I have been meaning to post my responses to the Big Ten Network’s conference expansion survey, but so much realignment news (such as the 7 Catholic schools in the Big East deciding to split off) has intervened that I’m only getting a chance to fill it out now. Here are my thoughts:
1. My favorite school is _____.
The University of Illinois, the ultimate drinking school with a football problem.
2. My favorite school is in the _______ Division.
The Leaders Division… I think. Let me Google this.
3. As the conference expands beyond 12 teams, should the new teams be added to an existing division or should new divisions be drawn from scratch?
These need to be blown up like the 2 versions of the Death Star.
4. What do you think of “Legends” and “Leaders” as division names? (Strongly Like to Strongly Dislike.)
Please see the answer to Question #3.
5. Should the B1G change or keep the current division names?
Please see the answer to Question #3.
6. If you think the division names should be changed, what should they be changed to?
Assuming that logic prevails and the Big Ten has something close to a geographical alignment (a very large assumption when dealing with university presidents and athletic directors that have managed to turn what ought to be a simple exercise into a massive internal political debate), it should be East-West or North-South. If an obsessive Big Ten sports fan like me still needs to stop and think about which school is in which division after two years, then the conference made a mistake. The theme, as I argued over and over again back when the Big Ten added Nebraska, should be K.I.S.S.: Keep It Simple Stupid.
7. If divisions were to be changed, what criteria should be used to determine them? (Rank by importance Competitive balance, geography, protect traditional rivalries.)
The #1 consideration by far should be to protect traditional rivalries, as those are at the heart of what makes college sports great. Close behind that should be geography, as that is a factor that will never change, whether it’s one year from now or two decades down the road. Competitive balance is honestly a minor factor for me. All programs inevitable go up and down on-the-field over time, so attempting to gerrymander divisions based on historical records virtually always ends up backfiring (see the Leaders Division this past season and numerous occasions with the ACC divisions). The Big Ten made a massive mistake in overweighting what it believed to be competitive balance in constructing the current divisions and I hope that they see the light this time around.
8. How important is it for IN-STATE rivals to be in the same division? (Very important to not important.)
It’s important, but there can be exceptions provided that those rivals are still playing each other annually.
9. How important is it for TRADITIONAL rivals to be in the same division? (Very important to not important.)
As with the answer to Question #8, it’s important, yet workarounds can be accommodated as long as the rivals continue to play each other on an annual basis. The main problem with the way that the Big Ten constructed the Leaders and Legends Divisions is that most of the Big Ten schools have multiple traditional rivals, which means that many of them inherently need to be in the same division in order for the maintenance of those rivalries to work. Wisconsin is getting completely screwed by not getting to play traditional rival Iowa and the Badgers are a natural school to help further integrate Nebraska into the conference. In my opinion, the Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota trifecta should have never been split up and Nebraska fits in there as the fourth wheel of that western flank perfectly.
10. Currently, the number of conference games the B1G plays is 8. Should this increase?
Yes, the number of conference games absolutely needs to increase to 9. This is even more important if the Big Ten continues to designate cross-division annual rivalries, where schools would only play their counterparts in the opposite division (excluding designated cross-division rivals) only 2 times in a 12 year period without a 9th conference game. That extra conference game at least turns it into a more tolerable 2 times in a 6 year period cycle (which still isn’t exactly optimal). While every school in the conference wants to maximize home game revenue by playing more MACrifice games, the Big Ten isn’t like the SEC, which has a history of having conference members going very long periods of time without playing each other and doesn’t think much of it. That won’t (or at least shouldn’t) fly in the Big Ten. The fact that the Big Ten had agreed to go to 9 conference games in a 12 school alignment prior to the now-defunct Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance gives me optimism that they’ll do so when it’s even more critical.
11. What is your preference on a B1G Basketball Tourney? (Every team qualifies, or 12 of 14 teams qualify.)
I’m a very large believer that every conference should have all teams qualify for its basketball tournament. Unlike the football conference championship game that only involves 2 teams, the basketball tournament is the one major conference event where the teams, fans and alums from all of the schools can gather together as a shared experience. For those that say that the conference tournament should be about merit, I would reply that leagues should eliminate conferences tournaments all together if people want to be truly merit-based (as the performance over the course of 3 months of regular season games should trump what occurs in 3 days of a conference tournament). Basketball tournaments are purely money-making machines for the power conferences, so you might as well let everyone participate. Plus, there’s the romantic idea that every single school still has one last shot to make it into the NCAA Tournament, which is inherently a more interesting aspect of watching conference tournaments compared to how they’re really just seeding exercises for the teams that already know that they’re going to make it to the Dance.
12. Currently, the B1G has no divisions for basketball. Should this be changed?
I don’t believe that basketball divisions are necessary as long as each school has at least 2 or 3 locked-in annual rivals (e.g. Indiana-Purdue, Michigan-Ohio State, etc.).
13. If yes, why should there be divisions for basketball?
Please see answer to Question #12.
14. If no, why shouldn’t there be divisions for basketball?
Please see answer to Question #12.
15. When people reference “B1G”, do you recognize that to be the Big Ten Conference?
Yes, I do. At first, I wasn’t a large fan of the new Big Ten logo, but that has grown on me (unlike the division names). In the social media context, being able to refer to #B1G on Twitter and have people generally know what that means is extremely useful. That’s not a minor point in today’s world.
16. With 14 teams currently, should the B1G remain the “Big Ten”, or should its name be changed?
It should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS be the Big Ten, even if it ends up with 16 schools or more. If the Big Ten didn’t change its name back when it added Penn State over two decades ago, it certainly shouldn’t do it now. There’s way too much name recognition and brand value with the conference name.
17. Do you have any further thoughts on B1G expansion?
Well, I’ve provided my thoughts on Florida State here. Otherwise, I don’t have a preternatural desire to see the Big Ten expand further. The 14 schools that the conference will have going forward fit together well academically and institutionally with geographic continuity across the Northern half of the United States. If there’s a legit football power in a top market such as Florida State available, then I think the Big Ten ought to be aggressive. However, there isn’t an overall need for the conference to expand for the sake of expanding. I’d be perfectly happy with staying at 14 members.
As for how the divisions should actually look, as I’ve stated before, I favor the K.I.S.S. approach. Realistically, I believe that the Big Ten will need the following requirements in any divisional structure at a minimum:
(a) Ohio State and Michigan must play annually – This is pretty obvious.
(b) Ohio State and Penn State must play annually – This might be less obvious to people outside the Big Ten (or even with some fans within the Big Ten), but trust me, this is a non-negotiable game.
(c) Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland must be in the same division – The entire crux of the Big Ten expansion to 14 is to solidify the league’s presence on the East Coast, which effectively mandates that they have to be together.
What’s evident here is that Ohio State and Penn State are really the keys to the new Big Ten divisional alignment. For instance, these parameters mean that there is no way that Ohio State can be in a division opposite of both Michigan and Penn State – the Buckeyes have to be in a division with at least one of those schools. The East Coast bloc of Penn State/Rutgers/Maryland also limits the league’s options. We also have to consider whether the divisions need to split up the four traditional powers (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska) evenly or if 3 of them can be in one division. I personally believe that 3 of them can be in one division provided that the other side has more depth of non-bottom feeders top-to-bottom, but know that others (particularly athletic directors) may disagree with that.
Ultimately, I’m most in favor of going with an East/West split with Michigan going to the East and Michigan State in the West. It would look like the following (with cross-division rivals next to each other and rationale in parentheses):
EAST – WEST
Michigan – Michigan State (in-state rivalry)
Ohio State – Wisconsin (continuation of current Leaders divisional game)
Penn State – Nebraska (continuation of current cross-division king program game)
Indiana – Illinois (two schools in bordering states passing time until basketball season starts)
Purdue – Iowa (continuation of nonsensical cross-division game)
Rutgers – Northwestern (New York City vs. Chicago angle)
Maryland – Minnesota (they pulled the last two straws)
Even though three “King” programs are in the East, I believe that there is still a solid balance of schools with top notch fan bases in the West (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa) to compensate for it. Most other ways of attempting to put two Kings in each division end up with wacky geography or one extremely strong division and the other being very weak. (Yes, I know that I’ve said that I don’t think that competitive balance should matter, but I’m realistic in believing that others believe it’s important.) Now, it’s understandable that the older members of the Big Ten West likely would not be happy only seeing Michigan and Ohio State 2 times every 6 years, so that could be a deal-killer.
The “Inner-Outer” setup that the BTN provided as a choice here is an interesting concept, as it groups the 4 western schools (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota) with the 3 Eastern schools (Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland) in one division while the 7 other schools in the middle are in the opposite division. It’s terrible in terms of geography and the casual sports fan would look at it and say, “WTF?!”, but it does achieve the goal of preserving every single traditional rivalry as an intra-divisional game with the exception of Ohio State-Penn State. I’m not a fan of the Inner-Outer alignment personally (and most people that I know don’t like it either), yet I certainly wouldn’t put it past the Big Ten presidents and ADs to head down this road.
Classic Music Video of the Week – “12 Days of Christmas” by John Denver and The Muppets
The events of the past week really put back into focus what’s most important in life: friends and family. This video always brings back fond memories of my family popping in a VHS tape of the John Denver Christmas Special with The Muppets every year and my own kids now find The Muppets to be just as hilarious as I did. I hope that all of you and your loved ones have a wonderful holiday.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)
(Image from DigNittanyVolleyball)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawkeyes #1 in the Northwest Airlines Division!
LikeLike
I think this is why the Big should just wrap things up with FSU and GT.
East Central – mostly based on time zones
OSU FSU
MI Neb
PSU WI
MSU GT
Ind IL
Purdue NW
Rutg Iowa
Mary MN
– You perserve the important footlball rivalries
– The eastern division would dominate the Ohio, MI, Penn, and the East north of Maryland for recruiting while the Central Division would have regulat access into FL and Georgia since several of those programs are real dependent on out-state recruiting.
– You could do a FSU rivalry with either NEB or WI to match up with the MI/Ohio reg. season ender in the east. I would pay to see FSU come up to Madison or Lincoln in late Novemebr or early December for a divison title game.
-I would not play Basketball along these divisions – just have a few home and home lock-ins for rivalries and close distance and then rotate through a 20 to 22 game schedule. I could even let the tournament go but thats unlikely.
This would also rationalize the ACC:
ACC North – The old big east schools, Miami, adding Uconn, Cincy, or ND eventually.
ACC South – N. Carolina and Virginia schools pluse Clemson.
I think the ACC works like this thus blocking the SEC from further expansion. It would just be a great basketball concerence with somes decent football.
I would never go over 16 teams and as a college basketball fan I real do not want to brake up tobacco road.
LikeLike
FSU in the West makes no sense. It’s in the eastern time zone and would have no commonality with any of the schools in that division compared to the East.
LikeLike
I would never go over 16 teams and as a college basketball fan I real do not want to brake up tobacco road.
Then watch the four NC schools’ revenues continue to diminish compared to rivals from other conferences, as UNC, State, Duke and Wake will find even tougher sledding in football. That may not be bad news for Wake and to a lesser extent Duke, as they really don’t have the resources to be year-in and year-out successes in football, but for Carolina and NCSU, that would be disastrous. Sorry, but eventually the Big Four will have to break up or risk becoming irrelevant. There’s no rule that says UNC can’t schedule State, Duke and Wake as non-conference games.
LikeLike
Boiler Up!!
LikeLike
What? No posts?
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
RTR!
LikeLike
GEAUX LSU Fightin’ Tigers!
LikeLike
I think you’ve got the divisions perfect with one exception. There is no need for cross-division rivals other than MICH-MSU.
With a 9 game schedule, MICH-MSU can play each year plus two other non-division teams each year. The other 12 teams can play 3 non-division games. Over a 6-year period, it breaks down as follows: (1) MICH/MSU each play each other 6 times and the other 6 non-division teams 2 times (18 games total over 6 years); (2) the other 12 teams each play MICH/MSU 2 times, play 4 other non-division teams 3 times and 2 other non-division teams 2 times (18 games total over 6 years). That allows games like NEB-PSU and OSU-WISC to be played 4 out of 6 years while allowing teams to play more often other than MICH/MSU, but that game must be played each year.
LikeLike
Edit – that should say NEB-PSU and OSU-WISC 3 times out of 6 years, not 4.
LikeLike
Mike,
“I think you’ve got the divisions perfect with one exception. There is no need for cross-division rivals other than MICH-MSU.”
The B10 doesn’t work that way. The give everyone the same type of schedule. They rejected the concept of also locking WI/IA for that reason among others. Besides, the B10 won’t pass on PSU/NE if it can force it every year.
LikeLike
Princess Nitanee
LikeLike
I actually prefer the inner/outer alignment. It preserves the important rivalries. It eliminates the need for protected cross-division games. Coupled with a 9-game schedule, everybody plays three inter-division games. That would mean cycling through the other division every two seasons plus one game in a third season. I like that a lot better than playing those teams twice in six seasons.
LikeLike
My dislike for the inner/outer is that all the “new schools” end up in one division with Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. I imagine those three schools will wonder why the Big Ten left them, while the inner schools get to be as much like the old Big Ten as possible.
LikeLike
Well, those schools voted in favor of adding the new schools. They had to know this was a possibility. With the scheduling scheme I described, that should mitigate any feelings of abandonment on the parts of Iowa, Minnesota & Wisconsin. Besides, I would think that those three schools would feel it vital that they play each other along with Nebraska every year. They would get to play OSU & Michigan three times in seven seasons which is more frequent than some of them play now.
LikeLike
They had to know this was a possibility.
Unless they agreed beforehand that it would not be a possibility (which wouldn’t surprise me).
LikeLike
frug,
“They had to know this was a possibility.
Unless they agreed beforehand that it would not be a possibility (which wouldn’t surprise me).”
That would be a huge surprise to me. It’s very unlike the COP/C to worry about divisions when making their decisions. I’d also be shocked that the group would reject that plan out of hand.
LikeLike
I’ll confess, the opposite is one reason (although not the only) I don’t like east-west all that well. I like that Ohio State has played in a Midwestern conference and don’t particularly care for the idea that of the 6/7 locked games, 3 will be against eastern schools while 2 of our locked Midwestern games (Purdue and Indiana) are against programs that aren’t likely to be toward the top all that often (although Purdue has upset us or been close to it a decent number of times). Playing Penn State is usually fun to look forward to, but it doesn’t mitigate the feeling that the division would feel like it wasn’t a Midwestern one.
LikeLike
Mike,
“My dislike for the inner/outer is that all the “new schools” end up in one division with Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.”
I understand your point, but it’s a tough sell that any of those 3 schools would be upset about being with NE. PSU is also hard to believe. Also, I think it depends what the alternatives are. What if the B10 told those schools that this was the only option considered that kept the three of them together?
“I imagine those three schools will wonder why the Big Ten left them, while the inner schools get to be as much like the old Big Ten as possible.”
They could always look at a map. It should be self-explanatory.
Overall, this is always the problem with expansion with mediocre teams. Nobody wants to play the new guys. PSU and NE were lesser issues. It’s worse that these are new geographical outliers, too, so nobody but PSU has any ties to them. The normal answer would be to split the newbies to spread the pain, but geography makes that awkward this time.
LikeLike
OSU-PSU is a big rivalry game now and need to be/will be protected.
LikeLike
No, it isn’t. It’s a big game, but not a rivalry by any normal sense of the word. Most OSU fans wouldn’t mind if PSU wasn’t on the schedule.
LikeLike
OSU fans are not the only people in the B10 that matter. OSU-PSU is one of the a biggest rivalry games in the B10 to pretty much everybody else. Just ask PSU fans.
LikeLike
Richard,
“OSU fans are not the only people in the B10 that matter. OSU-PSU is one of the a biggest rivalry games in the B10 to pretty much everybody else.”
Only the involved teams have a say on whether or not it’s a rivalry game. Everyone else can decide if it’s a big game, which I already said it was.
“Just ask PSU fans.”
A 1 way rivalry isn’t a rivalry. I know it’s important to them.
LikeLike
“A 1 way rivalry isn’t a rivalry.”
I guess by your definition, the LBJ game isn’t a rivalry either.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I guess by your definition, the LBJ game isn’t a rivalry either.”
Do both sides care more about the game than their status would otherwise indicate? If so, It’s a rivalry. It doesn’t have to be competitive, but both teams need to care more that they would when playing an equivalent team.
LikeLike
Oh No, Brian…PSU-tOSU is a big rivalry game for PSU. As is (but less so) PSU-UM. Also, not having the PSU-tOSU game every year diminishes the value of the big10 TV contract. Delaney is no fool, and will retain the annual PSU-tOSU game.
LikeLike
Nils Anderson – PSU Class of 83,
“Oh No, Brian…PSU-tOSU is a big rivalry game for PSU. As is (but less so) PSU-UM.”
I know it’s big for you, but rivalries are a two-way street to me. It isn’t a rivalry for OSU, just a big game.
“Also, not having the PSU-tOSU game every year diminishes the value of the big10 TV contract.”
It depends what replaces it. PSU/MI would bring as much TV value.
“Delaney is no fool,”
I have one response to that – Leaders and Legends.
“and will retain the annual PSU-tOSU game.”
Maybe. If it fits the best alignment, sure. But I don’t think they’ll screw up their preferred divisions just to keep it (that’s if their preferred divisions don’t have them together).
LikeLike
Should Ohio State be forced into playing a game merely to placate PSU fans?
If Northwestern fans swear a blood oath against Nebraska does that mean Nebraska has to play them every year?
The Big 33 has already thrown in the towel & re-focused on Maryland, no reason PSU can’t as well.
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“Should Ohio State be forced into playing a game merely to placate PSU fans?”
If it fits the divisions, then yes. It’s a valuable game and important to PSU while still a big game to OSU if less emotional. I don’t think the divisions alignment should be altered to make it happen.
“If Northwestern fans swear a blood oath against Nebraska does that mean Nebraska has to play them every year?”
To the B10 way of thinking, the answer seems to be yes.
“The Big 33 has already thrown in the towel & re-focused on Maryland, no reason PSU can’t as well.”
Very true, PSU’s focus will shift eastward quickly (especially for the older alumni). Still, OSU is a peer on the field while MD and RU aren’t. I can see why they want the game and why the B10 wants it.
LikeLike
In other sports news,
http://espn.go.com/olympics/trackandfield/story/_/id/8766649/suzy-favor-hamilton-says-worked-escort
“Struggling in her marriage and mired in depression, three-time Olympian Suzy Favor Hamilton coped by turning to a life of prostitution, working for an escort service based in Las Vegas.”
“A nine-time NCAA champion for Wisconsin, Favor Hamilton is the namesake of the Big Ten’s Suzy Favor Athlete of the Year Award, given to the conference’s top female athlete.”
LikeLike
Can the B1G please stop having trophies named after people still alive?
LikeLike
Amen
LikeLike
Only the BigTen… sheesh.
LikeLike
I think with Maryland and Rutgers added, you are even more right about KISS.
Some variation of your divisional setup is necessary. Those two weaken the current semi-southeast division. You can no longer maintain the two kings, competitive balance, long-time rivalries and achieve the goals of the expansion which was to penetrate DC and NY. Balancing the kings should be the least important of those. Penetrating the markets and maintaining the rivalries (which drive attendance which creates much more revenue than TV) should be the primary goals.
One variation of your setup would have Purdue in the West and Michigan St. in the east. That means your fixed games are Michigan-Iowa, IU-PU and MSU-IL.
Another option that would tilt the balance of power more to the east, but would reduce the need for fixed rivalries would be MSU and NW to the east and IU and PU to the west. It would be about a wash as far as attendance, but MSU and NW have been more successful recently. Northwestern-Illinois would be the only obvious cross-division rivalry that might be fixed. Anything else fixed would simply be for TV.
LikeLike
I think we need to get two things out of our collective mindsets. 1) protected cross-division rivalries. The divisions should be set up so this is not necessary. This allows for playing all teams in the other division more often. 2) balance of power. This will shift over time and should be a secondary concern. As a MSU alumnus, I really only care that we play Michigan every year. Any other consideration is irrelevant compared to that.
I really like the inner/outer alignment for these reasons. As far as division names go, a simple red/blue, or something like that, would fit the bill instead of inner/outer or leaders/legends.
LikeLike
I don’t like Red/Blue for division names. At least with Inner/Outer you know which is which.
I think the best names for this option are: Central Division and Frontier Division.
LikeLike
I Central & Frontier
LikeLike
I would go with the Annulus and the Void. (Other options considered: cytoplasm and nucleus, solar and orbital, white and yellow)
LikeLike
Proton/Electron would get my vote since it’s science-y while still “common knowledge” so to speak.
Note – I don’t like the Inner/Outer alignment itself. I’d rather they just put PSU, tOSU, and Mich in the same freaking division already since that covers that mandatory-for-TV rivalries and could eliminate protected, cross divisional games.
LikeLike
After getting over my initial disdain for inner/outer, I could get on board with it. I’m not a fan of protected games, but I think this alignment solves the most problems while causing the least. As a PSU fan, we’d get to Iowa and Nebraska every year plus the 2 new East schools and a probable locked game with Ohio State.
LikeLike
Richard Cain (@Rich_Cain),
“I think we need to get two things out of our collective mindsets. 1) protected cross-division rivalries. The divisions should be set up so this is not necessary. This allows for playing all teams in the other division more often.”
Ideally, yes, but the final choice may not allow that. Also, the B10 may choose to lock big games for TV reasons anyway.
“2) balance of power. This will shift over time and should be a secondary concern.”
I disagree totally. It should always be a primary concern. That doesn’t mean there’s a way to guarantee it, but it has to be a major concern. Only fools would ignore history when making divisions.
LikeLike
Re-reading mine, I want to clarify.
By “some variation” of your divisional setup, I mean either exactly like yours or something similar (not something similar but different).
LikeLike
Immediately after Rutgers and MD were added, Delany said, in effect, that going forward competitive balance would be one factor and not necessarily the biggest factor…..I think it will be 90% geographic with one or two minor tweeks………..like moving IU to the west and bringing Illinois east………
LikeLike
bullet,
“I think with Maryland and Rutgers added, you are even more right about KISS.”
He isn’t.
“Some variation of your divisional setup is necessary.”
No, it isn’t.
“Those two weaken the current semi-southeast division. You can no longer maintain the two kings, competitive balance, long-time rivalries and achieve the goals of the expansion which was to penetrate DC and NY. Balancing the kings should be the least important of those.”
The two kings a balance go together. That means you abandoned 2 of 4 reasons to make divisions. I also don’t agree you can’t achieve the other goals with a different alignment.
Inner/outer with 9 games gives you 3 crossover games. With no locked rival, you alternate between OSU and MI playing against each of MD and RU every year. That would guarantee both newbies 3 kings every year (PSU, NE and OSU or MI). That is plenty to get penetration.
“Penetrating the markets and maintaining the rivalries (which drive attendance which creates much more revenue than TV) should be the primary goals.”
So inner/outer it is.
“One variation of your setup would have Purdue in the West and Michigan St. in the east. That means your fixed games are Michigan-Iowa, IU-PU and MSU-IL.”
While we’re at it, how about adding an NFL team to that division? Maybe go top 7 versus bottom 7? Eliminate the CCG and just give the Rose spot to the east winner?
LikeLike
Not at all a fan of Inner-Outer.
LikeLike
I’m really not either. But until the B10 promises 9 games, it’s the best option to me.
LikeLike
MSU gets kind of screwed in this set-up strength of schedule wise vs Nebraska and Wisconsin.
LikeLike
On the other hand, with MSU in the other division than Michigan, MSU can get out and stay out of Michigan’s shadow.
Maybe it will help in a similar way it helped A&M when they moved from the Big12 to the SEC.
I’d be curious what Spartans think.
LikeLike
I think it would be easier if we west, but I’d rather be east.
LikeLike
Looking at the Frank Divisions:
9 game schedule
Assume the only crossover is UM/MSU
All the other teams in the opposite division of UM/MSU will only play them every third year.
Looking at the other 12 teams:
– of the 6 non-UM/MSU teams in the opposite division:
– they can play 4 every other year
– they can play 2 every third year.
So, each team will lose a closeness to either UMorMSU plus 2 other teams.
They will keep a closer relationship with 4 teams in the opposite division.
Team: 4 teams in the opposite division they’ll play every other year
Illini: OSU Pur Ind Mar
Minn: OSU Ind Rut Mar
Wisc: OSU PSU Rut Mar
Neb: OSU PSU Pur Ind
Iowa: PSU Pur Ind Rut
NW: PSU Pur Rut Mar
Pur: Neb Illini Iowa NW
Ind: Neb Illini Minn Iowa
OSU: Neb Wisc Illini Minn
PSU: Neb Wisc Iowa NW
Rut: Wisc Minn Iowa NW
Mar: Wisc Illini Minn NW
Interesting to note:
Just that one crossover game really isolates UM from the Western Division, and isolates MSU from the Eastern Division.
LikeLike
If I had a magic wand, this is what the B1G would look like:
West East
ILLINOIS BOSTON COLLEGE
INDIANA CLEMSON
IOWA DUKE
MICHIGAN FLORIDA STATE
MICH ST GEORGIA TECH
MINN MARYLAND
NEB MIAMI, FLA
NWSTRN NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO ST PENN STATE
PURDUE RUTGERS
WISCO VIRGINIA
* Ten conference games so each team plays every team in its division; 5 home, 5 away.
* No conference games scheduled between divisions. (If schools want to play each other, there are two OOC dates available. I’d rather see Penn State and Iowa play each other rather than either of them playing Missouri State or Akron, for example.)
* Division winners meet in title game, obviously.
* I would strongly petition NCAA to allow all teams a 13th game with the purpose of the non-division winners matching up against their counterparts in the other division. 2nd place West plays 2nd place East, etc. An argument against this might be it would hurt the chances of getting multiple teams into the playoff. My counter to that would be this: a 2nd team in the playoffs for the Big Ten is not very likely in most years. Moreover, there would be one 2nd-place team that would get an additional win that could boost its “at-large” chances. Additionally, the increased revenue of the extra games would make it worthwhile. As far as logistics, this is not too hard. Simply designate East division teams host in odd-numbered years and West division teams host in even-numbered years.
> Adds lots of big markets for BTN including major football brands in Clemson, FSU & Miami (FL)
> Keeps all the traditional Big Ten rivalries intact and also preserves the treasured rivalries of the Eastern/Southern schools.
> While not a primary concern, the Duke/Carolina basketball rivalry is a very valuable property and adds further value to the B1G(22).
> It would be one helluva conference basketball tournament….
Is this pure Fantasy Land? Absolutely. Just having some fun with it.
LikeLike
Minus BC and Clemson that might be Darth Delany’s master plan, to devour the ACC whole and spit out the unprofitable chunks.
(no I don’t want to expand past 16)
LikeLike
I agree that 16 seems like a good limit…..the problem is that the only way to get to 16 that looks worth the trouble is with VA and UNC…….and UNC might need to have GT and Duke around to make it palatable…..UNC is unlikely to come with only VA along, imo.
LikeLike
The biggest issue with that conference is that it’s tailor made for a split 30-40 years down the road with PSU leaving with it’s eastern ‘friends’.
LikeLike
No reason to add Miami if the B1G adds FSU
LikeLike
Frank, you remind me of the LSU fans who were pushing for the idea of an SEC west with LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt.
I’m sure you’d love to not have Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State in Illinois’s division.
LikeLike
Andy – In the SEC, there are three cross-division rivalry games that are based on tradition. The others are somewhat contrived. Those three are Bama/Tennessee, UGA/Auburn, and Ole Miss/Vandy. Miss State and UK don’t mind playing each other since they each have a shot, from year to year. South Carolina and Arkansas were just thrown together in the 90s. LSU and Florida have 40 years of consistent history and, over the last decade, this game has meant a lot from a national perspective. The idea of moving Bama and Auburn to the East, for Mizzou and Vandy is to preserve all the traditional rivalries without the need of locked cross-division games or a 9th conference game. I’d rather have 9 conference games with one locked cross-division game, but I’d take and 8 game schedule with no locked cross-division games over what we have now.
In 2011, Bama played Vandy & Tennessee, while LSU played Tennessee & Florida.
This season Bama played Tennessee & Mizzou, while LSU played Florida & South Carolina.
Next season Bama will play Tennessee & Kentucky, while LSU will play Florida & Georgia.
What’s fair about that?
As it stands now, LSU consistently plays the most difficult conference schedule in the SEC, and schedules one of the more competitive OOC schedules in the SEC.
LikeLike
Vandy loses it’s game with Tenn?
LikeLike
In the immortal words of Mick Jagger, “you can’t always get what you want.” . . . if I was in charge.
LikeLike
Yes, but move Alabama and Auburn to the east and the divisons are completely unbalanced, much to the advantage of LSU.
LikeLike
Wait, but isn’t Mizzou a power? Anyway, there would still be TAMU.
LikeLike
Nah. Illinois won’t compete for a division title more than twice per decade either way so we would rather have regular games against the traditional powers (at least keep the Illibuck).
LikeLike
Go Green!
LikeLike
I’ve just a few comments on Frank’s preferred alignment (pure EAST-WEST, with Michigan State in the West).
Every alignment I’ve seen is bad in some respect. I suspect that the Western division teams would really howl about not seeing Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State for long periods of time. The question is whether Delany can jam this down their throats, despite that drawback.
I am really not seeing Penn State-Ohio State as a “non-negotiable game,” and if you drop that requirement, a number of other options are on the table.
I also think Frank under-estimates the problem of competitive balance. Obviously, you can’t get it exactly right, and you can’t predict future records down to the third decimal place. But you certainly don’t want a situation where one division is perennially stronger than the other. That was one of many problems with the Big 12’s north and south divisions, with the north being quite a bit weaker.
I prefer eight conference games. A ninth game will lower the conference’s overall winning percentage, which will impair its bowl positioning and will cost it multiple playoff spots, over time. If I’m a Big Ten AD, selfishly I’d rather have four games under my control, which I can probably schedule to my team’s advantage better than ceding one of them to Jim Delany.
LikeLike
I think PSU will throw a fit if they drop OSU-PSU but I doubt the rest of the schools feel the same. I know has traditionally been valuable from a TV standpoint but with PSU unlikely to be competitive until the end of the decade it takes a major hit. Michigan-Nebraska is almost certain to be the more valuable game for the next 6-8 years.
LikeLike
As a PSU fan, I would indeed would throw a fit if we lost playing Ohio State every year. While there are a number of conference teams I enjoy playing, Ohio State is the only one I really care about. And that’s why I don’t like Inner/Outer. I understand the logic, but I think it hurts PSU by losing their biggest game in the conference.
The two things I care about:
1. Playing Ohio St every year
2. Playing Maryland and Rutgers every year (because they are reasonable close games that cater to alumni and help strengthen our eastern roots)
Otherwise, I don’t care about the divisions and schedule. Also, I’d far more willing to see 9 conference games now since there are actual eastern teams in the conference (I was concerned that fewer non-conference games would lead to fewer regional games for PSU) and because there are more teams (allowing for greater variety). I didn’t like 9 conference games when we were at 12 teams because that would limit much variety on the schedule.
LikeLike
Inner / Outer can have annual PSU/OSU games, since OSU/MI is in-division. Just lock OSU/PSU as a cross division game, as OSU/MI is now.
LikeLike
The main selling point for Inner/Outer is the lack of need for cross division games. Sure, if we get Inner/Outer with a locked cross division game with PSU/OSU, I’d be okay with that but that doesn’t seem to be the theoretical plan.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Spaz. One of Frank’s points was that PSU/OSU must be protected. Any alignment that doesn’t protect both OSU/PSU and OSU/Mich (and probably Mich/Mich St) is never going to fly. Penn State might not win the division for while, but they’ll still draw TV viewers, and I don’t think PSU ever joins the Big Ten 20 years ago if they are NOT guaranteed Ohio State every year. I doubt the Big Ten would un-promise that.
LikeLike
@spaz ~ lack of any locked games may be original game plan, but if OSU and that MI school have decided that being in the same division is what they want, and one locked game between the Central division and the Frontier division is required to round up the votes, then the conference could well compromise on abstract purity. It would still be six unlocked games, so everyone else would see the unlocked teams in the other division every three and a half years.
I’m still attracted to the idea of trading of fewer every year games to guarantee everyone plays everyone else over two years, but I’d prefer Central/Frontier with a single locked PSU/OSU cross division game to East/West of any sort.
LikeLike
PSU, and its fans, would throw a fit if the annual game wit tOSU is dropped. PSU WILL be competitive, thanks to Bill O’Brien, and PSU-tOSU WILL continue to be the most valuable game after annual Evil Axis game.
LikeLike
pioneerlion,
Competitiveness has nothing to do with it. Nobody is suggesting to drop the game because of PSU’s penalties.
I’ve seen other PSU fans say they don’t care that much about OSU, we were just the only neighbor. It seems to be an eastern PA vs western PA sort of thing.
Do you have anything to back up OSU/PSU being more valuable than MI/PSU? That would be a very similar game to neutral fans, and that’s where the money is.
LikeLike
The Big Ten has made OSU/PSU an annual game since 1993. While I think that’s because OSU/UM and UM/MSU were protected, there’s no point in leaving money on the table. Give Nebraska an annual game with PSU, and you’ve got 2 big games each year for the Three Kings from the East.
LikeLike
Aaron Morrow,
“The Big Ten has made OSU/PSU an annual game since 1993. While I think that’s because OSU/UM and UM/MSU were protected, there’s no point in leaving money on the table.”
OSU/PSU was made annual because OSU was PSU’s only neighbor and they demanded it (esp. since MI wasn’t available). They also got MI for the first 10 years.
“Give Nebraska an annual game with PSU, and you’ve got 2 big games each year for the Three Kings from the East.”
Not in E/W. In E/W, the 3 in the east already have 2 king/king games every year (OSU/MI, OSU/PSU, MI/PSU). Adding NE/PSU makes 3 king/king games for them.
Odds are NE/PSU would be dropped to avoid complaints from PSU. NE/WI and NE/IA would have to make up for it. Plus, NE would play 2 or 3 eastern teams so likely 1 of the 3 kings each year.
LikeLike
“Do you have anything to back up OSU/PSU”
-Brian it is one of the standard memes ontheir msg boards. Apparently without PSU nobody would watch the B1G & the BTN would fail. They’re the financial lynchpin to the conference, and State College is the trend setting cultural center that all those tiny B1G cow towns (you know like Chicago, Minneapolis & Columbus) aspire to be like.
LikeLike
PSU fans will throw a fit regardless. However the divisions & schedules end up finalizing PSU fans will be convinced that it was all part of the great B1G conspiracy against the nits.
BTW is there an actual all-caps class taught up in State College?
LikeLike
The ratings for Ohio State-Penn State were down this year, in relation to other Big Ten games, than they have been in the past.
Source: http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/college-football-wrap-tv-ratings-for-almost-every-game-this-season/
If this is the new trend, expect Nebraska-Ohio State to become a protected game, despite Scarlet_Lutefisk’s buy-in to the OSU-PSU rivalry.
LikeLike
Can’t look at it in isolation, however.
OSU-UNL was primetime & competed against WVU-Texas, UGa-SC, Miami-ND (and FSU-NCSU).
However, OSU-PSU was later afternoon and partially overlapped with UGa-UF (and MSU-Wisconsin/USC-Arizona) as well as ND-OU & Michigan-UNL
OSU-UNL was the only B10 game on that that time, which wasn’t true for OSU-PSU. OSU-PSU also had to compete against 3 other games featuring king vs. king, 2 of which had major national title implications.
Bottom line: OSU-PSU will be protected by the B10.
LikeLike
If there are no fixed cross-divisional games and an 8 game schedule, you face 6 teams in the other division home and away over 8 years and one team 4 times in 8 years. With NW, MSU, UM, OSU, PSU, MD, RU in the east and IL, IU, PU, WI, MN, IA, UNL in the west, the teams playing 4 out of 8 could be (this is just an example for illustration-you might have different parings):
IL-NW (maybe ooc 4 out of 8 also)
IA-MI
PU-OSU
WI-PSU
IU-MSU
MN-MD
UNL-RU
Something like this would spread around the 3 eastern kings. Iowa, Purdue and Wisconsin would get one of the 3 every year (4+2+2) in addition to Nebraska every year. Competent scheduling could make sure each gets one of the 4 at home every year. The 3 other schools get one of the 4 kings at home 7 of the 8 years. Now Nebraska only gets the other 3 at home 3 of 8 in this scenario. That’s not ideal for TV, but Nebraska doesn’t need the attendance boost.
LikeLike
Giving one division both East Coast schools implies that in a decade or two that division will emerge as the perennially division. Resource biases don’t dictate every competitive outcome, but they do bias the averages.
LikeLike
“emerge as the perenially division” … emerge as the perenially strong division …
LikeLike
Assuming that the B10 stays at 14 for a decade instead of going to 16/18 & pods, which I doubt.
LikeLike
And certainly the B10 should decide on divisions based on your doubts.
They know they have 14 teams. They have no guarantee of ever growing larger.
LikeLike
I believe Delany’s doubts as well. They certainly should plan divisions based on a probabilistic assessment of future scenarios.
LikeLike
Richard,
“I believe Delany’s doubts as well.”
Good for you. Get back to me when you have evidence.
“They certainly should plan divisions based on a probabilistic assessment of future scenarios.”
There’s a 100% there will be at least 14 teams. That’s all they know. Even if the want to grow, it may take 20 years. They can change the divisions again if they expand again.
LikeLike
Anyone reading these knows I prefer inner-outer (by a large margin). That said, if they don’t go with that approach, I hope they use yours for the divisions.
I’d make one of two changes to the crossovers though. 1. If possible, I’d have only Michigan and Michigan State as a locked game. 2. If they do lock all the teams, I’d lock Purdue-Illionios instead of Illinois-Indiana. I don’t know how big it is to most, but I’ve seen a couple Purdue fans who really like that rivalry and didn’t want it ended. That would instead give us Indiana-Iowa (or any other way someone would want to split the last couple locked games).
LikeLike
Husker fan here.
I really don’t like any of the proposed divisions that I’ve seen mentioned by the B10 or anybody else. An east-west or north-south alignment makes the most sense to me, but honestly not having UM, tOSU, or PSU in the same division as us would ruin the division race, even in a deeper division, it takes something away from it.
In my model there are no divisions, but every teams has 3-protected games, and simply rotates the other 10 teams. It makes as much sense as anything, imo, it keeps -or could keep- most of the current rivalries, I don’t know all of them so there are probably some errors. This model allows every team to play everybody else twice in a four year period, with an 8-game schedule, which is what I prefer.
If/when B10 expands to 16, all that would need to be done is add a 9th conference game, and everybody would still be playing everybody twice every four years. – or just switch to a pod system at that point.
Im a Husker fan, so I don’t know all of the traditional rivalries yet. The PSU v tOSU rivalry is the most obvious omission, but could be added if there were a 4th protected game or a 9th conference game….
Here is how I set up the protected games:
Nebraska: Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Ohio State: Michigan, Illinois, Purdue
Penn State: Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland
Wisconsin: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Northwestern: Michigan State, Illinois, Indiana
Minnesota: Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Purdue
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Illinois
Illinois: Ohio State, Northwestern, Maryland
Purdue: Ohio State, Indiana, Rutgers
Indiana: Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern
Thoughts? Errors?
LikeLike
I like it from a scheduling standpoint. (I didn’t consider too closely the details of the protected games, btw.) It’s an imaginative way of thinking and it gets teams to play each other as often as possible.
From the standpoint of competition and determining a champion, it’s problematical. With only one division, the only obvious way to have a championship game is to pit the 1st place finisher against the 2nd place finisher. And that’s a bad way to format that. Also, what if they just played? That format also presents strength-of-schedule considerations that are not as big a factor when you have two divisions. Only playing 8 of 13 opponents is too small a sample set I fear. You would get lots of ties potentially among the top three or four teams.
I like your thinking in that it takes a different approach. I just don’t think it works with 14 teams.
LikeLike
You bring up some good points, that probably would keep an idea like this from being approved. Personally, it just seems better than splitting Nebraska from all of the other traditional powers…. Definitely more appealing than Nebraska and a team from New Jersey being in the same division. 🙂
For the sake of argument though:
Your probably right in saying that there would usually be a few teams with the same records, but I don’t think tie-breakers would necessarily be difficult to work out…. You would obviously start with conference record, then head-heads, then maybe “protected-games” record, Then BCS rank…. I think it could be worked out fairly if given the proper forethought…. Adding a 9th game would probably help that, its just not my preference like I stated.
Ideally in a divisional alignment we would still have the #1 v #2 in the title game anyway, so I think that is a positive that this model presents, as long as the tie-breakers are well thought out. We always want the two best teams playing in the title game, even if they did play in the week prior.
Unless tOSU and UM are placed in the same division or pod, having the championship teams play twice in one season will always be a problem. But other than that game, I don’t think that there are any other final-week games that would regularly present that problem. Are their any other games that MUST be played on the final weekend? NW v Illinois? I think smart scheduling could negate the possibility of regularly having back-2-back rematches – other than tOSU/UM… And if thats the biggest issue, I don’t think its a tough choice to make, not for me anyway; the B10 already made it once.
I like it for the same reason you mentioned, the scheduling. It offers a tough and balanced schedule to every team…. And although 9 games could easily be used with this model, I like the idea of retaining an 8-game schedule. It allows for some quality OOC games. If we go to 9 games, I really doubt NU ever plays any of our old Big8 or B12 partners, which is a disappointing thought.
Thanks for the input.
LikeLike
This is the schedule model I typed up for the ‘protected games’ I created. I spent 15-20 mins on this and NW is the only team that doesn’t play two of the 4 traditional-powers, but even at that they would play Nebraska, Wiscy, MSU, and Iowa in once cycle. And the others powers on other cycle.
Better minds than mine — not to mention people who get paid to spend time on this sort of thing 🙂 — could certainly work it out so every team played two of the 4 powers every year.
Illinois:
Schedule A: tOSU, NW, MD – NU, Wisc, Rutgers, Purdue, Minn
Schedule B: tOSU, NW, MD – PSU, UM, MSU, Iowa, Indiana
Indiana:
Schedule A: MSU, Purdue, NW – NU, UM, Wisc, Rutgers, Minn
Schedule B: MSU, Purdue, NW – tOSU, PSU, Iowa, MD, Illinois,
Iowa:
Schedule A: NU, Wisc, Minn – UM, MSU, Rutgers, Illinois, Purdue
Schedule B: NU, Wisc, Minn – tOSU, PSU, NW, MD, Indiana
Maryland:
Schedule A: PSU, RU, Illinois – NU, UM, Wisc, NW, Indiana
Schedule B: PSU, RU, Illinois – tOSU, MSU, Iowa, Purdue, Minn
UM:
Schedule A: tOSU, MSU, Minn – NU, Iowa, NW, MD, Purdue
Schedule B: tOSU, MSU, Minn – PSU, Wisc, Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana
MSU:
Schedule A: UM, NW, Indiana – NU, Wisc, Rutgers, MD, Purdue
Schedule B: UM, NW, Indiana – tOSU, PSU, Iowa, Illinois, Minn
Minnesota:
Schedule A: UM, Wisc, Iowa – PSU, MSU, NW, Illinois, Indiana
Schedule B: UM, Wisc, Iowa – NU, tOSU, Rutgers, MD, Purdue
NU:
Schedule A: PSU, Wisc, Iowa – tOSU, MSU, Rutgers, Purdue, Minn
Schedule B: PSU, Wisc, Iowa – UM, NW, MD, Illinois, Indiana
NW:
Schedule A: MSU, Illinois, Indiana – tOSU, PSU, UM, MD, Minn
Schedule B: MSU, Illinois, Indiana – NU, Wisc, Iowa, Rutgers, Purdue
tOSU:
Schedule A: UM, Illinois, Purdue – PSU, MSU, Iowa, MD, Minn
Schedule B: UM, Illinois, Purdue – NU, Wisc, NW, Rutgers, Indiana
PSU:
Schedule A: NU, MD, RU – tOSU, MSU, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana
Schedule B: NU, MD, RU – UM, Wisc, NW, Purdue, Minn
Purdue:
Schedule A: tOSU, Indiana, RU – PSU, UM, Iowa, NW, Illinois,
Schedule B: tOSU, Indiana, RU – NU, Wisc, MSU, MD, Minn
Rutgers:
Schedule A: PSU, MD, Purdue – tOSU, Wisc, Iowa, NW, Indiana
Schedule B: PSU, MD, Purdue – NU, UM, MSU, Illinois, Minn
Wisconsin:
Schedule A: NU, Iowa, Minn – tOSU, PSU, MD, Illinois, Indiana
Schedule B: NU, Iowa, Minn – UM, MSU, NW, Rutgers, Purdue
LikeLike
“NW is the only team that doesn’t play two of the 4 traditional-powers,”
—You should get extra credit for managing to work Northwestern’s secret forumla for getting to the Rose Bowl into your system. 😉
LikeLike
The problem is in order to play a CCG you have to have two divisions that hold round robins.
That said…
I have actually wondered about the idea of “floating divisions” where each team has 2 or 3 teams they always play and they just redraw the divisions around those rivalries every 2 years. Sometimes the rivals would be in division and sometimes they wouldn’t, but you would still play them annually. (Obviously this would never ever happen, but it would be interesting in theory)
LikeLike
Floating divisions are what pods are.
You’ll likely see it if we expand to 18.
LikeLike
I was talking even more amorphous than pods like what Wade described.
But yeah, I think pods are likely where they will go with further expansion (At least in the medium term. If we end up in a Larry Scott scenario with one gigantic 60-80 member conference then schools can schedule however they want to since the conferences won’t be competing against each other.)
LikeLike
That (your Larry Scott scenario) would almost bring us full circle back to the days when all of Div 1A was covered under a single media deal. If we ever did get to that point how long until one or more schools (Texas for example) sue for the right to work out their own deals again?
LikeLike
@Scarlet
I guess it depends on how much money they make. Scott is convinced that if the top at most 72 schools united they would have the same bargaining power as the NFL. At that point it wouldn’t make any sense for anyone to go off on their own. (It’s like the Cowboys are going to break away from the NFL just because they share a TV deal with the Bengals)
The other important factor is that unlike before when the NCAA was in charge, the schools would be making the decisions for themselves.
LikeLike
They can choose to keep their rights, or pool them as is currently happening. They didn’t have that choice before.
LikeLike
Is it a NCAA rule that there needs to be two divisions for a title game? If it is a NCAA think, I would think/hope that it could be restated if the B10 made their case with an alignment-model similar to the 1 I posted.
LikeLike
I think the NCAA only allows two divisions. Not sure, though.
LikeLike
Yes. It is specifically worked into the language.
A CG requires – 12 or more teams/two divisions/full round robin within each division
LikeLike
OSU-PSU definitely should be protected over PSU-UNL.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say “over”, but I agree, it should be put on the same level of importance… I wanted to retain it, but it just didn’t work out. Obviously things would be need to be re-worked a little if this were to actually happen.
The only reason I didn’t fit it in with this model was because that would’ve given tOSU 2 protected games against the traditional powers while UM & PSU had only 1, NU 0 – which sort of defeated my purpose of doing this, which I don’t want to see NU split completely from the traditional-powers like we were in the B12, and like has been proposed in the E/W model.
It would also kill any chance of NU establishing any rivalries with the other “kings” before any rivalries were given a chance to take off. I just don’t think that would be a smart move for the B10 in the long run.
LikeLike
I’m back and forth on where I think this will go, but I think your point whether Ohio State-Penn State is something the conference will insist will probably one of the biggest keys to the eventual outcome.
I think the current divisions (with Illinois moved west), are unlikely as it will be very difficult for the presidents to move things around to give Maryland/Rutgers close games while leaving Wisconsin without any border state teams. The media might not notice that, but Wisconsin’s president/AD certainly would.
Inner-outer lets everyone play 2 kings a year (minimum), puts the eastern and western kings where their influence is strongest (with the eastern/western teams), and maximizes games against everyone regardless of if we have 8 or 9 conference games (no locked crossovers). I don’t think travel is actually going to be a big concern for the schools. While instantly recognizing the divisions might be something they put more stock on this time (helping the east-west cause), I don’t think that will be the overriding concern.
So that leaves us with whether Ohio State must play Penn State. If so, I think they go east-west. If not, I think they go inner-outer. At the end of the day, I think this comes down to what Ohio State and Penn State’s presidents/ADs push for. I’m hoping they are willing to go to 9 conference games and let it occur 3 out of 7 years, but I think east-west is more likely.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s just PSU and OSU that would argue to keep that game. Guaranteeing that game guarantees money to everyone. Nobody is looking to take pay cut herre.
LikeLike
I am a Buckeye fan (Columbus burb growing up, moved to Cali as a teen, still a Buckeye). And I mostly agree with you. I prefer to sit on 14 for cohesion. Football has issue that you may see cross division schools in your stadium every only once every 6 years (sucks). And yes Wisconsin belongs with Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska (Illinois should be in that group too). Adding schools to 16 will make Basketball unmanageable and will destroy all football cohesion — effectively two different leagues that only play in the Championship game.
I totally agree with no divisions in MBB (WBB, WVB). I think the schedule should be balanced. Everyone should be paired with a rival to play a 2nd time every year like this:
In-Purdue, Mi-MSU, Il-NW, Ne-Ia, Wi-Mn, OSU-Md, PSU-Rut
Then everyone rotates four of the other 12 for a 2nd game. This way in 3 years you play 12 of the schools four times – two home games for everyone with Indiana (the one we all want to see, our MBB rock star) every three years. Great cohesion, fair schedule, no school doesn’t host another more than one year in three.
MBB, WBB, and WVB schedules are strictly seeding for the Tourney anyway, so divisions make no sense, could make for unbalanced tourney.
Yes everyone in the Tourney. Could either give bye to seeds #1 and #2 (4 rounds) or “play in” (5 rounds) where top 4 get byes, bottom 4 “play in” on Wednesday night – I prefer “play in format, limits to 4 games a day, more likely to sell out each day, protects top seeds a little bit, gives bottom teams a game or two they can actually win without pulling some miracle upset.
LikeLike
I think with 16 teams it makes basketball scheduling easier. Play each opponent only once per season for 15 league games. Would that be a problem if a rival doesn’t visit your home gym each year? Probably. But this would be a fairer schedule. Playing some teams twice and others only once makes the potential for an unfair schedule very high.
With 14 teams I would prefer breaking into divisions for basketball. 12 games in division plus the other 7 for 19 games total.
But with the automatic berth going to the conference tournament winner, what difference does it make in the end how many games are played in the regular season schedule? To maximize at-large bids, the league ought to schedule fewer games in conference and make sure each team plays enough decent-to-good teams out of conference so SOS scores are high enough. Whatever size the conference ends up, they ought to consider single game round-robin scheduling.
LikeLike
Richard, I thought about it, and actually 16 will work, but you don’t play 15 games (way too few) you play 20 with no rivals. You rotate 5 of the 15 schools to play a 2nd time. This way you play every school 4 times in 3 years, which means twice in your gym. Just no designated rival. (same for WVB and WBB)
This is exactly as many games as the B1G played with 11 schools. It would work now.
LikeLike
Did the Big Ten ever play a complete 20-game round-robin with 11 members? The only conference I know of to play 20 conference games was the Northeast Conference when it had at least 11 teams, and that probably only because it assured NEC members of playing at least 10 home games a season (NEC gyms are among the smallest in Div I, and very few members of other Div I conferences will thus agree to visit them).
LikeLike
No. The Big Ten played 18 games for a few years after PSU joined, but has played 16 for the past dozen years or so.
LikeLike
Go B1G Red
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
I posted this in the last thread:
I have a unique view on how divisional alignment should be done. It has lots of good positives such as no more haggling over who should be in what divisions, no long layoffs in playing schools in the opposite division no matter how big the conference gets, competitive balance and yearly intrigue into who plays who. 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.
LikeLike
Same reaction as always ~ I am completely unthrilled by the prospect of playing Maryland AND Rutgers every year, only playing five Big Ten teams a year, and one of them is always Indiana.
In terms of the three axioms ~ MU/OSU, PSU/OSU, PSU, MD, Rutgers in the same division ~ I believe the third axiom is mis-tated. The first two are stated in terms of “must play each year”. The third is stated in terms of “must be in the same division”. But that does not hold: it work also work PSU to be in the same division as one, and locked with the other.
That implies by Axiom 2 that PSU and OSU are in the same division, and then if the East/West proposals are OK, OSU/MU in the same division are OK. Whichever of the east coast schools are getting stranded unless we start including some more schools with them, so the Indiana schools go with the new school locked with PSU cross division:
North: Rutgers, PSU, OSU, MU
South: MD, IN, Purdue
The furthest south remaining is UNL, and it should be paired with IA:
North: Rutgers, PSU, OSU, MU
South: MD, IN, Purdue, UNL, IA
The furthest north remaining is MN, and it should be paired with WI:
North: Rutgers, PSU, OSU, MU, MN, WI
South: MD, IN, Purdue, UNL, IA
The furthest south remaining is the Illini, who should be paired with NW:
North: Rutgers, PSU, OSU, MU, MN, WI
South: MD, IN, Purdue, UNL, IA, Illini, NW
Which leaves MSU
North: Rutgers, PSU, OSU, MU, MSU, MN, WI
South: MD, IN, Purdue, Illini, NW, IA, UNL
Three locks. A singlet:
PSU — MD
And a pairwise (crossover alternating years), so all four western schools play three Western schools each year:
MN/WI — UNL/IA
The other four in each division unlocked.
LikeLike
“In terms of the three axioms ~ MU/OSU, PSU/OSU, PSU, MD, Rutgers in the same division ~ I believe the third axiom is mis-tated. The first two are stated in terms of “must play each year”. The third is stated in terms of “must be in the same division”. But that does not hold: it work also work PSU to be in the same division as one, and locked with the other.”
Disagree because the issue isn’t just PSU playing Rutgers and Maryland, but the two of them playing each other. Now, granted, Rutgers and Maryland will likely take whatever they are given, but I would imagine the leadership and fans at those schools want to see more local teams, which means playing PSU and the other team every year, which at least would feel less like being an outsider in a mismatched conference.
And the only ways for all of PSU/Rutgers/Maryland to play every season are either to be in one division or having 2 locked cross-division games. And the latter definitely ain’t happening.
LikeLike
Is that just a loose “play local teams”, or actual rivalry between Rutgers and Maryland?
To my mind, you would certainly ask about the priorities of each school. But if the first priority is playing Penn State, for both of them, then it can’t also be playing each other. By meaning of “first priority”.
If the purpose of admitting them is to open up the NYC/NNJ and MD/DC/NVA media market, and recruiting grounds, to the Big Ten, then EVERY team in the Big Ten should have one or the other in their division. Clearly the NYC/NNJ media market is the tougher nut to crack, so you tilt your big guns toward playing there on a regular basis.
LikeLike
I think it’s about keeping and strengthening an eastern presence for each school, not specific rivalries. Playing (relatively) nearby schools helps build the conference brand of the Big Ten in a area by having it more relevant to the fanbase. Playing teams from the “distant” midwest makes it tougher for fans to feel at home in the conference.
Just IMHO, but I think PSU/Rutgers/Maryland in one division is a given.
LikeLike
I think its LIKELY, because each school is looking out for its mix of interests, and without any longer term attachment TO a division by school, there is nobody to look out for and balance the interests of the divisions in general.
What BTN need is enough “Big Names” in Rutgers every year to crack the NYC/NNJ media market, how it gets there is not going to be such a bid issue with them ~ even if OSU has a big pile of meh in the middle of its schedule, the BTN is not going to lose the cable home market carriage in Ohio.
LikeLike
For football, I like the East-West setup cited above, with one minor change — switch annual cross-division games to Purdue-Northwestern and Rutgers-Iowa. Also, go to a 9-game conference schedule as soon as it’s feasible.
For men’s and women’s basketball, place all 14 members in the conference tourney (unless the program is prohibited from postseason play by the NCAA).
LikeLike
Some on here have made the assertion that UNC would be afraid of losing the recruiting battle with NCSU if they joined the B10 & NCSU went to the SEC & that fear keeps them from the B10.
So I decided to look to see if that fear actually had any basis in fact. I decided to look at how Texas & TAMU faired in average number of stars in their recruits the last 2 years (Rivals data), which I prefer because it controls for recruiting class size. I also looked at how UF & FSU & Clemson & SC faired by average number of Rivals stars the past 5 years (UGa & GTech are simply on different levels so that wouldn’t be a good comp for UNC/NCSU).
No surprise, Texas > TAMU in recruiting stars in both 2012 & 2013.
So how do Clemson & FSU fare against their Big Bad SEC in-state rivals?
2013:
UF>FSU
Clemson>SC
2012:
FSU>UF
Clemson>SC
2011:
UF>FSU
Clemson>SC
2010:
UF>FSU
Clemson>SC
2009:
UF>FSU
Clemson>SC
Note that the ACC teams suffer from a financial disparity vis-a-vis their Big Bad SEC rivals, yet they still won in recruiting 6-4 over the past 5 years. In the B10, UNC would have as much as or more financial firepower than NCSt. Thus the notion that UNC would be afraid of joining the B10 because they’re afraid that they would be also-rans to NCSU in football is, to put it charitably, based on bad information.
LikeLike
First off, you could’ve just left off UF/FSU out of your arguement. UF has beat FSU every year but one (and that gap probably increases if you go back to Urban’s 2nd recruiting class). But you can’t compare the FL or TX schools with the NC schools, because the talent is so rich in those states that they can support multiple teams, NC can not.
Second off, you can’t simply throw UGA & GT out of the equation. GT historically has been a pretty good program, that as produced national championships (as a matter of a fact, they have a more recent national championship than UGA). And GT’s lower football prominence than UGA started when they left the SEC. When GT was in the SEC, they were the better football program.
But comparing UCSe & Clemson to UNC & NCST is also a bit misleading as well. Both schools (but especially Clemson) get the majority of their recruits from out of state. And Dabo has been an excellent recruiter throughout his career (which is why he was given the HC job in the first place). Spurrier has never been known as an excellent recruiter. As a matter of a fact, he has the reputation of preferring to be out on the golf course as opposed to recruiting (and that only grows considering he has to recruit out of state, which he didn’t have to at UF). Plus Clemson was known as the football/athletics school of South Carolina up until USCe became entrenched in the SEC. USCe historically hardly ever pulled in top recruiting classes, but now they pull in top 20 classes every year since joining the SEC.
I think the bigger concern from the UNC fans (BTW…this concern is being expressed by their fanbase, I’m just repeating what is being posted on their boards) is that NCST will eventually (like within the next 20 years) become viewed has the more prominent football program (and thus the prominent athletic program since football drives the bus) in the state of North Carolina. This is where the Clemson/USCe and UGA/GT comparision really fuel their concerns. As stated above, GT was the the athletics program of Georgia until they left the SEC. And they were still considered the better athletic program up until around the late 70s. I personally believe that had GT stayed in the SEC, they could’ve continued to be a top program despite being a small/private school (like ND, Stanford & USC). But Bobby Dodd got ticked off at Coach Bryant and thought that they could go independent and become the “ND of the south” (his/their words, not mine). Also, Clemson was the athletics program in South Carolina historically, but now USCe has caught up to them and has started to beat them on the field with some regularity. USCe has come a long ways as far as how they are now preceived from an athletic standpoint. The national visability that they get in the SEC can’t be overlooked. That is one of the biggest reason that aTm wanted to come to the SEC, for national branding purposes.
The UNC fans aren’t necessarily concerned that a SEC NCST would pass them in 10 years. their concern is that over time, NCST would grow their brand by being the SEC school of North Carolina. And that over time, they could catchup to UNC as the athletic school of North Carolina in 20 years, and might be able to pass them in 100 years (remember these should be 100 year decisions).
LikeLike
Your Georgia-Georgia Tech history is incorrect. Georgia led the series 29-27-5 up to 1966. Bobby Dodd retired and GT took a downturn. UGA led 9-4 up to 1979. Since then its been 25-8. Georgia Tech went down for the same reasons Rice and SMU and TCU declined. In the 60s the state schools grew dramatically while private schools and specialty schools like GT grew slower. That meant more resources and a wider gap. And GT, like Rice and TCU, lost a long time coach and lost the fan base to the pros.
GT did not decline relative to UGA because they left the SEC. And they were not ever the superior program on a consistent basis (both schools had their periods).
LikeLike
GT claims 4 NCs (3 of which they won while in the same conference as UGA), and UGA claims 2 (one of which they won while in the same conference as GT). GT won 5 SEC championships (10 if you include the SIAA championships), and UGA won 3 (5 if you include the SIAA championships) up until GT left. Either way though, GT was at the very least just as competitive as UGA, and seen nationally as such.
Being a private school hasn’t stopped USC and ND (and as of recently, Stanford) from excelling in football/athletics. The difference with ND and USC is that they never lost their identity with their fanbase (ND’d identity has always been as an independent, while USC’s is as a Pac 12 school (or whatever conference the other major California schools were in). GT lost their identity when they left the SEC (and lost their fanbase as well), and was never able to form the identity of being the “Notre Dame of the south” as Dodd had envisioned. The college football fans in the state of Georgia allegance was/is tied to the SEC, and thus the majority of upcoming generations of Geogia football fans allegance is now with UGA.
But even if GT was destined to slide even in the SEC, what can’t be denied is the way USCe has florished and grown their their identity since joining the SEC. I think within the next 20 years, USCe will surpass Clemson by a pretty wide gap). I think aTm will see similar rise for their program as well (although they will probably never surpass UT, but I think they will make up a lot of ground within the next 20 – 100 years). People can say what they want, but being able to label yourself as a SEC school gives a lot of branding cache to a program. And from reading the UNC boards, they don’t want that branding to be tied to NCST.
LikeLike
South Carolina didn’t really flourish until they hired Holtz and Spurrier. I do think the SEC did help them though. But look at Arkansas. They were a power, at least the equal of LSU & Auburn when they joined the SEC. They have slipped quite a bit. Moving out of the SWC hurt them seriously in football. The aura of the SEC isn’t quite as bright outside the SEC core. It might well be a detriment to A&M long run. Its too early to tell whether it helps, hurts or makes little difference.
LikeLike
I think Arky’s biggest issue when they joined the SEC was that they lost their foothold in what was their essential recruiting area of Texas. The Texas Big 12 school stopped playing them and it hurt them (I think the addition of aTm will help them a bit in this area). That wouldn’t be the case for NCST, and in reality NCST would theoretically be gaining stronger recruiting footholds in the SEC east coast states. Plus Arky hasn’t whithered in the SEC. They have played in the SECCG, and Petrino had them back in the top 10 – 15 annually. Granted they took a hit with the Petrino ordeal. But Bielema could put them back on track.
LikeLike
AP by decade for Arkansas
60s #2
70s #10
80s #20 (when the SWC was declining)
90s #42
00s #37
So they have fallen significantly. They had a 30 year period where they were a premier team. They were not a “meh” addition to the SEC. Now they are “meh.” They did pretty well after losing a legend in Broyles with Lou Holtz and then Ken Hatfield, but fell after joining the SEC as far as football is concerened. They thrived briefly in basketball, but then fell from premier to mediocrity.
A&M may thrive with differentiation. A&M may do the same as always with only home games in Texas. Or they could have an Arkansas effect when they are no longer in the main Texas conference. Or the worst case scenario would be that OU and Texas still get their share, but A&M shares its recruits with LSU, Alabama, Auburn and Tennessee. It will take a decade or so to tell. And the result is probably more dependent on how A&M does than on their conference.
LikeLike
South Carolina didn’t really flourish until they hired Holtz and Spurrier. I do think the SEC did help them though. But look at Arkansas. They were a power, at least the equal of LSU & Auburn when they joined the SEC. They have slipped quite a bit. Moving out of the SWC hurt them seriously in football. The aura of the SEC isn’t quite as bright outside the SEC core. It might well be a detriment to A&M long run. Its too early to tell whether it helps, hurts or makes little difference.
@ bullet
In the SWC they were a big fish in a small pond. Now they are a medium fish in the ocean. It took some time for Arkansas and South Carolina to upgrade their facilities so neither had great success in the first decade but they have now caught up and are more competitive with their peers. I spent time in Arkansas back in the SWC days and I was in Fayetteville about a year or so ago and I can tell you first hand they have undergone a massive upgrade since the SWC days.
As for basketball I think the whole Richardson thing had more to do with their basketball derailment than anything else. They have 300 million in future facilities upgrades on the drawing boards and lots of Wal Mart money so they have a solid future. Playing TAMU every year gets them back in Texas for recruiting and still not sure how much they will get from exposure in the KC and STL markets. If playing Missouri means they pick off a Kansas recruit or 2 then their fortunes could easily swing in their favor. TAMU is no basketball threat and Texas has a history of failing in the Big Dance. I could see the Hogs carving out some real estate there in the near future.
LikeLike
While Georgia had early success it changed with Heisman and lasted through Dodds
Heisman at Georgia Tech : 1904 – 1919 : 1 MNC
Georgia Tech went 7 – 4 – 1 against Georgia
Alexander at Georgia Tech : 1920 – 1944 : 1 MNC
Georgia Tech went 7 – 10 – 3 against Georgia
Dodd at Georgia Tech : 1945 – 1963 : 1 MNC
Georgia Tech went 12 – 7 – 0 against Georgia
Dodds beat Georgia in 1961, 1962, and 1963 in the SEC
Dodds lost to Georgia in 1964, 1964, and 1966 after leaving the SEC
Since leaving the SEC the Yellow Jackets have only beaten the Bulldogs 12 times while ringing up 38 losses! Since Georgia Tech was still dominating up till the mid 60’s I tend not to buy the overall growth as that started right after WW II with the GI bill. Look at the MNC’s in the late 40’s to early 60’s to see who was winning them. That is when the public schools like Georgia Tech flourished as GI’s returned home from the war and went to school.
LikeLike
It was Tulane who left in 1966. I was thinking GT. So it was 26 UGA, 27 GT 5 ties in 1963 after GT won the last 3 in the SEC. That’s hardly dominating. Its been a streaky series with teams frequently winning 3 or 4 in a row.
You’re forgetting the massive growth of state schools with the Vietnam War in the 60s. There was a spurt right after WWII, but a huge spurt in the 60s as well. Not sure how much UGA grew, but I know Texas went from 20k in the late 50s to 40k by 1970.
LikeLike
The Falcons were started in the mid-60’s, which is an additional factor to consider.
LikeLike
bullet says:
It was Tulane who left in 1966. I was thinking GT. So it was 26 UGA, 27 GT 5 ties in 1963 after GT won the last 3 in the SEC. That’s hardly dominating. Its been a streaky series with teams frequently winning 3 or 4 in a row.
In the 10 years between 1947 and 1956 the Georgia Tech won 9 games in 10 attempts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean,_Old-Fashioned_Hate#Game_results
In my book when you win 90% that is dominating, and that was when they were in the SEC and Dodds was their coach. Most teams have yet to win a National Championship but Georgia Tech had 3 before they left the SEC and only 1 since. How can you say you want a team in the B1G now and deny they had a powerful past? Seems like you would embrace it.
LikeLike
@Duffman
Well Georgia won 4 in a row from 1957-1960. That’s 100%. Georgia Tech had to win 9 out of 10 just to even the series in 1956. Before those 9 out of 10, UGA won 5 straight according to their records, shutting out GT 3 of those games (GT calls it 5 of 7 as they count two wartime games when squads were depleted). Winning 9 of 19 or 11 of 21 is not dominant.
I think Georgia Tech in the Big 10 is a really bad idea. They were powerful in the 1910s with John Heisman when they were winning games 222-0. They were solid before the Falcons & Braves came to Georgia. But that’s irrelvant. SMU had an MNC in 1935 and they were the best professional team in Dallas in the early 80s. That’s irrelevant. Minnesota won a national championship in 1960 and was a top program prior to that time. That’s irrelevant today. The University of Chicago was pretty good for a brief period as well. The Ivy Leaguers were powerhouses until the 50s. Dartmouth was top 20 as recently as 1970. Navy had Roger Staubach and played in a 1 vs 2 game for the MNC in the 1963 season. All of that is irrelevant.
Georgia Tech is not a powerhouse now and might have been in worse shape had they stayed in the SEC in the 60s and 70s. Joining the SEC or Big 10 is not going to change what they are and unlikely to change their level of success except maybe for the worse.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech IS one of the better football programs in the ACC. But they are not a juggernaught. They are maybe #5 behind FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech and Clemson.
LikeLike
The Falcons were also a factor. They took a lot of attention away from GT.
LikeLike
I think the dynamics between UNC and NCST differs greatly between who you are asking and the Clemson vs South Carolina change since the SEC move is pretty drastic. I think the observation of Georgia Tech is very real. Historically GT owned the state of Georgia and was near the top of the pecking order of the SEC when they were a member. I think the issue of time is very important in the discussion as no team leaving the SEC has done better and teams joining have seen a definite uptick in sports success.
On UNC vs NCST and UNC vs Duke :
alumni in older age : UNC vs NCST > UNC vs Duke
alumni in middle age : UNC vs NCST > UNC vs Duke
alumni in younger age : UNC vs NCST < UNC vs Duke
The issue is a numbers game and as Frank has pointed out people tune in to watch Notre Dame lose as much or more as win. Duke has similar dynamics except basketball is a smaller market and their real history is under a single coach while Notre Dame has a much bigger (time) and broader (catholic) base to fuel the eyeballs. Where this gets more tricky is the folks who are residents of the state (taxpayers and kids) and the dynamics of human nature. UNC and NCST are both public institutions and draw segments based on how they are viewed. UNC may be the white collar school and NCST is the blue collar school similar to the dynamics of Clemson and South Carolina back in the 1980's. Duke will always be viewed as the rich school for east coast kids so they will get much less love across the state outside of Durham.
While recruiting numbers may favor Clemson it appears South Carolina is getting the top ones in state and has won the last 4 meetings. Gilmore, Lattimore, Clowney, and Roland all picked South Carolina. Of the 20 total the ACC, SEC, and other breakdown looked like this (picks past 1999 in BOLD) :
1992, 1993, 2005 = SEC but not South Carolina
1995, 1998, 2001, 2008, 2009, 1010, 2011 = SEC for South Carolina
1997, 1999 = ACC but not Clemson
1994, 1996, 2000, 2007 = ACC for Clemson
2002 (Iowa) and 2004 (Navy) = FBS but not ACC or SEC
2003 and 2006 = non FBS
The bigger issue may be in overall sports tho as South Carolina has eclipsed Clemson since the SEC membership in the early 1990’s. In college baseball the Gamecocks have clearly pulled ahead with 2 CWS’s as well as women’s college basketball. I am not sure either school has gotten it together in men’s basketball but South Carolina has 2 recent NCAA titles in equestrian. While not sure how all the other sports play out prior to the SEC membership, the Gamecocks were not known for winning anything prior to their entry in the SEC.
To say the politicians and non alumni inside the state of North Carolina do not notice this would be folly at best. I will also venture to say they make up enough of a majority to put UNC in the SEC to keep them from becoming another Clemson. Richardson got Baylor in the B12 and Perry may have gotten TAMU in the SEC so my guess is older politicians in North Carolina will want UNC in the SEC over the B1G. As Bamatab noted above, the rumblings are coming from inside the UNC folks and not from the outside. The same grassroots movement happened at TAMU and Missouri prior to their moves to the SEC and were in direct opposition from the top leadership at their respective universities at the time. TAMU was exploring the PAC and Missouri was exploring the B1G.
LikeLike
However, an SEC UNC probably loses much of its luster to out-of-state students — and they comprise a considerable portion of Chapel Hill enrollment. I don’t think UVa would have any interest in joining the Tar Heels, and it would be difficult to relegate N.C. State to the Big 12; it almost certainly would have to go to the SEC, too. There’s no law saying UNC and Duke are tied at the hip; in the event of an ACC breakup, Duke might become UVa’s Big Ten partner, since an SEC Duke would be similarly less attractive to out-of-staters, particularly from the Northeast.
LikeLike
Vincent – while I generally have great respect for your insight, I think you’re just wrong about SEC membership making UNC and Duke less attractive to prospective students. UNC, Duke, and Vandy are all fishing from the same pond, and Vandy is doing just fine.
LikeLike
The academic side of conference expansion has to do with who the Presidents want to go to conference meetings with. Its not relevant to the students. The Ivy League matters. Other than that, no. Rice has always been great no matter what conference they were in. Vandy has always done fine in the SEC, even before the recent rise in Florida and UGA’s reputations.
LikeLike
bama:
“And GT’s lower football prominence than UGA started when they left the SEC.”
Uh, no, GTech’s football prominence started sliding when the Falcons came to Atlanta.
GTech dominated loyalties in Atlanta and UGa always dominated loyalties outside Atlanta in GA. Neutral Atlantans started caring more about the Falcons than GTech and that was that. UNC’s support isn’t specific to a geographic region of NC, so that’s one way they are not comparable.
Another reason why it’s intellectually dishonest to compare the GTech-UGa dynamic with UNC-NCSU is that UGa literally has twice the undergraduate student body as GTech. That’s double the alums and support. All things being equal (that is, even if GTech had stayed in the SEC), UGa would still be on a different level of support than GTech. Not the same disparity in size in NC.
As for SC catching up to Clemson, well yeah, getting a lot more money from your conference than your in-state rival does from their conference would help do that. Unlike Clemson, though, UNC would not suffer a financial disadvantage.
LikeLike
FSU dominated UF in recruiting from the mid/late 80s thru the early 2000s. So what? Besides that, those “stats” are not correct
LikeLike
let’s see 2013 finishes for A&M and Texas and then look at 2014. If too look at the top 15 players (the current size of Texas class), A&M is already out recruiting Texas.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
NORTHWEST
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin
SOUTHEAST
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers
MISSING RIVALRY GAMES
Michigan/Ohio State
Illinois/Northwestern
Indiana/Michigan State
Michigan State/Penn State
Nebraska/Penn State
Minnesota/Penn State
The first two rivalry games should be preserved. I value Indiana/Michigan State over Michigan State/Penn State because the former has tradition/an easier win (full disclosure: Michigan State grad) while the latter has a better opponent/the hideous abomination that is The Land Grant Trophy. Plus, Nebraska/Penn State is a better game for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Add.
LikeLike
@ Frank
Will deal with the others but this one is always a hot button with me
11. What is your preference on a B1G Basketball Tourney? (Every team qualifies, or 12 of 14 teams qualify.)
I’m a very large believer that every conference should have all teams qualify for its basketball tournament. Unlike the football conference championship game that only involves 2 teams, the basketball tournament is the one major conference event where the teams, fans and alums from all of the schools can gather together as a shared experience. For those that say that the conference tournament should be about merit, I would reply that leagues should eliminate conferences tournaments all together if people want to be truly merit-based (as the performance over the course of 3 months of regular season games should trump what occurs in 3 days of a conference tournament). Basketball tournaments are purely money-making machines for the power conferences, so you might as well let everyone participate. Plus, there’s the romantic idea that every single school still has one last shot to make it into the NCAA Tournament, which is inherently a more interesting aspect of watching conference tournaments compared to how they’re really just seeding exercises for the teams that already know that they’re going to make it to the Dance.
I still believe there should be no post season just to up the value – financial and importance – of the regular season conference games. I have always disliked the “win at the end and you are in” mentality so he are 2 possible different way to do the B1G post season tourney.
#1 Take the top 8 and do single elimination – this rewards the better teams and puts more value on the regular season to qualify. Football is valuable because every regular season game counts and dropping attendance is proof folks have devalued the regular season games. If everybody plays in the post season then just drop the regular season to 1 game each – home or away – on rotation for just 13 games (in a 14 team conference) and aim for 1 game a week where attendance will be higher. Couple that with a 13 game pre conference for a 26 game season
#2 Take the top 4 and do double elimination – just take the top 4 and play rotation to see who can win even if they slip in one game. Attendance would be stout and folks could plan to be there longer with more chances to see their team play. As noted, 1 loss does not kill you but 2 would. You could have every game be buzzer beaters as the teams would be fairly well matched.
The real value is seeing the best play the best than to see some blowout games early
LikeLike
I’d think position in the top six would count for a lot if the tournament was an eight team single knock-out from the top six in the regular season and the two winners of the first two qualifier tournament rounds:
[7×14]x[10×11] / [8×13]x[9×12]
Q1 = higher regular season qualifier, Q2 = lower regular season qualifier
to: {[1xQ2]x[4×5]}x{[2xQ1]x[3×6]}
There is, of course, another approach to an unbalanced tournament. In Ozzie Rugby League, they have an unbalanced bracket with single elimination for the lower ranked regular season clubs and double elimination for the higher ranked clubs, by granting double elimination to the highest ranked of the losers. Bringing the idea to a 14 school, all-conference tournament:
[7×8], [6×9], [5×10], [4×11], [3×12], [2×13], [1×14]
Six lowest ranked losers go home, then its single elimination quarterfinal, semifinal, final.
So the regular season champion has a get out of jail card, if they don’t use it, it falls to 2nd, and so on. 8th only gets it if there are no upsets against regular season standings.
LikeLike
My thoughts exactly. Except I half-heartedly would for another expansion because I prefer the pod format to 7-team divisions… at the same time though, there aren’t many schools the B1G can realistically add without diluting its product, so it’s sort of stalemate in my mind.
LikeLike
As soon as Delany can corral the two members he and the presidents want, I have no doubt expansion to 16 will take place. Alas, those two members are almost certainly Virginia and North Carolina, and neither will leave the ACC until it’s absolutely necessary.
One wonders what the ACC’s financial tipping point would be vis-a-vis the Big Ten/SEC/Big 12/Pac — and for that to happen, you might need more than Clemson and Florida State saying enough is enough and fleeing to the Big 12. Even though that would substantially lessen the conference’s football value, one senses all the ACC would do in response is plug in Cincinnati and Connecticut and go on as if nothing had happened. But on top of that, add the “death penalty” for Miami football — and as a private school without an entrenched in-state political community to fight it, a la Southern Methodist, the NCAA might have the impetus to pursue such a measure — and the ACC AAU core (UVa/UNC/Duke/Ga Tech) could come to its senses and make exploratory moves.
LikeLike
@vp19
I think your scenario is entirely possible. I think its more likely all 14.5 stay together or a mass defection takes place, but its definitely possible the Big 12 is really only interested in 12, the B1G and SEC are really only interested in UVA/UNC, and the ACC as a whole yawns when FSU leaves–as long as the network doesn’t punish them financially.
LikeLike
The ACC is more robust than most people think. Let’s say they lose FSU & Clemson to the Big 12, and Virginia Tech & NC State to the SEC, which is their worst case. They’d replenish with UConn and Cincinnati. They’d still have an excellent 13-team basketball conference and a decent football conference.
UVa, UNC, and Duke still would prefer this conference, in which they are quite obviously the lead institutions, to the Big Ten, where they’d no longer be in the driver’s seat. There’s also the matter that they consider themselves culturally southern schools, and the ACC is a culturally southern league (notwithstanding all the northern schools they’ve added over the years).
And it’s worth noting that after they lose the four named above, they’d have nothing left that the SEC or Big 12 want. So if UVA, Duke, and UNC decide to keep the ACC together, it’s likely that none of the other members would have anywhere to go, even if they wanted to. The Big Ten doesn’t want Pitt, Syracuse, or BC, nor would they take Georgia Tech all by itself.
The death penalty for Miami, if combined with all of the above, might perhaps be the tipping point. But I don’t think Miami will get the death penalty.
LikeLike
I agree that UNC and Duke will try to keep the ACC together in the short term but eventually the money disparity will be too great for them to ignore. If the projections of the BIG’s profits come true, they will be making almost double Duke and UNC. Those teams don’t invest a lot in the money pit that is football, but they do sponsor a lot of other nonrevenue sports. The costs of those sports have been steadily rising.
LikeLike
I really think the end game is 20 teams. First the 4 pod system is better to schedule than two large divisions. Secondly there are not a pair of schools readily available to close out the conference permanently that makes sense unless Notre Dame joins. The BIG could add FSU and Georgia Tech but there would be a large geographical gap. I think the BIG would want to be continuos so they would try to add the other mid-Atlantic states. UNC I think is the goal of expansion but I don’t see how you could break them away from Duke or UVA. I don’t also see why you would want to. So you would have to add a fourth to that group which brings you to 18. Again pods are easier than divisions so two more would have to be added.
If I had to guess, I think the BIG will expand to 16 before 2016 when their tier1 contract is up. After that I think they will wait to see what final four make sense and see if what other schools earn their AAU.
LikeLike
It was noted last week that 6 pods of 3 teams each would be workable with 18, and as that would form temporary annual divisions of 9 teams each, it would even allow an eight conference game schedule. That’s interesting as an intellectual exercise, and if one of the pods is OSU, MSU and that other Michigan school, I could start to see it better than some options that might be raised.
LikeLike
I don’t recall seeing the 18-member football format last week — might it have been something like this? Here, we’re assuming the Big Ten brings in all four southern ACC AAU members.
Permanent Big Ten East: Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
Permanent Big Ten West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Floating members, group A: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State
Floating members, group B: Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue
Football plays a 9-game conference schedule, in a 2-year scheduling cycle. In one cycle, floating group A plays as part of Big Ten East and group B as part of Big Ten West; for the next two years, group A goes West, group B goes East.
The floating members play these annual crossover games: Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Purdue, Penn State-Indiana. The permanent East and West members would rotate crossover games over a 12-year cycle.
This isn’t perfect — the cycle that features group A will always be substantially stronger than the one with group B — but it gives everyone in the conference a chance to regularly play three of the “kings,” retains trophy games such as Little Brown Jug and Illiniwek two years out of every four, and keeps things somewhat geographically compact.
Oh, and for men’s and women’s basketball, an 18-game schedule, playing 16 opponents once and the following as home-and-homes:
Penn State-Rutgers
Maryland-Virginia
North Carolina-Duke
Georgia Tech-Ohio State
Michigan-Michigan State
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Iowa-Nebraska
LikeLike
A slightly better twist to the 18-member football format — change the floating group members to
A: Michigan, Ohio State, Purdue
B: Michigan State, Penn State, Indiana
with Michigan-MSU, OSU-PSU and Purdue-IU as the annual crossover games. That balances things out a bit between the A and B cycles.
LikeLike
To have everyone play everyone else at least once each three years in-division:
Year 1: Division 1: Pod A, B, C; Division 2: Pod D, E, F
Year 2: Division 1: Pod A, D, E; Division 2: Pod B, C, F
Year 3: Division 1: Pod A, F, B; Division 2: Pod C, D, E
Year 4: Division 1: Pod A, C, D; Division 2: Pod B, E, F
Year 5: Division 1: Pod A, E, F; Division 2: Pod B, C, D
To have any locked cross group games, you need 9 conference games a year. Otherwise, each team plays in its pod every year, every other pod alternating once in three then once in two years.
The chain PSU / OSU / tMIteam / MSU implies that three of those have to be in one group and therefore there has to be a cross division game available, which implies nine conference games, eight in-division, one cross division.
I only recall comments pointing out that the structure is possible, I don’t recall seeing a group make-up for that structure, and surely couldn’t reproduce it from memory if it was there. Unlike the 4/4/3/3 groups possible with 14 teams, its not possible to put all four Western teams in the same group.
LikeLike
Hi Bruce,
This was my setup of 6 pods of 3 assuming that FSU, Miami, UVa, and VTech would be added. The same setup would still work with GTech in place of Miami, UNC in place of VTech, & Duke in place of FSU.
All major rivalries would be preserved. Obviously, there wouldn’t be nearly as many must-see football games:
”
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
Frank makes a good point with the KISS approach, and the East/West system, with Michigan in the East and Michigan State in the West, is the most logical way to go about doing things. The inner-outer would be self-defeating for the three members along the eastern seaboard, particularly the two newcomers.
Hey, in this format, Ohio State vs. Michigan is a intradivisional game, and isn’t that what most want? Sorry, but the old guard can’t get everything its own way (and OSU and Michigan should have programs that sell themselves, and aren’t based upon who comes into Ohio or Michigan stadiums).
LikeLike
Little Brown Jug game, folks.
It’s only the oldest trophy game in the land.
So many of you folks act like that can be sacrificed (or don’t even think about it).
BTW, I think that an expansion to 16/18 happens sooner rather than later, so just split E/W along the IN schools.
Crossovers:
PSU-UNL
Michigan-Minny
OSU-Illinois (Illibuck)
IU-PU
MSU-Northwestern (because MSU wants to visit Chicagoland)
Rutgers-Wisconsin
UMD-Iowa (because there are no good matchups left)
All rivalries preserved. Some of the western schools will see OSU & Michigan less often, but Illinois, Minny, and UNL get a king as a rival every year. IU & PU at least get a rivalry (and PU has an easier path to a division title). Wisconsin and Iowa both get to visit (more) fertile Eastern recruiting grounds regularly. Northwestern doesn’t get much, but eh, we never got the kings much even in the 11-school B10 either.
Plus, that Nebraska-Wisconsin-Iowa-Minny quartet promises to be a binful of fierce rivalries all around.
Even the secondary rivalries like Iowa-Northwestern, Iowa-Illinois, Wisconsin-Illinois, and Illinois-Purdue are preserved.
LikeLike
@Richard: In the pre-Nebraska schedule format, the Michigan-Minnesota rivalry was not contested every year. So that tells me that the ADs don’t consider it essential. Of course, the two teams will still play, just not annually.
LikeLike
In the 11-school B10, the LBJ game was played most years. In most configurations I’ve seen, it would be played almost never. I agree that it doesn’t have to be played every year, but it does have to be played at least half the time, so that all players would get the chance to play in it at least once home and away. That’s one reason why I like pods.
LikeLike
Richard,
“In most configurations I’ve seen, it would be played almost never.”
Exaggerate much?
Worst case scenarios:
8 games, no locked rival – MI/MN is played 29% of the time
9 games, 1 locked rival – MI/MN is played 33% of the time
9 games, no locked rival – MI/MN is played 45% of the time
LikeLike
Huh? What about 8 games with 1 locked rival? How is that not a worst case scenario?
In any case, those are still less than half the time. Can’t really call it a rivalry game in that case.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Huh? What about 8 games with 1 locked rival? How is that not a worst case scenario?”
Those were worst case scenarios for 3 of the 4 possible schedules. 8 games with a locked rival leads to MI/MN played 17% of the time, as you well know.
With 4 possible schedules, and certain alignments that keep MI and MN together, there’s no way your statement (“In most configurations I’ve seen, it would be played almost never.”) was true.
“In any case, those are still less than half the time. Can’t really call it a rivalry game in that case.”
Less than half isn’t the same as almost never.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Little Brown Jug game, folks.
It’s only the oldest trophy game in the land.
So many of you folks act like that can be sacrificed (or don’t even think about it).”
It can be, since it already was. It’ll be preserved if neither team has a more pressing rivalry to protect, though (MN/WI, MI/OSU and MI/OSU would all top it, of course).
“BTW, I think that an expansion to 16/18 happens sooner rather than later, so just split E/W along the IN schools.”
That’s a stupid plan. Why make bad divisions now and hope future expansion allows you to dump them instead of just doing it right the first time?
“Crossovers:
PSU-UNL
Michigan-Minny
OSU-Illinois (Illibuck)
IU-PU
MSU-Northwestern (because MSU wants to visit Chicagoland)
Rutgers-Wisconsin
UMD-Iowa (because there are no good matchups left)”
For those divisions, that’s a reasonable set of locked games. I’d probably suggest MSU/WI and RU/NW, though.
“All rivalries preserved. Some of the western schools will see OSU & Michigan less often, but Illinois, Minny, and UNL get a king as a rival every year. IU & PU at least get a rivalry (and PU has an easier path to a division title).”
I think PU would be much more concerned about not being with OSU or MI than happy about their CCG path. So would NW, WI and IA. NE and PSU would complain about the SOS imbalance with the locked rivals, too. PSU is the only school with 3 kings locked in every year.
LikeLike
Don’t make ignorant assumptions about other schools, Brian, especially since you have no clue what Northwestern fans want. Personally, UNL compensates for a Michigan/OSU game to me (especially OSU; Michigan is an academic peer and the winningest program in college football; OSU is just another Midwestern football power with fans who have an unjustified superiority complex; easily replaceable by UNL). Iowa is a big game to pretty much all NU fans. Personally, I’d rather give up Michigan annually than Iowa annually. Add in the easier path to the conference title game and what’s best for the B10 as a whole and it’s a no-brainer choice to me. East-West is far far preferable to the nonsensical Inner-Outer.
LikeLike
“Don’t make ignorant assumptions about other schools, Brian, especially since you have no clue what Northwestern fans want.”
I’ve seen other NW fans says it, Dick. Why should I value your opinion over theirs?
LikeLike
I’m trying to decide whether that feeble attempt at getting under my skin provides evidence towards the case of you being autistic/having Asperger’s or the opposite.
LikeLike
Richard, that’s a technical foul.
LikeLike
Probably a flagrant.
You’re right; my bad.
LikeLike
B1G should have added Mizzou and KU when we had a chance….
LikeLike
Let’s take a step back from the bigger picture for a second. For all the Big Ten fans here, if you were the AD of your school, what would be your priority list on the divisional discussions? Ignore the financial aspects for a second. What is it that would be most important to you as fan of your school?
My order is as follows:
1. Keep Michigan as the season ending game every year.
2. Be in the same division as Michigan.
3. Nine conference games.
4. No locked crossovers.
5. Play Illinois every year (I know most Buckeyes would go Penn State or Wisconsin ahead of the Illini, but I kind of like the Illibuck).
6. If we don’t get 9 conference games, do not put us in a division with both the 2 newbies (1/4 the schedule against them is too much).
My guess is that I get #1 and #2, but none of the rest.
LikeLike
My order would be:
1. Keep Michigan every year, as the last game of the regular season.
2. See #1.
3. See #1.
4. Nine conference games
5. Get access to Maryland and/or Rutgers given the alumni areas
6. Play PSU or Wisconsin every year
For me, #1 is absolutely non-negotiable. I don’t care if they’re in the same division or not, but the frequency and timing cannot change. Additionally, I was on board with Rutgers/Maryland when looking at where OSU gets its students and sends its alumni; getting shuffled to the west would kind of kill the point from OSU’s perspective imo.
Lastly, I would be fine with the Three Kings East strategy mostly because OSU’s locked rivals were Michigan/PSU when the BigTen was at 11. At least it’d be even for all three of us now.
LikeLike
Husker fan;
My priorities as NU’s AD would be:
1. Maintain a Black Friday game
2. PSU
3. Iowa
4. Chicago
5. 8-conference games. – to allow for better OOC games, including former conference partners.
6. New Jersey
7. Wisconsin
LikeLike
Aside from the desire to play former conference rivals, which I can understand, I’m not sure having a spare OOC nets you anything better from a SOS standpoint than what you’d see with an additional conference game. But maybe I’m too used to OSU’s previous scheduling methodology, where you try to have one marquee matchup, one so-so, and two patsies. Going to nine just, ideally, removes one of the patsies.
LikeLike
I don’t want an extra OOC from a SOS stand-point. I don’t care about SOS, as long as it is respectable, which I think an 8-game conf schedule would be…. Add in the conference title game, and who-ever wins the title each year will have went through a brutal schedule regardless of whether they played 8 or 9 regular season games.
I have the opposite feeling about the direction programs would go with OOC games if we went to a 9-game conference schedule…. I think teams would remove the BCS -at least regularly- opponents from the schedule rather than the cup-cakes. See the SEC for example, not many teams schedule quality OOC games, and of the teams that do schedule respectably, they only do it once or twice per decade.
And then you get annual schedules like GT/UGA, UF/FSU, and USC/Clem, which limits things even further for them.
If UM, MSU, or Purdue wanted to play ND every year it would limit them in a similar manner. Or Iowa/ISU.
LikeLike
I have seen arguments that the 4-team playoff will put pressure on the non-AQ revenue games ~ if a school is prioritizing AQ OOC games, looking ahead to hopefully grabbing the 4th spot versus a school that started out on FCS or FBS non-AQ teams, there’s more risk of an early stumble, but also its easier to see the team being ready for a marquee OOC matchup in week 3.
LikeLike
” See the SEC for example, not many teams schedule quality OOC games”
The SEC schools schedule OOC the same way most Big Ten and Big 12 teams have done, one quality BCS school and 3 other games. Of course, for Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, it’s often limited to their traditional ACC opponent.
LikeLike
Also, Nebraska is part of the reason I’m not sure I agree with Frank’s premise that OSU-PSU must be protected at all costs. It’s a great game, but if the BigTen could only guarantee OSU-Michigan and PSU-Nebraska, that seems like a good compromise to me.
LikeLike
In my mind (and I believe the guys who run the conference), PSU-OSU trumps PSU-UNL easily.
LikeLike
As a Husker fan, maintaining the Black Friday game is not the most important priority nor is it anywhere close. We’ve only been playing on BF for 20 years. It’s not the end of the world if we lose it. Twenty years ago, it was the only game on that day. Now there are lots of games on that day. Would it be nice to keep? Sure. If Iowa doesn’t want to play that day, they can go back to playing Minnesota that weekend and we can pick up Wisconsin if they are up for it.
Like it or not, Nebraska is now part of the “quadrilateral of hate” with Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. That’s our future, and we need to embrace it. Those are the schools we share the most in common with in this league and are the schools we need to make our bed with. Penn State is nice, but isn’t necessary. I do agree with trying to keep our game with Northwestern an annual event.
From a scheduling standpoint, I don’t see the B1G going to 9 games until at least 2017, but I think it will happen. UNL would have games scheduled now for our former conference opponents if they wanted to play us. I keep hearing things about NU-CU home and home, but nothing about other former conference members. Nebraska last week just announced more OOC games that upped the number of OOC games through 2016 to 4 per season. Why would they schedule these if the B1G were going to 9-game schedules soon.
LikeLike
I agree with a lot of what you say…. I think a lot of the reason that NU hasn’t scheduled any series’ with former league members yet, other than OU, is because we/they already had their schedules mapped out for the next decade. That will certainly change within a few years.
I think your way off on your view of Black Friday…. Sure its only a 20 year old tradition, but for people like my-self its something we’ve know our whole lives. Im 24, and can’t remember anything other than Black Friday games. It is a big deal, and is one of the few traditions we can carry on from before we joined the B10….. It’s as established of a tradition as any of PSU’s B10 traditions, and should be treated as such.
It wouldn’t be the end of the world if that date couldn’t be maintained, but there isn’t anything that ranks ahead of it either. Anything that even compares is already a given, like Iowa…. Nothing ranks ahead of Black Friday on my wish-list…. I agree that it wouldn’t need to be played against Iowa every year, I wouldn’t mind Wisconsin or even if we rotated teams.
I think -and hope- your right about the 9-game schedule being pushed back to 2017 too, it may be further down the road than that anyway. A lot of that could change with another round of expansion though, so we’ll see.
I can embrace playing Iowa, Wisc, and Minn. I think we’ll have great games and rivalries with those schools…. But when it was announced that we were joining the league, none of those teams were the first to come to mind, or drove my fan-interest….. PSU, UM, tOSU, Iowa, NW, Wisc is simply the pecking-order of games I want to see annually.
LikeLike
If you’re only 24, then OU shouldn’t mean anything. They’ve never been NU’s rival.
LikeLike
At 24, OU doesn’t mean much to me, and that is pretty disgusting to say, I would hate to be saying that about PSU, UM, or tOSU in 15-20 years.
But to be clear, OU still means more than Iowa or Wisc.
LikeLike
@Aaron – I take it you missed the Nebraska – Oklahoma series announcement?
LikeLike
Michigan and OSU need to be in the same division. UM needs to be in the east, other than PSU, UM has the largest east coast alumni base of any B1G school.
Only way tat works is geography based divisions.
LikeLike
Yes. This needs to be stressed much more than it is currently being stressed by most posters.. Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State playing in New York and DC will be huge for so many reasons. Alumni concentration. Brand recognition. Television matchups. BTN carriage. The list goes on.
LikeLike
It’s been gone over by a number of posters ad nauseum. You’re leaving out the negatives associated with creating a Big 12 North part deux that is even more isolated from the media &
recruiting centers.
LikeLike
“6. If we don’t get 9 conference games, do not put us in a division with both the 2 newbies (1/4 the schedule against them is too much).”
This is an important distinction. If being with the newbies are taking away only one “traditional Big Ten” game, and one MAC/C-USA/Sunbelt revenue game, that is substantially less unsettling.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Let’s take a step back from the bigger picture for a second. For all the Big Ten fans here, if you were the AD of your school, what would be your priority list on the divisional discussions? Ignore the financial aspects for a second. What is it that would be most important to you as fan of your school?”
Hold it. Those are two different things. The AD can’t ignore the financial side but the fan can.
Me as an OSU fan:
1-87. MI is the last game
88. Play IL annually
89. Give OSU the easiest path possible to the B10 title every year while still playing MI (includes putting MI in the other division)
90. 9 games
No OSU AD could agree with #89 because it wouldn’t sell tickets well to most fans.
As a B10 fan:
1-87. Keep OSU/MI as the last game
88. Go to 9 games, preferably with no locked rivals
89. Form balanced divisions
90. Preserve as many annual rivalries as possible
“1. Keep Michigan as the season ending game every year.”
Obviously.
“2. Be in the same division as Michigan.”
I fail to see why this should ever be a high priority. To each their own.
“3. Nine conference games.”
OK.
“4. No locked crossovers.”
It depends on the divisions for me. I’d prefer not to have them, but not at the price of losing a good rivalry.
“5. Play Illinois every year (I know most Buckeyes would go Penn State or Wisconsin ahead of the Illini, but I kind of like the Illibuck).”
IL >>> PSU >>> WI for me. IL is the only team OSU has played more than MI. We played PSU 7 times before they joined the B10. WI was a bunch of a-holes with Bielema around. Andersen is more classy. Still, they aren’t neighbors or rivals.
“6. If we don’t get 9 conference games, do not put us in a division with both the 2 newbies (1/4 the schedule against them is too much).”
Even with 9 games, they should spread the pain to others. We already got stuck having to play PSU annually. Why should we get stuck with RU and MD too?
“My guess is that I get #1 and #2, but none of the rest.”
No matter what, OSU will get a bad deal this time.
LikeLike
I’d like to echo support for a 13th game for non-CCG teams. Each team not playing in the CCG would play one from the other division based on division ranking. For instance, 2 would play 2 and 3 would play 3, and but care would be taken to avoid re matches. Each year, the “home” division would alternate; in 2014 the Leaders division would be host and in 2015 the Legends division would be host. This would permit each team an extra 0.5 home games annually and teams to sell access to that game as part of their season ticket package.
Most importantly this would increase play between “kings”, and perhaps put less emphasis on protecting annual rivalries.
LikeLike
That’s not going to happen for a long time. The NCAA would have to stretch the season and they really don’t want to do that.
LikeLike
Happy End of the World Day.
LikeLike
They should change the name. I appreciate your argument, Frank, but if the number is no longer accurate it’s just going to stay inaccurate.
No need to lose all that history and brand equity, though. A name that incorporates ‘ten’ as a syllable could be used to keep the sound and the association.
— The Big Centennial
(It works. The conference is over 100 years old.)
— The Big Ten-Spot
(Maybe not.)
Or just make the change when the next round number is reached:
— The Big Twenty
Close enough.
LikeLike
A first-time poster, with my thoughts on the divisions. If we’re going to 16 and pods, why not start this now? Divide into the West (IA, MN, Neb and WI) and Central (Ill, NW, IN, PU). Then divide the remaining teams into two sets of three – North (UM, OSU, Rutgers) and East (MSU, PSU, MD) (or swap MSU and OSU, if you want UM and OSU separate). Each year the divisions switch. In year one, Division 1 is West and North (and Division 2 is Central and East); in year two, Division 1 is West and East (and Division 2 is Central and North); and then repeat. For an 8-game schedule, the West and Central plays everyone in their divisions, plus 2 from each other. The North and East plays everyone in their division, plus one lock (UM-MSU; OSU-PSU; RU-MD) plus one other game against the remaining two teams in the opposite pod. For example, UM would play MSU and PSU in year 1, and then MSU and MD in year 2. For nine games, you can eliminate locked games, since the North and East teams will play each other every year.
This is rather complicated, but it accomplished many things. The four West teams and the four Central teams play each other every year. The three locked games play every year. Most important, everyone else plays each other once every two years (which means that every four years, even with an 8-game schedule, everyone gets a home and away). UM, OSU and PSU get one game against a east coast team every year and get another once every two years (trying to leverage their fan bases). West and Central teams get one eastern team every year (a east coast trip once every two years). If you separate UM and OSU, then the West and Central teams would play either UM or OSU each year. And even though competitive balance isn’t that great (West > Central), because the divisions switch each year, that balance changes each year. Finally, it’s not that more complicated than trying to figure out who is in what division now!
LikeLike
I put up that structure in the FSU post comment thread, but not those alignments ~ I like those alignments far more than the ones I put up.
Going to have to find a less nerdy name for them than “pods” to sell it to regular sports fans who are not conference realignment enthusiasts. “Group” maybe?
Eastern Group: MSU, PSU, MD
Northern Group: OSU, MI, Rutgers
Central Group: Indiana, Purdue, Illini, NW
Western Group: UNL, IA, WI, MN
It breaks part of one of the three axioms: Rutgers only sees PSU every second year. But it has a bucketload to like.
OSU — PSU, alternate MSU/MD
MI — MSU, alternate PSU/MD
Rutgers — MD, alternate PSU/MSU
To be fair to MSU, their OSU game should be when they are in the East-Central division, not when they are in the East-West division. That implies the East/North rotation:
OSU — PSU always, MSU & Western, MD & Central, therefore …
MI — MSU always, MD & Western, PSU & Central, therefore …
Rutgers — MD always, PSU & Western, MSU & Central
Mirror for East:
PSU — OSU always, MI & Western, Rutgers & Central
MSU — MI always, Rutgers & Western, OSU & Central
MD — Rutgers always, OSU & Western, MI & Central
LikeLike
BruceMcF,
“Going to have to find a less nerdy name for them than “pods” to sell it to regular sports fans who are not conference realignment enthusiasts. “Group” maybe?”
You’ll never sell it to them no matter what. The constantly changing divisions will just confuse them and they’ll lose interest.
LikeLike
The casual fan already doesn’t understand the divisions (Quick – can you name the teams in the ACC divisions?). Unless you split the divisions by geography, the casual fan won’t be invested enough to understand what the divisions are and even geography gets sacrificed for other reasons (viz: Missouri in the SEC East). Most casual fans don’t care about divisions – they just want their team to play well, beat their rivals and (if lightning strikes), go to the Rose Bowl. Only fans of the 4 “King” programs are thinking beyond that.
We’re adding 2 new schools into the conference. However, even though they’re in the same conference as Iowa and Minnesota, they won’t get to play them for the next six years (an entire football class won’t get to even play them) This is not the way to foster integration into the conference. One of the major things that both fans (and Presidents) want to do is to play other BIG teams more often, and the only way to do that is to shuffle divisions each year. That also means that rivalries get played more often. Adding Maryland and Rutgers while sacrificing the Little Brown Jug or the Illibuck, and making certain that you won’t see other traditional Big Ten rivals for half a decade will get rid of the casual fan faster than having divisions that change each year. .
LikeLike
I think you just showed why non-geographic divisions don’t work. ACC is a mess. Fans want to know who they are competing against. Constant shifting hurts that.
LikeLike
The ACC is a mess because most of it’s schools have followers who are basketball fans first & football fans somewhere farther down the list.
LikeLike
Gitanole,
“They should change the name. I appreciate your argument, Frank, but if the number is no longer accurate it’s just going to stay inaccurate.”
Heck no!
Only an idiot would trust the people that came up with Leaders and Legends to rename the Big Ten. The outcome would clearly be the “New Coke” of conference names.
Don’t mess with a valuable brand.
LikeLike
While the bowl season ramps up, here are the final pre-bowl ooc records vs FBS schools (Big 10 not as bad as it seemed as they survived some close calls, WAC has a nice finale, beating out the ACC, CUSA is only one who had a down year worse than ACC):
Big 12 17-4 80.95%
SEC 33-8 80.49%
Big 10 26-14 65.00%
Indie 24-15 61.54%
Pac 12 23-16 58.97%
Big East 17-13 56.67%
WAC 13-18 41.94%
ACC 14-21 40.00%
MAC 16-25 39.02%
MWC 12-21 36.36%
Sun Belt 11-23 32.35%
CUSA 7-35 16.67%
FBS 10-98 9.26%
LikeLike
They will keep the Big Ten name unless and until they go to twenty. Then you will have a B1G east and B1G west. The BTN also won’t require a name change. The ‘T’ can stand for Twenty or remain the Big Ten representing the two Big Ten divisions. Big Sixteen is far to unwieldy and ‘sweet sixteen’-like. It’s going to remain ”The Big Ten’ until they KNOW they are done expanding, and only then if the ‘T’ can be maintained.
LikeLike
One thing nobody seems to be discussing. the B1G is taking a calculated risk by going with Rutgers. They seems to be banking, at least partially, on them being able to deliver some of that coveted NYC market. For that to have the best chance to succeed, you have to try to have as many of those “pipeline” schools playing Rutgers as possible. So, realistically, I don’t think the Inner/Outer-Sun/Planets alignment will shake out. I really think they’re going to want Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland all playing in New York as much as possible so as to try and penetrate the NYC psyche. I could be wrong, but that’s where I’d lay my wager, and it has the benefit of being able to keep most of the important rivalries together.
They’ll throw in the Indiana schools in the East to try and balance the West with the Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State middle class triangle.
Really, I think the East/West split of Frank’s is really the only one that accomplishes the most and will appease most of the TV people, marketing departments, and University Presidents and ADs.
Inner/Outer-Proton/Electron I think would be a strong #2 as long as Rutgers gets a lock with say, Michigan (since PSU/OSU would be protected). Maryland could lock with Illinois or Northwestern, which would still have an Amtrak feel to it.
LikeLike
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but the biggest benefit of the inner/outer is that no protected rivalries are necessary. This allows teams from opposite divisions to see each other a lot more often, especially if we move to a 9-game conference schedule. This is why it’s my favorite.
I think we’ll end up with the east/west alignment though, because of what you say about the conference wanting UM, OSU and PSU to play in New York and DC as much as possible. I’d bet a decent amount of money that it ends up with OSU, UM, PSU, MD, RU, IU and PU in the East and Neb, UW, MN, IA, NW, IL and MSU in the West.
LikeLike
The one thing working against having Michigan/Michigan State split vs. Indiana/Purdue is that if you put split Indiana/Purdue and lock only them as a permanent crossover, then that frees up 2 rotating games for Michigan vs. the other division instead of 1 (or 3 instead of 2 with 9 conference games). Since the west would rather play Michigan than Indiana or Michigan State, I could see them preferring that as it gives everyone besides Purdue more games against Michigan.
LikeLike
No matter which alignment we end up with, I’d prefer it if protected rivals were eliminated completely. If a rivalry is that important and absolutely must be played every year, then put them in the same division.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I’d like to see that eliminated too, but I don’t think it’s realistic to expect. This is all being driven by marketing and $$. East/West is the closest you can get, and you’d have to include MSU in the East. OK by me…guess it depends on how much one of the Indiana or Illinois schools prefers playing in the East.
There’s 0 chance to eliminate protected games if you go with the Eyeball-Proton/Electron-Inner/Outer option as the league will want to protect PSU/OSU.
LikeLike
@gregenstein – Yeah, I’ve looked at virtually every possible scenario, and there really isn’t any way to eliminate cross-division protected rivals. Some top tier rivalry will get the shaft if that were to occur beyond the Wisconsin-Iowa level of rivalry. Illinois is always going to play Northwestern. Michigan is always going to play both Ohio State and Michigan State. Ohio State is always going to play both Michigan and Penn State. Minnesota is always going to play Wisconsin and Iowa. Indiana is always going to play Purdue. The Big Ten’s expansion is predicated on Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland all playing each other. As bad as splitting Wisconsin-Iowa up was, that was a secondary rivalry compared to the ones listed above. There’s no way to accommodate them all within their own divisions. East/West is the closest one to it, but that would still require at least one protected rivalry depending on whether Michigan State or one of the Indiana schools ends up in the West.
By the way, I think the competitive balance factor will come in if there’s an East/West split. I’ve seen a number of comments saying that Michigan State would stay in the East while a school like Indiana or Purdue could go to the West, but I don’t see that at all. It’s going to be a tough enough sell to have three kings in the East division in the first place, but to then swap out Michigan State (which has a good traveling fan base and excellent on-the-field records over the past decade for the most part) for one of the lower traveling Indiana schools would be like rubbing salt in the wound. The compromise for sending three kings to the East from my vantage point is that when looking at recent history (past 10 to 20 years), Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan State are all “prince” status programs with top notch fan bases on top of Nebraska being a king program, which means there’s more depth. If we’re going to have cross-division protected rivals (and I think that’s going to be the case no matter how we split up the divisions), there’s a major difference for the West division schools in getting to play Michigan State annually compared to Indiana or Purdue.
LikeLike
Frank, if you are right that Ohio State-Penn State is being considered one that must be maintained then you are definitely right that there are no scenarios with no locked crossovers. I think they’ll at least consider dropping it as annual in exchange for no crossovers. In the end you are probably right and they won’t let it die as an annual event though. 😦
LikeLike
@Eric – Ohio State-Penn State is an extremely important game for the conference for a variety of reasons (e.g. two kings playing each other, arguably the two best football recruiting states in the Big Ten footprint, bridge between the original Big Ten and the new Eastern flank, border states, etc.). It can’t be understated. From what I’ve seen, only Michigan-Ohio State is more non-negotiable. Otherwise, I seriously believe that they’d be more willing to drop any other rivalry game before they touch OSU-PSU (and it might be a moot point since I’m 99% certain that they’ll end up in the same division).
LikeLike
Frank, all due respect but I think you’re really overstating the OSU/PSU thing. Yes, it’s an important rivalry, but only from the standpoint that they’re both kings. As an OSU fan, I’d be fine with only playing them every other year or two, as long as Nebraska is on our schedule whenever PSU isn’t. Your other reasons (two biggest recruiting states, border states, bridge) are pretty irrelevant to me, at least for the purposes of this discussion
LikeLike
I think OSU/PSU is important to PSU, much like OU was important to Nebraska in the Big 12 (even if OU was willing to let it go to every other year). PSU may dominate Maryland (as they have) or Rutgers. And there is a natural OH/PA rivalry. Dropping OSU/PSU would be a mistake.
LikeLike
@Frank
I agree PSU-OSU is an important game for the conference, but why is the fact they are recruiting rich states relevant? If anything, that would make the games less valuable to the conference since it means the other teams get fewer games in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
LikeLike
“If a rivalry is that important and absolutely must be played every year, then put them in the same division.”
Or you could just play that rivalry game as an OOC game. I bring it up because SEC fan (especially LSU fans) bring it up when discussing the Bama/Tenn & UGA/auburn rivaries. The SEC used to play each other as OCC games fairly regularly up until they expanded to 12 teams. Granted it is thinking way out of the box, but if protecting the OSU/UM, UM/MSU, or IN/Purdue games are important enough, it is an option that can be considered. Plus the B1G officials may like the idea of moving the OSU/UM game to an OOC game since it increases the chances of those two teams playing again in the conference championship game.
LikeLike
bama:
OOC rivalry conference games are possible for teams that don’t require 7 home games every year (like PU & IU). Not so much for OSU & PSU.
Ohiomarc:
Frank isn’t talking about whether OSU fans consider OSU-PSU important; he’s talking about whether the B10 considers OSU-PSU important, and I believe him when he says that OSU-PSU probably ranks only behind OSU-Michigan in importance to the league. Plus, I think you’ll find that PSU fans care more about that game than you do.
LikeLike
gregenstein,
“One thing nobody seems to be discussing. the B1G is taking a calculated risk by going with Rutgers. They seems to be banking, at least partially, on them being able to deliver some of that coveted NYC market. For that to have the best chance to succeed, you have to try to have as many of those “pipeline” schools playing Rutgers as possible.”
I disagree. Crushing RU in to the ground by having them play the top 8 B10 teams every year is not how you build them up. You have to mix brand names with winnable games. New fans won’t turn out to see 0-7 RU against anybody. They will show up for 4-3 RU against PSU, though. Everybody seems to ignore the negative impact of a large number of losses on the newbies. It doesn’t help to turn them into the Washington Generals.
“So, realistically, I don’t think the Inner/Outer-Sun/Planets alignment will shake out. I really think they’re going to want Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, and Maryland all playing in New York as much as possible so as to try and penetrate the NYC psyche.”
You are also ignoring the crossover games which the B10 can control to get OSU and MI in NYC more often. Despite not being locked rivals, PSU got to play MI for their first 10 years in the B10. Nothing is stopping the B10 from alternating between OSU and MI playing RU every year as a crossover opponent. That assures RU of either PSU or OSU/MI in NJ every year.
“Really, I think the East/West split of Frank’s is really the only one that accomplishes the most and will appease most of the TV people, marketing departments, and University Presidents and ADs.”
The TV people don’t get a vote. Neither do the marketing people.
LikeLike
“Crushing RU in to the ground by having them play the top 8 B10 teams every year is not how you build them up. You have to mix brand names with winnable games. New fans won’t turn out to see 0-7 RU against anybody. They will show up for 4-3 RU against PSU, though.”
The idea that IU & PU (in an E/W setup) will crush Rutgers more often than Iowa & Minny (in an Inner/Outer setup) is laughable. Even if you divide the IN schools (as I prefer), there’s no difference in strength between IU+MSU & Iowa+Minny. The difference between UNL+Wisconsin & Michigan+OSU isn’t that big either (all 4 would be favored most years vs. RU).
LikeLike
The TV people get a vote considering the contract is up for renewal in two years. They will want the Kings playing Kings as much as possible.
Inventory is good for the BTN and Maryland and Rutgers help in that respect, but top-notch matchups are key for big time network television. Nebraska wasn’t added for it’s BTN subscriber base, it was added because it’s a marquee matchup to add to Michigan, OSU, and PSU to sell to the networks.
LikeLike
I agree, but OSU and Nebraska don’t play each other for the next four years.
LikeLike
Simple questions: Why are their divisions/pods necessary again? Divisions in college football are dumb. They are a professional sport arrangement that for some reason has been transferred to the college world in recent years.
College football is driven by (1) rivalries, (2) conference play and championships, and (3) quality match-ups. That’s it. No big secret. Divisions get in the way of all three.
So, how do you hit all three important points? Annual protected match-ups + round robin of the remaining conference members, which emphasis on avoiding long periods of not seeing conference members.
Move to 9 conference games. Give each school 3 or 4 protected rivals (but not 4-team pods). Round-robin through the rest of the conference for the remaining 5 or 6 games.
Everybody happy. No school will ever go more than 2 years without seeing another school, and everybody will have a few yearly match-ups against the national powers in addition to their rivals.
LikeLike
@John V – NCAA rules state that in order to hold a conference championship game, you need to have divisions where teams play all of the other members of their division in a round robin. So, unless conferences want to drop their conference championship games (which is effectively a non-starter if you have over 12 teams in a conference), you need to split up into divisions. That’s why it’s not feasible to just assign 3 or 4 protected rivals to each school. Now, NCAA rules don’t state that the divisions need to be fixed year-to-year, so that’s where the pod concept comes in. You can rotate pods into different divisions from year-to-year, which would have the same effect as allowing teams to play their inter-pod conference mates on a regular basis while still having 2 divisions to comply with NCAA rules of holding a conference championship game.
LikeLike
There’s some NCAA rule somewhere that states, to play a conference championship game, you must have 2 divisions in your conference, and each division must play a round robin within the division, at a minimum. And, you must have a minimum of 12 teams to do any of this. That’s why the B1G didn’t have divisions when they had just 11 teams; no financial benefit and the scheduling was tough enough.
You can’t just play a mashup schedule and have top 2 left standing stage the conference title game; you have to follow the 2 division model. There are no rules for how often you have to play teams in the other division (other than the mandatory championship game should you reach it).
LikeLike
I would not be surprised if that rule is re-thought once 16-team conferences and the [expanded] play-offs are in place.
LikeLike
Wade:
NCAA never intended this rule for D1 football. There will have to be new rule alteration to allow for the upcoming playoff, but I don’t think the NCAA (membership mostly non D1 schools) will want to do much more to help the D1 schools unless it’s necessary to avoid them leaving altogether. While I think that’s coming, I don’t know that it’s imminent.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Presidents would have much of a taste for that. And I don’t think there are a lot of extra $. That’s what it would take for the Presidents to make themselves look more like professionals and change a rule that wasn’t even intended to be used as it is in the first place.
LikeLike
The one thing in conference realignment I care least about? Big Ten division speculation.
LikeLike
+1 They lost me at Legends and Leaders. Unless something simple comes out…I have resigned myself to the fact that I will never know what division is what and who is where.
LikeLike
You are nothing but a dirty divisionist!
That of course makes this the perfect place to post this…
I know it is very unlikely to happen but I’m a big fan of pods & a 9 game conference schedule for the 14 team B1G.
Two 4 team fixed pods:
Ohio State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana
TSUN, Sparty, Northwestern, Purdue
Two 3 team floating pods:
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
PSU, Rutgers, Maryland
Each team in the fixed pods would have a single locked opponent:
Ohio State – TSUN
Wisconsin – Sparty
Illinois – Northwestern
Indiana – Purdue
The teams in the floating pods don’t need a locked opponent as they’lll face all of the teams in the opposing pod each year.
The teams in the floating pods would play every team on the conference a minimum of two out of four years. The teams in the fixed pods would face every team in the conference two out of four years except for their non-locked opponents in the opposing pod who they would face four years out of every six. No team would have any opponent off of their schedule for more than two years.
LikeLike
I think WI would complain, and the B10 will never drop WI/MN as an annual game.
LikeLike
Wisconsin already made the statement about what is most important for it’s future when it volunteered to go east during the last round of division discussions.
LikeLike
It didn’t volunteer to drop the game for the Axe (which I believe is the oldest continuous rivalry game in the country).
LikeLike
OK, most-played rivalry game in the country.
LikeLike
Right.
UNL+Iowa+Minny+Wisconsin will have to go in one of your 4 team pods.
Michigan, OSU, PSU, MSU, RU, & UMD would go in to the 2 3-team pods (as they play each other every year anyway, divide them up however you like). That leaves Northwestern, Illinois, IU, & PU in the other 4 team pod.
LikeLike
Congratulations! You’ve successfully come up with yet another complete non-starter due a ridiculous lack of name/competitive balance. Half the time it would look like:
Ohio State, TSUN, MSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
PSU, Rutgers, UMD, Illinois, Purdue, IU, Northwestern
Yeah not a chance in hell of that setup seeing the light of day.
My dream setup isn’t perfect but it does actually take into account the stated priorities of the decision makers (things like brand & historical balance). It also reinforces the decisions that were made in the previous round of alignment (Ohio State/TSUN split, even mix of kings, equal access to Chicago, the Nebraska/Iowa/Minnesota trio & yes Wisconsin going east) rather than pretending that those decisions weren’t made for a reason.
Is it flawed? Absolutely, but it does actually attempt to balance the various factors that TPTB have shown to be important rather than focusing on a single one to the
exlusion of all else.
It’s actually similar in concept to the inner/outer setup except that everyone faced one another more often.
LikeLike
The imbalance is solely in the 4 school pods. The 3 school pods play each other all the time anyway, so they can be divided up in as balanced a manner as possible. For instance,
Michigan-MSU-RU vs. OSU-PSU-UMD
Even the 4 school pods can be divided in a balanced manner without breaking up rivalries, as UNL only has to play Iowa every year. For instance,
Iowa-UNL
Northwestern-Illinois
Wisconsin-PU
Minnesota-IU
The divisions would be balanced and, unlike you, I don’t sacrifice any major rivalries.
LikeLike
Or North: MI/OSU/Rutgers; East: PSU, MD, MSU
Lock: OSU/PSU, alternate OSU/MD, OSU/MSU
Lock MI/MSU, alternate MI/PSU, MI/MSU
Lock: Rutgers/MD, alternate Rutgers/PSU, Rutgers/MSU
LikeLike
Scarlet_Lutefisk,
“I know it is very unlikely to happen but I’m a big fan of pods & a 9 game conference schedule for the 14 team B1G.”
Pods have almost no chance this round. Getting the 9th game will be hard enough. But let’s examine it hypothetically.
Two 4 team fixed pods:
”Ohio State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana
TSUN, Sparty, Northwestern, Purdue
Two 3 team floating pods:
Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
PSU, Rutgers, Maryland”
Why those groupings?
The 6 teams in the small pods all play each other every year plus a pod of 4. The pods of 4 play all 3 pod games, 3/4 of the other large pod and 1 pod of 3. Any grouping that preserves all rivalries within those constraints will work.
Some people’s groupings ignore balance, which isn’t practical but preserves rivalries really well, but there are options.
A – OSU, PSU, RU, MD
B – NE, MN, PU
C – WI, IA, IN
D – MI, MSU, NW, IL
Locked: OSU/MI, PSU/MSU, RU/NW, MD/IL
Annual: All in pod games, all B vs C games, all locked A vs D games
Sample schedules:
OSU:
100% – PSU, RU, MD, MI
67% – MSU, NW, IL
50% – NE, WI, IA, MN, PU, IN
NE:
100% – WI, IA, MN, PU, IN
50% – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, NW, IL, RU, MD
Diminished rivalries:
OSU/IL – 67%
MI/MN, IL/IN, IL/PU – 50%
Maybe an E/W split:
A – OSU, PSU, RU, MD
B – NE, MN, NW
C – WI, IA, IL
D – MI, MSU, PU, IN
Sample schedules:
OSU:
100% – PSU, RU, MD, MI
67% – MSU, PU, IN
50% – NE, WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
NE:
100% – WI, IA, MN, NW, IL
50% – OSU, MI, PSU, MSU, PU, IN, RU, MD
Diminished rivalries:
MI/MN, OSU/IL, IL/IN, IL/PU – 50%
On the other hand, all the CST teams play each other annually and the eastern teams less while the EST teams play each other more and the western teams less. I don’t like to diminish the LBJ or Illibuck, but something has to give and it seems OK to make OSU and MI pay part of the price. MN can assuage their feelings by getting NE to start replacing MI as their king rivalry, and IL will have to do the same thing (NE for OSU).
LikeLike
loki_the_bubba,
How about if we start throwing Rice and Tulane into the divisions to make it interesting for you?
LikeLike
They more than qualify academically.
LikeLike
Ah, but Delaney is only supposed to talk to contiguous AAU schools, so he has to wait until Rice and Tulane talks to him. I am sure he will be heartbroken if they never contact him.
LikeLike
EAST (protected game)
Indiana (MSU)
Maryland (Minnesota)
OSU (Michigan)
PSU (Nebraska)
Purdue (Iowa)
Rutgers (Wisconsin)
Illinois (NW)
WEST (protected game)
Iowa (Purdue)
Michigan (OSU)
MSU (Indiana)
Minnesota (Maryland)
Nebraska (PSU)
NW (Illinois)
Wisconsin (Rutgers)
Move to a 9-game schedule would be essential. The East/West Division teams would alternate years on the 5th conference home game. This set up does the following:
– Maintains all rivalries on an annual basis (except for Minn v PSU, PSU v MSU)
– Makes Geographic sense
– Each team would play 3 teams in the other division (1 protected crossover, 2 rotating).
– You could make the scheduing work out so teams in the West like Michigan, Nebraska visit the East Coast (NJ, MD, or PA) once every other year.
– Looking at it today, it may seem out of balance, but historically the teams in each division are actually quite close –> EAST division has a total of 4526 all time wins. WEST division has a total of 4758 all time wins (these win totals disregard NCAA vacated wins).
– Additionally, the all-time Bowl wins total by each division is tied at 83.
For Hoops, you could keep the same divisions. Each team would play a Home & Away with each division team. Would then play each team once in the other division. Would then play your protected crossover an additional time either Home or Away, depending on what you played the earlier. This would be a 20 game conference schedule.
What is the major opposition to this divisional set-up?
LikeLike
OSU and Michigan are in separate divisions, the east is way too weak comparatively, 9-game schedule won’t be happening for at least a couple years (if at all), divisions are unnecessary for basketball.
LikeLike
Your football setup is fine, but 20 games is too much of a conference slate for men’s and women’s basketball. Just set up a few protected rivals to get to 18.
I was tinkering with a hoops format, and came up with this de facto divisional setup:
A: Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
B: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Wisconsin
C: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Every team plays annual home-and-homes within their group (A: 6 games, B & C: 8 games) and at least one game against everyone else in the conference (A: 10 games, B & C: 9 games). That leaves two openings to reach 18 for A, one each for B and C. To fill that, each A team plays a second game against one B and one C team, rotating. The B and C teams that don’t get a second game with A teams play each other to complete an 18-game schedule.
For example, were we to set this up alphabetically for the first year, extra home-and-homes would look like this:
Maryland: Indiana, Illinois
Ohio State: Michigan, Iowa
Penn State: Michigan State, Minnesota
Rutgers: Purdue, Nebraska
Indiana: Maryland
Michigan: Ohio State
Michigan State: Penn State
Purdue: Rutgers
Wisconsin: Northwestern
Illinois: Maryland
Iowa: Ohio State
Minnesota: Penn State
Nebraska: Rutgers
Northwestern: Wisconsin
Is this perfect? No. But it should be noted that the Big Ten hasn’t always given its “traditional” rivalries (Ohio State-Michigan, Indiana=Purdue) home-and-home basketball status.
LikeLike
I hope they just go through a straight rotation or just lock a two games apiece. No reason most those teams need to always be home and home every year.
LikeLike
On an SEC blog last year, I suggested a basketball scheduling format that gave each team 3 primary rivals and 4 secondary rivals:
-You would play each of your primary rivals home-and-home every year.
-You would play 2 of your secondary rivals home-and-home in even years and once in odd years. The other 2 secondary rivals would be home-and-home in odd years and played once in even years
-You would play a single game against the other 6 conference teams every year.
In a 4 year period with this format:
-You would play each of your primary rivals 4 times at home, 4 times on the road
-You would play each of your secondary rivals 3 times at home, 3 times on the road
-You would play the other 6 teams twice at home, twice on the road.
I like this format because it gives each team a chance to build strong rivalries while still getting to see every team in the conference every 2 years. While some teams on the edges would have a secondary rival or 2 on the other side of the conference, there would be a focus on playing closer teams more frequently.
In a sport where the regular season is followed by a large conference tournament, which is then followed by a large national tournament, I think it’s silly to prioritize a ‘balanced’ regular season conference schedule over frequent rivalry games. Of course the SEC coaches decided that was their priority, only giving each team 1 permanent rival and rotating everyone else on the home-away schedules.
[Note-if you try to set up a whole conference with this set-up, it takes some time to assign the secondary rivalries. Each team has 4 different ‘slots’:
a) Home & Away in years 1&3, H in year 2, A in year 4
b) H&A in years 2&4, H in year 1, A in year 3
c) H&A in years 1&3, A in year 2, H in year 4
d) H&A in years 2&4, A in year 1, H in year 3
If Illinois has Iowa in its slot ‘a’, then Iowa has Illinois in its slot ‘c’. Slots ‘b’ and ‘d’ are related in the same way. You can only assign 2 schools as secondary rivals if they have corresponding slots available]
LikeLike
The competitive balance is terrible.
LikeLike
If you look at only recent history, you would be correct. But after all, how much weight is competitive balance going to have? I would also argue taking the current competitive balance may not apply in the future, so if competitive balance is important, you would need to re-calibrate divisions every year.
LikeLike
It’s imbalanced over the last couple years as well as the last couple decades. We’ll never be able to perfectly predict the future, but the past gives us a darn good idea.
LikeLike
Kappadoce,
The problem with those divisions are:
Major imbalance – pencil in Ohio State for the conference championship game for the next decade. On the other side, you could be pretty sure that Michigan is going to have one of the toughest roads in all of college football every single year.
Michigan visits Rutgers, Maryland and Penn State once every six years each. With Frank’s East-West setup, you get Michigan visits the three eastern school once every other year each.
Just like I don’t think the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers to have them play in a division with the four western schools (inner-outer), I don’t think they expanded with the idea of Purdue, Indiana and Illinois monetizing the eastern markets by making up more than half of the division-mates for Maryland and Rutgers.
LikeLike
Broadly speaking, it seems there are at least 4 goals one could have in setting up divisions, which are not entirely compatible:
1. Preserving rivalries
2. Competitive balance
3. Allowing teams to play each other conference team as much as possible.
4. Making division assignment certain and easy to remember.
I’ve ranked those goals in the order I think most important. In other words, I would be willing to making the division assignments confusing so long as it preserves the first 3 goals. Here is my proposal:
Division A: MICH, MSU, Rutgers + 2 teams from West pod (see below) + 2 teams from Midwest pod (see below).
Division B: OSU, PSU, Maryland + 2 teams from West pod (see below) + 2 teams from Midwest pod (see below).
West pod: NEB, MN, IA, WI
Midwest pod: IL, NW, PU, IN.
Permanent division A and permanent division B teams each play one permanent crossover (MICH-OSU, PSU-Rutgers, MSU-Maryland) plus one of the other two permanent cross-division teams.
West and Midwest pods each play each other every year and rotate divisions. For example, division A might consist of MICH-MSU-Rutgers, NEB-MN, NW-PU for two years, then the West and Midwest teams would rotate in some set fashion. If done correctly, this should work out so that over an 8-game schedule each team has 3 permanent rivals and plays every other 4 out of 8 years.
It would be confusing as hell, but is it any more confusing then Legends and Leaders? I can live with confusing. It preserves rivalries, maintains competitive balance, allows teams to play frequently, and preserves the sense of there being one conference and not two divisions.
LikeLike
If they scrap and redo these divisions, and STILL have OSU and Michigan in separate divisions, it can only be classified as a massive fail.
LikeLike
“If they scrap and redo these divisions, and STILL have OSU and Michigan in separate divisions, it can only be classified as a massive fail.”
That is your opinion.
LikeLike
Um yeah, obviously. But it’s also the opinion of the majority of OSU and UM fans, at least among those I’ve heard/spoken to and on the message boards I frequent.
LikeLike
The league isn’t going to align the divisions just to satisfy UM/OSU fans. Creating a division that you think is cool and giving the finger to the rest of the conference isn’t going to gain the AD votes necessary to have such a divisional alignment pass.
LikeLike
@greg
If two schools *both* demand that playing in the same division with the other is their #1 priority, then all efforts should be made to put those two schools in the same division. It doesn’t matter if it’s Michigan-Ohio State or Purdue-Indiana.
LikeLike
I’m assuming the BIG will keep the same compromise as before, which is that OSU and MICH are in separate divisions but get to continue to play on the last game of the year. It’s better for the other 12 teams if the two biggest powers are in separate divisions.
LikeLike
As far as arriving at the same compromise as before, it appears that when they formed divisions, that Michigan school was in favor of being in separate divisions. They may no longer be of the view that possibly playing OSU twice, once with their division title possibly on the line, the second time with the conference championship on the line, is still in their best interests.
LikeLike
Not sure why you’re being so hostile, but trying to satisfy OSU & UM doesn’t necessarily mean giving the finger to anyone.
LikeLike
The only way any new divisional alignment could be classified as a massive failure is if they don’t change the names of the divisions. Anything else would just be disappointing at worst.
LikeLike
Legging & Lederhosen
You’re right, that’s not worse.
LikeLike
UofM/OSU/PSU will all be in the east. If we need to add another AAU-less power in the west to bring equilibrium to the world, so be it.
‘…where the wind comes sweeping down the plain!’
LikeLike
Yeah, Oklahoma to the Big Ten isn’t happening. Even if they could get around the GOR, they aren’t leaving behind Okie St.
LikeLike
So, slightly altering your plan:
Year 1-2:
Alpha: Mich, OSU, Rutgers, Neb, Iowa, IL, NW
Omega: MSU, PSU, Maryland, WI, MN, IN, PU
Year 3-4:
Alpha: Mich, OSU, Rutgers, WI, MN, IL, NW
Omega: MSU, PSU, Maryland, Neb, Iowa, IN, PU
Year 5-6:
Alpha: Mich, OSU, Rutgers, WI, MN, IN, PU
Omega: MSU, PSU, Maryland, Neb, Iowa, IL, NW
Year 7-8:
Alpha: Mich, OSU, Rutgers, Neb, Iowa, IN, PU
Omega: MSU, PSU, Maryland, WI, MN, IL, NW
-You could re-name the divisions each cycle if you like
-you could actually omit any 2 years of this to make a 6 year schedule that would let everyone see each other but not all equally frequently
For cross-divisional games:
Neb & Iowa would always play WI and MN
IL & NW would always play IN and PU
Mich would always play MSU; OSU would always play PSU, Rutgers would always play Maryland
Mich, OSU, and Rutgers would also play one of the other 2 teams among MSU, PSU, and Maryland
LikeLike
As a Penn State fan, I would like to have the Divisions this way: East: Indiana, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers Wisconsin. West: Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern. Annual Rivalry: Penn State/Nebraska, Ohio State/Michigan, Wisconsin/Iowa, Rutgers/Northwestern, Purdue/Michigan State, Maryland Minnesota. I certainly would be willing to do the “Black Friday” Game in Lincoln every other year(Maybe when Nebraska comes to State College, Iowa visits). My biggest priorities are in this order: 1: Ohio State. 2: Pitt Panthers. 3: Nebraska. 4: Wisconsin. 5: Rutgers. If we had those five Schools on my schedule I would be happy (Even with no Michigan)
LikeLike
So I guess adding Maryland to appease PSU (among other things) is a non-starter. Also, poor MSU is going to have a superiority complex after they see you chose Wisconsin over them.
I know it won’t happen, but this is why I wish they would add another football power in the West (Oklahoma anyone?). Michigan is going to demand to be in the east. As much as I love UofM, Ann Arbor reeks of ‘east coast elitism’. Columbus….not so much.
LikeLike
Penn State fans (Like Michigan State fans), basically do not care if each other is on the schedule or not. If I went from bottom to top of Big 10 interests, obviously Minnesota is on the bottom followed by Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois, but just above them is Michigan State, followed by Northwestern, Maryland, Michigan, Iowa, Rutgers, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and of course, Ohio State. In fact, I would wager that there are more Penn State fans who support seeing Temple on their schedule than Michigan State.
LikeLike
In the Four Group plan above, ~ East(3) and North(3) swap West(4) and Central(4) every year to form the year’s championship divisions ~ PSU gets (in your order but top to bottom priority):
1. OSU, 6, Maryland, 8, MSU annually
2-5, 7, 9-14 every second year.
So in the Four Group plan, would you prefer the following alternative?:
East: MSU, PSU, Rutgers
South: MI, OSU, MD
That would give you annually 1, OSU; 4. Rutgers; 8. MSU.
LikeLike
I will say I understand why this is so hard for the presidents. I can see why they’d do that completely (competitive balance, eastern exposure, etc), but it’s the proposed alignment that I want the absolute least. We’d still have Michigan in another division, now miss out on the Illibuck, and be playing both newbies every year.
LikeLike
We Are
LikeLike
Pete Thamel tweeted that 3 sources have said Boise’s departure from Big East is “inevitable.”
If they end of leaving I could see it being for one of two situations (assuming no power conference invites). Both of them have some history suggesting they could be true.
1. The Mountain West will offer Boise as very disproportionate amount of the revenue. Likely they’d just let Boise State keep the rights to its home games which it could sell itself to ESPN or whomever wanted them. The Mountain West’s network partners (FOX?, CBS?) would agree to this because getting the road games is still valuable and it’s a heck of a lot better prospect than having the Mountain West gutted by the Big East (which is the likely outcome if Boise State moves that way).
History: We know Boise waited until the absolute last hour to send a withdrawal notice before and the Mountain West made an offer to keep them that would have let them keep more revenue than other Mountain West teams. Knowing the Mountain West is likely to either expand or lose western members to the Big East, there is probably even more incentive for them to offer everything they can now.
2. The Mountain West could be offering both BYU and Boise State Olympic sports conferences, while the 2 could be football independents.
History: The WAC offered the same thing to BYU already and the Mountain West composition includes a lot of former WAC members.
LikeLike
Most likely, the extra $ for the BE contract isn’t enough to cover the travel fees to the BW (I’ve read 385k Boise, 385k BE), the extra travel for football and condemning your basketball team to irrelevance. They’re talking $30-$40 million now. With 70-80% football, that’s $1.5 to $2.3 million for Boise is all. MWC is currently between 800k to $1.2 million and that deal expires in 3 years while the BE deal is probably long term (meaning it starts well below the $30-$40 million).
LikeLike
Step 1 of Realignment Armageddon was complete when the BE starting talking up ECU for all sports yesterday. This just starts Step2.
https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/if-youre-going-to-create-a-superconference-then-do-it-right-the-case-for-florida-state-to-the-big-ten/#comment-151308
LikeLike
Big East commissioner talking about ECU going all sports, for those who missed it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/big-east-commissioner-mike-aresco-we-feel-we-have-a-very-good-league/2012/12/19/2fb80652-4a1e-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21436444/colorado-new-mexico-trying-to-coax-byu-and-boise-state-into-forming-new-league
Representatives from Colorado State and New Mexico have shown preliminary but informal interest in forming a new conference that would have Boise State and/or BYU as its foundation, CBSSports.com has learned.
LikeLike
Also,
LikeLike
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/21436698/mountain-west-restructures-deal-with-cbs
To say realignment with the BE/MWC/CUSA is fluid, is an understatement.
LikeLike
Andy Katz is saying UConn and Cincy expect to be in ACC because the B1G is expected to invite Georgia Tech and –this is new– North Carolina. This is part of an article talking about Boise considering going back to MWC.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8771286/boise-state-broncos-discussing-staying-mountain-west-snubbing-big-east
At this point, both schools have to stay in the Big East, but sources at Cincinnati and UConn are under the impression, even if it’s not known to be true yet, that the Big Ten will raid the ACC for two more schools — North Carolina and Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
I also highly recommend this piece from Pete Thamel from Sports Illustrated:
http://m.si.com/627787/whats-next-for-catholic-7-big-east/
Lots to chew on about Boise State, the Mountain West, Big East, Catholic 7 and Fox.
Separately, I’m hearing the MWC could be announcing that Boise State is heading back (or more appropriately, staying) tomorrow. We’ll see.
LikeLike
$3 million a year sounds pretty damn optimistic to me.
LikeLike
@frug – I think it’s optimistic, but it’s definitely not out there (especially if it ends up getting split up among multiple networks). The C7 provides a critical mass of winter programming for a new network like Fox Sports One and they hit a ton of major markets (NYC, Chicago, DC, Philly). My impression is that the C7 is going to end up with a better TV deal than a lot of people think – they didn’t just break off based on blind faith (pardon the expression for a group of religious schools). Despite the general belief that football rules everything in TV contracts, the C7 were definitely adding more to the potential hybrid Big East contract than taking away from it, and that’s going to be reflected in their separate deal.
LikeLike
Cincy and UConn at some point have to focus on their immediate future and not where they would like to be. All of this chatter about wanting to get into the ACC is not helping the BE attempt to move forward. If they thought the current BE was bad, one without Boise State and more than likely San Diego State is even worse.
LikeLike
Its 1.5 million for bb on their old contract with 17 teams. From the old BE, VT, Miami, Rutgers were addition by subtraction. BC didn’t add. Notre Dame was in an extended mediocre period before they joined. Pitt was no different from BC 10 years ago. WV was only slightly above average. SU and UConn are the losses from the old BE (UL,UC,USF are more recent additions). But they are adding the 2005 bb programs-Marquette & DePaul, both with some history. Marquette is strong now. Dayton and Butler have been to championship games. Xavier is strong now. I can easily see going from $26 million to $36 million with the passage of time.
LikeLike
It was a good article Frank. Thanks.
LikeLike
@Bullet and Frank
I don’t dispute that $3 million a year is plausible, it just seems like that is a best case scenario.
That said, I don’t think $2+ million is out of the question at all, and after factoring in lower travel and logistical costs believe the C7 will come out ahead financially from the split relative to sticking with the hybrid.
LikeLike
One final thing to keep in mind: The Mountain West is on the offensive a bit here. It has reached out to at least one non-Western Big East school. They’re clearly being aggressive.
So are we thinking Cincy?
LikeLike
Frug:
I would think Houston (or maybe SMU). Possibly Navy.
Wooing a school on the other side of the country who will leap at the ACC at the first chance doesn’t make long-term strategic sense.
LikeLike
I assumed Houston and SMU were considered Western members, but I think they have almost certainly been contacted either way.
Navy is an interesting option. Didn’t think of them.
LikeLike
MWC -could- be targeting Memphis (along with the TX schools). UNLV, SDSU, UNM, & Memphis would make for the clearly 7th best basketball league (supplanting the A10 after they lose their more valuable Midwestern schools). Clearly 6th best football league. A “best of the rest” league like that would be well positioned to join the big boys if they decide to split from the rest of the NCAA.
LikeLike
@Quiet Storm ~ Cincy has been quiet about wanting to join the ACC since the ACC invited Louisville, but having actively pursued the ACC spot, the horse has already bolted the barn as far a stopping further chatter by others about Cincy jumping to the ACC at the next opportunity.
That is what will likely push Boise State to either go back to the MWC on some sort of favorable terms or forming a new conference. If they are not going to be going to the Big East, that gives SDSU a get out of jail free card to play ~ no Big East teams west of the Rockies and SDSU cancel their entry without penalty, which makes 3 top 50 media markets in the MWC. If the MWC could add an opportunity to play in Texas every year by inviting Houston and SMU, there’s the bulk of the Big East’s “Western Plan”, except all as part of the MWC.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how UNC can extricate itself from the ACC to join the Big Ten without finding a good landing spot for NCSU (SEC or, less likely, Big 12). And I sense that if Chapel Hill left for the Big Ten, it would prefer to move with a traditional partner (UVa or Duke), and Georgia Tech isn’t it.
LikeLike
Any three of UNC/UVA/Duke/GTech would make the academics happy. If three of them would make the academics happy enough to accept a non-AAU school, it would seem like UNC/UVA/GTech/FSU gives more football punch but makes NC-State and VTech to the SEC something close to a lock, while UNC/UVA/Duke/VTech gives more regional coherence, making Virginia all-Big Ten territory and North Carolina (assuming NC-State plus somebody to the SEC or the Big 12 taking NC-State / GTech / Clemson / FSU) a border state with substantial winter strength for the Big Ten.
The best football upgrade is trying to get the academics to go along with AAU/non-AAU pairs, skip North Carolina altogether and get UVA/Vtech as a pair, GTech/FSU as a pair. But that’s definitely pressing the envelope on the academic side.
LikeLike
I’m sure UNC has had an “invite” from the B1G for quite awhile, that is nothing new. But how would the PTB at UConn & Cincy know what the B1G plans to do when we all know that the B1G and Delany are so secretive that they force the schools that they are in talks with sign confidentiality agreements? I could see sources with the ACC maybe catching wind of something, but even they wouldn’t know with any amount of certainty what was truely happening, much less 2 Big East schools. UNC & GT may be about to join the B1G, but the people at UConn & Cincy aren’t privy to it.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s why I didn’t originally link to that article. It just didn’t make any sense to me. (After Bullet posted about it though I decided to put it up so people would have the context.)
LikeLike
There’s an interesting Q&A with Slive in USA Today. I’ll let someone who WordPress allows to cut and paste link it, as its a long title (why I can do it other places but not here, I’m not sure). There’s nothing earthshattering and he won’t do “hypotheticals”, but its still an interesting read. 14 is a pain to schedule, but they aren’t looking. They were happy with 12, but A&M and Missouri made them better on a 10-20 year timeline.
LikeLike
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/sec/2012/12/21/southeastern-conference-mike-slive-realignment/1782917/
LikeLike
Who wants access to financial and social media accounts, the C.I.A or Ohio State? http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/40769854/
LikeLike
Go Blue
LikeLike
You have to go East/west.
Michigan has the second largest east coast alumni base other than Penn State in the current Big Ten. You want UM in the East to help Rutgers and Maryland with attendance. I think OSU, UM and PSU need to play MD and Rutgers as much as possible to help generate attendance.
MSU can stay in the West to help with competitive balance.
LikeLike
Someone at Clemson with a great sense of humor has created an ACC group portrait on the Titanic (although Maryland should have been shown leaping into a Big Ten lifeboat to represent its “unsinkable Molly Brown” status): http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/clemtiger117/titanic-final-moments.jpg
LikeLike
It’s a virtual Barbara Stanwyck Christmas-a-thon on TCM with ‘Meet John Doe’ and ‘Remember the night’.
LikeLike
Both superb films. “Remember The Night” was Stanwyck’s first teaming with Fred MacMurray; they would go on to make three more films, all drastically different: film noir (the classic “Double Indemnity”), a western (“The Moonlighter”) and romantic drama (Douglas Sirk’s “There’s Always Tomorrow”). Fred worked with many legendary leading ladies over his career — Carole Lombard, Claudette Colbert, Marlene Dietrich — but you can argue his best chemistry came with Barbara.
LikeLike
Was reading an article on ESPN about Boise State possibly deciding to remain in the Mtn West and this interesting tidbit popped up:
“At this point, both schools have to stay in the Big East, but sources at Cincinnati and UConn are under the impression, even if it’s not known to be true yet, that the Big Ten will raid the ACC for two more schools — North Carolina and Georgia Tech.”
Of course this could very well be Cincy and UConn in denial about not getting an ACC invite, but this is a scenario that’s been thrown out there and is interesting nonetheless.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8771286/boise-state-broncos-discussing-staying-mountain-west-snubbing-big-east
LikeLike
One interesting aspect of Boise State going back to the Mountain West would be that it would be the first time in all of this that we really had a change in the pecking order. It used to be something like: Big Ten, SEC>PAC-12, Big 12, ACC> Big East>Mountain West, Conference USA>MAC, WAC, Sunbelt. You could debate some of that, but the Big East was clearly above the Mountain West. If Boise goes back (and San Diego State with them), the Mountain West is probably the top of the non-power conferences. It could even try to raid the Big East and take Houston and SMU if it wanted (although it’s not a complete forgone conclusion they’d go).
LikeLike
A good point. Re-establishing a conference with a more comfortable “footprint” could pay off for the MWC, now that the Big East is in such flux. Houston and Southern Methodist could each envision themselves as using the MWC to become the next generation’s Texas Christian, parlaying football success into a ticket for the Big 12 (something I doubt would happen, but you can’t keep people from dreaming).
LikeLike
That’s a point about the ig 12 Grant of Rights ~ if it pushes a lot of speculation of Pac-12 raiding of the Big 12 over five years into the future, which also gives room for a program to dream of being ready for the “stuff rolls downhill” invite years into the future. But you’d want a conference to play in before that hoped-for future that gives you the best possible chance to bust into an Access bowl once or twice in the meantime.
LikeLike
I’d move the Pac one spot over with the B1G & SEC. A conference that took one school from the Big 12 and was close to taking several more should be in the > slot.
LikeLike
From Chris Dufresne of the Los Angeles Times, an entertaining overview of conference realignment, complete with diagram: http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/football/la-sp-dufresne-conference-shifting-20121221,0,6947775,full.column
LikeLike
The chart can best be viewed at http://graphics.latimes.com/storyboard-la-sp-football-conference-moves/
LikeLike
Most of the scheduling setups I see here are geared to arranging the best possible in-season games, without regard to what happens to the championship game. There is an advantage to having a strong championship game as well. In the end it sets the public view of the conference for a time going forward. A PSU-OSU championship game, for example, would be a lot more attractive than the same game in week six.
And adding Rutgers and Maryland wasn’t done to “appease” PSU, as one poster here suggested, but rather to take advantage of PSU’s asset value. It’s main connections are Maryland north to NYC. Michigan has very strong connections there as well. By adding schools that play in that area, alums of those schools can see their team play, and the Big Ten benefits as a whole. My daughter, who lives in the DC area, was really excited to see Maryland join. She tells me there are alumni bars in the city that focus on Big Ten Schools (how she would know this I have no idea. Perhaps she read about it in the paper). Indiana, incidentally, was one school she mentioned. Alumni associations gather to watch their schools games and, well, I don’t know. She didn’t say beyond that. Cheer, I suppose. But the point is, there is a huge base of fans in place there who are eager to go see their school play. Maryland home attendance should jump as Big Ten schools come to town. All of that benefits the Big Ten as a whole.
LikeLike
When I lived in New Jersey, I occasionally traveled to NYC to join fellow Terrapin fans at an alumni bar. I recall dropping by one night to see Maryland play basketball at Wake Forest (2003? 2004?), and we had to wait for the end of a Wisconsin-Purdue game (their alums used that bar, too) which was your stereotypical Big Ten defensive struggle, interesting but not always aesthetically pleasing. Little did we realize that slightly more than a decade later…
LikeLike
Whenever I read any prediction and/or advocacy of various ACC schools shifting their allegiances to (supposedly) stronger conferences, I am struck by what I see as a stark set of barriers to the ACC essentially being treated by other leagues like how Austria, Prussia, and Russia treated Poland in the late eighteenth century — barriers that persist even in the face of ongoing doubts about the ACC’s long-term stability and financial viability:
1. The Big Ten may want to lure certain ACC schools, but those schools may have little (if any) interest in Big Ten membership.
2. Some ACC schools may want to move to the Big Ten, but the Big Ten may have little (if any) interest in adding those particular schools.
3. The SEC may want to lure certain ACC schools, but those schools may have little (if any) interest in SEC membership.
4. Some ACC schools may want to move to the SEC, but the SEC may have little (if any) interest in adding those particular schools.
5. Some elements within the Big 12 may want to lure certain ACC schools. However, (a) those schools may have little (if any) interest in Big 12 membership — or, at best, want to defect to another “power” conference more than they want to be in the Big 12 specifically; and (b) the Big 12 seems to be at a stalemate on the issue of expansion.
6. Some of the most coveted ACC schools are unlikely to change conferences unless they are bundled (voluntarily and/or mandatorily) with certain rivals, and a conference that seeks to stay at or below a certain number of members and/or maintain rigid criteria for membership might thus reject the whole bundle no matter how attractive or beneficial a particular school in the bundle may be to that league. UNC might turn down any conference that will not also take in Duke, and state-level (especially university system) politics may also prevent TPTB in Chapel Hill from committing to any league that refuses to let NC State come along with the Tar Heels. Meanwhile, Virginia Tech could find itself forced to be perpetually in the same conference as UVa (whether or not the ACC is that league) as an act of retaliation by forces in Charlottesville that might still be bitter over the Hokies’ ascension to the ACC.
Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away from the ACC’s footprint lies a league that is largely secure for the next few years because a grant of rights, but whose schools could be in a situation similar to the current predicament of ACC schools when and if the GOR no longer exists:
1. The Big Ten may want to lure certain Big 12 schools, but those schools may have little (if any) interest in Big Ten membership even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR.
2. Some Big 12 schools may want to move to the Big Ten, but the Big Ten may have little (if any) interest in adding those particular schools even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR.
3. The SEC may want to lure certain Big 12 schools, but those schools may have little (if any) interest in SEC membership even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR.
4. Some Big 12 schools may want to move to the SEC, but the SEC may have little (if any) interest in adding those particular schools even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR.
5. The Pac-12 may want to lure certain Big 12 schools, but those schools may have little (if any) interest in Pac-12 membership even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR.
6. Some Big 12 schools may want to move to the Pac-12, but the Pac-12 may have little (if any) interest in adding those particular schools even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR.
7. Even if the Big 12 got rid of its GOR, some of the most coveted schools in that conference are unlikely to change leagues unless they are bundled (voluntarily and/or mandatorily) with certain rivals, and a conference that seeks to stay at or below a certain number of members and/or maintain rigid criteria for membership might thus reject the whole bundle no matter how attractive or beneficial a particular school in the bundle may be to that league. UTex and OU might each turn down any conference that will not also take in the other school, state-level politics in Texas may prevent UTex from joining any league that refuses to add Texas Tech also, and state-level politics in Oklahoma may prevent OU from joining any league that refuses to add Oklahoma State also.
I thus propose a possibly radical solution that could not only relieve ACC schools’ anxieties over the futures (financial and otherwise) of their athletic programs, but also prevent such anxieties from materializing within a post-GOR Big 12 and even neutralize the Big Ten, the Pac-12, and the SEC (or at least provide a mutual defense against the Big Ten and the SEC):
1. The Big 12 and the ACC merge with each other once the latter conference says goodbye to Maryland and hello to Louisville. To accommodate the Big 12’s GOR, the merger would be structured so that the Big 12 would officially be the acquiring organization.
2. Once the Big 12 and the ACC complete this merger, the resulting conference then splits into two new leagues. Sixteen of the seventeen southernmost schools would form one conference, and the remaining schools (including a geographically southern school with a history of preferring to associate with northern schools) would establish another conference.
3. The (mostly) more northerly of the two new leagues then adds what are possibly the two most valuable remaining all-sports members of the current Big East.
Without further ado, here are those new leagues:
[b]Metro Conference Version 2.0[/b]
(so named because it includes four members of the original Metro Conference)
[u]Eastern Division[/u]
Clemson
Duke
Georgia Tech*
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia
Virginia Tech*
Wake Forest
[u]Western Division[/u]
Baylor
Florida State*
Louisville*
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
(* member of the original Metro)
[b]East Central Conference[/b]
(so named because its schools are located in the eastern and central sections of the United States)
Boston College
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Miami
Notre Dame**
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
West Virginia
(** non-football membership, but with a football scheduling arrangement similar to what Notre Dame and the ACC intend to have with each other)
LikeLike
FSU will never join that Western division. Makes no sense.
LikeLike
I will admit that Florida State in a division with the Big 12’s current Texas and Oklahoma schools (“the Texoma Six”) and Louisville may not make much sense on the surface. Such a division would definitely be cumbersome to the Seminoles on the issues of travel (in both distance and cost) for nearly every sport and strength of schedule for football. With that said, I regard my proposed Eastern and Western divisions of a Metro Conference 2.0 as the “least worst” way to split a sixteen-school league comprised of the Texoma Six and every ACC school south of the Ohio and Potomac rivers except Miami.
A Metro Conference 2.0 with either a pod system or a structure of Northern and Southern divisions would almost surely cause a breakup of the Texoma Six and/or the ACC’s members in the states of North Carolina and Virginia (“the Tidewater Six”). The current ACC’s Atlantic and Coastal divisions are messy enough already, and employing a similar setup of “zipper” divisions in a conference as far-lung as the Metro 2.0 would be even more confusing to fans and the media and even more destructive to many rivalries. Furthermore, these Eastern and Western divisions would keep together the Tidewater and Texoma sixes, respectively; allow all seven remaining pre-FSU ACC schools, including all five of the ACC’s remaining charter members, to be in the same division; and be a truer east-west split than the SEC’s Eastern and Western divisions have ever been. While the Western Division would almost certainly be stronger in football (at least initally), the Eastern Division’s members could take solace in that their half of the Metro 2.0 would almost certainly be stronger in men’s basketball (again, at least initially). Finally, of particular concern to the leadership in Tallahassee, if neither the Big Ten nor the SEC wants Florida State as a member, then the Seminoles’ only likely alternatives to campaigning for this Metro Conference 2.0 and accepting a spot in the new league’s Western Division would be either sticking with an ACC status quo that looks to be increasingly suicidal from a financial standpoint or begging to enter a Big 12 that, at best, seems to remain lukewarm about the idea of an expansion consisting of just FSU and one other easterly (and equally isolated) school.
Now, here are some new thoughts about my proposed “phoenix” conferences rising from ashes shared by the ACC and the Big 12:
Metro Conference Version 2.0
* This league could alternatively be named the New South Conference, as a swipe against the “Old South” ways of the SEC; or Version 2.0 of the American South Conference, recycling the name of another defunct non-football Division I conference, this one being a small league that existed from 1987 through 1991.
* Each football team in the Metro 2.0 would play a nine-game conference schedule — a seven-game round robin within its division, one game each against two teams from the other division, and no locked cross-division rival for any team.
* The Metro 2.0 would hold its football championship game at the home stadium of the division champion with the better record due to the conference’s geographic breadth and the lack of a seemingly obvious neutral locale for such a game within the league’s footprint. (These are more or less the reasons why the Pac-12 takes this approach with its football championship game.)
* Each basketball team (whether men’s or women’s) would play an eighteen-game, division-free conference schedule, with three locked annual home-and-home opponents — so that, for instance, each North Carolina school in the conference would play hoops on a home-and-home basis against all three of its in-state rivals every season — and one game annually against each of the other twelve schools in the league.
* The Metro 2.0’s men’s and women’s basketball tournaments would include every team in the conference that is eligible for postseason play in a given season (in a nod to the tradition of the ACC basketball tournaments). For practically the same reasons for holding the football championship game at the home stadium of the division champion with the better record (and, obviously, in contrast to the ACC’s and Big 12’s preferences for neutral or least predetermined sites for hoops tourneys), the men’s basketball tournament would be held at the home arena of the regular-season men’s champion, and the women’s basketball tournament would likewise be conducted at the home arena of the regular-season women’s champion.
East Central Conference
* Neither Cincinnati nor Connecticut is an absolute must for the ECC. This league could work also with just Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and West Virginia as full members and Notre Dame as a non-football member. Besides, this slightly smaller lineup could placate Boston College if those in charge in Chestnut Hill are unwilling to share a new conference with another school in the New England region in much the same way that BC has at least been alleged to be hostile to ACC membership for UConn or any other New England school.
* A third possible alignment for the ECC could accommodate Boston College’s possible aversion to a having conference rival in New England, allow this league to have enough football teams for its own football championship game, and … at long last … provide Notre Dame with an incentive to place its football program in a conference:
East Division
Army
Boston College
Miami
Navy
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Central Division
Cincinnati
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
This version of the ECC would have a seven-game conference schedule for each football team — a five-game round robin within its division, one game each against two teams from the other division, and no locked cross-division rival for any team. Thus, as long as each FBS football team plays a twelve-game regular season, a Notre Dame football team in the ECC East Division could preserve its annual games against Michigan State, Purdue, Stanford, and USC out of conference; play a different team each season as its fifth non-conference opponent; play its annual games against BC and Navy with an upgrade of importance; and set its on-again, off-again rivalries with Army, Miami, and Syracuse to the “on” position for good. To sweeten the deal for Notre Dame even further, the ECC could structure its television contract to include an opt-out clause for any team at any school in the league, thus letting the Fighting Irish football program keep its own television deal and all of the revenues from said deal (similar to what Boise State might soon receive should it decide to stay in the MWC). At that point, as far as I can tell, the only “good” reasons for Notre Dame to stay independent in football would be tradition and ego.
LikeLike
Somehow it still doesn’t quite add up that the MWC could get more TV money than the Big East, even it had Boise State in tow.
Neither conference is worthy of comparison to any of the Big Five, so let’s just compare the two. Which of the two has more remaining strength, and which has more dead weight, not compared to the power five, but compared to each other?
It seems the Big East is stronger at the top AND at the bottom.
Top Big East: Boise, Cincinnati, UConn, Houston, USF,
Top MWC: Utah State, Nevada, Hawaii, Fresno State
Bottom Big East: Memphis, Tulane, SMU
Bottom MWC: Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico, UNLV
LikeLike
The advantage the MWC has over the Big East is not that it could offer more TV money, because I do not believe it can, even after all the losses by the BE. Heck even if the MWC were to get Boise and SDSU back, it still would not get a better TV deal than the BE because the dead weight from the MWC draws absolutely zero interest, and oftentimes 20,000 or fewer actual attendees at the games, whereas the Big East has better attendance and is situated in better markets top to bottom.
The advantages of the MWC are other things: (1) reduced travel costs for western members, (2) ability for western members to remain in better conference for non-football than the Big West, (3) greater likelihood of being able to lure in BYU, but only on certain conditions.
The Big East is likely to remain the best, most lucrative non-power conference regardless because of its presence in the Northeast, in Texas, and in Florida, whereas the MWC is only in California and in lightly populated, recruit-scarce states. But that doesn’t mean the MWC won’t have the upper hand in getting some western members back.
LikeLike
*Conditions for luring BYU back into the MWC:
It would have to be a Notre Dame in the ACC type of arrangement. BYU needs October and November games to fill out its schedule far more badly than ND ever did, so getting a guaranteed five games/year would be critical for them. But going back to a weak, weak TV contract while having far, far less TV exposure is not something that interests BYU. Also, let us not forget the ego factor. BYU only followed through with independence after Utah sailed off to the Pac-12. Independence gave BYU the appearance that it is still in just as good a position as Utah by fancying itself as a Notre Same of the West. Returning in full to the MWC would be admitting that Utah has surpassed them.
LikeLike
On the money side, one rumor is that the lure that the MWC will be using for Boise State is allowing them to keep the rights to their home games. If that is indeed being offered to Boise State, it seems like it would be offered to BYU as well.
On the ego side, it does indeed seem that joining on what can be summarized as “on Notre Dame terms, as a Football independent”, whatever they may happen to be at the time, would obviously sit most comfortably with BYU. For the benefit of the MWC TV contract, the MWC would want to stipulate the five games are always 2 hosted by BYU, 3 hosted by the MWC.
LikeLike
Mike, you can’t count Boise as they will make either league they join stronger.
From Boise’s perspective, then:
Cincy matched by USU.
UConn matched by UNLV.
Temple matched by UNM.
All 3 are schools strong in basketball and mediocre or worse in football.
USF & UCF matched by Fresno and AFA.
ECU matched by Hawaii.
TX schools (and maybe Memphis) are not guaranteed to go to BE. TX schools are just as far from BE as MWC so may likely go to the stronger league (where ever Boise goes). SDSU certainly will go where Boise goes.
Plus Boise knows that Cincy and UConn will go to the ACC at the first chance while the top MWC schools aren’t going anywhere without Boise. So how is the BE stronger?
LikeLike
Oh, and in the MWC, Boise can actually benefit from the stronger basketball teams, while they can’t benefit from BE basketball strength.
Factor in travel costs, and I think that it is a fairly easy decision for Boise.
LikeLike
That’s it ~ before Louisville was invited to the ACC, the Big East still had the FB edge. If the MWC can get BYU as a “Notre Dame member” ~ FB independent, Olympic sports member and a 5 game football scheduling agreement, AND if the MWC can convince CBS to allow Boise State to keep their home games, looking to the MWC away games of Boise State and BYU being open for taking, it seems like the MWC would have the edge, and the uncertainty over Cincy/UConn remaining in conference cobbled together over the shattered remnants of the Big East would only solidify that edge.
LikeLike
FranktheTank,
“7. If divisions were to be changed, what criteria should be used to determine them? (Rank by importance Competitive balance, geography, protect traditional rivalries.)
The #1 consideration by far should be to protect traditional rivalries, as those are at the heart of what makes college sports great. Close behind that should be geography, as that is a factor that will never change, whether it’s one year from now or two decades down the road.”
Those two are largely the same thing (most rivals are neighbors), and many rivalries can be maintained with crossover games. They don’t need to be the basis for divisions.
“Competitive balance is honestly a minor factor for me.”
Really? How many times did the B12 get mocked for being lopsided? How many millions of fans nationwide made jokes about them? How many people followed the B12N in it’s last 5+ years?
“All programs inevitable go up and down on-the-field over time, so attempting to gerrymander divisions based on historical records virtually always ends up backfiring (see the Leaders Division this past season and numerous occasions with the ACC divisions).”
Of course teams fluctuate, but when one goes down another comes up (MI and MSU, for example). History does a reasonably good job of telling you who is most likely to be good, though, and only a fool would ignore that.
As for the Leaders this year, what’s your point? OSU was the B10’s best team, PSU was top 4 and WI was top 6 and crushed the Legends champ in Indy. How is that a bad example? If it wasn’t for IL sucking tremendously, the Leaders would have been by the better division. Instead, Legends won 25 B10 games while Leaders won 23.
“The Big Ten made a massive mistake in overweighting what it believed to be competitive balance in constructing the current divisions and I hope that they see the light this time around.”
No, they didn’t. They made a wise decision to try to balance the divisions. I hope they continue that going forward.
If they had done E/W last time:
E – 8-0 OSU, 6-2 MI, 6-2 PSU, 3-5 MSU, 3-5 PU, 2-6 IN
W – 7-1 NE, 5-3 NW, 4-4 WI, 2-6 IA, 2-6 MN, 0-8 IL
That would have been lopsided and boring.
“The main problem with the way that the Big Ten constructed the Leaders and Legends Divisions is that most of the Big Ten schools have multiple traditional rivals, which means that many of them inherently need to be in the same division in order for the maintenance of those rivalries to work. Wisconsin is getting completely screwed by not getting to play traditional rival Iowa and the Badgers are a natural school to help further integrate Nebraska into the conference.”
Yes, they got screwed into back to back Rose Bowls. How terrible for them. WI got moved east because of their location and their success. If they stunk like MN they could have stayed in the west. If they were a king like NE they could have stayed in the west. If they were NE’s border rival, they would have stayed instead of IA. As is, WI is no closer to NE than IL or NW, really (<50 miles difference). I think NE can survive with 3 of their 5 closest neighbors. PSU has. WI had no good reason to assume they'd get NE annually. WI's only legitimate complaint is missing out on IA. That's balanced by them getting more exposure in the recruiting grounds of OH and PA.
"In my opinion, the Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota trifecta should have never been split up and Nebraska fits in there as the fourth wheel of that western flank perfectly."
It beat the alternative.
"11. What is your preference on a B1G Basketball Tourney? (Every team qualifies, or 12 of 14 teams qualify.)
I’m a very large believer that every conference should have all teams qualify for its basketball tournament."
I'm not. I think 12 is way too many, too. It should be a Final Four. If you can't finish the season in the top 4, you don't deserve to be crowned the champion. Save Cinderella for the NCAA.
"For those that say that the conference tournament should be about merit, I would reply that leagues should eliminate conferences tournaments all together if people want to be truly merit-based (as the performance over the course of 3 months of regular season games should trump what occurs in 3 days of a conference tournament)."
Of course they should. But with unbalanced schedules, you can make a reasonable argument for a few teams all having legitimate claims on the title. #14 never, ever, ever, ever, ever deserves a shot at the title. It's like saying IL deserved a playoff shot at the Rose Bowl this year despite playing like a JV team.
"15. When people reference “B1G”, do you recognize that to be the Big Ten Conference?
Yes, I do."
I refuse to acknowledge that. B10 or write it out.
"17. Do you have any further thoughts on B1G expansion?"
You should have cut and pasted every blog post you've written on B10 expansion.
"(b) Ohio State and Penn State must play annually – This might be less obvious to people outside the Big Ten (or even with some fans within the Big Ten), but trust me, this is a non-negotiable game."
I disagree. That game was crucial for PSU because OSU was their only neighbor. Now, PSU has eastern partners instead. I fail to see why the B10 would object to getting PSU/MI instead. The key is keeping a king/king game.
"(c) Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland must be in the same division – The entire crux of the Big Ten expansion to 14 is to solidify the league’s presence on the East Coast, which effectively mandates that they have to be together."
Probably so, but maybe not. What about something like this?
A – PSU, NE, MD
B – OSU, MI, RU
Each newbie gets 2 kings plus they play each other. RU suffers for not getting PSU annually, but OSU and MI is a pretty solid tradeoff. Especially if the B10 makes sure PSU and RU play a lot in the first few schedule rotations.
"We also have to consider whether the divisions need to split up the four traditional powers (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska) evenly or if 3 of them can be in one division."
They do need to split them.
"I personally believe that 3 of them can be in one division provided that the other side has more depth of non-bottom feeders top-to-bottom, but know that others (particularly athletic directors) may disagree with that."
Of course we disagree. WI, MSU and IA don't balance OSU and MI (assuming NE and PSU cancel out). The ideal situation for the B10 is 2 king/king division races (with princes in the mix, too) leading to a king/king CCG. You don't want 1 team to dominate their division, and you don't want 3 kings to beat each other up every year, either.
"Ultimately, I’m most in favor of going with an East/West split with Michigan going to the East and Michigan State in the West. It would look like the following (with cross-division rivals next to each other and rationale in parentheses):
EAST – WEST
Michigan – Michigan State (in-state rivalry)
Ohio State – Wisconsin (continuation of current Leaders divisional game)
Penn State – Nebraska (continuation of current cross-division king program game)
Indiana – Illinois (two schools in bordering states passing time until basketball season starts)
Purdue – Iowa (continuation of nonsensical cross-division game)
Rutgers – Northwestern (New York City vs. Chicago angle)
Maryland – Minnesota (they pulled the last two straws)"
I would have some different pairs for that alignment.
Same:
MI/MSU – same reasoning
PSU/NE – same reasoning
RU/NW – same reasoning
PU/IA – same reasoning
New:
1. OSU/IL – Illibuck. The B10 has shown they prefer rivalries to balance in locked rivals (WI/MN, MSU/IN), plus you stacked the east so there's no need to force another hard game.
2. MD/WI – gets MD close to Chicago and gives them another high profile game
3. IN/MN – a battle of cellar dwellers
"Even though three “King” programs are in the East, I believe that there is still a solid balance of schools with top notch fan bases in the West (Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa) to compensate for it."
I believe your belief is wildly inaccurate.
"Most other ways of attempting to put two Kings in each division end up with wacky geography or one extremely strong division and the other being very weak. (Yes, I know that I’ve said that I don’t think that competitive balance should matter, but I’m realistic in believing that others believe it’s important.)"
So it doesn't apply to your favorite plan, but it does to others? That's convenient.
"Now, it’s understandable that the older members of the Big Ten West likely would not be happy only seeing Michigan and Ohio State 2 times every 6 years, so that could be a deal-killer."
Or that OSU doesn't want to play PU, IN , RU and MD every year. Or that many fans don't want national coverage of their team swallowed by the media swarm that will be covering OSU and MI and PSU in the east to the near-exclusion of the other division. Or that the 3 kings may not want to have to beat up on each other while the west champ gets to skate through (perception, not reality). Or that the B10 may still want OSU/MI CCG possibilities. Or that …
"The “Inner-Outer” setup … It’s terrible in terms of geography"
How so? The middle is the middle and the edges are the edges. Everyone is where they should be according to the names.
"and the casual sports fan would look at it and say, “WTF?!”,"
As opposed to the current divisions?
"but it does achieve the goal of preserving every single traditional rivalry as an intra-divisional game with the exception of Ohio State-Penn State."
That's a huge key. You, and many others, keep assuming 9 games. What if the B10 sticks to 8 for a while? Only this plan is balanced and works without locked rivals, and that's required for 8 games.
Also, OSU/PSU is not a traditional rivalry. It's a king/king game between distant neighbors with no real history. They only played 7 times before PSU joined the B10, and 1 was a bowl game. It's replaceable.
"I’m not a fan of the Inner-Outer alignment personally (and most people that I know don’t like it either), yet I certainly wouldn’t put it past the Big Ten presidents and ADs to head down this road."
It is better than it appears. The travel issue is overplayed while the preservation of rivalries is under sold. Until the B10 announces it will definitely move to 9 games, it's my favorite plan. With 9 games, several other options become available.
LikeLike
E/W would have produced a Michigan-UNL title game. Are you telling me that that would not have been more attractive than UNL-Wisconsin?
LikeLike
But take E/W and put the top two finishers in West in the NCAA doghouse. Are you telling me the result would be substantially better than UNL-Wisconsin?
LikeLike
Well, I don’t believe Northwestern would ever get a postseason ban, and yes Michigan-Northwestern would have been more attractive.
In any case, Frank was pointing out the folly of using historical strength as a major criteria for determining divisions.
LikeLike
Richard,
“and yes Michigan-Northwestern would have been more attractive.”
To whom?
LikeLike
Richard,
“E/W would have produced a Michigan-UNL title game. Are you telling me that that would not have been more attractive than UNL-Wisconsin?”
Well, WI put up 70. How attractive would MI hitting 100 be?
I can tell you that having 3 of the top 4 in one division and 3 of the bottom 4 in the other makes for a boring conference race during the season.
LikeLike
Nonsense. The West would be extremely exciting with UNL, Wisconsin, NU, Iowa, sometimes Illinois, &MSU (if they’re there) closely matched every year.
LikeLike
We were talking last year. IL, IA and MSU stunk and WI wasn’t much better for much of the year. NE had a 2 game lead over NW. The race basically ended when NE beat NW on 10/20. That’s not an exciting race.
LikeLike
“As opposed to the current divisions?”
Of course, the idea is to come up with divisions that are better than the current divisions, not ones just as bad.
“It’s a king/king game between [b]distant neighbors[/b] with no real history.”
I see a massive distance between OH and PA when I look on a map. I’m sure others do too. You’ve been inadvertently humorous many times before, Brian, but you’ve managed to top yourself this time.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Of course, the idea is to come up with divisions that are better than the current divisions, not ones just as bad.”
No, the idea is to come up with new divisions. The B10 doesn’t dislike their current ones. You do. I know it’s hard for you to believe, but the whole world doesn’t agree with you all the time.
“I see a massive distance between OH and PA when I look on a map. I’m sure others do too. You’ve been inadvertently humorous many times before, Brian, but you’ve managed to top yourself this time.”
OSU and PSU aren’t OH and PA. PSU is well over 300 miles and 5 hours away from OSU, and much of the PSU fan base is even further east. I consider that a distant neighbor. 5 B10 schools are closer to OSU than PSU is.
U of M – 191 miles
IU – 225 miles
PU – 239 miles
MSU – 255 miles
UI – 294 miles
PSU – 337 miles
LikeLike
Brian,
re: PSU/OSU. the states share a border, two schools with football tradition.
The game should be played regularly since PSU wants to.
Brian,
some Michigan fans aren’t as in to the UM/OSU game as you.
The only reason I think OSU should be the last game of the season is tradition.
If I was able to choose yearly games between only 2 of the 3 following schools,
ND, OSU, or MSU. I’d pick MSU and ND. (OSU fans can be kind of annoying)
Maybe that choice is generational on my part, since I started watching UM football
after UM played ND regularly.
Different schools value different games differently. Different generations
of fans value different games differently.
I realize UM probably like the ND more than ND. I’m fine with that.
OSU should play PSU regularly because PSU wants to.
I think the maybe the UM/MSU should be the final game of the season.
That would be just fine with this Michigan fan.
LikeLike
dtwphx,
“re: PSU/OSU. the states share a border, two schools with football tradition.
The game should be played regularly since PSU wants to.”
I agree it should be played. I just don’t think it’s sacrosanct.
“some Michigan fans aren’t as in to the UM/OSU game as you.”
Very true. MI also has MSU.
“The only reason I think OSU should be the last game of the season is tradition.”
Exactly so.
“If I was able to choose yearly games between only 2 of the 3 following schools,
ND, OSU, or MSU. I’d pick MSU and ND.”
OK. I’m not sure you’re in the majority of MI fans on that, but I respect your opinion.
” (OSU fans can be kind of annoying)”
Yes, they can. Are you saying ND fans can’t be? That I won’t accept.
“Maybe that choice is generational on my part, since I started watching UM football
after UM played ND regularly.”
Could be. Or maybe Tressel’s run had an influence. It could just be where you live(d) or how your parents felt.
“Different schools value different games differently. Different generations
of fans value different games differently.”
Yep.
“I realize UM probably like the ND more than ND. I’m fine with that.
OSU should play PSU regularly because PSU wants to.”
I don’t disagree, and I’m not saying that game should go away. I’m saying the B10 shouldn’t build divisions or the type of schedule around keeping that an annual game. PSU got the eastern partners they’ve asked for for years to soothe their wounds if they lose OSU as an annual game. WI lost IA. MN lost MI for a while and might again. Meanwhile, PSU has always gotten everything they said they wanted (OSU and MSU locked plus MI for the first 10 years, the OSU in their division, now eastern partners). This may be their turn to sacrifice.
“I think the maybe the UM/MSU should be the final game of the season.
That would be just fine with this Michigan fan.”
I think the B10 office would disagree based on the value of OSU/MI. Based on the attempt to move the game when making divisions, most MI fans would be very upset, too. Obviously OSU fans would be.
LikeLike
“some Michigan fans aren’t as in to the UM/OSU game as you.”
-True, but the vast majority of them have shown time & time again that it is the top of their list and their combined weight has more pull than a few dissenters.
LikeLike
@dtwphx “some Michigan fans aren’t as in to the UM/OSU game as you.”
9.5 million people watched the game this year. It was the Big Ten’s highest ranked game, and fifth best in college football in 2012.
LikeLike
Does anybody know any insight into the future of AAU as far as invites and schools about to get the boot? Is Virginia Tech close to getting an invite?
LikeLike
Nobody has any insight as far as I know. But based on NE’s AAU report, no, VT isn’t that close. GT was at #31 (joined in 2010) and BU at #37 (joined in 2012). VT was at 91, above only 1 remaining AAU member with Syracuse out.
LikeLike
In terms of recruiting Texas has been good for QBs lately (but UT can’t seem to pick the right ones since Vince and Colt). On another board, someone posted 25% of the starting NFL QBs this week played HS ball in Texas.
McElroy Alabama played near Dallas
Stafford UGA played near Dallas
Ponder FSU played near Dallas
Brees Purdue was from Austin
Luck Stanford from Houston
Dalton TCU from Houston
RGIII Baylor Central Texas
Tannehill A&M West Texas
LikeLike
Its real simple.
You have to do the divisions by geography if you hope to generate fan interest in the B1G in New Jersey and Maryland. Michigan draws 33% of its students from out of state, and the largest percentage of these students come from the east coast. Playing Michigan will guarantee sell-outs for Maryland and Rutgers. OSU is more provincial in terms of where it draws students (90% in state), but the Buckeyes are a huge draw wherever they play. Penn State obviously needs to be in the same division as Rutgers/Maryland.
Is it ideal that UM, PSU and OSU are in the East? No, but if Michigan State plays in the West, the West is much stronger in the middle, as MSU, Illinois, N-wstern and Iowa have all competed for the B1G title in recent years (in addition to the two powers in Wiscy and Nebraska). Further, with PSU down for the next 3-4 years in all likelihood, the East won’t be that strong asa Indiana, Purdue and Maryland are all down at the moment (Rutgers should be a solid mid-tier team to start).
This setup means you are less likely to have 2 “kings” (as Frank says) in the B1G title game. However, on the flip side, putting UM, PSU and OSU in the East means 95% of the time you will get either OSU, UM or PSU in the title game, which is good for ratings. And let’s be honest, Wisconsin is by any standard one of the top 15 programs in the country over the past 20 years, so this is not the Big 12 North where all you had was Nebraska in terms of winning tradition.
I know UM wants to be in the Eastern division. I’m guessing they will keep it simple. Geography preserves ALL RIVALRIES except for UM/MSU — which can be the only cross-division protected game. Further, putting UM/OSU in one division with a 9 game schedule, means every school in the other division gets Nebraska and UM or OSU in any season.
The Inner/Outer setup is horrible. Having Maryland and Rutgers play Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska every year makes no sense. If you keep it East/West, these schools’ fans are within reasonable driving distance of every school in the division.
LikeLike
MiamiWolv,
“The Inner/Outer setup is horrible. Having Maryland and Rutgers play Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska every year makes no sense. If you keep it East/West, these schools’ fans are within reasonable driving distance of every school in the division.”
So PU and IN make sense, then? PU is 750 miles from RU, hardly a reasonable driving distance. Even PSU is 4 hours away, with OSU another 4 hours. Only MD and PSU are drivable for RU.
LikeLike
Little Brown Jug game.
That’s why I would split the IN schools.
I agree that Inner-Outer is horrible and only OSU fans are advocating for it.
LikeLike
“What is your preference on a B1G Basketball Tourney? (Every team qualifies, or 12 of 14 teams qualify.”
—When I took the survey I initially answered 12 of 14 for some of the same reasons mentioned by others but Frank’s reasoning to look at it as more along the lines of a conference exhibition has caused me to change my mind. Kudos!
LikeLike
I’m OK either way, but I voted 12 of 14 since I think it will generate more interest at the end of the regular season. Sure the #13 and #14 can technically win their win with the tournament, but I think usually it would be more interesting to see them playing to get into the Big Ten Tournament than seeing them play the #11/#12 teams a day early.
LikeLike
I just noticed something very important by looking at that map of the Big Ten states at the top of this blog post:
Delaney has Delaware completely surrounded! I’ve played enough Risk as a kid to know that it’s pretty clear who the next expansion target is.
BLUE HENS to the BIG TEN!?!?
LikeLike
They’ll have to add Delaware State for a “travel partner” and to make sure they don’t go to the SEC.
LikeLike
Haven’t you heard? Delaware will be the trophy for the winner of the Maryland-Rutgers game. Not a trophy shaped like Delaware, but the actual state.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8773423/boise-state-trying-get-big-east-mountain-west-allow-broncos-retain-home-tv-rights-according-sources
Boise State is trying to get the Big East and Mountain West to allow the Broncos to retain their home television rights, to guarantee which conference the school ends up in, sources told ESPN.
…
Boise State is pitting the Big East against the Mountain West in what one industry source called “a game of chicken” to ensure the Broncos get the most lucrative deal they can.
Boise State has approached multiple networks to gauge how much the Broncos could get if they retained their home television rights as a member of the Big East or MWC.
LikeLike
Looks like Boise is trying to pull off what not even Texas could. Color me skeptical, but we’ll see what happens.
LikeLike
Color me thinking there is some ESPN spin happening here. I don’t think they (ESPN) are ready for the complete collapse of the BE.
LikeLike
LOL. This isn’t Alabama or even Texas Tech.
LikeLike
5 bad years and Boise could be Marshall.
LikeLike
Except I think Marshall has better attendance.
LikeLike
Really? Are you just belittling, or do you have attendance numbers?
I’d bet they are asking about the value of games (that the just reworked conference media deal with CBS) to other networks, if not among the 15 (I think?) that CBS can select. That value could apply to the conference value (or individually, if you think like a longhorn). Would it be unreasonable to ask the BE how the increased value might compare?
LikeLike
Until about 5 years ago when Marshall took a serious nose dive, they were averaging better over their time in FBS. Marshall does have a larger stadium. With Moss and Leftwich and others, they got some notice. But then they slipped.
And that’s where Boise is. They could cease having value pretty quickly if they stop having success. I’m not predicting they will take a nose dive, just that with regard to long term value, they aren’t even Texas Tech.
LikeLike
There’s a point where you insult the people who are inviting you. If this story is true, I think Boise has gone there. This is a team that was so desperate to put its fb team in the BE, it is paying the BW travel subsidies for its non-fb programs and taking its bb team from the 7th best league to one normally around 20.
LikeLike
I’m definitely not a blue donkey fan, but they have done nothing but win (a lot) at every level they have been since leaving the JC’s in 1968. An 87-4 record at home since 1999 would probably contribute to mostly sell outs. Also, as really the only game in the state I imagine they would weather a downturn in fortunes as well, or better than most. But so far we haven’t had an opportunity to test that.
I completely disagree with the notion they should unquestioningly thank the BE. The BE they were invited to is disolving (becoming CUSA 2.1) and the MWC has suddenly come upon a way to monetize more games. MWC may be best positioned to take the BE’s place as the top non big five conference if Boise et al return and BE continues down the drain. Boise isn’t dictating anything. How can they? As with most things it is negotiation. If they are out of line they will be put back in line. If not then legitimate negotiation is taking place.
LikeLike
I don’t think they have a committment to the BE either (especially since 10 of the 13 schools in the conference when they were invited are leaving and 2 others are begging to get out), but they are asking for something noone else in the country has. Ohio St. doesn’t have it. USC doesn’t have it. Texas doesn’t have it. Its insulting to the BE and MWC.
LikeLike
Do you really think, knowing what Kings are not able to get (or even necessarily want) without going independent, Boise is asking for that? Only ESPN is taking a derogatory attitude toward Boise. The others seem to simply think it is a function of exploring options in a rapidly changing environment. The new MWC restructured deal only happened in the last day or two. Perhaps ESPN doesn’t like where this is going, giving NBC (and perhaps others?) an opening to bid on some CFB they had not worried about before?
LikeLike
Kustra comes across sometimes as pretty arrogant, so its certainly believable. The Boise fan base is pretty delusional, even by MWC standards. So that’s a lot more believable to me than the idea that ESPN is making this all up.
LikeLike
Boise (and other schools) fans contain many delusional. UT fans thinking ESPN spending a billion (over time) on the LHN reflects actual content value rather than manipulating 2010 realignment regarding multiple teams and conferences for their corporate benefit comes to mind.
LikeLike
The chutzpah. I love it.
Maybe Boise should go independent.
Surprising that no one has remarked that the article said SDSU is still committed to the BE. Is that just ESPN spin?
LikeLike
Teams are always committed to their conferences right up to when they announce they are leaving.
LikeLike
Well, Boise didn’t hide their desire to shop around.
LikeLike
SDSU doesn’t have to say anything, Boise is able to open the exit for them.
“According to the contract, if the Big East does not have “at least one football-playing institution that is located west of the Rocky Mountains” on July 1, 2013, the Aztecs are not obligated remain in the league.”
LikeLike
Okay, now that I’ve caught up let me throw out some thoughts on this:
We all know that deciding on divisions is a contentious process that will leave some fan bases angry. We also know that fan bases are not homogeneous blocks. There are a lot of points of view on this subject, and many of them are right.
Assumptions
1. The B10 will form 2 permanent divisions of 7, not pods.
2. The B10 will pay more attention to geography than last time, but competitive balance will still be a major consideration as well.
3. Everyone will have the same type of schedule, with either 0 or 1 locked rival.
4. The B10 will try to leverage the new eastern schools for maximum benefit.
5. Every school can make certain demands that have to be fulfilled.
6. The B10 office also has certain requirements that need to be filled.
7. The final solution needs a high degree of support. I’m guessing at least 10 schools have to be happy with it.
8. Rutgers and Maryland have a voice but not an official vote.
Schedule
The main point I think many people have neglected in this discussion is that the divisions and the schedule are intertwined. The best divisions depend on what the schedule will be and vice versa. The problem, of course, is we don’t know who has the power and where the powers that be stand on these issues.
Scheduling Options
1. 8 games with 1 locked rival
The B10 teams are used to 8 games, so it fits their existing OOC schedules. The locked rival gives the B10 flexibility to maintain rivalries while using a variety of division alignments. It also lets them keep important games for TV purposes. The down side is the number of teams a school won’t see regularly.
Schedule math:
7 teams – 100% (6 in the division, 1 locked rival)
6 teams – 17% (twice in 12 years)
Current schedule (for comparison):
6 teams – 100% (5 in the division, 1 locked rival)
5 teams – 40% (twice in 5 years)
The B10 could reduce the problem by rotating that 8th game every year instead of playing home and home series. That would mean a school would play 11 of 13 teams in 4 years (12 in the 5 years a player might be there).
2. 8 games with no locked rival
This keeps the advantages of the current schedule but increases the frequency of games against the other division’s members somewhat. That low frequency of games is still the biggest problem with an 8 game schedule.
Schedule math:
6 teams – 100% (division games only)
7 teams – 29% (twice in 7 years)
Again, the B10 could go to single games to speed the rotation of opponents. In 4 years, a school would play everyone in conference at least once. They would play in every stadium at least once every 7 years.
3. 9 games with 1 locked rival
A 9 game schedule is a double-edged sword. The obvious advantage is getting to play the other B10 teams more often. The downsides are the uneven schedules (4 home, 5 away or vice versa), the loss of potential home games and an increase of losses for the conference overall, potentially impacting bowl eligibility. Playing 5 road B10 games means that most teams will need 3 home OOC games. That means timing any OOC home and home series appropriately. As B10 schools toughen their OOC schedules, that will get harder to do. The extra conference games turn what would be a 10-4 OOC week into a 7-7 conference week.
Schedule math:
7 teams – 100% (6 in the division, 1 locked rival)
6 teams – 33% (twice in 6 years)
With single games, a school would play the rest of the B10 at least once every 3 years and visit every stadium at least once every 6 years. Unfortunately, going to 9 games with a locked rival doesn’t do much to increase the frequency of play.
4. 9 games with no locked rival
By not locking a rival, the B10 increases the frequency of play against 6 other teams at the expense of more games against that 7th team. On the other hand, it restricts the acceptable division alignment options since every important rivalry must be in division.
Schedule math:
6 teams – 100% (all in the division)
7 teams – 43% (3 times in 7 years)
Even with home and homes, a school would play 12 of 13 possible opponents in 4 years. With single games, a player would visit 12 of 13 other stadiums in 4 years.
The real question is the tradeoffs. ADs really don’t want a 9th game, and it does present a competitive disadvantage nationally. On the other hand, it helps with SOS and maintaining long-standing rivalries. It also gives the B10 more freedom when making the divisions. The current schedule, with 8 games including 1 locked rival, just doesn’t play enough teams often enough. I have a hard time seeing the B10 accepting playing twice every 12 years. The middle options jump to twice every 6 or 7 years (29 or 33%). That’s better, but not great.
The only gain over the current schedule comes with 9 games and no locked rival. I only see the B10 accepting that plan with a select few alignments, though, since all the major rivalries need to stay in division.
If divisions are agreed upon that don’t require a locked rival for any major rivalry, then I think the B10 will stay at 8 games to start. If they don’t like their choices without locked rivals, look for them to push to 9 games right away. Long term I think they’ll go to 9 games. I’ll be pretty surprised if they stick with the current schedule of 8 games with a locked rival, though.
My personal preference would be 9 games with no locked rivals assuming the divisions allowed that. I’d rather play more teams regularly than 1 more team annually.
Division Alignment
There are 3 main considerations when designing divisions – balance, geography and rivalries. They often interfere with each other, too. The biggest unknown is how the B10 will weigh the various factors, but we know that geography will be more important this time than last time. Presumably rivalries will again be third although they are tied up with geography anyway.
Balance
I think balance is still the biggest issue, and that’s because it has several components. There is actual competitive balance on the field, which is desirable to make exciting division races and B10 championship games. Unfortunately, you can’t accurately predict balance in the short term. Teams have ups and downs from season to season. However, you don’t need an accurate prediction for each team each season. You need long term balance, and that is more predictable. Some teams will rise while other fall, but most teams tend to stay at a certain success level for long periods of time.
The second component of balance is attention balance. The B10 wants both divisions to get attention from the media and from fans. Winning draws attention, so competitive balance impacts this. However, a lot of attention is based on brand and location. Brands lag actual success, and once a good brand exists it takes a long time to fade. Location is important because the major media and population are grouped in certain areas, and success there will draw more attention than in other places.
A third component of balance is future opportunity balance. This is driven by access to students, players and fans. The B10 wants every school to have a fair chance at success. To do that, it must consider recruiting grounds and population base when creating divisions. Otherwise, the balance may grow more uneven over time.
I think balance calls for splitting the kings equally. Splitting OSU and MI would be ideal from that perspective, but has other problems I’ll discuss later.
Geography
The second major factor is geography. As the B10 has expanded, its footprint has really grown, especially to the east and west. The longest road trip used to be 760 miles (OSU – MN), but now it’s 1300 miles (NE – RU). That sort of separation makes it hard on teams and fans to travel. That’s why the B10 should try to group nearby schools into divisions when possible. The bonus is that most rivalries are driven by proximity. If you group neighboring schools, you generally maintain most of the rivalries too.
Rivalries
The third factor is rivalries. As I just said, most rivalries are local so you want to group neighbors together. On the other hand, not all rivalries work that way. MI/MN and OSU/IL are two examples of rivals that aren’t neighbors. The B10 is full of rivalries, both big and small, and not all of them can be preserved as annual games. The key is to keep the important ones first and then as many of the smaller ones as is reasonable. The B10 also has some games it wants to keep for business reasons even if they aren’t true rivalries (PSU/NE, for example). They may be willing to trade them for an equivalent game, though (PSU/MI, NE/OSU).
Division Options
There are 3 main options when making B10 divisions.
1. Use the current divisions as a template
1a. Keep the current divisions and add RU to one and MD to the other
Pros – Easy, balanced
Cons – Ruins the chance to have PSU playing both eastern partners annually
Note – Must have locked rivals (OSU/MI)
Odds – Slim to none
1b. Move IL west and add RU and MD in the east
Pros – Simple, balanced, keeps the eastern group together
Cons – Limits MI’s access to the east, hard to remember the alignment
Note – Must have locked rivals (OSU/MI)
Odds – Decent
1c. Move WI west and add RU and MD in the east
Pros – Simple, keeps the eastern group together, reunites the western group
Cons – Unbalanced, limits MI’s access to the east, hard to remember the alignment
Note – Must have locked rivals (OSU/MI)
Odds – Not great
2. Geographic Split
2a. Pure East/West
Pros – Keeps neighbors together
Cons – 3 kings and a prince in one division means really poor balance
Note – Must have locked rivals (PU/IN)
Odds – Not great
2b. NW/SE = East/West but with MSU in the west and PU in the east
Pros – Keeps neighbors together
Cons – 3 kings in one division means poor balance
Note – Must have locked rivals (MI/MSU)
Odds – Decent
2c. East/West but with OSU in the west and PU in the east
Pros – Keeps neighbors together
Cons – OSU is isolated from its neighbors, limits OSU’s eastern access
Note – Must have locked rivals (OSU/MI)
Odds – OK
2d. Alternating blocks (NE, WI, IA, MN, OSU, PU, IN vs MI, MSU, NW, IL, PSU, RU, MD)
Pros – Keeps neighbors together, balanced
Cons – Limits OSU’s eastern access
Note – Must have locked rivals (OSU/MI)
Odds – OK
3. Edges vs Middle
Pros – Keeps neighbors together, balanced
Cons – Limits MI’s and OSU’s eastern access, more travel for the edges
Note – No locked rivals needed
Odds – OK
4. Other
I’m know there are more ideas floating out there, but I think I hit the highlights. See my assumptions for why there is no mention of pods.
Other Factors
The B10 isn’t doing this in a vacuum. They have to take into account many factors. The B10 has now added 3 schools in 4 years. They have to work on integrating those schools into the B10 while maximizing their value to the league. The TV people will have opinions and desires on schedules and games. The fans and alumni of all 14 schools have varying interests, and the ADs and presidents may have a whole different set of priorities. The B10 has to find a compromise acceptable to all parties.
1. East coast additions
Adding RU and MD helps appease the PSU fan base. A segment of that group has been complaining since PSU joined the B10 about not having any eastern partners. Now that more than 20% of the B10 is eastern, all 3 schools should feel more at home. It also helps the B10 play some games in front of a lot of alumni that haven’t been catered to very much. PSU, OSU and MI all have large fan bases in NYC and DC, and their surrounding areas, so bringing games to them should be well received. RU and MD fans will also be excited to have more football kings coming to town than they had before. On top of that, the east coast brings access to the major media in an unprecedented way. Major games in NYC and DC would get even more attention for the B10 than games in the midwest. That’s the upside.
The risk is alienating the eastern fans by giving RU and MD schedules that are too demanding. RU and MD aren’t kings. They can’t prosper if you throw all the good teams at them in one season. They need successful seasons to build their fan bases. The B10 has to balance their desire for eastern exposure with their desire to build the fan bases of RU and MD. For a contrast, look at NE. NE played every top team in their first 2 years and has paid the price in Ws and Ls. Some fans were mad about the schedules, others excited. NE was a king that could expect to play with anybody, though. RU and MD aren’t on that level, so they shouldn’t be expected to play that kind of schedule.
Western block
While the B10 is looking to make teams happy, they also need to look west. The 4 western schools really want to play each other annually. The B10 sacrificed WI/IA for balance last time, and WI also missed out on NE for future schedules. Having 1 newish team and being the other end of the footprint, the B10 shouldn’t neglect the western schools when making new divisions.
The CCG
TV pays more for desirable games, and the CCG is worth a lot. To keep high ratings, the B10 needs good games. Once way to assure that is to split the good teams evenly so both divisions are likely to produce quality champions. While the CCG is only 1 game, it does pay more than 10% of what the entire regular season earns. You can get too focused on it, but it should never be ignored either. Where this will really factor in is when splitting the top 6-7 teams. Some potential match-ups have more value than others, and that has to be factored into the decision.
Crossover Games
I think people forget about the power of scheduling. The B10 can adjust the crossover games to make an uneven rotation if they want to play certain games more often. When PSU joined, they got OSU and MSU as their two locked rivals. However, for the first 10 years they also got to play MI every year. The B10 can do something similar now to help RU and MD settle in.
Conclusions
There are several ways to look at this, so let’s look at all of them.
8 Games, No Locked Rival
If the B10 really wants to stay with 8 games, I think they’ll decide to drop locked rivals. That means they need to keep every important rivalry within the division. The only alignment that works for this is the edges versus the middle.
X – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
O – PSU, MD, RU, NE, WI, IA, MN
Lost rivalries – Little Brown Jug (MI/MN), OSU/PSU, MI/NE, OSU/WI
Gained rivalries – OSU/MSU, WI/IA, NE/WI
Note – The Game cannot be played in the CCG
Unlike Frank, I don’t see the loss of OSU/PSU as a dealbreaker. PSU gets two eastern partners instead and semi-regular PSU/OSU and PSU/MI games.
9 Games, 1 Locked Rival
Any reasonable alignment will work with this schedule. It just comes down to priorities.
A. If you want the chance for an OSU/MI rematch
Alternating Blocks is probably the best choice of those I discussed.
In order of locked rivals:
X – OSU, WI, IA, IN, NE, MN, PU
O – MI, MSU, NW, IL, PSU, RU, MD
B. If you don’t want the chance for an OSU/MI rematch
Edges vs Middle makes the most sense to me, I suppose.
In order of locked rivals:
X – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
O – PSU, NE, WI, RU, MD, IA, MN
An East/West thing could also work but is poorly balanced.
C. If your main focus is maximum exposure in the east
NW/SE trades off balance for getting 3 kings in the east.
In order of locked rivals:
X – OSU, MI, PSU, PU, IN, RU, MD
O – WI, MSU, NE, IA, MN, NW, IL
9 Games, No Locked Rival
For this, you again have only the edges versus the middle.
X – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, PU, IN
O – PSU, MD, RU, NE, WI, IA, MN
MD and RU would see each of OSU and MI 45% of the time, more with some scheduling tweaks. The B10 could easily alternate MI and OSU games on their schedules. That’s plenty of exposure in the east, as OSU and MI are playing in DC or NYC every other year.
Overall
This tells me that “Edges vs Middle” is the best plan since the B10 hasn’t picked a schedule yet. It works with any schedule just fine. It’s balanced and it preserves rivalries. The biggest drawback is the relative lack of MI and OSU games in the east. There is a fix for that, however. The B10 can schedule the crossover games to get MI and OSU in the east more often.
Example: 8 games, no locked rival
RU and MD would normally play OSU twice in 7 years (29%). But the B10 could bump that up a lot.
Team – Year 1 opponents, Year 2, Year 3, …
RU – OSU/MSU, MI/NW, OSU/PU, MI/IL, OSU/IN, MI/NW
MD – MI/NW, OSU/MSU, MI/IL, OSU/PU, MI/NW, OSU/IN
In the first 6 years, RU and MD both get 3 games each versus OSU and MI, 2 against NW and 1 against everyone else. That’s on top of annual games with PSU, NE and WI. At some point you should return to an equal rotation, mostly so the other schools can play OSU and MI too, but you could easily do this for 6-12 years.
If the B10 came out and announced that they will go to 9 games no natter what, then it’s a different discussion. To stop the whining about travel and eastern exposure, I’d probably choose alternating blocks (OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, PU, IN vs MI, PSU, MSU, NW, RU, MD, IL). It splits the kings and princes, it gets MI in the east a lot and it spreads the travel around. The B10 can mess with OSU’s schedule to get them out east more if they feel the need.
LikeLike
Inner/Outer with scheduling to put OSU/MI more often with the newbies. Its “fuck the west” to the 2nd power.
LikeLike
I think the inner outer is fine for the western 4 teams. But I agree they shouldn’t get pimped out of access to the bigger inners.
LikeLike
greg,
I said that’s a possibility. But with 9 games and no locked rivals, you’re only talking about OSU going from playing RU 45% (6 of 14 years) of the time to 50% (7 of 14). Conversely, that’s IA going from playing OSU 45% (6 of 14) to 40% (6 of 15). That hardly seems onerous for IA.
LikeLike
Why do you assume #3? A lot of problems get resolved if you don’t force everyone to have locked rivals.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Why do you assume #3? A lot of problems get resolved if you don’t force everyone to have locked rivals.”
Because that has been the B10’s position in the past. It was one reason they refused to also lock WI/IA, even when the 9th game was on the table. They could change their minds, certainly, but they’ll have to prove it to me.
LikeLike
See my post below. Locking just one pair is bad for the locked teams. If a game is truly important enough to not lose, you put them in the same division. AS an aside, I disagree that losing PSU/OSU is a deal breaker. PSU gets what they have wanted for 20 years. OSU gets UM and a whole league of “old” B1G teams. If it means that much, schedule it OCC.
LikeLike
I knew br27’s arrogance reminded me of someone.
LikeLike
Brian:
I thought about this quite a bit. Not as much as the tome you wrote infers, but a bit. I think Inner/Outer with no locked rivals is the best option and most likely to occur.
In an east/west split with MSU going west and UM/MSU locked, those teams get totally shafted if we stay at 8 games. If I’m looking at this right (and I’m no scheduling expert), they’d each play the other 6 in their conference (6 games), each other (7 games), and 1 from the other 6 (eight games). It would take 6 years to play the others once. Home and homes would take 12 years! Seeing the other side so infrequently is absurd for both teams. If that was the only locked rivals, the others would rotate in 3.5 and 7 years. Not good, but a lot better than 6 and 12.
LikeLike
jj,
Exactly right. That’s why I rejected the 6-1-1 schedule for 14 teams. It’s got to be 6-2, 6-1-2 or 6-3.
I’m not a huge fan of the inner/outer plan, it just seems like the best of a bad set of options. Especially since we don’t know if they’ll play 8 or 9 games.
LikeLike
Nine conference games (which couldn’t happen till ’16/’17) would put OOD rivalry games a lot more in play…
LikeLike
I agree wholeheartedly. The only reason I support inner/outer right now is because we don’t know if there’ll be 9 games. With only 8, I think it’s the best option.
LikeLike
Nice post, Brian. You’ve hit on one of the most important aspects of realignment for me – scheduling. Props for taking the time to lay it all out. I really hope they end up with a 9-game no-locked-rival schedule, sooner rather than later. I prefer the inner and outer alignment too, but would be happy with your NW/SE setup as well.
Probably #1 on my priority list is to get OSU and UM into the same division. I’m afraid if they remain in opposite divisions, it’s only a matter of time until the Big Ten office decides it’s in the conference’s best interest to move The Game (and probably all non-division games) to earlier in the season to hopefully avoid the possibility of playing in back-to-back weeks.
LikeLike
ohiomarc,
Thanks.
I don’t care that much which division MI is in, since I see pros and cons both ways. It’s certainly a risk that they may try to move The Game again, but I think they were surprised at the strength of the reaction last time. They’ll be wary of trying it again. At the very least, they’ll wait until a rematch occurs and there’s some major problem with it (bad ratings, no sell out, terrible media coverage, etc).
LikeLike
Very good analysis. I enjoyed reading.
The one set-up I’m beginning to think is more likely is the one with OSU in the west and the Michigan schools in the east. It seems really odd and I dismissed it right away when I first saw it, but it does do a few things I think they’ll care about. 1. It divides the big names and is relatively balanced. 2. It will keep a lot of king vs. king (Ohio State/Michigan and Penn State/Nebraska locked crossovers). 3. While Ohio State/Penn State doesn’t remain, I think they’d accept Michigan vs. Penn State in its place. 4. Michigan seems to have been bigger on the idea of playing in the east than Ohio State.
Now I still think east-west is more likely and I’m still hoping for inner-outer/sandwich/edge vs. middle, but I don’t think that one is as crazy as I was originally thinking.
LikeLike
Eric,
“Very good analysis. I enjoyed reading.”
Thanks.
“The one set-up I’m beginning to think is more likely is the one with OSU in the west and the Michigan schools in the east. It seems really odd and I dismissed it right away when I first saw it, but it does do a few things I think they’ll care about. 1. It divides the big names and is relatively balanced. 2. It will keep a lot of king vs. king (Ohio State/Michigan and Penn State/Nebraska locked crossovers). 3. While Ohio State/Penn State doesn’t remain, I think they’d accept Michigan vs. Penn State in its place. 4. Michigan seems to have been bigger on the idea of playing in the east than Ohio State.”
Yeah, it doesn’t leap out as a good idea right away, but it grows on you when you think about it. It’s got tradeoffs for OSU, but all the plans do. There is no ideal plan for OSU.
I actually thought it made sense in many ways to send OSU west before and put MI with PSU:
Leaders = PSU, MI, MSU, PU, IN, NW
Legends = OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL
“Now I still think east-west is more likely and I’m still hoping for inner-outer/sandwich/edge vs. middle, but I don’t think that one is as crazy as I was originally thinking.”
I have no idea how it’ll end up except that I’m almost sure I won’t like it. They’ll find a way to screw this up royally.
LikeLike
Maybe have 6 permanent East Div schools,
and 6 permanent West Div schools.
East: Rut, UMD, PSU, UM, MSU, Ind
West: Neb, Minn, Wisc, Iowa, NW, Illini
Swap OSU and Purdue each year.
Good: Most teams will always know their division.
Good: Balance overly strong East Div one year w/ OSU playing in the West the other year
Good: OSU doesn’t have to play the “newbies” all the time…..
Bad: it’s not a static divisional alignment.
I’d have to think about the scheduling specifics.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be averse to this idea, but it would work better in two-year cycles, so that everyone would have a home-and-home within their division before switching.
LikeLike
Though swapping every 2 years probably works better from a scheduling perspective, I would prefer swapping every year from a fan perspective.
Let’s say Indiana has a once in a lifetime team. That team would have one shot (in the timeframe of their junior or senior season) to have an easier shot at the championship game.
Also, this alignment puts UM in the east but allows the LittleBrownJug to occur greater than 33% of the time. If a game like the UM/Minn game occurred 50% of the time, it would be nice if it happened every other year and not 2yrs on and 2yrs off, as far as frequency between meetings.
LikeLike
For all the day dreamers that want Ohio & Michigan in the same division; every university in the conference wants to guarantee a game with one of them on the schedule and maybe as importantly, most universities DON’T want to be in the same division as both of them. This is really important, this is as much as why they were split as anything and will continue to be split.
Jim Delaney, the presidents and athletic directors will call this competitive balance but what it is, is splitting the two power programs from each other for other programs have a chance to rise up. Nobody wants to go 6-2 or 7-1 and still lose the conference to one of Ohio or Michigan…
That leaves the conference with Ohio and Michigan in opposite divisions and pretty much guarantees cross-division match-ups a lot of programs don’t want. Outside of potential rematches in the B10 CG, my biggest peeve with splitting them up is that it guarantees cross-division rivals which means Michigan will play Illinois, PSU, Iowa, Wisconsin & Maryland a lot less often than they otherwise would.
LikeLike
“Nobody wants to go 6-2 or 7-1 and still lose the conference to one of Ohio or Michigan…”
Huh?
LikeLike
Said it incorrectly, but nobody wants to be in the same division as both Ohio & Michigan. They don’t want to go 7-1 (or 6-2, whatever) with their only loss to Michigan or Ohio and lose the division to them. They want an easier path to the B10 CG, division crown.
LikeLike
I think it depends on the level of the school. Those schools that want top-profile teams visiting to fill stadium want plenty of kings in their division. Those schools who’s aspirations for conference titles outweigh their need to fill stadiums (such as those who fill them in any case) would prefer not to have kings in their division.
An E/W setup with the IN schools & the new additions in the East with Michigan, OSU, and PSU actually works well in that respect as PU, IU, and UMD won’t aspire to win the B10 any time soon, RU is just happy to be in the B10, and all 4 need help filling their stadium. In the west, UNL, Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU, and Minny don’t need help filling their stadium & the first 4 + Northwestern believe they have a realistic shot at winning their division.
LikeLike
Yet those lesser programs don’t fill their stadium unless they are winning as the home team doesn’t show up to see a loser. Look at the attendance at Iowa for example or the Illini or Gophers, when those programs are doing well; they’ll fill their stadiums. When they are mediocre or worse, they’ll have ten thousand or more empty seats…
FWIW, I’m pro Michigan being in the East but completely understand why everyone else but Michigan and Ohio don’t want to be in the same division as both of them. They’ll all call it competitive balance but it really is they want to be competitive themselves which will be next to impossible in a division with Michigan and Ohio.
LikeLike
OK I can understand it being fair to split them up if no one wants to play both and everyone wants to play one, but if we are going to go that route, the 2 newbies should also be divided as no one outside of Penn State wants to play both of them every year either.
LikeLike
I like your division ideas. Nebraska & Wisconsin seems like a natural rivalry.
LikeLike
Why not make the division border the Ohio/Michigan border then continue the line through the state of Illinois between NW and Illinois? Locked rivalry games NW vs Illinois and OSU vs Michigan. North/South (Chicago/NY or Capone/Gambino) divisons. Would this work, at least until #15 & #16 show up?
LikeLike
How do you think the BTN is going to be operated from here on?
LikeLike
Reds ideas agree with mine put NW in the east, Ill in the west. If we add two schools in the east move the two Indana schools to the west .
LikeLike
Many interesting thoughts; however with a 14 team conference, I believe certain assumptions need be reconsidered along with a focus on key goals.
At the risk of being a minority of one:
1) A conference should refer to a group of like minded schools that want to compete against each other regularly:
that means a 10 game conference schedule:
an out of conference rivalry or game against a competitive team
and a single warmup game if necessary.
2) With a conference network, the extra conference games may/should make up to some degree for the loss of an extra home game against a non-competitive team that doesn’t require a return home game.
3) Not sure when football fans started arguing in favor for non-competitive “punching bag” games on the basis of revenue or padding a record for a bowl game rather than watching an interesting game.
The Big 10 should be beyond the need to worry about revenue at the expence of interesting, regular games against member teams. Not all the Big 10 teams are top 25 in any event and if the top teams can’t qualify for a bowl, maybe they should just skip the bowl.
The focus should be the conference games and interesting competition.
Otherwise as noted above, in a 14 team conference, the conference members are likely going to drift apart, without a sense of actual competition.
And all the market share concepts are going to grow increasingly stale to non-hyper fans looking to watch an interesting game.
LikeLike
“Not sure when football fans started arguing in favor for non-competitive “punching bag” games on the basis of revenue or padding a record for a bowl game rather than watching an interesting game.”
I don’t think fans ever did, but athletic directors always have as they have a budget to balance & their presidents would like more money to the academic side (and certainly don’t want to subsidize the athletic side) if possible, and I find trying to figure out what is most likely more interesting that pie-in-the-sky plans that have 0 chance of ever being implemented.
” A conference should refer to a group of like minded schools that want to compete against each other regularly”
Like-minded, yes, if you care about stability, but what you think a conference should be and what they are may not be the same thing.
As a Northwestern fan, NU doesn’t have to play Michigan constantly for me to feel more kinship with them than with ‘Bama.
“Otherwise as noted above, in a 14 team conference, the conference members are likely going to drift apart, without a sense of actual competition.”
An beguiling theory but not one supported by the evidence. Historically, various SEC teams have almost never played certain other SEC teams (in football). Yet the SEC is one of the most if not the most tight-knit conferences with one of the strongest (if not the strongest) conference identities in college sports.
LikeLike
Geographical Divisions!
Add Notre Dame and Pitt.
W= Penn, Pitt, MD, Rutgers
X= Ohio, ND, Purdue, Indy
Y= Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, Minny
Z= Illy, NW, Neb. Iowa
Iowa always plays Iowa State.
Maryland always plays West Virginia.
Notre Dame always plays Navy and USC.
(the idea is maintain the few legit traditional non-conference rivalries)
You play the 3 in your pod and 2 each from each other pod.
That way you play everyone home and away in four years.
LikeLike
Nice plan… except it is in violation of the rule requiring playing round robin in each half in order to be allowed a CCG.
LikeLike
Maryland always plays West Virginia.
If West Virginia is going to have an annual OOC rival it would be Pitt. The Backyard Brawl was their biggest game of the year.
LikeLike
Maryland plays West Virginia most years, but there are exceptions. In 2008 and ’09, Maryland played a home-and-home with California in WVU’s place. If the Big Ten instituted a 9-game conference schedule, I could see the Terps scheduling West Virginia periodically, not necessarily annually.
LikeLike
I would totally add Pitt over some of the other schools mentioned here.
LikeLike
Pitt doesn’t add to the BTN revenues, which unless you’re a king; that is how you buy your way into the B10.
Any B10 expansion targets will pretty much be large, AAU caliber, academic schools in populous states; e.g. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, etc.
LikeLike
I really don’t care anymore. I didn’t see the point of adding Rutgers or Maryland, census projections be damned and I fail to get excited over the prospects of schools I’ve never cared about or dislike on a fundamental level. The further we go from home, the less I enjoy this.
I’ve set my own personal criteria, and as a fan and a taxpayer, it’s up to the Big Ten to meet those standards. I should not and will not redefine what I want because I’m told to.
LikeLike
You’ll be very disappointed if and when the next round of expansion comes to the B10..
Pitt is a great fit athletically, academically, culturally and geographically but they just don’t add revenue to the conference via the BTN unlike a Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland or Rutgers would. Expansion obviously is not just about the BTN. It’s about putting Nebraska, PSU, Michigan and Ohio on TV’s on the East Coast and competing head-to-head against the ACC & SEC for ratings.
LikeLike
I already am disappointed. I’ve been having this same conversation with you people for four years. Virginia’s worthless and North Carolina is only worthwhile for basketball.
If you think that Michigan/Maryland or Ohio State/Virginia is anything but BTN fodder, you’re out of your mind. The point is to strengthen “the product” and put more match ups that the fans and the casual viewers want to see. When fans are directly telling you “I don’t want to see this”, you have an issue.
The Big Ten isn’t innovating – they’re rent seeking.
LikeLike
I want to reiterate something here: People are getting sparkles in their eyes over words like “markets” and “shares”, dreaming up ways for the Big Ten to conquer the world. But did anyone notice that the ACC already has these schools and couldn’t doing anything with them? That the ACC is lagging behind because of the dead weight that people here are clamoring to invite?
LikeLike
metatron:
Well, since deciding to expand in recent times, the B10 has added PSU, UNL, RU, & UMD. 2 kings in 4 additions is really good; better than any other conference, in fact. You can’t add kings in every round of expansion. Now granted, if the next 4 additions are UVa, UNC, Duke, and GTech, from a football perspective, that would be disappointing (though Pitt wouldn’t be any better than any of those 4 besides Duke in football, IMHO). From a basketball perspective, that would be stellar, from an academic perspective, that would be stellar, and from a monetary perspective, it could range from “pretty good” to “really awesome” (if the power conferences manage to keep more of the revenues generated by college basketball for themselves).
Now I know that some folks like to add more schools closer to home (if at all), but it’s not a sentiment that I embrace. Playing Pitt or Mizzou more often in-confernce wouldn’t make me more proud of being a Big10 fan (while adding WVU or Louisville would make me less so).
LikeLike
@Richard
When your opening statement is a reassurance of settling, it undermines your entire argument.
LikeLike
“I want to reiterate something here: People are getting sparkles in their eyes over words like “markets” and “shares”, dreaming up ways for the Big Ten to conquer the world. But did anyone notice that the ACC already has these schools and couldn’t doing anything with them? That the ACC is lagging behind because of the dead weight that people here are clamoring to invite?”
No one’s proposing to add Wake or BC (OK, some people say that BC is a possibility, but I think that would be a mistake).
The ACC TV deal is a bit undervalued now because they signed when the economy was going down the drain (and some have argued that Swofford did not negotiate well).
BTW, here’s an (old) analysis of the monetary value of ACC schools (done by an FSU fan):
http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc
UNC+Duke+GTech+UVa would be slightly above the ACC average (mostly due to UNC). For that matter, UNC+Duke+GTech+UVa+UMD would be slightly above the ACC average as well.
Keep in mind that the ACC doesn’t have a conference channel that they can monetize. An even bigger factor is that there are fewer network effects in the ACC. More casual fans would tune in to watch the local school play a king, and there are far more kings in the B10.
Granted, any 4-school combination that includes FSU (and not either Wake or BC) would be significantly better than UNC+Duke+GTech+UVa.
I don’t think adding UNC+Duke+GTech+UVa would be a home run financially unless the power conferences start keeping more of the basketball revenue generated (there is actually more ad money spent on college basketball than college football, but the vast majority of that is spent on the bball postseason, and only a fraction of that is returned to the schools/conferences who do well in the Dance as units, with the NCAA distributing another chunk in a non-performance-based manner–subsidizing water polo at Pepperdine, etc.–while keeping another big chunk for itself to fritter away as they see best).
LikeLike
It’s not undervalued, it’s perfectly valued. They capitulated to Notre Dame’s demands for partial membership because ESPN’s offer was underwhelming to their expectations. This isn’t a home run, it’s a DH trying to get a bunt single.
LikeLike
“When your opening statement is a reassurance of settling, it undermines your entire argument.”
It’s a statement of reality. Did/are you going to forgo marriage if you can’t land Scarlett Johansson?
LikeLike
What I do, is not expand beyond twelve for schools that antagonize my fanbase and will be revenue neutral at best.
LikeLike
“It’s not undervalued, it’s perfectly valued.”
http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/ceobroadband/state-of-the-media-2011-year-in-sports-11339432/1
ACC football telecasts drew the 3rd highest average number of TV viewers (behind the SEC and B10). ACC basketball telecasts drew the 2nd highest average number of TV viewers (behind the B10). In both football and basketball, the ACC drew better than the Pac and B12, who both have better TV deals.
LikeLike
“What I do, is not expand beyond twelve for schools that antagonize my fanbase and will be revenue neutral at best.”
Well, I believe that the power conference will split from the NCAA (or threaten to do so) fairly soon & thus increase their share of college basketball revenue generated significantly.
If certain people are to be believed, the SEC’s top targets right now are UNC & Duke. I don’t think Slive is in the business of antagonizing his fanbases while adding schools that don’t increase the SEC’s revenue.
LikeLike
But did anyone notice that the ACC already has these schools and couldn’t doing anything with them? That the ACC is lagging behind because of the dead weight that people here are clamoring to invite?
The ACC is lagging behind because some combination nepotism and misguided loyalty lead the conference to make partnering with Raycom Sports a condition for any media company when they signed their TV deal which caused Fox to drop out of the bidding and forced them to give up ALL their TV rights. Then they went and made things worse for themselves by adding two basketball schools (which pissed off the FB schools) and renegotiating their TV deal without any leverage which led to reach a deal that was probably even worse than the first one they signed*.
Then, in their panic to get more cash they invited ND which irked Maryland and FSU and gave the Big Ten the green light to attack.
In other words, the ACC isn’t dragging behind because they have deadweight, but because they have made some unimaginably shortsighted decisions over the past 3 years.
*Not only does the new deal contain relatively little new money, the new money it does have is mostly backloaded (including a giant lump sum in the final year), required the league to give ESPN even more media rights (including sponsorship rights to the CCG and MBB tournament) and (worst of all) tacked on 4 more years to the contract, thereby undercutting the only significant advantage of their previous agreement (that at 12 years it was relatively short in length)
LikeLike
Interesting, though I remain unconvinced.
I think the more important thing to note is that college basketball’s advertising revenues were far higher than football’s.
LikeLike
bamatab provided a link a couple of weeks ago with a complete listing of games and calculated showing the ACC a distant 5th in average football ratings this year, not far above the BE. So I’m not sure how reliable those higher prior ACC rating numbers are. It wouldn’t seem like this year should have been such an outlier.
Its clear they are underachieving given their markets and the number of flagships they have. Whether they are undervalued is harder to tell.
LikeLike
bullet:
True. A difference between years or counting different games (conference-only vs. all)? And I don’t know how Nielsen counted split telecasts on ABC.
LikeLike
@bullet – A couple of things. Richard’s link uses average number of TV viewers, and you are using ratings points. Ratings points don’t equate to a certain number of viewers. It’s conceivable that they have lower ratings, but have higher viewership due to the size of the audience at any given time. Also, Thursday night NFL football absolutely hammered the ACC’s Thursday night football package.
LikeLike
(continued from previous post)
…this year. The ACC didn’t have that competition last year.
LikeLike
Ratings points don’t equate to a certain number of viewers
Ratings points do equate to a certain number of viewers, but outside of the time slot they are not comparable to other ratings points. Getting 20 rating at 3AM probably has a smaller audience size than getting a .1 of prime time.
Sorry for the triple post, I’m a little off today apparently.
LikeLike
I made the comment at the time that the NFL was breaking a “truce” and it would hurt college football. It had been TH/Sat college, F HS, Sun/M NFL. The MAC was moving into T/W.
I saw a link with the TH ratings. Vandy/S. Carolina was 1st at 2.6, a Virginia Tech game (Clemson?) was 2nd (1.6 to 1.8-don’t remember exactly), Pitt/Cincinnati was #3 at 1.5 with the rest all lower. Vandy/S. Carolina, Pitt/Cincinnati and WSU/BYU, the late game following Vandy/S. Carolina (which was around #5) were the only 3 w/o NFL competition.
LikeLike
Good point about the Thursday night NFL telecasts.
ESPN’s Friday night telecasts actually beat their Thursday night football ratings 4 out of 10 times after the NFL started playing on Thursdays and before Thanksgiving even though the teams playing on Fridays were generally lesser brands.
LikeLike
Metatron, if you’re viewing this through the prism of “how do we create the most competitive football conference possible”, you certainly will be disappointed. I’ve never believed that was the endgame of the B1G’s presidents, although as a consideration, it’s not being ignored.
These guys are presidents of institutions of higher education, not football commissioners. Everything done makes sense and should be done primarily for its contribution toward providing stability in the quest to support these universities’ primary academic/educational mission. Football, no matter how obsessed this country is with it, is just entertainment.
LikeLike
Metatron,
You are correct and I can hope that only more B10 fans will express similar sentiments. A Big18 or Big20 is a meaningless entity. MD and RU were disastrous decisions unless you believe that the Big 10 is a “programming-delivery system” for the BTN. You never improve the brand equity of an institution by adding below-average “products. P&G does not improve its brand by launching the twentieth best potato chip into an established market… and the twin arguments that: the Big 10 must expand for financial reasons and to ensure that top students in new markets become “aware” of our schools (e.g., this might have been a good idea in the 1950s) is uninformed and shows a very limited understanding of the current “business” of higher education. In fact, it is an insult to the faculty and staff who already are doing good work at these B10 schools. The idea that when a top student in New Jersey watches a “BTN Football Classic” or Minnesota vs. MSU in Volleyball that a light bulb turns on and he or she decides to apply to Iowa or Michigan is ludicrous. The top students already know which are top schools. Period. End of story. For all the “kings” added to the B10 in the past twenty years — has the median SAT or ACT school for the incoming freshman class at member schools — increased or decreased? I will spare you the trouble — more schools have reported a decline than an increase. Maybe joining the B10 will help NE, RU and MD improve — but expansion has not helped a majority of the original members.
LikeLike
Even if its entertainment, I don’t think the Presidents want to be mediocre at anything they do.
@rich2-Its a form of advertising. If they get more exposure in those markets, some students are going to give them a closer look. Its like any other advertising. If you are a good student, you get tons of mail from all over the country. The athletic conference and related media attention can make one school stand out in that crowd. I know in Texas, a lot of people who can’t get into Texas or Texas A&M look out of state instead of at Houston, UTEP, UTSA, UTA, UTD, Texas St., etc.
LikeLike
@rich2
It may be insulting to the faculty, but it doesn’t change the fact that sports do advertise the university. In their first year in the Big 10 UNL’s law school saw a 20% increase in applications despite the fact that nationwide law school applications were down.
And it’s not just Nebraska’s law school. It has been proven that success in the revenue sports produces a statistically significant increase in applications.
Now, this does not prove that current Big Ten schools will automatically benefit from expansion (as far as I know the issue has never studied) but it certainly implies it.
LikeLike
“You never improve the brand equity of an institution by adding below-average products.”
Talking about Louisville, I presume? I do wonder why you worry so much about some other conference rather than the conference your school is actually in.
BTW, if you believe that Duke, UNC, UVa, and GTech are “below average products”, why were you so pleased that ND joined this collection of “below average products” who form the heart of the ACC?
LikeLike
Regarding being a ‘delivery system’, I don’t necessary think that’s the case, but if it was, the target would be the CIC moreso than the BTN. Billions beats millions any day, and collecting more senators for your cause never hurts. A preemptive strike against the SEC’s fledgling effort is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Our academic gap on the SEC is at least as big as their recent gap on the football field of play, and we’re pulling ahead financially. Can you imagine our academics’ angst if they became a legitimate competitor for those financial dollars? I can almost see some professorial FTT starting a blog somewhere about the arms race…
LikeLike
rich2: ” You never improve the brand equity of an institution by adding below-average “products. P&G does not improve its brand by launching the twentieth best potato chip into an established market… and the twin arguments that: the Big 10 must expand for financial reasons and to ensure that top students in new markets become “aware” of our schools (e.g., this might have been a good idea in the 1950s) is uninformed and shows a very limited understanding of the current “business” of higher education.”
As far as businesses never expanding by acquiring enterprises that are below their own level, that would be a surprise to the once seven primary cellphone carriers, now four, and would have been three if the FCC had allowed it.
There seems like there may be a bit of bait and switch in this argument. The “to ensure that top students in new markets become aware of our schools” addresses an academic argument, when there is no need to JUSTIFY taking below average academic institutions in the options being raised here as being disappointing adds for college football fans: whether MD and Rutgers; or UVA. UNC, Duke, and/or GTech, none of them are below average academic institutions.
The complaint is that while they are perfectly fine institutions of higher learning, the attached sports departments are not at the level of a Big Ten “prince”, never mind a “king”. Its not about the quality of the institutions, but about the appended sports departments.
As far as the needs of the sports departments, yes, to thrive, they do need new and growing markets, and they do need greater profile in growing recruiting grounds.
The number one academic concern about big time sports programs is that they remain a benign tumor on the institution and do not become a malignancy that diverts vital resources away from being a University. And as far as that concern, getting new members that generate more BTN revenue is indeed an appealing prospect.
LikeLike
Bruce:
There is actually a fair bit of intellectual dishonesty in rich2’s arguments. Remember that he is the guy who said that if ND joined a conference, he would want it to be the ACC because of the fine academic institutions that are there. Now he is implying that the B10 would devalue itself academically by taking those exact same institutions. He also pointed out that the B10 had a demographic growth problem. Yet he also damns the B10 for being proactive about addressing that problem by expanding.
It makes me wonder how a guy like him, who’s constructed arguments would not pass muster in a freshman seminar, could get tenure.
Thn again, maybe I should not be surprised. Glenn Hubbard managed to become Dean of Columbia BS despite pathetic displays like this:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/12/glenn-hubbards-countrywide-deposition.html
LikeLike
There seems like there may be a bit of bait and switch in this argument. The “to ensure that top students in new markets become aware of our schools” addresses an academic argument, when there is no need to JUSTIFY taking below average academic institutions in the options being raised here as being disappointing adds for college football fans: whether MD and Rutgers; or UVA. UNC, Duke, and/or GTech, none of them are below average academic institutions.
The complaint is that while they are perfectly fine institutions of higher learning, the attached sports departments are not at the level of a Big Ten “prince”, never mind a “king”. Its not about the quality of the institutions, but about the appended sports departments.
Maryland may not be a “king” in a strict football sense (which appears to be the only criteria for many of you here), but it has won an NCAA title in both men’s and women’s basketball more recently than any Big Ten school and holds its own against its future conference rivals in its overall athletic program.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Maryland may not be a “king” in a strict football sense (which appears to be the only criteria for many of you here),”
There is no maybe about it. MD is not a CFB king. It’s also not a MBB king (IN, UK, KU, UCLA, UNC, …) or WBB queen (UT, UConn). FB kingdom is the most talked about because football drives revenue and revenue drives realignment. Overall sports program kingdom belongs to Stanford, UCLA and the P12 until someone else wins the director’s cup and/or gets near them in national titles.
“but it has won an NCAA title in both men’s and women’s basketball more recently than any Big Ten school and holds its own against its future conference rivals in its overall athletic program.”
Good for MD. Seriously. They still aren’t as valuable athletically as a FB king.
LikeLike
True, though they are a MBB prince (like Illinois, Louisville, Syracuse, G’Town, MSU, many others including UCLA).
I would say there are only 4 true kings in MBB (UCLA doesn’t bring in money like a king), and only IU, UNC, and KU are guaranteed to remain kings after their current coach leaves.
LikeLike
@vp19 ~ so long as the NCAA diverts a large share of college basketball revenues, programs being FB “kings” or “princes” are the biggest factors in conference payouts to athletic departments. That’s only one factor, but its the strongest factor coming from the athletic side, and the only factor that might ~ MIGHT ~ counterbalance the Big Ten presidents insisting on AAU membership.
LikeLike
You want a larger voice in the process? Donate more money to your alma mater.
LikeLike
Babs,
“Geographical Divisions!
Add Notre Dame and Pitt.
W= Penn, Pitt, MD, Rutgers
X= Ohio, ND, Purdue, Indy
Y= Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, Minny
Z= Illy, NW, Neb. Iowa
…
You play the 3 in your pod and 2 each from each other pod.
That way you play everyone home and away in four years.”
As was mentioned, you have to play your whole division round robin to be able to play a CCG. Play 3 in your pod, 1 locked rival in every other pod, and then 3 more in your paired pod. That works if you need locked rivals. Otherwise, play 3 in pod, 4 in the paired pod, and half of a third pod.
As for your additions, the B10 won’t add Pitt for financial reasons. They don’t add anything to the footprint or increase BTN subscriptions outside of the footprint. Otherwise, they are a great option. The B10 would be happy to add ND, but the ACC has to implode first. I don’t see that happening if the B10 doesn’t take any ACC teams.
But ignoring that, I still have issues with your divisions. Why put ND with OSU, the one king that never played them much? Why not put ND with their rivals – MI, MSU and PU?
E – PSU, Pitt, MD, RU
N – MI, MSU, ND, PU
S – OSU, NW, IL, IN
W – NE, WI, IA, MN
LikeLike
You know what sucks about ND? Well, lots of things, but………..if you DID add them to the BIG with Pitt it would be one hell of a conference for everyone concerned. Instead, they’re f$#@%ing around with these ACC teams……….disgusting.
That said, although I’ve always liked Pitt for a lot of reasons, it’s not a perfect fit even absent the market considerations. The 2 biggest issues I see there are an overall bad athletic dept. (Rutgers bad), and an off campus stadium. Off campus stadiums suck for college football. Other issues are a relatively small fan base and enrollment.
LikeLike
Decent-sized enrollment. Pitt has more students than UNL and a little less than Iowa.
LikeLike
Good piece on the NCAA enforcement staff from the Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/usc/la-sp-ncaa-20121224,0,7916171,full.story
LikeLike
Obviously, the way Emmert has said they aren’t interested in the UNC case, unlike Brand, he doesn’t have interest in violating academic standards. And actually, they seem to be going after schools for agents more than the schools themselves cheating. At least, that has been the most high profile cases, USC, Ohio St., Georgia Tech, what they aren’t ingnoring at UNC.
LikeLike
How did you come up with the idea that agents had anything to do with the Ohio State violations?
LikeLike
The more I look at things and try to create perfect divisions and/or pods, the more that the ‘inner’/’outer’ makes sense. It preserves almost every rivalry the B10 has and even regains some that were lost splitting in to divisions…
Is the B10 really going to have to live with these divisions that long? I’m under the assumption the B10 is planning on 16 if not 16+ sooner rather than later. If there is another expansion coming soon, division setup for ’14/’15 aren’t very important as it’s not something you’re going to live with for 20+ years.
LikeLike
The inner/outer won’t gain many friends in New Brunswick and College Park, as they really aren’t looking forward to annual visits to Iowa City or Lincoln. And that would sort of blunt the value they add to the Big Ten and BTN.
LikeLike
Somehow I’m guessing making Rutgers happy is going to be dead last on the Big Ten’s list of priorities. As far the Big Ten is concerned Rutgers should just consider itself lucky it happens located in a gigantic media market.
LikeLike
vp19,
“The inner/outer won’t gain many friends in New Brunswick and College Park, as they really aren’t looking forward to annual visits to Iowa City or Lincoln.”
To be frank, so what? They also don’t want to go to Bloomington or Urbana-Champaign or East Lansing or West Lafayette or …. Beyond State College, and maybe the other 3 kings just because they are kings, how many schools do MD and RU actually want to visit? Every school but PSU will require a flight. Getting to play PSU and RU every year should blunt the pain of 2 trips out west per year. Heck, MD might even learn to like some of the western schools.
LikeLike
Has anyone suggested NE/SW? I don’t recall seeing it.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St., PSU, Rutgers, Maryland
Iowa, Illinois, Ohio St., Purdue, Nebraska, Northwestern, Indiana
(in order of locked rivals).
LikeLike
Brian and some of the other Ohio State folks have actually suggested tying Ohio State to Nebraska instead of Michigan.
LikeLike
I’d prefer to color coordinate them:
“Red” division: Ohio State, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland & Rutgers…
Not “red’ division: Michigan, PSU, Purdue, Illinois, MSU, Iowa & NW…
LikeLike
I have suggested that. It’s balanced and keeps travel fair, but it loses OSU/PSU.
My guess is that Gene Smith gets overruled (by Gee or the B10) and we get NW/SE:
NW – MI, MSU, NW, NE, WI, IA, MN
SE – OSU, IN, IL, PSU, MD, PU, RU
LikeLike
Flip the locked crossovers to Michigan State-Northwestern and Rutgers-Purdue, and it just might work. I certainly prefer this to inner/outer.
LikeLike
bullet,
“Has anyone suggested NE/SW? I don’t recall seeing it.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St., PSU, Rutgers, Maryland
Iowa, Illinois, Ohio St., Purdue, Nebraska, Northwestern, Indiana
(in order of locked rivals).”
Try this, maybe:
MN, WI, MI, MSU, PSU, RU, MD
IA, NE, OSU, NW, PU, IN, IL
No matter what, the pairs are screwy. You need the western 4 to play each other, and that leaves no good rival for PSU. That’s the problem with splitting that block of 4 up. The balance isn’t great either, with WI and MSU together.
LikeLike
One thing inner/outer solves is you don’t really need OOC rivalry games so you play teams outside your division quite a bit more than any 6-1-1, 6-1-2 setup.
LikeLike
I don’t think OSU-PSU will be sacrificed.
LikeLike
Just thinking about things (okay, so I was really looking at the new long-term census projections that came out last month as a result of the 10 year benchmark), in a long-term sense, a Big Ten at 18 or even 20 is probably inevitable.
If you step back and think about demographics trends over the past 40 or 60 or 80 years along with the next 20 or 40; it’s probably a virtual certainty.
It might be hard to see the forest for the trees right now, but the current set of demographics trends virtually guarantee an ever expanding Big Ten until it gets into states like NC/Va or FL/Ga (or both regions).
LikeLike
Probable.
Long-term projections are pretty iffy (just look at the world population projections from 30+ years ago when it was assumed that worldwide birthrates would not plummet as quickly as they have).
40 years from now, the demographic trends will favor the Great Lakes region again (thanks to global warming). Over the next 20 years, the current population growth trends should continue, however.
LikeLike
Yeah, I just think the most fascinating thing about US demographics is that the story has been mostly about “relative” changes in 5 different regions (NY-Penn, Ohio-Michigan, NC-Va, Ga-FL, Texas, California) for the most part if you just look at those specific areas growing at leaps and bounds over different parts of the past 150 years.
Compare the SEC and Big Ten for example, states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Kentucky are virtually indistinguishable in terms of growth profile from states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, or Indiana.
The SEC’s anchors in the Ga/FL region and now also Texas A&M prevent it from being subject to the downside of the current relative demographic shifts.
The Big Ten is likely to acquire anchors in the Southeast as a measure to acquire the same thing in the long run.
LikeLike
Meant a 6 instead of a 5 there in the first line.
LikeLike
Agreed, demographics are critical to the B10’s future as a premier conference. As is ‘power’ relative to the SEC/Big XII/ACC and the population of its footprint. Maryland, Rutgers helped a lot but there still is more need to get into the mid atlantic (Virginia, North Carolina) and potentially into the south (Georgia Tech).
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s why the talk of UVa/UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech is probably on point.
Those 4 are a full long-term demographics fix while satisfying the academic side of things.
LikeLike
zeek – while growth may be “virtually indistinguishable” in the states you referenced, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama pump out a lot more football talent than Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Indiana.
LikeLike
From the perspective of the presidents and chancellors, at least in the Big10, they care far more about recruitment for the entire undergraduate student body rather than just football players.
LikeLike
Yeah, I was just referring to regular population demographics; not a more in-depth look at FBS implications.
LikeLike
@Alan
Any idea how much of that Mississippi talent is simply the JCs? California, Kansas and Mississippi seem to have the most JCs playing football. Even in Texas a lot of the JCs have quit playing football. Those players didn’t necessarily go to local HSs.
LikeLike
bullet – Mississippi is usually in the top 3 states that produce NFL talent per capita. I’m pretty sure that is high school talent. Here are two sites that show the top states per capita: http://southcarolina.247sports.com/Board/44/NFL-Players-Per-Capita-the-most-recent-I-could-find-12581399/1, and http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/33291757/Top-States-that-produce-NFL-players-per-capita.aspx
Now that is not saying that a lot of the MS high school talent doesn’t end up going the JC route. The educational system within the state of Mississippi is horrible. A large percentage of the top HS talent can’t make it into even Ole Miss or Miss St. That is why there are so many JCs that have football programs. But with that said, even though a lot of the MS high school talent goes through the JCs, it still makes it to the NFL eventually.
LikeLike
bullet – it looks like the list was based on high school attended.
http://usafootball.com/news/press-box/st-thomas-aquinas-hs-fort-lauderdale-has-most-nfl-players-california-tops-states-miam
LikeLike
Stephenson HS who was tied for 2nd with 5 had 26 of 29 seniors get fb scholarships last year. The year before it was 100%. Of course, the school district, which has about 15 HSs was put on probation for a lot of reasons, but one of which was that board members were getting involved to make sure the athletes got to particular high schools.
LikeLike
FWIW Louisiana had decent growth prior to Katrina.The temporary dip in population (net loss not just slowed growth) is what skews the numbers a bit.
LikeLike
They weren’t much different from Arkansas or Alabama.
LikeLike
http://www.economist.com/node/21533364
on worldwide population and falling birthrates.
“At the moment, almost half the world’s population—3.2 billion—lives in countries with a fertility rate of 2.1 or less.”
LikeLike
Mr SEC on Scott Rabalais’ column from The Baton Rouge Advocate that says LSU should go to the Big 12.
http://www.mrsec.com/2012/12/some-lsu-fans-wanting-out-of-the-sec-we-thought-they-were-the-tigers-not-the-chickens/
LikeLike
Humorous that so many words could be wasted on such a topic.
LikeLike
Sounds like the writer achieved his goal!
LikeLike
Christmas day filler. No news to write about, so make up something.
Some LSU fans think #8 LSU got screwed over by the SEC office due to its placement in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl (the SEC’s sixth slot) when LSU is the 4th highest ranked SEC team. Many LSU fans are pissed about LSU’s cross-division games for 2012 (#3 Florida & #10 USCe) and 2013 (Florida & Georgia), when compared to Alabama’s (Tennessee & Mizzou in ’12, and Tennessee & Kentucky in ’13). But NOBODY in Louisiana is seriously talking about LSU leaving the SEC.
LikeLike
Does anyone really want to be in the Big 12? Maybe Texas. That might be it. Some schools are certainly happy to be in a major conference (like Iowa State), but I doubt anyone really wants to be Big 12. Schools left that conference for a reason and it does not have the earning potential of a BIg 10 or SEC.
LikeLike
Anyone in the “Gang of Five” would accept an invite in a heartbeat. That being said, there isn’t a lot of options for schools not named Texas or Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Pretty much everyone is happy in the Big 12. The malcontents have left. Now if you could convince Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida they would net $10 million more a year indefinitely if they joined the Big 10, they would take a long hard look, just like the Big 12 schools would. But those 5 are quite happy in the SEC.
LikeLike
Big 12 is fine as long as those 10 schools want it to be together.
Texas and Oklahoma may just decide in the future that they can continue to ride Texas’ demographics boom for another 20 or 30 years.
LikeLike
@zeek – The Big 12 is fine as long as Texas wants to be there. I don’t think for a second if a better option presented itself Iowa St (or Kansas, Kansas St, West Virginia) wouldn’t bolt. Do you remember Oklahoma looking silly while actually trying to join the PAC12? The current Big 12 is for eight of its members the best option available to them. There are two members that have options, but Texas is waiting to see if the LHN takes off and Oklahoma hasn’t shown any desire to divorce Oklahoma St.
LikeLike
These ties that bind are stronger than money. Maryland’s decision was out of necessity and they still have a lot of unhappy campers.
LikeLike
Well, what if Md can “reunite” with some of the core ACC members while going to a better conference? That may be part of the reason several other ACC schools are being looked at.
LikeLike
No one is all that happy in the Big XII but it is everyone’s last best option. Everyone with a better option has already left, and Oklahoma (PAC), Oklahoma St. (PAC), WVU (SEC and ACC) and Texas (Indy) all tried to go elsewhere but were turned down. Kansas, K-State, TCU, Baylor, Tech and ISU would accept an invite to any of the “Big 3”, but know it won’t be coming anytime soon.
LikeLike
I should clarify that WVU tried to join the SEC and ACC before the Big XII, not after.
LikeLike
Texas’ first option has always, always been to stay in the Big 12. They only looked at other options when it was prudent to do so (i.e., when Missouri begged the Big 10 for membership, and when Nebraska started kicking the Big 10 tires, and when A&M was working on their exit to the SEC, and when OU tried their PAC power play). You’re suggesting that Texas tried to go indy but was turned down? Where are you getting that from?
LikeLike
Texas tried to swing a non-FB membership with the ACC (basically the same deal ND got this year).
As for Texas, well I agree that of all the members they are most content, but it is worth noting that Tom Osbourne testified to the NU BOT’s that he inquired about a GOR in the Big XII two years ago but was told that their were a group of schools including Texas that opposed the idea.
LikeLike
I’ll add that Texas was also considering full membership with the ACC on the condition they be allowed to keep the LHN.
LikeLike
@frug – I always felt that the ACC wasn’t the preferred option for Texas. To me, those discussions were just the result of the Longhorns identifying their options and the leak of their existence was for leverage.
LikeLike
The ACC was just contingency planning in case OU really did go to Pac 12. In that case, the Big 12 might not have been financially viable.
Syracuse was perfectly happy in the Big East. They made that very clear. But two times they chose to leave, because the opportunity was better and staying was risky. Taking a better offer doesn’t mean you are unhappy.
LikeLike
Bullet:
How does better leaving for opportunity and too risky to stay equal perfectly happy staying? Is this like still wanting to be friends when changing marriage partners?
LikeLike
SU was happy with the BE as it was, but was afraid all of their desired partners would leave.
As for the Big 12, there’s never been less complaining on the Big 12 boards than now. If you want to hear complaints, read ACC or Big 10 or SEC (to some extent). Not the Big 12. Noone’s unhappy.
LikeLike
There’s happy and then there’s no better options. Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, and Baylor are simply happy all the “good” school did not bolt and leave them out to dry like UConn and Cincinnati are currently looking at. West Virgina is happy that someone rescued them for the Big East when the Big 10, ACC, and SEC would not. TCU is happy someone actually invited them to the party (only the 2nd non-BCS school to move up after Utah). And to a certain extent I think most Oklahoma, OSU, and Tech fans are happy about not having to make trips to California, Oregon, and Washington to play games. So they’re all sort of happy in some fashion. But it also appears most would bolt if given a better option (ignoring the Grant of Rights issue).
LikeLike
Let me also add that despite the above, the Big 12 will continue to generate strong football. Playing in and around Texas will do that for you. So at least there’s that. The Conference may not be strong, bu the football is. Fans love that.
LikeLike
@bullet
Apparently you didn’t read the Big XII message boards when the LHN tried to broadcast the TTU-Texas St. game.
There is still an enormous amount of resentment amongst Big XII fans (and schools for that matter) but they have mostly given up complaining since they realized they don’t have any other options.
LikeLike
I will add that the schools are certainly more content than they have been in years, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are happy.
Moreover, even if they are happy it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be happier elsewhere (which I think may be the point some are arguing over)
LikeLike
Just about anyone would bolt if there were a “better” option. You could say that of any team in any conference, including the Big 10. But right now the finances and CIC make it difficult for another conference to be a better option.
LikeLike
Pretty much agree, but wasn’t the Neb contact with B1G initiated after Neb was informed of the potential P16 deal?
UT always retains the B12 as an option. We don’t know if it is their first choice. We’re the B1G or the PAC to have acceded to UT’s conditions would B12 have been their choice?
LikeLike
Darn predictive text…
Were, not we’re.
LikeLike
wasn’t the Neb contact with B1G initiated after Neb was informed of the potential P16 deal
It’s the most likely scenario, but I’ve never actually seen anything to confirm exactly what was told to Nebraska’s Pearlman off the record in January of 2010.
LikeLike
This article is an oldie but a goodie. Lays out the Nebraska/B1G timeline, with Perlman reaching out to the Big 10 in January 2010, months before the Pac10 went after the Big 12 teams. Also a few points that prove Nebraska and Texas were on the same page more than the anti-Texas folks care to admit…
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100830/HUSKERS/708309872/-1
LikeLike
@Christian – What that article is missing is the golf outing before the 2010 Rose bowl where Dodds and Scott first start discussing the PAC16. It was probably that event that led to the “tip” Pearlman received which was probably Texas telling Nebraska it needed to have a plan in case Texas decided to go west. Pearlman has mentioned several times that he was good friends with UT’s Bill Powers.
LikeLike
complete fiction C in Wylie. Texas orchestrated a move to the Pac10 and was going until A&M balked once Powers was kind enough to share his plans with A&M prez Loftin.
LikeLike
At the time, the demise of the Big 12 seemed inevitable with Nebraska leaving, Mizzou begging for a B1G invite, and A&M flirting with the SEC (by Loftin’s own admission). Texas still preferred the Big 12, but had to look at other options.
In every conference move Texas discussed, they insisted on bringing along some of their conference mates, and stopped talks when that wasn’t allowed (Pac 10 nixing Baylor, B1G’s Tech problem, ACC saying Texas only). A&M didn’t even think twice about abandoning all of their long-time conference mates (and please don’t bring up the Texas schools refusing to play A&M going forward, as Kim Mulkey said, you can’t divorce your spouse and then expect them to keep having sex with you). Baylor, KSU, KU, and ISU continue to make millions thanks to UT, and despite A&M’s best efforts to relegate them to a lesser league. Texas has proven to be a great partner to their conference mates; it’s hard to make that case for A&M.
LikeLike
You’re getting your chronology wrong, Christian. Texas was discussing the Pac 16 deal before Nebraska left, Mizzou “begged” for a B1G invite, or A&M flirted with the SEC. At no point were they looking after anyone else, they just wanted some rivals and travel partners for their schedule.
If ESPN hadn’t opened up their wallets big-time on the LHN deal, the Longhorns would be in the Pac 16 now.
LikeLike
None of those schools would go to the Pac 12 alone. TCU and Baylor would only leave if they viewed staying in the Big 12 as too risky. They much prefer the Big 12 to any other option.
LikeLike
TCU and Baylor would only leave if they viewed staying in the Big 12 as too risky.
Well that’s still consideration. For a have not (which describes both TCU and Baylor) the only way to guarantee yourself a seat at the big boy table long term is to get into the PAC, SEC or Big Ten. Maybe the Big XII will survive past the expiration of the current GOR, but it is far from a sure thing.
LikeLike
They really have no other option. Unless a king makes them a condition of moving to a conference that would accept that condition, what other options would they have?
LikeLike
so Bullet, if the SEC offered TCU they would reject it? lol.
LikeLike
Bullet only said they wouldn’t go to the PAC alone. He didn’t say anything about the SEC. (Though I do disagree with him)
LikeLike
Texas had a ‘tech’ problem or else they might not be in the Big XII either.
LikeLike
I haven’t seen this posted yet.
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4512
It has some information about the Mountain West/Big East and the Big East TV deal. Also this:
ACC-Keep an eye on the Big Ten and Georgia Tech. Maybe not this year, but by 2014. If that happens, the Big Ten will need t find another team to get to 16. And with the kind of money the Big Ten can offer, EVERYONE in the ACC is in play.
If there is any doubt about this look at Rutgers. According to sources familiar with the discussions going on about expansion, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany didn’t even have Rutgers on his A B or C list until Georgia Tech finally said no thank you as a partner with Maryland. Once that happened and once Syracuse announced it was leaving the Big East, Rutgers moved into prime time
LikeLike
Rutgers was always on Delaney’s short list and Georgia Tech was the one who actually was initiating interest in the B10.
LikeLike
I agree, the alternative presented by that reporter-blogger makes less sense.
Delany’s always wanted to plant flags on the East Coast (and that includes NYC in some fashion).
He’s always had an eye on Rutgers at some point in the expansion schemes, and I highly doubt that it’d be after Georgia Tech.
Take a look at what he’s said recently about the importance of having state flagships that essentially control territory…
LikeLike
As an overall program, Rutgers has a lot further to go to reach Big Ten stature than Maryland does (and that’s even after the teams cut in College Park enter the equation). Look at the Directors’ Cup standings in recent years, and Rutgers ranks far below all Big Ten members, sometimes rating below 100. In contrast, Maryland is in the middle of the Big Ten pack.
However, I’m not saying there isn’t hope for Rutgers, because Big East schools tend to underperform in many non-revenue sports. Virginia Tech was similarly lackluster in its pre-ACC years, but has made great strides since it joined the conference in 2004.
LikeLike
However, Directors’ Cup standings are considered pretty worthless by the power-that-be in the B10. There’s a reason why Delany wanted to get rid of them.
LikeLike
Because the Pac 10 schools did so much better?
LikeLike
Haha. Because they lead to pressure for high (& higher) salaries for coaches (and other spending) in non-revenue sports. I think Delany’s fine with sponsoring sports like tennis, golf, swimming, and track that are a drain on resources, but pressure to spend more on those sports that nobody watches than what FCS & DivII schools do is nonsensical.
BTW, due to the BTN, B10 schools have started to do much better in the Director’s Cup standings. Same number of schools (6) in the top 26 as the Pac, which is more than any other conference.
My view is that spending on sports that are about revenue-netral and have some viewership on the BTN (women’s basketball, volleyball, baseball, & wrestling; possibly gymnastics in the future as well, come to mind) makes sense. Spending more than you would on intramurals in the other sports? Not so much.
A good article on gold-plating in non-revenue sports: http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/post/37128623071/monopoly-rents-in-action-gold-plating-among
LikeLike
Directors Cup counts way too many ‘athletic’ programs success, it’s a measure of a majority of your athletic department while only a handful if that of those sports are meaningful.
LikeLike
So do we only count FB, or should we include a second sport in order to evaluate an athletic department? (Sarcasm)
All schools have to count 10 teams, even if a school doesn’t field 10. Point being to judge success, not merely popularity.
LikeLike
…Or fields 20.
LikeLike
Which is why it’s silly.
Athletics are for 2 reasons:
1. For students to play sports.
2. To bring in money.
The first can be achieved with intramurals and club sports. Weighing a sport that loses money with one that makes a lot (or at least doesn’t lose money) the same is nonsensical.
LikeLike
Just go support the nfl or MBA if that’s the way you feel. While you’re at it why not petition the universities to abandon all but bare minimum funding and support for all but the most popular schools and departments, or perhaps concentrate funding only in the top few departments in attracting research dollars. Yea, that’s the mission of the entire endeavor…
LikeLike
Universities have an academic mission. They have a student life mission. They don’t have an athletic mission.
I’m also perplexed why you’re telling me to support MLB (which I do). I want them to keep sports that I and others support financially. I could care less if they just arranged intramurals or clubs for sports that no one supports financially. Why is spending more money on sports that no one watches, don’t support themselves, and few people care about better than spending less money on those sports and using the saved up money on academics or student life? Money isn’t free, after all. Spending more money on those sports means spending less money elsewhere.
LikeLike
Thanks for saying in a sentence, Richard what might’ve taken me two or three paragraphs. All sports aren’t equal, how many people go to watch rowing, lacrosse, cross country (mens, womens), water polo, etc. You get the picture. Success in those sports are impressive in their own right and the Director’s Cup is actually valuable at displaying that.
Yet success in football and thus, large numbers of fans in the seats and watching on television creates a ton of revenue. A strong football program for a lot of universities ‘pays the bills’ for a schools entire athletic department.
LikeLike
“BTW, due to the BTN, B10 schools have started to do much better in the Director’s Cup standings. Same number of schools (6) in the top 26 as the Pac, which is more than any other conference.”
–Combined Directo’s Cup Standings:
03-07
3 TSUN
7 Ohio State
14 Penn St.
18 Minnesota
22 Wisconsin
33 Illinois
08-12
3 Ohio State
12 TSUN
13 Penn St.
22 Minnesota
26 Wisconsin
27 Illinois
Moved up: Ohio State (4 spots), Penn St (1 spot), Illinois (6 spots)
Moved down: TSUN (9 spots), Minnesota (4 spots), Wisconsin (4 spots)
The Ohio State & TSUN moves were not related to the BTN. Both were due to changing focuses within the respective ADs (Ohio State decided to generalize & spend on more sports while the Wolverines went the opposite direction & specialized on a smaller number)
Everything else looks like a wash.
LikeLike
I appreciate the compliment, wmtiger.
LikeLike
“They don’t have an athletic mission.”
-Athletics has long been considered to be an integral part of student life, and yes of well rounded academics.
What you are proposing (IE running what is essentially semi-professional sports teams merely to generate revenue) is even less in line with the core mission of universities. Ironically your view is actually closer to that of the southern “what’s book learnin’ got to do with college football” contingent than with the classic renaissance man model of the Ivies.
LikeLike
“-Athletics has long been considered to be an integral part of student life, and yes of well rounded academics.”
Which is why I’m all for intramurals and club sports. Why can’t renaissance men be formed playing club sports?
Personally, I prefer semi-professional teams that generate revenue over semi-professional teams that don’t generate revenue. Subsidizing money-losing sports like golf & tennis doesn’t make college football or basketball any less semi-professional; it just diverts money away from the student body as a whole and funnels it to a handful of students at a university.
LikeLike
Rutgers has never really emphasized its athletic programs until quite recently; the past 20 years or so. It’s well behind the entire B10 and most other BCS caliber schools in that regard. Rutgers has always wanted to more be peers with the Ivy League than they’ve wanted to be peers athletically with the ACC, B10, etc. It wasn’t until the early 90’s or thereabouts that they actually started to invest money on its athletic facilities, coaches, equipment, etc to play at a higher level…
In basketball, they were always surrounded by terrific college coaches at places like UConn, Syracuse, Villanova, Maryland, Temple, St. Johns, Georgetown, etc. It’s been tough to get the ‘revenue’ sports off the ground but I’ve long have had them as a sleeper program in both revenue sports as they do have a good bit of regional talent in both sports; they’ve just never landed and/or spent the money on coaches that can bring their programs up to a B10 level.
LikeLike
I guess we disagree. I think intercollegiate athletic competition is, and has been, an integral part of the university educational experience. The money football, and to a lesser extent basketball has begun to generate is changing how some view the place of athletics in education. If we are only concerned with the popularity and income of a few sports how are we not just becoming professional sports departments? The only way to justify (to me) the extraordinary expenditure on FB and BB is that they do in fact support a broad athletic department offering, enhancing their schools educational experience.
My more mercenary side also wonders how future alumna giving would be effected if all the non FB athletes were treated to all the amenities of middle school PE classes. It would be interesting to see if anyone has a study comparing FB/MBB alumna giving versus all the non “professional” (you know, those some don’t deem worthy of supporting).
LikeLike
Hey, if the tennis, golf, track, and swimming programs generate donations, then they are revenue-generating sports and deserve to get extra funding.
If they don’t, however, it’s hard to justify why a handful of student-athletes should get a ton of money lavished on them rather than spreading it out to the entire student body.
LikeLike
I know he’s a BE homer, but there’s still a bunch that smells wrong in the article.
1. The idea that Boise would be swayed to join the BE due to 1 year’s worth of BCS money while paying increased travel costs every year seems doubtful. Boise knows that SDSU & probably Houston & SMU (and maybe UNLV & Fresno) will go where they go. Are USF, UCF, ECU, CIncy, and UConn so much superior to AFA, Hawaii, CSU, and Nevada considering that all those schools are far away & CIncy and UConn will bolt the BE at the very first possibly opportunity?
2. Memphis, Temple, Cincinnati and UConn are indeed superior in basketball to the Catholic 7, but equal to G’Town+Villanova+Marquette+Xavier+Dayton+Creighton+the media markets of NYC & Chicago? I don’t think so.
3. Given how believable he is on the BE stuff, I give little credence to what he says about GTech either. I mean, I’m sure that GTech wants in, but the question is whether UNC & Duke will come, not whether the Yellowjackets will.
LikeLike
I tend to agree, Georgia Tech is a partner to Virginia if it must be an AAU school as a partner and UNC/Duke are already a pair…
Maryland/Georgia Tech was never on the table in a move to 14 in my opinion; it doesn’t even sound like a logical play.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is a partner to Virginia if it must be an AAU school as a partner and UNC/Duke are already a pair.
Or, more likely, if UNC can’t (or won’t) escape the ACC as a result of the NCSU political “problem” (if the Tar Heels flee the ACC, where does the Wolfpack land?) Duke might like to be in the same conference as UNC, but if it was offered a chance to jump to the Big Ten in a combo with Virginia, it would be bye bye, Tar Heels. However, Duke simply doesn’t have enough football value to interest Delany as a #15-16; its best chance to join the Big Ten is as part of a move to 18 with UVa/Georgia Tech/UNC.
LikeLike
SEC. 99% probability that Slive would grab NCSU if available & UNC+Duke are off the table for him.
LikeLike
SEC. 99% probability that Slive would grab NCSU if available & UNC+Duke are off the table for him.
Agreed — but it’s not a fait accompli that UNC would choose the Big Ten if it came down to that or the SEC. While administrators would almost unanimously go Big Ten, many boosters and casual fans would prefer the SEC — especially if it meant blocking State from gaining an SEC bid, forcing the Wolfpack to join other ACC emigres in an expanded Big 12. Personally, I think UNC in the SEC is a terrible cultural fit, but I can see why some in Chapel Hill would feel that way.
LikeLike
The way the UNC system is set up, NCSU and UNC are essentially the left and right arms of a unified body. They’re like UC-Berkeley & UCLA. They share a Board of Governors. The same people with a fiduciary duty to UNC have the same fiduciary duty to NCSU. Thus, I don’t see them casting NCSU off in to a perceived inferior conference. UNC & NCSU both to the SEC would be much more likely than UNC to the SEC and NCSU to the B12. UNC to the B10 and NCSU to the SEC may happen if the BoG decides that it would be best to have a foot in both conferences.
LikeLike
Even the basketball is debatable. I’d agree that once the C-7 add some other schools (Xaver, Dayton, and Butler all seem very likely), they will clearly be the better conference overall. The big problem for the Big East leftovers are the number of traditionally poor basketball schools (Tulane, East Carolina in all likelihood, UCF/USF, etc…) that weigh the conference down.
The C-7 have largely been carried recently by Georgetown, Marquette, and to a lesser extent Villanova. The rest have been mediocre overall, with Seton Hall likely be the best of the rest. Not sure the Big East is radically different, however. UConn has been better than all of them as of late, but are now post-Calhoun (so many schools take a step back once a great coach leaves). Cincy is solid, much like Marquette. Temple used to be good, but hasn’t done a whole lot as of late (basically post Chaney. Probably similar to Villanova overall). And Memphis has largely been irrelevant except for the Calipari years (although the current and future Memphis squads look decent)
LikeLike
The list to end all lists;
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/shouts/2012/12/the-hundred-best-lists-of-all-time.html
New Yorker’s list of the 100 best lists of all time.
LikeLike
How Southern are Charlottesville, Chapel Hill and Durham? I’m not talking about the states they’re in but in terms of sensibilities. There is a sense that the people there have more of a “Northern” sensibility than the rural folk that surround them. Maybe I’m way off on my assessment so I’ll appreciate it if someone can correct me on this.
In any case, being that they’re the “heart of the ACC” then it’s hard for me to think that they can be in anywhere but in their current conference. Then again, the Research Triangle would be a huge motivation for the academicians who run the Big Ten institutions to pounce on them, with the engineer school in Hotlanta that could be the new “Southern flank” of the conference if rumors become reality.
Sorry for going off-topic but this has crossed my mind recently.
LikeLike
That’s not particularly off-topic considering that UVa/UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech are the hot speculation right now as far as targets go.
All those places are Northern in nature, but the bigger question mark is the sensibilities of the various entrenched interest groups like alumni/donor groups/fans, etc.
Those may be quite a bit more Southern in nature at the different institutions (especially UNC) given that those take longer to change (a generation or two later).
LikeLike
There’s a difference between “northern” and “liberal.” Austin is very liberal by Texas standards (and by Ohio standards as well, not by Madison’s or Berkeley’s), but is still very Texan. I haven’t spent a lot of time in the research triangle so can’t speak with any authority, but I would be surprised if it was “northern.” It certainly has never seemed much different from Wilmington or Charlotte where I’ve spent a little more time. Raleigh/Durham gets a lot of migration from the rest of the south.
Florida is different with all the retirees as well as the people escaping the cold weather from the midwest and northeast. Northern Virginia is different because of DC.
LikeLike
Very good point about difference between northern and liberal (and conversely southern and conservative). Politics makes funny bed fellows a lot and simply being liberal or conservative doesn’t make you less northern, southern, Midwestern, etc. There can be a correlation, but there’s no definite rule.
LikeLike
Charlotte has a ton of Northerners. I believe the Research Triangle as well. Certainly more southern-accented than say, Chicago, but in a lot of respects, it’s close to DC (though granted, still more southern-accented than DC). I wouldn’t say it’s like Asheville (southern & liberal).
LikeLike
True, but the movement of people is changing the atmosphere in these places. Both Charlotte and Austin grew 50+% over the past decade in terms of the number of people. I’d venture that Austin didn’t change anywhere as much as Charlotte did in terms of how the influx of people changed the dynamic in those areas (probably unchanged in Austin but quite a bit different in Charlotte).
LikeLike
I’d say expect to hear a lot of “y’all’s”, but Tar Heels fans don’t go to football games.
LikeLike
Interesting question regarding the southerness of the Triangle area.
Let me put it this way: I grew up to in South Carolina, which is as decidedly southern as anywhere besides Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and southern Georgia. I went to college in the mountains if NC, but later spent five years in the Midwest, specifically Indiana. I enjoyed escaping some of the southern backwardness such as still holding the Confederate flag in front if the SC state house and other embarrassing attitudes. I did enjoy the commonalities between the South and Midwest, such as hospitality and general warmth and friendliness.(I have found there is a major misconception many southerners have in regarding the Midwest as the same as the Northeast, which I found to be accurate more for climate than for most other things. In terms of things like church attendance as well as passion for college football, the Midwest is far more like the South than the Northeast. I could go on and in about this.)
Anyway, I enjoyed many things about life in Indiana, and although I knew my wife and I eventually wanted to move back to the South to live near family, I am glad we moved to Raleigh rather than more intensely Southern culture overload place. It’s still a decidedly Southern area, regardless of the influx from other states, but hit’s more sophisticated than your average southern town.
How northern is it? Well, there are people from all over. I see tags from everywhere here. But that also includes states like Virginia, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, meaning that just because there are a lot of people living here who are from elsewhere doesn’t mean they’re from the Northeast or Midwest. They’re from other parts of NC and other parts of the South.
This area is a long, long way off from becoming like one of those communities in Florida where Midwesterners or Northsasterners dominate. It’s more of a mixture, where southerners still carry by far the mist influence. Is it like Alabama? No, but it never was , really, at least in terms of passion for football. This area, in particular, has also been more educated than mist southern cities for longer than just the past 20-25 years of extreme growth. RTP and the area’s universities have been around for a long time, so the character of the area isn’t necessarily being transformed from Montgomery into Boston.
LikeLike
Durham is a dichotomy. Duke University and the research hospitals that go with it are heavily, heavily influenced by students and employees who come from areas between Maryland and Massachusetts. RTP, which is mostly in Durham County rather than Wake (Raleigh/Cary) County (and not at all in Orange (Chapel Hill) County), has researchers from everywhere. But Durham is also well known for being very, very southern in heritage. Durham was the hub of the American Tobacco Company, and the influence still carries on. It’s also worth noting that Durham is home to North Carolina Central University, an HBCU. The location of that school in Durham is no accident.
Chapel Hill is very diverse ethnically and culturally. It is not diverse economically. Those who aren’t students are almost all upper middle class to wealthy. The few who have modest incomes while still living in Chapel Hill rarely can afford to stay there for long. Anyway, Chapel Hill has people from everywhere, but no one is trying to undo how truly southern and unique it is. People are drawn to Chapel Hill because of how it is, not because they want it to be like somewhere else.
LikeLike
Appreciate all the replies to my questions. I’m trying to figure out how the B1G could integrate the potential adds into the conference structure.
LikeLike
An operating theory about Cincinnati:
University presidents talk. Especially ones in the same state, as they need to work together on funding issues, etc.
Gee at OSU knows what is going to happen. He was setting up meetings between Delaney and Texas, for goodness sake.
If I had to guess, he’s probably given UCs prez some kind of indication whether they are screwed or not, along the lines of “well, this isn’t over yet…” Hence the very optimistic statements from UC.
UC isn’t OSU in terms of support in state government, but it’s still the second largest university in the state, so there is probably a certain amount of pressure on Gee to confirm what the future holds for UC.
The state, and more importantly, southwestern Ohio’s representation, is probably pretty keen on UC maintaining an affiliation of decent academic peers (read: not Southern Miss, , et al)
OSU can be Bigfoot in this state, but they have to look out for UC to a certain degree.
LikeLike
1. What optimistic statements?
2. If Gee gives any indication, it would be “yes, you’re screwed”. How exactly do you foresee OSU mustering up enough votes to get Cincy in to the B10? No other B10 school belongs in the University System of Ohio.
3. For sure they wouldn’t be keen about it, but considering that Cincy was in an athletic conference with Southern Miss, et al less than a decade ago, you can’t credibly argue that they would be cast in to a situation they’ve never been in before.
LikeLike
Richard, I’m pretty sure the reference was to Cincinnati in the ACC, not the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Well, Gee can’t confirm much about the ACC, unless he knows UNC, Duke, et al are coming.
However, why the wait if that’s the case? To confirm what the ACC exit penalty would be?
LikeLike
Exactly, the Maryland will pretty much ‘set’ the bar for the ACC’s exit penalty. Whatever that is, will establish a precedent for any future ACC members who wish to leave. Don’t expect any news till that’s done being negotiated.
LikeLike
Not sure if this is the bowl game that the Pac-12 wants to lose.
A 6-3 Pac-12 record (excluding the CCG loss to Stanford for the moment) UCLA that’s ranked #17 going down to a 4-5 in the Big 12 record Baylor.
And the fact that Baylor with a defense that got continually exposed even by mediocre offenses is putting up an Alabama-like show on that side of the ball has got to be the most stunning part of the first portion of this game.
UCLA has to turn this into a shootout soon or they won’t have a chance.
LikeLike
In fairness, Baylor is a team that drastically improved over the season. They were behind FCS school Sam Houston State in the 3rd quarter and had just as much trouble with Louisiana-Monroe as Auburn did (just a little bit less trouble than Arkansas had). What they did in the second half of the season bears little resemblance to the poor performance they had in the first half.
That said, you’re still correct; the Pac 12 really didn’t want their division champ to get embarrassed by that team.
LikeLike
I am not sure if this was posted in a previous blog entry but I just read this article and found it very intriguing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terrapins-insider/wp/2012/11/30/attorney-says-acc-may-be-overreaching-in-exit-fee-dispute-with-maryland/
Mind you, this was from back in November, when the lawsuit was announced.
LikeLike
Christmas update from the The Dude
Multiple sources within the Big 10 conference have confirmed that the University of North Carolina has reached out to Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany to gauge the level of interest the conference has in the Tar Heels as a potential member.
According to the same sources within the Big 10 Delany has the approval of the Big 10 Council of Presidents and Chancellors to extend invitations to Georgia Tech, UVA and possibly Florida State University in the weeks following the BCS Championship game on January 7th 2013.
Delany’s consideration of UNC is not expected to delay the invitations to Georgia Tech and UVA, but if the Tar Heels interest in the Big 10 is real Delany has told the Council of Presidents that UNC offers opportunities for the Big 10 that must be carefully considered.
What is in doubt is UVA’s response to Delany’s reported intention to extend the Cavalier’s a Big 10 invitation. Big 10 sources are unclear if UVA president Dr. Teresa A. Sullivan has the institutional control and support among UVA’s board to move the Cavaliers from the ACC to the Big 10.
If discussions between Delany and Sullivan indicate a reluctance for UVA to move the Big 10 was expected to invite Boston College in place of UVA but the recent interest on the part of UNC has Delany’s “Plan B” in doubt.
The same sources within the Big 10 who provided information concerning Maryland’s plans to leave the ACC privately wonder if UNC is urging Sullivan to remain committed to the ACC while, at the same time, actively courting the Big 10 in hopes of stealing UVA’s forthcoming invitation.
That said, the most interesting part is this;
…an influential Clemson IPTAY (an official fund raising program at Clemson) member who says that Clemson’s President James R. Barker has ceased talks with the Big 12 based upon assurances from John Swofford that the ACC would remain viable with or without Florida State.
…
Barker seems to have been reassured by Swofford and comments from Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick were Swarbrick told CBS correspondent Dennis Dodd that the ACC would be within $500,000 of the Big 12 by 2014 and eventually make more than the Big 12.
The Dude goes on to question this conclusion, and his mathematical breakdown is easily the most rational thing he has ever written.
http://www.eersauthority.com/yuletide-expansion-update/
LikeLike
What ‘story’ has “The Dude” ever managed to break before everyone else?
LikeLike
That guy reports 20 moves for every 1 or 2 that actually happens.
LikeLike
So he’s just throwing darts around and hoping he hits a bullseye. Anyone could do that but most people are more responsible to pretend to have insider information.
LikeLike
You could surely generate 10 moves for each actual one if you did in fact have a bit of inside information and promoted every contingency plan you caught wind of and idle speculation by an insider into a confirmed move.
LikeLike
The Dude’s contention that Florida State or Boston College — neither AAU members — would even be remotely considered for candidacy by the Big Ten shoots much of his entry down.
LikeLike
vp19,
I’d believe FSU before BC, since FSU at least offers demographics and recruiting bonuses. BC has a big market but no fans. How many of those schools does the B10 want?
LikeLike
Interesting read at http://www.mrsec.com/2012/12/big-bang-theories-the-countdown-to-super-conferences-part-3/#more-265873
My take:
I agree that major conference realignment is at a standstill until the UMD exit fee is resolved through the courts. Then the ACC will be picked apart regardless of the court’s resolution, because even if a school has to pay the ACC’s entire exit fee, the $ potential in the B1G/SEC is too great. I think the big prize for the B1G is UNC. If they get Duke too, then they own college basketball’s greate$t rivalry and add excellent inventory for the BTN. But it won’t be easy to pull UNC/Duke away if the ACC is strong. First, the B1G must destablize the ACC. Following the UMD add, the B1G takes UVA and GT to go to 16, but is now not geographically continiguous. Seeing a destablized ACC and the future money gap, UNC and Duke can justify to its people that they need to move out. UNC and Duke join UMD, UVA and GT in an 18 school B1G. (The SEC can try all they want for UNC/Duke, but the academic pull of the B1G is too great). The North Carolina regents find a landing spot for NCSU in the SEC. SEC adds VT too for 16 schools, which adds 2 more markets for the SEC Network. Having 20 teams is better than 18 for scheduling purposes (4 pods of 5 teams play 9 games, which is 4 games in thier pod and 5 games against that year’s rotating pod). So, for BTN purposes, the B1G gets FSU to go to 19. Notre Dame is then left without a strong conference (although the ACC probably will look like the Big East circa 10 years ago). Wanting to go into new growing markets and play a national schedule, ND succums and becomes the B1G’s 20th member. The media grant of rights and big big $ will hold the conference together. The B1G is now in the midwest, east, mid atlantic and south and in almost all major media markets. It has contiguous states from Nebraska to New York to Florida. Plus it gets the BTN on basic cable at higher rates in 4 more states with schools that have mega brand appeal. More $ leads to better facilities, higher coaches salaries to get/retain the best coaches, leading to better recruits, leading to better W/L records and more national titles.
LikeLike
20 is more elegant and easier to conceptualize, but at 18, you can preserve all major rivalries (including PSU-OSU and the Little Brown Jug Game). You can not do that with 20. So sure, FSU & ND may be worth it at 19 and 20, but really only them, UF, UGa, and Texas are worth going to 20 for.
I don’t see ND joining within a decade, BTW.
LikeLike
20 most certainly is too many, it’s really two conferences (in football anyway) married by a championship game… Not much different than the MWC and Big East champs playing each other at the end of the season… I don’t think with 20 it would even ‘feel’ like a conference in the sport where it matters, football…
16 is where I hope is the end game but it sounds like they might make the mistake of flying past that number…
20 ‘might’ work with a pod type setup; 4 fellow rival pod members along with rotation of the other pods. You’d just be left WITHOUT a cross-pod rival plus you’d need at least a 9 game conference schedule so you’d have to arrange the pods extremely well in regards to rivalries.
LikeLike
If the ACC destabilizes, they grab Notre Dame.
The game hasn’t changed, just the players.
LikeLike
Hope you’re right but in the short-term, I can’t see ND joining a conference. They are just take far, far too much pride in their independence. They really don’t have a choice to not take pride in it as that is the only thing that really makes them special.
LikeLike
A four pack of UNC, Duke, GT and UVa isn’t impressive on the football field, but it sure is academically. It also sets up a powerful final acquisition of FSU and ND, two kings. It’s ludicrous to conceive expansion up to 20 after being so stable for so many decades, but this is where we are. If this stuff is true, Delany’s upcoming retirement and the upcoming TV negotiations are accelerating whatever moves are there to be made. Legacy, indeed.
LikeLike
At this point, Clemson is more likely than ND. And it wouldn’t be the worst add, either, except for the academics part.
LikeLike
This is exactly the way I see things playing out. If mega-conferences is where this is headed (and perhaps even breaking away from the NCAA) ND will have to join a conference. With the East coast adds, they’ll join the B1G. As for FSU, I don’t believe for a minute that Delany, thinking a century down the road (and having ESPN-type ambitions for the BTN) is going to cede the state of Florida to the SEC/B12 because FSU is good but not great academically. Even the Presidents will see the economic/academic benefits of having the fourth largest state in their footprint. With Georgia Tech on board I think it FSU is number twenty along with (19) ND.
My only caveats being that ND demands to choose its own partner or Texas chooses the B1G over the PAC because of ND.
LikeLike
A century down the road, a good chunk of FL will be under water.
In any case, the B12 will break apart in a decade, so there’s no reason to rush to take FSU.
LikeLike
There’s a lot of money to be made in a century. You’d still take FSU.
In a world where 18 of your other 19 partners are AAU, you’ll find a way quick/fast to bring yourself in line and up to par. For all the benefits the state of Florida brings to the table, FSU (a football king) would be given leeway. It’s a process, not a dictate.
Alternatively, the university most like the B1G (U of Florida) could make an unthinkable decision and take that seat (I know, I know, no one’s leaving the SEC, but there’s a case to be made…).
LikeLike
Well, FL will be feeling pretty dire effects of global warming just 40 years from now. In 40 years, the population growth trends will almost certainly reverse. The Northwest & Mountain West will still be growing, but the Deep South & Southwest will not and the Great Lakes region will be in an enviable position.
LikeLike
Delany’s master plan includes sinking Florida? BWAHAHAHAH!….pure genius.
LikeLike
Anything that transform the Lake Michigan Shoreline into the new Monaco, I’m all for.
LikeLike
You keep saying that but I think you need to examine the historical record. Look back at how much the ocean has risen over the past few centuries and cross reference that with the amount of land lost/created along populated shore lines over the same period.
Even if the seas rise a foot Miami is not going to be under water.
LikeLike
Uh, Scarlet, we know how much land is lost or gained when the oceans rise or fall. People did walk from Asia to North America (and France to England & Asia to Australia once upon a time).
Here’s a map:
http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2011/05/31/florida-under-water-global-warming-and-rising-sea-levels#.UOFBIW_Af_M
In short, Miami may be able to cope with a 1 foot rise in sea level, but a 5-feet rise would be disastrous.
LikeLike
BTW, a several-feet rise in sealevel by the time we’re old men really isn’t that unlikely (in fact, it’s almost certain)：
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
Only way to slow it may be to build a heck of a lot more dams.
LikeLike
New Orleans is below sea level and does OK. FL can build levees and use stilts.
LikeLike
Eh. I suppose we have a different definition of “doing OK”. One hit from a major hurricane depopulated Nawlins’ (and big chunks of the state). Miami will be hit eventually as well (likely when it’s in a more precarious situation than today).
LikeLike
Houston has a better approach. No levees. Vast resevoirs used as parkland most of the time-Addicks, Barker. After Alicia normally dry parts of Addicks were flooded for 6 weeks. Build the streets low so they flood instead of houses. Buyout homes in flood prone areas. New Orleans rebuilds in bad spots and builds more levees. They’re set up for a bad disaster.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Eh. I suppose we have a different definition of “doing OK”. One hit from a major hurricane depopulated Nawlins’ (and big chunks of the state).”
Major hurricanes do that to cities. NO has been below sea level for a long time and only a major hurricane was enough to cause a problem. Considering that they failed to maintain their levees as they should have, that’s a solid track record of sea level not being a problem.
“Miami will be hit eventually as well (likely when it’s in a more precarious situation than today).”
Miami could get flattened by a hurricane in 2013, and sea level would have nothing to do with it. Storm surge would be sufficient to flood it.
LikeLike
Being at or below sea level certainly has a lot to do with it. I don’t believe Sandy depopulated NJ & NYC as much as Katrina depopulated Louisiana.
LikeLike
Katrina >>> Sandy
Katrina was a high Cat 3 hurricane when it hit NO, Sandy was barely Cat 1. Katrina was the 6th strongest recorded Atlantic hurricane (4th at the time). Sandy was big but much weaker.
LikeLike
Remember, it was a poorly built levee that did New Orleans in. Katrina initially passed with little damage to the city, but a hole sprung.
LikeLike
All the suburbs to the southeast were devasted (St. Bernard’s and Plaquemine Parish). That didn’t have anything to do with poorly built levees. And Katrina weakened dramatically just before it hit the coast. It could have been MUCH worse, regardless of the condition of the levees in Orleans Parish.
LikeLike
At that point, what ND ‘demands’ would be irrelevant. They would be 1 of 20; better for them to learn up front that their demands will be ‘taken under advisement’.
LikeLike
The UNC/Duke game doesn’t help the BTN in basketball, those games if they were in the B10 will be nationally televised by ESPN, ABC, whatever.
LikeLike
Which still helps the national TV contract with money flowing to the B10.
You miss the point though that Duke-Illinois, UNC-MSU, UNC-OSU, Duke-Wisconsin, etc. help the BTN tremendously.
LikeLike
Very true about Duke/NC helping the B10 basketball contract tremendously, which probably will be included with the football(??); previously/currently they are separate(??)… I thought you were just talking about those two NC/Duke games above is why I responded that way.
LikeLike
wmtiger,
Yes, they are separate now. CBS has hoops. I think the B10 may keep it that way with the next deal. You want some national games on the same network as everyone else.
LikeLike
Pods for a 20 team B1G due to a detstablized ACC:
Play 9 conference games, no crossovers.
Play all 4 other members in your pod every year on a home-and-home basis. Promotes geographic rivalries.
Play all 5 teams in different pod each year. Promotes interesting matchups.
WEST
Nebraska (king)
Iowa (prince)
Wisconsin (prince)
Minnesota
Northwestern
(major markets = Chicago, Milwaukee)
NORTH
Michigan (king)
Michigan St. (prince)
Ohio St. (king)
Illinois
Indiana
(major markets = Detroit, Columbus/Cincy/Cleveland, Indianapolis, Chicago)
EAST
Notre Dame (king) (or Virginia)*
Purdue
Penn State (king)
Rutgers
Maryland
(major markets = Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, Washington DC)
SOUTH
Virginia (or Notre Dame)*
North Carolina (prince)
Duke
Georgia Tech
Florida St. (king)
(major markets = Washington DC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Orlando, Miami?)
* Swap Notre Dame and Virgina depending on where ND feels it needs to play most games. The East gets them in front of large Catholic populations. The South gets them into new/growing markets.
LikeLike
TM,
“Play 9 conference games, no crossovers.”
That’s the problem with your pods. You split some rivalries that shouldn’t be split (IL/NW, IN/PU). 20 always suffers from that, though. I don’t know that those schools would be thrilled about having to play OOC instead.
“* Swap Notre Dame and Virgina depending on where ND feels it needs to play most games. The East gets them in front of large Catholic populations. The South gets them into new/growing markets.”
Screw that. ND belongs in the east and UVA in the south, so put them there.
LikeLike
Brian,
I agree rivals IL/NW and IN/PU will be impacted negatively. Not all rivalries can be preserved in a 20 school, money machine that this new B1G would become. These rivalries don’t move the dial much on a national scale anyway, but others like UM/OSU do. To be progressive/relavent, sometimes it is necessary to create new traditions instead of looking to the past. Nebraska is a good example of this.
LikeLike
TM,
I know it’s a function of 20 teams, not your specific pods. Something always has to give. That’s why I hate 20 teams. I’d rather see 22 and make it the old B10 plus NE versus PSU and the newbies.
LikeLike
You can still have a rivalry in a game played every second year, which can be arranged for some pods in a 20 team, 4 pod framework, at the cost of some teams playing much less frequently. A pure 4 pod framework where everyone sees everyone else every three years and an entire cohort can enter and graduate between out of pod home games makes it harder to keep a rivalry going.
LikeLike
The more I see it, TM, the more I like it.
LikeLike
I love this tweet:
theDudeofWVfrom Twitter
@MrSEC how do you write about expansion and not get slammed?
LikeLike
lol I saw that on MrSEC’s blog but didn’t notice it was from the Dude. Nice catch!
LikeLike
Thanks, Scarlet.
LikeLike
IF the “four pack”” addition of UNC, Duke, GT and UVA happens, doesn’t FSU immediately bolt for the Big 12?
In my opinion, B1G expansion either goes to 16 or to 20. It won’t even make a temporary stop at 18.
My hunch is still adding UVA and BC to go to 16.
The ACC will then be destabilized and the B1G can take whatever 4 it wants. And one of the 4 would have to be Notre Dame.
I’m no expert like the “Dude”. These are just my guesses.
LikeLike
I’d be shocked in BC were ever added, for a lot of reasons…………
LikeLike
Agree on BC, can’t see the B10 going there. Doesn’t help the B10 ‘flank’ the SEC or weaken the ACC much as the ACC would just replace them with UConn. B10 needs to go after the core ACC schools (NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State) so they can plant a flag in those states or at least have an equal footing in those states as the SEC.
LikeLike
The only way I could see BC is as a bridal gift for ND.
LikeLike
FSU would chose B1G over Big 12 in a heartbeat. $ is LOTS better in the B1G and the addition of other ACC schools to the B1G means FSU wouldn’t be a geographic outlier.
LikeLike
My hunch would be UVA and …
… but I agree with mushroomgod that, among the variety of schools in the “…”, BC is not one of them. Its Boston University that is the AAU member, and I don’t see the Big Ten adding a non-AAU school unless there’s a strong argument on the other side. its a strong addition to the football program that also brings in recruiting benefits and appealing media markets. wmtiger is right on the media market side.
LikeLike
Watching 2 games—
Duke? I really think Indiana was better this year. They are gawdawful…..
UCLA? What is it about PAC teams OTHER than in the Rose Bowl? Half the time they don’t show up……too cool for school?
LikeLike
Baylor was last in FBS (#120 out of 120) in defensive 3rd down conversion % giving up a whopping 56.1% in 3rd down conversions.
UCLA went 1-17 on 3rd down.
That’s all you need to know about that game.
LikeLike
Baylor was a 1 or 2 point favorite last time I looked which surprised me. Maybe Baylor learned something from that 4 game losing streak when WVU, TCU, Texas and Iowa St. scored virtually at will on them. They did win 4 of 5 down the stretch, with 3 of those games vs. ranked teams.
What surprised me was how slow UCLA’s secondary looked.
LikeLike
Baylor’s D was kind of like WI’s O. They stunk most of the year but turned things around late. That’s not to say Baylor ever got good on D, but they improved.
UCLA fell apart, though.
LikeLike
You know, if the SEC wanted to expand to twenty, they could easily. They won’t, but I like to deal in hypotheticals.
Florida State
North Carolina
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Clemson
Georgia Tech/North Carolina State
The divisions/pods would be interesting to say the least.
LikeLike
SEC could expand to 20 within 15 minutes.
LikeLike
North Carolina
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Clemson
South Carolina
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Auburn*
Kentucky
Tenneseee
Alabama*
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State**
Ole Miss**
Louisiana State
Arkansas
Missouri
Texas A&M
* Iron Bowl – always played
**Egg Bowl – always played
Now someone tell me why this is a terrible idea.
LikeLike
SEC will try for UNC (maybe Duke and/or NCSU as well). Probably one of the VA schools.
Then in a decade, they will try again for Texas. Possibly OU.
No way (or reason) to take Clemson or GTech.
LikeLike
Duke? That’s a poor choice.
LikeLike
*shrug*
Tell the SEC that.
If certain people are to be believed, UNC+Duke is evidently the SEC’s current top choice for expansion.
LikeLike
Duke has huge value to any cable network in tandem with UNC. That’s a lot of great inventory on the hoops side of things.
And it’s a highly ranked school by every measure.
I wouldn’t be shocked if UNC/Duke had “open” doors to the Big Ten or SEC any day they wished.
Yes, football is driving this bus, but we’re talking about college presidents; UNC/Duke has the potential to be a very valuable combination.
LikeLike
I don’t believe it.
UNC might want Duke, but is UNC really worth twice the cost?
LikeLike
Let’s revisit our original statement. When this first started, Frank laid out one maxim that needs to be followed: every new team has to pay for itself and every other member in a conference. Nebraska joining the Big Ten did that with better games and a championship game. Maryland and Rutgers have the potential to do that with their large subscriber rates and alumni bases.
Forgive my ignorance of North Carolina’s sports climate, but I have a hard time understanding how Duke and North Carolina can offset the cost of bringing them onboard. Especially not when Florida State still roams around as a free agent.
LikeLike
I think Duke is potentially considerably more valuable to the SEC than to the BIG….
SEC can absorb a football celler dweller much easier than the BIG.
SEC benefits more from the academic rep.
SEC benefits more from having another basketball powerhouse….
What doesn’t make a lot of sense to me is why UNC would go to the SEC with Duke rather than VA.
LikeLike
Well, folks, believe whatever you like.
UNC+Duke is purportedly what the SEC wants. Probably what the B10 wants as well.
Mind you, that may not be what UNC wants. UNC, if they are going anywhere, may want to bring along NCSU AND Duke AND UVa. Institutionally, UNC HAS to take care of NCSU while they don’t have to do anything to assuage Duke or UVa.
As for Duke, remember that they are like the ND of college basketball (at least for now). They are one of the few college basketball teams that neutral fans will tune in to both root for and (mostly) against.
LikeLike
Duke needs UNC far more than UNC needs Duke, and Delany knows it. If the Big Ten gets first choice of ACC schools, Duke (and Georgia Tech) get in only in an 18-member scenario. If he can add only two more members, Virginia and UNC get first dibs.
LikeLike
Even in their own right, I have to imagine Duke is very valuable. The football isn’t worth anything, but their basketball on the Big Ten Network (or for the SEC) would be worth a lot. Not many other schools (even strong basketball schools) could reach that level. Even in the football driven world, I think Duke is an exception.
LikeLike
Agreed vp19.
If in fact AAU is a requirement, then that’s how the Big Ten would play it.
UVa/UNC as the preferred option.
UVa/UNC/Duke/Georgia Tech as the backup.
LikeLike
I see it differently. Duke adds more value to the B1G as it provides more big time basketball matchups that are better valued by BTN. Even if the networks grab Duke-UNC every year, as has already been mentioned, Duke-Illinois and Duke-MSU still have value. And even if the newtorks grab those, they will be leaving Illinois-MSU for the BTN. Bottom line is more high quality hoops is valued more by the B1G. Not to say that is a reason to add Duke, in fact I don’t like the academic fit, but to say they would be more valued by the SEC is wrong. I think to both conferences the real plum is UNC, and it comes down to the willingness to take Duke to get UNC.
LikeLike
Bottom line is more high quality hoops is valued more by the B1G. Not to say that is a reason to add Duke, in fact I don’t like the academic fit, but to say they would be more valued by the SEC is wrong. I think to both conferences the real plum is UNC, and it comes down to the willingness to take Duke to get UNC.
But from Delany’s perspective, getting Virginia and that state’s potential BTN subscribers probably has more value than a straight UNC/Duke combo to 16. Duke really needs the Big Ten to want Georgia Tech as well, so it would expand to 18, not 16. (And as stated earlier, 18 could work for football with a 9-game conference schedule, provided the East permanently consisted of Rutgers + the ACC five, the West of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin, and the six “central” teams of Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, Purdue and Indiana — divided as you will — floated between East and West in two-year cycles.)
LikeLike
As a side benefit, Duke would add a lot to B10 lacrosse. That’s a growing sport that will have value to the BTN. UNC adds to B10 soccer, which also has some value. Both are WBB powers, which also has value.
LikeLike
Yeah, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’d love to see Duke get relegated, but many people are vastly underestimating their value on the realignment front here. They are not a school that’s getting left behind – it is absolutely a school that’s in the top levels of the college sports power structure in the way that Stanford and Michigan are. If football prowess mattered, then the Big Ten wouldn’t have added Maryland and Rutgers. With Duke, you’re talking about an off-the-charts elite academic institution with a well-funded athletic department and a legit king (if not the Notre Dame equivalent) in basketball. A lot of people have talked themselves into adding schools with much worse credentials as being somehow more valuable.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but no one’s getting an invite over lacrosse or soccer. That’s a throw in, not a selling point.
I’m aware that Duke is arguably the most prestigious basketball program in the nation, but I never see any diehard Duke fans. Bandwagon fans are fine, but they’re not the type to demand the Big Ten Network and watch Duke wrestling.
I might not like North Carolina on a cultural basis, but they’re legitimately one of the king pieces in this game of chess. Duke seems interchangeable to me with a variety of other schools that are better fits and don’t overlap as much.
LikeLike
metatron,
“I’m sorry, but no one’s getting an invite over lacrosse or soccer. That’s a throw in, not a selling point.”
Could you at least try to argue against something I said?
The first words of my comment – “As a side benefit…” That in no way, shape or form resembles saying “they should get invited because of …”
“I’m aware that Duke is arguably the most prestigious basketball program in the nation, but I never see any diehard Duke fans.”
Try leaving IN. Duke alumni are spread nationally, and so are their fans. I’ve met plenty of them.
LikeLike
@Frank
I think a lot of it is not so much underestimating Duke’s value per se, but questioning Duke’s marginal value if you already have/are getting UNC.
For example, in absolute terms, FSU is more valuable than UVA or V-Tech but since the SEC already has Florida, they might more marginal value from one of the Virginia schools.
LikeLike
frug:
I think of Duke as being a lesser ND in that they don’t have a strong localized effect, but a dispersed national effect. Getting Duke bball probably helps (a tiny bit) to get the BTN on basic cable in NYC &, if GTech was added, would help get the BTN on basic cable in Atlanta, etc.
LikeLike
@Richard
I get that, but given the massive drain they would be on the FB side, Duke BB would have to be the thing that gets the BTN onto basic in NYC (i.e. there is no way the Big Ten gets into the market without them).
As for the overall point, while Duke may be the ND of CBB, remember that while ND is a national brand, its appeal isn’t uniformly dispersed. The largest portion of its fanbase (maybe even the outright majority) is located in the Midwest. Assuming the same is true for Duke but on a much smaller scale it is hard to imagine there being a critical mass of Duke fans in any area outside of North Carolina that push the BTN into any areas it wouldn’t already be.
The question then becomes does Duke help the national MBB contract more than it hurts the national FB contract, and it is tough to tell.
LikeLike
@Brian – IN? Indiana? I’ve only been to that God-forsaken state once. If you want to argue: Women’s basketball has no value.
As for Duke, I merely wondered aloud if they are indeed worth the cost of inviting them. If you note, I am one of the few ACC skeptics here. Frug sums up my feelings more eloquently.
LikeLike
Eh, the national contracts are about the top-tier (or upper-tier) games. I don’t think adding a non-factor in football would drain the football money that much.
I agree that the key is what Duke can deliver in basketball money, which comes in the form of TV money and NCAA units. I think that it would be a heck of a lot more if the power conferences split/threat to split from the NCAA to get as much of the MBB postseason pie as they do the CFB postseason pie. If that happens, Duke would become as valuable a property as ND. Note that more TV ad money is actually spent on MBB than on CFB. However, now, the NCAA only disperses a fraction of the NCAA tournament money to the conferences/teams that do best in it in the form of units.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Answers/Nine+points+to+consider_one
LikeLike
Well, IF Duke is added, by that time the conference would be at either 18 or 20 members. When you get to those numbers, prestige becomes more of a factor than athletic prowess. When you’re at 8 or 10 members then, yes, it helps to have as many strong programs as possible. That’s how the Big XII is still one of the more stronger conferences despite losing members. Beyond 12, then other factors take over, like market, academic prestige, content other than football, institutional fit, etc.. This is where a Duke becomes a more valuable prospect. National fanbase, AAU, a plus one with UNC.
Does the B1G really need 18 football kings? No, not really. The bigger concern would be if too many minnows are added, but that would be more of the concern of tOSU, UM than the rest of the conference. IU, Minn, NW just want to keep getting revenues and, ideally, be able to compete on a frequent basis. As long as the dollars make sense the conference is in a position of strength.
What I think is happening is that Delany is dangling the prospect of landing the AAU schools in three new states and, then, argue that they can then get to influence 4 more U.S. Senators by going into 2 additional states (SC and Fla.). The audience for this are the academics who have to approve the additions. At the same time, he’ll try to appease the t-shirt fans in stopping at 20 by taking 2 football-first schools who are in the growing states in the Southeast. If he can pull that off, Delany will be regarded as the most powerful and influential college conference commissioner in history.
LikeLike
Has anyone really given a substantial reason for why either Duke or North Carolina would want to leave?
LikeLike
metatron:
Same reason why all the other ACC schools want to leave.
1. Stability. A league where UVa & GTech would jump to the B10 at the first opportunity & FSU would jump to either the B10 or SEC at the first opportunity just isn’t that stable long-term. UNC would always have landing spot, but that’s definitely not true for Duke. Even UNC probably figures that it’s best to explore now (when it’s probably the most desired commodity of both the B10 & SEC) than trying to negotiate the best deal for itself after watching multiple ACC schools leave & both the B10 and SEC at 16 or 18 (and thus less likely to expand, as 20 is a hard limit with 12 football game seasons).
2. Money. A persistent revenue disadvantage vis-a-vis the B10 and SEC will add up over time. Especially later in the decade after the next B10 1st and 2nd tier TV contracts (when I expect each B10 school to get $30-$40M, or almost double all the TV money an ACC school will get, from that contract alone; add in the BTN money, and $40-$55M annually per school just in TV money isn’t outside the realm of possibility).
LikeLike
UNC is the stability. They are like Texas.
LikeLike
Except that they’re not. Texas saw 4 members leave its conference and was able and willing to hold the B12 together. However, because they are Texas, they are getting as much TV money as the B10 and SEC schools. Also, because they are Texas, they outearn every single other athletic department in the land, so $10M or so isn’t a big deal to them.
UNC is now 4th in athletic revenue in the ACC. They trail 8 B10 and 9 SEC schools in revenues. They literally make less than half as much money as Texas. They also don’t have and can’t start something like the LHN. So will they be happy being outdistanced by the B10, SEC, and other kings? How do you expect a school like that to provide stability?
LikeLike
Many of Dukes students come from the affluent northern New Jersey/New York City area. That is why they play a game in New York City every year. They will help a lot to get on basic in that area. Duke also has one of the most prestigious research hospitals in the country. Partnering with them on grants will help many BIG university hospitals.
UNC/Duke basketball is probably the most valuable non-football commodity in college athletics. They would be a major get for the BIG or SEC.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if UNC+Duke are on the top of the SEC’s wishlist and near the top of the Big Ten’s wishlist. The Big Ten took home about $15m in NCAA units, the ACC about $18m. AFIU, UNC and Duke’s units earned while in the ACC accrue to the ACC, but having them in Big Ten BB will increase the number of bids and increase the likelihood of runs, where a run all the way to the Final Four is worth $9m+ to the conference over the following six years. Ditto the SEC. Plus the Big Ten has a network and the SEC is looking to launch one, and strong basketball schools increase the quality of games left in the conference inventory once the strongest matchups have been taken by the first and second tier basketball contract(s).
Big Ten needs another King or another two Princes more than the SEC does, but the Big Ten is more constrained by the strong academic political bias to AAU institutions.
In terms of the same governance looking after UNC and NC State, the Big Ten might have an advantage in grabbing NC/Duke, since if they do, the SEC would surely look to take NC State to retain a share of the North Carolina market.
Plus, the Big Ten could launch a Lacrosse Championship!! Plus how much?? OK, plus extremely little, its just follow the flying ball filler for BTN, but for AD’s with YANRESH (Yet Another Non-REvenue Sport Headache), it would scratch one off.
LikeLike
@Richard – So you think this boils down to “keeping up with the Jonses”?
As long as they’re in the black, do you really think they could generate enough momentum to overcome alumni and state opposition to moving? Especially if the fan base decides if they want the SEC over the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I think the fan base of UNC desires for the SEC is overstated. It is true message boards prefer the SEC but message boards are not alumni and administrators, they are predominantly t-shirt fans. Their opinions are strictly athletic based and not what is best for the school. I think if you polled actual alumni of UNC who realize a Universiy is more than a basketball or football team, they would choose the BIG. I have no great love for the BIG and much prefer PSU’ s old rivals, but the BIG has been great for Penn State. There are those on PSU message boards who still cry for Penn State to the ACC but they are thinking with their t-shirts not diplomas.
UNC’s decision may ultimately reside in what is best for NC State. As mentioned before, they share a board. NC State options are limited. State will not get in the BIG without the AAU. They wouldn’t probably not get in the SEC if UNC goes there. However if the BIG takes UNC, it is possible that NC State would go to the SEC. If that is the case and the same people are looking out for both schools, UNC to the BIG and State to the SEC is way better than UNC to the SEC and State in some mix matched ACC or BIg12.
LikeLike
What PSUhockey said.
Those alumni who educate themselves on the issues would support a move to the B10.
Catering to the ignorant masses is almost never a smart long-term decision.
LikeLike
One thing nobody’s mentioned in this discussion—-Duke’s present basketball status is 90% the result of Ratface’s brilliance as a coach…..will the next Duke coach be able to capture the same magic? Not as automatic as Kansas, UK, UNC, IU I would think, because of Duke’s academic requirements….and relatively small natural fanbase. I think that 20 years from now it’s more certain Duke will be a celler dweller in football(in wharever conference) than a basketball king. If the next Duke coach is 80% as successful as Ratface, how valuable will Duke be in the long-run to the SEC or BIG?
LikeLike
Well, there is no risk-free add if there is ever one. Even the aformentioned football kings carry certain risks…like Penn State.
LikeLike
Those alumni who educate themselves on the issues would support a move to the B10.
Catering to the ignorant masses is almost never a smart long-term decision.
Agreed. Five weeks ago, when Maryland announced its move to the Big Ten, most fans in College Park were livid. Once they educated themselves and understood the many values of Big Ten membership, the views of many changed. About the only Terrapin fans who decry the move now are the one-dimensional basketball fanatics who are obsessed with Duke…and their number is declining.
I would fully expect the same reaction in Chapel Hill — whether or not Duke tags along.
LikeLike
Gophers, ugh, tough loss at the end!
So much for how great the B12 is and how bad the B1G is. Game could have easily been a win for the B1G.
As for Duke football the stands looked pretty empty for a school that had not gone to a bowl in about 20 years. As the bowl was played in NC they should have been able to sell well.
LikeLike
Except Tech was playing without a HC or OC. The gophers got beat by a o-line acting HC and an ex QB who has never called a game before. They were probably playing in front of a big “home” crowd though. In the end the superior athletes won.
The problem with Big12 teams is consistent defense – only OU and UT (circa Muschamp/Chizik) played defense well every week. Team 3-9 are usually all pretty much the same, spread offense no D.
LikeLike
Gopher’s were essentially two missed third down conversions (2 incomplete 3rd down passes) away from the victory… Overall, they played very well… just need to take that next step… put the game away when the opportunity is there… They just aren’t quite there yet.
RE: TTech… definitely had more overall team speed/talent. Definitely advantageous for the crowd to be a virtual home game—but, that’s been argued before, and will not go away… B1G (and other northern conf teams) just need to learn to win in less than “equal” settings.
Was a good game overall (minus the crazy un-sportsmanlike conducts–against both teams).
LikeLike
Well, they don’t call them the Goofers for nothing…….
Minnesota played hard, really hard, but there were definately some head-scratching offensive and defensive calls that last 7 minutes. A strategic genius Jerry Kill is not…..
In addition to playing w/o their head coach, Tech let Minny stay in the game with all their PF penalties…..and in the end Minny’s lack of athletic talent on D proved decisive. Not a disaster for the BIG but a “there you go again moment”……….
LikeLike
Maybe the PFs reflected the loss of the coach. I don’t remember Tech having that problem during the year. They were out of control.
LikeLike
Maybe you should save your comments until the Big 10 actually wins a bowl game. They are 0-1, Big 12 is 3-1 with two wins over ranked teams. TCU/MSU ought to be a good game.
LikeLike
So much for how great the B12 is and how bad the B1G is. Game could have easily been a win for the B1G.
Huh? How does one game prove that the Big 10 is underrated or the Big XII is overrated, especially when the Big XII team won?
LikeLike
@frug
“The question then becomes does Duke help the national MBB contract more than it hurts the national FB contract, and it is tough to tell.”
———————————————————————
I want to deal with this issue separately because it keeps coming up with respect to other schools and I’m not sure it’s ever been effectively dealt with…
Every school that is added to any conference that decreases rather than increases the number of marquee games is going to decrease the value of the national contract on the basis of decreasing the inventory of marquee national games.
Maryland/Rutgers do in fact decrease the odds that Nebraska and Michigan will play Ohio State and Penn State respectively as well as decreasing the odds that both schools will play Wisconsin in any given year.
But if a conference has enough marquee games lined up and can count on enough of its teams to be ranked, its national football contract won’t really lose value as a result of any single addition.
You really just need enough teams to be able to be ranked to provide value; look at the Big 12. They only have two kings and no princes, but they can create enough valuable inventory as long as enough teams are ranked and playing “games that matter”…
In fact, the worry should be that adding another 2 or 4 schools will severely enough decrease the odds that Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska/Wisconsin will see their non-annual rivals among each other.
But most of that effect occurs the most in going from 10 to 12 teams for conferences that add two non-national names to get there. See the Pac-12 which lost annual USC-Oregon, UCLA-Oregon tilts and saw the odds of those games being played drop to 50% from 100%.
After that, going from 12 to 14 is a lot less of a “shock” to the national TV contract because the decrease in odds isn’t that severe (in particular if a 9th game is added to the schedule, you get back most of the Wisconsin-Nebraska tilts that you lose for example).
Going from 14 to 18 though is a pretty big decrease in odds given just how rapidly the schedules will have to change (i.e. decrease the number of “annually tied up games” from the current 7 to say 5 or 6) to even continue to produce a few important tilts per team.
Your worry then should be that such a large increase in schools without any single one capable of consistently producing additional marquee games is going to dilute the national FB contracts on the whole.
Even then, I think a lot of these worries are misplaced. The marquee value of a set of games is dictated by several factors the most important of which is the ranks and circumstances of the teams that will enter those tilts.
The biggest threat to the Big Ten’s future national football contracts are the Penn State situation along with the questionmarks as to how high schools like Nebraska and Wisconsin can “peak” in this day and age given recruiting constraints and the like.
LikeLike
zeek:
“… along with the question marks as to how high schools like Nebraska and Wisconsin can “peak” …”
Calling Nebraska and Wisconsin “high schools” is a little harsh, don’t you think? 🙂
LikeLike
The issue is where the additions hit the inventory. Tier 1 would be the “brands” and that content is not owned by the BTN or future SECN. It seems like the value of non brands is in Tier II and Tier III were it is more a question of content and filler. While adding Rutgers and Maryland will probably add no top line value in terms of marquee games and national demand they could have a solid add of inventory with regional demand. Here is where the value of single state schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Missouri, Colorado, Utah all meant value to the conferences they joined. To me the issue is the second school added to a conference and the market cannibalization that results. Look at it state by state where schools are less stable :
The Big 4 – States with populations of 19 million or more
#1 CA = USC, UCLA, Cal, and Stanford already in PAC
#2 TX = TAMU already in SEC / UT, TCU, BU, and TT already in B12
UT = #1 —- Most value to B1G, PAC, or 4th conference, and least to SEC
#3 NY = Syracuse, Army, and Buffalo where none own the state
#4 FL = UF already in SEC
FSU = #2 & UM = #3 —- Most value to B1G or 4th conference, and least to SEC
.
.
.
The next 8 – States with at least 8 million people
#1 IL = Illinois and Northwestern already in B1G
#2 PA = Penn State already in B1G
Pitt = #2 —- Most value to PAC, SEC, or 4th conference, and least to B1G
#3 OH = Ohio State already in B1G
UC = #2 —- Most value to SEC, or 4th conference, and least to B1G or PAC
#4 GA = Georgia already in SEC
GT = #2 —- Most value to B1G or 4th conference, and least to SEC or PAC
#5 MI = Michigan and Michigan State already in B1G
#6 NC = All teams are on thin ice but taking pairs means limitations
UNC = #1 —- Most value to B1G, SEC, or 4th conference, and least to PAC
NCST = #2 —- Most value to SEC, or 4th conference, and least to PAC or B1G
Duke = #3 —- Most value to B1G, or 4th conference, and least to PAC or SEC
#7 NJ = Rutgers already in B1G (announced but not final)
#8 VA = All teams are on thin ice but taking pairs means limitations
UVA = #1 —- Most value to B1G, SEC, or 4th conference, and least to PAC
VT = #2 —- Most value to SEC, or 4th conference, and least to B1G or PAC
.
.
.
The next 6 – States with at least 6 million people
#1 WA = Washington and Washington State already in PAC
#2 MA = Boston College and Umass – The question is if they bring enough value
#3 AZ = Arizona and Arizona State already in PAC
#4 IN = Indiana and Purdue already in B1G
ND = #1 —- The Irish would be considered by everybody
#5 TN = Tennessee and Vanderbilt already in SEC
#6 MO = Missouri already in SEC
.
.
.
The next 8 – States with at least 4 million people
#1 MD = Maryland already in B1G (announced but not final)
#2 WI = Wisconsin already in B1G
#3 MN = Minnesota already in B1G
#4 CO = Colorado already in PAC
#5 AL = Alabama and Auburn already in SEC
#6 SC = South Carolina already in SEC
CU = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to B1G, SEC, and PAC
#7 LA = Louisiana State already in SEC
TU = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to B1G, SEC, and PAC
#8 KY = Kentucky already in SEC
UL = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to B1G, SEC, and PAC
.
.
.
After that is gets more on school and less on population
OR = Oregon and Oregon State already in PAC
OK = All teams are on thin ice but taking pairs means limitations
OU = #1 —- Most value to PAC, SEC, or 4th conference, and least to B1G
OSU = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to PAC or SEC
CT = Uconn has sports but the question is the national demand
Uconn = #1 —- Most value to B1G or 4th conference, and least to SEC or PAC
OSU = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to PAC or SEC
IA = Iowa already in B1G
ISU= #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to B1G, PAC or SEC
MS = Mississippi and Mississippi State already in SEC
AR = Arkansas already in SEC
KS = All teams are on thin ice but taking pairs means limitations
KU = #1 —- Most value to B1G, PAC, SEC, or 4th conference
KSU = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to B1G, PAC or SEC
UT = Utah already in PAC
BYU = #2 —- Most value to 4th conference, and least to B1G, PAC or SEC
NV = Nevada and UNLV but value is questionable
NM = New Mexico and New Mexico State but value is questionable
NE = Nebraska already in B1G
WV = West Virginia probably only has value in 4th conference
.
The remaining states have limited population and –0– brands
The issue to me has been once you pass the first school in a state how big of a bang do you get for the next one? For the sake of the argument I will limit expansion at this point to 16 teams and a fourth conference (The Big Uneasy) that will be formed to calm the lesser children in the ACC + Big12 + Big East + ?? When folks say the B1G at 18, 20, 22, or 24 I feel it means the SEC is doing the same and you are getting to fewer conferences because nobody wants extra mouths to feed. It really could be a day when it is the B1G 32 and the SEC 32 and they own the D I FBS market space.
If 1 NC school winds up in the B1G, then 1 probably winds up in the SEC
If 1 VA school winds up in the B1G, then 1 probably winds up in the SEC
If the B1G goes south (say GT) , then the SEC may go north (say Pitt)
In short it will be an action and reaction game until the pieces have moved and the board shifts to a different set of rules. It took a solid decade before SEC membership began to shift the fortunes from Clemson to South Carolina and it took another decade for the Gamecocks to move ahead. When I see bloggers thinking it will be a quick fix I know they are just looking at the short time and not really looking at the long term windows. Adding Maryland from the ACC and getting a BTN foothold will not be same as adding Georgia Tech and battling with Georgia / SEC fans in the state of Georgia.
Early on Frank (B1G) + Mr SEC (SEC) + Wilner (PAC) had good discussion coupled with solid research and the debates were much better grounded. Now that Chip Brown and “The Dude” have joined the fray it has spun off on wild tangents and created fear and disorder while folks steered the conversation into feudal kingdoms based on their own school colors and what they knew around them. Here at FtT we had early input from Vincent and Richard on ACC stuff and the discussion on here between the UT and TAMU folks have been most enlightening. While I hope the new year brings back more moderate discussion I feel that point may have passed. What I would like to revisit in the new year is Frank’s math which seems to have been lost in the past year or so.
11 + 1 = 13
maybe update it to :
14 + 2 = 18
Perhaps then we can get a feel of who really (if anybody) moves the needle enough to go past 16? As far as I can see only about 6 teams not in the B1G, PAC, or SEC really have any movement power so what they do will be the most telling of the future realignments.
#1 Notre Dame
#2 Texas
#3 North Carolina
#4 Oklahoma
#5 Florida State
#6 Kansas
LikeLike
Of the six you listed, FSU and UNC are the most “gettable” for the B1G. You take FSU and you take one of the more coveted schools from the Big XII. No way will they be “nice” and give up Kansas. At that point, they’d rather merge with the PAC than give up one of their own, except maybe a couple to the SEC to make the numbers work, being that the SEC is their main bowl partner. Each of the Big Other 2 conferences gets what it wants: The PAC finally gets content in the Central Time Zone and eastwards; the Big XII gains California as a new recruiting ground to off-set the pressure on state of Texas recruiting and, thereby, spreading the risk around a much larger geographical area. Each of them also has a Grant of Rights, which protects them from being poached by other conferences, which gives them leverage in negotiations.
This would not happen until the B1G and SEC go past the magical 16 number but a big third conference is much stronger in dealing with the other two than two smaller conferences.
Also, why UConn over Clemson? Not that I mind UConn, for that gets them in a more solid position in the NY Tri-State area and New England. But just because the Gamecocks are now the main program in SC does not mean that Clemson has no value to the B1G. Whoever is doing that assessment is being shortsighted. If you draw a line from Atlanta, through the SC Midlands including Greenville, all the way to Charlotte, you’re hitting a good amount of people. Lots of Clemson fans in that area. And rabid about football as well. Pair it up with FSU and you’d finally have a strong position to counteract the natural advantages the SEC enjoys in recruiting. It’s so obvious except for the elitists and homer-type fans.
LikeLike
The issue with Clemson is twofold
#1 They are not AAU
#2 They must share the state
Clemson turned down the SEC in the early 90’s and South Carolina took their spot. Like Georgia and Georgia Tech the B1G would not enter the state as #1 and would have to build their position. Being a B1G above the Mason Dixon means being in the majority while being south means the minority position. Clemson may already be past their golden era and would need help getting stronger.
Uconn is like Louisville in that they took a whole lot of nothing and have made some of the biggest strides entering the mid level with a shot at the top. Uconn not only has their state but can bleed into surrounding states. They also were ground zero for ESPN to built its empire. Uconn is the one you are adding as a future bet more than what their past holds.
On the GoR, I may be the cynic, but if I think Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas decide to call it quits that GoR isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Also, with all the FOIA requests you think a state school would have had a contract surface to be reviewed by all. If one has and I missed it then my bad but I can not remember seeing one yet. At this point we are just going on peoples words which have reasons to push their stance.
LikeLike
Duffer….U Conn plays in a 40,000 seat football stadium…..I couldn’t see the BIG ever going after them without a commitment to expand to 55,000. Also, I believe U Conn is non-AAU, which is a killer if there are other options available.
But I would say I’d take U Conn 10x before I’d take BC….I know there’s been a little smoke aboput BC lately, but I’d be completely shocked if they ever made it to the BIG, other than as a demand from ND……..
LikeLike
@duff
Schools go out of their way to make sure that conference contracts aren’t subject to FOIA.
I know that the ACC goes so far as banning schools from even having copies of the conference contracts (either electronic or hard copies) on campus. If administrators want to actually read them they have to physically travel to the conference headquarters and are not allowed to record or remove them.
LikeLike
shroom,
You are correct in where I was heading. With all the press about BC I just do not get it? Uconn seems unlikely yet they still seem well ahead of Boston College.
Watching the UK loss today it seemed like a good time for the Tan One to approach Rick and swap the Cards for the Cats in the border war rival. Now the Cards will be in the ACC it would become a B1G vs ACC game.
LikeLike
Exchange Rick for Cal? Why not…you’re just dealing with a different species of snake……
More on the BC thing……..BC’s exactly like ND, absent 90 years of hype. If ND wants nothing to do with the BIG because it’s so much different than any BIG school, why would the BIG want anything to do with BC? It’s all the headache of ND, without any of the upside. BC’s unlike any BIG school, even NW.
Back to basketball….it sure sucked to see TC get outcoached again by Brad S. (who, by the way, HAS to be the next Duke coach). I’ve had nagging doubts about TC all along….I hope he doesn’t f### things up.
LikeLike
@ duffman – UConn/FSU or UConn/Miami could work for #’s 19 and 20
LikeLike
Vincent and Richard on ACC stuff and the discussion on here between the UT and TAMU folks have been most enlightening. While I hope the new year brings back more moderate discussion I feel that point may have passed. What I would like to revisit in the new year is Frank’s math which seems to have been lost in the past year or so.
11 + 1 = 13
maybe update it to :
14 + 2 = 18
Perhaps then we can get a feel of who really (if anybody) moves the needle enough to go past 16?
First, thanks for the compliment. Second, I’d have to say that for Delany, UVa, UNC, Duke and GT might be that 14 + 2 = 18 home run in that it forces the SEC to settle for N.C. State rather than UNC (VT would go SEC in any instance).
LikeLike
This is why I think the B1G is making a big mistake if AAU is considered the most important criterion in expansion. My thought in my previous post was that Delany could use an addition of 4 AAU schools to smooth the entry of 2 non-AAU schools who are football-first programs in 2 growing states in the SE. It’s not that academics doesn’t matter. It does. However, the elitists would have to give in a bit if the B1G is going to properly plan for the future and not hold too strongly on a model that’s really a way of sucking in federal dollars and not much to do with academic achievement.
LikeLike
Good point Zeek. Going from 14 to 18 actually wouldn’t decrease the total number of annual king-king and king-prince matchups for the Tier I TV contract that much if you use my 6-pods-of-3 way of scheduling.
Counting Wisconsin, MSU, & UNC as princes (based on performance, Iowa would be a prince, but they aren’t to TV execs because IA just doesn’t have enough people), right now, you can promise these annual games:
King-King (4):
Michigan-OSU
PSU-OSU
PSU-UNL
Michigan-UNL
King-Prince (4):
Michigan-MSU
UNL-MSU
PSU-Wisconsin
OSU-Wisconsin
With my 6-pods-of-3 setup (assuming UNC, Duke, UVa, and GTech are added):
King-King:
Michigan-OSU
PSU-OSU
King-Prince:
Michigan-MSU
UNL-Wisconsin
UNL-UNC
PSU-UNC
Obviously, however, the number increases substantially if FSU, Miami, VTech, and UVa were added instead.
Then:
King-King:
Michigan-OSU
PSU-OSU
King-Prince:
Michigan-MSU
UNL-Wisconsin
UNL-VTech
PSU-VTech
UNL-Miami
FSU-Miami
and a total of 13-15 marquee (king-king or king-prince) games a year.
LikeLike
OK, I’ve worked it out. With my 6 pods of 3:
A: OSU, IU, PU
B: Michigan, MSU, Illinois
C: Minny, Wisconsin, Northwestern
D: Iowa, Nebraska, GTech
E: UVa, UNC, Duke
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-GTech
Minny-Iowa
PU-UMD
IU-Rutgers
Michigan UNC
MSU Duke
Illinois UVa
These seasons would feature PSU-UNL, OSU-PSU, OSU-Michigan, PSU-UNC, UNL-UNC, Wisconsin-UNL, Michigan-Wisconsin, OSU-Wisconsin, Michigan-MSU, & OSU-MSU (10 guaranteed marquee games).
The next 2 years:
Michigan-OSU
Nebraska-UNC
Iowa-UVa
MSU-IU
Illinois-PU
GTech-Duke
Wisconsin PSU
Northwestern Rutgers
Minny UMD
Guaranteed top games: Michigan-UNL, OSU-PSU, Michigan-OSU, Michigan-Wisconsin, UNL-Wisconsin, Michigan-MSU, UNL-MSU, OSU-UNC, PSU-UNC, & UNL-UNC (10 guaranteed marquee games).
The next 2 years:
PSU-UNC
MSU-Wisconsin
Illinois-Northwestern
UMD-UVa
Michigan-Minny
Rutgers-Duke
OSU Nebraska
PU GTech
IU Iowa
Guaranteed top games:
OSU-Michigan, OSU-PSU, PSU-Michigan, OSU-MSU, Michigan-MSU, PSU-MSU, UNL-Wisconsin, UNL-UNC, PSU-UNC (9 guaranteed marquee games).
With 14 schools, if you just slot RU and UMD in to the existing divisions, you’d have the 4 permanent king-king matchups and 4 permanent king-prince matchups. With 9 conference games, you’ll average another king-king matchup 2/3rds of the time and an extra 1 & 1/3rd king-prince matchups for a total of 10 king-king or king-prince matchups. About the same number as with 18 schools. Play 8 conference games, and the extra matchups are reduced by half, so you’d have 9 king-king or king-prince games; less than with 18 schools.
Of course, you’d have a ton more if you added FSU, Miami, VTech, & UVa instead. Counting Miami as only a prince, not a king, but MSU as a prince, you’d have 14-17 king-king or king-prince games a year.
LikeLike
Six pods of three? A bit too brittle and unwieldy, thank you. Better you have six permanent East members (e.g., Rutgers + the ACC five), six permanent West members (the schools in the Central time zone), and float Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan and Indiana between east and west for two-year home-and-home cycles, with a 9-game conference schedule.
LikeLike
The schools would not be treated “equally”, so I don’t know if they’d go for it. Otherwise, it’s an intriguing idea with a few tweaks.
Rotating pods:
Michigan-MSU-PU
OSU-PSU-IU
A bit more balanced, and this way, Michigan & OSU are still split up so that every B10 school gets one or the other.
Also, certain schools would never play each other. That may not fly.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m certain that would not fly.
LikeLike
@vp19
The WAC tried that when they expanded 16, and it was a disaster because the two inner and two outer divisions never played each other. It was what actually caused the MWC schools to split off.
LikeLike
If I trotted out that as an alternative to six, three team groups, it would be to make the rotating group approach look better by comparison to permanently relegating six of the current members of the Big Ten to second class citizen status in terms of access to growing regions added to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech? I’m sure Nebraska and Iowa will be thrilled…
LikeLike
It does give those schools recruiting opportunities down south & demographics are a big reason for expansion. Iowa still gets to play UNL & Minny annually & Wisconsin 2/3rds of the time.
UNL still has Iowa and Wisconsin as 2 annual games that could become big time rivalries.
LikeLike
Of course, adding FSU, Miami, UVa, and VTech would work much better for football.
UNL would get Wisconsin, Iowa, Miami, & VTech as annual games.
Iowa would get long-time rival Minny as well as UNL & Miami as annual games (and Wisconsin 2/3rds of the time).
LikeLike
Going to 18 also means, instead of 1 6th place team in a 12 team league, you have 4 6th-9th place teams. Going to divisions keeps more teams in the race than a single division league. Going to 18, however, means you have a lower % of teams in the race and therefore, fewer attractive games as a % of the total.
LikeLike
Hmm. The B10 when they had 10 & 11 members and the SEC when they had 10 members didn’t seem to have problems attracting TV viewers.
LikeLike
Rice football is on ESPN and Duke basketball gets relegated to ESPN2. I guess that demonstrates all we need to know about the relative value of the two sports in tv negotiations.
LikeLike
@loki
I believe ESPN is required to televise on it’s primary, one owl mascoted team per year. Is there any way the B1G can retroactively add Rice and SMU so we might simultaneously add Texas, the state, to the B1G, plus win some bowl games? IMO, New years day is going to be one long depressing day for B1Ger fans.
Happy New Year and thankyou to Frank and the many posters on Frank’s blog.
LikeLike
Yes, indeed, a college football bowl game in a made for ESPN bowl trumps regular season basketball. Not sure that tells us “all we need to know” about the aggregate value of football relative to basketball.
LikeLike
It’s going to be really interesting to see what happens if Boise State opts to stay in the Mountain West. If they do, San Diego State stays, too. The next question will be whether SMU and Houston go on to the Big East Football Conference or to the Mountain West.
My gut says that SMU and Houston stick with their current plans. Distance-wise, the Big East still has slight advantages since Tulane and Memphis are closer than anyone in the MWC. For pure costs of travel, the Big East would also have more airports offering direct flights, and therefore reducing travel time. I would expect that the Big East’s TV money will be slightly more than the MWC. It wouldn’t be enough of a difference for western teams like Boise and SDSU to deal with the travel headaches and splitting of sports into separate leagues, but for teams in Texas, it would still be better to be in the more eastern-based league.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe SMU and Houston see more likelihood of stability in membership for the MWC and decide to follow Boise over there. In that case, the Big East Football Conference would be down to these schools:
UConn
Temple
Navy (football only)
East Carolina (presumably for all sports)
UCF
USF
Cincinnati
Memphis
Tulane
What would the league do then? Obviously, members would clamor to get into the ACC, but let’s assume that’s not an option. Would the league add more Texas schools, such as Rice or UTSA? Would it add any MAC schools, whether they’re in the Midwest like Miami (OH) or NIU or in the Northeast like UMass? Would they try to bolster basketball with non-football schools by picking up those the Big East Basketball Conference doesn’t get, like VCU or Richmond?
Man, what a mess it is regardless of what they do. There was a time when Big East members may have been open to leaving, but they were mostly happy with the league they were in. Syracuse and UConn, in particular, were truly pleased to be in the Big East and had no reason to actively look elsewhere. Now everyone is either leaving with relief, dying to leave, or just very disappointed tthat the league they’re joining is barely better than the one they had been in before joining.
LikeLike
You’ve pinpointed the biggest issue. Boise State is holding everything together.
LikeLike
UMass is not exactly tearing through the MAC, and the core Ohio/Michigan schools are all $20mish programs with no ambitions to be substantially bigger. So I’d expect it would be NIU if anyone from the MAC, and no idea how they would weigh the travel costs to Texas / Louisiana vs the mini-exposure in Texas and Florida.
LikeLike
Not that there is any realignment smoke coming from Kansas, but I thought I’d share this graphic from the latest KU Alumni Association report:
LikeLike
Those kinds of graphics are cool to see. Would love to see more of those from schools; they give so much information.
Typically, they also indicate where students are coming from as well in the sense that the schools get out-of-state students in similar places that their alumni reside in terms of density.
LikeLike
So, has the Upper Peninsula of Michigan been annexed by Canada or something?
LikeLike
They all go to Yooper U.
LikeLike
Looks like KU needs to beef up on basic geography.
LikeLike
Yoopers are not officially recognized by the State of Kansas.
LikeLike
KU and Duke alum?
You’d have to attend one/several of IU, UK, or UNC next if so.
LikeLike
I was thinking UCLA; it’d be a nice excuse to get out the west coast.
LikeLike
So KU sends grads to KS (the most by far) and MO. Then some to TX, CA, & IL. Then pretty much nowhere else.
LikeLike
Colorado and Illinois are big hubs, as well. The Missouri count is deceptive, because so many alums are in Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri.
When I went there, the big out of state draws were from St. Louis, Dallas, Denver, Chicago and Minneapolis. Some folks go back to their roots, and some native Kansans go to where the professional jobs are (big cities out of state).
LikeLike
Yep, I counted IL. Missed CO.
LikeLike
I’ve consistently scored poorly in reading comprehension. 🙂
LikeLike
Congrats to Rice on a very nice win today over Air Force.
Am betting Wyoming enjoyed Rice throwing the bomb TD with less than 2 minutes left.
LikeLike
A falcon, towering in her pride of place, was by a mousing owl hawk’d at and kill’d.
Macbeth
LikeLike
yay loki!
congrats on the win
LikeLike
If I were a Wyoming fan, I’d be more concerned about the character of my head football coach, than any football score.
LikeLike
I’m amazed at how tribal I’ve become in regard to the B1G pride. Ten years ago I would have always rooted for OSU’s opponent. Same for MSU. But tonight I find myself all in for Sparty. Part of it is the drubbing the conference has taken the last few years (a rising tide lifts all boats) but also how nationalized CFB has become. Minnesota’s loss last night was was unfortunate. Let’s hope MSU even us up tonight.
LikeLike
Wow, either we need an edit option, or I need to lay off the Dirty Bastard (beer).
LikeLike
Whoa, whoa. Let’s not do anything drastic.
That’s a pretty tasty beer.
LikeLike
It’s a bit too hardcore for me to drink all the time, but the Founders Brewery is in my back yard, …so when in Rome!
LikeLike
Nowadays, SOS and the like have become important as far as conference perception is concerned.
As far as Minnesota’s game went, I was really impressed with how well prepared they were (until that final two minutes anyways).
LikeLike
Being an IU fan….I’ve had to adopt rooting for all the BIG schools by default.
One thing I’ve noticed about BIG schools over the years…..for the most part they take these bowl games, even the crappy ones, seriously. The BIG schools are often underdogs because our bowl lineup is better than our teams….and we’re always playing away from home…This year MINN and MSU have both played very hard…if not especially well. The team I do worry about this year is Nebraska…..they seem awfully fragile emotionally…..hope we don’t see a complete meltdown there.
How about MSU pulling that game out? Very entertaining game to watch……..
LikeLike
I can’t believe Michigan State overcame their apocalyptic demographic demise to win.
LikeLike
@ jj,
Sparty on my good man, Sparty on!
Beat Texas before christmas, and TCU after christmas.
.
…
.
@ Brian,
The B12 vs the B1G so far….
Gophers lose by 3 to Texas Tech in a game played in Texas
Sparty beat TCU by 1 in a game played in Arizona
Boilers still have yet to play Oklahoma State in Texas
I stand by my rants for the previous year that the B12 was over rated and the B1G was under rated. While Baylor beat down UCLA the folks at Syracuse evened the scale with their beat down of West Virginia. The other three games were won or lost by less than a field goal on average. I am happy to accord the B12 a spot of good teams but so far none have shown themselves as great (KSU or OU still have not played their games) much less the entire conference as a whole. I still say the conference as a whole playing 3 cupcake OOC games creates more media love than the B12 has earned on the field.
With Ohio State and Penn State out of the post season both conferences are playing with 10 teams and the B1G is not using their 2 best teams to represent them yet the B1G is holding its own.
LikeLike
So 7-5 Syracuse, one of 4 co-champs of the BE, wins easily over 7-5 WVU, tied for 5th-8th in the Big 12, in the snow in New York and that is equalivalent of Baylor, tied for 5th-8th in the Big 12, winning easily over #17 UCLA, winners of the Pac 12 South, in San Diego. Right.
And of course, beating higher rated teams, AP #15 and #17 from the Pac 12, means the Big 12 is beating cupcakes because its just the Pac 12.
LikeLike
bullet,
My argument has been the B12 is more average than special since they lost 4 of their Top 6 teams all time. The media and computer folks like Sagarin act like everybody is exceptional except for Kansas. I say they have a good team like Kansas State this year and a bad team like Kansas and the rest are average. They play weak OOC and rack up enough wins to get into bowls but they are not this power conference of 9 Top 30 teams and 1 Top 100 team. I just do not buy what the media folks sell. In case you are unaware it snows in West Virginia a lot so it should not be unfamiliar to them and they should not use it as a crutch.
As much as everybody ran the Big east down they curbed stomped 2 of their bowl opponents and had a 3rd on the ropes till the final quarter of the game. The difference is they actually played some solid OOC games in addition to their conference schedule. Just compare Syracuse to West Virginia this season :
Syracuse
Lost by 1 point to Northwestern (B1G) who is playing in the Gator Bowl (Jan 1 game)
Lost in a game that changed with the weather delay to Southern Cal (PAC)
Lost @ Minnesota (B1G)
Won @ Missouri (SEC)
Beat a FCS school
West Virginia
Won @ home against a 4-8 Maryland team
Beat a 5-7 CUSA team and a FCS school at home
.
…
.
Syracuse played 4 AQ’s (2 on the road and a 3rd at a neutral site)
3 of these schools made bowl games
West Virginia played 1 AQ at home against a sub .500 ACC team
0 of these schools made bowl games
The B12 played 2 games total OOC against Top 25 teams (Notre Dame and Northern Illinois) and lost both contests. Texas Tech and Texas both got virtual home games for their bowls and yet neither dominated their OOC opponents in said bowl games. Kansas State and Oklahoma can still make statements with their games but so far I am unimpressed.
LikeLike
Bullet, I have given up on trying to reason with duff on this issue. He is the Unskewed Polls of CFB, right down to his template he posted every week containing the words “polls are skewed”.
Instead of looking at data and then reaching a decision, he simply assumes any data that disagrees with his personal bias is incorrect and gets angry when he is called out for doing so.
LikeLike
duffman, the arguments this season were over who was the 2nd best conference behind the SEC.
As far as that rubber match goes, you have to give the edge to the Big 12, an unranked Baylor at 4-5 taking down #17 UCLA and #23 Texas taking down #13 Oregon State are probably the best indications of which way that one goes.
The Big Ten’s issue was non-conference losses in the regular season. Far too many for the conference to really come out looking respectable early on, the teams had their chances against Pac-12 foes and the like and dropped most of their opportunities.
It says something when basically all the marquee wins were owned by Northwestern (Syracuse, Vanderbilt, BC) or Ohio State (Cal).
Meanwhile there were tons of losses all-around. Not that all of them were bad losses; I mean Michigan lost to #1 and #2 in their non-conference, but many of them were (Iowa, Penn State, etc.) when you look at how the season went…
LikeLike
Michigan State had a good non-conference win against Boise State, but I’m not really sure whether they were underrated or not.
They were 6-6 heading into that game with a 3-5 record in the Big Ten.
Maybe it’s all the close losses that affected them and Wisconsin, but it just felt like those two teams came out on the wrong end of a lot of close games and that’s why their records are what they are.
It was good to see how well Minnesota and Michigan State played, but I’m not really sure it proves anything…
LikeLike
Lots of odd coaching decisions tonight. MSU’s QBs wilted under pressure all night and Patterson never called a blitz in the 4th quarter. The MSU punter nailed his punts without any pressure and they never even sent one guy to rush him-he shanked the one time he was rushed at all (and that one great punt that got fumbled cost TCU the game). TCU kept running up the middle on short yardage when MSU was repeatedly stuffing them (the strength of their defense) and the short passes were working consistently. OSU’s Riley didn’t use his last timeout vs. Texas to get 2 or 3 more plays and didn’t take the 1st half holding penalty that would have pushed Texas out of FG range, instead of giving them a 40 yard shot.
I guess with all those close losses, MSU was due for some breaks. I don’t know how that one play wasn’t intentional grounding in the end zone. Should have been a safety. He was still in the pocket, not outside the tackle box. And then they got the fumble on the 4 when they weren’t able to drive the ball. They also managed to hurt the TCU QB’s leg and have him limping the entire 2nd half.
It looked like both the TCU and MSU FGs would have been good from over 60 yards. Haven’t seen as many good FG kickers this year.
LikeLike
Duffer…I thought of your ravings watching MINN and MSU play….I hought you were completely nuts at the time….now I think you’re just half nuts…..
LikeLike
I think Zeke’s right……I do, however, agree that the 12 weren’t as good as some of their advocates maintained……I knew that after watching a mediocre ND team go to OK and kick their ass………
LikeLike
Notre Dame is ranked #1, you know?
Now I don’t think there are any great teams this year, but that remark wins odd comment of the month (even more so if you actually watched the game, which OU was in until late in the 4th).
LikeLike
ND is a fraud. The refs stole the Pitt game from Pitt with a riduculous PI call on 4th down when Pitt was leading by 13. No way in hell ND wins that game w/o that call. Or without the kicker’s shank on the 35 yd FG to win the game. Also, anyone who saw the BYU and Stanfors games knows ND shouldn’t be #1.
That said, they completely kicked OK’s ass……..it was obvious ND would win that game from midway through the 3rd period on.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten’s issues this year on offense (in particular) are really what set it back.
There was plenty of respectable (and in many cases elite) defense being played, but the lack of good offensive play, especially at the QB position, set a lot of teams back.
LikeLike
With MSU, I really think it was a lack of WRs which is the big issue, not the QBs….I think both of their QBs are pretty athletic and throw a good ball……yes, the QBs are inexperienced and subject to some bad judgment calls, but they were having to throw into some damn tight windows against TCU to get any completions….
LikeLike
It may not be nuts as much as pissed off when folks run down the B1G when they have some solid teams that are just as good as teams and other conferences yet the media acts like they are this sad group of has been football teams. It is one of the few hot button issues with me so I probably push back harder than I normally would on most other issues. Michigan State and Minnesota have shown they are teams capable of playing solid games. While they were not blowing away the other teams, they were not getting blown out either.
Young kids being recruited see the talking heads and all the press the B12 gets. I just do not want the B1G to be left out when they are a formidable foe.
LikeLike
Kansas was winless in the Big 12 and lost 5 games by a TD or less. Not getting blown out doesn’t mean you are good. And Minnesota did lose by 18 to Iowa, 25 to Wisconsin, 22 to Michigan and 24 to Nebraska. Given, as Zeke said, the difficulty many B1G teams had moving the ball, those were huge blowouts. Nebraska got annihilated by Wisconsin and Ohio St. Because MSU lost 6 games by a combined 32 points doesn’t mean they were better than Nebraska who had 3 losses for a combined 70 points.
LikeLike
Computers and voters alike absolutely love teams that beat-up schedules of cupcakes. With so little quality OOC match-ups, its really hard for both the computers and voters to rank these teams fairly. One voter even admitted he ordered teams by losses before sorting them…
OOC match-ups need a huge step-up across the board. I know everyone has their conference schedule and wants to host as many home games as possible but M played @ND and played a neutral site game vs Alabama.
LikeLike
Comment from Missouri AD Mike Alden in today’s Columbia Tribune article where he talks about realignment.
Here is an excerpt:
Q: Since Missouri announced it was going to the SEC, we’ve seen the Big Ten, the Big 12 and the ACC add schools, and the Big East has lost a bunch. What changes have caught your eye or surprised you?
A: I don’t know that if there have been any that really surprised me too much. You and me may have talked about this, but I know when we first made our move on Nov. 6 — 13 months ago — I said, “This isn’t over. There’s going to be more coming.” I don’t know that it surprised me that Maryland or Rutgers did what they did (by going to the Big Ten) or whoever else had made the moves. I guess my only thought on that is I think there’s more coming. It’s not over. The Big East is at a real, real disadvantage right now for them to be able to regroup and be at the same level as some of the other leagues. But I still think there are schools continuing to try to line themselves up with like institutions.
Q: I guess right now it looks like there are five leagues that are going to be left standing. Do you think they will all survive or will there end up being four super conferences, like many people predict?
A: I think you’re going to see 60 to 70 schools at some level be in some type of alignment within the NCAA structure. Whether that means four conferences or five conferences or a consortium of schools, I think that’s where you’re going to end up. I think if I did the math — and I did that this morning — there’s probably about 65 schools that are within the ACC, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the SEC and the Pac-12. I think there still might be a couple of more. How that ultimately plays out, is it going to be conferences or a kind of consortium type of group? I’m not sure exactly what’s going to happen. But I do think there’s a real possibility that 60 to 70 schools line up and are seen almost as a different division within the NCAA.
Q: Do you see the Big East basketball schools going off on their own and forming a new conference as a smart move for them?
A: I think it’s the only move for them. What does it mean from a profit standpoint? I think there’s certainly a lot of value with a basketball-playing league and a basketball-playing school, but the data would suggest that the real money is associated with the football side of things. But for the Big East schools saying they’re going to line up with like-minded schools, I think that could be a good move for them. I think there could be some revenue generated. How much, though, that’s to be seen. When you look at television opportunities, the big numbers are associated with football.
Q: I realize there’s always been conference realignment, but do you think this condensed era of realignment will ultimately be viewed as a good, bad or indifferent thing for college athletics?
A: I think it’s a good thing overall for college athletics, because I do think it allows those 60 to 70 schools that really see themselves as like institutions that not only compete against themselves athletically but almost see themselves academically aligned in a lot of different ways — I think it finally puts those institutions in an arena where everybody, for the most part, has always known they’ve been. But this gives us — gives them — the ability to make like decisions. I think that’s good for college athletics.
When I used to be at Texas State, we were always looking at: How can we be like “them”? Well, the reality of that is, the chances of us ever being like “them,” there was probably never, ever a chance of that. So it really gives all the other institutions that continue to try to elevate themselves at whatever cost an opportunity to step back and focus their attention more on like institutions.
Q: At Missouri, one big concern about leaving the Big 12 is that now the rivalry with Kansas is over. How much do you still hear from fans who are concerned about that, and do you sense there’s any softening of Kansas’ position about not playing Missouri again?
A: I still hear from our fans on that. We really hope that there will be an opportunity for us to renew that rivalry. I don’t know about Kansas’ perspective, and I wouldn’t want to speak for them. My hope would be at some point they’ll see this as an opportunity to compete against a like institution in one of the great rivalries. Hopefully, we’ll be able to get it back again. I do hear from fans that they hope it happens, and I can tell you that we at Mizzou hope it will happen.
LikeLike
Sorry for the length of the post since I couldn’t post the link. I think the part where he said about the schools who want to align themselves with like institutions academically was the most important part. If I would stretch that point a little further I think SEC schools are starting to think about the product beyond football, not just in sports but how they’re viewed academically. To extrapolate that point even further, I think the SEC leadership will seriously push for an academic association similar to the CIC in the Big Ten.
What I think is Slive is going to try to use that to convince UNC/Duke to join them, as well as an appeal to Southern culture. Maybe even convince UVa to join. That would up the number of AAU schools to 7, with the hope of adding UGA to that list. It’s also possible for them to include Rice/Tulane in a non-sports association, taking them all the way up to 10 to the B1G’s 14 (U of Chicago as a non-sports member).
Of course, they’ll always be known as a football factory but it would not surprise me if they now realize the power having the CIC gives the Big Ten.
LikeLike
They are, but it can’t be done overnight. The SEC’s problem is that their universities are on different levels of academic standards, so transferring credits and faculty would harm some schools and benefit others disproportionately. Eventually they could reach that goal.
LikeLike
Sounds like he is thinking the state flagships form their own division.
I think politically, doing 60 or 70 would be very difficult. Historically, there has been a pattern when they get much over 105 or so, they do another restructure or pass rules getting it down to 80-90. They keep trying to get rid of old MVC, Southland, PCAA and MAC schools (now Sun Belt, much of CUSA, much of MWC and MAC). But they never enforced the 15k attendance rule, which was the last effort. They found the 17k once in 4 years was too easy to do and too hard to police (New Mexico St. could play a “home” game against a Penn St. in Philadephia)
LikeLike
I’ve always suspected that is one of the major reasons why the top schools were pushing for the $2,000 stipend and 4-year scholarships; they knew the little guys couldn’t afford them.
Really, it is the perfect political cover for a breakaway. All the Big Boys have to do is note that they are doing what is in the best interest of their student athletes and they will have the moral high ground in any debate.
LikeLike
15-20 years ago they passed rules requiring I-A to sponsor a higher number of sports than I-AA or I-AAA. That was cleary an effort to push some of the schools down and keep others from moving up. It had nothing to do with football.
LikeLike
Reality is that there already are two divisions in college football; those in power conferences (B10, Pac 12, Big XII, SEC and arguably ACC) and those not… I expect the five (or four) power conferences to make itself another division of the NCAA and the stipend is a major part of that. .
LikeLike
Although there’s nothing the SEC will do that will level the playing field academically with the B1G, I admire the effort. A more academically oriented SEC would benefit the entire country on a lot of levels. That said, I’m still waiting for the B1G to put forth a major initiative to similarly try to close the gap with the SEC on the gridiron.
LikeLike
“To extrapolate that point even further, I think the SEC leadership will seriously push for an academic association similar to the CIC in the Big Ten.”
They have already started an academic consordium called the SECAC. It is only a few of years old though. The first time I heard about it was from an interview by aTm’s president Loftin, where he stated that was one of the selling points for the move to the SEC, and that he was excited about aTm being able to help get in on it early so they can help shape it. I think it’ll probably be a successful endevor for the future. I think this might also be why some are saying that the SEC is considering Duke as a travel partner with UNC instead of going with NCST or even VT.
I think I’ve linked this before, but here is the SECAC site: http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/AcademicConsortium
Also, here is a link to a PDF of the history and outline of the SECAC: http://libinfo.uark.edu/ata/v8no4/secac.pdf
LikeLike
I do believe the SEC is trying to improve their academic standing and create an association like the CIC. The problem is that they are far behind right now and federal funds for research could start drying up. One of the reasons I think the BIG would go to 18-20 schools is because of the huge lobbying advantage it could ascertain. The AAU and CIC are each lobbying entities among other things. The BIG has a voting block of 14 schools in the AAU (univ of Chicago), the largest in the organization. If they add 4-6 more schools, no school would get into the AAU without the BIGs blessing. If your the univ of Georgia, you do not want GT in the BIG. With GT in the fold, why would the BIG allow the U of Georgia in to share in federal funding to that state the AAU lobby’s for? The SEC might own the collective sports market of Atlanta but GT owns the research funds. Same situation plays out for NC State and Virginia Tech. If the BIG gets UVA and UNC, they could essentially block those others schools from AAU membership while enjoying all the political benefits of those states.
This isn’t just about sports. This is about creating a research superpower crossing over multiple states and every major population center of the east coast and Midwest loading up on political power to control the drinddling federal funds. Sadly, SEC might be too late to the game. That will have to be some sales pitch to UNC and Duke and appeasing message board t-shirts will be low on the totem poll of care for those school administrators. And convncing them that Birmingham Alabama is going to be bigger and have more influence than Baltimore, Wahington and Chicago in the next 50 years will be a hard argument.
LikeLike
“That will have to be some sales pitch to UNC and Duke and appeasing message board t-shirts will be low on the totem poll of care for those school administrators.”
T-shirt fans aren’t the ones on the UNC message boards that are clamouring for a move to the SEC if the ACC continues to implode. The vast majority of the posts are coming from alumni. The posts are being made on their football boards, not their basketball boards. UNC does have some basketball t-shirt fans, but they don’t have near the football t-shirt fans. Their basketball t-shirt fans actually seem to want to stay in the ACC regardless of how many of the FSUs/Clemsons/GTs/UVAs leave, and no matter how far the ACC falls behind the SEC and B1G (it doesn’t take near the funds to run a basketball program than it does a football program). Plus if you read the pro-SEC posts, the majority of them state that they are alumni.
The school administrators probably don’t care what the t-shirt fans think, but they do care what their alumni and big money athletic donors think. Why else do you think that UMD and the B1G decided to make their move once the rumors started hitting the UMD message boards? They didn’t wat to give the UMD base time to put up an effective fight against it. By the time their alumni and donor base realized they were actually serious about moving, it was too late because the move had already happened. That is why I said a little while back that I believe that the longer it takes UNC to make their move to leave the ACC, the more the time table favors the SEC, because it gives their alumni and donor base time to exert pressure on the PTB to choose the SEC over the B1G.
LikeLike
Since the move was made and Maryland fans had more time to examine the benefits of entering the Big Ten, the Terrapin fan base has come around to largely endorsing it, save for a few basketball diehards. When academics and research are added to athletics, the Big Ten has a substantial advantage over the SEC, though it might be blunted somewhat if SEC institutions ever get together to form a CIC-like consortium. That has to be big in the eyes of Chapel Hill administrators.
Many UNC football fans want their school to enter the SEC merely to block N.C. State from joining and gaining the upper hand in in-state recruiting; interesting that I doubt UVa fans would do likewise to stymie Virginia Tech if the Cavs had to make the Big Ten/SEC choice. And if Slive wouldn’t take both UNC and NCSU, where does State land? The Wolfpack aren’t AAU and can’t go to the Big Ten. There could be a spot in the Big 12, assuming Texas has an interest in expanding its fiefdom, though it’s no certainty. But you can’t have UNC go to the SEC while leaving NCSU in a withering ACC (it’s politically inexpedient); in contrast, a UNC Big Ten/NCSU SEC combo is the closest to a win-win for both sides.
LikeLike
@vp19 – I have been following a couple of the UNC message boards for a little while, and I have yet to find one post which calls into question UNC’s ability to leave the ACC without NCST having a spot in another conference, not one. They all seem pretty sure that their president and the UNC Board of Trustees will be making the decision, not the overall system Board of Govenors. Now I don’t know if the BOG’s will have some sort of veto power over UNC leaving the ACC or not. But if that is indeed the case, I would expect someone on the UNC boards to bring up the possibility.
LikeLike
The worst thing the B1G could do, from an athletic perspective, is to share a southern state with the SEC. If the B1G is hell-bent on expanding to 16, further damaging the ACC, and going South, they should just take VA Tech and UVA. The B1G currently owns every state in which it operates (apologies to Iowa State, Cincy & Pitt). The SEC either owns or has a plurality or majority of fans in every state in which it operates, except for Texas. Competing with the SEC in a southern state, which NC still is, makes me think of Gettysburg, Waterloo, and Stalingrad.
Sharing a southern state and even having the better academic school, is not a win for the B1G from an athletic perspective. While I’ve seen several writers deride the T-shirt fans as being no factor in expansion discussions, you have to remember that non-college educated t-shirt fans (and non-fans) are the vast majority of cable subscribers. Are those cable subscribers in the south going to be clamoring for the BTN on expanded basic? I doubt it. If given a choice of paying more for cable and getting either the SECN or the BTN, I’m guessing most southerners, including those in NC, GA, SC, & FL, would choose the SECN.
If further B1G expansion is primarily about academic prestige and the CIC, by all means extend invitations to GA Tech, UNC, Duke and UVA. If its about expanding the reach of the BTN and generating more cable dollars, then invite UVA & VA Tech and own a state.
LikeLike
I have been following a couple of the UNC message boards for a little while, and I have yet to find one post which calls into question UNC’s ability to leave the ACC without NCST having a spot in another conference, not one. They all seem pretty sure that their president and the UNC Board of Trustees will be making the decision, not the overall system Board of Govenors. Now I don’t know if the BOG’s will have some sort of veto power over UNC leaving the ACC or not. But if that is indeed the case, I would expect someone on the UNC boards to bring up the possibility.
I simply see a similar situation to 2003, when Virginia Tech appeared adrift in a sinking Big East and Mark Warner (then governor) helped engineer the Gobblers eventually replacing Syracuse as ACC member #12. The political ramifications of N.C. State not landing in a conference comparable to UNC would be considerable — and as a non-AAU institution, NCSU has fewer options than UNC. If Chapel Hill insisted on SEC exclusivity — or that Duke be its sole in-state partner — . NCSU is then essentially at the mercy of Texas for a Big 12 landing spot (and the burnt orange honchos may prefer limiting its ACC emigres to Clemson and Florida State). NCSU has to be part of an SEC equation; otherwise, all heck would break loose.
If further B1G expansion is primarily about academic prestige and the CIC, by all means extend invitations to GA Tech, UNC, Duke and UVA. If its about expanding the reach of the BTN and generating more cable dollars, then invite UVA & VA Tech and own a state.
Research dollars > TV football revenue. And until Virginia Tech becomes an AAU member, the question is moot, to paraphrase Jesse Jackson on “Saturday Night Live.”
LikeLike
Bamatab,
I believe you that there are alumni on the message boards, and other places, that would love to go to the SEC. I am sure there are big time boosters as well. However, I would bet that the choice among academics and administrators at UNC would almost unanimously be the BIG over the SEC right now. I have lived in the triangle and been around many of these individuals at work and socially and they have the utmost contempt for not only gulf coast residents in the SEC, but also the rural precincts of their own state. These individuals, many educated in the private schools of the north and highly rated BIG schools, look down their collective noses at any inferior education. It is as if their collective worth is derived by the US News rankings. So in the case of UNC, it is really a matter as to whom makes the decision, administrators or boosters. I am wagering the BIG because of the academics. Plus the added bonus that NC State gets a nice resting spot in the SEC which will not happen if UNC goes to the SEC.
LikeLike
Bama:
The BOG appoints half or more of the BOT, so I doubt there will be vast disagreement.
Alan:
Personally, I’d prefer the B10 taking the 2 VA schools and then FSU+Miami or UNC+Duke/NCSU, but I don’t run the B10.
However, I don’t think it’s as dire as you make it. VA, NC, and Atlanta carrying both the BTN & SEN is likely. Of those, only in Atlanta would the B10 be in an inferior position. VA already has more ties to the Northeast than places south, and whoever gets UNC has the upperhand in NC.
LikeLike
Faculty and administrators other than the President himself are irrelevant in athletic decisions.
LikeLike
UNC would console themselves about joining the SEC by saying they were in a division with UGA and UF, not with the SEC W schools. And they would be with UK. Noone in the Big 10 would generate that type of basketball enthusiasm. I would be very surprised if UNC joined the Big 10. Also, they will be the last to leave and I suspect the Big 10 or Big 12 will be the first to move, if anyone does expand now.
LikeLike
Bullet,
You are assuming that conferences are only for athletics. High up administrators and certain academics, namely the ones who bring in a boat load of research grants, have a lot of pull within a university. As far as basketball, Kentucky has the biggest name in the sport next to UNC but the SEC lags significantly behind in fan interest besides that school. The BIG is the number 1 basketball conference in the country in fan interest with the closest access to the rich recruiting grounds of Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, and Indianapolis.
UNC’s decision will strictly be a fans/boosters vs administrators. They really cant go wrong either way. This may all come down who will be their traveling partner. If the BIG takes UVA, Duke, and GT, is that more appealing than just Duke or VT? Will SEC take NC State too? For me, I always follow the money. 9 times out of 10, that is the deciding factor. Right now the BIG offers more money thru research collaboration and a powerful lobby for future grants than the SEC so that is what I stake my guess on.
LikeLike
The SEC formed the SECAC in 2005.
Click to access SECAC_said.pdf
LikeLike
Sorry but that would be petty on the B1G’s part if they try to block NCSU and VT from the AAU. If both of those schools fulfill the requirements for entry then they should get in. What they could do, if they want to play politics, is dangle the possibility of voting in UAB or FSU, something that would really rile up the big dogs in that conference. They could also do a deal, where Georgia gets in in exchange for the SEC taking NCSU and VT without AAU. Another idea is they vote in Georgia and the SEC votes with them to add either FSU/Miami and UConn.
LikeLike
When the AAU kicked out Nebraska and Syracuse, one of the reasons was that they wanted to add more schools but keep the total number of AAU schools low. So they removed the lowest two schools metrics wise. It won’t be a matter of meeting requirements anymore. It could very well be for every school added another will have to be kicked out in the future. That makes a large BIG block of schools very powerful.
LikeLike
It could also mean several B10 schools are getting close to losing their AAU status.
LikeLike
Brian:
I doubt any B10 school is close to losing AAU status.
I believe all of the old Big8 schools besides CU have weaker research metrics than any AAU B10 school.
LikeLike
I don’t know where any of the B10 teams would rank on the AAU list. Most are clearly safe, but some have to be towards the bottom. Iowa? Indiana? Someone else?
I agree schools like KU and Mizzou are probably near the danger zone.
LikeLike
@Psuhockey – Could that not preclude several high research universities from forming a rival association to the AAU? It won’t be easy, as the AAU has about a century-long head start, but get enough big-name institutions with some clout and the AAU may have to rethink its membership policy. Sort of like how the AFL forced the NFL to admit its member or the ABA forced the NBA to take in several of the ABA teams.
LikeLike
Until some new info comes along, I think we’ve worn the divisions discussion into the ground. So let’s change topics briefly to something timely – bowl alignments.
Assuming no further changes to the big 5 conferences, what should the B10’s bowl line-up look like in 2014?
Points of note:
* I think the B10 should try for 9 bowl tie-ins, not counting the Orange
** I’m assuming the playoff takes the Fiesta, Cotton and Peach Bowls
*** My positions for the other conferences are rough guesses
1. Rose vs P12 #1 (Pasadena)
1b. Orange vs ACC #1 (Miami)
2. Cap 1 vs SEC #2 (Orlando)
3. Outback vs SEC #3 (Tampa)
4. BWW vs B12 #4 (Tempe)
5. Holiday vs P12 #4 (SD)
6. Pinstripe vs ACC #4 (NYC)
7. MCC vs B12 #6 (Dallas)
8. Military vs ACC #7 (DC)
9. Pizza vs MAC #1 (Detroit)
LikeLike
After the weather, I think WVU fans are anxious to give the Pinstripe to the B1G.
The question is whether bowls 30-35 give ESPN better ratings than poker and whether the cost of attending is still worth it to the colleges. Even in Orlando, they are saying Nebraska has only sold about 4,500 tickets. Georgia hasn’t sold out, but they have done about 12,000. Driving down I-75 the other day, I only saw 1 Nebraska plate. However, the entire states of Ohio and Michigan seemed to be there stopped with us in the traffic (for anyone driving, there is construction somewhere south of Macon and before Cordele-ie middle of nowhere-don’t be in a hurry-took us about an hour to go that 15 miles).
LikeLike
Wouldn’t be a surprise to see the # of wins required set up to 7 eventually, although it might take even further attendance drops at some of these bowls to get to that point.
The TV ratings and money seem to be there for now.
Will the TV ratings and money be there when all these bowls are pushed around to accomodate the playoff?
LikeLike
Required amount of wins going up to 7 would require some bowls to be dropped, which won’t happen unless the bowl sites themselves are losing money which I’m unsure whether they do or not. Most the bowls except the major ones are financial losses for the conferences and schools but we have a system where the major bowls are keeping all the minor bowls alive…
I don’t have much of a problem with all the minor bowls, the players obviously LOVE them. If you play for Northwestern, Purdue, you still have a good shot at a trip to Florida, Texas, Arizona in January on your winter break. If you are a coach you enjoy the recruiting advantages by playing games in the backyards of talent rich places like California, Texas, Florida, etc and get the advantage of a lot of extra practices by being bowl eligible. If your the B10, SEC, ACC, Pac 12 you enjoy the ‘prestige’ of having all the 6+ win teams in bowls. Outside of cost, I don’t see much reason for getting rid of the lesser bowls and most understand that the major bowls are paying the costs for the entire conference.
I think the answer to your last question is a yes, with the new playoff system. The major bowls will be more differentiated from the lesser/minor ones. There should be more of a distinction between the major ones (on or after Dec 31) and the minor ones (on or after Dec 31st). ESPN has most of the control and they want to fill as many time slots as possible with these bowls.
LikeLike
zeek,
“Wouldn’t be a surprise to see the # of wins required set up to 7 eventually, although it might take even further attendance drops at some of these bowls to get to that point.”
I’ll be surprised. They just turned down the chance to do it and it had some momentum. Having just hurt the bowls by expanding the playoff/BCS to 6 bowls plus a NCG, I don’t think they want to hurt it more. For whatever perverse reasons, the schools love bowls.
LikeLike
It could help the remaining bowls. If fewer teams get in, more might appreciate when they do.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty good rough draft for what the Big Ten is likely to aim for…
Will Pinstripe be able to generate more money than Holiday, especially with Big Ten/ACC tie ins? I could see Pinstripe trying to get to #4/5 with BWW (basically taking Gator’s current spot).
MCC is the Houston based bowl, and I agree that the Big Ten will try to keep that one over the Heart of Dallas Bowl at the Cotton Bowl Stadium.
Your moves make sense though, drop the current 3rd tie ins against the SEC and Big 12 for more diversity on the coasts.
LikeLike
zeek,
“That’s a pretty good rough draft for what the Big Ten is likely to aim for…”
Hopefully. It’s more balanced and diverse while keeping the important games.
“Will Pinstripe be able to generate more money than Holiday, especially with Big Ten/ACC tie ins? I could see Pinstripe trying to get to #4/5 with BWW (basically taking Gator’s current spot).”
I chose location over potential money. Better teams deserve better bowl locations and their fans are more likely to travel.
“MCC is the Houston based bowl, and I agree that the Big Ten will try to keep that one over the Heart of Dallas Bowl at the Cotton Bowl Stadium.”
That was my thinking. The Cotton Bowl is run down and the weather is worse there.
“Your moves make sense though, drop the current 3rd tie ins against the SEC and Big 12 for more diversity on the coasts.”
I see no need for 3 games against one conference. The diversity lets us visit more alumni strongholds, too. The additions of RU and MD make the ACC games obvious and needed.
LikeLike
One thing that doesn’t get discussed much is the significant disadvantage we’re at in the Bowl setup, which amount to a bunch of away games (relatively speaking). Is the tourism money driving this in warm climates so much greater than all the other money floating around, and are TPTB sure it would be so much greater in Florida than in Indy, NYC or Detroit? I just saw a bowl game yesterday in Fort Worth where the temps ranged between the 30s and 40s.
At the end of the day, it’s a huge giveaway by the B1G that no other conference suffers. Wouldn’t you love to get just one or two SEC teams in the elements? It certainly isn’t a disincentive to the pros, and in fact the Pinstripe Bowl shows that exceptions are already being made.
LikeLike
B1G Jeff,
“One thing that doesn’t get discussed much is the significant disadvantage we’re at in the Bowl setup, which amount to a bunch of away games (relatively speaking).”
It’s unavoidable and our choice. The B10 sought the Rose Bowl pairing with the Pac-8 back in the day. The goal is to reward our players and fans with trips to warm places and also visit the alumni that already live in those places.
“Is the tourism money driving this in warm climates so much greater than all the other money floating around, and are TPTB sure it would be so much greater in Florida than in Indy, NYC or Detroit? I just saw a bowl game yesterday in Fort Worth where the temps ranged between the 30s and 40s.”
B10 fans will travel south and west. B12 and SEC fans won’t come north except for major games, and the same with P12 fans. FL, TX, AZ and CA are vacation destinations in December and January. MI, MN, WI, etc are not.
“At the end of the day, it’s a huge giveaway by the B1G that no other conference suffers. Wouldn’t you love to get just one or two SEC teams in the elements?”
Frankly, I don’t think it would affect most of their teams very much. They traditionally run the ball and play defense (AL, GA, UF now, LSU). Miami suffers in the cold, but most of the SEC is used to some cold.
LikeLike
Brian;
Sounds about right. B10 definitely will try their darnedest to keep the Houston bowl (where the payout may jump a decent amount). I know Frank loves the Holiday Bowl, but I see that as unlikely. A new StL or new LA bowl that pays as much would get that spot. Failing that, the Memphis or Charlotte bowl (which pay less now; but they also currently feature CUSA & BE teams, respective; with a B10 tie-in, I think the Charlotte bowl would certainly pay as much or better than the Holiday) are still more likely. The B10 may actually get both. Going from 8 tie-ins for 11 schools to 10 tie-ins for 14 schools is fairly likely, IMHO.
Also, I’m fairly confident that the BWW will drop the B12 for the Pac now that the B12 doesn’t send their champ to the Fiesta. The Houston bowl may pay more.
So, if the B10 stays at 14 schools:
1. Rose vs Pac #1 (Pasadena)
1b. Orange vs ACC #1 (Miami)
2. Cap 1 vs SEC #2 (Orlando)
3. Outback vs SEC #3-4 (Tampa)
4. BWW vs Pac #3 (Tempe)
5-6. Houston vs B12 #5 (or maybe SEC #7-8)
5-6. Pinstripe vs ACC #5-6 (NYC)
7. Charlotte vs. ACC #6-7
8? Liberty vs. SEC #8-11 (Memphis) BE champ.
8-9. Military vs. ACC #8-9
9-10. Pizza vs MAC #1 (Detroit)
Potentially no B12 matchup. Potentially 4 ACC matchups. 4 SEC matchups is also possible.
LikeLike
Should be–
8? Liberty vs. SEC #8-11 BE champ (Memphis)
LikeLike
What if the B10 adds UNC+UVa+Duke+GTech, the SEC takes VTech+NCSU, & the B12 take FSU+Clemson (and maybe 2-4 of Louisville, Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse)?
Then B10:
1. Rose vs Pac #1 (Pasadena)
2. Orange vs SEC #2 (Miami)
3. Cap 1 vs SEC #3 (Orlando)
4. Outback vs SEC #4-5 (Tampa)
5. Chick-Fil-A vs. SEC #6 (Atlanta)
6. BWW vs Pac #3 (Tempe)
7-8. Houston vs B12 SEC
7-8. Pinstripe vs B12 ACC (NYC)
9. Charlotte vs. SEC
10. Music City vs. SEC
11. Military vs. SEC B12 ACC BE (DC)
12. Pizza vs. Mac #1 (Detroit)
Potentially 8 bowl games vs. the SEC.
LikeLike
Looks my “or’s” got lost.
LikeLike
Well if you want Pac 12 matchups, I found it interesting looking at the rankings. Of the top 21 teams in the BCS, only Boise, Oregon St. and UCLA have played so far. The western teams aren’t playing on the most desirable dates. For that matter, all 6 of the BCS ranked teams who have played so far are west of the Mississippi. Utah St., San Jose St. and Texas are the others.
The SEC hasn’t played yet. The B1G and ACC have played twice. Big 12 and Pac 12 have played 5 times.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Sounds about right.”
Thanks. You pay more attention to it than I do.
“B10 definitely will try their darnedest to keep the Houston bowl (where the payout may jump a decent amount).”
They need a game in TX. The Cotton is off the table, so that leaves MCC and Military in Dallas, plus Houston and the Alamo. I’d love the Alamo, but I think they’re happy with B12/P12. Houston is better than Dallas, so I’m guessing they fight for it hard.
“I know Frank loves the Holiday Bowl, but I see that as unlikely.”
I’m not a fan of the B10 adding the Holiday, but many B10 fans seem to be clamoring for another P12 game. I figured the B12 is more likely to lose a game in CA than elsewhere.
“A new StL or new LA bowl that pays as much would get that spot.”
Sure, but I don’t see any new bowls coming unless some current ones fail. There aren’t spare teams available now. Maybe if/when several more teams move up. The LA bowl got turned down in 2010, for example.
“Failing that, the Memphis or Charlotte bowl (which pay less now; but they also currently feature CUSA & BE teams, respective; with a B10 tie-in, I think the Charlotte bowl would certainly pay as much or better than the Holiday) are still more likely.”
Against whom? A 3rd ACC game? SEC?
“The B10 may actually get both. Going from 8 tie-ins for 11 schools to 10 tie-ins for 14 schools is fairly likely, IMHO.”
It’s certainly possible. I went with 9 because the Orange will absorb an extra team 25-42% of the time. Also, the playoffs will hopefully take some extra teams just like the NCG did.
“Also, I’m fairly confident that the BWW will drop the B12 for the Pac now that the B12 doesn’t send their champ to the Fiesta.”
OK. I’m fine with making that the second P12 game instead of the Holiday. Then we can add something closer for a second B12 game. Unfortunately, it may have to be in Dallas.
“The Houston bowl may pay more.”
I’d prefer to do bowls in order of destination. Lesser teams aren’t going to travel as well to AZ or CA.
“So, if the B10 stays at 14 schools:
1. Rose vs Pac #1 (Pasadena)
1b. Orange vs ACC #1 (Miami)
2. Cap 1 vs SEC #2 (Orlando)
3. Outback vs SEC #3-4 (Tampa)
4. BWW vs Pac #3 (Tempe)”
That all makes sense. I don’t know if BWW would be P12 #3 or 4.
“5-6. Houston vs B12 #5 (or maybe SEC #7-8)
5-6. Pinstripe vs ACC #5-6 (NYC)”
Personally I’d put Houston above NYC, and definitely try to keep the B12 in the Houston game.
“7. Charlotte vs. ACC #6-7
8? Liberty vs. SEC #8-11 (Memphis) BE champ.”
I don’t see 3 ACC games myself, since we don’t play any right now. Also, I don’t think the Liberty drops CUSA. Besides, do we really want a low level SEC game to replace the Gator?
“8-9. Military vs. ACC #8-9
9-10. Pizza vs MAC #1 (Detroit)”
Yep.
“Potentially no B12 matchup. Potentially 4 ACC matchups. 4 SEC matchups is also possible.”
I hope we don’t drop the B12 and jump to that many ACC games instead.
LikeLike
There will be competition in St. Louis for space at their dome from a source other than a bowl game. Currently, the world’s largest Christian missions conference is being held there. It’s called Urbana, which used to be held at the University if Illinois, as I’m sure Frank is aware, and it is run by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. I’m familiar because my wife, as an InterVarsity employee, is one of the 20,000+ attendees from across the world. It is a five-day event, which is a long time for hotels to cash in. Now, unlike a bowl game, it is held only once every three years, from December 27-31, but still, 20,000 people for five days is a boost for the local economy that at least is comparable to what an annual bowl game where people might stay overnight for 2-3 nights.
The contract between InterVarsity and the Edward Jones Dome ends after this year, so the Urbana conference could be moving to another city with more hotels within walking distance (i.e., Indy) for 2015 anyway, but still, St. Louis does have a pretty big event on its calendar already
LikeLike
Right, that could move, and the bowl game doesn’t have to be during those dates.
LikeLike
I’m guessing SEC#1 (ranked after playoff bowls picked) continues to play B1G #1 in Cap 1 (or wherever)
Then I would hope the SEC#2 can get a bowl game vs. Pac 12#1 in Texas or Arizona. That would free up B1G #2 to play B12 #1 in Texas.
I think that would be good for the conferences involved. The SEC & B1G bring the most viewers and the Pac 12 and B12 can bring some good competition.
(I would then hope ACC #1 would play SEC #3, but I’m not going to do a whole wishlist)
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“I’m guessing SEC#1 (ranked after playoff bowls picked) continues to play B1G #1 in Cap 1 (or wherever)”
It’s too valuable to drop, I agree.
“Then I would hope the SEC#2 can get a bowl game vs. Pac 12#1 in Texas or Arizona.”
Right now P12 #1 plays B12 #2 in the Alamo Bowl. I don’t know if the SEC can bump the B12 out of that one.
“That would free up B1G #2 to play B12 #1 in Texas.”
I think the B10 would prefer to play the SEC again with #2. It pays more and the B10 has many more alumni in FL than TX.
“I think that would be good for the conferences involved. The SEC & B1G bring the most viewers and the Pac 12 and B12 can bring some good competition.”
I do think more diversity is good, but B10/SEC makes more money than other pairings so I think they’ll keep two of those at the top.
“(I would then hope ACC #1 would play SEC #3, but I’m not going to do a whole wishlist”
I’m sure they’ll find a place to replace the Peach Bowl. Probably the Gator.
LikeLike
I’ve heard a lot of fan fatigue over the Big Ten/SEC match-ups. Cutting one of those would increase interest in the other 2 (both for tickets and TV viewers), while a single Pac 12/SEC match-up would get attention because it’s rare. Any Pac 12/SEC match-up would require the teams involved to be high in the selection process to inspire the fans to travel to what will be a large distance for at least one of the teams involved.
The second Big Ten/SEC match-up could be SEC#4 vs. B1G #3 or 4.
And I think the Pac 12 would love to have their best team play against the SEC in a bowl (I saw an interview with their commissioner on the website of a west coast paper where the possibility of an SEC bowl match-up was one of a handful of questions asked). Given geography, they’re sure to still have at least one bowl game against the Big 12 and will probably have 2-3. If B10 #2 plays B12 #1, then B12#2 vs. P12#2 would seem to be the natural next agreement for both conferences.
LikeLike
I think the PAC would love their runner up or third to play SEC. They want B1G in the Rose Bowl for #1 unless they are in the NC. Second and third against B12 or SEC in no particular order (although B12 may be preferred first due to travel and familiarity).
LikeLike
m (Ag),
“I’ve heard a lot of fan fatigue over the Big Ten/SEC match-ups.”
3 is too many, especially with the way they are scheduled (12, 1 and 1 on 1/1).
“Cutting one of those would increase interest in the other 2 (both for tickets and TV viewers), while a single Pac 12/SEC match-up would get attention because it’s rare. Any Pac 12/SEC match-up would require the teams involved to be high in the selection process to inspire the fans to travel to what will be a large distance for at least one of the teams involved.”
Neither conference likes to leave their home base for bowls. The P12 doesn’t go past TX, and neither does the SEC. Maybe one of the TX bowls switches to SEC/P12.
“The second Big Ten/SEC match-up could be SEC#4 vs. B1G #3 or 4.”
The top 3 pair up because they make the most money that way. I don’t see them dropping the Outback to keep the gator which is basically what you’re suggesting.
“And I think the Pac 12 would love to have their best team play against the SEC in a bowl (I saw an interview with their commissioner on the website of a west coast paper where the possibility of an SEC bowl match-up was one of a handful of questions asked).”
In the playoff, sure. The #1’s are locked into the Rose and Cotton. The SEC isn’t dropping the Cap 1 versus the B10 to play the P12 instead. Nor will they drop the Outback versus the B10 for the P12. Those are FL games that pay more than other bowls, and the P12 isn’t coming to FL for a high level bowl against the SEC.
LikeLike
Brian:
Hasn’t the PAC had some teams in the Orange Bowl over the years? Or was that during open selection era.
LikeLike
Realistically, Pac vs. SEC happens only if the Sun decides to match up the SEC with the Pac.
All other TX bowls almost certainly prefer to matchup B12 vs. Someone.
LikeLike
Stanford beat the Hokies in 2011 ~ they were 4th so an automatic BCS inclusion even though not champions. Similarly in 2003, USC was an at-large pick when Washington was the conference champion. USC also in 2005 when the Orange Bowl hosted the NCG. AFAIK, in the open selection period, it was just Washington in 1985, before the Bowl Alliance / Bowl Coalition / BCS started in the 90’s.
LikeLike
ccrider55,
“Hasn’t the PAC had some teams in the Orange Bowl over the years? Or was that during open selection era.”
3 times in the BCS era:
2002 – USC was an at-large with WSU in the Rose (played IA for a pseudo-Rose game)
2004 – USC in the NCG
2010 – Stanford was an at-large with OR in the NCG and the Rose forced to take TCU
LikeLike
Off topic….but can you guys believe just how good JJ Watt is?
Dierdorf said today Watt has had 1 of the 2/3 best years ever for a DL(or def. player in general..can’t recall).
I’d agree with that and go one step further and say I don’t remember a DL ever playing as well as Watt has this year……what seperates him in my mind is that he is dominate against both the run and the pass……only def. front 7 guys that I can recall being as dominate were Butkis and L. Taylor…
LikeLike
I saw Suh play (on TV).
LikeLike
I don’t have a link to share, but I did see an article about Nebraska discussing the possibility of adding a men’s and women’s hockey team within the decade.
LikeLike
I posted a link in one of the previous threads about how they added ice piping to their new basketball arena to further that possibility. So it’s definitely on the table now for Nebraska given that they’ll be able to use their basketball arena for it.
LikeLike
The next step will be when the construction of the Breslow Ice Center starts. UNL has had the money pledged for a while, but design/location issues have delayed. Right now its supposed to be the home ice for the club teams, however, it will make a nice practice facility for a varsity team. The current location for the complex is a few blocks away from the new arena near the baseball complex.
LikeLike
Given how strong Nebraska’s athletics department is (all those new buildings going up and the stadium up to 90k+ soon), they should be a clear #4 in total revenue in the Big Ten after their full revenue sharing kicks in after 2016.
They’re definitely going to be the main contender to be the 7th hockey school in the conference at this pace.
I would guess though that it’s not going to be looked at too heavily until the end of the decade although the framework may be in place earlier than that…
LikeLike
I think you are probably right on that. 2020 is probably the earliest we could expect to see a hockey team at UNL.
Any other contenders? Illinois? Not sure what the appetite there is, but there are zero college hockey teams in the state:
Rutgers is an intriguing market for the growth of the B1G Hockey Conference. They have some work to do in their house before that’s likely, however.
LikeLike
Also – the new AD is a Wisconsin guy. That alone has to make an ice hockey team more likely.
He might also be open to having alcohol sales at the new basketball (and potentional hockey) arena. Osborne never would have allowed that. Lincoln in a pretty good market for hockey and they love anything Huskers. I bet they could average at least 8000 for a Nebraska Husker Men’s Ice Hockey team. Add in the beer sales and they turn a profit in a few years. (women’s team would probably still lead it to be a net money loser but UNL is set to see a big bump in revenue in the next few years as they get a full B1G share).
New AD less likely to worry about stepping on toes at UNO (they have a hockey team already) than Osborne would have been too.
LikeLike
UNL-UNO would be the hockey equivalent of UNL facing Creighton in basketball or baseball.
LikeLike
UNL-UNO in hockey would be a great rivalry, no doubt. I just don’t know if the powers that be in the state will allow it to happen.
From UNO’s side, Ice Hockey is the one thing they have that UNL doesn’t. It is the one sport they can compete with the Division I big boys at. I can’t imagine they would be thrilled to see UNL start a team.
From UNL’s side, they may not want to compete with UNO. It’s one thing for UNL to schedule UNO in sports in which UNO has no chance of competing with them. If they have to go head-to-head with UNO on the ice they are going to lose more often then they win, at least for 5 years or more. Not sure they want to change the “UNL is the dominant school in the system” narrative, even if it is only in Ice Hockey.
With Creighton being a private school, there isn’t anything that the PTB in the U of N system can do about them. But there could be too much inertia to overcome against a hockey team at UNL from both Lincoln and Omaha. Like I said earlier, if Osborne was still AD or even hand-picked his replacement I would have bet heavily against a hockey team at UNL. But will Eichorst taking over it just might happen.
Bottomline, if UNL wants it to happen, it will.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy saying Boise is staying in MWC.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8796807/boise-state-broncos-staying-mountain-west-conference-sources-say
LikeLike
Its been officially announced by MWC that Boise is staying. http://www.themwc.com/genrel/123112aab.html
LikeLike
I assume that SDSU finds their way back into the MWC, but what happens to them if they don’t?
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy @McMurphyESPN
W/Boise State remaining in MWC, San Diego State now is not required to pay exit fee if it decides not to join Big East
—————————————————————————————–
Interesting bit to SDSU’s side of things. Will be interesting to see what the MWC forces them to do to rejoin (maybe foot Boise State’s exit fee bill?)
LikeLike
Why would the MWC do anything to SDSU? They had previously announced that Boise State and SDSU were welcome to stay, and when SDSU announces that they are staying, it will bring the MWC up to 12 football members and a CCG.
The reason why SDSU would not announce simultaneously is that their exit fee is $0 if the Big East has no members west of the Rockies, so they have some incentive to make their decision following the Boise State announcement, to avoid a claim that they actually decided to leave when the Big East still had a pro-forma west of the Rockies member.
LikeLike
Brett McMurphy is reporting on Twitter that the MWC is making a some significant concessions to BSU.
1. Boise will be allowed to play Blue on Blue,
2. their home games will be sold as a separate TV package which will enable Boise to take advantage of a new “Bonus Structure” that awards teams $300k for every national broadcast and an extra $200k if the game is on a Sat
3. the conference will help them with their exit penalties (which will only be $5 million not $10 million)
LikeLike
You have to think that since the MWC is letting Boise keep their TV rights, BYU may give the conference another look.
LikeLike
To clarify, Boise WILL NOT keep control of its TV rights, but the MWC will sell them independently of the CBS deal (most likely to ESPN) which would (virtually) guarantee that every Boise home game would be broadcast nationally, meaning they would get the $300k for all home games and the additional $200k for a lot of them.
LikeLike
That seems like it would have required the MWC tier 1 broadcaster to agree to not pick the Boise State home games, after the agreement to allow the MWC to sell games that their broadcaster does not pick up ~ which makes sense, if the balance of the conference will agree to it, given that it gives the MWC’s broadcaster Boise State’s away games, which otherwise they do not have.
The same deal for BYU seems like it would have some appeal, but BYU and Boise State are likely the only programs where the MWC broadcaster would agree to play along.
LikeLike
Well, the Boise home games can be said by the MWC to be new, and not part of the original package (there’s more inventory with an increase in teams & games in the league), so CBSS wouldn’t get to pick the Boise home games even if they wanted to.
LikeLike
Its hard to believe that the original contract was written to allow that.
Given the circumstances, the restructured deal may have had language to that effect ~ if so, that would be the specific instrument in which the broadcaster gave permission to the MWC to offer this special deal to Boise State.
LikeLike
“1. Boise will be allowed to play Blue on Blue,”
Eh. MSU is Green on Green yet no one cared.
“2. their home games will be sold as a separate TV package which will enable Boise to take advantage of a new “Bonus Structure” that awards teams $300k for every national broadcast and an extra $200k if the game is on a Sat”
OK, this is pretty big, but not full TV rights. Also, is this “Bonus Structure” applicable only to Boise?
Finally, is this only for the duration of the current MWC TV contract (which runs out soon)?
LikeLike
According to McMurphy road teams will be eligible for the Bonus payments as well (which also means Boise can receive additional Bonus payments if its conference road games are broadcast by CBS nationally)
No word on how long the deal lasts.
LikeLike
Richard,
Their blue on blue is color controlled to be the exact same blue. Add in the unusual shininess of their field, and the fact that the human eye deals better with green than blue, and it causes much bigger problems. When coaches watch film and have a hard time seeing players, it’s not a fluke or an accident.
LikeLike
It is being reported that BSU also got a clause that BCS money will be split 50/50 between the conference and the team that made the game. No word if this is one year only or will include the BCS successor in 2014
LikeLike
Correction, this info was from Brian Murphy not Brett McMurphy. Sorry.
LikeLike
Only three days ago the PAC12 was the second best conference in football.
LikeLike
Nah. The numbers always had Big XII and SEC ahead of everyone else by decent (though not massive margin).
LikeLike
When you claim ‘the numbers always had…’ what numbers are you talking about?
PAC has Oregon, Stanford, Oregon State, UCLA in the top 20 with USC the pre-season number two.
B12 has Kansas State and Oklahoma in the top 20.
LikeLike
Yes, the PAC is a bit stronger at the top but not nearly enough to compensate for the Big XII’s vastly superior depth.
As for numbers
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc12.htm
LikeLike
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2012.html
You can also do the averages from F/+ and other systems, but they all agree that the SEC and Big XII were basically tied for best conference and the PAC XII was third by a decent margin.
LikeLike
Ha Ha, yes, losing to a CUSA team shows just how strong and deep the B12 was not. Again, not knocking Kansas State till after the Oregon game but there is no way 9 B12 teams were worthy of theTop 30 for most of the season. What a joke. Sagarin is a stooge and needs to tweak his system to give the B1G more love in the future.
B1G vs B12 = 1-1 (Boilers vs OK State left)
B1G vs SEC = ? – ? (with Northwestern best positioned for the win)
B1G vs PAC = ? – ? Rose Bowl
LikeLike
The ninth best Big XII team just lost to the best CUSA team… has does that prove they aren’t deep?
LikeLike
And keep in mind that Iowa St. was the second worst team in the Big XII. How well do you think Indiana would have done against Tulsa?
LikeLike
@Duffman
Tulsa 31 Iowa St. 17-CUSA champ beats #9 Big 12 team the 2nd time around.
September Iowa St. 38 Tulsa 23.
So the 9th best team in the Big 12 wasn’t able to beat the CUSA champ twice in the same season and nearly lost by the same margin they beat them by earlier in the year.
Your point is?
LikeLike
It appeared the Pac 12 was stronger at the top. But Oregon St. and UCLA have lost to Texas and Baylor.
From what I’ve been reading in the papers, USC had little interest in being there. And apparently it showed. They’ve also showed 90 minutes late for the joint banquet with GT, so GT finally left. Pretty disrespectful to the other team. Kiffin is a clown.
LikeLike
Bullet:
I think the rest of the PAC is hoping Kiffin doesn’t get the NFL black Monday treatment 🙂
LikeLike
Massey compilation of 132 computer rankings:
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
It has B12 and SEC virtually tied for #1, P12 a smidge ahead of B10, and BEAST a smidge ahead of ACC.
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8796807/boise-state-broncos-staying-mountain-west-conference-all
A Mountain West conference source with knowledge of the situation said San Diego State wants back in the Mountain West, but the league is holding up the process as it decides whether there is a better fit than the Aztecs and if there is a school that can deliver more value.
The source said if SDSU returns to the Mountain West, the Aztecs would have to come back on the conference’s terms.
So SDSU isn’t a shoe in to return to the MWC. I wonder what they will do if the MWC passes.
LikeLike
The obvious one there is a 12 team conference with BYU and Boise State, which feeds into the deal that Boise State got on a separate package for home TV rights. If BYU said yes, would going to 14 with SDSU and a Texas school add 1/6 again to the value of the TV rights apart from the Boise State and BYU home games?
LikeLike
The restructured MWC deal was detailed by CBS’s Dodd last week. Boise is not an independent in a conference, which is what BYU would require.
LikeLike
Yes, the deal that Boise St. made clearly required agreement from the broadcaster. The question is whether BYU wants the independence for its own sake, or just wants the money from broadcast if its home games. If it just wants the money, then a deal similar to what Boise State received would give it. If they prefer to play fantasy games with themselves about being the ND of the West, then they stay out and SDSU (and possibly both Houston and SMU) celebrates.
LikeLike
Well, BYU will get more from it’s own TV contract than Boise will even if they hit all their bonuses, so independence may still make most sense even from a purely financial standpoint.
LikeLike
I believe the “deal” Boise is getting isn’t much more than an unbalanced, appearance based revenue sharing plan. Were BYU, TCU, Utah in the MWC would we be calling this a Boise bonus?
LikeLike
Bevo conference 2.0? 🙂
LikeLike
@Richard, yes, unless they feel that they have a chance to win the MWC and take the Little Five access bowl spot, which AFAIU, an independent not named ND requires a top 4 ranking to crack.
LikeLike
Frug:
Not saying it is inaccurate but ESPiN has been known to make statements that could be seen to hurt a conference they don’t have a contract with, or to help one they do (or had planned to contract with).
LikeLike
At this point, The “Big East” should just give up and go out of business.
“We’re having a Close-out sale! Items are 60-80% Off! All sales Final!”
LikeLike
Has anyone ever calculated how much the Big East has made in exit fees? They can’t afford to have a team stay very long. In fact, this Boise State deal may be the best of all — no payout to Boise State, the buyout is pure profit.
LikeLike
The Big East exit fees were about 60 million before the C- 7 left.
LikeLike
Then about $60m after the C7 leave.
LikeLike
Remember what I said three weeks ago. Step 1 is complete and step 2 started today. Rice is doomed….
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
Whichever league between the MWC and the Football Big East does not wind up with Houston and SMU may take Rice. A Texas presence is important, particularly one in a major city such as Houston. After Houston/SMU, the MWC’s first choice would be UTEP due to proximity and members’ history with them as WAC member. After them, I would find Rice mode attractive than UTSA, Tulsa, North Texas, NMSU, Idaho, or whatever other options the MWC may have available. Rice is much more established, bolsters a key revenue-neutral sport in baseball, and just seems like less of a project than some of these up-and-coming programs.
From the Big East perspective, losing Houston and SMU would be devastating, but they would HAVE to keep that presence in Texas. Rice, IMO, would be the best school for that purpose out of the remaining options. I had mentioned MAC schools, including UMass as possible replacements for defections, but as others have said, they’re too weak. Their athletic budgets are hardly higher than my alma mater’s, App State, which STILL can’t even get into the Sun Belt despite getting better attendance than future Big East member Tulane. Marshall and Southern Miss, it otherwise equal to Rice, cannot offer the state of Texas or the city of Houston.
Granted, the MWC and the Football Big East wouldn’t even be improvements over today’s C-USA, but either would beat the heck out of the C-USA of 2014-15.
LikeLike
I really think that if SMU/UH spurn the Big East the way TCU did then the BE will take that as a sign they don’t belong in Texas. Moving down from the #5 team (TCU) to #8 is just to big of an admission of failure. BE will stay east of the Mississippi after this.
LikeLike
What’s logical won’t happen, but 2 Texas schools should move to MWC, the BE remnants should say east of the Mississippi and CUSA remnants should become a Gulf Coast Conference from El Paso to Miami (Texas schools, Tulane, La Tech, USM, UAB, FIU, FAU, maybe a few SB schools to get to 12 or 14). There’s really not enough difference in any of those schools to justify the travel, except UConn and Cincinnati and they probably are short-timers in the BE. More regional teams-they don’t need 6 in same state, but more than 1 in many cases-would create a critical mass.
They might also reduce the “other 5” to the “other 4” if they take enough Sun Belt teams. Right now, the Sun Belt is looking at FCS schools which will further split the pie and lend more encouragement to the “Contract 5” to split the NCAA.
But they are going to work on differentiating themselves in the pecking order. So the BE will pick over CUSA again and it will probably be a lose-lose situation for most of the schools involved.
LikeLike
If the Big East took being spurned in some part of the country as a sign they don’t belong somewhere, the Northeast would be out, Florida, the Ohio River valley … they’d not have much of the country left.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure they shouldn’t invite Rice and another western school even if SMU and Houston stay:
SRBE (shattered remnants of the Big East):
UConn, Temple, Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU
Add two western schools:
SRBE East: UConn, Temple, Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF
SRBE West: Memphis, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Rice, {add#2}
LikeLike
Appy St. can’t get in or don’t want in the Sun Belt?
LikeLike
Sunbelt is still waiting to find out what is going on with Big East raiding C-USA raiding Sunbelt again.
LikeLike
Step 5 begins:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/football/bal-navy-bound-for-big-east-football-in-2015-will-wait-to-review-all-the-moving-parts-20121213,0,1932097.story
LikeLike
There are rumours going around that ACC is about to grab UConn and Cincinnati. No sources, just talk. I think that’s your step 4.
LikeLike
Big-time homer moment…
Finally, a great weekend to be a Minnesota fan…
Gopher football plays above their heads versus TT in close loss.
Gopher men’s hockey knocks off Air Force 4-0, defending Frozen Four champ and #1 ranked Boston College 8-1.
AP almost breaks Dickerson’s record in phenomenal performance in Viking’s win versus the hated Packers.
Gopher men’s hoops get awesome win over nemesis Michigan State.
Viking’s unexpectedly make playoffs.
Gopher men’s hockey NCAA rank = #1
Gopher women’s hockey NCAA rank = #1
Gopher wrestling NCAA rank = #3
Gopher men’s basketball rank = #9
Nice to cheer for some winners…
LikeLike
mnfanstc,
You’re certainly looking at the silver linings.
“Gopher football plays above their heads versus TT in close loss.”
But you blew the win. That doesn’t bug you more than the moral victory?
“AP almost breaks Dickerson’s record in phenomenal performance in Viking’s win versus the hated Packers.”
Doesn’t GB stopping him 9 yards short bug you?
“Gopher wrestling NCAA rank = #3”
The B10 better bring home another title this year with 5 of the top 6 teams right now (5 more in top 25, plus #18 MD and #26 RU).
LikeLike
“Look on the bright side of life, doo-doo, do-do-do-doo-do-doo”
Oh, and Happy New Year, everyone!
LikeLike
Minnesota needs to win a NC in men’s hockey….they ought to be winning that about every 3rd year…….
With respect to Minnesota football……..sadly, the situation reminds me of Inidana and Terry H., if you know what I mean…….
LikeLike
What, Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, and North Dakota are chopped liver?
All those myriad small schools in the east and CO schools will win some as well. Figure half to the 5 listed above (including the Gophers), and half to the rest, and Minny wins a hockey title roughly once in 10 years.
LikeLike
How many hockey players are there in Minnesota? As between Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, which state has the most passionate hockey culture? How does U of ND’s financial resources comapre to Minnesota’s?
LikeLike
If Minnesota has the most passionate hockey culture, they certainly have underachieved, particulary when compared to the states of Michigan, Massachusetts, and Colorado.
NHL Championships:
Michigan 11
Detroit Red Wings 11
Massachusetts 6
Boston Bruins 6
Colorad 2
Colorado Avalanche 2
Minnesota 0
NCAA Division I Hockey Championships (Men):
Michigan 19, by 5 different teams
Michigan 9
Lake Superior State 3
Michigan State 3
Michigan Tech 3
Northern Michigan 1
Massachusetts 11, by 3 different teams
Boston College 5
Boston University 5
Harvard 1
Colorado 9, by 2 different teams
Denver 7
Colorado College 2
Minnesota 6, by 2 different teams
Minnesota 5
Minnesota-Duluth 1
LikeLike
Minnesota has a lot of hockey players, but a ton of small schools who split the talent base. No one else has a college program in WI besides Wisconsin, and MI is a much larger state than MN (and they take their hockey pretty seriously there as well; just ask the denizens of self-proclaimed Hockeytown, USA).
Finally, for hockey, UND pours in as much or more resources than the Gophers do. Remember that hockey there is their football, basketball, and hockey all rolled in to one. Until recently, the Fighting Sioux competed in Div II in all sports besides hockey. They have been in the Frozen Four 19 times and won it all 7 times (compared to 20 & 5, respectively for Minny). Their arena is bigger than Minny’s and they draw a higher attendance than Minny does (2rd in the entire country behind Wisconsin, if you don’t count one-off events like the game in the Big House).
LikeLike
Wow. Great comeback win for Clemson over LSU (sorry Alan). That’s huge for Clemson and the ACC. It’s the first chink in the SEC armor for the top teams, too.
LikeLike
2012 can’t end soon enough.
LikeLike
Tough loss and I did not think your Tigers would let their Tigers get 3 TD’s. Hope to see you in the hunt next year.
LikeLike
That sucked. I was actually rooting for LSU in that game. I can’t believe Les decided to try and throw the ball three straight times on their last possession (especially on 2nd and 2). Sometimes his quirkiness wins him games, and sometimes it loses them. But they should’ve run Hill more in that game. That kid is a player.
LikeLike
bamatab,
I agree, the play calling was odd. There’s been a lot of that this bowl season. Too many coaches are getting cute trying to out-think the other guy.
LikeLike
Jeremy Hill had 12 carries for 124 yards for the game. You know how many carries he had in the 4th qrt? None. That makes no sense IYAM.
LikeLike
That was a problem with Hartsin (OC-formerly at Boise) at Texas all year (now HC at Arkansas St.). He’d do a double reverse with the wide receiver on 1st and 10 at the opponent’s 15 turning it into a 2nd and 20. Applewhite showed a little more sense in the bowl. Patterson went the other way with TCU in the bowl and got ultra-conservative in the 4th quarter.
LikeLike
Les is definately not more……….
LikeLike
All told the Big East has had 15 schools (a) leave, (b) announce they’re leaving, or (c) reneged on a plan to join since September of 2011.
1) Syracuse
2) Pitt
3) TCU
4) West Virginia
5) Notre Dame
6) Rutgers
7) Louisville
8) Providence
9) St. John’s
10) Seton Hall
11) Villanova
12) Georgetown
13) DePaul
14) Marquette
15) Boise State
San Diego State would make 16. Houston and SMU as defectors to the MWC would make 18.
If you include Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College, the total comes to 21.
Wow. The WAC and the SoCon (former home of most ACC and SEC schools) are impressed.
LikeLike
Some day, a best-selling book will be written about the fall of the Big East.
LikeLike
The book will simply say that the Big Ten decided it wanted more money and the rest is history. While Big East fans hate the ACC, it really is the Big Ten that caused the mess – all other moves were just reactions to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Though if the Big East had accepted Penn State when they applied, which was before the Big Ten went to 11, the Big East would not be a smoldering wreck today.
LikeLike
Penn State asked to join a conference that did not have football – they wanted to join the basketball Big East. Penn State joined the Big Ten before the Big East had football as a conference sport.
LikeLike
True, but if the Big East had just grabbed Penn St. in the ’80s, then once the Big East started sponsoring FB, PSU would have just moved their FB program to the Big East just like Pitt, BC and ‘Cuse did.
Alternately, with their non-FB sports in a major conference maybe they would have just stayed an independent (something Mike Tranghese has speculated). Either way, the Big East shot itself in the foot by turning PSU down.
LikeLike
Oh please. The SEC going to 12, the Big 8 merging with the Big 4 of the SWC and the ACC adding Miami, V-Tech and BC were all just reactions to the Big Ten money grab? Right.
Given that the Big 4 from the SWC merged with the Big 8 (their choice to leave their old conference mates behind rather than a full merger), the ACC grab of Miami, BC and V-Tech was the first real raid of one conference by another. That move was a paradigm shift in the history of conference alignment. It, and some poor choices by the Big East in the aftermath, are what directly lead to the demise of the Big East conference.
LikeLike
Before Penn State joined the Big Ten, there were a lot of viable independent programs in football. Once Penn State joined a conference, the age of independents started to end and now we only have Notre Dame & BYU as major independents & BYU would be in a conference if not for the religious mission overpowering the football logic.
LikeLike
The consolidation of power by major conferences began in the 1970’s when the Big Boys cut D-1 in half. Then Oklahoma and Georgia sued to get their TV rights back in the NCAA is the 1980’s which set the stage for conferences to begin negotiating their own TV deals.
The fall of the independents was inevitable, and the Big East should have positioned themselves accordingly by grabbing the Nits when they had the chance.
LikeLike
People inclined to believe that sort assertion are not the sort of people that read books, so I fear the literary venture will fail.
LikeLike
Nice one, drwillini.
LikeLike
For the new year, I have begun a blog on Maryland’s move to the Big Ten, and part of it will feature profiles of Big Ten institutions (plus Rutgers), as well as Big Ten sports, as a way to get Terrapin fans acquainted. Give it a look at http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/
LikeLike
vp19,
It should be interesting to see an outsider’s view on things. Some posts I’d like to see:
1. Expose many of the myths people have about the B10 (pace of hoops play, 3 yards and a cloud of dust, all farmers and hicks, etc). You could also include a section like that for each school when you profile them.
2. Start by profiling UMD (helpful for us outsiders, at least). That will provide a basis of comparison and set a template for what you’ll say about the other schools.
3. An ACC vs B10 comparison on a range of issues, from academics to athletic to financial to cultural to other.
4. Profile Jim Delany and what he has actually done and said as opposed to what he’s been alleged to have done and said.
5. A view of the B10 as a member versus as an outsider. Things that were negatives may become positives and vice versa, etc.
6. Try to explain the Rose Bowl.
7. As an adjunct to your profiles, visit some of the schools (when and if you get a chance) and write a before and after about how your perceptions changed with the visit.
LikeLike
Some excellent ideas there, although with my work schedule, limited budget and recent knee injury (recuperation is coming along nicely, thank you), any travel probably will be minimal (in the mid-1980s, as a graduate student at Iowa State, I visited several Big Ten campuses, notably Iowa and Northwestern for research, as well as Ohio State, Illinois, Minnesota and future member Nebraska). Yes, a University of Maryland profile will be among my upcoming entries.
One wonders if anyone at Rutgers is doing something comparable in preparation for the Scarlet Knights’ move 18 months hence. I lived in New Jersey off and on for more than a decade, and sense that with Rutgers’ rather limited big-time history — and that being in conferences such as the Atlantic 10 and more recently Big East — the culture shock of jumping to a full-fledged top-tier conference will be a far more jarring transition for the folks on the banks of the Raritan than what Maryland will face after six decades as an ACC member.
LikeLike
For the folks in Maryland, it’s going to be as it was for the folks in Nebraska; a change to a peer league although a better institutional fit.
For the folks in New Jersey, it’s going to be much more of a major culture change to be in the Big Ten than the Big East.
LikeLike
vp19,
“Some excellent ideas there, although with my work schedule, limited budget and recent knee injury (recuperation is coming along nicely, thank you), any travel probably will be minimal (in the mid-1980s, as a graduate student at Iowa State, I visited several Big Ten campuses, notably Iowa and Northwestern for research, as well as Ohio State, Illinois, Minnesota and future member Nebraska).”
Yeah, real life will control what you can do on that, obviously. But if work takes you towards a B10 town, maybe you get a chance.
“Yes, a University of Maryland profile will be among my upcoming entries.”
Good. I’m sure lots of us don’t have a deep factual knowledge of UMD.
“One wonders if anyone at Rutgers is doing something comparable in preparation for the Scarlet Knights’ move 18 months hence.”
No idea, but they do have a decent web presence. Maybe their SBNation blog, On the Banks (http://www.onthebanks.com/), is/will be doing it. Did you considering working with an existing UMD blog like Testudo Times?
“I lived in New Jersey off and on for more than a decade, and sense that with Rutgers’ rather limited big-time history — and that being in conferences such as the Atlantic 10 and more recently Big East — the culture shock of jumping to a full-fledged top-tier conference will be a far more jarring transition for the folks on the banks of the Raritan than what Maryland will face after six decades as an ACC member.”
On the other hand, they have no holdouts that wish they stayed where they were.
LikeLike
As a Rutgers fan, I don’t understand the premise.
Aside from:
-actually having fans from the opposing school at games in Piscataway
-recognizing the coaches from the other teams because they don’t change every year due to the successful ones jumping to another job
-dealing with the bruises resulting from constantly pinching myself to make sure I am not dreaming
What’s the big adjustment?
LikeLike
They’re going to miss their friends..
LikeLike
In the Big East there was no such thing as friends, only cellmates.
LikeLike
@Brian
All the really good stuff from Maryland including the big time alums, PTB and the guy with insider knowledge is The Terrapin Times on Rivals with Keith Cavanaugh. Unfortunately, it is a paid board, but it where all the good info is. The entire story on the B1G jump came days before the thing hit the radio station in Philly or the local radio outlet, WNST. The people who are the fannies in the seats all hang out there.
Nemo
LikeLike
I had hoped with the malware warning that Brian’s comments would be cleared when it was over.
LikeLike
Looks like the state of Pennsylvania is preparring to sue the NCAA over the PSU sanctions. It’ll be interesting to watch how this one plays out, and what effect (if any) it has on the NCAA going forward.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130101/penn-state-lawsuit/index.html?eref=twitter_feed
LikeLike
It makes sense that the state has an interest in where $60 million of state funds go and the NCAA shouldn’t be able to tell a state what to do. Especially when the penalty is a stretch of the NCAA’s role. It will be interesting to see if they challenge any of the other sanctions. Seems to me they have a pretty strong case on the fine. And of course, they can use the $60 million to pay the fine the feds will levy and have every right to levy.
If they were to challenge any of the other sanctions and win, it could have a significant impact on the NCAA.
LikeLike
To me, the re-writing of history by forfeiture of so many games was the worst crime. Very Stalinist. That is also probably the least likely issue to be addressed, as it doesn’t involve $.
LikeLike
It doesn’t involve money from the school (or state’s) prospective, but it does from the estate of Joe Paterno which has been financially harmed (not being the official “winninest coach in Div 1” and such). I The Paterno family lawyers have already said that they plan to sue as well. I think they are waiting until after the criminal trials, but they are certain to at least try to get the wins back.
The vacated wins seemed the most arbitrary of penalties, especially since they dated back to 1998. The 1998 investigation was done by the county and didn’t involve the school or football program in the slightest. If they vacated wins from 2001, it might make some logical sense (i.e. the wins were gained by avoiding the negative consequences of reporting Sandusky) but starting at 1998 just seems punative without logic.
LikeLike
This was all about emotion, not logic. Unfortunately, that seems to be how the NCAA operates.
LikeLike
Stalinist? The only thing Stalinist was the disgusting behavior of senior leadership (starting with Paterno) trying to preserve their power and legacy.
LikeLike
The weird thing to me is PA’s standing for this. PSU is exempt from state disclosure laws like a private school and PA takes pains to say PSU isn’t a state school. Shouldn’t that diminish PA’s ability to sue on PSU’s behalf?
LikeLike
Perhaps it will enable the state to assert authority (disclosure, regulation, oversight, etc.) over private schools receiving state funds?
LikeLike
Depends what they are actually attempting to achieve with the lawsuit. If they are just trying to ensure that the $60 million goes to the state then they wouldn’t need to sue on PSU’s behalf.
If they are actually trying to vacate the penalties altogether, then that is a another story.
LikeLike
But PSU doesn’t have to disclose athletics financial info like a state school, and PSU has to pay their fines with AD money and not take anything from the academic side. So how is this the state’s business?
LikeLike
They are state assisted. There’s little difference in their finances than other big state schools now, who have been facing declining state aid.
LikeLike
Except there are clear legal differences. State schools are subject to disclosure laws and such. I’m just curious what the legal distinctions are that let PA file an anti-trust lawsuit on PSU’s behalf but at other times treat PSU like it’s not part of the state.
I also don’t understand why the NCAA is so insistent about spreading the fine money nationally. If that’s what it takes to shut PA up, just leave the money in state. I’m sure plenty of kids in Philly, Pittsburgh and other cities can use it.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with Brian on this. That said, apparently the Commonwealth of PA is going to sue on anti-trust grounds. Would the state have to have some sort of standing to do so? In theory, couldn’t the government sue an organization for anti-trust behavior if it were present even if the state was not directly involved/affected?
I don’t know the answer, I’m just throwing it out there.
LikeLike
I so hope the state wins this one. Penn State deserves to lose lawsuits of its own, but the NCAA overstepped its authority on this one in my opinion and I’d like to see that checked going forward.
LikeLike
The reality is, though, that the NCAA doesn’t need to be “checked” on this. The only reason they were able to enact such harsh sanctions on PSU is because the school signed a “consent degree” accepting them. [This happened because it was PSU essentially plea bargaining under public sentiment and against the threat of the death penalty, even though that was never actually on the table according to NCAA officials. But I digress.]
It doesn’t set a dangerous precedent for other schools since the only thing they would have to do is not sign a consent degree and simply ask for the NCAA to go through their regular process for administering penalties. Which will continue to be as punchless as ever.
LikeLike
The only reason PSU signed a consent decree is because they were threatened with the death penalty. They had a gun to their head.
LikeLike
The scuttlebutt and corroborating indications are that this is just the first one. (Google “paul kelly penn state” and “paul kelly penn state paterno” to find news stories.) There are also strong rumors that there will be more criminal indictments coming up.
The funniest thing I heard today about the PA lawsuit: “Gov. Corbett’s re-election campaign has officially begun.” But I think it’s too little too late. Maybe it’s enough to keep him from being the focus of an investigation himself? We’ll see …
LikeLike
A little Big East / Boise State side note, Big East will have 11 teams going into the 2013 season, 10 if they also lose San Diego State. No Big East Championship game. Does the Big East have a TV deal for 2013? I know they don’t have a deal for Basketball for 2013/2014 season.
LikeLike
They’re still negotiating their TV deal, and I’m guessing these constant defections keep setting them back to almost square 1.
LikeLike
The basketball deals end after the current season, but the football deal runs through the end of next season.
LikeLike
1) I need time to digest the news about the state of PA suing the NCAA. My gut reaction is that it is an attempt by Gov. Corbett to divert attention from the fact that he did not do enough when he was Attorney General.
2) Maybe the BE does indeed just last for 2013-14 and have the fire sale which was jokingly mentioned above. After all, they do have AQ status for one more year (Plus Louisville and Rutgers are still on their roster). C’mon Temple Owls: be the last BE Champion…ever!
LikeLike
I sure hope the Big East (CUSA 2.0) can make it to the 2014 season. Tulane’s new on campus stadium is set to open with fellow Big East member Temple in a reenactment of the first Sugar Bowl, held just a few hundred yards away from the new stadium back on January 1, 1935. Tulane 20 Temple 14.
LikeLike
Stuff always rolls downhill, and even if the Once Were BEAST is now downhill of the MWC, but its still uphill of C-USA which is uphill of the Sunbelt ~ so survival concern would be as far as making it to 2014 would be more focused on the Sunbelt.
LikeLike
Go U NU!!!! I’d dare NU has been as impressive OOC as any B1G team this year.
LikeLike
Big East will also be at 10 or 11 (depending on San Diego State) in 2014. Then Navy is set to Join in 2015, so they will likely go two years without a Championship game. Do they try and invite two more teams from Conference USA? Maybe UMass from MAC?
LikeLike
Or 8-10 (Depending on SDSU, Houston, SMU). With Boise State gone and SDSU with at least one foot out the door, they could well decide to stay at 10 until they have finished distributing their exit fees, only replacing Houston and/or SMU if they get poached by the MWC.
LikeLike
If there is a Big East West and a Big East East, I reckon Cincy wants to be in the Big East East with a trip to Florida each year. So there’s a bias for them to be west of Cincinnati, leaving the BEE as UConn, Temple, Cincy, ECU, UCF, USF.
And East/West rather than North/South, for the same reason.
But, if there’s to be no more of these wild transcontinental dreams, east of the Front Range.
From the C-USA, both in place and inbound, Middle Tennessee and Rice would work to form a reasonable BEW: Houston, SMU, Rice, Tulane, Memphis, Middle Tennessee.
LikeLike
Bowl season is going better than I hoped for the B10.
2012 games split 1-1 with both games close.
NW ends their bowl losing streak and assures the B10 of not getting swept by the SEC.
MI and NE are competitive in their games (MI up 1 in the 4th, NE tied in the 3rd).
LikeLike
I haven’t been following NE, but both NU and UM are dispelling these slow vs quick stereotypes.
LikeLike
Don’t say nothing and knock on wood until games are over…
LikeLike
Bowl season is going better than I hoped for the B10.
I am feeling better with each game that the B1G was not as bad as the talking heads kept saying all season and the B12 was not as good. Michigan could have been a win and the Nebraska game was tied after 3 so both schools showed they could play with the mighty SEC. Northwestern came through and beat Mississippi State as predicted so all and all I feel pretty good about the B1G. Rose Bowl win would be nice but the B1G at least played all AQ teams and most of their games were against the SEC.
B1G vs PAC = ? – ?
B1G vs SEC = 1 – 2
B1G vs B 12 = 1 – 2
Only real blowout was PU vs OK State and PU was 6-6 going in.
LikeLike
duffman,
The key is that the B10 really was that bad early in the year. Even OSU looked terrible while winning. WI, OSU and PSU improved dramatically during the season, though.
LikeLike
Brian,
Which is what I said all along. As you know my rants were not directed at you but the mainstream who act like the B1G is CUSA status the past season or so. It infuriates me to no end. I still think schedule matters and the polls should not start until after at least week 4 or possibly week 7. Since the B12 is not undefeated in their bowl games and the B1G has played well against better bowl opponents I feel a bit vindicated for going against the mainstream.
LikeLike
duffman,
I’m just saying the talking heads weren’t wrong in the first half of the season. They were late to notice when WI and PSU improved, but they did notice in November.
LikeLike
Maybe the SEC was overrated. I think there is very little between 4 of their top 6 and the bottom of the top 25. Its just that the bottom of the conference wasn’t good enough this year to challenge them.
LikeLike
Since the B12 is not undefeated in their bowl games and the B1G has played well against better bowl opponents I feel a bit vindicated for going against the mainstream.
As I am writing this, the Big 10 is 2-0 in games they were favored in and 1-4 in games in which they were underdogs, with the Rose Bowl left to play. Sounds to me like the “mainstream” was almost exactly right in regards to the Big 10 (unless you believe Sparty’s 1 point win over TCU is enough to outweigh the fact the odds makers went 6-0 in the other games).
LikeLike
For the Big 12 so far, Texas and Baylor ended up slight underdogs and won.
WVU and TCU were slight favorites and lost.
TT and OSU were favorites and won.
ISU was a slight underdog and lost.
Pretty much as Vegas predicted. Big 12 was underdog in 4 of 9 games (KSU and OU are underdogs as well. KSU a pretty big underdog).
LikeLike
“Sounds to me like the “mainstream” was almost exactly right in regards to the Big 10”
Vegas oddsmakers are hardly mainstream. They are as close to an objective ranking that we get out of a human ranking. Ask any mainstream writer where the B10 ranks this year among the current six BCS AQ conferences, and I bet a large majority would answer either 5th or 6th.
The Massey compilation has B10 fourth, just behind the P12. ACC and BE are well behind in 5th and 6th. There were mainstream observers honestly trying to claim that the B10 was the equivalent of the MAC this year.
LikeLike
@greg
The oddsmakers set lines based on where betters are putting their money (that’s why lines move around). This year the majority of betters were picking the game correctly.
Anyways, for all the guff the Big 10 has taken this year, analysts have been far harsher on the ACC and the Big East (and rightfully so).
LikeLike
Given that most Big Ten analysts already analyzed the league as “way down” this year; it would have been beating a dead horse to really criticize the Big Ten more.
The Pac-12 on the other hand was talked about as the #2 league or tied with the Big 12 for that spot at a minimum, so they had a lot more to lose in these games, especially with Oregon State, UCLA, and USC losing. Not at all what the Pac-12 expected.
LikeLike
ACC is 17-23 vs. FBS ooc this year, in 8th place, behind the other 5 AQ conferences, the independents and the WAC. There’s still some chance they end up 9th, behind the MAC. It would take an NIU upset of FSU and Kent to win their bowl vs. Arkansas St. This will be their 2nd straight year below 50% and 4th straight below 52%. Prior to that, they hadn’t been below 52% since 1996.
LikeLike
Can you call what UCLA and USC did losing? More like not showing up.
LikeLike
Actually, S. Carolina didn’t seem to do much except for a half dozen big plays. It seems like their speed beat Michigan. Once they lost Lattimore late in their season they lost much of their offense. I thought Michigan would win that one.
LikeLike
The bowl season actually has gone exactly as I expected.
I expected PU and UNL to be blown out. PU was. UNL hung around but still lost comfortably.
I expected Northwestern to win. They won comfortably.
I had the other 4 games as toss-ups, and the 3 played so far have all gone down to the last minute.
LikeLike
I have no faith in B10 teams in bowls. They’ve blown too many games for me to expect anything but losses. I was expecting 1-6 with at least 2 blowouts. We’re one W ahead thanks to MSU in a squeaker and one blow out ahead thanks to MI and NE staying close.
LikeLike
NE fell apart late and MI blew their game late, but my feelings are the same.
1-2 vs the SEC with a -5 point differential
NW ended their streak while NE and MI were competitive.
Considering OSU and PSU were out of the mix, I’ll gladly take that. It’s not like 1/1/11 with MI and MSU getting blown out as part of the SEC sweep.
LikeLike
Agreed.
The conference’s teams looked totally outclassed the past two or three years outside of our 2nd BCS Bowls and a random game here and there (Michigan State-Georgia etc).
This year, I felt only Purdue really didn’t belong with its opponent…
LikeLike
Er, not sure why I put that nd there, I meant two…
LikeLike
I’m so tired of the self appointed authorities announcing games…
LikeLike
I’m depressed about the Nebraska loss. At one point the Georgia defense looked confused, but NU always finds away to blow it on turnovers. I’m ready to talk conference realignment again after that.
Thinking more about the MWC. They were smart not to back fill with crappy teams. Conference USA scrambled and picked up a group of nobodies to back fill with UNC-Charlotte, North Texas, Old Dominion, UT San Antonio, FIU and Middle Tenn State. If Southern Miss and Houston wanted to back out of the Big East and stay in Conference USA they would find a much more watered down conference. Even without San Diego State returning to the MWC which is likely, the MWC looks to be at least equal to the Big East in football and have pulled away from Conference USA which they once considered their equal and attempted to join forces just a year ago.
The MWC could further their position by taking SMU and Houston and reducing the Big East’s future football line up to 8 (assuming Navy gets cold feet) with Uconn, UCF, South Florida, Memphis, Cinci, East Carolina, Temple, and Tulane. The remaining schools to pack fill would be highly unsavory. MWC could further push Conference USA to the level of the Sun Belt by grabbing UTEP and then either Rice or Tulsa, the last three solid athletic departments in Conference USA, while adding some familiar schools to SMU and Houston’s conference schedule.
This would create a WAC 2.0 of sorts, very similar to the lineup of 1996-1999. The only schools missing would be Utah (Pac 12), BYU (Independent) and TCU (Big 12). Much has changed since the MWC split from the WAC. A 16 team conference was way ahead of it’s time then, Hawaii was a member in all sports which made for some difficult finances, but now are only a football member, and BYU and Utah are no longer part of the group and were heavy players in the split.
BYU would be a great addition to this conference, then you could add either Rice, Tulsa, or New Mexico State to make it 18, but I don’t see BYU making a move unless it’s to a major conference.
The conference would look something like this. The addition of SMU, Houston, Tulsa, and UTEP would all be programs with athletic budgets in the middle or in the upper half of what already exists in the conference, so from that regard it does not water down the league it also gives Boise State (and others) an opportunity to play in both California and Texas, the two most important recruiting states west of the Mississippi.
EAST
New Mexico
SMU
Houston
Air Force
Tulsa
UTEP
Wyoming
Colorado State
WEST
UNLV
Hawaii
San Diego State
Fresno State
Boise State
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
LikeLike
However, would they add more to the media value of the conference than they water down the conference payout? They have to add 1/3 to the value of the conference at 12 to justify taking it to 16.
I can see how SMU/Houston by providing one Central Time game a week and some modest local profile in Texas might conceivably add 1/6, if CBSSN say that they do, but don’t see that UTEP+Tulsa would add another 1/6.
LikeLike
That is true, no extra TV revenue for Tulsa and UTEP. Only advantage would be as bait for SMU and Houston, or to relegate Conference USA to the levels of the Sun Conference. With the addition of Houston and SMU they would be well ahead of the MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt, and just as good as the Big East which would be sitting at 8, with really no good options at all.
LikeLike
But as full members, they still look to be several millions per year ahead on conference payout from the Little East versus the Mountain West.
Top 50 Media market presence of both, WITHOUT Houston / SMU:
Little East:
4. Philadelphia;
12. Tampa – St. Petersburg;
20. Orlando – Daytona Beach;
28. Hartford – New Haven;
34. Cincinnati;
35. Greenville-Spartenburg, Asheville, Anderson;
43. New Orleans
44. Memphis;
MWC:
26. San Diego, presumably;
46. Albuquerque-Santa Fe
48. Las Vegas
Now, you can say that in the majority of those Little East media markets, the Little East football members are just a blip on the radar ~ but then is Mountain West football such a big deal in Las Vegas?
LikeLike
The new Big East is CUSA2 with some of Houston’s rivals. Houston has no reason to join the MWC unless offered the same sweetheart deal given to Boise State and that will not happen. Average distance is 925 miles to new BE schools (excluding SMU) versus 1210 miles to MWC schools (excluding HI and SDSU; 1440 miles with these two). Except for a shorter time in CUSA, the same applies for SMU.
The new Big East will have a higher TV payout than the MWC (excluding BSU). Until Cincinnati finds a new home, the new BE will also be a better football conference. It will also have better media exposure due to its markets and location in E and C time zones.
The BSU deal is what Texas could not get in the B12. Why would any team want to join the MWC as second class? (first class = BSU, BYU?; second class = everyone else).
LikeLike
Brian Murphy @murphsturph
Rough calculation: Since 2006, Boise State has played 23 games that would qualify for MW nat’l TV bonus. All on ESPN, ESPN2 or ABC
——————————————————————-
Just some interesting stuff there, that means Boise can expect around 3-4 “bonus” games a year in terms of the $; that’s an extra 1-2 million in TV money.
LikeLike
Wonder how many of those games were due to the ESPN contract with the WAC – would be interesting to see if that falls when there is no contract in place
LikeLike
Selling the Boise State home game rights as a separate package is part of the deal, though, so ESPN could well have a contract with the MWC before the start of next season.
LikeLike
What was with Alvarez refusing to use his passing QB? Phillips was begging to get picked most of the night while Stave threw one pass that would have been a TD if it wasn’t dropped. I think an old, conservative coach fell into the trap of favoring seniority over skill.
LikeLike
Really disappointed that Stave didn’t play more. Phillips can’t throw the ball. Doesn’t keep the defense honest.
Terrible year for the B1G. Better years ahead I believe.
LikeLike
Just getting Ohio State back into the rotation will have to help.
This was as down a year as the league has had though in terms of records and rankings, and it was justified just looking at the results.
Outside of Ohio State and Northwestern which had great years, I’m not sure anyone else even had what they’d consider a good year…
LikeLike
If there were no NCAA penalties in the B10 this year:
OSU – NCG vs ND – ??? (WI lost Rose)
NE – Cap 1 vs UGA – L (same)
PSU/MI – Outback vs SC – maybe PSU would win (MI lost)
MI/PSU – Gator vs MS St. – W (NW won)
NW – BWW vs TCU – probable W since TCU lacks offense (MSU won)
WI – MCC vs TT – probable W since WI can score and play D (MN lost)
MSU – HoD vs OkSU – probable L since OkSU can score so readily (PU lost)
MN – Pizza vs CMU – hopefully a win
PU – ??? vs ??? – probable loss because of the coaching change
actual result: 2-5 with 4 close losses
probable result: 5-4 ish
LikeLike
Very true……there are a lot of ifs, ands, or buts about the BIG’s bowl record this year and in the last 4-5….but the bottom line is Ws and Ls, especially in the eyes of the vast majority of fans less fanatical than us….and in that light the BIG took another big perception hit…..
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s what I was thinking throughout that game.
LikeLike
Now that the B10’s season is over, it’s time to start looking ahead.
There’s still time for players to declare for the NFL, but we know most of the players who will be returning. We also know the schedules unless something changes.
East
OSU – easier
+ NW, IA
– NE, MSU
PSU – harder
+ MI, MN
– NW, IA
WI – easier
+ NW, IA
– NE, MSU
PU – harder
+ NE, MSU
– MI, MN
IN – harder
+ MI, MN
– NW, IA
IL – harder
+ NE, MSU
– MI, MN
Based on schedules, OSU and WI are the favorites. Based on talent, OSU is the favorite. WI plays at OSU in 2013, too. Pencil in OSU as the winner.
West
NE – much easier
+ IL, PU
– OSU, WI
MI – harder
+ PSU, IN
– IL, PU
NW – harder
+ OSU, WI
– PSU, IN
MSU – much easier
+ IL, PU
– OSU, WI
MN – harder
+ PSU, IN
– IL, PU
IA – harder
+ OSU, WI
– PSU, IN
Based on schedules, NE is the favorite with MSU looking to improve a lot. NE is at MI, but home versus NW and MSU. Pencil in NE as the winner.
Conclusion
The early favorites are OSU and NE, with OSU probably favored to win the CCG. OSU has an easy OOC slate, so they should be in the BCS discussion all year (NCG, Rose or at large). WI has an easy slate, too. NE’s is the same as this year, while MSU and MI have ND again of course. I’d expect 2 BCS teams next year.
LikeLike
Talent is more important than schedule, so I wouldn’t jump to your conclusion based mostly on schedules. Until UNL gets a defense, I wouldn’t pick them over Michigan. They did beat Michigan this year, but I don’t think they can count on Michigan playing them without a QB for most of the game again. Plus, Hoke has been getting top 10 recruiting classes. UNL most definitely has not been. If MSU finds a QB, I’d say they’d be co-favorites with Michigan thanks to their dominating defense. Otherwise, I believe Michigan stands alone as the early favorite in their division.
LikeLike
Richard,
“Talent is more important than schedule,”
It depends on the talent gap you’re talking about. Schedule is more important than small gaps, but large talent gaps trump schedule differences.
“so I wouldn’t jump to your conclusion based mostly on schedules.”
They’re marked as early favorites for a reason. Draft decisions, recruiting classes, injuries, transfers, arrests, player ineligibility and other things all could change things.
“Until UNL gets a defense, I wouldn’t pick them over Michigan. They did beat Michigan this year, but I don’t think they can count on Michigan playing them without a QB for most of the game again. Plus, Hoke has been getting top 10 recruiting classes. UNL most definitely has not been.”
Neither has WI, and they went to 3 straight Rose Bowls. NE loses about 11 starters (mostly on D), MI about 13 (mostly on O). Plus, MI will be switching to a more pro-style O. MSU is younger, but still has QB and WR issues and may lose a lot to the NFL on D. NW is also younger but has a lesser talent base. I believe scheduling will be an important factor in the race. NE and MSU will be helped by getting an easier path while MI and NW suffer from a harder schedule. If MSU’s D holds up and the offense improves significantly, they could certainly make a run at the division too.
“If MSU finds a QB, I’d say they’d be co-favorites with Michigan thanks to their dominating defense. Otherwise, I believe Michigan stands alone as the early favorite in their division.”
MI is losing about 8 starters on O and have had highly rated classes because they lacked depth after RichRod. Adding a harder B10 schedule will hurt them. MI lost to the 5 best teams they played this year, missed PSU and got lucky to beat NW.
LikeLike
“Neither has WI, and they went to 3 straight Rose Bowls.”
I don’t see Wisconsin beating out Michigan if they were in the same division either.
Counting down Wisconsin’s 3 B10 titles:
1. This year they got lucky as OSU & PSU were ineligible (and were already worse than Michigan).
2. Last year, OSU was in disarray, they had Russell Wilson, and Michigan under RichRod had recruited substandard talent.
3. 2010: Same issue with RichRod having substandard talent. Also they got lucky that the tiebreakers fell their way as they tied for the title.
“NE loses about 11 starters (mostly on D), MI about 13 (mostly on O). Plus, MI will be switching to a more pro-style O.”
Your statement that UNL’s already atrocious defense will be replaced by backups who couldn’t even beat out those starters while Michigan’s offense will have more starters with talents that fit the current coaching staff’s schemes better doesn’t support the argument that UNL will be as or more talented than Michigan.
“MI lost to the 5 best teams they played this year, missed PSU and got lucky to beat NW.”
Weak argument because
1. Of the teams they lost to, 2 are playing for the national title, another 1 is also undefeated, they didn’t have a QB most of the game against UNL, and was one play away from beating SC.
If UNL had played Michigan’s schedule (outside of the UNL game as they obviously can’t play themselves), they would have lost to the teams Michigan lost to as well and would have lost more badly (they were blown out by OSU; Michigan played OSU close).
2. UNL lost to the 4 best teams they played as well; they just didn’t play as many stellar teams as Michigan. They lost to a UCLA team that was embarrassed in their bowl game by Baylor(!), was blown out by OSU, was blown out by a team that ended with 6 losses (Wisconsin), and lost by 2 touchdowns in their bowl game.
Oh, and UNL was just as lucky in beating Northwestern.
Look, this year, I’d say that UNL’s talent level was close to Michigan’s (but still a little worse), but next year, Michigan will be losing guys from RichRod’s substandard recruiting classes who didn’t fit the current coaching staff’s philosophy that well and have more guys from top 10 recruiting classes recruited by the current coaching staff. UNL has consistently had recruiting classes outside the top 10. In short, I believe Michigan will have clearly better talent than UNL next year.
LikeLike
IRT Michigan, I don’t agree with your assessment that the Wolverines’ schedule is more difficult in 2012 than 2011.
UM gets Notre Dame (second week of the season), Nebraska and Ohio State all in Ann Arbor this year, whereas in 2011, they had all three of those teams on the road. Add in a neutral site season opener against Alabama in Dallas being replaced in 2012 by Central Michigan at Michigan Stadium and it’s markedly different. The Wolverines other two non-conference games are Akron and at Connecticut (return game since UConn agreed to be season opener in 2010).
There is a bye week after the non-conference season followed by Minnesota, at Penn State and Indiana with a second bye week after that. The Wolverines should be favored in all three of those games–especially if PSU loses its head coach to the NFL.
The last five are at Michigan State, Nebraska, at Northwestern, at Iowa and Ohio State. That will be the most difficult stretch of the schedule.
IRT Michigan’s talent levels translating into next year, the biggest shortfall is going to be on the offensive line where four starters will be replaced assuming Lewan is headed to the NFL (which is highly probable). Don’t be too surprised to see three or even four redshirt freshman starting in the game against CMU next 31 August.
Running back is problematic as well. Toussaint wasn’t that productive last year and will be coming off a pretty serious injury. Rawls and Hayes don’t seem to be prime time players, which means one or two of the freshmen running backs (I’m looking at you, Derrick Green!) is going to get playing time.
Michigan will have a couple of wide receivers coming back, but they’re going to need major production from the underclassmen who have no real experience. It’d have been a real boost if UM had gotten a commit from Laquon Treadwell, but it looks like he’s going somewhere else.
The defense should be in relatively good shape in terms of depth/talent and it will help that most of the six players who started school early play on that side of the ball. The same with special teams.
Depending on how the ball bounces (not to mention injuries, because this team still has some shortfalls in terms of depth), Michigan could start out 7-0 if they beat Notre Dame in Week 2. At the worst, I could envision them going 5-2. The second half of the season will likely be more problematic–perhaps 3-2 over the last five games. That has UM going anywhere from 8-4 in the regular season to 10-2. A lot is going to depend upon how a number of younger players step up, but in this case, the schedule is largely backloaded and there are two bye weeks in it, so that should help with their overall progress.
LikeLike
cutter,
“IRT Michigan, I don’t agree with your assessment that the Wolverines’ schedule is more difficult in 2012 than 2011.
UM gets Notre Dame (second week of the season), Nebraska and Ohio State all in Ann Arbor this year, whereas in 2011, they had all three of those teams on the road. Add in a neutral site season opener against Alabama in Dallas being replaced in 2012 by Central Michigan at Michigan Stadium and it’s markedly different. The Wolverines other two non-conference games are Akron and at Connecticut (return game since UConn agreed to be season opener in 2010).”
I was only talking B10 schedule, and looking at teams more than locations. Adding PSU and IN instead of IL and PU makes for a harder group of 8 games. Also, @ PSU, @ NW, @ MSU and @ IA isn’t an easy road slate.
“IRT Michigan’s talent levels translating into next year, the biggest shortfall is going to be on the offensive line where four starters will be replaced assuming Lewan is headed to the NFL (which is highly probable). …
Running back is problematic as well. …
Michigan will have a couple of wide receivers coming back, but they’re going to need major production from the underclassmen who have no real experience. …”
All that, plus no Denard and a change in offensive style.
All I’m saying is that NE should be the favorite on paper right now. NE, MI, MSU and NW could all win the division if things go their way.
LikeLike
I disagree with your assessment that the UM’s B1G schedule will be more difficult with Penn State and Indiana replacing Purdue and Illinois. While PSU (8-4) did very well under first year head coach Bill O’Brien, they’re just starting major sanctions that are going to sap their overall talent. We also don’t know if there are going to be anymore transfers from the program, although it does help that O’Brien is staying in State College.
Purdue (6-7) will have a new head coach while Illinois (2-10 in 2011) and Indiana (4-8) are all meh programs. I also don’t think a road game against Iowa (4-8) is going to pose a major challenge for Michigan. MSU is always a tough team, but they’re losing their best RB and TE to the NFL draft a year early along with DE William Gholston. They may stilll have a strong defense in East Lansing, but where does the offensive production come from? The team that will give Michigan the most problems on the road will probably be Northwestern.
What does help UM is having the Nebraska and Ohio State games at home. I’ll also add that having a less difficult non-conference slate (no Alabama, Notre Dame at home) helps when it comes to getting a young team (in some positions) in shape plus it means a lot less wear and tear going into B1G season. The two bye weeks are also in pretty good spots as well.
On the whole, I find your analysis somewhat lacking IRT Michigan’s schedule vis-a-vis the B1G portion. Now will UM’s offensive style change? Absolutely–you’re spot on. We saw a preview of what they’re going to start looking like in the latter half of the season when Robinson got hurt and Gardner took over at quarterback. I’m not on sold as you are IRT Michigan State winning the division next year based on what I wrote above, but a trio of Northwestern, Nebraska and Michigan as front runners does make sense.
LikeLike
PSU > PU and IN > IL, but that doesn’t make it harder. OSU, NW and MN should all be better next year, but that doesn’t make it harder. IA can’t be much worse. MSU’s D will still be tough and they almost won last year. NE should still be potent on O, and they did win last year.
It should suffice to say we don’t agree.
LikeLike
Have a new entry to “Terps in Big Ten” examining the change in public opinion between the time the Maryland move was announced and now: http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/732.html
LikeLike
@vp19
I am in MD and am having a lot of problems logging in to anything with “livejournal.com”. The same was true yesterday all day, and also last night. Apparently, there are some issues with certain IP providers & domains and this website. It is not computer speed, as I have a pretty fast connection.
Have you considered a site on Blogger which is totally free, done by Google, has a fast set up and which allows all kinds of changes to be made to the template, etc.? I notice that Frank uses Word Press which is also a great blogging platform, but of the blogs I follow, the vast majority use the free Blogger platform.
Simply a suggestion, vp19. As a Maryland alum who read your post in the Diamondback in 2010, and who wants the transition to the B1G to go smoothly, you are in an ideal position to present the University to the B1G community. Simply a suggestion! You have a wealth of info to share!
Nemo
LikeLike
Some bowl observatiuons:
1. That NIU QB was overrated.
2. I’m tired of seeing Wisconsin in the RB
3. Barry didn’t earn the $111,000 he charged Wisconsin for his services. Stay classy Barry.
4. BIG 10 desperately needs some play-making DBs. Time and again in the MN, Pur, Wis, Mich, and Neb games the DBs were in position to make plays, and didn’t.
5. Wisconsin just ran up the middle again. They got 1 yard.
6. Really easy to see that disorganized/disjointed coaching staffs don’t work so well in bowl games—see TT, Purdue, Wisconsin.
7. I see the problems with Big 10 football as analogous to the problems of ACC basketball (recently). Lots of coaching turnover or situations where the teams don’t have the right coach in place. Ron Zook, Danny Hope, Bill Lynch….Kirk F is getting older, Joe died….now it looks like the PSU coach will hit the road. Only stable situations are at OSU, UM, NW, and MSU……..
LikeLike
Echoing the coaching turnover point, Fitz at 7 seasons is 2nd in tenure; that’s just not going to cut it.
The Big Ten really needs to get some stability in at some of these schools for a period of 7-8 years. It’s just not easy to see how that happens though.
I’m not sure how firmly ensconced Pelini is at Nebraska. They gave TO a long time to figure out the winning “big” part of it but it’s 2013; not sure the old attitudes will prevail if he doesn’t get it done in the next two years, especially with a new AD and stadium expansion. Kill seems like a good coach, but the health issues are going to be a concern as long as he is at Minnesota. Beckman at Illinois had as disastrous a first year as I think any Illinois fan could imagine… not sure he’ll end up being there in a couple of years.
BOB is a perfect coach for Penn State, but they need him there for this entire ride 6-7 year rebuilding process, and the NFL is going to go hard after him, so it’s hard to see him being in place there for the long haul.
Even Rutgers and Maryland are on new coaches in the past two years, and it’s not a guarantee that they won’t be replaced when those two join the conference.
I thought Wisconsin and Purdue made about as good hires as they could given the circumstances, but they’re just new hires at this point.
Wilson’s a good fit for Indiana considering their personnel, but he may get a call from a bigger program if he gets more wins and really keeps building that offense.
LikeLike
All true……as far as BOB at PSU, rumors were that he has his name out there for the NFL to consider…..Wilson’s a definate toss-up at IU. If he is successful, he’ll probably take the first train out of town. There is a high-powered asst coach from Neb. waiting in the wings that I like a lot….Pelini, frankly, looks like something of a nut case……
LikeLike
Peter KingVerified
@SI_PeterKing
Happy Valley alert: I hear Bill O’Brien is strongly considering interviewing with an NFL team.
LikeLike
I’m warming to GT a little as an expansion possibility…I didn’t realize the’d been to 16 straight bowls–that’s pretty impressice even if they’d lost the last 7 before this year……..also, the band seems to be pretty good (not a strong point for MD or Rutgers, esp. Rutgers), the fight song is top 10 (take a look at the lyrics sometime-they’re great), and that car they drive onto the field is pretty cool……….
LikeLike
My strongest expansion candidates in order would be:
1. UNC
2. VA
3. Missouri
4. GT
5. Va Tech
6. Pitt
7. Kansas
This would be my choices, not nec. Delany’s or the BIG’s…and yes Andy, I know you say Mo’s off the table and I agree the BIG’s shown no interest…..
With regard to Pitt…..I know they have no “market”…..however, I do think as the BIG gets bigger and bigger, at some point “fit” becomes more, not less, important.
Va Tech only seems like a possibility with VA or with VA, UNC, and whoever….again, BIG’s shown no interest so far…..I’d rate VT behind GT because I really see VT as an ACC school at heart, similiar to A&M.
LikeLike
ADD
LikeLike
Boise State agreement with MWC:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/02/bmurphy/mountain_west_pay_3_million_boise_state_exit_fees
I can’t believe they caved on the blue on blue issue. I truly hate that.
LikeLike
I’m surprised they permanently carve out Boise home games. I thought that would just extend to end of the current TV contract (which may be from 2016 to as late as 2020-noone seems to understand the CBS Sports extension options). Now what triggered that is everyone’s dissatisfation with the Mountain Sports Network. But everyone was unhappy with its lack of distribution.
LikeLike
On a la carte cable
http://gizmodo.com/5972517/the-future-of-tv-may-not-be-worth-it
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a la carte TV channels suddenly became available today. How much would you expect pay? Time to speculate.
We can start with how much your cable provider pays for access to certain channels. Those numbers aren’t widely accessible, but we do know that ESPN—the big dog of pay-TV—costs your cable provider at least $4.69 per subscriber per month. How can one station command such a fee? Because cable channel pricing, like everything else, is based on supply and demand, and ESPN’s ratings are nearly twice that of the number two pay cable network.
That’s one channel, at its wholesale price. As an individual subscriber, you would end up paying much, much more.
But how much more? Consider that HBO, in less than a third of the number of households as ESPN, costs cable companies a reported $7 per customer per month (you end up paying more than twice that, on top of your regular cable bill). Consider, too, the marketing costs that cable companies cover, the streaming costs of an internet-based package that would be shouldered by the networks. It’s not unreasonable to think that ESPN alone would cost upwards of $20 per month as a standalone product. And that’s probably a conservative estimate.
LikeLike
My thoughts: It’s mindboggling to me that there are (still) folks out there that think a la carte will end up cheaper for the consumer.
They’ll extract more money from consumers with a la carte; if there’s one thing I know, it’s that the distributors will make sure they take care of themselves…
LikeLike
It will be less for some people. For those who aren’t into Disney (ESPN & siblings, Disney Channel & siblings), it probably will be cheaper. What it will do is kill a lot of the smaller channels and drive up the cost for the most popular ones.
LikeLike
It depends on how many channels you want. If you want to continue to receive the same number of channels you do now then your price will probably go up. On the other hand, if you only want to subscribe to a handful of channels it will be quite a bit cheaper.
LikeLike
Boise rejoining MWC conditioned on offering a re-invite to SDSU:
http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2013/01/02/bmurphy/mountain_west_pay_3_million_boise_state_exit_fees
Boise is repaying SDSU for helping them join the Big West.
But it expires Jan. 31, so SDSU will have to make its choice quickly.
LikeLike
Brian Murphy @murphsturph
Boise State says MW games home and away, conference and non-conference games are eligible for national TV bonus $$$
—————————————————————
Wait what? Non-conference away games eligible?
So that Boise State at Michigan State game would have qualified.
This sounds a bit crazy; that’s literally taking money from others due to aggressive scheduling.
I wonder if this will incentivize schools even more to play away money games to get on national TV.
You get the $500k-900k for playing the game and then a TV bonus to boot…
LikeLike
Kustra is a big talker. I saw something else that said away games were not eligible since they didn’t own the rights. So I’m skeptical of that tweet.
LikeLike
Click to access S3EZp.So.36.pdf
There’s the agreement.
It just says “conference member participating in national game”, has no stipulations as to whether games are between conference members or home or away or non-conference. So he’s guessing that it includes all national games even Boise State @ Michigan State…?
LikeLike
Section a) has to be read in context. It could be referring to any game or only to the new Tier II/III contract which includes the Boise games.
Section b) is the big one for Boise. If they base playoff distributions among the “other 5” based in part on past top 25 appearances, that will be overwhelmingly Boise. And Boise will get 50% of that.
LikeLike
Well look what he’s saying.
Brian Murphy @murphsturph
If BSU’s 2013 games at Washington and at BYU are Saturday ESPN games, then the Broncos will make $1 million from those 2 alone.
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
52m Brian Murphy @murphsturph
Asked again for clarification: All games involving MW teams (home/away, conf/nonconf) will be eligible nat’l TV bonus
LikeLike
I guess MWC is trying to leverage BSU to become the de facto #6.
LikeLike
Still doesn’t make sense.
Theoretically, MWC could be obligated to pay out more than they have.
I’m not going to believe it as long as the source is only BSU people. From what I’ve read, u get a lot of bs out of BSU sources.
LikeLike
@Zeek
I saw that elsewhere, and his sources were BSU administrators, not MWC.
LikeLike
@Zeek
Now he’s saying MWC doesn’t agree with that interpretation.
LikeLike
Also, note that this is the “term sheet.” That’s not an actual agreement, but merely a general description of what has been agreed to.
LikeLike
@zeek – I believe he clarified later that the bonus only applies to MWC owned non-conference games.
LikeLike
Nevermind. He’s now backed off of that.
LikeLike
In Frank’s original post, he identifies three drivers for how the B1G’s divisions should be set up: (1) Protect Traditional Rivals, (2) Geography and (3) Competitive Balance. The first two factors are primary drivers with the third being fairly secondary.
Another factor I’d add to this would involve how the B1G envisions itself and how it plans to market the conference in the future. Michigan AD David Brandon talked about how the conference had been “midwest centric” and added that the B1G needed to grow in areas where there were more fans, people, alums and recruits. Jim Delany has even said that the conference is planning on opening an office in the east. See http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/11/20/no-peace-big-ten-latest-expansion-sends-shock-waves-through-college-sports/
With that in mind, I’m hard pressed to imagine the B1G would adapt the “inside/outside” configuration for the two divisions. Structurally and by perception, that would make the conference “midwest centric” when it wants to go in a different direction. Take a look at the map in Frank’s post and imagine a point in northern Indiana. Draw a small circle from that point inside a larger elipse and that’s the “inside/outside” configuration right there. You could call the two divisions “Midwest” and “Periphery” with that sort of setup. (On a side note, imagine the SEC doing the same thing. The “Heart of Dixie” Division would have Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Kentucky. The “Coastal/West” Division would be Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Missouri, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina. You could fit a fair number of rivalries in such a structure, but it would sure look odd–see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeastern_Conference#Rivalries).
With the B1G, you could change that Midwest Division into the Flyover Division. Imagine if you’re an Iowa fan and three of your division mates are physically located beyond seven other teams in the Flyover Division. That Hawkeye fan (or Terrapin supporter if you look at it from the other side) is going to have a hard time grasping that sort of conference structure–probably like a lot of WAC fans felt with the 16-team lineup they had in the mid-90s.
The other factor that should be considered in any discussion about this is time. How long do you expect these divisions to be in place? Will it be a couple of years as the B1G expands to 16 or more teams? Or do you expect this to be the setup in place with 14 teams going into the next round of television rights negotiations? Because if your division structure is likely to have a short shelf life, then that’s something to keep in mind as well when you’re proposing one over another. There’s also the PSU factor–while they might be considered a “king”, is it very likely they’ll return to that status given the sanctions and the possibility of losing their head coach?
Speaking of television, it seems almost certain to me that there will be fixed division crossover games regardless of whether or not there are eight or nine conference games on the schedule, i.e., it will be a 6-1-1 lineup or a 6-1-2 lineup. Potential bidders for the B1G’s television rights are going to want to see certain games on an annual basis (not to mention some of the fans as well) that can only be accommodated by making them fixed cross-divisional contests.
So for the purpose of this exercise, I’m going to assume the B1G will be at 14 teams for only two seasons (2014/5) before going onto a larger structure starting in 2016. Because of the cancellation costs and short time frame involved with this setup, the B1G will continue to have eight conference games in a 6-1-1 setup. With demographics and geography in mind along with the B1G moving away from being “midwest centric”, here’s the two divisions and protected rivalries:
East – Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland
West – Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Michigan State
Protected Rivalries for 2014/5:
Ohio State-Wisconsin
Michigan-Nebraska
Penn State-Michigan State
Maryland-Northwestern
Rutgers-Illinois
Indiana-Minnesota
Purdue-Iowa
In addition to playing Nebraska (because that’s what the television networks like), Michigan would have Michigan State on the 6-1-1 schedule. In addition to Wisconsin, Ohio State could play Nebraska (also because the networks like that matchup) or some other team (like Illinois). PSU could have MSU plus Wisconsin, for example, for the same reasons.
One other thing to keep in mind is that the new post season setup starts in 2014 and will involve a committee selecting four teams to participate. With that in mind, it doesn’t make sense to me to have two teams from different divisions play one another at season’s end with a strong possibility that they may have a rematch one week later at the conference championship game. If the teams split and both have late season loses, what does that do to their respective chances to get into the four-team playoff?
So what should the season ending games look like for 2014/5? Well, it makes sense to have the major rivalry games in place for that last weekend for those two years (and beyond) in terms of marketing/television. Michigan-Ohio State, Illinois-Northwestern, Indiana-Purdue, Iowa-Nebraska and Wisconsin-Minnesota come to mind. That leaves one team in the west (Michigan State) with three in the east (Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers). Perhaps Maryland-Rutgers or one of Maryland or Rutgers v. Penn State becomes another game. That leaves MSU either having a bye (along with one of the eastern teams) or playing a cross-division game with one of the east coast teams on the premise that they’re not likely to meet in the CCG. Or maybe MSU matches up with PSU because for 2014/5, the expectation is that they won’t have a rematch in the CCG the next week while Rutgers-Maryland becomes a season ender.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens. In 2014, Michigan has non-conference games with Appalachian State (revenge!), at Notre Dame, Miami (OH) and Utah. The following season, the OOC games are at Utah, Oregon State, UNLV and Brigham Young. In those two years, Michigan’s divisional opponents under this setup would be Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State and Ohio State and the cross-division games would be Nebraska (fixed rival) and Michigan State.
In those two years, Michigan would be playing teams located from coast-to-coast in 2015 and from the Mountain Time Zone to the mid-Atlantic in 2014. If the B1G was looking at getting away from being a “midwest centric” conference, that would be one illustration of how to do it.
LikeLike
Jim Delany just announced that the B1G division alignment for 2014 should be finalized sometime in the spring. Conference schedules along with the bowl lineup will also be released.
From the link below:
Delany has said geography would be a bigger factor in the new division alignment than the first one, so expect several teams to be on the move. Several items to watch:
Will Ohio State and Michigan be placed in the same division? It would eliminate the possibility of a rematch in the Big Ten championship, but it might balance out the power between the two divisions.
Will Wisconsin move back to the “West” side of the league? The Badgers would like to play Iowa every year, and their rivalry against Nebraska packs plenty of potential.
How will the protected crossovers work with the new divisions? Would they even be necessary?
After all, teams would be playing only two cross-division games unless the Big Ten goes back to a nine-game league slate.
See http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/69211/b1g-division-alignment-coming-fairly-soon
LikeLike
No cross-overs with East-West only works if IU&PU agree to play their game OOC 2/3rds of the time. Then again, the B10 may be at 18 schools by 2016, so there may not need to be a reason to worry about that.
No cross-overs with Inner-Outer simply won’t work as I don’t see the B10 allowing OSU-PSU to be non-permanent.
LikeLike
Correction:
IU/PU would have to be OOC 5/7th of the time with 8 conference games.
LikeLike
Here’s an interview with Sugar Bowl CEO Paul Hoolahan and BCS chief Bill Hancock, with some insight about the future playoffs beginning in 2014.
http://theadvocate.com/sports/4776600-123/sugar-bowl-is-sweet-on
“All 12 games — the four semifinals and eight “regular” Sugar Bowls — will be played in prime time on New Year’s Day following the Rose Bowl. And indications are the first of those semifinals will come in the format’s debut season, teaming the Sugar with the Rose Bowl to give it a powerful New Year’s Day doubleheader.
That likely means the 2014 SEC champion will know its next game will be in the Mercedes-Benz Superdome, so fans of both teams should come prepared.
“That would be a nice impact,” BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said of the Rose/Sugar pairing. “We haven’t finalized anything yet, but I’d say there’s a very good chance of that happening.””
* * *
“Still, there are concerns that the playoffs will overshadow what are now called the BCS bowls. (Changing the name is on the agenda.) Under the current format, the four BCS bowls have exclusive broadcast windows and are separated from the championship game by a week or so.
Now, in the non-Rose/Sugar semifinal years, the semifinals (likely pairing the Orange and Fiesta bowl winners and the Cotton and Chick-fil-A victors) will be played on New Year’s Eve, leaving the New Year’s Day games, including the Sugar, somewhat anticlimactic.
Hancock has a different opinion.
“We believe we’re going to change the nature of New Year’s Eve by elevating the status of the bowls played that day,” he said. “And our historical model is that the other bowls played that day and the next won’t be affected by either attendance or the ratings.””
LikeLike
Interesting. So the Orange will bounce around? Likely the Cotton gets the early NYD slot if the Orange is a semifinal on NYE as it would be pretty early in AZ & the Atlanta bowl is traditionally NYE.
LikeLike
Not necessarily. You could do an 8 year schedule with 6 teams 2 out of 8 and 1 4 out of 8. So it would only be ooc 1/2 the time.
LikeLike
cutter,
“Delany has said geography would be a bigger factor in the new division alignment than the first one, so expect several teams to be on the move.”
That part is pure speculation by the blogger, just to be clear.
LikeLike
Brian,
I would say that that’s “informed speculation” by the blogger rather than “pure speculation”.
Here’s an excerpt from an article dated 7 December at http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2012/12/for_big_ten_realignment_georgr.html
“I think that geography will have to play probably a more important role in the evolution of the next divisional structure,” the Gazette reports Delany saying after Rutgers was accepted.
Another Delay quote can be found in this article at http://thegazette.com/2012/11/30/whats-next-for-b1g-expansion-football-realignment/
“I think it’s realistic to believe that geography will play a bigger role simply because now we span from the ocean to the Colorado border and from the Canadian border to the mid‑South,” Delany told reporters. “So we’re really pushing the limits. We are a national conference in many ways, but even geographically we’re spread, and as a result I think that geography will have to play probably a more important role in the evolution of the next divisional structure.”
I really don’t think it’s a huge leap for ESPN’s B1G blogger to conclude that “several teams may be on the move” based on Delany’s comments. To have an east-west split as I envision it, the number of teams that would have to move is just three–Wisconsin and Illinois from east to west to join Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, Iowa and Northwestern and Michigan from west to east to join Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland.
We’ll see what happens in due course. Maybe Michigan State and Michigan move east while Indiana and Purdue are split up, for example. Or maybe the B1G does something north-south or northwest-southeast. Of course, the university presidents and athletic directors will also have their say, so I would never count any of Delany’s quotes as the final word on the matter at this point in the process.
But in the end, my assessment is that for all the factors discussed–alumni distribution, attractiveness to networks, demographics, geography, fan perceptions, how the conference will want to market itself, etc.–the basic east-west split more fully achieves those objectives than most others. Time will tell if that’s correct or not.
LikeLike
cutter,
I would say that that’s “informed speculation” by the blogger rather than “pure speculation”.
If that makes you feel better, go ahead. My point was simply that the first part of that sentence was factual while the second part was his personal speculation. I’m not sure how informed it could be since the divisions haven’t been set so Delany couldn’t give him any inside info.
I really don’t think it’s a huge leap for ESPN’s B1G blogger to conclude that “several teams may be on the move” based on Delany’s comments.
I didn’t say it was a huge leap. The only way he’s wrong is if they keep the current divisions or keep them except for moving 1 team west to make room for the newbies. If 2 or more teams move, that’s several. But by making it a phrase in a sentence that starts of factually, he gives it more weight than he should.
LikeLike
Brian,
It doesn’t make me feel better. It just more accurately portrays what the blogger said and reflects where he got his information, i.e., through Delany’s own quotes. If you look at the article in the Gazette that I posted, that writer (who has been on top of all the Big Ten expansion topics) thinks the same as I do about how the divisions will be separated.
And no, you didn’t say it was a big leap, but you certainly implied it by saying that what the blogger wrote was “pure speculation”. I realize you don’t like what’s happening, so I can appreciate why you’re splitting hairs on this and playing games with semantics.
But in the end, I think your earlier analysis that concluded the inner-outer setup was the best failed because you didn’t take in all the relevant factors when making it and because you never put a time line on the divisional lineup you proposed.
Cheers.
LikeLike
cutter,
“It doesn’t make me feel better. It just more accurately portrays what the blogger said and reflects where he got his information, i.e., through Delany’s own quotes.”
No, that only applies to the first phrase of his sentence. We already know that Delany said that. The second phrase is speculation, pure, informed or whatever sort you like.
“If you look at the article in the Gazette that I posted, that writer (who has been on top of all the Big Ten expansion topics) thinks the same as I do about how the divisions will be separated.”
I’d already read that article, but it’s irrelevant to this.
“And no, you didn’t say it was a big leap, but you certainly implied it by saying that what the blogger wrote was “pure speculation”.”
No, it wasn’t implied. All I did was clarify that the second half of his sentence wasn’t factual. Almost every plan requires several schools to move, so calling it a big leap wouldn’t make any sense.
“I realize you don’t like what’s happening, so I can appreciate why you’re splitting hairs on this and playing games with semantics.”
You’re the one splitting hairs and playing semantics (informed speculation versus pure speculation, etc). I don’t think he’s wrong in saying several schools will move, so I was never calling him out for that. You just tried to read too much into what I wrote.
“But in the end, I think your earlier analysis that concluded the inner-outer setup was the best failed because you didn’t take in all the relevant factors when making it”
Actually, I considered extra factors, namely the schedule. That was the only reason I chose that plan, which I clearly stated at the time. I don’t particularly like that plan, but it fits an 8 game schedule without crossover games while preserving rivalries.
I think every common plan that’s been proposed stinks, because RU and MD need to stay together with PSU. That sticks a few old B10 teams with playing both newbies every year.
“and because you never put a time line on the divisional lineup you proposed.”
A time line?
LikeLike
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8803804/mountain-west-conference-give-san-diego-state-aztecs-first-option-join
Clarification on SDSU and the MWC;
As part of Boise State’s contract to remain in the Mountain West, obtained by ESPN, MWC presidents must set the terms of SDSU’s return and present an offer to the school before moving on to other schools. The “right of first option” in the contract lasts until Jan. 31, after which time the conference can attempt to invite other schools or stand pat with its current membership.
…
It’s not clear if the MWC even wants San Diego State back after its intended defection, with Boise State, to the Big East. A league source told ESPN Wednesday afternoon “right now the votes are not there for San Diego State.”
The source said the Mountain West would prefer Brigham Young.
[Emphasis mine]
Aztecs could be in big trouble.
LikeLike
Whether the MWC could get BYU is a big question.
LikeLike
I should add, that even if BYU is the first choice, the MWC commissioner said the league has been in contact with “five to six schools”, so even if the Mormons pass SDSU still may not be invited back.
LikeLike
And pass on SDSU for who else? OK, the TX schools could at least match SDSU in recruiting grounds. Houston likely could in eyeballs as well. But not taking SDSU back (and they have to offer SDSU given the terms of the Boise contract) would be purely due to spite.
LikeLike
Actually, according to this article and the Term Sheet linked above, the MWC may only have to extend an offer to SDSU if they want to invite someone else before 1/31. After that, the right to first option expires.
LikeLike
That if MWC really didn’t want them back, the MWC could just include a poison pill in their offer.
LikeLike
There’s a clause in the UH contract according to Cougar fans on the MWC website (apparently taken from one of their websites) that they can reduce their BE exit fee to $1 million if they notify the BE within 60 days after the BE loses AQ status and that SMU had a similar clause. That 60 days would be January 11.
Wasn’t 100% clear that was the correct interpretation of what they posted as the contract terms, but it was a reasonable interpretation. So that would mean UH and SMU and MWC would have to make a quick decision.
LikeLike
frug:
Depends on the poison pill (no TV revenues?)
Anyway, SDSU could try independence in football, as they have a home for their other sports. Easier to do if BYU stays indy as well, of course.
LikeLike
Frug:
SJSU and SDSU in the MWC makes a visit yearly to CA probable (depending on if other additions), getting into both the Bay Area and So Cal for recruiting, a couple not insignificant media markets (yes, I know it’s not the same as a big 5 media impact), both FB programs improved and somewhat underrated.
Other than spite, where is the down side?
LikeLike
@ccrider55
I don’t know. I think you could make a strong non-spite case for Houston, and BYU would certainly be more valuable than SDSU (not that I see that happening).
LikeLike
BYU??? Rumplestilskin is alive and writing fantasy…
LikeLike
MWC must offer SDSU to get BSU back.
LikeLike
ESPiN sure seems to be spinning things to try to help the BE the last couple weeks. You’d think they were based in Conn…
LikeLike
As for SDSU, independence would not be ideal, but they probably could swing a local TV deal that pays them as much as the MWC does, and they would save a lot on travel costs for non-revenue sports in the Big West. Obviously, that would not be great for their basketball either, though.
LikeLike
MWC handed BSU a sweet heart deal to return, including a clause to give SDSU the first right to join, and you people think SDSU won’t be in? They’ll be in, this month apparently.
LikeLike
The latest “Terps in Big Ten” entry — a profile of the University of Maryland — can be found at http://terps-in-big-10.livejournal.com/1015.html.
LikeLike
Gators are playing like their fanbase tonight; a big no show.
The Gators look like they’ll end up having the smallest fan showing at their bowl game of the SEC teams… and they’re 11-1 and #3 in the country.
And their defense is just getting overrun.
LikeLike
Why is ESPN showing a replay of the 2009 Bama/Utah Sugar Bowl right now?
Gator fans only show up for BCS NCG games. Most fair weather fans in the SEC.
LikeLike
It’s the Sugar Bowl, every other SEC team would have 45,000-50,000 there. Gators look like they have no more than 20,000 and that might be an overstatement.
As for this game, what in the world was that start to the 3rd quarter. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the Gators come out with that poor a start to the 2nd half of a football game…
This is just bizarre.
LikeLike
They returned 10,000 tickets. Stadium looked pretty red.
As I’ve said, SEC is overrated this year. The weak bottom of the conference and the lack of good QBs and weak offenses make the top SEC defenses (which are good) look better than they really are. Their defense did shut down the UL running game for 3 quarters (I turned it on in the 2nd with it 14-0 UL), but Louisville kept passing for 1st downs. Louisville didn’t punt until the 4th quarter. 1 punt for the game. Not counting when they ran the clock out at the end of the halves, they had 4 TDs, 2 FGs, 2 missed FGs and 1 punt in 8 possessions (one defensive TD).
LikeLike
Someone proposed the idea of the MWC, after adding Boise and SDSU, take Houston & SMU as well as Tulsa and UTEP. Tulsa and UTEP don’t add much, but if you go just a little east, the MWC could add Memphis and Tulane instead (much bigger media markets). If you split in to pods, the Houston-SMU-Memphis-Tulane pod is still pretty close to each other. Would Tulane and Memphis jump? Well, the closest MWC members with the TX added would be just as close or closer than the closest BE schools. With UNLV, SDSU, USU, and UNM, MWC basketball wouldn’t be much worse than BE basketball from Memphis’s perspective. The biggest differentiater is that the chances of schools jumping from the MWC to another league are minimal, promising stability, while Cincy and UConn want to join the ACC yesterday.
BTW, to those folks who think that a MWC that stretches from the Pacific to the Mississippi is crazy, the Pacific Coast League has been in Memphis and new Orleans (as well as Nashville and Iowa) for over a decade now, and minor league baseball isn’t exactly a big-money operation either.
LikeLike
I doubt it’ll happen but I’d like the divisions to be as follows:
Western
SDSU
SJSU
BSU
Haw
Fresno St
UNLV
UNR
BYU
Eastern
CSU
Wyo
AF
UNM
USU
SMU
UH
Memphis
BYU/BSU would be almost guaranteed a national TV slot. CSU and UH and Fresno St-SDSU would be good football games. Good basketball rivalries like Memphis-Houston, SDSU-UNLV, USU-UNM. Memphis gives the MWC access to talent in the Mississippi River Delta. Hawaii might even go in all-sports, as they wouldn’t have to travel as much to Front Range schools. The conference gets access to both Texas and California recruiting, something that the P12 and B12 can’t claim.
LikeLike
Put this in the category of “May never happen but it sure would be swell”:
B1G + RU, UMd, UNC, GT, UVa, KU, OU, UT – 7 new flagships in the Southeast, Northeast, Plains and Southwest
4 Divisions
Atlantic
RU
UMd
UVa
UNC
GT
Central
UM
MSU
OSU
PSU
PU
Midwest
IU
NW
UW
Minn
ILL
Plains
NU
IA
KU
OU
UT
Open offices in Atlanta, New York and Dallas or Kansas City to go with the Chicago office. Enough content to fill out BTN. Funding for non-revenue sports go up. Travel would be coordinated to cut transportation costs. Most of all, for the first time, balances out the SEC’s power by surrounding it with high-end schools. Only in 4 states would the two conferences share territory: Texas, Georgia, NC and Va but are in states that are growing in population.
Football would keep an 8-game schedule to allow for in-state rivalries in some of those states. Divisional breakdown would be 4-2-1-1 (divisional; closest division; next closest division; farthest division). It’s a work in progress, since I have no idea how to do schedules but it’s an idea.
LikeLike
Pingback: New Year’s Conference Realignment FAQ: Big Ten, Mountain West, Big East and Catholic 7 « FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT
Pingback: Big Ten Divisions
Pingback: Back Home: Big Ten Division Thoughts and Sweet Missouri Valley Conference Expansion | FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT