 1.86
LSU 1.81
Michigan 1.80
Georgia 1.76
Ohio State 1.61
Texas 1.44
Nebraska 1.38
Oklahoma 1.30
Texas A&M 1.28
South Carolina 1.27
Michigan St. 1.24
Oregon 1.23
Oregon State 1.22
Miami 1.14
Army 1.11
Southern Miss. 1.10
Stanford 1.07
Wisconsin 1.05
Texas Tech 1.05
Purdue 1.04
West Virginia 1.03
Louisville 1.03
Penn State 1.03
Arkansas 0.99
Baylor 0.97
Virginia Tech 0.96
Oklahoma State 0.9
Average rankings divided by total number of teams in conference:
SEC: 1.05
Big 12: 0.99
Big Ten: 0.93
Pac-12: 0.78
ACC: 0.59
Big East: 0.54
Mountain West: 0.15
MAC: 0.15
CUSA: 0.14
WAC: 0.09
Sun Belt: 0.08
You might want to go back and check my math, but I think this is correct
LikeLike
OSU with a 1.61 is pretty respectable for a team on a bowl ban. It’s not surprising to see the teams #1-3 in the BCS finished the same here.
LikeLike
And also a terrible OOC schedule as opposed to their usual 1 marquee game.
LikeLike
Also true. Unfortunately next year won’t be any better. VT and Cincy in 2014 though.
LikeLike
Miami 16th despite a bad year, PSU 25th with probation and scandal.
9 “kings” are top 11 along with LSU and Georgia. But where is FSU?
LikeLike
……and where is that sleeping giant in Columbia with their top notch facilities and their hordes of loyal fans? I don’t see them in the Top 30 at all. Hmmm.
LikeLike
When you lose 6 o-linemen and your starting QB to injuries and your offense goes from top 10 to ranked 111th in the nation and you lose most of your games that tends to hurt your tv ratings. Missouri’s ratings are usually higher.
LikeLike
if you look at the list of teams with high ratings, with very few exceptions they won games this year. Losing games gets you lesser time slots and less viewers.
LikeLike
Missouri will not be anywhere close to where they were when the had Daniels at QB. That was a highmark blip that might happen once every 15-20 years.
LikeLike
Danimation, Mizzou’s win totals over the last 10 years:
8
5
7
8 < – Daniel
12 < – Daniel
10 < – Dainel
8
10
8
5 <- injurie riddled season, we'll find out next year if it's an outlier or a new normal in the SEC
So yes, those Daniel seasons were good, but we've averaged 8.1 wins per year over the last 10 years and 7 of those years did not include Daniel as the QB.
LikeLike
Syracuse @ Temple had higher ratings than Syracuse @ Missouri. With bowl implications on the line for the latter (two 5-5 teams), but not the former (a 6-5 team vs. a 4-6 team), that is shocking.
LikeLike
Syracuse at Temple was on ESPN2. Syracuse at Missouri was on ESPNU. Many more people have ESPN2 than ESPNU.
LikeLike
A bunch of Missouri’s games were on regional SEC Network channels. I couldn’t even get them where I live (west coast). No doubt that pushed the ratings down for those games.
LikeLike
……or you’re continuing to be delusional and Missouri really isn’t that big of a player in the landscape of college football. Numbers don’t lie. Historic trends don’t either. Army at 2-10 had a larger TV rating than Missouri. How many Army games were on networks easily accessed? It is what it is.
LikeLike
yeah and there are something like 22 million military vets in the U.S. and many more who are generally fans of the military. They’re not watching for the football, they’re watching for the patriotism.
And how many of Army’s games were actually on tv? 3 or 4?
Missouri had 11 games on tv. What would Army’s average be if they had 11 games on tv?
Historical? OK, go find me Missouri’s averages in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 and then get back to me.
I guarantee this year was the lowest. And it’s because their QB got hurt in game 2 and they sucked ass for most of the year.
LikeLike
So you are conceding that Missouri’s fan base is fickle and heavily results driven? Thats what it sounds like to me. Just one more reason Missouri never was a stand alone expansion candidate.
LikeLike
I’m saying that the numbers aren’t an apples to apples comparison. If it were, then games that didn’t make it on TV at all would be worth 0 viewers and would count agains the average.
Say team one is on TV 5 times. Only their 5 best games. All of those games are on a mainstream network like ESPN2 or ABC Regional.
Then say team two has those same 5 games, plus another 5 lesser games that are on ESPNU or sindicated regionally on the SEC network.
You can’t compare the 5 game average to the 10 game average. That’s apples and oranges.
And as far as fickle tv fans, I would say almost all teams would lose a lot of viewers when they’re blown out 5 times in a season. It’s probably not even that people didn’t tune in to Missouri’s games. It’s that once Missouri went down by 20 in the first half people turned off the TV or changed the channel (including the Alabama, South Carolina, and A&M fans).
LikeLike
FSU is at 33 I think with a 0.89 rating. Mizzou is around 53 with a 0.54 rating.
I think that FSU’s rating is almost soley due to the conference they are currently in. The ACC matchups are just not measuring up nationally (outside of the FSU/Clemson game). I think all of the ACC teams have to be looking at this for their long term viability.
LikeLike
As if Virginia Tech and Miami had matchups that were so much better.
LikeLike
FSU had the highest rated ESPN thurs night game.
beating out thurs night participants: USC Oregon Stanford Miami.
(if you ignore the very first thurs night game, 1st college football game of the year)
LikeLike
Which tells me that by themselves FSU does attract attention. When they are in a stand alone game, they attract viewers. But because their in conference matchups aren’t as good, when they are in competition with other games that have have better matchups, viewers prefer to watch the better matchups as opposed to FSU based on their merit as a team on it’s own.
LikeLike
And FSU does not even like playing on Thursdays.
The fan base is just an excuse factory.
LikeLike
Traditionally, the top 4 TV draws (in no particular order) have been ND, Michigan, Texas, and USC, all else being equal, with OSU & the other traditional kings (and I believe UF) close behind. Of course, all else is not equal. Winning (this season and last) definitely matters.
LikeLike
When the B10 had at least single conference game on a single station (not part of split coverage) going up against other broadcasts at the same time, they were 8-6-1 in ratings (winning their time slot 8 times, losing 6 times, and tying once). The games they lost to:
OU-Texas
ND-OU
ND-Pitt
UF-FSU
Iowa-Northwestern lost to Tennessee-SC
B10 title game lost to Texas-KSU
That’s actually pretty impressive as the average is well below .500 as only 1 conference an win a time slot, but many conferences can lose in a time-slot head-to-head
Using the same criteria, the SEC was 12-16-2 with its conference games.
The B12 was 3-11, with its only conference games winning a timeslot being OU-Texas, Texas-KSU over the B10 title game, and OU-TCU beating out Tulsa-UCF.
LikeLike
Thought this was somewhat interesting:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/67677/report-uc-wanted-meyer-to-lobby-for-acc
LikeLike
Mike Jensen @jensenoffcampus
Temple AD Bill Bradshaw told me contract with Big East states that Temple became full voting member on July 1, 2012.
————————————
Is this enough to save the Big East?
Also, Aresco’s plan to create a division of Catholic schools so they all get home-home games annually…
LikeLike
What I don’t understand is why didn’t the bball schools sit down and have this meeting before now? Maybe before they invited Tulane? even sooner maybe, before Temple?
Was the plan always a 16 team bball league?
Could they have constructed a league with only 7 all sports members, that way there would only be 14 teams in bigeast basketball? It seems like there was a lot of snap actions being taken.
All sports:
– UConn, UCF, USF, Cinci, Memphis, SMU, Houston
FB only:
– ECU, Temple (would they have joined FB only?), UTSA
– It seems like UTSA would be a pretty good FB only pick-up, biggest competition being UT-Austin.
(I don’t understand why BSU and SDSU haven’t backed out already, maybe waiting on the final TV offer…)
LikeLike
The original word was that Notre Dame was essentially holding the conference together. ND was keeping the football and basketball schools in line.
Once Notre Dame bolted in September though, the Catholic schools probably felt that they had to finally take a look at the situation.
LikeLike
What changed is that Louisville bolted.
With Louisville, Pitt, ‘Cuse, ND and WVU gone the only FB school that brings any real value to the basketball side is UConn* and they aren’t enough on their own (plus they have one foot out the door).
*Cincinnati and Temple have some value but they already have Philly covered with Villanova and Cincy can be replaced with Xavier.
LikeLike
X, Butler and Dayton make a geographic footprint that is exactly half East Coast, half Great Lakes.
It would be a very non-Empire-Builder kind of move, to simply fill in a hole in your geographic footprint (Indiana and Ohio) rather than extending to conquer new territory. But I expect if they did a cross conference deal with a western basketball confederation, they might be able to get away with it.
LikeLike
SLU makes a lot more sense than Dayton, as they bring an actual media market.
LikeLike
Like I said, the suggestion somewhere in this sea of comments (perhaps I hit the wrong reply link) of X, Butler and Dayton is a very non-Empire-Builder move. Your Empire Builder response confirms that. Dayton will, of course, draw some TV sets in southwest and central Ohio that X won’t, but in “school in greater metropolitan area X ‘owns’ media market X”, terms, the majority of TV sets it brings is “outside” of its media market.
LikeLike
Surely BSU and SDSU are waiting to hear what the TV deal is ~ proclaiming that they’ll be loyal is good for the TV deal, so they proclaim it, but if its not worth the extra cost of travel, they’ll back out.
LikeLike
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8736544/sec-big-ten-big-12-pac-12-acc-average-91-million-new-playoff-format-sources-say
The rich will get richer:
“During the 12-year contract for college football’s new playoff format, the nation’s five power conferences (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC) will earn an average of nearly $75 million more per year than the smaller leagues known as the “group of five.”
From 2014-25, the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC will earn an average of at least $91 million annually, sources told ESPN. By comparison, the average for the group of five — Big East, Mountain West, Mid-American, Conference USA and Sun Belt — during that 12-year period will be about $17.25 million annually.”
“The BCS recently signed a 12-year contract with ESPN. The deal averages to $470 million annually, sources said. Of that amount, about $125 million is expected to go toward expenses, including an academic reward component, game participation, team expenses, allotment to Football Championship Subdivision conferences and other items.
It leaves an average of $345 million annually, which the commissioners have decided to split in two ways: 75 percent ($258.75 million) divided equally between the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC, and the remaining 25 percent ($86.25 million) divided among the Big East, MWC, MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt.”
———————————————————————————————-
Basically, the other 5 will get significantly more than they were getting; splitting $86.25 million now, but the gap will be a lot bigger too…
LikeLike
Everyone in FBS will make a lot more money than they used to off the playoff system, except USF, Cincy, and UConn.
Those 3 are likely to see a decrease.
LikeLike
Depends on how much of the kiddie portion that the BE will get.
I highly doubt that the BE and SunBelt will get the same amount.
LikeLike
Well, it’s up to those 5 conferences to decide how to split the pie. The Big East may not have allies in terms of voting to split it by performance.
If I’m the MAC, SunBelt, and C-USA, I’d rather vote to split it all equally.
LikeLike
Likely a portion split equally, a portion split by some performance formula. From the current Orange Bowl money to the conferences, half is being split equally between the mid-majors, half on formula, with the MAC getting the lion’s share. Out of that, they are saying they will cover NIU’s cost of participating, so it won’t be out of pocket as a result of the BCS bid.
LikeLike
125 “other” -37.5 academic component -4 ND – 1 independents (BYU was going to get 200k)- 10 or so team expenses=72.5 million for FCS, expenses and game participation. I’m guessing participation is worth around $10 million, 3 games with 2 teams @ $10 million is $60 million.
If the $258.75 is divided totally equally, that would discourage expansion. The Big 12 going from 10 to 12 would reduce its per school take from $5.2 million to $4.3 million. If it is divided based on the number of schools in a conference, it discourages expansion from the have-nots, but is neutral on expanded from other contract conferences.
Now if expansion ended up knocking a conference out of the contract group, there would be financial benefits.
LikeLike
I was thinking around $10 million, but forgot there are 14 slots, 6 bowls, 1 final. 2/3 of the time the 3 contract bowls are set. So its 10 slots to pay (2/3 * 3 bowls eliminates 4 slots). So that would mean participation would only be worth around $6-$7 million per team. That’s only a small increase over the current $4-$5 million for a second team. They are taking the cap off the number of teams per conference, but they are going to share the wealth for the most part.
That is consistent with Frank’s frequent comments that the conferences wanted predictability.
LikeLike
So, the power conference per-team payout, if these numbers are correct.
teams base bowl ob total avg
SEC 14 51.75 40 165 256.75 18.34
B10 14 51.75 40 110 201.75 14.41
B12 10 51.75 40 0 91.75 9.18
P12 12 51.75 40 0 91.75 7.65
ACC 14 51.75 27.5 0 79.25 5.66
This includes a 51.75 base for each conference. A big bowl payout of $40M for the big four and $27.5 for the ACC. SEC and B10 get an undetermined number of Orange Bowl berths. The Orange Bowl agreement was Notre Dame 0-3 appearances, and Big Ten and SEC 3 to 9 appearances, if I’m recalling correctly. I gave SEC 6, B10 4, ND 2.
Notre Dame gets $4M a year floor, or an unknown larger payout for the OB though “substantially less” than B10 or SEC. If they are in the playoff or another big six bowl, they receive a “great deal more”. I’m guessing they average somewhere in the B12 to P12 per-team range ($7M to $9M), or possibly beat B12, but probably not get up near B10 or SEC.
Playoff appearances appear to garner higher payouts, but not clear. Also not clear is what happens to the extra Orange Bowl money when Notre Dame makes it.
SEC ~25% in front before playoff berths. Which I’m guessing they get the most.
LikeLike
The Orange Bowl arrangement was for 8 appearances (when it’s not a semifinal).
Those 8 are split up as such: at least 3 to SEC and Big Ten each; at most 2 to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Thus, even if the SEC maxes out, it’s 5 to the SEC and 3 to the Big Ten.
If ND gets their 2, then it’s a max of 3 each to the SEC and Big Ten.
LikeLike
Thanks, zeek. How about:
teams base bowl ob total avg
SEC 14 51.75 40 110 201.75 14.41
B10 14 51.75 40 82.5 174.25 12.45
B12 10 51.75 40 0 91.75 9.18
P12 12 51.75 40 0 91.75 7.65
ACC 14 51.75 27.5 0 79.25 5.66
I gave SEC 4, B10 3, ND 1.
A $2M lead for SEC before playoff appearances.
Another reason for FSU to leave B12? The monetary reasons are adding up.
LikeLike
Yep, that looks like what I’d expect over the 12 year lifetime; ND takes 1, SEC takes an extra 1.
LikeLike
Actually greg, you need to normalize the Orange Bowl amounts that the Big Ten and SEC are getting.
Your bowl payouts of $40 million and $27.5 million (ACC) are normalized.
Take 4/8 of $27.5 million for the SEC and take 3/8 of $27.5 million for the Big Ten since that’s what they can expect on average over those 8 non-semifinal years…
LikeLike
Those numbers are terrible. I had the OB totals instead of average. B12 is number one thanks to fewer members.
teams base bowl ob total avg
B12 10 51.75 40 0.00 91.75 9.18
P12 12 51.75 40 0.00 91.75 7.65
SEC 14 51.75 40 9.17 100.92 7.21
B10 14 51.75 40 6.88 98.63 7.04
ACC 14 51.75 27.5 0.00 79.25 5.66
LikeLike
Do the big four only get that $40M for 8 years, when Rose/Sugar aren’t in the playoffs? I’ve ignored all the playoff tweaks/access bowl discussion, so I don’t know how the payout complications work.
LikeLike
Yes.
Some of these numbers are normalized over the full 12 year span while some are normalized over an 8 out of 12 year span (non-playoff bowls).
LikeLike
B12 #1.
teams base bowl ob total avg
B12 10 51.75 26.67 0.00 78.42 7.84
P12 12 51.75 26.67 0.00 78.42 6.53
SEC 14 51.75 26.67 9.17 87.58 6.26
B10 14 51.75 26.67 6.88 85.29 6.09
ACC 14 51.75 18.33 0.00 70.08 5.01
LikeLike
If the Big 12 added two teams, they would drop $1.5M per year. So, unless the two teams were certain to add $1.5M more per year somewhere else, that would be a wash. The conference game would make that up. And if the Big 12 took Florida State and Clemson, it might get then more $$$/year. But it also might cause a feeding frenzy on the ACC that leads to the B1G and SEC turning the Big XII into a distant fourth conference. Figure Va Tech and NC State to the SEC. Virginia and NC to the B1G.
Where does the Big XII go from there? Georgia Tech? Louisville? BYU? At that point, it gets harder to add onto the Big 12 and increase the TV revenue. The more FSU/Clemson increases the TV revenue, the harder it is to justify adding another team. Does Ga Tech and Louisville add enough to allow $30M each? If not, the Big XII loses money.
Suppose the ACC looks around and grabs UConn and Cincy. Now you have:
North: Syracuse, UConn, BC, Cincy, Pitt; South: Miami, Ga Tech, Louisville, Duke, Wake Forest,
10 teams, pulling in the same $51.75. Better than the Big East the past 10 years. Especially with ND affiliated too. Geographically sane. If you absolutely needed a conference title game, Temple and USF are available. Add in the Philly and Tampa markets.
LikeLike
zeek,
It’s important to note that each power league gets the same money, so expansion hurts you. It also means ACC schools would see an even bigger benefit from jumping to the B12.
Guaranteed averages:
B10, SEC = $98.5M = $7.0M per team ($6.2M with 16 teams)
P12 = $92M = $7.7M per team
B12 = $92M = $9.2M per team
ACC = $79.5M = $5.7M per team (assumes 14)
LikeLike
Nostradamus-someone posted a couple of links with SEC payouts by where it came from. There was around a 3% increase in the TV contracts:
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/tabid/473/article/235147/2011-12-SEC-Revenue-Distribution.aspx
LikeLike
and for 2010-11
http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/tabid/473/Article/226366/2010-11-sec-revenue-distribution.aspx
LikeLike
One thing I love about the SEC is their forthcoming about their revenue distributions. I’ve never understood the Big Ten cloak and veil routine about something that is ultimately public record and individual schools (see Illinois via the St. Louis Post Dispatch and Michigan via their June Regents meetings) make fairly accessible.
Most of the college television contracts are going to escalate at a 2 to 4% range annually depending on how the deal was negotiated.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8736716/atlantic-10-open-adding-big-east-basketball-schools-creating-21-team-conference-source
A-10 may be the next to raid the Big East
LikeLike
If Temple has a vote (enabling UConn, Cincy, Temple and USF to vote 4 out of 11 to hold the conference together), then does that require each Big East school to actually pay their way out of the conference? That exit fee will be a lot more painful for the Catholic schools if they actually do try to leave without dissolving the conference.
LikeLike
Some answers
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4202
LikeLike
This is consistent with longstanding stories that the football and bb schools reached this type of deal back in 2005. The 2 groups apparently wanted to split then, but the tourney credits and BCS status made it beneficial to stay together.
LikeLike
Intriguing answers there. Makes it a lot more favorable to split if they can leave without fees, and then eventually get to keep the name and credits.
Still a bit of a question as to whether the money will be there.
A-10 averages $350k per school.
How much would the Catholic-7 with 3 or so additions be able to garner?
LikeLike
If they can keep the name Big East and their tournament credits the possibility of a split becomes much more enticing.
LikeLike
Actually Andy, the Dude did claim UNC could be going to the B12 in that article (when I read it), but after a few people commented on the absurdity of it, he admitted he meant NC State and changed it. Assuming your not ‘the Dude’ yourself, check out the comments, they telll the tale.
LikeLike
I see. Missed it.
LikeLike
If I were running the show at one of the Catholic 7, I would look a bit bigger than simply being absorbed by the A-10. First, adding St. Louis, Xavier and Dayton to get to 10 immediately would be no-brainers, From there I would then pursue a scheduling alliance with the WCC.The WCC is also comprised of faith-based institutions that sports flag ship national brands in Gonzaga and BYU. A scheduling alliance between the new/old Big East and the WCC would provide regular match ups like Georgetown and Gonzaga, St. Mary’s and St. Johns, or Villanova against BYU. Such a national schedule would provide exposure into major media markets (NYC, LA, Bay Area, DC, Philly, Chicago) and provide inventory to fill both the early and late time slots that the WWL or one of the upstart national cable networks could get behind. End game success for the new/old Big East would be to position themselves like the WCC as a conference of faith-based institutions and not a Catholic conference. This distinction would be key to the new/old Big East landing a big fish who could be left without a chair at the end of conference realignment, Duke. Should the ACC implode and if the B1G or SEC don’t come calling, Duke could be left out in the cold. A conference of like minded, East coast faith-based institutions that plays a national schedule could be just the carrot to lure Duke away from a potential bad marriage with the Big 12 and into a position where they would be the King. Along with Duke, in this scenario the new/old Big East would also add Wake Forest and possibly even Notre Dame and a 14th school such as a Butler to fortify itself as the national basketball power conference.
LikeLike
I’ve long thought they should just keep it relatively compact with a group of like schools, i.e. private.
Add Xavier, Dayton and Butler-probably the top 3 private options out there. Add Detroit and then one of Boston U./Northeastern/Holy Cross.
Then you have the 1st NY, 3rd Chicago, 6th Philly, 7th DC, 10th Boston, 12th Detroit all in one league. The only members of the top 12 metro areas you are missing are in California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. And in terms of TV markets, their rankings are a little higher than the population rankings. You also have 27-Cincy, 34-Indianapolis, 37-Providence, 39-Milwaukee, 61-Dayton. You could also look at St. Louis-18 and a couple of weaker programs in good markets-Loyola (Baltimore)-20, Duquesne (Pittsburg)-22. Richmond-43 would also be possible. There are plenty of people without expanding your area.
The only other top 50 metro areas in the midwest/ne they wouldn’t be in are 16-Minneapolis, 28-Cleveland, 32-Columbus, 36-Norfolk (not really NE but bordering), 42-Louisville (border), Hartford-45 and Buffalo-47 and the last two are the only ones with viable private schools (Hartford and Canisius).
LikeLike
Basically, the BE should fill in their gaps. The Big 10 is basically copying the old BE footprint, except they go a little further west and haven’t added New England, yet.
LikeLike
One thing keeping the BigEast a hybrid does is keep the brand “BigEast” in peoples’ minds throughout the year.
Being a bball only league puts them in the category of the A-10 and WCC, though better than both, still puts them in that category.
LikeLike
I think a scheduling alliance with the WCC would a great idea and quite doable, but Duke would never choose non-FB Big East over the Big XII.
Not only would it mean forcing them to try and find a mid-major home for their FB team, it would be a massive cut (we are talking $20+ million a year) and kill their non-revenue recruiting (the BEast’s non-FB schools have very weak athletic departments outside of BB). In addition, it would leave them on the outside in the event the power conferences break with the NCAA.
Also, while Duke does maintain “historical, formal, on-going, and symbolic ties” with the United Methodist Church, it is a non-sectarian school.
LikeLike
If I’m running ESPN, I go to the Catholic-7 and promise them $10-15 million per year for a 10 (or so) team basketball league for around 10 years.
That would be the icing on the cake of this round of realignment.
LikeLike
Tell them to grab Butler and Xavier and maybe a school like VCU…
LikeLike
I agree. Seems like a money maker the way the old Big East was. These would all be serious basketball schools. Would UConn and Cincinatti ask and/or be allowed to be basketball only members of this group?
Georgetown
Villanova
Marquette
St. John’s
DePaul
Providence
Seton Hall
+Butler
+Xavier
+VCU/St. Louis/Creighton/UMass
LikeLike
Definitely Xavier, Butler, and SLU.
Maybe 2 of Creighton, Dayton, and VCU as well.
You’d have an even number in the East Coast and Midwest.
LikeLike
The two sides should have split in 2005. They’ve both had to make compromises to keep the other side happy and have suboptimal groupings now.
LikeLike
$10M sounds a little high for just basketball.
LikeLike
That’s far less than what BE basketball gets now.
LikeLike
How much do the basketball-only schools get now?
LikeLike
BE bb schools get around $1.5 million/team.
LikeLike
Big 10 has a $12 million CBS basketball contract signed when they had 11 teams. And that doesn’t count anything from BTN or ESPN. Basketball isn’t broken out separately.
LikeLike
It would be cool. Get Detroit and St Loius.
LikeLike
Detroit does play lacrosse,
unlike St Louis, Xavier, Dayton, and Butler.
LikeLike
Lacrosse attendance even for the powers is pitiful, and Detroit isn’t good at basketball.
LikeLike
Detroit’s OK at BB. They make the tourney every few years, including last year. It is a small program, but in a large tv market. A better conference would be a real shot in the arm for them.
LikeLike
The BigEast is in need of a 6th LAX program to maintain it’s Automatic Qualification in the sport. As jj points out, it is a large tv market. Though the schools location in the metro area negatively affects attendance.
LikeLike
Or NBC Sports Network ~ they surely need the programming. Indeed, as described above, a Former Big East / WCC conference agreement would give them back to back ET/PT games.
LikeLike
Here’s my National Championship! Go U NU!!!!
LikeLike
I would like to see a 16 school conference with those teams and additions from some of the top mid major conferences. I guess you would call it the Big America
West
Creighton
Drake
DePaul
Marquette
South
St. Louis
Butler
Xavier
Belmont
North
St. Johns
Providence
Villanova
SetonHall
East
VCU
Georgetown
Davidson
Robert Morris
I would love to see some of these matchups and the tournament could still be held at the Garden.
LikeLike
Just for shiggles, can anyone conceptualize a scenario where the B1G would invite FSU and hold back admission to the CIC until some time in the future? I think not, but would be interested in other thoughts. I don’t think that scenario is terribly different than admitting Nebraska, only to have UM and UW vote them out of the AAU.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine that happening; the move to remove UIC and make the membership solely “the Big Ten + University of Chicago)” is something of an indication that it’s going to be a membership group like that.
Plus, if you’re going to add a non-AAU, wouldn’t you want them to have access to the CIC to aid them with collaborative efforts?
LikeLike
Agreed. I’m just curious as to the groups take on an emerging athletic based expansion. Our historic trends have been the premier land grant/research university in the state. FSU is not that, but with our mutual emphasis on demographics/need to improve on the field, we need to get into Florida.
I’m just thinking through the logistics of how to reconcile it all – there does seem to be a progression between B1G athletics/CIC/AAU. Aren’t you a little bit surprised that we didn’t circle the wagons in support of Nebraska? Doesn’t that support some indication of stratification among the CPOC? Such a move with FSU would make a statement that our members still must meet minimal standards to play on the academic/research sides.
LikeLike
“We” don’t need to get into Florida….only the empire builders on here feel that urge…..go back and read the comments of Chan. Wier(sp?) from Illinois concerning the admissions of MD and Rutgers, and the points she emphasized….
LikeLike
We need to get deeper into the South for sure, but how far is still a questionmark.
There’s no doubt at this point though that virtually all of the future additions will come from some mix of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and/or Florida.
Those 4 states will produce the next 2 additions.
LikeLike
“We” don’t get to choose (unfortunately!). TPTB have made it clear that expansion to 16 is in the cards. As such, I seriously doubt such a business savvy group plan on leaving us a future that doesn’t include TX, CA and FL (as silly as that sounds with us being ‘The Northern Conference’). All of this creep through PA, MD and beyond points in that direction. Plus, I wouldn’t doubt that The U and FSU are trying NE’s tactic of saying “We’re going somewhere, here’s your chance”. It remains to be seen if they have the cache to pull it off.
LikeLike
Sometimes (actually often-times), I question this whole academic “ranking” BS.
There are so many variables… such as: the school’s “mission”, is focus undergrad or graduate?, is school’s focus research related?, which field or field’s are the research dollars put towards?, how much money is available for research?, is faculty focused on student achievement, or fellow faculty achievement?, does school care more about academic prestige, or athletics?, does the local/state government “drive” what the university stands for?, does said school have long-standing high or low academic “rating”?
Outside of the school itself, there often are other variables that will drive the “value” of said school’s degree. For instance, you go to school ‘A’ and choose to find a job in location ‘B’—and the general payrate/scale is lower in location ‘B’ than in location ‘A’s backyard, does this lessen the value of the degree. Could be switched in many ways.
I look no further than the industry I work in… commercial nuclear. In my technical specialty, the rates from north to south (excluding Texas) vary dramatically— to the tune of 10’s of thousands of dollars per year.
My training/education is courtesy of the U.S. Navy—I have no formal “degree” per se; and earn considerably more money than some folks with Master’s degrees.
There is so much that is “relative” in terms of education that is not comparable in straight un-biased terms.
That is why many of these arguments are silly when comparing schools—there is no hard “apples-to-apples” methodology—lots of perception…
A lot lies with what the people on these school boards believe in and look to as good, great, or not-so-much… Unless we know direct profiles of these people–no way to tell what “drives-the-bus”.
LikeLike
Well we know the profile of the Presidents. The vast majority probably have degrees from 1 of about 30 universities. And we have a pretty good idea of what they value. It doesn’t matter what individual graduates do. Its the President’s perception of the academic status of the university.
I had a friend transfer from UCLA to Kentucky because Kentucky was better in her major. The University of Houston is #2 in the country behind Cornell in Hotel and Restaurant Management. Yet you won’t get anyone to seriously say Kentucky is a better school than UCLA overall or that Houston should be in the same class as Cornell.
LikeLike
I think the problem is that there’s two different perceptions at work here:
1) What do the presidents think about other institutions; peer rankings and the like? Those metrics are mostly based on things that the international rankings are based on and the like. They’re based on output of PhDs and research and various metrics like that.
2) What do the lay people think? This kind of thinking is heavily influenced by the US News rankings and that kind of lay prestige.
The second aspect does obviously influence universities in the sense that they all know that the top flight students in terms of GPA/SATS/extracurriculars will want to go to the higher ranked universities according to US News and so they have to react to that.
But the first aspect is far more important to the most valued faculty/professors along with governments and institutions (corporations or otherwise) that collaborate with universities.
LikeLike
I agree it is difficult to interpret a absolute rankings of schools. All have different criteria and most are subjective. I think it is very interesting that in most rankings all the B1G schools are relatively closely packed compared with other conferences, with Nebraska an outlier in seemingly all rankings. I dont’ think you can really use the ranking to say that B1G are better schools that Pac 12 or ACC in an absolute sense, but you can say that B1G is more homogeneous, and that is an important consideration in conference expansion.
LikeLike
When the BT was looking at expanding to 12 I took a close look at NEB and MO, as well As RUT, concerning ratings in individual fields…….NEB and MO were both pretty big “reaches” in terms of prominence in the rated fields of study, even when compared to IU, MSU, Iowa. This is one reason that I don’t think FSU will pass muster with the BT presidents….and why they are looking seriously at a school like GT, which has such little appeal in other areas…….
LikeLike
Well, the B10 COPC isn’t going off of fairly subjective criteria like “value of degree”. Mostly research prowess, when they talk about “academics”.
LikeLike
Test
LikeLike
How Maryland went to the Big Ten
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/maryland-to-big-ten-its-money-versus-tradition/2012/12/11/3c5da16c-3fd0-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html
LikeLike
Maryland felt like an outlier in the ACC without many natural rivals, they’ll likely be one in the B10 too but as last they’ll get paid.
LikeLike
That all depends on the additional programs the Big Ten is able to add to the conference. If programs like North Carolina, Duke, Virginia or Georgia Tech are included to make a 16- or 18-team conference, then Maryland will have plenty of familiar company in their midst.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the conference is planning on opening an East coast office, so everything won’t be coming from B1G HQ back in the Chicago area. That should be a much different situation from what Maryland had with the ACC based solely in Greensboro, NC.
LikeLike
If Maryland already felt like an outlier while in a conference with NC, Duke, Va, and Ga Tech. Why would adding them to the B1G do anything for Md. Plus, they already felt like they did not have natural rivals. That does not change by adding the ACC schools.
LikeLike
@acaffrey
I think he’s just talking about the fact that Loh was able to discuss future expansion plans with the Big Ten.
If he feels that there’s more ACC schools on the way, he might have been more comfortable with the move.
But you’re right, especially nowadays, every conference has outliers. Maryland was outside the Tobacco Road group, and they’re in a small Eastern bloc now (PSU/Rutgers/MD) now.
LikeLike
@acaffrey
While the record of 1-31-1 doesn’t seem to justify it, Maryland’s greatest rival is and will be PSU! The Mason-Dixon line designates Maryland’s northern border, and high schools have played PA vs. MD Elite teams for a long time. And PSU recruits extensively in MD. We won’t have any problem finding a rival! Tobacco Road has its own culture and way of doing things and we were just “too Northern.” As the “end of the South and the beginning of the North”, MD versus PSU is going on the schedule and will be sold out. And despite the record, every PSU game was sold out even in old Memorial Stadium where the Baltimore Colts played. No problems with finding a rival believe me! And despite having two NFL teams within a radius of 35 miles of campus, that rivalry will still take off like mad…. Trust me.
Nemo
LikeLike
I am sure that Md will make new rivals, etc. My only point is that adding schools that–if Md was not satisfied being in a conference with UNC and Virginia, why would adding UNC and Virginia to the B1G mean anything to them now? They will only like UNC if both Md and UNC are in a conference that makes more money and/or had Purdue in it?
This was all about money, plain and simple. Maryland would not care if the B1G added San Diego State and Hawaii. Just keep sending the CA$H.
LikeLike
As a side note, the Big33 HS all-star game was played between Pennsylvania and Maryland from 1985-92, with Pennsylvania going 6-2 against Maryland during that time. Maryland was then dropped in favor of Ohio, and the two played from 1993-2012 (Penn 9 – Ohio 10). In October, the Big33 announced it was dropping Ohio to return its matchup with Maryland. I seriously doubt they had any real clue, but given the timing of both switches it’s a curious coincidence.
Anyway, it’s not a massive game that fuels a rivalry alone, but it certainly adds to it. A lot of the kids that have played in the Big33 over the years went onto OSU and PSU (plus Michigan, MSU, etc). So Maryland does have that going for it as the school (and state) begin the transition over.
LikeLike
The way you describe it, Maryland is essentially a nomad roaming the collegiate conference desert. You say they’re an outlier in the ACC and suggest the same situation will prevail in the Big Ten.
Would Maryland not have been an outlier in a hypothetical 16-team ACC that had even more teams from the northeast, i.e., UConn and Rutgers to go along with Syracuse and Pittsburgh? Because if your answer to that is also no, then why not go for the money?
Most Maryland fans I know are basketball-centric and they’d tell you right off that their primary rivals are North Carolina and Duke. Beating either of those two teams on the hardwood helped make that particular athletic season in a very big way in College Park.
So if UNC and Duke were part of an enlarged B1G, my assessment is they’d immediately have two natural basketball rivals right off the bat. Add in what was a rather one-sided annual football game with Penn State and you have a handful of identifiable relationships/rivalries right there.
LikeLike
So I guess Maryland was NOT an outlier in the ACC. That is fine. As long as someone wants to be consistent. But to leave the ACC because of a lack of rivals and relationships, and then want to see some of those schools join is intellectually dishonest.
Maryland can do whatever it wants and engage in whatever double-speak it wants. It’s just that some people will call them on it.
Carry on.
LikeLike
I agree with acaffrey. The logic does not make sense. Calling Maryland and “outlier” in the ACC itself seems false. But that’s what Maryland itself claims. Sure, for much of the ACC’s existence, Maryland was the northern border. I suppose the problem was that Maryland’s biggest rival was Virginia. But Virginia did not reciprocate that view. It views Virginia Tech (now that they always play) and arguably North Carolina (at least for football) as bigger games.
That’s not going to change in the Big 12. Maryland will not suddenly become the biggest rival of any of the old school Big 10 teams. The only schools they have a shot with are Penn State (best geographics) and Rutgers (cause who actually has a rivalry with Rutgers?). But it’s hard to imagine anyone from Penn State caring as much about a Maryland game then other big games. Furthermore, adding more ACC schools does nothing for Maryland as they’ve already established and admitted they were an outlier there too.
LikeLike
@cutter
“So if UNC and Duke were part of an enlarged B1G, my assessment is they’d immediately have two natural basketball rivals right off the bat. Add in what was a rather one-sided annual football game with Penn State and you have a handful of identifiable relationships/rivalries right there.”
Clarifications:
First, while MD was interested in a Mid-Atlantic conference, PSU ended up as an Independent. So MD remained within the ACC an offshoot of the old Southern Conference.
Second, although we had great rivalries in hoops with teams like NC State, North Carolina and Duke, none of those schools ever considered us as their primary rivalry. As long as the ACC was small and we played home & home, the games were intense in both football and basketball. However, if you asked a Dookie who was their most intense rival, the answer was usually UNC. Va also was not really our rival although the games were pretty intense. They were “Jefferson’s school”, and we were academically beneath them. PSU which was Independent had a great following and our games were always sold out. Clemson too, although not great in hoops, was always a really decent football rival.
Third, if UNC and VA came to the B1G, I’m sure that MD would welcome that move and those schools now absent their ACC rivals, would form a better B1G affiliation. As for Rutgers, we hardly played them, but I suppose it is fair to say that the group of schools from NC to NJ could develop into a great rivalry.
Four, although the ACC was predominantly a hoops league, MD tried to develop better football. The problem was always the shadow of Pro sports teams in DC and Baltimore and a undervalued AD. We had some minor success, and went to some bowl games, but our record was less than stellar overall.
Conclusion: Because the Southern teams had intense rivalries together (and in-state rivals at that), MD was always an outlier so to speak. If some of those in-state rivalries were now broken, I think MD would love to see GaTech, UNC or VaTech to the Big Ten to begin to develop an even more intense rivalry with Rutgers and PSU. As I said it would be a more or less Mid-Atlantic cluster that could be great if coupled to a couple of great Big Ten teams. But, as in all things, you pick we play ’em. We’re the new kid on the block…
LikeLike
It seems clear that growing size of the ACC greatly increased Maryland feelings of isolation. When they went to 12 schools, Maryland stopped playing UNC annually in football; the plan to move to 14 schools left Maryland not even playing Virginia home-and-home in basketball.
If, say, Virginia and Virginia Tech joined the B1G and the conference used a pod schedule for football and basketball (so they had home-and-homes every year with the 2 Virginia schools and Rutgers), Maryland and Virginia would have a stronger rivalry in the B1G than i they would have had in a 14 team ACC.
LikeLike
From the article
In the Big Ten, like in most conferences, each school receives an equal share of the league’s annual revenue. But Nebraska, which entered the Big Ten for competition in 2011, won’t receive the full share of revenue for several years, according to reports. Loh didn’t know it, but the Big Ten also was negotiating a deal to bring in Rutgers that would phase the Scarlet Knights into the conference over time.
“We expect to deliver incremental value,” said Pernetti, the Rutgers AD. “So you should expect to grow incrementally.”
The Big Ten’s desire was to have new members earn a gradually larger piece of the revenue over a six-year period. But Maryland felt its stability in the ACC offered more bargaining leverage than Rutgers had in the crumbling Big East.
“There is no reason for us to leave,” Loh said. “So if we are going to consider, seriously, leaving, it has got to be worth our while.”
Perhaps, if the Big Ten really wanted Maryland, the two sides could figure out a way the Terrapins could receive a larger share of the Big Ten’s pie earlier. The potential solution was to get creative, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. By front-loading the deal — moving some money from years well into the future to the Terrapins’ first six years in the conference — Maryland was able to secure the cash it will need to address some of its immediate financial problems.
LikeLike
This is exactly what Missouri was trying to negotiate when the deal fell through.
LikeLike
I don’t know about that. There isn’t really anything in that article to say that Maryland won’t pay the exact same amount to establish equity in the Big Ten that Nebraska did plus whatever loans are floated to them up front. Nebraska’s deal is just a greater percentage of revenue over a shorter period of time.
You’ve been contending that Missouri was offered Big Ten membership and refused any deal that made them as I believe you put it a “junior member.” That doesn’t appear to be what happened here.
LikeLike
Honestly I don’t know exactly what all went into the argument. I do know that the reduced revenue was considered to be a problem by Missouri and they were looking for ways to improve it, but the Big Ten didn’t want to negotiate at the time. Also, at the time there was talk of the Big Ten expanding to 14 including Missouri. As for Missouri being #12, reports vary on that one. I can’t say with any confidence that they were at any point a lock for spot #12, but the thinking at the time was that the Big Ten was going to 14. The Pac 12 was going to expand at the time too, but then they stopped at 12 and so did the Big Ten. When the SEC came along and offered Mizzou full revenue from day one Mizzou took it rather than waiting on the Big Ten to come back and give them spot #13 or 14. This is what I’ve heard from multiple sources, all at Missouri.
LikeLike
Missouri absolutely was not considered a #12 any more than Pittsburgh was. It may have been true that they once were viewed as a #14 (this was before Delany knew Nebraska was in play); but once the Big Ten secured Nebraska as #12, Missouri lost their worth as an expansion candidate to the Big Ten. The Big Ten is done expanding west. Missouri was a good #14 to the SEC as a package deal with a school with the potential of A&M; but dreaming that Missouri ever was a solo expansion candidate is foolish. Your ‘sources’ from Missouri aren’t very good sources to site; they were played as bad as anyone in the expansion race of 2010.
LikeLike
Mizzou lifted their skirt to the B1G twice. If there were contractual issues the first time, they’d have ironed them out for the second round of negotiations.
I don’t doubt that Mizzou was looked at, or that there were initial financial talks. But I highly doubt this story about having an offer and refusing revenue terms.
LikeLike
What we have in the last two posts are a Notre Dame fan who uses a Husker slogan for his handle but claims not to be a husker fan, as well as a Jayhawk fan, being dismissive of a story about Missouri. No surprises there.
And they’re basing their dismissiveness on their own gut feelings, not on any kind of facts. Again, not a surprise.
LikeLike
Since when is OrderRestored a Nebraska slogan? I have no biased against Missouri; only against ignorant people who spew mis-information about sub par teams. Maybe some of that is me being a Notre Dame alum/fan and hence a little elitism filtering in when it comes to college football; but if someone was on here spewing craziness about how Kentucky was a sleeping giant in football, I’d be on them just the same. 90% of what you say is garbage. Missouri does not have a bad football program, but they don’t have a great one either. They are very average. The numbers don’t like no matter how many decades you wish to erase or injuries you want to attribute. Average is average. Expect nothing more than 7 wins a season from Missouri in the SEC.
LikeLike
The expansion plan in 2010 was Nebraska, Missouri + one eastern school, either Maryland or Rutgers.
Nebraska quickly signed on to the reduced revenue deal. Missouri tried to negotiate. An eastern school was never settled on. Then the Pac 12 expansion fell through and the Big Ten decided to only add one instead of 3. Nebraska had already agreed to the reduced revenue and they got the spot.
I don’t know every detail but what I’m saying above is the gist of it.
LikeLike
OrderRestored, I don’t know what your problem is if you’re not a husker fan. You’ve got way too much hostility for Missoui for an Irish fan. Missouri hasn’t played Notre Dame in about 30 years. What do you care?
Missouri has been to 8 bowls in the last 10 years and has significantly more wins than Notre Dame over the last decade as well. Maybe that’s what bothers you?
LikeLike
As I stated before, I don’t have any venom for Missouri; but I do for the way you are portraying them. As for recent success, it doesn’t bother me at all. I knew Notre Dame would be back eventually; Missouri’s never been there to get back (despite how you portray them on here or in your own little fantasy world). Notre Dame is a brand. Missouri is a side comment.
LikeLike
“Missouri has been to 8 bowls in the last 10 years and has significantly more wins than Notre Dame over the last decade as well. Maybe that’s what bothers you?”
Since 2000:
ND: 98-62
Bowl Appearances: 9 (4 BCS)
Missouri: 93-69
Bowl Appearances: 8 (0 BCS)
LikeLike
@manifesto,
Thank you, you beat me to it! Like I said Andy, 90% garbage.
LikeLike
@ Andy,
The fact that you are even trying to compare Missouri to Notre Dame just shows how blind of a homer you really are. Absolutely astonishing.
LikeLike
Missouri has been to 29 bowls, including 8 BCS level bowls (8 Orange, 2 Sugar, 2 Cotton), so to say they’ve “never” been there isn’t really right. They’ve finished quite a few seasons ranked in the top 20 and several in the top 10.
Notre Dame is of course quite a bit better historically, no doubt. But Missouri has had success. Unfortunately we had a university president in the 80s who hated football so we went from a top 20 program to an absolute bottom feeder in a hurry and we’ve been slow to recover.
LikeLike
manifestodelux, that’s a 13 year range, I said 10 years.
2000-2002 Mizzou sucked terribly and Notre Dame was pretty good so that of course balanced out your numbers.
2003-2012 Missouri has a healthy lead in wins over Notre Dame. You shouldn’t have too much trouble looking that up.
LikeLike
The last “BCS level” bowl that Missouri has gone to was the 1970 Orange Bowl.
LikeLike
“2003-2012 Missouri has a healthy lead in wins over Notre Dame. You shouldn’t have too much trouble looking that up.”
Missouri: 81-47 (.633)
Bowl Appearances: 8 (0 BCS)
ND: 74-50 (.597)
Bowl Appearances: 8 (3 BCS – 1NCG Appearance)
A lead, yes. Not sure I’d consider that lead much to write home about however when taken in context.
LikeLike
Greg, that’s only because in 2007 BCS #6 ranked Missouri was passed over by the Orange Bowl for BCS #8 ranked Kansas and was passed over by the Rose Bowl for BCS #13 ranked Illinois (two teams Missouri had beaten head-to-head that year) in what was generally recognized nationally as a colossal screw job.
Missouri went on to play in a sold-out Cotton Bowl while Kansas struggled to sell their allotment for the Orange Bowl, so it wasn’t about ticket sales. It was politics.
LikeLike
“Perhaps, if the Big Ten really wanted Maryland, the two sides could figure out a way the Terrapins could receive a larger share of the Big Ten’s pie earlier. The potential solution was to get creative, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal. By front-loading the deal — moving some money from years well into the future to the Terrapins’ first six years in the conference — Maryland was able to secure the cash it will need to address some of its immediate financial problems.”
——————————————————-
So Maryland won’t be paying its 6 years of “buy in” during this decade.
It’s likely to occur in the 2020s…
LikeLike
I suspect one of the reasons why Maryland wanted to get more of their money up front in the deal is to restore some or even all of the seven sports it had to terminate a few years ago for budgetary reasons.
Seeing that the move out of the ACC to the B1G was going to have negative publicity surrounding it, this would be a tangible item right out the chute to show the benefits of the move. The teams that were dropped were men’s and women’s swimming and diving, acrobatics and tumbling, men’s tennis, women’s water polo and men’s cross country and indoor track and field.
Rutgers had to drop a half dozen sports back in 2007 as well. Those six teams were lightweight and heavyweight Crew, the swimming and diving team, men’s tennis teams and the men’s and women’s fencing.
LikeLike
I hope you are right, but history has shown that sports are cut far more easily than restored. The money just gets pumped into those that survived, raising support for them (coaches salaries, etc), and new facilities.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-12-06/sports/bal-maryland-forms-commission-to-study-restoring-dropped-athletic-teams-20121206_1_barry-gossett-president-wallace-loh-maryland-athletics
MD already has a committee looking at which of the 7 dropped sports they should restore and when.
LikeLike
Men and Women’s Swimming and Diving would seem likely to be among restart targets there, if “restart them all” is not on the cards.
LikeLike
My guess is that Maryland’s pay will be frozen for a period of 6 years during the 2020s and the difference between a 100% share and their own will go back into the conference coffers.
So for example from every year between 2021 and 2026 they’ll get $46 million each year, while the rest of the teams experience regular increases.
LikeLike
Or they could give them smaller increases over that same or longer period of time.
LikeLike
And if they experience higher than expected revenue (FB attendance spikes) they could pay down ahead of schedule.
LikeLike
@zeek
Yeah I don’t think they’ll have frozen increases. They’ll ultimately at year X just grow at a much smaller rate for a period of years until their advance loans and BTN equity buy-in are paid off.
Nebraska was in a financial position to weather the two years of reduced Big XII payouts due to their exit-fee and didn’t need an immediate huge financial incentive to leave and sell the move. Thus Perlman chose to get on a path to full equity as soon as possible.
LikeLike
It’s surprising that Loh had no emotional connection to the ACC and the school’s historic athletic rivals. Loh’s clinical summation of his choice (money versus tradition) will be somewhat disappointing to fans whose passion helps fund college athletics. The move was a straight money decision.
LikeLike
Pablo,
A lot of people pay little, if any, attention to sports. Elite academics are probably more likely to not pay attention than most.
LikeLike
Brian,
That also doesn’t even get into the fact that at these universities (particularly Big Ten universities which are almost uniformly large enrollment, giant research institutions), you’re talking about presidents overseeing operations that range in the multi-billion dollar revenue and expenses range.
College athletics are only a tiny portion of the pie at these places; at most 2-4% of the school’s overall revenue and expenses is in that athletics budget. While it’s the “front door” to the university, in reality the rest of the universities’ operations dwarf their athletic departments…
LikeLike
Yes, it appears that Loh didn’t really follow UMD athletics. When I read about the top 5 UMD sports, I actually believe that they had earned a terrific reputation and created great rivalries in the ACC:
1) Basketball – UMD ranks third (only after UNC & Duke) in NCAA tournament appearances by ACC teams. There are a lot of classic games, players and coaches that fans remember. It will take a long time to develop that sort of rivalry with an Indiana, Illinois or Michigan State…and it will never occur with Penn State or Rutgers.
2) Football – UMD ranks third (only after Clemson & FSU) in all-time ACC Championships. Even in UMD’s best years…the Randy White led teams in the mid-70s…they were losing consistently to Penn State. They’ll never develop a rivalry with Penn State if they always lose their games.
3) Men’s Lax – UMD has been to the most tournaments of any ACC team, but they have been incredibly competitive rivalries with UVA, Duke and UNC.
4) Men’s Soccer – UMD leads in ACC Championships with 22 all-time. But similar to Lax, it has been the ongoing rivalries with UVA and Clemson that make competition interesting.
5) Women’s Basketball – UMD, UVA, UNC and Duke all have great traditions and each team has made 3 or 4 Final Four appearances…the equality of the competition has been incredible for those four schools.
Folks only talk about conference realignment being “100 year decisions”. Loh proved that these decisions are really based on 5 to15 year financial analysis. In UMD’s case, the school desperately needed a cash infusion and B1G membership offered the solution.
LikeLike
Some fine rivalries, true, but relatively little money and saddled in a conference with a dreadful football brand. This isn’t 1982 anymore; basketball no longer pays the bills. Loh and Maryland made the right choice. (Also, if Maryland had played Penn State in the early ’50s, the Jim Tatum era in College Park, the Terps almost certainly would have won a few more games against PSU.)
LikeLike
Conference realignment armageddon should be complete by 12/21/2012 say the Mayans…
Worst case scenario…
– Big East Catholic Schools break away yet leave Big East name (nBE 13 football (ECU promoted to all sports))
– Boise and SDSU return to MWC (MWC 12; nBE 11)
– ACC grabs UConn and Cincy (ACC 16; nBE 9)
– B12 grabs Clemson and FSU (B12 12(!); ACC 14)
– Navy decides to remain Indy (nBE 8)
– nBE goes back to 12 with So Miss, UAB, Tulsa and Marshall (nBE 12; CUSA 10)
– UTEP goes to their natural home in the MWC and takes UTSA with them (MWC 14; CUSA 8)
– CUSA merges with Sun Belt (Sun-USA 16)
Rice is home with the natural rivals, Charlotte, F_U, LaTech, MTSU, ODU, UNT, ArkSt, GSU, UL_, SoAlabama, SWTSU, Troy and WKU.
LikeLike
Step one is tomorrow. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/basketball/big_east_basketball_only_schools_c2PMii2vTg8twF80US3G6H
LikeLike
Why do we all accept the premise that NC State cares about football more than UNC? They have similar mediocre attendance numbers. They have similar rates of winning. UNC set up a gigantic cheating enterprise to support football. How does this make NCSU a football school?
LikeLike
Good question. UNC is undoubtably the state’s top football school.
LikeLike
I don’t think we do, we just assume that they want their day in the sun.
LikeLike
Saw this posted elsewhere. Interesting comments on the financial projections of moving conferences. “The way things are going, its lucky if anything is even on a napkin”:
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2527/realignment-always-the-right-move
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/2526/realignment-always-the-right-move
Number in the link was moved down 1.
LikeLike
bullet,
To me this is all spin by Delany and co. If you look at the WaPost article, there seemed to be a lot more haggling over the financial numbers and the projections that the Big Ten gave to Maryland.
LikeLike
Delany: “It’s different because we’re now clearly in two different regions of the country”. This, combined with Chan. Wier/Wies’ remarks somewhere above reflect an understanding that geography (“contiguous”) and cultural and institutuional fit still matter to the BIG……That’s why I hope and expect that they won’t give serious consideration to FSU……..
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-bcs-money-distribution-payouts/1762709/
The one hole in all of this is BYU. They split the haves and have-nots based on BCS era top 25 positions. But BYU, as I recall, has more poll points than Notre Dame and more than the average of several of the have conferences. Yet ND gets $3.5 million just for playing and BYU gets $200,000. The non-contract conferences will get an average of around $1.5 million per school.
LikeLike
Also, the last sentences make the revenue split among the Big 5 a little murky. It was said the Big 5 would split equally. But this article says the SEC would receive a little more in the beginning as there was a performance element. If they earned more in the future by having more participants, that would be part of the $6 and $4 million per bowl. But that’s not what this says.
LikeLike
The big cut of money is split equally between the Big 5.
I’d imagine that the extra $6 million and $4 million payouts come from the remainder.
LikeLike
The sooner they kill the bowls the better. They ought to be audited over their non-profit status.
LikeLike
The Big Ten Network is using the “Nebraska strategy” first tested last year for the expanded footprint in Maryland and Rutgers as well. Basically if the cable operators don’t agree to BTN’s in market terms, BTN will be blacked out and provided on an alternate channel only to those operators that sign on.
This worked in Nebraska where they’d have been riots if BTN had been blacked out. We’ll see how it works in New York/New Jersey and to a lesser extent Maryland as well.
http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/12/10/Media/BigTenNet.aspx
LikeLike
The Maryland situation should resolve itself fairly easily and without blackouts; Maryland is a big enough deal in Baltimore and the Maryland portion of D.C. that there shouldn’t really be that much of an issue combined with the Big Ten alumni presence.
The big issue is definitely going to be New Jersey; I’m not sure how that’s going to work out in the short-term…; may actually have a year or two of blackouts…
LikeLike
With the YES Network in tow, it’ll work easily.
LikeLike
Yeah, but my understanding was that the YES affiliate deals don’t expire for a little while; probably a year or two after Rutgers joins at the earliest.
It might behoove the Big Ten to wait anyways until the YES affiliate deals are up and then have FOX bundle them at that point…
But that would mean Rutgers blackouts for a year or two…
LikeLike
With Fox owning a good share of YES (if that is true), it’ll work easily.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
Fox bought 49% of YES with a path to majority ownership the same week Rutgers and Maryland were voted into the Big Ten. Like Zeek said though, nothing can really happen until the existing YES deals with cable affiliates are up for renewal. That isn’t going to be immediate.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
Marquette AD: “(Big East) changed. Somebody came & put new furniture in & boy do we still fit here is what everyone is thinking about”
Expand
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
Marquette AD: “I wasn’t pleased we issued invitation to Tulane w/out any diligence to what effect that would have on our basketball product”
————————————————————————-
Catholic-7 grousing being aired publicly now…
LikeLike
That is about a brutal of a comment about a future conference member we’ll ever see.
LikeLike
It kind of makes me wonder how the invitation came about. Did they give power to the commionser to invite two members without consulting or did he just basically say, “look I need these two approved right now to salvage our TV contract,” and then the presidents looked at it and saw the only people helped were the football teams.
LikeLike
My understanding of the process is that commissioners typically get a couple of schools screened for “pre-approval” and then go out and speak to the school(s) that they want, and then take the votes.
LikeLike
Who knows how it works in the Big East? It is absurd that anyone is criticizing an addition though. The time for that was behind closed doors. Very unprofessional.
LikeLike
Oh, I agree completely.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an AD make a statement like this after a school was admitted to his school’s conference.
Way beyond anything I’d expect.
LikeLike
You’re assuming they will ever be in the same conference again. All bets are off at this point.
LikeLike
Fair point, this may show just how far along the Catholic-7 schools are in terms of wanting to break up the league…
You rarely ever see this kind of statement made after a school is added to a conference.
LikeLike
Yes, but you also rarely see a conference in a position of having to woo seven of its members to stay in the conference and play doormats in their primary sport.
LikeLike
A catholic league would have the benefit of being a simple, coherent product. The BEast is a total clusterf right now and agree with Marquette here.
LikeLike
Frank, make a new post pls this is totally unwieldy!
LikeLike
It’ll happen (new post) but he’s busy with another job…
LikeLike
How dare he? Priorities, man.
LikeLike
What’s funny is that they were charter members of CUSA together.
LikeLike
The Tulane problem is really just a symptom of the disease. The real worry of the Catholic schools is that UConn and Cincinnati are trying to get out of Dodge, and the league will be left with no other substantial basketball schools at all. The adds have been mainly for football, and when Tulane is touted as an upgrade it tells you how far they’ve fallen.
LikeLike
Franco Harris just went off on Emmert at LAX. Police called
LikeLike
Excuse me not at LAX. But Police was called apparently.
LikeLike
Lets try this again, apparently Franco and some dude name John Ziegler had a visit with Emmert about PSU sanctions that got heated enough that the police were called.
LikeLike
How can Mizzou not be on this list?
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8733842/from-nfl-college-ranking-10-best-head-coaching-jobs-football-college-football
LikeLike
LSU is too high, they got lucky to land Saban to built them up and crazy Les just kept that program running. PSU was on this list a year ago.
LikeLike
wmtiger – let’s review.
Warm weather most of the year.
LSU’s current head coach is set to make $4.2mm per year. That’s a top 5 salary. Assistants’ pay is also in the top 5.
Facilities are as good as any in the country.
Stadium attendance is #7, with an expansion in progress to bring the capacity to over 100k. Once the expansion is complete, Tiger Stadium will have over 140 suites and 6000 club seats, which equates to a license to print money.
Speaking of money, LSU is already #6 in Athletic Department revenue.
Graduation rate is #2 in the SEC, behind only Vandy.
Top 5 in placing players in the NFL.
Louisiana is #2 per capita in producing NFL talent, and I think #6 in raw numbers. The talent within a 500 mile radius of Baton Rouge is off the charts (Mississippi, Houston and Florida panhandle).
LSU has no in-state competition for players.
Before coming to LSU, Saban had only moderate success at Michigan State. LSU was always a sleeping giant. It took former LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert to recognize that, and be willing to spend the money to get a coach that shared his vision.
You might think LSU is rated too high, but I you’ll ever get a call in the event of a vacancy. Just about every objective observer of college football would disagree with you though.
LikeLike
I’m okay with LSU being on a list like this but I think that Ohio State and Florida should probably be above.
If I had to rate college football jobs by how willing I’d be to take the jobs, the list would probably go:
1) Texas
2) Ohio State
3a) Alabama
3b) Florida
5) Notre Dame
6a) LSU
6b) Michigan
I guess I don’t really agree with the ESPN list.
Texas and Ohio State are 1-2 for me because they’re clearly #1-2 in terms of resources right now, and they have a step up on their conferences in terms of recruiting.
Give Meyer a few years and I’m not sure we’ll see Ohio State go any lower than the Rose Bowl for a decade…, it’s that kind of job.
Alabama and Florida are extremely close to me; they’re going to be able to peak a little bit higher than anyone else in the SEC.
ND next; the tradition and resources and the rest.
LSU and Michigan are pretty close to one another for me.
There really isn’t that much distance from 1 to 6; they’re all kings. All of those schools can consistently get top 10 recruiting classes with the right coaches.
But in terms of money, facilities, tradition, ability/ease of winning, I’d go with that list.
LikeLike
Personally though, I think USC deserves to be above Notre Dame/LSU/Michigan as well.
LikeLike
Ranking college football coaching jobs:
1. Texas (tops in resources, king in brand, and one of the most fertile recruiting grounds in the country)
2-6. UF, ‘Bama, UGa, LSU, & tOSU (same as Texas except with slightly less revenue)
7. USC (less revenue than the group above, but as good a brand and ridiculous local recruiting grounds & location)
8. FSU (like USC with slightly less revenue and worse location)
9-13. PSU, OU, Michigan, ND & Tennessee (kings in brand & revenue but in-state recruiting grounds aren’t all that; they are close to fertile recruiting grounds but still have to pull in a bunch of out-of-state kids to compete for national titles)
(I ranked 1-13, but the difference between 1 & 13 is slight; the difference between 1 & 6 is almost nonexistent)
14. TAMU (would be in the top 6 if they had the brand)
15-16. Miami & UCLA (poorer versions of USC but the local recruiting grounds & locations are equally ridiculous).
17-25.
Nebraska has the brand and money & Oregon has the money and flashy warez, but neither are close to fertile recruiting grounds. VTech, UVa, UNC NCSU, Clemson, SC, & Auburn all have the in-state talent to contend for national titles if they ever got the same money as the top 10 programs and became the undisputed top dog brand in their region. These days, their chances of winning the national title without a Cam Newton or Michael Vick are slight.
Below these 25, I think you definitely need a Cam Newton or Michael Vick to win a national title.
LikeLike
What resources do Texas and Ohio State have that clearly differentiate them from the other schools? Practice facilities? Recruiting budgets? Assistant coaching salaries? Academic support? Large stadiums? They both have the biggest overall budgets, but are any of these other schools really lacking in terms of monetary support for their football programs?
I’m looking at Rivals current rankings for recruiting this year and here’s the list (with average stars):
2. Florida (3.67)
3. Notre Dame (3.77)
4. Alabama (3.79)
5. Michigan (3.64)
6. LSU (3.73)
8. Ohio State (3.58)
13. Texas (3.77)
Obviously, the recruiting isn’t done yet and class sizes vary, but the two teams you listed as #1 and #2 due in part to recruiting are currently in the bottom two positions of the seven schools you mentioned.
LikeLike
1. Texas
2. Florida
3. USC
4. Ohio St.
5. Alabama
6. LSU
7. UGA
8. Oklahoma
9. ND
10. Michigan
USC doesn’t have the money or facilities that the others have, but they have huge amount of local talent with far less local competition.
LikeLike
Obviously mine was college only.
LikeLike
U$C doesn’t have the money? Aren’t they trying to buy the Collesum? Endowment larger than all B1G schools except Michigan and Northwestern.
LikeLike
BTW, if you assign points (in order to determine the chances of a school winning the national championship), here’s what I come up with.
Schools 1-6 get 3 points as they all are tops in money, brand, and local recruiting grounds.
Schools 7-13 get 2 points as they are all kings in brand but aren’t at the top level (though competitive) in either money (USC & FSU) or local recruiting grounds (PSU, OU, Michigan, ND & Tennessee).
TAMU get 1.5 points as they have the money and local recruiting but not the brand.
Miami & UCLA get 1 point as they have great local recruiting but not money.
I’m revising 17 & below to include Nebraska, Oregon, Auburn, SCarolina, Stanford, MSU, UVa, UNC, OKSU, Cal, Clemson, VTech because they all have the money to win the national title with a Cam Newton or Michael Vick. UNL is a king in brand but has terrible local recruiting grounds. Oregon is a king as a brand to 18 year-olds and also has local recruiting grounds. The others have just enough talent nearby & money to be one superstar away.
By conference, then, here are the chances to win the national title by my reckoning:
SEC: 16.5
B10: 8
B12: 5.5
ACC: 5
Pac: 4.5
ND: 2
When PSU is back to normal, the B10 would be a clear second in terms of likelihood of having a school win the national championship (though still way behind the SEC). Right now they are in a pack with the rest of the conferences in being way behind the SEC in likelihood of having a national champion.
Over 17 years, you should see a distribution of national titles roughly like this:
SEC: 7
B10: 3
B12: 2
ACC: 2
Pac: 2
ND: 1
The actual distribution of national titles over the last 17 has been (giving the credit of a national title of a school to the conference that it is currently in):
SEC: 8.5
B10: 3
B12: 2
ACC: 2
Pac: 1.5
ND: 0
if you don’t count this season.
If you count this season, the distribution would be
SEC: 8.5 or 9.5
B10: 2
B12: 2
ACC: 2
Pac: 1.5
ND: 0 or 1
LikeLike
ccrider55:
USC’s athletic department doesn’t bring in nearly the same amount of revenue as the top 10 athletic departments. They’re behind Minnesota & Virginia (http://businessofcollegesports.com/2012/03/21/top-50-highest-athletics-department-revenues/)
LikeLike
Is that a snap shot of one year during USC sanctions, UO crediting a huge one time gift, and both UO and Stanford BCS teams (completely equal media revenue sharing started this year)? There is no way Stanford and UO historically and consistently out earn U$C.
LikeLike
Nope. At least with regards to Stanford. Here’s 2007-2008:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html
Stanford may actually get some revenue from their non-revenue sports. Also remember that donations counts as revenue. Oregon has a sugar daddy. Stanford has a ton of rich alums.
LikeLike
Knight earned his grad degree at Stanford. I know he has given (but not like to the school he owns) quite a bit to there. Perhaps…naw, why would he compete with himself.
LikeLike
cutter,
“What resources do Texas and Ohio State have that clearly differentiate them from the other schools?”
The combination of love of CFB, revenue and recruiting, I’d guess. The top recruiting states are usually FL, TX, CA, GA/OH. UT and OSU dominate their states at least as much as, if not more than, the other states are dominated by one school. They also top the money charts.
1. UT – $150M revenue, $134M expenses
2. OSU – 132M rev, $122M exp
3. AL – 124M rev, 105M exp
4. UF – 124M rev, 107M exp
5. MI – 123M rev, 112M exp
6. PSU – 116M rev, 101M exp
7. LSU – 107M rev, 92M exp
#3-5 all received subsidies.
“I’m looking at Rivals current rankings for recruiting this year and here’s the list (with average stars):
2. Florida (3.67)
3. Notre Dame (3.77)
4. Alabama (3.79)
5. Michigan (3.64)
6. LSU (3.73)
8. Ohio State (3.58)
13. Texas (3.77)”
For comparison, here’s Scout:
2. MI – 3.82
3. ND – 3.86
6. UF – 3.63
7. OSU – 3.84
8. LSU – 3.68
9. AL – 3.79
14. UT – 3.85
“Obviously, the recruiting isn’t done yet and class sizes vary, but the two teams you listed as #1 and #2 due in part to recruiting are currently in the bottom two positions of the seven schools you mentioned.”
Or not.
Class size:
UT – 13
OSU – 19
AL – 19
MI – 22
ND – 22
LSU – 23
UF – 24
UT and OSU have the smallest classes of the bunch so far, and Scout disagrees with Rivals about the quality of the players.
LikeLike
Would go with this ranking:
1. Texas – They pull in more money into their AD than anyone else every year. They are the highest profile school in one of (if not the) biggest recruiting hot beds around. They love their football in the state of Texas. And Austin would be a pretty good place to live.
2. Bama – While the state itself doesn’t produce the shear numbers of recruits as some other states, the Bama brand is big enough (especially in the south) to pull more than enough talent from the surrounding states. Since Saban has been there, they have consistantly been in the top 3 in revenue. But they are also #1 in spending that money on the football program (which a coach has to love). At Bama if you win, you are put on a pedestal like no other place. You are treated like a king. And no other coach has been given more power over his program as Saban has (and that would be true for any coach that has proven to win championships).
3. UF – Like UT, they are the highest profile school in one of biggest recruiting hot beds in the country. They have the money to upgrade facilities as needed, and are willing to spend it. Plus it is a nice place to live (which is why I have them at 3 instead of 4).
4. OSU – They pull in top 3 money from AD revenue (usually top 2). They are located in the biggest recruiting hot bed in the north. Currently it is easier to win in their conference than the schools I have listed above (especially the SEC schools). And they are probably the biggest king in the north.
5. USC – Like UT and UF, they are the highest profile school in one of biggest recruiting hot beds in the country. They are probably located in the best place to offer recruits as far an lifestyle and climate. I have them ranked below the teams above only because their AD doesn’t pull in quite as much as the others, and they don’t spend the money as much on the football program and the rest (just because the school has a large endowment, doesn’t mean that the money gets allocated to the football program). And they probably have a smaller fanbase than the other 4 teams.
I think UT is the clear number 1. I put Bama at #2 just for the shear fact of how a winning coach is treated at Bama and the commitment the schools has for the football program (maybe I’m a little bias here, but I think their championship history makes a strong arguement for it). UF and OSU are pretty much interchangeable in my book. I put UF ahead of OSU soley on the climate in Florida. I put USC at 5 based on the revenue & spending of the AD (especially the football program), and the fanbase. These are the clear top 5 in my book, and are on a different level than the other programs IMO.
LikeLike
Well, one could argue OSU, MI, UF, USC and/or OU (all honorable mentions or in the top 10) should be above them. I’d also say all 10 spots should be NFL jobs based on pay and the lack of having to do anything but football.
LikeLike
Of course, you can get fired in the NFL after one season. That only happens at So Miss.
BTW, how is USM liking things after they fired their coach that had a dozen straight winning seasons. I forget his name.
LikeLike
Bowers.
LikeLike
But even mediocre NFL coaches get bounceback jobs multiple times as long as they’re white.
LikeLike
As a job, Mizzou probably ranks in the low to mid 20s at this point. But it’s trending up, especially with the $200M stadium expansion in the works.
LikeLike
Overall or just in college football? If the latter, probably reasonable.
I’d consider it trending evenly in the SEC though. Having to compete against schools that need only mine their in-state talent (Florida, LSU, A&M, Georgia), as well as established teams like Arkansas, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Missouri is between Big 10 and Big XII country, but recruiting for SEC schedule.
LikeLike
Mizzou is top 10 in wins over the last 5 years. Top 20 over the last 10 years. In the upper 30s overall but that’s because of a span from 84-96 that averaged about 3 wins per season.
Attendance ranked 24th in the country this year.
Facilities are above average but like I said $200M in upgrades are being built over the next 4 years.
Mizzou is in the top football conference so that’s worth something.
Missouri football recruiting isn’t elite but it’s decent. Being in the SEC allows for recruitment of southern states as well. Historiclaly Mizzou has recruited Texas well and has a few Texas recruits this year as well as some recruits from Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee.
Basketball is top 25 all time, and top 15 over the last 5 years or so.
Overall I’d put Missouri in the mid 20s and trending up.
LikeLike
Sorry, mistake, that top 10 wins over the last 5 years isn’t true anymore. It was true before this season, but obviously this season didn’t keep pace.
LikeLike
Yeah, that article isn’t biased at all.
LSU and the Texans have no business being on that list. The Steelers and USC should be above them.
LikeLike
metatron – Biased? I had no idea that ESPN’s Gene Woj was an LSU grad with an ownership interest in the Texans.
Seriously, its his opinion and at least he gives an explanation to back it up.
But regarding college jobs, if you stand back and look at all the factors a coach would consider (winning, ability to consistently win, pay, assistants pay, facilities, revenue stream, support from administration, academic support for players, graduation rate, recruiting base, no in-state competition, weather), you’ve got “no business” having such a list without LSU on it.
Question for the board: How will two new NFL teams in Los Angeles in a brand new state-of-the-art stadium affect USC and UCLA’s attendance?
LikeLike
Not much. They haven’t had an uptick. UH and Rice didn’t have a big uptick when Bud Adams took the Oilers to Tennessee.
First I’ve heard about two teams.
LikeLike
It likely wouldn’t be an “up-tick” in attendance… Look no further than virtually ANY pro-sports town’s with a high-profile university in town—-In every one of these cities, the college athletics are dwarfed by the pro teams…
See Miami (look no further than the ‘Cane’s fair-weather attendance), San Diego, Seattle, Denver (granted CU is in Boulder, and CSU is in Fort Collins), Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minneapolis-St Paul, DC, New York… Even when the college teams are performing well, they do not get the same coverage or “love” as the pro teams.
SC will likely continue do okay in LA–because of the historic instability of pro fb teams…
LikeLike
To be fair, U Dub maintained decent attendance in spite of an extended period of true suckage. I doubt the Seahawks would have had anywhere near the same support had they traded records with the Huskies. New stadium next year. I’d bet on sell outs.
LikeLike
As Frank would say, it rolls downhill
the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference will add Quinnipiac, Wagner and Monmouth from the Northeast Conference. The announcement will be made on Friday.
The MAAC currently has 10 teams, but will lose Loyola of Maryland to the Patriot League. The newcomers will boost the MAAC to 12 teams.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4230
LikeLike
I guess that means New Jersey Tech will NOT be going to the WAC.
LikeLike
This guy seems to get half his stories from the Frank the Tank blog. His latest is on Grant of Rights. Anyone care to vet this post because I think his analysis may be incorrect?
http://atlanticcoastconfidential.com/2012/12/12/grant-of-rights-a-panacea/
LikeLike
That’s our resident acaffrey.
LikeLike
He gets his stories from FtT because he is a frequent poster. (acaffrey)
LikeLike
Leaving with a grant of rights? Noone would do that. That’s a direct quote from a “Texas official” in a recent Houston Chronicle article. And noone would invite a school with that. The Big 10 would give up a conference game of Michigan or Ohio St. when they played at Texas? Its beyond ridiculous.
The GOR is not a simple contract. Think of it like selling all your furniture to Aaron’s Leasing and then leasing it back. You can’t move it and sell it to someone else because you don’t own it. The conference owns the rights and has leased it to ESPN and Fox. An exit fee is different. It is like moving and leaving the furniture without paying for it-there would be an exit fee to the lease.
Texas has no interest in going anywhere during the GOR. And the Big 10 has no interest in inviting Texas while they are bound by a GOR. We might as well talk about the Pac 12 inviting Tulane. Its got about the same liklihood.
LikeLike
Agreed. The most important point about the GOR is that it requires a willing buyer and willing seller (the latter being the crucial issue here – no conference is going to willingly sell a school’s TV rights to another conference).
The only way around that is to challenge it in a court of law, which would challenge the legality of the Big Ten’s and Pac-12’s own assignments… which they’d never even think of doing.
LikeLike
Isn’t the PAC and B1G’s grant based on mutual desire and commitment to staying together, and an expression of that along with improving media negotiation strength and enabling a joint conference network? If it is merely an “oversized exit cost”, merely a stronger pair of handcuffs to try to hold members, what would the B1G or PAC care if it is challenged. No one is leaving either of those.
LikeLike
Because the intent wouldn’t play a role in the legality of it. It’s a contractual assignment of rights. It’s not like a penalty designed to keep a school in…
LikeLike
Unless that is its sole purpose.
LikeLike
Zeek… my MAIN point is this. It all comes down to money. A school can walk away from its rights. If NBC decided to pay the Big 10 $50M per school in the next negotiations for Tier 1 only with Texas and Florida State, and was willing to pay those schools that share even without Texas’s TV rights for the first several years… who would say no? How would the Grant of Rights stop it?
The Big XII would be powerless to prevent it. They could show Texas home games. They own the rights. Nobody needs to buy or sell anything. Texas could not force those rights to shift over. But if NBC was desperate and flush with cash, they could do whatever they want… including paying for something that would only realize a profit in the last 88 years of the 100-year plan.
LikeLike
TV networks only operate on 10-30 year time frames, they really wouldn’t be interested in a deal like that.
Especially with Big 12 schools that are on a Fox/ESPN deal.
LikeLike
Ok, that is why it would not happen. But that has nothing to do with whether it could happen.
That is why I used NBC too. Who is to say that they would not make the splash to become a player again? All it takes is a lot of money. They spent $4.4B on 4 Olympics.
$10B over 15 years to the B1G = $42M per school per year for 16 teams. With 14 teams, it is $47M. If the 14 teams agreed to give up $5M apiece, that would allow the two added teams to make an equal share immediately. If that’s a raise for Texas and a huge raise for Florida State, why not do it?
LikeLike
It depends on the offer yes, but I find it unlikely that they’ll get such a dramatic increase with half a Texas inventory, but Texas @ Michigan is a better draw than Michigan @ Purdue. The thing is, it would have to make financial sense for everyone involved. Texas would need to come out ahead, and the Big Ten would as well.
It’s not that it can’t be done, it’s that such a deal would be complicated beyond all comprehension. Who knows, maybe Texas plays a slate of all away games, even at home. Is that even legal?
LikeLike
If the deal required Texas and Texas Tech as a combo, I think that it would be very likely to be killed in the halls of academia. At least FSU and VTech are in the top 100 of US Universities and the Americas in the Shanghei rankings ~ top 200 in the world.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. Yet the new playoff deal may have been exactly what Texas needs to leave Tech behind. If the B1G and SEC go to 16… and Texas went to the B1G… the Pac-12 is likely to stay put. We could see 5 conferences… two with 16 and three with 10-12.
If I am the B1G… go after Texas and FSU. End of story. Do what you need to do to be set up for the next 50 years.
LikeLike
If school “A” (lets say PSU) declares it’s intention to move to another conference (lets say ACC), and makes that intention public, the BIG (for example) is not going to keep it in the conference against it’s will. At the least, the ticked off member is going to go to court to test the matter in a declaratory judgment-type proceeding-and it gets worked out with a settlement at that point because it’s bad business for both parties. That is why Delany was worried about losing PSU to the ACC not 20 years from now, as zeek opined, but 5 years from now.
LikeLike
I don’t believe it would or will happen, but statements from school or conference reps have no bearing on it or its possibility. “We are proud members of the Xxxx Xxxx Conference.”
LikeLike
Bullet,
A. I am the one that says a Grant of Rights is breakable here. Why would I not say it on my own blog? Nobody else honors the sentiment. I might as well.
B. My point is that there is nothing unbreakable about a grant of rights. Texas could leave the Big XII and leave its rights behind. As long as someone is willing to pay for Texas without those rights, then it can happen. Nobody would do that for Kansas State. But they sure as hell might for Texas.
C. I don’t care if Texas says they are happy and would not leave. Florida State’s A.D. says it and people say that he is lying. Virginia’s A.D. says it and is ignored. All the ACC Presidents said it, and it did not stop people here from carving up the ACC in mock distributions. Why would Texas be beyond “changing its mind”?
D. Which would be a stronger series of adds for the B1G: Virginia, NC, Florida State, and Georgia Tech or Texas, Texas Tech, Florida State, and Miami? How is it not the latter? Texas and Florida are HUGE. Warm weather. Great recruiting. Box in the SEC. Picture these divisions:
East: Florida State, Miami, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
West: Texas, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, and Indiana.
That is the only way that the B1G will ever equal the SEC in football. Within each division, 4 H and 4 A. Every team always plays in either Florida or Texas once each year. Of course, if Texas could get away from Tech, then you could just delete Tech and Miami. But then you lose the certain visits to the warm states. You cannot tell me that the money in adding 4 schools in Texas and Florida would not be a worthwhile investment. What’s the point of having all this money and not doing anything truly great with it? Why add in the comparably small markets of NJ and MD, when Florida and Texas can be had?
F. Here is another scenario… Fox approaches the Pac-12 and offers to buy a 33% stake in their network. With the injection of cash, the Pac-12 buys a few Big 12 schools. All they have to do is pay those schools what they are making now. If the TV rights do not come immediately, so be it.
G. These things may not happen ever. These things surely will not happen soon. But it will become more possible as the Grant of Rights expiration looms.
LikeLike
Remember… the school only owns the rights to its home games. It does not own the rights to its away games. So the grant of rights only involves the home games. You cannot grant what you do not have. So every B1G game where a team is hosting Texas would be on TV. Texas @ Michigan might mean 5,000 fans drive to Michigan. But how many would stay home and watch on TV????
Remember also… there is precedent for this. The ACC got extra money for adding 5 ND games to the schedule, where only 2 or 3 will be televised. ESPN was willing to pay for a fraction of a school’s games.
Remember also also… the more money a conference makes per school, the more money a new addition has to make in order for it to make sense. If School X is worth adding $20M onto a TV contract… that is worth it for the ACC to add (assuming all other factors make sense), but not worth it for the B1G to add. Once the B1G gets up to $40M per season, who can they add and make more money? Only the big dogs.
LikeLike
The Big 10 gives up the rights to conference games when pigs fly. There is no way they give up the rights to Michigan or Ohio St. away conference games (which they would if they played at Texas).
LikeLike
Who cares who has the rights? All that matters is (a) the games are on TV, so the fans can watch; and (b) the schools are making more money in Year N than they were in Year N-1.
ABC shows Michigan at Texas at 3:30 p.m. Those two schools are making $53M per year. Does the B1G care whether the TV rights to that game are going to the Big XII or B1G? The contracts are already signed. Either way, fans are turning on ABC. The difference is that Texas @ Illinois could be shown on the BTN… meaning that people in Texas would want that network. A lot more people than would turn in for Georgia Tech @ Illinois.
LikeLike
“Does the B1G care whether the TV rights to that game are going to the Big XII or B1G?”
Uh, yes, because in one case, they get paid for the game, and in the other, they don’t.
LikeLike
Why is this so hard to understand–if they are getting paid the same whether they have the rights or not, what does it matter? All it takes is for someone to decide its worth investing in Texas, even if they do not get a full compliment of TV rights. Either a network or the B1G itself. NBC loses money on the Olympics. Why? Because they use the Olympics to promote other shows. They could do the same with the Big 10. Throw so much money at the B1G and Texas that neither can say no.
LikeLike
@acaffrey
If the Big 12 has the rights, Texas and Michigan and the Big 10 get zero $ for a Michigan at Texas game. They don’t get paid. That’s the point. The Big 10 has given up a valuable product, a Michigan conference road game.
LikeLike
I’ll use your furniture example. You try to sell 12 couches for $1000 apiece. Someone tells you that they will give you $12,000 for one, but you need to burn the other 11 so that they have the only couch of its type in town. Does it matter whether you sold 12 couches or 1 couch–either way you got $12,000.
The B1G loses the rights to Michigan @ Texas, but as long as they are making more money by having Texas road games televised in Texas–isn’t that the point. And it’s not permanent anyway. Down the road, you would get all of Texas’s games.
It’s not like Michigan @ Texas would not be on TV. As long as everyone is making more money, who cares whose contract with ESPN or Fox is WHY it is on TV?
LikeLike
Fine, but who’s going to give you $12K for 1 sofa when the market price for a sofa is $1K? That’s the problem I have with your scenario. Yes, it’s possible, but it’s not realistic to expect the B10 or Texas or the TV networks to leave value on the table.
I have a better chance of suddenly finding out that I’m inheriting $100M tomorrow than your scenario occurring.
LikeLike
Yes, but the degree of overpay is not 12 times. I used that example to just show my point that it is what someone is willing to pay that matters, not what you think they would pay. You don’t know how much profit ESPN and FOx generate from the deals they have.
25 million people in Texas. A growing state. The best brand in college sports. A great academic school. Frank has posted that the revenue potential for Texas was $100M.
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/
Click on the link. #1 in research… 1 BILLION dollars. #1 in athletic revenue. #1 brand. The #1 target–way ahead of Notre Dame. If the B1G stalked ND for 20 years. It is time to turn to bigger and better things.
The bottom line is that people could rationalize paying top dollar for Texas because it is an investment. And a rather certain investment with all that is going for it.
LikeLike
You aren’t the only one who says it. There are also people who are constantly saying Texas is likely to head to the Pac 12 at any time. Its frustrating to keep reading stuff that is so divorced from reality. The biggest value of the GOR is that it doesn’t give the new conference much to work with. If anyone is interested in Texas they aren’t going to pursue them until near 2025. Why would anyone try to buy out rights and risk litigation from the rest of the Big 12 when they can wait 13 years? The B1G waited over 20 years for Notre Dame before settling on Nebraska. Why would the richest athletic program in the country leave behind its rights? Noone NEEDs to expand now and Texas has absolutely no financial need to move. The Texas athletic department has committed to give the academics a minimum of $11.6 million a year. They might give them more.
Now what Texas does in 2025 is anybody’s guess. I don’t believe they are going anywhere if the finances are reasonably close. But there will be new leadership then. Deloss Dodds will retire in the next 2-3 years and President Powers isn’t likely to stay more than 5.
Texas has made the decision to stay. They could have left if they wanted. They didn’t. Actions speak loudly. President Powers said when he didn’t think he would be quoted, that he wasn’t interested in flying the women’s softball team all over the midwest. The Texas commments are consistent and there is nothing that contradicts that except people speculating who, most frequently are ACC fans trying to deny their own conference’s vulnerability, and usually know nothing about Texas.
LikeLike
Nobody has to buy anyone’s rights at all. That is the myth. 4 of Texas’s games immediately switch over to the B1G networks. Are 12 Texas games worth more than 4? Sure. But if you are the B1G and looking long term–why not give up some cash in the first several years of the relationship to ensure a very lengthy, profitable relationship with an athletic, academic, marketing star like Texas. ESPN just did it for ND. With 14 schools making $1M apiece, plus ND’s cut, that means that 2 or 3 ND games is worth at least $20M per year.
How much are 4 Texas games worth? If two of them are BTN, is that basic cable time? With 25M people in Texas and 9M households, that is almost twice as many as New Jersey & Maryland put together. Plus, I suspect that there are more Texas fans outside of Texas than either Rutgers or Maryland. Florida has 2M more households than NJ and Maryland put together. Essentially… Texas and Florida have 44M people and 16M households, while NJ and Maryland have about 6M households.
How is this defending the ACC’s vulnerability? I think the B1G should make a play on Texas, Texas Tech, Florida State, and Miami. Or maybe Georgia Tech for Miami. Whatever. Why go after small dogs when you can go over the two biggest states on the board? Instead of investing in Rutgers to grow into something useful, why not invest in a blue chip money machine?
One of the ACC and Big XII could go down. Or both could remain standing. But I fail to see why the B1G would prefer anyone–even Notre Dame–more than Texas. A lot of people felt the same way before. Plus, as the G of R expires, the discussions will ramp up. Does Texas want to renew? Will there be a feeding frenzy as teams get concerned with “why Texas has not re-signed yet.”
Once the B1G starts making $40M per school… who can they add that will contribute $40M AND enough extra to make each of the 14 other schools an additional $XM/year. As the money grows, the potential adds decrease.
LikeLike
I agree it’s very highly unlikely . I believe UT made a decision for control reasons, the visibility they thought the LHN would bring them alone, and familiarity (should I say fielty?) of conference membership, but not for money. However, as acaffery is pointing out, it is not impossible. And the cost of that (small) possibility will decrease each year.
I do find it odd that it is mostly UT’s fans objecting the loudest (methinks thou doth protest too much). Are ISU, Baylor, KSU fans sitting pensively praying UT stays, rather than joining in saying no possible way, we own them (for at least 12 years)? Or have I just not been paying close enough attention and missed them?
LikeLike
Let me put it this way. The G of R is solid for every school except Texas and maybe Iowa State. Iowa State–who cares? The Big XII would probably be happier to have Cincy. A partner for WVU. The other 10 schools are not likely to add enough money to be worth paying for just a 4 game package.
But Texas might be worth paying for 10 years of 4 games, so that you can have 90 years of 9 games. That is why Texas could sign the G of R… it does not really impact them. If someone wants Texas, they will pay no matter what. The G of R does more to keep the conference intact for Texas than the other way around. Although it does bind the other 9 schools to each other pretty well.
Bottom line… if I am the B1G… I want Texas.
LikeLike
You’ve been missing them.
Texas fans are protesting because people who know nothing about Texas are spouting nonsense about the school. There’s been an enormous amount of false stuff written about Texas over the last couple of years.
LikeLike
I am not saying it is a rumor. I am just saying that the Grant of Rights does not prevent Texas from leaving. It comes down to money, nothing more nothing less.
Whether Texas has the desire, whether the B1G has the desire, whether anyone with bags of money has the desire… that is the issue.
LikeLike
I’ll try this one more time:
It involves the Big 10 giving up rights they already have
It involves Texas giving up their rights to revenues and any say
in their own telecasts
It involves the risk of litigation
It would do considerable damage to the Big 12 who would not be
cooperative
It would require cooperation from both ESPN and Fox who own the rights
Texas doesn’t need the money
The Big 10 has never been in a hurry
And it assumes you could give up huge amounts of rights to the Big 12 for that period and still make more money by having Texas in the Big 10.
It simply makes no sense whatsoever. There are a lot of things that are “possible” that make no sense. New York city could have an earthquake and sink into the Atlantic tonight. That is possible. That doesn’t mean the possibility is worth discussion even if it it is 12/12/12.
LikeLike
Bullet:
That is what comes with the territory. UT is not without blame here. A power school with a Texas size ego explores options with the B1G, and (supposedly) was hours from joining a P16 but for that little LHN thing. It’s not unreasonable for people to speculate, sometimes wildly, about what UT may have up their sleeve.
Breaking, or more accurately leaving in spite of a GOR, would be an extreme move. I don’t think it is remotely likely, but not because of it “impossibility.” If/when UT joins, or is joined in a conference that includes another king they will still be a leader, but no longer the ruler. Power is what they seem to crave most.
LikeLike
“Whether Texas has the desire, whether the B1G has the desire, whether anyone with bags of money has the desire… that is the issue.”
Yep, and the answers are “almost certainly no”, “likely no”, and “most definitely no”.
LikeLike
Bullet: I don’t remotely think it would happen, but your argument is not conclusive. Arguing they don’t want to be an equal would be more persuasive.
“It involves the Big 10 giving up rights they already have”
No, they don’t have rights to UT home games now.
“It involves Texas giving up their rights to revenues and any say
in their own telecasts”
And if the B1G can make them whole financially?
What “say”? They gave that to the B12.
“It involves the risk of litigation”
What doesn’t? Abiding by the GOR and leaving anyway?
“It would do considerable damage to the Big 12 who would not be
cooperative”
B12 would need to show that UT abiding by the GOR wasn’t in the B12s interest. Interesting.
“It would require cooperation from both ESPN and Fox who own the rights”
And they continue to retain those.
“Texas doesn’t need the money”
But they may want to move someday and some choices may have shorter shelf life’s than others.
“The Big 10 has never been in a hurry”
Not yet, but does that preclude the possibility?
“And it assumes you could give up huge amounts of rights to the Big 12 for that period and still make more money by having Texas in the Big 10.”
Exactly! Rights left would be the same as if 8 (or 9) teams were scheduling H&H series with UT now. The question is what would the added value of the BTN be. Enough to make everyone whole while awaiting the end of the GOR?
LikeLike
“Whether Texas has the desire, whether the B1G has the desire, whether anyone with bags of money has the desire… that is the issue.”
Which is where it seems likely to fall down. Texas seems much less likely to have the desire without Texas Tech, for in-state public political reasons. The Big Ten seems much less likely to have the desire WITH Texas Tech, for academic political reasons. And if there is not a politically feasible move, the people with bags of money are much less likely in being interested in backing someone trying to put it together.
LikeLike
“Less likely” to have the desire is putting it mildly. Texas Tech is an absolute NO as far as the B1G is concerned. Adding a glorified community college will never, ever happen, regardless of the rest of the proposed package.
A more realistic sticking point would be Texas wanting to bring its playmate Oklahoma. And that’s probably still a no.
LikeLike
One thing several of you still aren’t getting.
The Big 10 has all rights to Big 10 conference games. That includes all Michigan and Ohio St. road conference games. Under this scenario they only have the right to 7 of the 8 conference games for anyone on the road. That is a serious loss.
LikeLike
#1, everyone is assuming that the B1G is paid top dollar. ESPN still profits off the B1G brand. There is more room for ESPN to pay. With 44 million people living in Florida and Texas, Texas and Florida State could REALLY grow the BTN. Texas has 1B in research. FSU holds its own there. There is big money at stake here.
#2, Texas is getting,say, $20M from the Big XII. But Texas is worth far more than that. See the Longhorn network alone being worth, what, $15M per year. With most of Texas, the average is $20M. They are diluting their share to keep the Big XII alive. Same with Florida State and the ACC. Those schools are worth a lot more when they can be directly monetized by the BTN, rather than filtering through ESPN/Fox.
#3, as for losing BTN away games… that is offset by getting new home games featuring Texas. And if paired with FSU, that is a lot of great inventory.
#4, the G of R does not stop Texas from leaving. It’s just a matter of whether anyone wants them bad enough to pay/invest. No negotiating with the Big XII is required. And while it might not be doable in 2012 financially.. each successive year makes it more likely. If .001% today… it might be 4% possible in 5 years.. and so on.
LikeLike
@bullet ~ yes, that’s the other reason they wouldn’t take Texas Tech. Adding Texas and a team with unencumbered rights would be a net gain in total inventory: on an eight conference, four OOC games schedule, assuming conservatively two OOC payday games, two OOC home and away series 14 teams generate 56 conference games and 42 OOC games, or gross ~98. Sixteen teams playing a nine conference, three OOC schedule, assuming two OOC payday games and one home and away series generate 72 conference games and 40 OOC games, or gross ~112.
Losing carriage for 4-5 of those conference game and 2-3 of those OOC games brings the gross down to ~105 until 2025. Losing carriage for 9 conference games and 5 OOC games brings the gross down to 98 until 2025. And if the numbers to the top tier rights are guaranteed, the percentage lost inventory for the BTN is even higher.
Assuming aggressively all payday games all around, the inventory is 56 conference games and 56 OOC games in 14 teams, 8 conf, 4 OOC payday for 112; 72 conference games and 48 OOC games for 120 from 16 teams, 9 conf, 3 OOC payday. Losing 8 UTexas home games brings the inventory back down to 112, losing 16 UTexas / TTech games brings the inventory down to 104.
LikeLike
@Peter: “much less likely” is as mildly as I could put it. If you prefer, “snowball’s chance in an arc steel furnace.” And yes, Texas would ALSO want to bring Oklahoma, who would want to bring Li’l Oklahoma, which was where the Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Li’l Oklahoma to the Pac-10 was coming from in 2011, before it fell apart.
LikeLike
Adding any combination of TX, A&M, FSU, and TT would ruin the BT. There would be no reason for the existence of such a monstrosity other than maximizing short-term profits.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the B1G boxes the SEC in by taking Texas, Texas Tech, Florida State, and Miami. If anything, it gives the SEC more options with its expansion candidates. Taking Texas, Texas Tech, Florida State, and Miami would essentially put both the ACC & Big 12 on their death beds. So the SEC would be able to pick from OU & KU from the Big 12, and UNC, UVA, VT, NCST, & Duke from the ACC. The Pac 12 presidents would have to decide if it wanted to take OU without UT to go along with it, and would KU be worth taking. The ACC schools would be stepping all over each other to get one of the limited SEC spots since there is absolutely no way that the ACC would get a future tv contract that is anywhere near the SEC without FSU & Miami (which they can’t get now anyways even with those two schools, but without them the reality wouls set in a lot faster).
LikeLike
I quite agree: wounding BOTH the ACC AND the Big 12 does not box in the SEC, it opens up opportunities to the SEC. If the Big 12 can raid the ACC to rebuild via an Eastern division, the SEC can grow east, if the ACC can raid the Big 12 to rebuild via a Western division, the SEC can grow west. Room to grow no matter what happens is the opposite of “boxed in”.
LikeLike
The estimates keep getting worse. $40 million for the Big East?
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/21378913/boise-state-holds-the-key-to-big-easts-shaky-future
It should be noted that CBS Sports holds the rights to the Mountain West and CUSA. Dodd could be getting his estimates from people with a vested interest in Boise going back to the Mountain West.
LikeLike
Dodd doesn’t strike me as the type to go to biased sources, although it’s always possible, those sources have their reasons for the estimates that they give.
LikeLike
I think you’re right – I have no idea what the Big East of right now is worth, but it makes sense that many groups would benefit from it falling apart:
1. Schools that left may not have to pay fees or get out of part of the fees (WV, Syr, Pitt, Lou, Rut, TCU, ND)
2. CUSA and MW as you mentioned, to get Boise, SD St and maybe SMU & Houston
3. Basketball only schools if they have decided to move on alone and want a clean break
4. UConn and Cincy if they believe they have seats once the Maryland fee is resolved.
It’s possible the only schools that want the Big East in current form to make it are South Florida, Central Florida, East Carolina and Tulane!
LikeLike
Uconn & Cincy most definitely don’t believe they have seats. USF & UCF actually have better shots at entering the ACC if FSU leaves.
Also, you forgot Temple & ECU. Add them to the list of schools who want the BE to keep on existing. Navy might as well (though they’re likely indifferent).
LikeLike
My predictions:
If FSU & one of GTech/Miami leaves, the ACC will fill with USF & UCF.
If a pair of VA or NC schools leave but the other can’t find a home, the ACC will likely fill with Uconn & Temple so that the ACC still remains a basketball power.
LikeLike
Interesting opinion – I think USF (& I suppose Temple if they count) is the most likely current BCS school to get left out long term since they have little history, have had little time to establish themselves and there are already 3 big time schools in Florida.
UConn is in the populated NE Corridor right next to NY, is a very rich state with likely strong connections and has a strong basketball tradition while Cincy is the second school in football recruit rich Ohio, is also a basketball power and has the academic profile to match the power conference teams.
LikeLike
When you’re comparing schools that aren’t close to being brand-names, tradition doesn’t really matter; access to rich recruiting grounds does, and USF & UCF have that (FL is far richer than OH for football talent). I don’t see the ACC giving up FL as the entire conference relies on that state for football talent.
LikeLike
I imagine the blue bloods would revolt. Miami’s still in the conference, and Miami is still a city in Florida, last I checked.
LikeLike
Assuming there are bluebloods left in the ACC.
Plus, remember that this is a conference that just took in Louisville. You can’t really say with a straight face that Louisville is academically acceptable but UCF and USF aren’t.
LikeLike
No, but I think you can say that a school with a brand name in hoops and a surging football department is worth a little more academic slack. Really, I think USF and UCF are undervalued though from a brand standpoint.
LikeLike
Whether UConn and Cincinnati might one day be happy to see the Big East dissolve, its surely not before they have their entry to another conference negotiated. The Big East exit fee is not what is keeping them in the Big East, but rather the lack of a better alternative.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy and Andy Katz are reporting that the BE Hoops teams will release a statement on future plans within the next 24 – 48 hours.
LikeLike
McMurphy’s tweet says, “BIg East hoops schools expected to release statement on future plans in coming days. Source told @espn would be an “upset” if they remained”
That says to me its likely they are gone.
LikeLike
The final salvo of an unrelenting and merciless barrage.
I’m reminded of the final hours of the Bismarck, when the Royal Navy unleashed hell at point blank range.
LikeLike
Virtually certain they are gone. The Jesuit schools think HIGHLY alike and are almost impossible to wedge apart from each other because they can always talk their broader connection to smooth something over. Believe me, I did my undergrad work at one.
This is going to happen.
LikeLike
I’ve suspected for a while the BB schools might decide that this year would be the last year of the Big East with Syracuse and Pitt leaving after this season. I don’t think Tulane getting an invite was the final straw, I believe it was Cincinnati, UConn and USF campaigning to get into the ACC that really pushed them to make this move. They realized at the end of the day all of the moves made for football wasn’t going to keep their current football playing schools content to commit to the conference long term, leaving them with less than desirable partners like SMU, UCF, and Houston.
LikeLike
Here’s the story from McMurphy:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8742607/seven-catholic-schools-leaning-leaving-big-east-sources-say
Looks like I’m going to need to put my Big Ten division post on hold for another week. This is pretty big realignment news.
LikeLike
Interesting tidbits (beyond the obvious):
A source told ESPN on Wednesday, Temple, as a football-only member, has voting rights, but can’t vote on dissolution of the league. With Temple unable to vote, that gives the seven basketball schools enough votes to dissolve the league.
…
UConn president Susan Herbst has contacted officials from the non-FBS Big East members, pleading with them to stay in the league, sources told ESPN.
…
If the seven basketball schools leave the Big East, it would be a crippling blow to the Big East’s media rights negotiations. Last week CBSSports.com projected the value of the Big East’s media rights revenue between $60 million and $80 million.
An industry source thought the figure would be closer to $50 million, he told ESPN on Tuesday. The estimates reported by CBSSports.com and ESPN both included the basketball schools as part of the package.
If the Big East lost the seven Catholic basketball schools, it would decrease the value of the league’s media rights by “15 to 20 percent,” an industry source said.
…
A Big East source from a football-playing school told ESPN on Sunday, “The basketball schools are not thrilled with Tulane” and “would have fallen off the ledge if we would have added East Carolina as a full member.”
[Marquette AD] Williams acknowledged he was “not pleased” specifically about adding Tulane.
“I was not pleased that we issued an invitation to Tulane without any diligence to what effect that would have on our basketball product, the draw on our RPI and other such things,” Williams told 540 ESPN Milwaukee. “I was disappointed that I wasn’t able to participate as a member of the conference in the deliberation that went into adding that.”
Williams added that the Big East’s other non-football schools felt the same way.
They didn’t get to deliberate?
LikeLike
Kill this mess already.
Also the otherwise unmarketable FB schools – Cincy & UConn – are doing a good job of cutting their own throat.
LikeLike
Agree Peter, it needs to die. The BE reminds me of a classic WW2 short story. It was about a German ambush of an American patrol at a bridge. They wiped out the patrol but one of the victims wasn’t immediately killed. He was in shock and screaming and firing like a maniac, but no one could finsih him off for a couple of minutes, and he kept on screaming and firing for awhile until he was finally killed. It was all very upsetting and embarrassing……
LikeLike
Frank,
I wholeheartedly agreed with your reasoning that the Big East Catholic schools voted wholeheartedly in favor of Tulane. Tulane, you said, was what those schools were looking for because (a) it’s in a new, fairly large market, which is consistent with the pattern of B.E. additions of the past (b) N.O. has one of the highest concentrations of Catholics in the South, (c) the school is upgrading its facilities, (d) Tulane, as an institution, likely was more acceptable to the non-FBS schools than other options because it’s private and it’s academically strong, compared with, say, an ECU, which is in a small market and less so on the academic side.
Moreover, the Catholic schools have seven out of 11 votes (USF, UConn, Cincy, and Temple) for expansion decisions, so they certainly had the greatest amount of say as to which schools could be added as a replacement for Rutgers/Louisville. So why, then, are these AD’s complaining publicly about a school, Tulane, which they chose to vote in?
LikeLike
As to that last part, they’ve probably changed their tune as justification for leaving the conference.
LikeLike
Either it’s Machiavellian (the Jesuit schools are one of the few blocs in conference realignment that could pull that off, especially without leaking) or they just looked around and went “What the heck are we doing guys, we don’t need this.”
LikeLike
Where did we get the inside scoop that they voted “wholeheartedly” to admit Tulane? They could well have voted Tulane in after being convinced that it was the best option available, and also when they discovered that Tulane was the best option available, started talking about what that meant for their future in the Big East, given that further raids are likely coming and the next “best option available” will be even worse than Tulane.
LikeLike
“I was not pleased that we issued an invitation to Tulane without any diligence to what effect that would have on our basketball product, the draw on our RPI and other such things,” Williams told 540 ESPN Milwaukee. “I was disappointed that I wasn’t able to participate as a member of the conference in the deliberation that went into adding that.”
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Did the Marquette President approve it? If so, his beef is with his own entity. Were the hoops schools completely on the outside? If so, his beef is legit. This whole thing is just nuts.
LikeLike
It might mean that the Big East football schools invoked an extraordinary circumstances clause to pass the vote on their own without the participation of the 7 BBall schools.
LikeLike
@Frank, and other attorneys who post on this blog,
Would Houston, SMU, UCF, etc., have grounds to sue the non-FBS Big East members if they voted to dissolve a league which they are set to join? These schools paid exit fees to leave the leagues were in, and now, because they left and were replaced by far less valuable members like FIU & North Texas, those leagues will not be the same as the ones they left. If the Catholic schools simply left the league, rather than dissolved it, there would be far less grounds to sue, correct?
Could someone explain the legal ramifications of a league dissolution, particularly for the incoming members?
Thanks!
LikeLike
This is completely kosher under the bylaws of a voluntary association (Big East) those schools were joining. These institutions are sophisticated parties so a “we didn’t know the BB schools could do this” argument will go nowhere.
LikeLike
Agreed.
There’s no recourse here for the affected schools. If those 7 dissolve the conference, then the chips fall where they fall.
LikeLike
Houston, we have a problem.
There may be no conference to go to and an overcrowded conference to go back to and little time to create a new one.
Worst realignment move may be CUSA’s rush to add Sun Belt and move up schools. They may have become the new Big East.
LikeLike
If the league is dissolved, the next question is whether Boise State and SDSU bail on the football side. If so, I expect that the MWC takes Boise State and SDSU back. Then the “Big America” conference is: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, Memphis, Houston, SMU.
Obviously they need to recruit UA Birmingham, Marshall, Southern Miss, Rice, UTEP and Tulsa to be able to form an Eastern Division and a Western Division. Then they’ll be all set.
LikeLike
@bullet Couldn’t agree more. CUSA went from discussing a merger with the MWC to becoming the new Sun Belt. It’s a monstrosity. They would be better served being a 10 team conference like the MWC than the 14 team disaster they are.
LikeLike
Its possible the new Big East still ends up as CUSA, but it would be messy. Its happened before. Technically, the CUSA is the old Metro Conference. They were going to start a new conference and figured out it was easier to use an existing one. They told VCU and ODU to find new homes and used the Metro shell. Everyone may come back and tell the future members (and maybe some old members) to find a new home.
LikeLike
If Boise State and SDSU bail, that would establish where the on the slope the MWC and the football debris of the Big East lie, and stuff always rolls downhill.
So could Houston and SMU talk their way into the MWC? A toehold in Texas, Central Time Zone inventory?
Would that leave sixteen teams in a Conference USA made up of the balance of the FB Big East and the existing Conference USA (with the inbound Sunbelt schools told to not pack their bags after all)?
LikeLike
Frank, if you want some great history on the current Big East situation, you should read this thread from the Rutgers board:
http://rutgers.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=988&fid=642&style=2&tid=160897731&Page=1
Pay particular attention to the articles linked and the discussion on the third page. Very interesting stuff.
LikeLike
As I said above, the final straw (if there is a split) was Louisville bolting. After the departures of ‘Cuse, Pitt, ND and WVU the only things holding the hybrid together were Louisville and UConn, and without both of those the FB schools just do not bring enough value to the BB side for the Catholic schools to continue watering down their product BB brand and having to send their non-revenue teams all over the country.
LikeLike
I’ll add that if they can find away to keep the Big East name and tournament credits what I said above is even more true.
LikeLike
“If you football boys withdraw, why just maybe we’ll contract to give you each your share of football money when it comes our way. If not, we’ll just kill this thing off and nobody gets nuthin'”. And either the non-football Big East is reborn, like the non-football WAC, or else the Great Northeast Conference is born.
LikeLike
What’s kind of interesting is that the football schools were really the ones carrying the basketball side. I’d argue the 5 best Big East basketball schools over the last decade were Georgetown, Louisville, UConn, Syracuse, and Pitt. Only one of them is a non-football member. Past them you have West Virginia, Cincy, Notre Dame, Marquette, and Villanova. That’s three non-football members, but Notre Dame is already gone.
The basketball may be watered down with Houston, SMU, UCF, Tulane, etc…. but it’s not like DePaul, st. John’s, Providence and to an extent Seton Hall are really helping either. Once the cream of the basketball schools left (Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt) and then some good depth (WV, ND)m, there was little reason to stick together. Temple and Memphis don’t really compare.
LikeLike
That’s why I’ve had doubts about the fb schools continuing to have the bb schools constraining their actions.
LikeLike
I would be fine with Virginia and UConn. At least they’ll keep themselves in the North. All this talk about Big Texas, FSU, Miami, UNC or GT, while interesting, do not pass the realism test.
LikeLike
Trans…..I too like the idea of a “northern” conference and do not like the idea of TX, FSU, or Miami in the BIG. For that reason, I’m ok staying at 12…….
However, I think the momentum toward expansion is just too strong and either the BIG or SEC will not be able to resist going to 16. I basically think that is a no-win proposition for both sides….as I think killing off the ACC might benefit the SEC and/or BIG as a whole, but will hurt the overall college athletic scene…..and bring political vulnerability as the schools’ “non-profit” status looks more and more cynical.
I do see one exception to the “no-win” proposition however. If either league gets UNC AND VA, the other wouldn’t be able to match that with any other 2 teams(except TX to the SEC or ND to the BIG). Although UNC and VA aren’t “northern”, both are such exceptional schools that they’d easily fit in the BIG….and that would be the 100 year plan….problem is, I don’t see UNC bucking their fans and culture and going that route, whatever the faculty says……..many of us BIG homers on here greatly exaggerate the BIG’s appeal nationally…..if you go on UNC forums you’ll see frequent referneces to “rust belt” and “dying conference”……
LikeLike
Forgot about GT…..again not northern, but a school the BIG presidents apparently approve of…..I’m of mixed feelings about GT…..tremendous eilte engineering school that might be the best public engineering school in the country, and which fits right in with Pur, Ill, and Michigan in that area…..excellent football tradition, great fight song (best lyrics anywhere), but football present and future looks dimmer than past, and definately 2nd rung to Georgia in popularity in the state. Also, nice basketball facility, but has never done anything special in bball in the past. A possible VA/GT expansion dilutes football a notch.
One thing I would like about GT(and VA to lesser extent) would be a possible warmer weather site for end of year tourneys in baseball, soccer et al.
LikeLike
The Catholic 7 have to think about the fact that this is the last chance they’ll probably ever have of pulling this off.
If they want to take charge of their futures, it has to be done now.
Once SMU, Houston, etc. enter the conference, all the power goes back to the football schools and they’re effectively permanent prisoners given the $10 million exit fee.
LikeLike
Exactly. I think this is the motivating factor. I wouldn’t rule out that they had this planned as a contingency.
These schools are *not* dumb or lacking for legal talent. Underestimating them as parties because they don’t have football is a big mistake.
LikeLike
McMurphy saying it is likely in the next week is a change. Everything else has been moving slowly. Perhaps they are starting to get TV bids in and they are seeing a negative value.
Since their contract expires in May, it really is time to make a decision. The trickle down effect is major. There are a lot of schools that would need to do some major restructuring of what they were planning to do (BE invitees, A10, MWC and everyone that impacted-CUSA, Sun Belt, maybe even the MAC finally gets impacted).
LikeLike
Agreed. This is the beginning of the endgame for the realignment of the other 5 conferences as well as the basketball conferences.
In essence, the Big East was holding on as long as the Big Ten remained at 12; once the Big Ten made a move on 14, the Big East was going to lose 2 schools at a minimum to the Big Ten and ACC.
LikeLike
Actually, it might make a lot of conferences stronger ultimately. The group of 5 now becomes a group of 4 for football purposes. That increases the share that they get (although that might be meaningless math with more schools). Maybe we’ll see what was always needed… Midwest (Mac), Southeast (Sunbelt), East (C-USA), West (MWC). 8 conferences of 10-16 teams.
Pac-MWC, B1G-Mac, SEC-Sunbelt, ACC-C-USA…. all make for interesting scheduling deals. Pretty much how it is now anyway.
LikeLike
I don’t see us dropping down to a group of 4. I expect the football members of the Big East and incoming football members to still join together. The only two I think are question marks are Boise State and San Diego State and I’m still leaning on them joining.
LikeLike
It’s not really a group of 4. The current Big East football schools have to go somewhere. It’s still likely they they exist in their own conference, whatever it ends up being called. I don’t necessarily see the existing Big East schools realigning into existing conferences. But I suppose it could happen.
LikeLike
Why bother? There is no meaningful distinction between the Big East and C-USA anymore. Obviously, the TV networks did not find the Big East “name” to be worth overpaying for. Just kill it. Or let the Big East hoops schools keep the name for that purpose.
Might as well create a new conference with a blend of the brands. Adding USF,Cincy, Temple, and UConn to the C-USA makes it stronger.
Pinstripe Bowl becomes B1G vs ACC. Inevitable, eh?
LikeLike
The idea behind the Big East seemed to be to assemble the best remaining football schools. Or at least schools in Big Markets. Houston, SMU, SFU, CFU, UConn, Cincy….
If you can do that, the idea is you’d make more money than with a C-USA or a MAC. I still think that’s true today.
LikeLike
Sun Belt is down to 8 football playing schools and MWC is only at 10. If MWC and BE remnants elect to be 12-14 schools, CUSA remnants absorb most of the rest of the Sun Belt and it gets down to 4 conferences. There are 62 schools counting future members and indies. They could easily fit in 4 larger conferences instead of 5. BE and MAC already need a 14th. MWC needs two to get to 12. If it all rolled down to Sun Belt, they would be left with 4 schools. Then there would be Idaho, NMSU, Army and BYU.
LikeLike
I agree. Plus, the more “good-ish” teams, the better the perception. Instead of having 2-3 over 3 conferences… have 4-5 in 2 conferences.
LikeLike
If the Sunbelt fails which presence will be more ominous? Karl Benson or TCU?
LikeLike
Good question!
LikeLike
But Sunbelt and Conference USA are not geographically distinct. Conference USA, 2013 ed., is in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina and West Virginia. Sunbelt, 2013 edition, is in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky and Georgia.
And the full football members of the Big East 2013 ed, pending the announcement in the near future, only have two teams in the East, with Connecticut, (eastern) Pennsylvania, (southwestern) Ohio, Florida, (western) Tennessee, and Texas.
The total collapse scenario is Boise State and SDSU reverse their departure from the Mountain West, who also accept Tulsa and SMU in 2014 to create Eastern and Western divisions and a CCG. Then the full football members in 2014 are down to six and facing the WAC spiral of death.
A related flail around to muddle through as a mid-major scenario is Boise State and SDSU leave, and the Nuevo FB Big East rebuilds with two 2014 entries to retain two divisions.
2014 East and West division ~ UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, ECU, UCF and USF; SMU, Houston, Memphis, Tulane, X and Y ~ say, two of Rice, Tulsa or UTEP.
LikeLike
At this point, I would like to see an over/under on the possibility of the ACC going to “16” by throwing a lifeline to UConn/Cinn. Yes, I put that number in quotes because you never know. Let’s say last week of December, two days after Christmas, with a radical reworking of the contract.
I’m taking the under because realignment is already crazy.
LikeLike
Extremely low.
The ACC is going to wait and see what happens; UConn and Cincy will always be there for them if they lose another 2 or 4 schools.
LikeLike
Agreed. Unless someone says that the schools add value (which is doubtful), why add now?
LikeLike
And even if someone thought that the schools added value ~ if the ACC thought that they added more than 1/7 value, they could have taken them already.
LikeLike
I’d give it somewhat higher odds. I think the ultimate question is what is the end game? Does the ACC want to go to 16? Are they holding out hope for anyone else (e.g. Notre Dame?)? I don’t really disagree that UConn and Cincinnati should always be there. But these schools could “die on the vine” if they’re left out their too long. Not being in one the major conferences should start taking a toll on these other schools in the near future. The money is just getting too much.
The bottom line is, if the ACC wants to expand and if these schools are acceptable, then I see a move as possible. There’s not necessarily a benefit to waiting. But maybe the ACC does not want to expand and/or maybe they do have hopes from someone else.
LikeLike
But the timing question is, when does the end game start?
Where they stand, if there were schools that would pay their way, complementary to their existing media markets, they already would have make a bid.
And they had the chance and did not take it, so it would seem clear that the ACC does not WANT to expand.
Surely they want to avoid being raided, but adding Cincinnati and/or UConn does not make them less likely to be raided. It just provides a cushion on not falling below a CCG number of members. And Cinci and UConn provide that same cushion muddling along for a couple of years outside of the ACC, but eager to join ~ without diluting the TV contract money in the interim, and without reducing the flexibility to select HOW to respond to whatever raid or raids may come.
LikeLike
Part of the question is, does the ACC REALLY want to be the first to 16. Keep in mind that (while it’s just the WAC, which was never a prestige league) 16 teams has NEVER worked well in 1-A football.
LikeLike
14 hasn’t been proven to work in 1-A football either.
LikeLike
One reason I find it hard to believe the Big 10 would rush to 18 or 20 when no major conference has even had 14 for a full year yet.
There hasn’t been any conference of 16 or more that’s stayed together for a long time that I’m aware of. Sooner or later they admit TCU and everything falls apart.
LikeLike
ACC North: SU, BC, UConn, VT, UVa, UL, UC, Pitt
ACC South: FSU, CU, UNC, NCSU, WF, DU, GT, Mia
Crossovers: UNC/UVa, Mia/BC, CU/SU, FSU/UL, NCSU/VT, GT/Pitt, DU/UConn, WF/UC
I think that’s doable. There just has to be trust among conference member to do this.
LikeLike
Brendan Prunty
@BrendanPrunty
Spoke to 2 sources who confirm ESPN report on Big East break-up from hoops schools. Still many hurdles to clear, but close to happening.
(From the Newark Star-Ledger)
LikeLike
@bamatab
Hurtlocker on Shaggybevo re-did the TV calculations. Numbers were a lot different, but the order not dramatically different. FSU still ended up 33rd. And it shows why ESPN has left ACC in 5th in TV revenues. By conference:
Independent 2.49
SEC 2.46
B1G 2.20
Big 12 2.19
Pac 12 1.81
ACC 1.52
MWC 1.26
Big East 1.19
CUSA .85
SWAC .70
MAC .62
WAC .60
Sun Belt .47
LikeLike
Off topic a bit, but a great read.
http://deadspin.com/5967649/how-maurice-clarett-lost-his-way-bombed-out-of-the-nfl-planned-a-murder-missed-an-exit-and-found-himself-and-warren-buffett-in-prison
LikeLike
Who gets to claim the Big East’s scalp? TCU?
LikeLike
I was assume Swofford, given that he’s already taken everything else from the BigEast.
LikeLike
The Big East’s scalp would look a little more realistic up top than the rug currently being used…
LikeLike
Brendan Prunty @BrendanPrunty
Source said that Cincinnati/USF/UConn will “fight like hell” to keep portions of remaining Big East assets if lg breaks/dissolves.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
23m Brendan Prunty @BrendanPrunty
Getting the sense that there will be a lot of legal stuff to sort through before all is said and done. This will not be a clean/easy break.
Expand
24m Brendan Prunty @BrendanPrunty
No firm decision was made on or off of the call. But there is currently cohesive unity among the 7 Big East hoops schools.
Expand
————————————————————————–
Also another reason why it’s imperative for the Catholic 7 to attempt a split right now.
They have the maximum amount of leverage legally to lay claim to all of the assets in the Big East (exit fees, NCAA credits, etc.) at this very moment with a total of 7 of the 11 members…
LikeLike
At worst they get to keep the name and 7/10 of the basketball credits (although I have no idea whether they’re going to be able to split things like that up), as for the exit fees due from others, that might have to get split 7/11; who really knows.
LikeLike
The Big East always sues. But the logical way would be to sit down and split it all 10 ways, saving the attorney fees and making sure it doesn’t get split 15 ways (NCAA credits going back to departing schools).
LikeLike
I am sure these were posted earlier, but the Big East Bylaws are here and worth reposting.
Click to access bigeast_v_wvu_110411.pdf
The pertinent provision is 12.01 (page 25 of the 29 page PDF). 2/3rds vote then thereafter — importantly — a simple majority vote to “determine the basis of liquidation” and “allocation of assets.”
As I read this, if they vote to dissolve, the 7 Catholic BBall schools can then vote to allocate the rights to the Big East name and its other assets to themselves.
FWIW, it takes 3/4ths vote to kick out a member (and that has to be done for cause). I originally wondered if the BBall schools could just kick out Temple, Cincy, UConn and South Florida. But it takes less votes to dissolve the conference than kick out a member.
LikeLike
That’s interesting about the allocating of assets after dissolution. No doubt Aresco and the football schools will fight that in court though…
LikeLike
Thamel has an in-depth look:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/news/20121213/big-east-basketball/
Here’s the important part to me:
‘The way the NCAA pays teams for reaching the NCAA tournament is extremely complicated. Teams aren’t given a single, fat check for reaching and advancing in the NCAAs. Instead they are given units for making the NCAA tournament and more for advancing. The value of each unit is approximately $245,000, which is paid to the league over six years.
Units are a huge financial piece in the value of a basketball league. In the Big East’s 2011-12 fiscal year, it received $27.3 million in NCAA tournament units (113 earned over previous six years at $242,000). In 2012-13, the league will receive even more — $28.7 million thanks to 117 units over six years.
“The interesting point is that people focus on the TV dollars,” said a Big East official. “Currently our unit dollars as a revenue stream exceed our TV revenue for basketball schools. We generate more dollars from NCAA participation.”‘
—————————————————————————
This speaks to just how much money is at stake here in the NCAA credits. How that gets split up determines whether the 7 Catholic schools break up the conference.
LikeLike
Units? $245,000 apiece? Who came up with that.
We need a metric system equivalent here: Dancedollars. 2.45 dollars to 1 dancedollar.
Scientific Big Ten types… make it happen.
LikeLike
Basically you get a unit for each game played in the tourney. They figure out how much the NCAA keeps for itself and allocates the rest.
It makes sense to just buy out UConn, Cincy and USF and have them leave. Or keep them and let them join another conference for football only (i.e. Memphis, UCF, UH, SMU, Tulane, Temple will likely be setting up a conference and need teams).
LikeLike
I was just joking that they could have made a unit $100,000. If you are creating units, why create oddly numbered ones?
LikeLike
The units increase in value every year due to inflation in the TV deal.
They may very well have started indexed to a “perfect” number like $200,000 but they increase every year…
LikeLike
Thus, you can’t fix the value of a unit. That’s a variable that will presumably increase over time.
LikeLike
acaffrey,
The odd numbers are precisely the reason to use units instead.
LikeLike
Louisville, ND, Maryland, Rutgers moving in 2013?
“The potential split of the seven Catholic schools should allow Notre Dame and Louisville to join Syracuse and Pitt in the ACC next season, one year ahead of schedule, Irish coach Mike Brey said Thursday.” (from the ESPN article on Catholic 7 leaving).
That means Maryland (and Rutgers) would likely enter the Big Ten in 2013 as well…
For the ACC, it’s easy to slot Louisville into Maryland’s spots on the football schedule and then remake the basketball schedules and other sports.
For the Big Ten, it would result in a complete remake of the football schedules, so this needs to be watched…
LikeLike
That would cause some urgency to settle the Maryland lawsuit or the ACC could end up with 15 teams for a year.
LikeLike
This question of Maryland moving to the Big Ten in 2013 came up on the Maryland Rivals board this morning before the Big East thing broke. I was going to ask if it is feasible, but didn’t bother to. With this latest news, is this something the President’s discuss or does this go to the AD’s? Clearly the lawsuit would need to be settled for closure first.
LikeLike
Even if they vote to dissolve, I would think there’s a drawdown period where numbers and homes are figured out. That could be the 2013 season, then everyone goes their separate ways in 2014 (like originally planned for many institutions already).
LikeLike
I’m not sure that’s how it works though (although we’re all guessing at this point).
When you vote to dissolve, it’s likely to be effective at the end of that calendar year (July 1, 2013).
The basketball schools will have no reason to drag this out another year to July 1, 2014. They’re going to want to set up their own conference and TV deal as well as starting to accumulate tournament credits.
LikeLike
That’s their trump card, the ability to dissolve, but they may be able to parley holding that trump card into a negotiated departure of the football schools leaving them in the original Big East, avoiding forfeiting various AQ positions in non-revenue sports and leaving assets represented by things like prior exit fees out of jeopardy.
Then while the deal with the new BBall/Olympic only Big East is being drawn up, at the same time the different networks say what they are willing to pay for a reconstituted Conference USA with what teams in it and the FB teams into a Conference USA put together as dictated by the high bidder.
LikeLike
Maryland’s leaving. The lawsuit is irrelevant. Either everyone agrees it is best to move in 2013 or not. I imagine the ACC and Catholics would just as soon everyone move earlier. Not sure if the Big 10 would want it that quick. The BE football schedule could be a mess. Timing and number of changes make last year’s Missouri/WVU moves look easy.
LikeLike
It’s actually less disruptive for football to have Maryland/Rutgers join the Big Ten in 2013.
The 2-year cycle of 12 teams just ended in terms of home-home.
Rather than starting the 2013-2014 cycle, and disrupting the 2nd year of that, it’d be easier to just redo the schedules completely.
LikeLike
So that’s not disruptive. But do they want to share revenue that quickly without much lead time to sell BTN?
LikeLike
Well, the BTN distribution plan seems to be “make them go through the pain of a year without their team”, so it doesn’t matter how much lead time they have to sell it.
LikeLike
The Big Ten would certainly have to scramble if Maryland and Rutgers joined the conference prior to the 2013 athletic season start.
The football scheduling would be the biggest issue. I can’t see them adapting a nine-game conference schedule very quickly given the contracts in place for the non-conference games. Cancelling one OOC game per team with under a year to go would be difficult and costly.
Obviously, once the divisions are decided upon, they’ll have to figure out if they’re going to use a 6-2 format or a 6-1-1 with a protected rivalry game in place. Then the Big Ten would have to put out a time frame for when the conference goes to a nine-game schedule if that format is agreed to by all the parties.
LikeLike
I believe the conference has still been telling teams to limit their schedules for 2017 and beyond, so 2017 would seem to be the first 9-game year, if it were to happen.
LikeLike
I understood that discussion took place when the B10-P12 scheduling agreement was being discussed, but I suspect that’s a pretty good benchmark date for when a nine-game conference schedule could realistically be implemented anyway without too much financial loss.
Michigan would be able to accommodate a nine-game conference schedule in the 2016 season because UM only has three non-conference games on the docket with Hawaii, Colorado and Ball State. Of course, one of the big reasons why there’s that hole there is Notre Dame’s decision to cancel the series.
CBS Sports has an article about Notre Dame and Louisville possibly leaving early and joining the ACC for the 2013 season–see http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/21390901/could-notre-dame-and-louisville-be-in-the-acc-by-next-season
The article states that the early move by ND and UL to the ACC is being discussed today and will continue to be looked at through the weekend. It also points out that there are a lot of potential hurdles to deal with before it gets implemented, but it is possible to see the Fighting Irish and the Cardinals in the ACC in 2013.
I guess the next logical question is if ND and UL can go to the ACC early, then why can’t Rutgers head to the Big Ten in 2013 as well? And if Maryland’s replacement, i.e. Louisville, is in the ACC next season, then why can’t UMD make an early move as well? There are obviously all sorts of hurdles here–legal, schedule, money, etc. But we’ve seen these sorts of moves made pretty quickly in the past, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
LikeLike
cutter, they started telling schools 2017 for the PAC alliance, but I thought I had read quotes since it was cancelled that they were still doing it. I may be wrong.
LikeLike
The Big Ten decided to stick with an 8 game schedule with the understanding each school would schedule at least 2 AQ OOC games per year.
That could change with expansion though.
LikeLike
They decided to stick with 8, but I don’t think they ever changed their tune about holding off on 2017 and scheduling four OOC games. With hot tectonic plates, they probably wanted to keep their options open.
LikeLike
It’s definitely a combination of what you guys are all saying.
Most likely:
2014 (or possibly 2013) through 2017 would be 14 team, 8 game format.
2017 and beyond would go to 9 games.
LikeLike
Through all this, it strikes me how stable the MAC is.
(okay, maybe better leagues don’t want any of the teams)
But there is something to be said for the short team travel distances
and the regional interest/rivalries that the conference provides.
The C-USA and Sunbelt schools need to realize that a compact and stable
conference is better than jumbled mess that the Sunbelt/C-USA are now.
Why wouldn’t a SWC2.0 of the following be better than what is there now:
All sports:
– UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TxSt, Rice, NTexas, Tulsa, LTech, L-Monroe, L-Lafayette
BB only:
– UT-Arlington, UT-PanAmerican
You’d have more regional interest than you have currently.
You’re not going to lose any national interest, since you didn’t have any before.
You cut travel expenses for all sports.
I’d wish Texas university system and Louisiana university system trustees would try to put something like this together.
Let SWC2.0 be a feeder for the BigEast.
LikeLike
The Texas university systems are more of a mess than conference realignment and there is more political posturing. Its not nice and clear cut like California or even Louisiana (with U of L, LSU and Southern systems). There’s a University of Texas system, Texas A&M system, Texas Tech system, University of Houston system, Texas State University system and a half dozen schools not in any system. And there used to be more systems. Lamar merged into the state university system. Its very dysfunctional. So don’t expect any help there.
LikeLike
A few examples:
To get more political influence A&M took in West Texas State in the 80s, which is only an hour or so away from Texas Tech. They’re building a new campus in southern San Antonio (UTSA has campuses in downtown and NW San Antonio). They took in East Texas State in the 80s which has a campus in East Dallas (UTD is in North Dallas and UT Arlington is west of Dallas).
University of North Texas is independent. They are in the northern suburbs of DFW. They are building a campus in South Dallas.
Texas Tech which used to be just Tech, a medical school in Lubbock and a medical school clinic in El Paso added Angelo State, hundreds of miles away.
Texas Women’s University is independent, and across the metropolis of Denton from the University of North Texas, has a nursing school in Houston’s Texas Medical Center, right next to Prairie View A&M’s nursing school and the University of Texas Health Science Center, which also has a Nursing school located about a half mile south.
So if you think conference realignment is crazy, there’s Texas universities’ system realignment.
LikeLike
That’s just asinine. What’s the point? Texas can’t have that many different educational focuses.
LikeLike
It is asinine. The legislature stupidly pulled A&M out of the University of Texas system in the 40s and everyone since has been trying to create their own fiefdoms with all of the inefficiency that entails. And each state legislature is trying to locate his university in the best possible position. Sound anything like conference realignment?
LikeLike
should read each state legislator….
LikeLike
What the MAC also has is a bunch of similar universities, not just geography.
LikeLike
Yes, its the history that created the geography ~ the first (MSU) and presently largest (OSU) 1863 land grant universities, together with that school up north as the premier research university in the state, leading to the establishment of a similar second tier of regional public universities, and you’ve got the nine core members from Ohio and Michigan.
LikeLike
That’s basically an old Southland Conference. It strikes me that you included Rice. They’re the only team/school whose profile seems to have dropped since the break-up of the SWC and massive realignment, even though academically they are the best school in Texas.
LikeLike
Also, The CUSA West division was the closest thing to a SWC2.0 you could get 1/2 of which is now in the Big East.
SMU
Houston
Rice
UTEP
Tulsa
Tulane
There wasn’t much following of even that group.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2012/12/13/big-east-conference-basketball-split-football-bcs-automatic-qualifying-status/1767311/
Catholic 7 schools splitting off in 2013 may actually help keep football side together past 2013.
Since the 2013 auto-qualifying status is likely to stay with any football group, that might be the incentive needed to play a year with that format and actually set it up for the future even if it’s under a different name and setup.
LikeLike
Dan Wolken @DanWolken
The schools that left C-USA for the Big East are the ones with value. The idea they would go back is nonsense.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
48m Dan Wolken @DanWolken
The structure of a league (plus a BCS bid in 2013) will remain, with clean slate on TV negotiations. Chance for best of rest league?
LikeLike
“Why wouldn’t a SWC2.0 of the following be better than what is there now:
All sports:
– UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TxSt, Rice, NTexas, Tulsa, LTech, L-Monroe, L-Lafayette
BB only:
– UT-Arlington, UT-PanAmerican”
…just kill me now..
LikeLike
loki,
That would be a terrible fate for Rice!
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/bigeast/2012/12/13/big-east-conference-basketball-split-catholic-member-schools/1767387/
“4:27PM EST December 13. 2012 – The decision to leave has been made. Now the question is when and how to do it.
The seven Catholic, basketball members of the Big East Conference have decided to announce their departure from the league, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. The two spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because the talks were supposed to remain confidential.”
LikeLike
If the Big East disolves then would Rutgers still have to payout for leaving? I do not see how they could enforce that if Rutgers is set to leave in two years and the disolve 7/1/13.
LikeLike
The Big Ten Network has a second poll out regarding divisional alignment. They offer three options plus the ability to add comments.
The are three options:
(1) Existing Divisions Plus 1 – Maryland goes into one of the existing divisions and Rutgers goes into the other one with no other changes
(2) East-West – Purdue goes to the west and Indiana to the east. The two divisions are based on east-west geography, which means Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State are in the east with Rutgers, Maryland and IU.
(3) Inner-Outer – Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland join Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota. The inner division is Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State.
See http://btn.com/2012/12/13/take-the-survey-which-division-ideas-do-you-prefer/
LikeLike
Kind of curious that the East-West split doesn’t have Michigan State in the west instead of Purdue.
Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State is a bit more lopsided than just the first 3.
LikeLike
Michigan State wants to be in the same division as Michigan. That was their primary wish the first-time around.
LikeLike
I guess they have 3 basic ideas.
Northwestern in the East instead of IU would make sense from a lot of perspectives. NW probably has more alumni in the east. You can probably eliminate fixed cross-overs. And while NW has been more successful over the last 20 years, they have a lower ceiling than IU. Both have anemic fan support.
LikeLike
Yeah but if you put Michigan State and Northwestern in the West that makes it the easiest to keep everyone happy since Michigan State has said that they wanted to play Northwestern annually.
Just make Michigan-Michigan State the crossover for those two.
LikeLike
Even though it would be harder for MSU, I’d rather be in the same division as UM. I would think everyone would like to be in the division with other rivals. The games mean more in terms of standing. That’s what I don’t get about OSU/UM fans who like them divided.
LikeLike
jj,
“Even though it would be harder for MSU, I’d rather be in the same division as UM. I would think everyone would like to be in the division with other rivals. The games mean more in terms of standing. That’s what I don’t get about OSU/UM fans who like them divided.”
The games only mean more in terms of the tiebreaker. Total B10 W’s is all that matters unless you’re tied with them.
I’d say OSU/MI is probably the only B10 rivalry with the possibility of a CCG rematch being high enough to make the counter argument viable.
As a hypothetical, what if I told you MSU could face MI in the CCG every year? Would you still rather be in the same division? If so, fine. But if not, then we’re just debating how often you need a rematch to justify preferring to be in the other division.
LikeLike
Brian:
That’s a good question. It’s a good debate topic and I can see the other side. Personally, I just like being in the same division. For example, I’ve been waiting to see a Red Wings / Maple Leafs Stanley Cup for a long time and it probably won’t happen anytime soon, labor disputes notwithstanding. In that time, I’ve missed a whole lot of great divisional battles.
LikeLike
jj,
It certainly is a debatable issue.
You need to hit the sweet spot for the math to make sense, I think. In a larger league (much like the NHL), the odds of meeting again are too low to consider it as anything but a bonus (the cherry on the sundae). Both teams have to be in the running almost every year, too, or the math wouldn’t work (easier in CFB than the NHL). I think the math can work in a 14 team B10 for OSU and MI.
The other issue is the emotion of the rivalry. It has to be big enough to make a second game important so fans will sell out the CCG. It really helps if the game is prominent enough to draw a TV audience, too. Again, I think The Game satisfies these criteria.
The biggest problem is the tradition of The Game being played the final game of the year. Outside of the OSU and MI fans, I don’t think anyone would complain about a rematch of The Game in the CCG if the first one was in October. The question is how deep in November is OK with the other fans, and how early in November would OSU and MI fans accept.
Supposing some compromise date existed (2nd Saturday in November, for example), and I’m not saying one does, would people then prefer to keep OSU and MI together or separate them?
LikeLike
zeek,
They followed actual geography. That’s why when people first proposed an E/W split here I kept asking what they meant. There’s a big difference between MSU in the west and PU in the west.
LikeLike
LOL. That’s very similar to a poll I posted on a bunch of Big Ten boards (although I went with the originally rumored moving Illinois west and putting Maryland and Rutgers together instead of splitting them). I hope we go with inner-outer, but will be content with east-west. Keeping the existing ones only works (kind of) if we go to 9 conference games.
LikeLike
I kind of like the inner-outer setup myself. Now I’m an outsider that is not very familiar with all of the rivalries (but one of the casualties of realignment is the lose of some rivalries). But having the western schools playing each other every year, the eastern schools playing each other every year, and the central schools playing each other every year seems like the best way to allow the 4 newest schools to form rivalries with their neighbors (which over time would create more interest for those teams and their fans). I don’t know how the outer schools would feel about the travel portion of things.
LikeLike
The sandwich was my original thought on this. I think it works fine. The travel is a bit hard, but the other divisions just seem odd in some ways. East / West with MSU in the East works ok too.
I’ve been kicking around ones that send OSU West with the Western 4. The thinking being that
1.
Neb
Wisc
Ia
Mn
OSU
IN
PUR
2.
UM
MSU
PSU
Rut
Md
NW
IL
I think this works with the IL and IN schools being more or less swappable. The 2 might be a little heavy on new teams, but that’s basically what the sandwich does too.
I’d keep OSU/UM as the last game of the year and then pair up the other 6 in each division somehow. Let’s just say: Neb/Wisc, IA/MN and IN/Pur on one side and MSU/PSU, NW/IL and MD/Rut on the other.
LikeLike
The biggest downside to this is the loss of OSU/PSU, but we get OSU/Neb and UM/PSU so think it is pretty close to a wash.
LikeLike
I suggested they adjust their options and run it again:
1. Move IL and add the new guys to the east
2. Move MSU west and PU east
Also, I suggested they ask about scheduling:
1. 8 games, no locked rival
2. 8 games, 1 locked rival
3. 9 games, 1 locked rival
To me, the schedule and the divisions go hand in hand.
LikeLike
Agree completely. I think the inner-outer and east-west (especially inner-outer) would get more votes if people think about the scheduling with it.
LikeLike
This is great to see them do. Even if they ignore the results, at least they are collecting data. I told them to read your blog Frank.
LikeLike
Worth your time
“Death of the Big East Has Big Consequences for NCAA”
http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2012/12/13/death-of-the-big-east-has-big-consequences-for-ncaa.htm
LikeLike
Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel
Talk of Big East “dissolving” and votes needed is moot. Bylaws say 2 FB schools need to vote for dissolution. The 7 will just leave.
How in the world did everyone miss this?
LikeLike
That significantly reduces their leverage. But the Big East isn’t dissolving. That would send the NCAA credits back to those who earned them and might eliminate some of the exit fees that haven’t been paid yet. Logical was a negotiated exit of the fb schools. Now it might be a negotiated exit of the bb schools. Or a negotiated exit of USF only.
LikeLike
Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel
The one topic not addresed in the Big East bylaws is the actual Big East name. So that’s foggy right now.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
6m Pete Thamel @SIPeteThamel
Couple of relevent Big East bylaw facts. The seven departing school will be able to bring their NCAA units with them. (And the AQ).
More facts.
LikeLike
Marquette is apparently saying it is done and Xavier and Butler are #s 8 and 9. One to three others will be added. Milwaukee article treats all this as fact.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/bigeast414-d7815om-183439151.html
LikeLike
Link not working. Will try again.
LikeLike
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/bigeast14-d7815om-183439151.html
Try this.
LikeLike
If they get their units, the rest is immaterial. That’s the real money here.
LikeLike
However, the units of ‘Cuse, Pitt, ND, and Louisville as well as their and Rutger’s exit fees are also worth something. Who gets those?
LikeLike
zeek,
That’s huge. It guarantees the remaining FB schools a lot of money from exit fees.
LikeLike
Who gets the exit fees?
Who gets the units from the remaining teams?
Who gets the units from the teams who have already left?
Who gets the name?
Those are all sizable numbers. Combined its around $100 million.
LikeLike
Yep, we’re talking big money right now.
Are the basketball schools willing to just walk away from all of that and only keep their credits?
I agree with you that they’re going to want to negotiate some kind of settlement where they get to take some of that.
LikeLike
24 team basketball conference or (2) 12 team conferences to have the extra NCAA vote?
or (2) 16 conferences with football only members in the north or east
East Division
Fordham
Duquesne
St. John’s
Seaton Hall
Villanova
Rhode Island
Umass
Providence
St. Joe’s
St. Bonavanture
Uconn
Temple
West Division
Marquette
DePaul
Saint Louis
Butler
Georgetown
George Washington
Dayton
Xavier
Cincinnati
Memphis
Richmond
VCU
LikeLike
PPP put out a political poll in New Jersey but added some sports questions:
Click to access PPP_Release_ILNJ_120512.pdf
Q10 Do you support or oppose Rutgers’ move from
the Big East to the Big Ten?
Support
39%
…………………………………………………..
Oppose 18%
…………………………………………………..
Not sure 44%
………………………………………………….
Q11 Do you consider yourself to be a fan of Rutgers
sports, or not?
Rutgers fan 35%
……………………………………………..
Not a Rutgers fan 65%
————————————————————————————–
I’d imagine that the 18% opposed to the move are New Jersey residents that are alumni or fans of other Big East schools like Seton Hall.
The poll looks accurate based on that question about who the respondents voted for which went almost the exact same percentages for Obama/Romney as the actual vote percentages.
LikeLike
Wow – 65% not Rutgers fans in NJ? Aren’t they the only state school with big time sports in NJ? I wonder if 65% of people in Ohio dislike OSU or if 65% of people in Alabama dislike the Tide?
LikeLike
Mark,
Not being a fan of RU doesn’t have to mean they dislike RU. They probably just don’t care about RU one way or the other. Lots of people don’t follow CFB, especially in the big eastern cities.
LikeLike
Dislike was probably the wrong word – not a fan is probably worse, as you might actually watch a team you dislike to see them lose – not a fan implies no concern at all. I’m sure the Big 10 will make money somehow, but I just don’t get adding Rutgers.
LikeLike
If you look at the other question I posted, that’s a relatively good question for measuring total college sports awareness.
From the second poll, 35% of those polled are Rutgers fans.
On the question of moving to the Big Ten, 39% support it but 18% oppose it, while 44% are unsure.
The people who are unsure are likely just not into college sports and aren’t aware of it.
If you add that 39% and 18%, that gets you 57% of New Jersey that is aware and has an opinion on whether the move to the Big Ten is good or bad. Most likely the people opposed to the move are fans of other colleges like Seton Hall or Syracuse or other Big East or ACC schools (since their move was tied to Maryland’s). You might have Notre Dame fans there too opposed.
That probably means 57% is a decent measure of the number of people into college sports in that region.
LikeLike
It has to do with the percentage of people of New Jersey that are into college sports to begin with…
In a state like New Jersey that percentage is probably below 60% and may be closer to 50%. So that tells you that a majority (probably near 2/3s) of the college sports fans in that state are Rutgers fans, but it’s a relatively low intensity state.
In a state like Alabama, the number of college sports fans is probably over 90%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203846804578101281578171860.html#project%3DCOLLEGES1106%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
They did a series of polls on this earlier in the year. Some of the results came out weird in the polls, but a lot of them look right.
The question in that series was what team do you prefer:
Alabama 58%
Auburn 28%
Just adding those two gets you to 86% which is remarkable. Assuming there’s another 5-10% of people who selected neither, that brings you to 91-96% of people in Alabama being fans of college teams.
Virginia is probably another example of a low-intensity college sports state:
Virginia Tech 29%
Virginia 24%
That gets you to 53%, and there’s really no way that the total percentage (if you add other fans) is over 70%, so there’s a low intensity state.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link – I think NJ will be an interesting test for the Big 10 since they are overwhelming popular in all other states – kinda like hockey expanding to the southeast and Texas. I give credit for taking the risk, but unlike Nebraska or Penn State, Rutgers is actually a risk.
LikeLike
I really wouldn’t be concerned about that.
Think about it like this, that number is at 35% with basically only 7 years of high quality football being played there in the Big East. They were the definition of doormat before that and likely had no awareness in terms of football brand in New Jersey.
Where could that number in 20 years of being in the Big Ten? Even if they just experience an average of 3-5 Big Ten win seasons, that number is likely to gradually go up to around 40-50% as a sole state school with growing enrollment over time and growing brand awareness.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Virginia is probably another example of a low-intensity college sports state:
Virginia Tech 29%
Virginia 24%
That gets you to 53%, and there’s really no way that the total percentage (if you add other fans) is over 70%, so there’s a low intensity state.”
I disagree. PSU is closer to DC than VT, and MD is right next door. That’s a whole lot of votes in NoVA for other teams. Then you have the national brands that have fans everywhere (ND, USC, AL, OSU, MI, UT, OU, etc). Add in a UNC influence along the southern border, and you could easily top 70%.
LikeLike
Perhaps, I’m not really sure without more data on that; I think it’s a tricky question though given how much of the population in that state is in the Richmond area and Southeast area, which may not really have that many fans of other schools…
LikeLike
zeek,
“Perhaps, I’m not really sure without more data on that;”
Yeah, I’m just saying it’s possible. There are certainly more schools than those 2 with fans in VA.
“I think it’s a tricky question though given how much of the population in that state is in the Richmond area and Southeast area, which may not really have that many fans of other schools…”
VA = 8.1M
NoVA = 2.6M ~ 1/3rd of VA
Tidewater = 1.7M
Richmond = 1.3M ~ 1/6th of VA
LikeLike
Rutgers is a relatively late arrival to the big-time athletics game; a few Ivy League schools were on its schedule as late as the start of the 1980s. It takes time to build a big-time sports culture. (Maryland has a considerably longer tradition, though it didn’t become a national football power until the late 1940s and early ’50s.)
LikeLike
Agreed, that’s why it’s a long-term play in terms of Rutgers.
I’m not really sure it matters that a popularity metric like this is only at 35% for Rutgers at this very moment.
They have literally only 7 years of existence in the minds of most college football fans, so it’s a decent starting point.
If they’re still at 35% in 20 or 25 years, then we have issues.
LikeLike
I know I’ve said it before; the remaining football schools should embrace their status as a coast-to-coast league and try to pick the best remaining schools in the west to create a true western division.
If the Texas schools are willing, the Western division should be a separate conference for basketball and other sports. This will help unite the Western schools together and provide assurance for the new schools that the conference will stay together (if anyone gets ‘called up’ to the ACC, they will be able to ‘call up’ another school if they remain the 6th best conference). The 2 conferences (that form 1 football conference) can schedule regular games against each other in the non-football sports and can split basketball revenues evenly to make up for the fact the West won’t have any basketball units to start with.
LikeLike
Yes. The best outcome for the Big East football schools is to basically become “the best of the rest”, the league of top markets/schools outside the Big 5 conferences.
That’s definitely more favorable than trying to go back to leagues that have backfilled on weaker teams (like C-USA and SunBelt).
LikeLike
“Try, there is not. Only do or do not, there is.”
If successful it would be more favorable ~ can they pull it off? And what would this “Big America Conference” (stolen from a C-USA forum) look like?
The backbone of pulling it off is keeping the incoming schools coming in. If Boise State and SDSU does not buy in, it won’t fly.
BAC East: Cincinnati, UConn, Temple, USF, UCF, [{UCA}]
BAC West: {SDSU}, {Boise State}, Houston, SMU, Memphis, [Tulane]
{Associate}, [2014]
Do you keep all of those? Do you add any? Who?
It might be simpler if things do fall apart. Former Conference USA members go back, UConn and Temple get a pass in, all pending moves up into Conference USA called off.
Conference USA East:
UConn, Temple, Marshall, Cincinnati, UCA, UA-Birmingham, USF, UCF,
Conference USA West:
UTEP, SMU, Houston, Rice, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane, Southern Miss
No locked cross division games, 7 games in division, 2 games across division, 3 away payday / strength of schedule games available.
Four four team divisions in BBall, Home and Away in division, Home or Away cross division for two divisions, Home or Away over two years for the third division is 16 conference games.
LikeLike
Uconn was never in C-USA and Cincy left the league in 2004. There is no way those 2 schools will go to the current C-USA. I think football independence might be more likely than that result. Still think these 2 schools are ACC bound.
LikeLike
I think a proper East/West division would look like this:
E: Cinc, UConn, Temple, USF, UCF, ECU, Memphis, Navy
W: Houston, SMU, SDSU, Fresno State, Hawaii, Boise, Tulane, Air Force
Some notes:
1) Give East Carolina full membership for conference unity (everyone plays basketball, baseball, etc. against their division mates)
2) If Hawaii doesn’t come, San Jose State, UTSA, New Mexico, and Nevada would all be candidates. (well, BYU 1st, but I don’t expect them to come)
3) Tulane was obviously a mistake, since a proper ‘Western’ school would fit that division better.
4) If Navy backs out, fine. Move Tulane East, don’t invite Air Force, and invite 2 more schools to make a solid Western division.
LikeLike
I could see the MAC thinking over a move to improve themselves. Marshall, Cindy and UConn probably won’t want to hear it, but they’d fit in and likely be more successful than staying with this lot. Ditto Navy. I can’t even remember what Navy’s doing anymore.
LikeLike
Yes, I know Marshall used to be in the MAC. Was Cincy too?
LikeLike
Long ago. I believe they were a charter member in the 40s but left after a few years.
LikeLike
I don’t see why any of the teams would go back to existing leagues (except Boise St/SDSU due to travel/distance). The remaining football only schools, if they stick together, would be as good as any non-AQ conference if not better. And with UConn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, it would actually be a good hoops conference too.
Now, would the schools stick together? No, since UConn and/or Cinci will be gone as soon as the ACC needs them, but for the time being it would behoove the football Big East schools to remain in a conference.
LikeLike
McMurphyESPN Brett McMurphy
BE commish Mike Aresco told football AD’s he expects 7 hoops schools to leave. Hoops schools have Sat conference call sources told @espn
McMurphyESPN Brett McMurphy
W/Big East hoops schools unable to dissolve league, earliest Louisville (ACC) & Rutgers (B1G) could leave is 2014
———————————————————————————————-
It’s over folks. Also, no change to Big Ten and ACC future additions now according to McMurphy.
LikeLike
If Butler and Xavier are a done deal, and they’re seriously considering 12, I’d like to see them take Creighton, Dayton, and VCU. All solid choices.
LikeLike
I think they will take St. Louis with the new arena and big market and call it a day. Dayton essentially shares a market with Xavier, Creighton is too far for the non-basketball sports and VCU would be the only public school in the league and would be many times larger than the next largest school.
LikeLike
That’s a fair point, with 10 schools, you can do the full home-home schedule as well.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8745235/seven-schools-agree-leave-big-east-debating-process-source-says
McMurphy updated the story:
New details that ND may still try to get out a year earlier than Louisville and Rutgers.
Is Navy possibly re-evaluation the situation there?
LikeLike
Don’t know the ultimate source, but someone on another board posted units by school. To summarize:
Departed schools 162 units
Catholic 7 82 units
Football 3 74 units
That’s considerably more than the 113 in the article, which may have only been 1 years payout. So if these figures are correct (and again, I can’t verify them), the football schools have roughly $18 million, Catholics $20 million and departed $40 million.
Exit fees in one of these articles were estimated at $60-$70 million.
WVU paid $20 million last year and SU and Pitt agreed to $7.5 million. UL & Rutgers would owe $10 million if they left in 27 months. Notre Dame would owe nothing. But there might be early buyouts. I don’t know if any of this has already been distributed.
LikeLike
Certainly UL would only owe $5m to leave in 27 months, and possibly Rutgers ~ the exit fee for football schools drops back down to $5m if the BCS or successor thereto notifies the Big East that it shall be losing its AQ status. As the successor thereto has, in fact, notified the Big East. Big East Bylaws 11.02 (a)(ii).
LikeLike
I think this is awesome. They have a chance to create a real product here with a very cohesive grouping. If I were them, I’d try for a catholic league only but I’m sure Butler is hard to resist. So start with the current 7:
DePaul
Marquette
Georgetown
Providence
St. John’s
Seton Hall
Nova
and pick up at least 3 (first 3 are my top picks) and maybe 5 of the following:
Dayton
Xavier
Gonzaga – obvious outlier problem.
Butler
St. Louis
Detroit
St. Mary’s
Layola
Holy Cross
Fordham
LikeLike
I think it’s a good thing for those schools that they’re finally taking their own futures into their own hands.
After the Syracuse/Pitt departure followed by ND/Louisville/Rutgers, it just didn’t make sense to keep this Frankenstein alive.
The existence of that hybrid conference is just an anachronism at this point with the $ situation so stacked towards football.
Without enough basketball brands among the football schools (really just UConn, Memphis, Cincy), it just didn’t make sense.
And how long before the football schools do invite ECU as a full member after SMU/Houston/etc. take control of the votes and outvote the Catholic schools…
LikeLike
Now’s the time. Honestly, money is great and it matters, but relationships matter more. A league like this would probably make less money but be bulletproof.
LikeLike
You realize that SLU gets so much more support than the bottom 5.
So does Creighton.
LikeLike
Good call Richard. I’m just tossing it out there. I view them as generally more urban in nature. I would probably go 12 and I think they’d have a lot of choices available.
LikeLike
17 schools have now left the Big East since it’s founding. Only UConn remains of the original membership. The Big East has gone the full WAC.
LikeLike
Did you remember TCU who never showed up?
LikeLike
Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, TCU, West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers and the seven Catholic schools
Should be the list.
LikeLike
That’s crazy. I think the lesson here is 2-fold.
1. A lasting conference has an identity that makes sense, not just a bunch of people jammed together.
2. If you’re raided, don’t freak out and just start adding everyone in town. I think the ACC is going to regret taking Louisville over UConn.
LikeLike
I think the lesson is: When you’re a second-rate conference of also-rans, don’t turn down a $1 billion dollar media-deal with ESPN.
LikeLike
Except that most of the schools that turned the cash down did better – it was a good decision for WV, Pitt, Rut, Syr & Lou and has allowed the basketball schools to leave. Maybe not so good for ESPN since they are now paying more for these schools than they would have otherwise.
LikeLike
Until both sides (and their lawyers) sit down to discuss the terms of a split I am not going to put too much stock into all of these tweets currently being released about when teams can leave, exit fees and tournament units. I think at this point it is in the best interest for both sides to split and go their separate ways as soon as possible so they can set up their new leagues, invite new members and sign new TV deals. I actually think the FB schools still have a great chance to create a fairly competitive all sports league but they can’t get too caught up in the emotions of being left behind. They need to focus on coming up with a plan for expansion that keeps Boise and San Diego State in the fold.
The one wish I do have is that the Big East name is retired once the hoop schools leave. If the remaining members respect and value that brand, they should not use it after the last sport is officially played under the current alignment. Both sides should move into new conferences under new names/brands.
LikeLike
I think that name/mark is work jack squat. Maybe I’m wrong.
LikeLike
worth
LikeLike
UConn is the only fb school with any history. When I think of Big East basketball, I think of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John’s, Providence, UConn and Syracuse, 4 of which are in the Catholic 7. Rutgers, Seton Hall, BC, Pitt and WVU not so much. ND, Miami, VT not at all. former CUSA schools not at all.
LikeLike
Not sure how relevant this is, but FSU School President Eric Barron used to be a professor and Dean of a department at Penn State.
LikeLike
Maybe I’m way off base here, but I think long term Big Ten Football is in trouble if they don’t have a major recruiting state. The PAC 12 has California, The Big 12 has Texas, The SEC has the entire south, and the Big Ten has………..no elite recruiting areas. I would love to see the Big Ten add Florida State & Miami. Probably a pipe dream. But I think it would help the recruiting of all the the Big Ten teams.
LikeLike
I concur. Recruiting at the original ACC schools improved markedly (even though they didn’t do anything with that improved recruiting talent, which is an entirely different issue) after Florida State was added. Increased B1G exposure in Florida and Georgia (by adding Florida State and GA Tech) would be a bonanza for all B1G member recruiting. FSU is very close on the AAU, and the requirement for a contiguous state just no longer makes any sense in the current environment. Bring in the Seminoles and Yellow Jackets. Let’s drive a wedge deep into the SEC!
LikeLike
Pingback: Divisions of Labor: Frank the Tank’s Big Ten Expansion Survey Responses and the Classic Music Video of the Week « FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: New Year’s Conference Realignment FAQ: Big Ten, Mountain West, Big East and Catholic 7 « FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
FSU has a better academic reputation than Nebraska (per US News)
FSU averages more research spending than Indiana
Nebraska no longer has AAU status
ND never had AAU status (and it has very little research spending to bring to the CIC)
FSU has top notch research labs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_High_Magnetic_Field_Laboratory
http://www.research.fsu.edu/techtransfer/showcase/weather.html
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/Nuclear/Brochures/SuperconductingLinearAcceleratorLaboratory/
We’ve made major strides in cancer treatment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxol
the B1G has no academic reason to snub FSU.
FSU has more cable TV subscribers than MD (including DC)
the B1G has more alumni in FL than any other potential state.
FSU has higher TV ratings than any other potential target.
FSU has better attendance than any other potential target.
FSU can probably bring another Florida bowl tie to the B1G
No other school can bring as much to the B1G from an athletic or dollar standpoint. and we can hold our own among the B1G in terms of research and academics.
make it happen. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: B1G Dirty South Expansion « FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: ACC Grant of Rights: The Beginning of the End of Conference Realignment? | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT